[zrobotics]

Agreed, and the games industry may be the clearest example of this. In 1985 the developers had to actually ship a finished game, there wasn't the opportunity to release a half-finished product and update it later. Compare to Fallout 76, which was very clearly unfinished at launch.

Edit:typo

[hopler]

Games in 1985 shipped with bugs baked in that people were just stuck with. Civilization had a broken Gandhi, and still shipped 4 different bugfix versions.

[zrobotics]

No game (or any large software project) is ever bug-free, but the standards were higher than they are now. Fallout 76 was literally unplayable on launch-a fairly early mainline quest was broken, so it wasn't possible to reach the endgame. Was civ unbeatable on release? Sure, ghandi was bugged, but that was entertaining enough they kept the bug in the sequels.

[dtech]

There were plenty of bad and buggy games in the 80's, it even crashed the market [1]. We just don't remember them.

Also modern non-indie games are orders of magnitude larger and intricate than 80's games, and have about the same distrubution of quality/bugs. They're now made by teams of size 10-1000 rather than 1-10 though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983

[dmd]

Neither Civilization nor Windows existed in 1985.

[icedchai]

Take a guess when Windows 1.0 was released.

[dmd]

> "software in 1985 was more "complete" than today. Even CD roms shipped with magazines had to support more windows variations than "good software"

There was one variation of Windows in 1985. (And I remember installing it!)

[icedchai]

Yes, but in your previous comment, you said it didn't exist. It may as well not have! Almost nobody used Windows 1.0...

Still, in 1985, even DOS apps had to target varied environments: mono, CGA, EGA, Tandy graphics, different memory configurations, 8088 or 286, printer drivers...

[hnzix]

The anecdote is they deliberately left in nuclear Gandhi for the lulz.