Useless patch

"Orchid13;c-16258997" wrote:

"luthienrising;c-16258991" wrote:

"Orchid13;c-16258978" wrote:

"luthienrising;c-16258970" wrote:
Given that there was a bug patch shortly before the holidays and a holiday between that one and this one, I don't think it's all that surprising that this was a smaller bug patch. I suspect that Really Big January Patches will be the exception rather than the norm. I imagine we'll get a bigger patch before the GP, as usual.

It’s really old bugs... there is no excuse

As someone who lives and breathes software QA, thanks to my spouse (especially days like today, when he's working from home on a knotty web of a problem), it just doesn't work that way. Bugs get prioritized based on a whole host of things - how game-breaking they are (i.e., does it crash the whole game and/or corrupt saves?), how universal they are, whether the developer(s) needed for code revision are available, etc. Plus sometimes you need to get a new bit of code set before a related old one can be revised, or to do those together, so something has to wait. Sometimes bugs aren't actually easy to find and implement a solution for (by which I mean not a bandaid but actually making the bug not happen in the first place). Sometimes it takes a while to find a solution that isn't breaking something else. And on top of that, fixes need to be compiled into software that's being rebuilt in other ways, and the more fixes + new code you put in at once - all in one patch - the more is likely to go wrong, especially with something as complex as Sims. (And it is complex. Don't be fooled by its dollhouse side into thinking otherwise. The back end up this is a huge web.) This isn't about excuses: it's about the reality of dealing with very complex, still-being-built software.

But the flea market bug is way more game breaking than most of the bugs they fixed.