No

There was a time when games and other software HAD to be bug free because no one had the internet. Now that most people have the internet, devs think they can promise all sorts of thing and "fix it later". As a developer myself, I understand the attraction to this (and have done it with almost every piece of software I've ever released), but the truth behind it is that it's...well...wrong.

That time never existed, just look at roms dumps of snes and genesis games, theres so many 1.1, 1.2 rom dumps, that hardly any game was bugfree.

Considering the amount of glitches in old games that people make videos of, i would say that bugfree games never existed, and wont exist any time soon.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a few dozen times, SCREW you. lol. I'll wait for the "Self-appointed GOTY" edition, when the DLC is free and the bugs are mostly taken care of.

You should also realize that the less bugs a game like this has, the more money it costed to develop it.
Testing is a very tedious and expensive process, too much testing would make a game too expensive, and it would take too long before a game is finally done.

With a game this big and complex there is no possible way to test all possible combination and permutations. The player base will do unexpected things. Test Driven Development would go a long way to solving most of the problems but I don't know that the powers that be could be convinced of doing this because it seems (only seems) as if it would take longer.

"It has never ruined my gaming experience"

Tell that to the people who had to start over Fallout: New Vegas because of a game-breaking checkpoint/spawn death glitch.

Well like I said. MY gaming experience. It sounds like most of the problems are because people didn't carry enough saves through the game. In a game where you can save at any point, and have more than 25 save files, there is no excuse to have to start over from the beginning. Unless you were relying on the game to auto save, and you go hours between them. I have never had to restart any Bethesda game, and yes I have hit the hard stop bugs in them too. I just went back to a save from 15 minutes prior, and kept going. It is not that hard people. Stop complaining and use the save feature. Then you'll have nothing to come to forums and bitch about, and can spend more time gaming.

HUman Analog...

So ur saying u dont mind bugs since u can help debugg them? I didnt realise that was the customers job ... dang...

and now ur saying its peoples fault for not saving enough in fall out new vegas?.... Fail man.. absolute fanboy who is in denial about any article that paints this in a bad light

you are right to a certain degree. There is never a perfect game your right, but de bugging your game as much as possible is key to completing a game before launch. I understand its harder for them because of how huge the scale of there game is which means more bugs, but you have to admit there games are really buggy compared to other games out there.

That is my greatest fear for this game. Glitches. I had a game killing glitch in Oblivion and didn't want to start all over with that much time already put in. Leaned a huge lesson to have multiple saves and to do them often.

We should have high expectations. But it seems like no one's even kind of willing to give this new system a shot.

You, me, and the devs know they have to do better. There's no reason I should be sitting at home frustrated by a game-breaker QA missed in my new $60 game. They need to make better efforts.

I just don't see the purpose in giving them shit when they implement that better effort.

Well said.

You say that as if im asking for perfection, they could at LEAST sort out the BIG problems before launch instead of waiting on the community to say "hey, your game is BROKEN".
QA is important, even if they can't comb the entire game, don't downplay the importance of good quality control.

I'm not downplaying good QA at all, but in an open world game, a lot of glitches cannot be found because they occur in specific locations when doing a specific thing. I agree with your point, but it's completely impossible for QA to go through all areas doing completely everything just because there's a possibility of something occurring; it's just not practical.