Software Release Standards

I was lucky enough to be present while one of our esteemed community members was giving a demo of some software a couple of days ago. It led me to this question:

"As a customer of Train Simulator, if something you've purchased is broken, would you rather wait indefinitely for a "proper solution" to fix the broken software (no timescales given), or would you be happy with an interim solution that fixes the broken software while a "proper solution" is being worked on?"

What are your thoughts?

 

To clarify further:

The "real/proper solution" has no delivery timescales, may never be done due to a plethora of reasons (ultimately, the proper solution is not attainable due to non-software orientated complexities).

The interim solution fixes the problem, like using scaffolding to improve the customer experience.

 

Question.

A train is released and a fault is found - the fault does not stop you using the train but it is there.
Option 1 - The fault waits to be fixed and people use the train with the fault

Option 2 - It is withdrawn from use which means Everyone gets a Refund and Everyone Looses it from their TS.

Personally I go with Option 1
The TGV Reseau has had a fault since release but only if you know about it and look at it do you see it.
But it has a number of repaints so I use it

What are people views?

 

My views are fix everything, provide the best experience possible.

I'm feeling like a minority with this one mind.

 

I wholeheartedly agree but unfortunately DTG's track record on fixing things isn't particularly good... One only has to look at the complaints about the TGV...

Eric

 

It's a slippery slope when consumers (yes, you lot!) start posting publicly that releasing broken, unfinished, half arsed products is ok and fine as long as we've got something new to play with, this gives developers (and more importantly their accountants) the wrong idea and basically the freedom to release whatever they want and in whatever usable state, "It doesn't matter if it's not ready we can still keep milking the dumb cash cows" (yes, you lot!!)

It's NOT ok and it never will be, finish your damned product THEN release it, Quotas and self imposed timescales be damned!

 

I have one issue in mind, that could be fixed. But because the obvious solution isn't "perfection", we'll never see the issue solved.

I have a hard time getting my head around that concept.

 

The reason behind my question was the problem Sony is having with a game release

They took the decision to withdraw the product from Sale and give people their money back
But at the same time the people who had the game and did not have a problem found it taken off them.

 

I'm more concerned that an obvious solution to a defect is not considered as a reasonable approach.

Developer > Customer.

Not the way it should sit at all. The customer is King. The developer serves the customer. The developer is not the King. So to speak.

 

Yep, fix things when a sufficient number of people report them as a fault.
There are always going to be machine dependent issues in PC-land, but if there are faults in DLC, sort them out

 

But what if something could be fixed, but isn't being fixed because someone decided that they weren't going to fix something?

It's that that I have real trouble wrapping my head around.

 

You should apply for a job at DTG as Mr Fixer

 

I'm not convinced DTG would want someone like me, I work like a beast, I'm too noisy and I burn deadlines for quality.

Be interesting to see though - I may be just the kind of bitter pill DTG need to swallow.

 

They would have you working from home

 

Ha, I'd prefer that, personal relationships often get in the way of objective production and really drag a good thing down

People, can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

 

I would imagine it comes down to commercial viability of assigning dev time to the fixes. On many TSx routes it wouldn't be commercially viable to go back and fix them as the money to pay for that has to come from somewhere. IN the case of a newly released route the issues should be solved, if it's over a certain age, even say six months, maybe not as the route wouldn't be generating as much income

 

Dunkrez has volunteered his services several times if my memory serves me correctly...

Just like the enthusiastic school kid putting his (her) hand up at the back of the class and waving it madly in the air because they know the answer and then constantly being ignored by the teacher...!!!

 

But if it's spot on wouldn't customers want to buy it...???

 

That's what I'm thinking Eric, wouldn't people go mad for the stuff if it was spot on? As soon as people notice the cracks, it completely ruins the magic, so you've got to try extra hard to make the impossible, possible.

 

The OP actually suggested an interim solution.
Simple example. For whatever reason, some Norfolk Southern Coal District scenarios have an impossible timetable, for one reason or another. Same about the last GTEL scenario. While they could look at consist weight (length), tractive effort... The simple solution without changing anything is to add a few minutes to the instructions, thereby enabling the players to complete them as intended.
(It's not like there is an achievement in putting the throttle to 100% and watching it for 20 minutes. But anyway.)

A similar story found recently, despite at least 5 years of constant reports and struggles, some US wagons have a tendency to stress their couplers beyond the limits, even when rolling on a flat without power or brakes. Proven, recorded a gazillion times, across many scenarios and routes. Could be stuttering, some internal math issue, doesn't matter. The weird stuff is that it doesn't happen to everyone. A fix has been found to increase coupler durability to an unrealistic, high number. It achieves the goal, the scenarios can be completed.

