DICE employee explains why BF4 is "buggy"

Many gamers have been experiencing issues with Battlefield 4, the title was highly anticipated by FPS-fans around the world. But shortly after release, many people reported that the game was full of bugs and errors. In an article on the Swedish gaming site, user HonK_sWeMoB claims to be working at the studio and explains why players are experiencing crashes and other issues.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Goro1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

Because yous rushed it?

GarrusVakarian1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

And didn't quality test it enough.

All i read in that interview was "excuses excuses excuses".

zeal0us1397d ago

Aliens: Colonial Marines all over again. You won't get the reason why the game is in the condition it is in. You will only get handed excuses.

caseh1397d ago

Funny you mention Aliens: CM, I was just reading an article as to why it was so crap.

By sound of things, it come down to all companies involved passing it to other devs as they couldn't be arsed to handle it themselves, too busy dealing with their own games/projects.


Blame EA, Not DICE he even said in the article, "Needed more Time!"

Eonjay1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

Lack of testing.
Shipping before its ready.
Blaming it on the PS4 itself (on the PS4)
Trying to be there with COD.
Lack of proper leadership.

Corporate assholes who don't game. They just want you to submit you money so that the shareholders can complain about be taxed on money they "earned"

wordthrower1397d ago

"And they didn't quality test it enough."

I have to take issue with this. I'm a QA guy myself, thankfully not at EA, and I can tell you for damn sure that the majority of the major issues and exploits present in Battlefield 4 were almost definitely documented in their bug tracker before the game released. The problem though is that they were all deemed "known shippable" by people in positions of authority way the hell over the pay grade of any QA staff, for the sake of making the release date set by the marketing department. The story is more or less the same all around the industry for other broken, buggy games: some jerk in a suit makes a giant pile of money, you get mad, and I go home and drink myself to sleep.

ziggurcat1397d ago

@ Lukas

As a former video game QA employee, that's not true at all. I can virtually guarantee that the issues people are experiencing were found, the devs just sluffed them off.

You'd be surprised how many bugs don't get fixed by devs because of laziness.

So never blame QA, it's not their fault that devs refuse to fix things that should be fixed.

abzdine1397d ago

it's so funny before release when they showed gameplay videos i said this game looks shit and buggy and i got so many disagrees..
now people bought the game and got owned for their stupidity.

dantesparda1397d ago

Its not that buggy for me, sure it was worst at first. But the game is still a blast to play

AgitatedOcelot1397d ago

Guess they should of tightened up the graphics on level 3.

linkenski1397d ago

Yep. Just pure media spin to make as many morons believe it as possible.

MarkusMcNugen1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )


Yeah, you know what your talking about! I have a friend who worked on Peggle 2. He said there were 120 pages worth of bugs/glitches in their report when the game was published on the Xbox One. One of the glitches was apparently with the Game DVR.

My girlfriend and me play it a lot, and just for a few days I had to delete 60 recorded videos. They werent even cool videos. Like 20 of them were just failed attempts at beating the challenges.

rainslacker1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

I've done QA too, and I can tell you that devs have databases full of bugs. From serious ones, to ones the player will never see. Big games can have databases of tens of thousands of bugs, some minor, some very serious.

Even the best games have bugs, and I remember fondly one of my first assignment in a QA class I took while in school. We had to take a commercial game and find 10 bugs. I picked Uncharted because I felt like playing the game again. Less than 20 minutes into the game, I had 15 bugs documented by just doing things most players would never do.

Problem here is that bugs that crash the game or make it unplayable didn't get fixed because they wanted it out in time for the next gen. No big surprise there. Blame the publishers, not the devs. I'm sure the devs were there saying that it wasn't ready to ship.

Gaming1011397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

The headline should be "Programming is really F'n hard, way harder than anyone who doesn't know code realizes, so shit happens when you release the same game on 5 different platforms"

You can only do so much with the time you have. Anyone who has ever worked a real job with deadlines knows this, and if your code requires certain timing to be just right and it won't work on 5 different platforms all with different timing, that's tough to deal with when you only have so much time to test everything and get it perfect. You can have 500 pages of glitches and only so much time and money to fix certain ones, meaning you need to recreate the glitch, and retest, and retest, and recode, it's not always possible to get all of them, as you can be working on that for years (as some games do) and still not get everything.

Gamers are broken up like this:
1. People who have had a real job and/or know coding and complex architectures; these people feel for developers every single time.

2. People who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to making games, and have never had a real job with tight deadlines; these people are the whiny shits, self entitled, always screaming that developers are lazy and full of excuses whenever they so much as see a torn frame or dip in frame rate, or glitch somewhere.

You all know which group you belong to.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1397d ago
Mikelarry1397d ago

makes you wonder if they had used that time to to improve and QA test the game instead of taking jibes at the riley the dog from cod maybe this game wouldn't be so buggy hey

a_squirrel1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

Maybe if some of you people understood on a technical level what he's talking about, then you wouldn't be saying excuses.

