Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with being disagreed with, but I do take issue with the tone and method of communication being used, even when I agree with what's being said.
.......
Being a fanboy or a hater (however you wish to define the two), or somewhere in between, does not preclude that your comments and opinions can be put forward in a way that is tactful, constructive, and with an inoffensive tone.
Well, the problem is, not everyone is "political" or has a sales type background experience as a persuader/manipulator. Not all people are capable of communicating in the idealized sort of way you'd like them to.
I was in the Marine Corps & worked with all types of people in my lifetime, seen the whole spectrum of the scale. Workplaces where vulgarity is commonplace to workplaces where it's taboo. I've know drunk, belligerant, crude types that would fight at the drop of a dime yet give you the shirt off their back and political, tactful, educated, conceited, smiley-face types that shield a dagger behind their back while they screw you over with that same smile-on-their face & "politically correct" double-talk. I'll take the former over the latter anyday.
The point is, there's all kinds of people in the world with different personalities & communications styles, education, and training. And, my experience is that I'll take the harsh, tough, yet honest guys/gals over the smiley-faced political types who are liars & only interested in themselves in one way or another any day of the year. All we have to do is look at our governement today to see a plentiful supply of that crap type of shite. Forums just mimick reality, people in forums "communicate" the way they do in real life to some extent.
But, of course in a forum situation we have no way at all to know exactly what kind of people we have as far as factual info goes as to their professional background. We have to infer and read-between-the-lines with a "poker face" in order to figure it out... and it *is* possible to figure out, just like it is possible to determine a person's personality from their signature ... although I doubt anyone would care
Um, yeah - what I said is the bare naked truth about the game industry. I'm a professional and I can say that most of the junk about hard programming is a load of crap. There's something called a TEAM - it incudes programmers, managers, designers, all sorts of people.
It seems to me that every other post by developers have pretty much concurred & asserted over & over again that it is "impossible" to meet hardware specifications on the back of the box given the wide range of hardware configs we have today. Since you say you're an industry professional, and I'll just assume that you are a professional dev, but I'm not, I'm just someone who likes strategy games, I just want to know:
1) If that assertion is true or not. If it it is true what's a resonable resource need to QA-test, say, both 70% and 90% of hardware configs in relationship to "minimum system reqs" for an average PC game.
2) Why won't PC game companies provide minimum specs that they *know* work, instead of a low-bar minimum that they know fail 90% of the time on minimum specs? (i.e. If a game can only be tested on windows 7, dual-core, 64 bit, 4GB RAM, systems using *only* video cards w,x,y,z .. why not just specialize the system requirements on the back of the box for this one configuration only)? Now, I can answer this just from the knowledge I've gained on my own in my lifetime & personal experience as it pertains to the greedy corporate shit companies that we have in the world today; I just want to know what the political "company line" answer is. And, I'm not talking about specific companies, just any "company line" in general will do. I'm just interested in knowing how PC companies rationalize their greed as it pertains to this one thing.