Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Why are the Updates so slow?
Comments
-
The simple answer is: Software has bugs. That's the nature of the beast. Every piece of software you currently use, or have ever used in your life, has some sort of unintended bug, somewhere.
The way bugs work in a game development environment is, the game goes through testing, bugs get logged and prioritized in a tracker, and they try to eliminate as many urgent bugs as time and resources allow before ship, while making decisions about what is minor enough to let slide. We can safely assume that this QA phase is brief for DBD's content deployments, considering that quarterly major content updates don't leave much lead time for robust QA.
In my experience (to which I will just say there is a lot of it), game developers are very aware of all the issues in their games, before they ever come out. They know what bugs are there, and you generally aren't going to surprise them by pointing out these kinds of issues, because they exist in a tracker somewhere and have been identified as low-priority. The thing that happens in a live software environment is, they have to be very careful with hotfixes, because they don't want to accidentally break something else that makes things even worse.
I can live with, like, downed survivors moving a foot or so in one direction when they fall to the ground, or whatever. It's an obvious bug, but it doesn't mess up the game. The more serious bugs -- like this random disconnect bug, and the rank update error that has been in the game for literally a year -- is where it's appropriate to hold their feet to the fire. These are the issues that they need to devote more resources to fixing. I think it would make everyone happier to have more frequent updates on where they stand with these issues, as well as more systemic problems with the game like the ones I am fond of pointing out (matchmaking, UI/UX, perk grind, and so on). But I would argue that this is less of a development issue and more of a community engagement strategy issue.
EDIT: Also, have a look at, like, every set of patch notes. Do you see how many bugs get fixed? It's not like they don't fix issues; it's that a lot of the really major emergent issues get fixed before you even know they could be a problem, so it's probably not even registering to you.
4 -
Programming is difficult (Computer Science major) but some fixes are rather simple.
There are bugs in Master Chief Collection on PC that fans essentially fixed overnight, yet the devs can't seem to fix them at all. One is the fact that Elites don't dual wield in Halo 2s campaign anymore. It's as simple as ticking a box in a map editor, yet the devs claim this is something that is hard to fix.
I highly doubt there is extravagant code going on in DbD that would even come close to comparing to Halo's code. I'm willing to bet DbD programmers overlook issues quite often, just as 343 does even though they are a much larger team. It isn't really a matter of it being hard to fix, it's a matter of them actually doing it regardless of it being difficult or not, like 343 chooses to overlook easily solved problems the community has solved.
0 -
It is not about that. Yes as you said every software may have a bug in it, that may be hard to catch. And as long as they developers are working on fixes and releasing them over a reasonable amount of time - it's all good. Was sound issues such a hard bug to notice before they pushed the update? It is not an isolated issue, everyone is having trouble with it. It is a major game mechanic killers rely on to be able to play the game and track survivor, which is their main objective. It has been broken for years. Then it became even worse after engine update and has been moving downhill.
Since everyone is making examples of other companies. I'll make one too. Gearbox release Borderlands 3 back in September 2019. They delayed the game because they wanted to fix more things. There were quite a few bugs and balance issues. (Only one was game-bracing). Nearly very bug I encountered in the game happened to me only once. Since then about 90% of the bugs have been patched. They are still working on gear balance constantly, since they shift meta a lot, there is frequent new content updates ect. They've been releasing pretty big patches every month and rolled out hotfixes every week soon after it was released. But most importantly they acknowledge the issues that players are having and in they would tell you exactly what is being worked on and when it can be expected.
0 -
Major playability issues should be prioritized for bug fixes, yes. The sound bug you mention is a good example of what I was saying earlier, about a targeted question you could ask for a stream Q&A. "When are you guys going to address this sound bug that has been going on for X number of months?" is a way better question than "Why is this update shipping with so many bugs?" It gives them the chance to respond to something specific, and hopefully build some expectations around it.
