Why does my game work in the editor but not in a build?

Because a build differs from the editor in code optimization, timing, asset packaging, platform, and missing editor safety nets, so a bug latent in the editor manifests in the build. The editor and a built game are different environments: builds optimize and compile code differently (exposing latent bugs the editor masked, like uninitialized values or undefined behavior), run with different timing (exposing race conditions), package assets differently (so a missing or misreferenced asset crashes the build but not the editor, which had the source), run on the target platform (with its own behaviors), and lack the editor's safety nets (which tolerate things a build does not). So a game can work in the editor but crash in a build because of these differences. Testing only in the editor (a common build pipeline mistake) misses these build-only issues. Bugnet captures crashes from built games in the field with full context (stack traces and conditions), so the build-only crashes invisible in your editor are captured where they happen, with the evidence to identify which build/editor difference is the cause (optimization, assets, platform), so you can fix them and verify in a build, debugging crashes your editor never shows.

Should I automate my game's build pipeline?

Yes, automating builds makes them consistent, repeatable, and less error-prone, manual builds vary between runs and introduce human error that can cause build-specific problems. A manual build pipeline is a common mistake: builds done by hand are inconsistent (different settings or steps between runs), error-prone (easy to forget a step or misconfigure), and time-consuming. Automating the build pipeline (scripted, repeatable builds, ideally triggered automatically) produces consistent builds every time, reduces human error, saves time, and makes it easier to build and test frequently. Automation also supports testing actual builds (not just the editor) and tracking versions. While the build pipeline itself is separate from crash reporting, the two complement each other: a good pipeline produces consistent, versioned builds, and crash reporting captures the issues those builds surface in the field, tied to versions. Bugnet captures build-specific crashes tied to versions, so the issues that surface in your built games are visible per version with the context to fix them, complementing an automated build pipeline by giving you visibility into what the builds do in players' hands, so you can catch and fix build-specific issues that even a good pipeline cannot prevent.

How do I test my game's actual builds?

Build the game and test the actual build (not just the editor) on real devices, and capture crashes from built games in the field, since builds differ from the editor and surface their own issues. Testing only in the editor is a common mistake that misses build-only bugs (from optimization, asset packaging, platform differences, and missing editor safety nets). To test actual builds: make builds (ideally automated and versioned) and run them on real devices, exercising the game as players would, to catch build-specific issues before release. Since you cannot test every device and condition, capture crashes from built games in the field, which surfaces the build-only issues your testing missed. Bugnet captures crashes from built games (not the editor) in the field with full context and per-version tracking, so the build-specific issues that reach players, invisible in your editor and possibly missed in your build testing, become visible with the evidence to fix them, tied to the version, so you can find and fix build-only crashes from real players and verify the fixes per version, ensuring the actual builds players run are stable, not just the editor.

Common Build Pipeline Mistakes

Quick answer: The biggest build pipeline mistakes are no automation, not testing real builds, and no version tracking, fix these by automating builds, testing them, and tracking versions.

Your build pipeline produces what players run, and common mistakes let build-specific issues ship. Here are the most common build pipeline mistakes and how to avoid them.

Not Automating Builds

A common build pipeline mistake is manual, inconsistent builds, so builds are error-prone, vary between runs, and waste time. Manual builds introduce inconsistency and human error that can cause build-specific problems.

The fix is automating the build pipeline for consistent, repeatable builds. Bugnet complements this by capturing build-specific crashes (tied to versions), so even with a good pipeline, the issues that surface in built games are visible per version, with the context to fix them.

Not Testing Actual Builds

A second mistake is testing only in the editor and not the actual build, so build-only bugs (from optimization, asset packaging, platform differences) ship unseen. The editor and a build differ, so editor-only testing misses build-specific issues.

The fix is testing actual builds, not just the editor, and capturing build crashes from the field. Bugnet captures crashes from built games with full context, so the build-only issues your editor does not show become visible from real players, with the evidence to fix them.

Not Tracking Which Build Is Which

A third mistake is not clearly tracking and versioning builds, so when crashes come in you cannot tell which build players are on or which release introduced an issue. Untracked builds disconnect your crashes from your releases.

The fix is versioning builds and tracking crashes per version. Bugnet captures the version with each crash and tracks crashes per version, so you can tie every crash to its build, catch regressions, and verify fixes, connecting your build pipeline to your crash data.

Avoid the big build pipeline mistakes: no automation, not testing real builds, and no version tracking. Automate builds, test them, and track versions.