That’s because my bf said they don’t test because the leads on the project don’t see it as important and it takes away resources. They don’t hire more because of $, and they fix the most important things as they pop up reported by players. Their goal is to get a “working” (definition of working varies) product on the market, get the money flow in, and go from there on.
The reason I’m not going into details, is because I don’t want to reveal company name or endanger his work, also, nobody will believe it anyway. So what’s really the point? Just to clarify to your confusion on the ridiculous nitpick of clearly obfuscated things I don’t want to mention here? Also, what’s happening in that company doesn’t apply to all, so again, where are we going with quoting this? In the end I do have close relation to someone directly in the field who says it’s not cost effective. “Players just let it slide, so why spend money?”
Had I come at you with this type of a reasoning, would it be more valid? Therefore, stop quoting on literally nothing.
Sure, from a point of discussion on what “new” is.
If we’re at a stage where the game is not even released, then everything is new, therefore testing the things that seem logical first, like:
“The game works in this way. There are these type of probable builds the players will go for, how about we make sure we nail them first?”
It was that type of thinking that led me to write that. After the game is released, you test the new things, of course.
Based on logical reasoning. The main problem here is how much resources if any they allocate to this QA.