Regional FlagThe Problem with not giving time-frames.Source
Target Source
#0 - 2007/09/18 03:10:33 AM
I understand the past issues, of giving a projection on when things would happen, and not being able to meet the projected goals...however, by avoiding talk of specific dates and using vague phrases such as 'Soon' 'Not Tomorrow' 'Sooner rather than later' I find to be more frustrating than missing a projected date.

To me, using vague phrases such as these removes the main form of accountability that we, the consumer, cares about. We desire both quality, and effective implementation of content. I believe that many of us are understanding when it comes to blizzard's standards when it comes to releasing content. The company's standard has always been to only release that which they are proud of, often disregarding the public desire to have content released in a more timely matter.

I believe that some form of accountability needs to return, especially given the length of time that the consumers have had to wait for a content patch that we have seen in development for a few months, and yet the only response we have ever received regarding it's release is that release is imminent.

Blizzard, please, strive to set a higher standard of releasing content in a timely matter as well, and give us goals for content updates. I don't think it's a lot to ask for more finite time-frames on content updates.

Blue Poster
Target Source
#6 - 2007/09/18 04:30:23 AM
A more detailed answer is "when the tester-reported defect/error rate drops below accepted measures based on past experience with Live and PTR builds, as well as passing internal test checklists".

Current 2.2.0 builds are very close to this goal.

You might be surprised at the breadth and depth of data we have to draw on thanks to the Feedback-UI and the Error Reporter, and the continued participation of PTR testers. That data directly drives decisions about whether a given build is good enough to ship to Live or not.