So my co-workers and I were discussing all of the inherent problems associated with Beta releases, and technology in general. Most of them remember when I first got this game and the issues that I was having, not to mention issues that others were having, as they saw when I would be on this forum. Now our general debate has to do with programmers claiming that there is no "perfect" program, so to speak. The most common answer given to defend "shoddy" (and I use shoddy loosely, not implying that this game, or any other software is necessarily bad)programs by the programmers is that there is always going to be a glitch, error, or other issue at one point or another, and that no program is flawless.
The heart of the debate is this: Should software companies be allowed to practice business this way? To put out a product and then collect money, only to update or improve later, sometimes at the expense of purchasing an expansion, or purchasing internet access for patches seems like bad business practice according to some in the debate. Others justify this and say pretty much what I stated above, adding that there would be hardly any games out there at all if a company waited until the finished product was perfect, which it never could be.
Someone mentioned that if you bought a lamp and took it home to find that it didn't light, you would return it. If your exchanged lamp does the same thing, repeat said steps to return. Now let's say the salesman told you that the lamp works fine as long as you jiggle it from time to time to keep it lit. Would you still want that lamp? And if you contacted the manufacturer with your complaint and they told you the same thing as the salesman, would you be happy with your purchase? Obviously you would think that the lamp manufacturer had better go back to the drawing board and try again. Other people threw in comments regarding cars, TV's, just about any product that we are used to using. Said companies wouldn't be in business if they supplied "incomplete" products or items that didn't work as advertised, every single time.
I myself don't know my exact position on this one. Some of you in here chastised me so much for assuming that software should work right out of the box that I had re-evaluated my take on it and find that I sit right in the middle on all of this. I mean, on the one hand you should get what you pay for, period. On the other hand, from what I've been told, to make a computer program is difficult work, and there will always be a glitch or bug making it's way into the code. What do any of you think about this?
In some small way I would have to say that if computers and their programs are really that infamous for errors, and that no one can write code without one or two glitches, then maybe the product shouldn't be as mainstream as it is, or at least it should be priced accordingly, experimental. Now please, if you do take the time to respond remember, this is merely a debate, and sadly enough, it is of enough interest to us on this end to come to some sort of conclusion regarding all of this.
edit: The only reason I posted this here was because we are all going through "beta testing" right now and your opinions would be better received than some random thoughts from a ten year old.
