2 ms·
Good QA is not easily replaced but it's a job you under hire for a large part of the game lifecycle. It's cheaper to gut the team after a release and bite the
by jayd16 3y ago
Good QA is not easily replaced but it's a job you under hire for a large part of the game lifecycle. It's cheaper to gut the team after a release and bite the hiring cost on the next game than to hold on to them. You don't need a legion of folks testing a prototype.
Pretty sad because good QA folks provide a lot of value despite what I'm reading in some of the other comments here.
- bmicraft 3y agoWell, if they have to keep their QA team employed now, maybe it will lead to a longer testing period before launch. One can dream.
- jayd16 3y agoEven if it just lead to OT pay and more visibility into planned layoffs, it would be a win for the QA folks. As it is, big studios plan crunch time leading up to a launch and then large layoffs. They never say who's getting laid off so you have to just pretend its not happening. In the film industry, the fact the job ends is just part of the culture. At least owning up to that, paying OT, and giving folks an opportunity to line up another gig would be good. Even better if the union handles healthcare so there's no disruptions there.
- BehindBlueEyes 3y agoI don’t think more testing will lead to better quality games necessarily. My experience is testing always comes up with more bugs than devs can fix already.