So as a software engineer, you (or your company) regularly announce to your clients new features for your software, not even knowing if you will be providing them, just to communicate with them ? I'm probably not mature enough to understand, but at least I don't need more (innaccurate) communication to be reassured.
Every company I've worked for has announced new features in beta software (usually through beta-testing channels, but on occasion to the larger community, when feedback and/or advanced warning is especially important), precisely so they can be tested. On top of that, certainly the last three companies I've worked for (beyond which my memory gets a little hazy) have, on occasion, removed features from beta version because the whole idea was a bust, better functionality could be achievement through other services or it just wasn't going to be ready for release. That's one of the main purposes of beta-testing. S&M (ours and, I expect, everyone else's) always chose their words carefully to avoid making any firm commitments about beta features unless the higher-ups had locked it down as a must-have.
However, without much effort, I can also think of a few occasions where features explicitly announced for release had to be canned. Yes, there was a certain amount of backlash, but I can also state with absolute certainty that the devs involved weren't happy either (and in once case, actually angry... fun times, shan't talk about it here, lolofficepolitics). It happens, and particularly with the more technically-orientated companies, our customers understood that the announced feature-set should only be considered binding once the product actually went on sale (because, ultimately, that's also what the law says).
It's pretty much a universal truth that marketing is all about walking the fine line between amping up expectations while making minimal concrete guarantees. This is true across the board, not just in software. We just have the added fun of people forgetting that beta is beta. Blizzard, I've noticed, are particularly careful to avoid language that commits them outright to any given features, while simultaneously fueling their hype-machine with open betas, pre-release gameplay streams/demos and all manner of headline-generators. I think if you go back, re-watch their streams and re-read their press releases, you'll find a hell of a lot of "we hope to", "we're aiming at", "here's something we're really excited about" and all kinds of coy phrases carefully chosen to avoid making firm declaratives about release features. It sucks, but it's how the marketing game works.
The problem is that there are too many cerebrally deficient rage-monsters out there who will misinterpret the naturally tentative, iterative and unpredictable process of game-design as a set of OMG BORKEN PROMISES when Blizzard changes their minds and BLIZZ ARE ALL MORONS when they disagree with the rationale for same, because far too many people think software is arbitrarily mutable when they don't like it, and a contract carved into adamantium when they do. Before we know it community forums are swamped with hater circle-jerks, white-knights and every permutation of troll yelling at each other about unreleased features, and discussion about the actual existing game is relegated to page 27 just under the story about the skateboarding penguin.
I was once excited by a feature anounced and then canceled by Blizzard (Path of Titans in WoW) because it sounded really nice and I was really interested in it. I haven't made any post about it at all (and you can see I am not shy about posting in forums), no rage or anything, but I felt really disappointed when they decided to cancel this feature. I haven't acted as a "cerebrally deficient rage-monster" but still I was disappointed.
What would be the point to announce tons of great stuff if then they don't release them ? Would you enjoy that ?
Oh I doubt it... but I'm getting too old to get particularly agitated about games, and as a software engineer myself, I'm used to the iterative process anyway.
Having said that, I was bummed out when they ditched PoT, too. Which I suppose clinches the argument in Blizzard's favor... the loudly disappointed will clog up community discussion, the quietly disappointed will... I don't know... listen to The National with the curtains drawn? In the end, 'more communication' will either repeatedly reassure us of what we've already been told, or leave a trail of disappointed fans like Rhianna going on tour without a working Auto-Tune.
Perhaps Blizzard should release ongoing development notes, but only to communities who are known to cope with disappointment well, like Democrats, or the English.
It's funny how people want "communication". People don't want "communication", they want patch notes. Blizzard is communicating a lot : about the console version, fan art, etc... check the official D3 website. But this is not the "communication" you want. You want to read "Next patch will introduce those changes : ...". So don't be hypocritical, ask for patch notes and not "communication"
I don't want patch notes... we already get those about as fast as possible, mainly because it's only really possible to make them once everything's nailed down.
What I want is "here's some crap we're working on, and here's the direction we're intending to go with it", with the full understanding that Blizzard could, and often should frequently change the former and regularly adjust the latter. The thing is that it's happened before... remember D3's beta coverage? Remember how many things we saw Blizzard employees talking about that didn't actually make it into the game?
The problem is that there are too many cerebrally deficient rage-monsters out there who will misinterpret the naturally tentative, iterative and unpredictable process of game-design as a set of OMG BORKEN PROMISES when Blizzard changes their minds and BLIZZ ARE ALL MORONS when they disagree with the rationale for same, because far too many people think software is arbitrarily mutable when they don't like it, and a contract carved into adamantium when they do. Before we know it community forums are swamped with hater circle-jerks, white-knights and every permutation of troll yelling at each other about unreleased features, and discussion about the actual existing game is relegated to page 27 just under the story about the skateboarding penguin.
