Ubisoft announces Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Future Soldier GOES GOLD | Forums

[Haggis99]

They will fix most bugs sooner or later? So, they're going to release a game with "most" bugs still in the game and a plan to "fix" them at a later date? Also, there really will never be a bug free game? How do you know that?

If the game has gone Gold Master then the beta would be from an old build. I read that in the Q&A, as well. But they also said that the beta players are reporting bugs that they already knew about, yet they've had to release three patches to fix previously known bugs. Shouldn't the beta already have had the previously known bugs removed so that the data they receive from the beta players is not redundant and time-wasting?

For those of us that don't go online, buying a game with bugs that the developer is aware of, but chooses not to tell the general public, is the cause of concern. Your "old build" argument is irrelevant, to say the least. The game has gone Gold Master, and yet it has not been thoroughly debugged, as can be attested to by the continued beta testing. Why is it unreasonable for a consumer to expect to receive a properly functioning and sound product when an item is originally purchased?

Try to apply your same logic (reasoning) to nearly every other product on the market. Most manufacturers of consumer goods would be out of business in no time at all were they to conduct themselves in this manner. It is a very sad testament to the times when people are defending these practices.

RidgeTopMum

I've got new for you. Every single piece of software every made in recent years that has any sort of complexity to it will have bugs. There are bugs that will be present in the game however you may not even realize they are bugs or don't notice them or trigger them. The beta was old code and fixes would have been made to the final product that wouldn't have been made in the updates we saw during the beta. All they changed during the beta was gameplay settings and tweaks which they can push via the cloud not physical code changes.

I am quite sure when you get your copy of GR: FS the game will be quite polished and there will not be many obvious bugs. Go watch some of the single player gameplay video and you can see it is very polished.

Hope that helps clear things up.

[Bassie52]

LOL!! , ninjaonfire..that's funny sh!t..Hortey type of humor

[RidgetopMum]

I've got new for you. Every single piece of software every made in recent years that has any sort of complexity to it will have bugs. There are bugs that will be present in the game however you may not even realize they are bugs or don't notice them or trigger them. The beta was old code and fixes would have been made to the final product that wouldn't have been made in the updates we saw during the beta. All they changed during the beta was gameplay settings and tweaks which they can push via the cloud not physical code changes.

I am quite sure when you get your copy of GR: FS the game will be quite polished and there will not be many obvious bugs. Go watch some of the single player gameplay video and you can see it is very polished.

Hope that helps clear things up.

I have "new"(sic) for you. Your claim of "complexity" is quite intriguing. The only way you could substantiate that claim would be for you to have analyzed the code of every piece of software within your so-called "recent years". I have my doubts about you having performed this feat, sir. Obviously I never meant that every bug should be removed. There's always the chance of human error, although it's not absolute that an error will occur. Not to mention many errors are irrelevant to gameplay, as they will never rear their ugly heads in any detrimental manner.

However, I am referring to the known errors of the game that were not fixed prior to the game attaining Gold Master status. If the beta is still in progress, the debugging process has not been thoroughly completed prior to Code Completion. Therefore , Gold Master should have been postponed until well after the beta had been completed.

Nevertheless, I never mentioned the single player in any of the posts I've made. The concern is with the multiplayer, which will be played here in System Link (LAN) offline. And once again, those of us that play offline will be receiving a game that truly was not Code Complete before going to disc. As the above analogies will demonstrate, this sadly is a common practice in the current video game industry. If we, the consumers, do not hold manufacturers accountable for the quality of their products, the quality will only get worse, as we have seen over the past several years.

Once again, it is a sad testament of the times when people are defending poor ethical, business practices.

RidgeTopMum

[Th3Captin]

Ar

Is it good news? Does this mean it's gonna ship with all the bugs still in it and that they'll hope a day 1 patch can fix them?

It has been stated that the beta was an earlier build than what is being shipped. Which means many bugs wont even be present. Secondly the cloud upate system just seamlessly updates as you play. So have no fear this game will be amazing. I know im getting it either way. Campaign and mp look sooooooo epic.

[RidgetopMum]

Ar

It has been stated that the beta was an earlier build than what is being shipped. Which means many bugs wont even be present. Secondly the cloud upate system just seamlessly updates as you play. So have no fear this game will be amazing. I know im getting it either way. Campaign and mp look sooooooo epic.

Oh, there's no fear here, Cap'n. If you had taken the time to read my earlier posts, you would see the irrelevancy to your "earlier build" logic... not to mention, we need to have access to the cloud in order to benefit from its game-patching rain. But as we're citizens of the drought-stricken, internetless part of the country, then the day-one fixes (patches) aren't going to do us much good.

