: I don't think it's likely all or even most of these will be fixed.
: Game-breaking things like being able to boot people in matchmaking will
: get fixed, but there's just too much here to expect fixes for all of it,
: keeping in mind that each fix also requires QA and certification.

: If this game were 343i's flagship title, there might be reason to hope it
: gets fixed. It's not, though. Halo 5 is their big title. It's becoming
: increasingly clear that the MCC was a simple cash grab: Microsoft needed
: something to move Xbones during the holiday season, and Halo 5 isn't
: ready. So we got a hastily slapped together, unpolished product, on which
: most of the work was outsourced to other companies. I can believe the
: matchmaking debacle caught 343i by surprise simply because the impact of
: it is so huge for so many people, but it's unreasonable to think they
: believed everything else about the game was good to go. They knew, but
: deadlines are deadlines. Dealing with the fallout from releasing a bugged
: game was easier than moving Christmas.

: Put another way: the reason the game was allowed to be released with these
: bugs is the same reason we shouldn't expect them to be fixed.

Wow - reading that list is making me think I'm at the day job.

I realise game testing is far and away different from traditional software testing but still, I'd be interested to know who was responsible for green-lighting it in this condition and who was responsible for play testing.

This is a worrying trend over the past few years - game launches are becoming beta tests in all but name. Consider in the last 2 or so years, we've had Diablo 3 with error 37, Battlefield 4 (which has only been mostly fixed recently), GTA Online (which didn't work for 2-3 weeks), Sim City (with those server problems) and many, many others.

I can see why some people are now not buying games at launch