ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Why, so you can see how poorly a design job you're doing?
So that if there is a bug, it can be fixed and I know you are well aware of the reason why.
That was a completely negative reply with no redeeming value whatsoever. If you look at an entire list of fixes and find one that didn't actually work, that's not at all unusual when it comes to programming complex applications. If it happened and you have a save, send it in. Otherwise, your bashing of Marshall is not appreciated and is also not acceptable. We're trying to improve the game, which is a goal I would think you'd share.
Regarding your complaint about not hearing back from us, as I posted earlier, I forwarded your e-mail requesting a refund to Dave, who as I understood it replied to you. If you did not receive that reply I will ask him to re-send it.
Sorry to quote so much ... However, in the past I have been critical of Matrix Games' developers (in particular the video resolution issue with Hornet Leader), but I am a professional programmer (20+ years experience) and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to software. Matrix Games' developers frequently release poor quality software, but they also seem to follow up with patches until the game is playable. However, while this seems like an unfair practice of using the buyers as beta testers there is a reason this happens in the software industry as a whole. If you are cynical you could believe that financial motives force early releases and sometimes this is true, but in my experience in small teams it has more to do with getting overwhelmed with the project. As the code base increases (most of these games are actually very complex to code, compared to a standard implementation of a MFC windows application), developers have a more difficult time focusing on what needs to be fixed/polished. A kind of fatigue sets in as you work with the same code day after day. Eventually after months of this its easy for a developer to lose focus on whats important to fix. While casual beta testers help, without a formal testing group of full-time testers it is hard to get a perspective on the state of your code base. It is also important to remember that a developer and the testers usually repeat the same things over and over again, so it is common that most combinations of actions are not tested. Therefore the developer fixed to game to work for the way the testers play. Without a large team of fulltime testers, very few variations of gameplay/keystrokes/mouse movements/options/etc... are actually tested. It isn't until the game gets released that many events and combinations, which were not used extensively in testing, are actually exercised.
While it might seem unfair to pay $60 for a game that isn't perfect, the reality is that your $60 + everyone else's $60 isn't going to get a multi-million dollar development budget for wargames. And finally until you actually develop and sell a successful strategy game, I think you should trust me that Matrix Games and its associates are not intentionally pulling a "Derek Smart" on the gaming public. I have lurked and read 1000's of their posts over the years, and I think they are good people, who love games, but are limited by the economic realities of niche games. But roughly since the release of Uncommon Valor, most of the games produced by Matrix Games are very ambitious and complicated endeavors. I'm not convinced a group backed by EA's resources could produce a perfect EiA or WiTP without significant patches.
Sorry for the rant,