Remember, if there needs to be fixes, then it must be broken.

Once again, it is a sad testament of the times when people are defending unethical business practices.

RidgeTopMum

[furleys_ascot]

lol, love the "its an old build" crowd...

so then they already have a better version of the game completed and just want us to suffer with this crap in some sort of effort to get us interested?!?!?! again, LOL.

oh, and then will come the "well it took time for the 'beta (*demo)' to go through sony/ms certification and we are just now getting it" crowd.

well if so then why did we have to wait so long for fixes? they should have been ready to go in a 'beta day one patch' friggin hilarious.

ive been in so many 'betas' on the ps3 that ive lost count. and guess what? they all had one thing in common...they came out about a month before the retail release and, surprise, were the same as was delivered on the disc.

this console generation beta = DEMO, period.

[Ubi-Mush]

Ghost Recon Future Soldier has been in development for a while. Why are there still bugs and other issues in the beta version?

Every game has bugs during development. Our QA department is REALLY good at finding and documenting those bugs. In fact, some of the testers are scary good at finding exploits that developers never could have imagined. The problem is that with a complex online game, like Future Soldier, some bugs don’t reveal themselves until you have literally thousands of people playing at the same time. An issue might only appear once in 10,000 tries. You can imagine how difficult that is to reproduce in a testing environment. When you have thousands of players in the beta together, rare issues pop up more often and we get more information that will help us fix them. The entire purpose of the beta is to identify as many of these issues as possible.

We’re thrilled that so many people are playing every day because the data and feedback is incredibly valuable. We also appreciate the creativity of gamers. They try different approaches and experiment with the game in unexpected ways. Having said that, we don’t condone cheating or anything else that intentionally interferes with the intended game play. We encourage anyone who finds exploits to report them to the beta feedback forum.


With the release date approaching fast, how can you possibly fix the issues identified in the beta?

The beta build is quite a bit older than the final release build will be. We’ve already fixed a lot of the issues that people might see in the beta. By now, players have seen how we can respond with changes to things like equipment balance and server settings. There are many other things we can tune remotely to respond to issues that appear, and we plan to keep doing that. Red Storm and Ubisoft are committed to supporting the game after it launches.

We do want to be clear on a few points. We will make adjustments where they are needed to align the game play experience with the core design philosophies that we have already set for this game. Other big changes like map size, or the choice to have cover mode in the game, are not going to change. Sweeping changes like that are outside the scope of post-beta updates, not just because of the logistical or technical challenges. If you start picking apart these core systems and reversing major design decisions at the last minute, you break down the whole experience of the game. We know some people feel like the game would be better if you just did this one thing. Sometimes that one thing has a cascading effect through twenty other things that would all suddenly feel broken or incomplete. It’s a delicate balance.

[Premierdrmmr07]

FsLionheart,

You do know when you buy a game, there should not be an update (fix) unless it was deemed Gold Master too early (i.e. the code was not complete). Ubisoft is still beta testing the game, yet it has achieved Gold Master status, meaning it is bug free, but the beta players are still reporting bugs.

No need to be condescending when answering someone's response to the thread topic. Online, as stated in my previous post is not the point of contention. It is the issue of offline multiplayer that has brought about our concerns.

In nearly any other industry, selling a product with unreported, known issues is a grave offense of the business ethic. Imagine the car manufacturing industry announcing the production of a car, with its current release date a mere week or two away, but in the same breath they announce that they are still in the process of testing its safety. Or what if the book industry sold novels to the public, while the original manuscript is still working its way through the editor.

Would anyone think to purchase, let alone drive, a car under such cir****tances? Would they trust the manufacturer if the car dealer said the updated parts would be ready to be installed on the release date, but more "fixes" would probably follow. What about the novel? Would readers be happy with an unedited book if they were promised that, at later periods, corrected pages would be E-mailed to them at no extra charge?

These are obviously examples of poor business practices. Our family has made gaming a hobby for two decades now. It is just very sad to see the state in which we are finding the current generation of video game entertainment.

RidgeTopMum

Answer to your entire post. This was never a REAL beta. lmao. You don't have a BETA a month before the game is set to release lmao.

[NinjaOnFire]

Are you going to come hunt me in GR:FS? BTW haggis is a Scottish meal. Sheep stomach packed full of whatever goodies the cook wants to put inside. Poor mans meal really.

Haggis is great if the meat is peppered, I have no idea why people don't like it.

[wombledon]

Whop dee doo. My breakfasts for next week "went gold" when I went grocery shopping and bought two kinds of cereal. My morning meals will have more options than this game.

Brilliant.