|
Supervisor -> Thanks! Matrix (4/24/2002 7:11:34 AM)
|
Software development rests on the triad of code development/QA/marketing-sales.
There are pressures from each area that have to be balanced out. Without the code development there is no product. Without QA there is poor quality. Without the marketing/sales there is no money to do code development. Each leg is needed. Without (good) coding nothing will be available for release (that works, anyway). Without QA the product is often so flawed that it never recovers from the initial nightmare of release. Without good marketing, you don't make money and don't survive to put out another product. All three are needed, but there must be a proper balance between them.
In far too many cases, the marketing leg has a much greater say and ends up overriding the others (or like in the case of Hasbro, et. al., the marketing team doesn't even really understand what the product is and how it is made »»» if you're good at selling toys, that doesn't automatically mean that you are therefore good at selling software or, for that manner, that you eveb understand the differences in the process of making toys vs. software). This, plus the fact that too many companies stint themselves in the QA area, leads to the mass of faulty software that is being released followed by (in some cases almost concurrently) multiple patches. This (in itself) shows what a couple of weeks can do in the fianl polishing up and error checking process which occurs at the end of the release cycle. Correcting one minor problem can often break something else and/or unmask an already existing problem that was hidden by the first bug. The second problem can be quite a bit worse than the first was, so a "minor" bug fix can turn into a "major" bug fix.
Many companies are following the (I call it :rolleyes: ) Microsoft model of the "paying beta testers" (otherwise known as customers :D ) to help them with fine tuning and correcting their products. They release the product, hear back from customers (complaints/bug reports), correct the bug and then they release patch (after patch after patch [I'm sorry, "service packs"] :D :D :D ). Patches are inevitable given the complexity of programs anymore (you will always miss something).
It's nice to see a company which is willing to put out the best quality product that they can in a realistic time frame. The product will never be perfect, but the standards for initial quality should be higher than what the industry norm is (at this time). Matrix Games looks to be in the upper tier of companies in this respect. I can afford to wait several weeks (or even a couple of months) for a better quality product.
[QUOTE]You would think as many of these games as these guys have put together they could be a lot better at estimating when it is gonna be done.[/QUOTE]
As for being able to "give an [tight] estimate of product release", this is what gets far too many products out the door too early ("It was promised by [date x], and it will be released then! No matter what!"). It's better not to raise hopes any higher than they already are (can they get higher? :eek: ). As for a looser estimate, we are currently in the "window of opportunity" and it could arrive at any time. But, let us allow it to arrive in it's own time.
Overall, I would say that things are going well (from where I sit). I commend Matrix and their staff for their commitment, and I say "Thanks!". Nice to see a company with a commitment to quality (and the willingness to listen to users) like this.
|
|
|
|