As far as comparing to Borderlands 3 or any other game -- remember that everyone's content pipeline is different, and this is always gonna have some measure of apples-to-oranges to it. Also, Borderlands 3 probably started off on a much stronger foot with a more well-defined content and DLC road map from the jump, while Dead by Daylight is now effectively a legacy game that has scaled in a way that certainly was not expected or planned for at the time of its launch, and that they have been iterating on ever since.
2 -
I didn't compare Gearbox to Bhvr because of how much content each game has. But because of how fast they acknowledge and resolve issues. There is no such thing as "SOON" for them
0 -
What was NoEd like before the nerfs?
0 -
It wasn't a hex.
3 -
When I say "content pipeline," I am referring very broadly to the product's entire post-launch development road map, which would normally build in resources for bug fixes and QoL. What I'm saying is that Borderlands 3 likely began its existence with this kind of forward-looking momentum in place, whereas Dead by Daylight has grown in a way that they didn't initially conceive of. So to a certain degree, they're still fixing things with duct tape, so to speak. I think they could marshal their resources more effectively, but the foundation of the game probably still needs a lot of work.
Regarding speed of acknowledging and resolving issues, yeah, like I said, this is also a community engagement issue. It's hard to know what's really important to them and what issues they are focusing on, because many things about this game's development are so opaque, and we're often left going "OK, what's up with this major thing?" for too long. I don't want to speculate on what the internal lines of communication between development and CM look like, but given the fact that we are having conversations like this, it could probably be improved.
1 -
Wow, I can imagine the tsunami of salt back then.
1 -
Wow, that must have been one of the most broken things in the history of the game.
1 -
You should of seen moris. You didn't even need to hook someone before you mori-ed them before they were changed. I love this game but I'm honestly shocked that it has a playerbase seeing how broken it used to be.
0 -
Yes. The 200 I mentioned above was what I remembered, just checked and apparently it's 230 as of about six months ago.
3 -
It's because they were the first company to have a really compelling thematic hook (slashers) that fit the gameplay, they've been aggressive about pursuing high-visibility licenses, and they are very active in supporting the game. Every other one-vs-many game that has come out since has dropped the ball big-time. I think if another developer launched a serious competitor that had a good pedigree and (very important) a strong license behind it, DBD could be in trouble, because this genre is ripe for disruption. It won't be on top forever.
0 -
I agree but with all the stuff that use to be in it: Vacuum vaults, Vacuum pallets, double pallet spawns, no entity blocker, real infinites, insta-moris, hatch stand off. It's kinda crazy. I'm proud of how far the game has come since it first came out.
1 -
Just wanted to say I think you're doing great here - saying everything I wanted to say when I read the thread just now, and much better than I could have!
For what it's worth, I believe the main reason they're so opaque with their communication is because they used to be super transparent and the community were not very appreciative of it, getting angry and resentful whenever plans changed because a feature or bug fix was taking longer than expected to implement. (The event last Halloween is probably the best recent example.) So they decided it would be best if they just didn't tell people anymore what their plans were until they were certain they could deliver on them, which is why now we only get announcements of new features when they're nearly ready, and we never get exact release times until a day or two beforehand because the devs are afraid of the backlash from disappointing us. Ironically, they lose either way, because now everyone's disappointed that they're not being communicative enough 🤷
3 -
Thank you for the compliment!
Now that you mention it, I'd be shocked if there wasn't a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation going on. This bites a lot of developers sooner or later when content gets delayed or release dates have to change, because consumers throw fits at the slightest rumble of not getting what they want when it was promised. So, a lot of developers default to "Soon(tm)" mentality.
I think the bigger thing is just going "Hey, we hear you about issue X, and we agree that A, B, and C are the most urgent aspects of this that need to be fixed. We are actively working on it." They don't do a lot of that. I think that, even without giving concrete deadlines for this-or-that deliverable, they could build some goodwill and positive sentiment through more frequent and direct acknowledgement -- and, in some cases, some really clear discussion of their philosophy.
