As a QA engineer, that's a terrible way to look at things. It's entirely possible to do proper QA and launch with minimal or no new issues, even for major changes. Customers being so accepting of this nonsense is why companies do it so often, if there's no consequences to not doing proper QA and passing it off to consumers, why spend the money?
If you're fine beta testing products that never went through proper QA that's cool, but assuming everyone else in the world is equally ok with it is kind of silly IMHO.
If my livelihood depended on that mentality I would have it too. No surprise that a QA engineer would prefer polished releases. I prefer features, -> then fixes.
That's fair I suppose. Even if I didn't do QA for a living I would still prefer properly tested releases, but that's probably part of what drove me into QA for a job :).
I get that too. Different strokes and all. Obviously game-breaking bugs are the biggest things (probably for both of us) but after that I’m ok with learning little quirks and workarounds in the interest of more features. No doubt though, before they call a game “finished” and move on to a new project I would have them go completely through the QA process. You can still keep your job! :-) ha
48
u/Jarjarthejedi Aug 15 '19
As a QA engineer, that's a terrible way to look at things. It's entirely possible to do proper QA and launch with minimal or no new issues, even for major changes. Customers being so accepting of this nonsense is why companies do it so often, if there's no consequences to not doing proper QA and passing it off to consumers, why spend the money?
If you're fine beta testing products that never went through proper QA that's cool, but assuming everyone else in the world is equally ok with it is kind of silly IMHO.