With all due to respect, this information in no way takes responsibility from CDPR. First of all, they knew that the game was in poor state before release, and nevertheless decided to publish it. Second, the SQAs role is to find bugs, assigning priority for developers and even more assigning them to tasks, is completely out of their scope. To make statement that the developers dealed with surface issues and neglected the "rotten core" due to SQAs feedback you need to assert that core problems were not reported. It is highly unlikely independent of any quotas. In software industry SQAs are the most weak side in blame game. They are quite often declared guilty in poor quality only because they are the easiest targets. <br>All bad practices revealed by you happen all the time. I honestly bitterly laughed when you said "veteran SQAs". It is sad truth that SQA employees are treated poorly. Quite often industry treat them as software equivalent of "burger flippers". They have the least salaries, they are quite likely to be overworked, they quite often have no corporate benifits or even constant employment status. Bodyshops selling labor of SQAs and developers always lie about experience and qualifications of employees they sell. No surprise, since difference in paychecks is the sourse of their revenue. It is general outsource issue. And I can't believe that CDPR management was nor aware of that.<br>Despite this critical remarks, thank you for your video! It is very important to reveal actual working conditions in game development. We are quite rarely see the actual humans making games behing companies logos.