Very unprofessional support for paying customers!

Sorry for opening a rant thread, but at the moment the situation is pretty unbearable.

There is a breaker bug present since 4.6.0 that effectively prevents people using the Asset Server from upgrading from 4.5 - if they do, they completely mess up the list of updates and local changes, effectively breaking the project, unless every team member invests hours of work to manually fix this (see http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/as...pdates-commits-and-local-changes-list.292562/ ).

We are a very small company with a team of 6 paying customers who regularly upgrade their licenses and thus invested already about 20000(!) Euros counting all updates from 2.6 onward. I'd expect *some* kind of responsiveness, at least concerning vital bugs and showstoppers.

The bug #651517 I submitted about this on 27.11.2014 (two months ago!) is still listed as "open" without even a (non-automated) acknowledgment that "yes, there is a problem", or even giving possible workarounds.

That bug is so old that I actually forgot about having submitted it, so I re-submitted the same problem as #665425 on Jan 21st. Upon realizing it was a duplicate I replied to that bug the same day, saying it can be closed as a duplicate. Now, 8 days later, that duplicate is still happily living, being marked as "open"...

Please, *pretty* please, dear Unity Team - you have an AMAZING rendering system and IDE going, and tons of incredible, great stuff is created by people all over the world using your software. Would you please be so considerate as to at least LOOK into submitted bug reports, possibly RESPONDING to reports that your paying customers take lots of their work time to prepare and submit, in *some* way? And maybe even raise the priority of regression bugs that actually BREAK things?

Thank you very much. :-(

 

I was curious, so added up some numbers..

Assuming the bug numbers are sequential, there have been 13,908 bugs submitted since your bug was first submitted. There are about 45 working days between your first bug submit and today. That means there roughly 309 new bug submissions every day for them to handle. In order for your bug to be resolved by today they would have to receive, filter, validate, reproduce, track down the cause and safely repair a whole freakin' bunch of bugs.

I'm not speaking against you at all here, I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to their current system. I just wanted to look at the numbers and see what kind of volume we were dealing with here over time since there seem to be a whole bunch of these threads lately.

 

Half of the bug reports are bullshit per day..its seems people are getting pissed of because the real bug reports - actual issues being ignored. They need a better filtering system, firstly if customers are using old versions of Unity auto message to upgrade and try again, if issue not fixed then allow bug report to go further..this has been discussed many times in the forum. The QA manager took much heat, i think QA team thought it better not to reply in forums as it just get messy.. Someone has to say it how it is, prove me wrong please..

 

Total bs the numbers you presented..10 percent is actual bugs, mostly duplicate issues and abuse of the Report Bug button...I seen user reported 10 bugs same thing over and over, also many users noobs not bothering to debug there own issues

Like I said in previous post QA manager took much heat already, and failed to respond to community - main response was the QA is to small, more staff needed..

 

Lots of things have "bug" numbers that aren't bugs. e.g., every submission to the Unity Asset store gets a number. They do in fact have a filtering system; this was discussed elsewhere (blog post maybe).

--Eric

 

Wow a official reply, but again so robotic, Problem is you said no repo supplied, look dude why do you try to be so clever with your replies, basically just admit it for once, any bug report without a repo will not be looked at!! Just tell everyone this is the case...just sucks big time that bug reports that dont need repo are ignored...im a stubborn forum user, but I will keep challanging your replies until the truth comes out as its clear your struggling with the bug reports

 

Thanks a lot for your response, and the blog link was an interesting read!
I am aware it is a difficult task to triage the tons of submitted reports according to their usefulness and importance.
I usually put a lot of effort into creating reports that are descriptive and step-by-step reproducible.
In this particular case there was no attachment, as you would need an actual Asset Server project to reproduce the problem, and *every* one of our projects showed the problem, with all 4.6 versions (including 4.6.2).

Concentrating on alpha and beta problems is obviously important, but certain problems affecting the current stable releases should be IMHO important enough to raise a red flag, and necessitate a quick resolution in the stable branch. As it is very likely that my problem affects *any* user of 4.x using the Asset Server, potentially messing up their projects, I was hoping its importance was high enough

 

Oh come on! If Unity gave an answer like this what would you say to them? QA for life's answer sounded way more reasonable and polite than yours. What makes it okay for you to respond like this?

 

Okay, he works for the company, he has to respond and be polite in this way.
Because I'm angry with the amount of lies - simple, nothing left to say.

 

Calm your tits.

 

Ah, I completely forgot about the Issue Tracker! I need to remember to look there as well when encountering a problem. (although with the search engine it is really hard to explicitly look for a particular problem...and it actually seems broken (or very unintuitive): searching for "assetserver commit history" (=3 words that all appear in the title of said issue) returns zero results: http://unity3d.com/search?refinement=issues&gq=assetserver commit history )
The date listed there is Jan 21st, the same day I submitted my duplicate, so kudos for that (unless it's backdated ;-) )