It's not complicated - all they're saying is that 100% of their patch-producing manpower is focused on the "itemization update" now, including upcoming skill changes etc. Presumably the changes they're making to loot are so drastic that it also has impact on skill balance, and skills are being tweaked accordingly, so they can't release the skill changes by themselves. It should be good news to the people who believe that Diablo 3 still needs huge overhauls to fix its problems, because that's exactly what it means they're doing. I wouldn't be surprised to see completely revamped stats, etc.
I really wish they'd do a 'WTF are we actually up to' post, because they're basically been saying "We're overhauling items, skills and the interactions between them, as well as seriously changing other other aspects of the game" for ages, and I don't know if that means they've got the most uber-awesome superpatch on the way, or just working on a "yeah, we're changing all the numbers, and that's about it... but the expansion is going to great! kekekeke" pile of underwhelming bleh.
I want to come up to the lab.
And see what's on the slab.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Every company I've worked for has announced new features in beta software (usually through beta-testing channels, but on occasion to the larger community, when feedback and/or advanced warning is especially important), precisely so they can be tested. On top of that, certainly the last three companies I've worked for (beyond which my memory gets a little hazy) have, on occasion, removed features from beta version because the whole idea was a bust, better functionality could be achievement through other services or it just wasn't going to be ready for release. That's one of the main purposes of beta-testing. S&M (ours and, I expect, everyone else's) always chose their words carefully to avoid making any firm commitments about beta features unless the higher-ups had locked it down as a must-have.
However, without much effort, I can also think of a few occasions where features explicitly announced for release had to be canned. Yes, there was a certain amount of backlash, but I can also state with absolute certainty that the devs involved weren't happy either (and in once case, actually angry... fun times, shan't talk about it here, lolofficepolitics). It happens, and particularly with the more technically-orientated companies, our customers understood that the announced feature-set should only be considered binding once the product actually went on sale (because, ultimately, that's also what the law says).
It's pretty much a universal truth that marketing is all about walking the fine line between amping up expectations while making minimal concrete guarantees. This is true across the board, not just in software. We just have the added fun of people forgetting that beta is beta. Blizzard, I've noticed, are particularly careful to avoid language that commits them outright to any given features, while simultaneously fueling their hype-machine with open betas, pre-release gameplay streams/demos and all manner of headline-generators. I think if you go back, re-watch their streams and re-read their press releases, you'll find a hell of a lot of "we hope to", "we're aiming at", "here's something we're really excited about" and all kinds of coy phrases carefully chosen to avoid making firm declaratives about release features. It sucks, but it's how the marketing game works.
Oh I doubt it... but I'm getting too old to get particularly agitated about games, and as a software engineer myself, I'm used to the iterative process anyway.
Having said that, I was bummed out when they ditched PoT, too. Which I suppose clinches the argument in Blizzard's favor... the loudly disappointed will clog up community discussion, the quietly disappointed will... I don't know... listen to The National with the curtains drawn? In the end, 'more communication' will either repeatedly reassure us of what we've already been told, or leave a trail of disappointed fans like Rhianna going on tour without a working Auto-Tune.
Perhaps Blizzard should release ongoing development notes, but only to communities who are known to cope with disappointment well, like Democrats, or the English.
I don't want patch notes... we already get those about as fast as possible, mainly because it's only really possible to make them once everything's nailed down.
What I want is "here's some crap we're working on, and here's the direction we're intending to go with it", with the full understanding that Blizzard could, and often should frequently change the former and regularly adjust the latter. The thing is that it's happened before... remember D3's beta coverage? Remember how many things we saw Blizzard employees talking about that didn't actually make it into the game?
The problem is that there are too many cerebrally deficient rage-monsters out there who will misinterpret the naturally tentative, iterative and unpredictable process of game-design as a set of OMG BORKEN PROMISES when Blizzard changes their minds and BLIZZ ARE ALL MORONS when they disagree with the rationale for same, because far too many people think software is arbitrarily mutable when they don't like it, and a contract carved into adamantium when they do. Before we know it community forums are swamped with hater circle-jerks, white-knights and every permutation of troll yelling at each other about unreleased features, and discussion about the actual existing game is relegated to page 27 just under the story about the skateboarding penguin.
So there's that.
I really wish they'd do a 'WTF are we actually up to' post, because they're basically been saying "We're overhauling items, skills and the interactions between them, as well as seriously changing other other aspects of the game" for ages, and I don't know if that means they've got the most uber-awesome superpatch on the way, or just working on a "yeah, we're changing all the numbers, and that's about it... but the expansion is going to great! kekekeke" pile of underwhelming bleh.
I want to come up to the lab.
And see what's on the slab.