[bf1942] Are you rolling back to 1.0?

Panic panic at battlefield.no
Sat Jul 9 08:04:15 EDT 2005

Hash: SHA1
I am *allmost* in lack of words.....

It is straight out UNFORGIVING that EA recommends the community to
roll back to 1.0. Especially since there exists a patch, which
apparently was a very clean and simple patch. EA should not be allowed
to publish games. They OBVIOUSLY have NO knowledge of how it is done.
They could do the marketing job, but letting EA near software should
be considered a CRIME.

The EA "test lab" and the QA-team is OBVIOUSLY not up to the task. As
stated from a lot of members on this list earlyer, the best way to go
would be to release beta versinos to this list, and let the developers
iterate with US, and not with the INCREDIBLE INCOMPETENT team over at EA.

I have been working on testing av ASIC-designs, so I have a pretty
good idea of what testing of production code is like. And no, it is
NOT a simple or trivial task. But you have standards to meet. You have
procedures you KNOW you have to run. You have checklists. You have
automated test environments. There are a few relatively simple steps
you can follow to actually cover a lot of the most common errors.
Memory leakage being one of them....

A member of our community asked the following humorous question on our
forum the other day, conserning the VERY BAD QA-process over at EA:
"So the video from the game testing was just fake then...?" I replied
with bitter irony that "it was put together for EA by Hill and
Knowlton[1], with unemploid it-consultants from Sillicon Valley as

The fact is that based upon the quality of the released versions of
the servers and client, that could very much be the case. And that
saddens me a lot.................

- -Frode, very disillustioned server operator from Norway.

1 - http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

More information about the Bf1942 mailing list