Personally, I think these fixes are fair enough. Yet another example is the NJT F40PH-2CAT pack. There is an array of issues with cab signaling, world signaling and the timetables. But here is the thing: cab signaling is off by default, world signaling can be ignored (there is an approach protecting a faulty signal, but its 30 doesn't apply) and, best of all, the achievement to complete the scenario without penalties gets rewarded if you get some timeliness penalty. Maybe it's changed to 950 points or somesuch. It's not very transparent, but it's a solution and I have no reason to complain.

I gave you a big fat +1 because this topic is super important. It gives DTG ammunition. They might feel the customers want perfection. Maybe some do. And with so many of us, we care about everything. That might be too much. Making things work is enough. Ensure all achievements can be obtained, including BNSF - handout, debranding, TS Tools - or at least move them to the back of the pile.

 

OK, so they go back and fix ECML north, a product over 5 years old that most people have already. What's the financial incentive?
So no, I don't agree that it is always the case that going back will make more people buy

 

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Ordinarily, these jobs would be considered "sweeping up and polishing" tasks and wouldn't be ignored. Yet here we are.

People don't like buying crud. As soon as blemishes and imperfections are noticed, poof, the magic of the simulation is gone. Hence why I spent weeks sorting out the HST cab. I was amazed that I was the first person to do something about that cab, AP even ignored it with their HST enhancement packs (edit: I should point out that my HST cab update now sits at 1350+ downloads. That's a lot of people that wanted a better HST cab, and were prepared to use a 3rd party mod to sort it out - isn't 1350 people wanting something sorting worth developer time? Can you imagine how many sales are missed out on because of standards?)

DTG have left so many holes in their releases that I spend a lot of time obsessing over possible fixes, future development paths and what I can bring to the table to right some of these wrongs.

I guess the biggest gripe I currently have with DTG software is the wheels on rail glitch in TSW. This CAN be engineered around. There is only one possible interim fix for the problem, and as explained to a lot of us, the UE team have advised of the method to sort the problem out. This solution is being met with a wall of no on the DTG side, because "it's not a proper solution" - currently there is no solution in play!

I just have a hard time wrapping my head around all of this.

 

It's a bit complicated indeed.
To summarize my example in less than two pages...
I have a huge backlog, having purchased a little too hastily once I got into the hobby. I've played about 10% of my DLC in 5 years, so arguably a fix has a good chance to impact what I'm going to play later. That, in turn, increases my satisfaction with it and might encourage a small supportive purchase. A win-win donation. As such, the x64 upgrade has been pretty practical to me - bad ones also did happen.
Others might barely touch each DLC, but doing so randomly. I have a Steam friend who seems to play routes that way. If you look at the workshop, it's the same, people create scenarios for the most veteran routes.

Heck, old routes could use a mild scenery update. Cross-referencing DLC to improve rolling stock versatility. But I'm broadening the scope here.

It's just super important to separate any legacy effort from forward moving effort. No priority fights, etc. Both have to move on, with most effort going into moving forward.

 

There is a legal incentive, it's called the Consumer Rights Act 2015, here is the link to the Government website that leaves everyone in no uncertain terms what EVERY commercial business should offer their customers on every digital release.

Chapter 3, Sections 34, 35 and 36 being the most pertinent to us, the consumer.

The quality of digital content includes its state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of digital content—

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which digital content of that kind is usually supplied;
(b) freedom from minor defects;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/3/enacted

So, in essence, EVERYTHING that DTG release that we pay for should be fit for purpose and free from minor and major defects, the law says so.......period......no excuses.

And as regards to modifications of any content, the law states -

Section 40 Quality, fitness and description of content supplied subject to modifications.

(2)Subsection (1)(c) does not prevent the trader from improving the features of, or adding new features to, the digital content, as long as —
(a) the digital content continues to match the description of it given by the trader to the consumer, and
(b) the digital content continues to conform to the information provided by the trader as mentioned in subsection (3) of section 36, subject to any change to that information that has been agreed in accordance with subsection (4) of that section.

Cheerz. Steve.

 

Beautifully put Steve, I've been just looking at this from a purely moral point of view.

So there are legal and financial reasons as to why software should be released to the highest standards possible also.

 

Highest standards, as in free from major and minor defects - not low standards

A firm will take a financial hit releasing a sub-standard product and there are acts of parliament in play to protect consumers from such shenanigans.

