Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle3001
If you look at HM they will have build 1.0x.a, then b, c, etc etc, all fixing and refixing problems.
If I'm interpreting you correctly, you seem to feel that this is a bad thing?
If so, I couldn't disagree more. This isn't about rushing out fixes, but rather realising that a lot of this stuff won't be picked up until a big userbase gets to try the program and find out what works and what doesn't.
These programs have so much functionality that needs to work on so many different setups that it's just not possible to perform a complete test for every fix/addition. Microsoft, with all their resources can't do this, so I don't think it's fair to expect the creators of PT3 or HM to be able to either.
Ideally you might feel that the users shouldn't have to do this testing once the program has been released and you're paying for it, but the fact is it's a much quicker way to get things done.
The typical sequence for HM which is to release a bigger update and then follow it up with smaller, quick fixes as bug-reports are coming in, works very well. Those who worry about beta-testing and stuff breaking can simply wait a while before downloading the newer updates - there are plenty of other users willing to try them out and getting the new version stable in a fairly short amount of time.