As soon as I heard that bug quota my jaw hit the floor.  That is insane.  IBM did a study many decades ago that found that every bug fixed created 1.4 bugs.  In my 20+ years of development I have found that to be completely true.  Fixing bugs almost always creates new bugs and uncovers previously hidden bugs.   This doesn't mean bugs shouldn't be fixed, it just highlights the importance of fixing the RIGHT bugs.  Bugs are not all equal.  In their bonkers quota, QA would naturally focus on the least important bugs because those are easier to find.  And then as a result even more unimportant bugs would get created.  All the while the big important bugs just sit there.,(reply>), While not all bugs are equal - you definitely have to at least try hard to find and fix em all. You will still miss some. But if you don't even try, you miss a lot more. And you can't always be sure that a tiny bug isn't actually caused by a really huge one.<br><br>Don't be a botcher - if you see it, fix it.,(reply>), @Ele_ exactly.  Let the QA team have a quota of 20 bugs a day, who cares.  It's then up to the developers to decide which ones to fix and which ones to leave in the game for release.   Seems silly to place blame on a QA tester, new or not, for entering 10 Minor issues a day,(reply>), ahah. Once I heard "bug quota" I immediately thought: yeah, I have no doubt it is true (0 sarcasm intended). This sad QA practice is notoriously popular in gamedev.,(reply>), @Ele_ Exactly,(reply>), @Sascha Berger There is no such thing as bug free software.  What you hope to achieve is a product where there are no meaningful bugs in the system.