Anybody remember Zanussi?

 

So, you're basically saying that every company that produces something digital is breaking the law. There is NO perfect product.

This doesn't OBLIGE them to, so what's your argument there?

 

Again, what's the financial incentive? It's not like thousands of people are rushing out to buy those routes. Most of the time they get them on sale or in bundles.
We're lucky that old DLC work at all, don't know many 10 year old programs where the main producer is still supporting with new DLC, let alone fixing old ones.

3rd parties aren't doing much better on this. Just this weekend a new DLC update produced by some heavy hitters which you must have paid a subscription for, bugs all over the place. Maybe they'll fix it, but I doubt it will be "fully functional" as intended.

 

One thing that I find interesting when thinking about release standards is if you look back to when you could only buy a game on a disk. It had to work well then before it was released as there was no easy way to fix anything. Sure there was always something that could be picked up on but overall they seemed to appear on the market in much better condition than current products do.
The ability to patch a product should be seen as an option to improve the existing product or to make it work properly with newer pc software and so on. Although it seems these days that releasing an "ok" product to the market with the intention of ironing out bugs later is becoming more commonplace by all developers, especially in the run up to Christmas, which is a shame.

 

It's not a bitter pill to swallow, it's a ROTTEN PILL..

Release
On
Time
To
Everyone
Now

Patch
It
Lots
Later

 

Well, that's an argument I could use 10 years ago about 20 years ago but not today. For the sake of examples:

• Total Annihilation (1998) is available on Steam, modified to support music from files
• Supreme Commander is the same
  
• C&C / Red Alert series as well
  
• Age of Empires 1-2-3 maintained and upgraded
• Blizzard maintains their range of products, running their flagship titles for 15+ years, they are the definition of a cow farm

I'm happy TS works and I'm happy about the upgrades. Heck, I need it running for the next 40 years! ;-)
I think for the most part the upgrades were useful. Better reviews enable people who would otherwise look for another title.
By the way, pretty much everyone except streamers purchase everything on sale. Reduced oldie price, that's a different story.

Scenery upgrades - some people do it in the workshop anyway as a love child. Edinburgh-Glasgow and old PDL are well known. Buyout, merge, review, release. It becomes relevant again for new customers. That's quite important for old routes, as they have an array of trains separately.
The developers of the train game with a Z actually do this.

And a very important element. The costs of fixing a bug or improving the scenery here and there pale in comparison to the - negotiation, research, build - costs of the original work.

There is a trap here.

• TSW routes are short and there isn't much train versatility.
• TS has many staple routes covered from the early times. Leaving them is fail. Cloning them is fail.
  Thing is, pretty much everything from 2013 onwards is acceptable. Less detail but good. It's mostly about a bit of extra foliage and upgrading trees. And the removal of bugs.

 

Okay, so let me look at my above post from a different angle. Same point.

Roughly up until 2005, the advances in hardware and consequently in software were so serious, that a game became irrelevant in just a few months after it was released. I particularly remember playing the various Need for Speed titlesbetween 4 and 11, but Command & Conquer went through a massive design change in just a couple years as well. The best option at that point was to always develop something new, or even redo the same thing from scratch.

Since then, two things happened.
First, the quality of games has reached a point where games can be enjoyed despite their age. I'm playing a racing sim from 2005 and it looks just fine. WoW was just fine. The graphics systems used (OpenGL, DirectX) were realistic enough that by adding more computing power and resolution, they kept up. Of course, it's even better if the core systems get upgrades: prettier lights, better presentation, UI tweaks, and fidelity upgrades.
Thus, developers were able to shift from small individual games towards frameworks - and TS is a great example at that. Mix and match. Just like racing games, RTS, or puzzles.

These games end up as fantastic frameworks - and since we, humans have a tendency to born and die, there are always new customers to pick them up. And they will, as long as the weakest parts of the offerings are upgraded to be nice and shiny. Just like apartments in a blockhouse.

 

Perfect way of putting it, completely agree.

 

What? It doesn't say that at all you fool, read it again, and if you don't have the intelligence to understand it, then don't embarrass yourself by making inane comments on a public forum.

They are obliged to modify something if it's wrong, or, something changes, such as a livery from a now defunct TOC who's licence now forbids DTG from using their company logo, which has already happened, and quite right and proper and DTG have moved to rectify it, which they need to be applauded for.
Who said anything about arguing???

Cheerz. Steve.