Yes, it was rushed, but not as badly as you might think. Games are one of the most difficult things to code, period. So many things can go wrong it's not even funny, and that's often in just a few test scenarios.

I recently fixed my own timing issue where an updated bios messed with my memory profile selection, causing quite a few random crashes, but only during complex multi-threaded applications, like Google Chrome or Red Orchestra or Medal of Honor Warfighter (I'm a sucker for that game).

I have 4GBx2 DDR3 at 2133mhz with a quad core and I run into problems. Just imagine what can go wrong with memory moving data twice as fast with an 4x2 core. That's not even accounting for the GPU clock or, (depending on the system) the different gpu memory clock.

In short, just on the hardware side, it's really easy to run into an issue, being even easier as the complexity and processing requirements go up, aside from any possible OS issues.

And the game was rushed.

DOMination-1397d ago

Yeah games are hard to code but bf is quite a linear experience. It shouldn't be hard to test for bugs which they probably did do but then ran out of time to sort them out

Secondly, dice are a very experienced team and they are using their own engine. The game was simply not finished. They probably needed more time but ea were unlikely to delay such a big release.

Trunkz Jr1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

No, it's EA that rushed them.

EA is the one that wants their product that they invest their money into to be out before Call of Duty.

Read the last line of that article from the DICE member:

“We needed more time.”

nypifisel1397d ago

I would say that should be rather obvious. DICE is historically a developer which makes quality games, developers LIKES to created great games. Publisher LIKES MONEY! It's obvious that DICE is getting pushed on by EA.

Kleptic1397d ago

but, he also said 'all of our machines at work are pretty similar, so its really hard to bla bla bla'...

So i don't think DICE is completely innocent...if the code was that complex, they would've demanded better testing to be sure the product was release ready (as in more machines)...and demanded a better beta test period, much further back in the year (not 2 weeks before release)...i think its a combination of both to some degree, but definitely more EA's fack up than any other...

Video games aren't some novelty when it comes to production...BF4 was 10's of millions of dollars to create...absolutely broken shat on release shouldn't still be a thing...

Ace Killa 081397d ago

@kleptic you think dice felt comfortable with a beta test then two weeks later the release. They have done beta test in the past that had at least a month to work and solve all the issues after the beta.

They ran out of time, they didn't have enough time to test the game on multiple systems and configurations. I'll be the "fool" and take their word on this. Dice has never been a company to screw people over, EA is known for that but that's something else. They worked on 5 systems, that has to be the biggest project they worked on at one time. It's not give them a break, but think realistically. Your idea of testing is awesome and great, but only in a perfect world.

venom061397d ago

whatever the case is, just like when BF3 was released with issues, they jumped on it (as most developers do) and ironed out the problems. Thats what they're doing now with BF4 and i gotta say, it SOOO much more enjoyable now that crashing has been addressed. At its core, its a brilliant game.

The_KELRaTH1397d ago

BF3 on the PS3 had multiple big issues like no working mic (rather ridiculous in a squad based online game), stuttering etc which took over 6 months to fix - that's not what I call jumping on it and ironing out.

Battlefield games are great fun but this level of issues should not be seen at retail - it's what beta testing is meant to be about.

I_am_Batman1397d ago

The point is it shouldn't have been released in the buggy condition it did. I think EA is doing more harm than good by rushing their games out. They are damaging their reputation. Also the reviews would've probably been better if the game wasn't rushed out.

oof461397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

I am a Battlefield fanboy and, while Bf3 had most of it's problems ironed out after multiple patches, I still blame EA for damaging the Battlefield brand.

There are people who say DICE should have pushed EA to give them more time, but EA signs the checks and DICE is most likely contractually obligated to do what they say.

Look at what happened with Infinity Ward and CoD. The developers wanted to branch out and do something different, and what happened? Activision pushed West and Zampella out.

bohemian 231397d ago

They haven't ironed out all of the issues yet, that's the problem. When a game crashes on you every time you enter the same map, I would hardly call that fixed. I like the game as much as the next guy, but denying the problems, doesn't make them non existent. They (Dice) should take "Dawnbreaker" or Gamebreaker, as I like to call it, out of the rotation until it's fixed. I play on 360, and it still crashes quite a bit.

JessiePinkmanYo1396d ago

Venom06-Not for nothing, but why do you have 38 pages of comments defending EA/Dice and or bashing CoD? You have NO comments whatsoever pertaining to anything else in the gaming world. Also, your posts of personal attacks is completely classless and base less. You've called people "dillusional" concerning the bugs this game has (or had) and have attacked any article or their source for showing favoritism for CoD. Go look at your posts and see what I mean. You've been doing it for YEARS. Are you doing damage control for EA? Why?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1396d ago
Z_-_D_-_31397d ago

All I got out of those quotations was "blah, blah, blah-blah-blah- we screwed up, blah."

Just fix your God awful game that I paid $110 for.

Reverent1397d ago

All I got from your comment was immature whining. Try actually reading the guy's comments. He said "We needed more time." Basically suggesting that they were RUSHED. By who you might guess? EA.