Like, I complain a lot about what I feel are the issues with the perk grind, and how they could be solved, but nobody at Behaviour ever engages on this topic. Maybe what I want is totally out of line with their internal philosophy about what the perk grind should look like and why, but nobody ever articulates that. That's the kind of thing I would like to see more visibility on. My dim assumption is that -- to continue using this as an example -- they harbor what they see as an embarrassing "We're terrified of what would happen to our player retention numbers if we made it easier" philosophy toward maintaining the grind as-is, but I wish they would just own up to it either way, if this is how they feel. (At least, if this were the culprit, it would open up some discussion about what the actual issues around player retention are.)
1 -
In my experience, they do actually do a lot of the acknowledgement thing, particularly on their streams. They just don't get a lot of credit for it because people are too busy being mad that they don't have dates and all they can say is "we're working on it". But that's their response to at least half of the questions they get asked regarding proposed balance changes, bug fixes, etc.
Regarding the grind, that's definitely something they've acknowledged. Maybe not on the forums, I'm not sure, but I've been told by a dev that it's something which is on the list to be addressed (though I don't know if that's specifically in reference to perks, or bloodwebs in general, or what). So it's possible that you're just looking in the wrong places - though at the same time, maybe they could do more to make the right places more accessible.
2 -
Started out with infinite duration, then shortened to 120 seconds (2 minutes), now is a hex.
It wasn't. Survivors just knew they had to GTFO and that was that. Even still, some managed to pull off hook rescues.
0 -
Alright. Thanks.
0 -
If you don't like the game you DON't need to play it, move on and find something else to do
0 -
Funny things... even with big updates every 2 weeks some people would still cry "why updates are so slow" xD. Also its funny how everyone seems to know how the game that they are actually playing should be balanced. Sadly they dont get that they are only balancing game for themselves, not for others. The simple fact that you cant play against something doesnt mean its broken and should be nerfed, since somehow overall win-ratio/pick-ratio and many, many other statistics says the opposite. Without access to this kind of data from hundreds of thousands matches with random players, random squads, random situations you cant really tell anything. How many matches did you played in a week? Count best score. 100? 200? 500? Anyway its merely 0,1% of all games if not less since the guys like you are thousands.
Also its worth noticing that we dont always get what we wanted. And thats good thing - dealing with troubles is part of humanity. Look at history - why people can unite during great crisis yet during quiet, peaceful time they tend to destroy/ruin everything instead of just being happy? People wants troubles. People wants someone to blame, to fight against. If they dont, then they start a war for some stupid reason. Maybe its worth to think if this isnt that kind of situation?
So please guys, be grateful for their work, keep telling them your thoughts but keep it civil. Dont attack someone "omg, you do nothing, still XYZ isnt patched, ######### you cant even balance your own game, why you nerf my main idiots?", instead try to find reason in that, or maybe even ask them a normal question (like "what bring you to nerf <put here your main>? Was it too strong? how was his/her winratio?"). They answer few of them during streams, if someone watch it. The more... resonable it is the more chance it will be adressed. Also remember that hey cant solve all problems of the world. Game is pretty much playable when you dont get connected to server across globe, if it wasnt then what would we be doing here? :P
2 -
Taking issue with certain aspects of the game is not the same as not liking it.
0 -
Deathgarden was a pretty cool idea, but I seriously have to ask why BHVR thought it was a good investment on their part. I'll never understand why they would create a competitor to their main game. I mean I suppose they believed it was different enough from DBD and with the mobility, sci-fi setting, and faster paced gameplay I can see why they believed that
But ultimately they were never able to capture what made DBD so addicting and ultimately fell to the exact same problems that plagued F13 and Last Year. They weren't able to capture that spark and not for a lack of trying. They clearly poured a lot of money and passion into the project but it was just not to be. Why play Deathgarden when DBD has been worked on for years, has triple the content, along with the fact long-time and even short term players have a vary large investment in DBD as well. For a game to compete with DBD in this genre it needs to stick every landing
2
