This sounds like typical QA practices: newbie teams, 2 weeks training, bug quotas. Only good testers can properly document core systems bugs, and bug priority is very important - nobody cared if you're good at documenting core system problems. It's normal to start the project with a single team in the Alpha stage and double (with a new junior team) in the Beta stage, some projects need even more - mostly multiplayer games. <br>All projects have a stage where bugs like those shown are very prevalent - while code in core systems is being re-done, features added or removed, stuff moves around. This all eventually settles as the project starts to hit the Beta feature goals and the systems code gets frozen (meaning no new code is added except to fix breaking bugs) - Cyberpunk only got there one year after launch? This is a CD Project Red dev and project management problem. The production project management defines the QA goals at each stage of the QA project. <br>Maybe there was miscommunication with QA management, maybe QA didn't follow directions of what types of issues they should document at the each stage in development. The QA leads I've worked with made it clear what we were looking for and what the priorities were each week or each couple of builds. We mostly knew what systems were stable, what needed more attention because it was newly added or tweaked etc. <br>Sure, the bug quotas are annoying but you'd stumble on more important issues while grinding for bad texture mapping, floating objects and achievement bugs.<br><br>Ex EA Games QA here (PC and Consoles, 10 years ago, had friends at Ubisoft QA too).,(reply>), @Upper Echelon QA testers determine the severity of a bug, but the developers determine the priority of fixing them or not.  If the Devs chose to stop having a certain severity of bugs reported, then the QA team is off the hook for the end quality of the game.  A reputable developer would want ALL bugs logged right till the very end but then decide which ones to fix and which ones to ship amongst themselves.,(reply>), @Upper Echelon I'm a web programmer, my days in the game industry are long gone and I only worked in QA for less than a year. There are lots more insightfull people to talk with :) cheers!,(reply>), @Upper Echelon I'm sure lots of QA teams are disfunctional, heck I know of dev teams that destroyed projects in a few months. It's hard to fire a QA company, these contracts are basically decided by the bean counters. Competence is to be determined along the way, and it's complicated getting out of them. As you know, the publisher usually sets up the dev studio with QA. None of this should be surprizing, software is hard, game dev is harder. Management can be blindsided, almost all projects get delayed. Even the best devs, project and team leaders or other management can run into unforseen issues and deal with it badly. The real miracle is when most things get done and done well. There's decades of experience, both success and failure and struggle that competent people have in the rear view mirror. And they can still fuck up.,(reply>)," Id love to chat with you (ive had a number of emails already from other QA people) about this further if you are open. upperechelongamers@<a href=""http://yahoo.com/"">yahoo.com</a>",(reply>), QL being quantic lab