This problem isn't so much DICE as it is EA, so give the DEVELOPER's some slack, and throw your punches at the greedy PUBLISHER that's trying to rape your wallet.

Z_-_D_-_31397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

Oh no, yet another person who places absolutely no responsibility on DICE, when they've been working with and optimizing the same engine/servers for God knows how long. I recognize that EA is solely to blame, but don't think for one second that the programmers shouldn't be sharing at least a fraction of the criticism EA has gotten. They're in this, too.

AuToFiRE1397d ago

Or they're shitty devs..

oof461397d ago

@zeal0us: Except Bf4 is a pretty good game covered in doo doo. Aliens: Colonial Marines is just doo doo.

tristanwerbe1397d ago

Because it's a piece of shit 4/10 generic shooter game?

H0RSE1397d ago

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say EA rushed it? If DICE had full control, I'm sure they'd take as long as they needed, as is the case with most independent developers.

TheDev1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

Having actually worked for EA (design), I can give you the reasons the game is so buggy. The guy from DICE was absolutely right... not making excuses.

You can't know until you actually worked in a big videogame company...

Here's what they had to deal with:

- EA policies (do this like that, don't do this if it doesn't fit our model for making games the right way, so a lot of itterations to accomodate the "EA Way" some good some bad.)

- Must release for the current fiscal year, absolutely before black friday and christmas. To save a game with a lot of issues that will not necessarly sell a ton, push it next year before march (end of fiscal year) to get more visibility and time.

- Next-gen: the game HAD to make it on NG.

- Bug prioritizing. (showstoppers and major bugs must be fixed. Minor bugs are ok if they aren't too apparent and ideally occuring rarely. Cosmetic bugs matter more on a blockbuster game like BF, but usually low priority a month before launch. If the users complain a lot, you fix it, otherwise, down the list it goes.) Big games have a ton of bugs in all categories. Hundreds, even near launch.

- PC testing is not obvious. You can't ask a studio to buy every piece of hardware to test on every machine configuration. You test on some hardware, then it's beta testing to the public. In a videogame company everyone on the prod pretty much work with the same PC configuration so variety is not the reality. So many employees, you buy in bulk and the same item over and over. IT departement also prefers having to deal with the same hardware on a daily basis.

- Public beta testing: DICE weren't given enough time for that. I played the beta, just a few times and it was already over a few days later.

- We are currently still in "public beta testing". The beta just got removed from the game title... Why the double XP week at the beginning week? Exactly for that reason. So people don't stop playing because of major bugs.

- Working in a big videogame company on big titles has a lot of advantages (big talents, big vision, a lot of resources), but also many inconveniences like stated above.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1396d ago
BelkingOfSony1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

in other words... 'we tried to do what activision are experts at doing, and that is to release a battlefield every year. But we failed and that's why the game is a buggy mess'

dcj05241397d ago

The last battlefield game was in 2011. That's biannual.

BelkingOfSony1397d ago

oops, too late to edit now

filipakos1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

and activision has two different teams working on COD and they release one every two years

BelkingOfSony1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

infinity ward and treyarch

oh crap the disagrees i'm potentially going to get for the one mistake is going to hurt badly

(not as badly as what just happened, i lost a bubble for no reason)

The_KELRaTH1397d ago

And using the same engine!

lastofgen1397d ago

I've given this game enough chances.
Sold it off, never looking back.
I know it's a huge game with mp that sports gigantic warfare with a ton going on, but at this point, things should be stable by now. I've never been so disappointed in a bf game.

Crazyglues1397d ago (Edited 1397d ago )

Yeah, sadly, I couldn't agree more...

I'm a huge Battlefield fan, but I've never been so disappointed with a game as I am with this one...

-Since when does the beta play better then the final product, I mean wow, the PS4 version has been a complete slap in the face to gamers..

It's filled with bugs and problems like I've never seen in a video game.

-and EA/DICE had the nerve to offer a double XP weekend to make up for the epic fail of the game, just shows how clueless these game companies are/ as if that makes up for countless crashing and a complete filled with glitches and problems game...

||.........___||............ ||

Z_-_D_-_31397d ago

And what's funny to me is; How is anybody supposed to take advantage of that double XP if the game is broken and unplayable? Lol.

Thankfully, the game is moderately stable now.

NeloAnjelo1397d ago

So rushed and not tested enough... We all knew this anyway.

EA deserves what it gets. Stop supporting them.

DCfan1397d ago

lol, you wish. 2 years from here you'll hear the same moaning, buggy game, yet people buy it

NeloAnjelo1397d ago

I know pple will still buy it. They refuse to speak with their wallets!

This is the only way EA will listen.

thricetold1396d ago

what's worse is these same people laugh at cod fans while doing the same exact thing.

"oh this version will be bigger and better than the last"

the deaf laughing at the blind is all I see.

01animeking1397d ago

EA going for the wost company of the year three years in a row