Have ea, just shot themselves?

Ningyo42 wrote:
People are so negative. Still surprises me.

Let me explain a bit about EA, so you know who they are and how this works. I've worked at a developer as well, so I know some of the ins and outs.

<snip>

So this was a bit longer than expected. :) I've been into gaming since pong made it to homes, spent a few years making PC games for a publisher that eventually turned into the ones that now make GTA, and have watched this industry like a hawk through magazines, then the Internet. I hope this was an interesting read! :) (this is so long, and it's past midnight, so I'm going to save before proofing it... Gotta get my Simions - just put Simpsons and Minions together there lol - to work on todays tasks!)

Sorry, but this is absolutely a one-sided view of the process. hooray - you talked about the publisher (giving the appearance of showing both sides), but it's "Devs are great, publisher's ruin it". Get the guy on here that does the publishing, and he can write an insightful and well thought out post that says "publishers are great, devs ruin it", and get everyone to hate the devs again. While yes, publishers want a date as fast as possible, devs want a date as far out as possible. It's finding that middle ground between a publisher that says "it should ship yesterday" and a dev that says, we can't be ready for unit testing until next year, that makes a team great.

So you've set a date and done the coding

time for testing, god help you if the developers are involved. Because then the testers are clearly incapable, and don't understand how it works. It can't possibly be a problem with the code. Then you have to add in all the upper levels of management that make the decision "is this a bug we can live with?" Is that amount of testing acceptable. That person is making the decision based on a 1 page slide from Testing spouting off how thorough ithe testing was and any issue is a dev problem, and a 1 page slide from development spouting off how good their code is, and any issue was a testing problem. And you have both of those teams ganging up on the BA because the requirements were bad - Devs saying the requirements don't specify that it has to do X, and testing saying they don't explain what the result of doing Y should be. The BA of course (being the lowest one on the totem pole), just sits in the corner and says to himself "any moron could see that you should be able to move from 1 friend to another without crashing", but out loud says "sorry."

So while I appreciate the input, let's take it with the grain of salt that any post like this should be taken with (including my little stream of consciousness above), it's one perspective, clouded by personal opinion.