So an incredibly part of game development in general under any circumstances at all, but especially when your game is available to the public in an early access setting is bug prioritization.

And this is something that is really hard to get right.

And it's maybe something you can never really get right.

But it's, you know, it's something that we always need to improve upon because we believe as developers of a game that is in early access that we have a responsibility

for our game and for our community to one keep it in a playable state for the overwhelming majority of people and two to finish the game's development which is another goal that we must adhere to in our opinion however unfortunately perpetually maintaining our game in a state of perfect stability is not feasible and is actually quite detrimental to the development of the game

And so you might be wondering, like, in what ways is having a stable game detrimental to the development of the game?

Well, first of all, it kind of depends on what your definition of stability is or stable is, okay?

So there are some people I have seen online who say there should be no bugs in a game, right?

It's unacceptable for there to be bugs.

But regardless of whether you're not in early access, having a game that is perfectly stable

bug-free, at least a game as complex as our one, you know, in our particular case where we have 3 million plus people playing on varying hardware with, you know, varying Windows versions and driver versions, they may or may not be up to date, there might be mods involved, 100% stability on all machines is simply not something that is actually viable, and so we need to find an acceptable level of stability.

And so that's the first thing that can be detrimental to development.

You know, chasing that perfect stability in a game is just gonna lead us astray and it's not really something that's attainable, right?

So we can't do that.

Not only that, but maintaining a high level of stability during active development is also incredibly inefficient, okay?

This is because it would mean consistently undoing and redoing work that we've done before in order to stabilize the game when the game's design is constantly changing and new features are being added.

Not only that, but adding new features risks instability anyway as it is, whether or not we're redoing and undoing work, so...

this is just something that we can't escape either.

And long-term, this makes no sense because it would mean that it'll take us like, I don't know, twice as long to finish the game when we could just do it in half the amount of the time if we were to accept some level of growing pains, right?

So bear in mind that we've been working on Satisfactory for like six or seven years now, and if we were chasing all these bugs to clean them all up at every

possible step of the way, we wouldn't be nearly as far in development as we are now.

Financially, this is awful.

And then maybe even interest wise, you guys wouldn't be getting any new stuff and it would get very boring.

You know, the game just might become irrelevant, you know?