 

Thank you, and as we have lots of trainsimmers from abroad on these forums, in various gaming modes, I'm sure they would like to be aware if they didn't already know that we do have laws in the UK that protect consumer's rights, especially, digital content, which is what we all play with on here.

Cheerz. Steve.

 

Ah, so you agreed with me. EVERY piece of software has bugs in it, or flaws, or security issues. So maybe the fool here isn't me

 

in a perfect world, I agree with you, this isn't a perfect world
I am not saying what I would want, just what's likely to happen

 

We are spending good money in an extension to a game, and at times a good amount of it. If there is something broken, we deserve to have it repaired. Regardless of age. This means problems with broken unplayable scenarios, (including those without a possible maximum score of 1,000 points in Career mode, but even moreso scenarios that cannot be completed to the given timetable or that have AI that makes the scenario impossible), problems with any of the assets, and issues with the route itself (such as sticky red signals that never clear) all need to be corrected. DTG needs to stop ignoring those types of comments and fix the material. A lot of the fixes are minor fixes to scenarios and would not affect the entire route, so such fixes should just be made; if a bigger problem then develops, fix that separately and move on. This is why most games have patches to fix things even years later, and then new patches to fix new bugs, because that is how video game programming works. It seems that DTG has decided that older content is not worthy of time, and instead bundles older content in new bundles even still without fixing it. I started on Sherman Hill because of Battle for Sherman Hill and the original scenarios were not fixed in that package. Given this is a brand new product, this kind of thing is sloppy. There is a Blue pack that also has many broken scenarios I've seen fixed versions for in the Workshop. Further, have people who already own the route beta test the changes (allow players to opt into a beta program for content they own) and they can do the work of helping confirm the content is fixed so there is much less expense in-house. Seems easy to me. SCS Software lets players beta-test their new versions before release. DTG should be willing to let their players help beta-test changes as well. It doesn't all have to be in-house. Those players can identify problems elsewhere before the fixes get officially patched.

So yes, intentionally selling broken content after notification is not a standard that DTG should be aspiring to, and DTG should be making every effort to fix existing content. It doesn't take two weeks of testing to fix a scenario that doesn't work. Scenarios can be fixed and tested in a matter of hours. If DTG cannot do that, stop selling the content. Fix what you have, but keep a team also working separately on new content. Don't put the entire team on new content, as odds are it's also broken and there is no reason for consumers to trust that content. I mean, it's been eight years and Sherman Hill remains broken. That's pretty bad. That's my view.

That said, I realize this is the standard that DTG has chosen to aspire to. And this is something they will have to live with over time over newer projects. Because people don't forget. And they can quickly move on to other products by other developers.

 

Hear hear Cyclone!

In fact SCS have FOUR (+ 1) stages of testing..
Stage 1 - In house paid employees who test alongside the route and asset builders and can obviously (pre-covid) directly communicate any found issues (including issues that may affect older content and even third party mods)
Stage 2 - Rolled out (via Steam) to hand picked by SCS trusted Senior Beta testers (of which I am one) This is under strict NDA and we have an online bug tracking system to report directly to the SCS devs as well as a closed private area of the main SCS forum
Stage 3 - [DLC is probably announced by now and the hype being built on their social platforms] Released to Junior Beta testers who may still be under NDA for certain "yet to be announced" features they use the same bug tracking medium and closed forum areas just without the same access to areas that the seniors have
Stage 4 - Public Beta, this is what you can opt into via Steam you can either just play early (with the caveat there may be some bugs or incompatibilities with older mods) or delve in (as deep as you like) and report any issues via the official forum
Stage ongoing forever (aka +1) - Yep that's right if you find a game breaking bug or even a graphical glitch of a 4 yr old DLC report in the same fashion as you would the Public Beta and it'll get looked at and confirmed by the Junior or Senior Beta testers and more than likely fixed in an upcoming patch (might not be a high priority but it's unlikely it'd be anything significantly game breaking by this stage anyway but if it's a verified bug it will eventually get squished)

I often hear the counter argument "Yeah but SCS is a big successful game developer, well yes they are - now! How'd you think that happened though it's a truck simulator, trucks are even more niche than trains, Pavel Sabor (CEO of SCS) had no idea that ETS2 was going to be the game it is now he was expecting similar sales figures to ETS1, they've grown in my humble yet slightly biased opinion by being the most caring, sharing and listening game Devs out there, I challenge everyone at DTG and any other software company for that matter to set SCS as their own yardstick, it's time to see your customer base as human beings who you can communicate with other than just faceless wallets that will feed and fatten your bank accounts, communicate with your customers and they will give you valuable feedback and even great ideas to think about integrating, but a happy side effect of that is you then get those same customers raving to everyone else how great the game is and thus growing the player base, 97% of the user reviews on Steam for ETS2 are positive (check for yourself if you don't believe me). That's SCS's achievement not the fact they made a game about trucks that lets face it 97% of the population couldn't give two hoots about.

