I am lost a little bit. If you're saying the bug-finding quota is super high, then it logically follows that you would end up finding and patching out more bugs, making the game significantly less buggy, but it seems like you're implying the opposite is actually true?<br><br>The only way I can hypothesize this being the case is if the quota is not only dependent on the finding of bugs but also the time it takes in order to fix them, in which case having a high quota of bug fixes means you should probably spend less time finding more complicated bugs that take along time to fix and instead save that time by finding minor bugs that are quick and easy to fix in order to hit that quota which would of course lead to a game with major bugs.<br><br>I also don't understand the idea of junior bug fixers being a major issue. You can find plenty of bugs simply playing the game, so unless you're hiring bug fixers who've never actually played a video game in their life it should be relatively easy for them to detect bugs, unless... Are these testers finding bugs in code or in gameplay?<br><br>Also, putting a large portion of the blame onto quantic seems a little strange if they were bug fixers for games like The Witcher which was massively successful and to my knowledge, did not have even remotely close to the amount of issues Cyberpunk had.,(reply>), The team focused on catching as many pointless and nonessential bugs as possible rather than focusing on finding the game-breaking or gameplay altering bugs. The latter are much harder to find and replicate during a playthrough. Bugs like borders of buildings being slightly blurred or characters clipping with their clothing or interacting with an NPC is not something that should have been high on the priority list. With the team being full of non-veterans, and then later hiring on more unexperienced people (which they had to train and waste more time), they ended up going under water with ever knocking out anything of importance.