 

I left school 46 year's ago, one of the first things I was taught is that a company is only as good as its Management.

Hmmmm, no you typed ''This doesn't OBLIGE them to, so what's your argument there?'' Which is not what I printed. They are obliged to as that is what the law states.
You are not going to win the argument, our friend above states SCS and their policy of releasing content that is virtually flawless, so, that negates your next comment that was ''EVERY piece of software has bugs in it, or flaws, or security issues''.
I have been playing truck simulators since August 2002, SCS is the best developer in this field and virtually nothing has been released as being bugged, or, flawed, or, having any security issues, after nearly 19 years, DTG are on a different planet in comparison.......period.

Cheerz. Steve.

 

They also don't try to rush new DLC out the door every week so as to fatten their bank accounts, instead working to make sure the content that is out there is the best it can be. If bugs are found, they fix them. They don't cite concerns about user-generated content when saying the content is too old and too integrated to fix. Just fix it. The people who made the content either adapt or fail to have their content utilized down the road. Simple as that.

 

Reading this thread makes me wonder if DTG were held to account under "digital law / rights" if they'd say "to h*ll with it, it's not worth the effort" and close the doors for ever...

To me that could be a reality and one that I hope doesn't happen... Unfortunately though in my opinion, DTG seem rather shy when it comes to making comments or replying to issues...

Eric

 

This has been brought up in the official server. There are a number of players of Train Simulator wqho would NOT jump to Train Sim World, where there is very little room for innovation and much smaller playgrounds to start with. The only way I can see players making the jump would be if all of the content for Train Simulator itself were to be incorporated into Train Sim World, and that would be a gargantuan task.

I also think, given the age of much of the content now, that a lot of older content perhaps ought to be packaged together. For example, a permanently available collection of German routes and locos related to them at a permanently discounted price, like how Battle for Sherman Hill bundles Sherman Hill and a bunch of trains. In each case, create a new pack of scenarios for the bundle to add value to it. This would allow for a reduction in the number of DLC in the store and make the customer experience better. Anyone already owning part of the legacy content can get appropriate discounts buying the rest of the package. Three routes and a few locos for $60 CAD seems reasonable. They would just need to be routes that make sense with each other, such as items that might fit together merged into a single route, and perhaps that merged single route can be part of the package for scenario building, or the entire thing just be merged together. I dunno, but it's an idea.

 

Absolutely, but we're talking about OBLIGATION, nothing more or less.
If, as you say, any company releasing digital content is obliged to fix every issue then Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, Oracle... all flawed and should be shut down, surely? Again, according to you thats what the law says, that they MUST fix the bugged software

If it were that cut and dry no company would produce any digital content...

 

They are releasing patches frequently for their various products. Most people have no idea what they are about. I'm usually skimming the Visual Studio blogs and release notes.
The main intent here is to ensure that the product you buy is functional. Imagine that you buy a car, but it turns out that the built-in radio just doesn't work, and the rear suspension is replaced with a brick. Are you entitled to a way to fix it?
Usually there is a gray area, issues and even features are triaged both manually and by voting systems, donations. Can't fix everything. But the focus is on fixing the top items, and maybe some quick wins. Where is this list for TS? Which ones were fixed? Where is the roadmap? It's 2020. TS isn't just a random fire and forget 1€ game on Steam.

 

Oh I agree with you on this. Where is the wishlist? In people's minds. I don't know if DTG have such a list
My question is whether they are obliged to, or whether it's pie in the sky user thinking. I am sure everyone who seriously uses TSx wants it to be as they would wish.
I'm one of them

Spend hours making scenarios on various routes only for fundamental issues such as signalling to mess them up, but only recourse is to report and hope.

 

Has that hope faded yet?

 

About two years ago... hence continuing to plough on with the midden hitting the windmill every so often
But then I'm also a pragmatist so I tend to deal with what is, after some well chosen swear words aimed at nobody in particular

 

So why aren't you all suing them then?

 

"Software Release Standards"
Until now this thread is basically a typical DTG Sucks Thread and there is no discussion about Standards. Not even one software quality / testing standard has been mentioned or referred to.