Metalmurphy
Member
mclem said:
Mods were allowed to be ran on UT3 without Sony verifying anything and it still didn't lead to any "buffer overflows", and that was made by random people. This is something managed by Valve.
Valve: Xbox Live policy is 'such a train wreck'
- Thread starter Guy Legend
- Start date
Mods were allowed to be ran on UT3 without Sony verifying anything and it still didn't lead to any "buffer overflows", and that was made by random people. This is something managed by Valve.
practice02
Banned
I think Ea owns the publishing rights to all the orange box licenses on the ps3. so basicly fat chance.Q8D3vil said:
FunkyPajamas
Member
Deus Ex: Invisible War, Bioshock, TESIV: Oblivion and many more "consolized" PC games point to: yes.Draft said:
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
That;s not hard to add up. They want Valve badly enough to let them have their cake and eat it too. I would want a class developer like Valve on my side, that's for sure.Rez said:
NIN90 said:
It's a little of both.
There was a HUGE TF2 community back in 2007-2008 on the 360. But since Valve can't update that (well, they could, but it would require putting the game out on XBLA like Portal) code, it's been dying/being filled with hackers.
The funny thing is: FREE DLC was possible on the old X-box. It's been since the 360 that companies have been charging for this shit.
If Valve is able to do free challenge rooms for Portal 2 PS3, more power to them
AND BRING TF2 PROPER NATIVE VALVE PORT TO PSN. COME ON YOU ASSHOLES
They are, but hardly ANYONE bought them. Why? Because you needed a CC instead of PSN point cards to do that shit.
Eventually, Konami let you be able to purchase them with a PSN wallet/PSN cards, but I haven't played that POS online game since.
EDIT: I may have been confused on the issue. Is it free updates to the consumer w/o charging the consumer, or is it free test of patches with out charging the publisher/developer and still charging the consumer for DLC?
Everyone is questioning Gabe's motives, and I think it's fair. But didn't Valve bring this up before the agreement with Sony regarding TF2. Valve wanted to release DLC for free but MS wouldn't allow it. And more importantly didn't Epic want to do the exact same thing with Gears1 and MS ended up charging for it?
So it's not only Valve that is concerned with this issue. So questioning Gabe's motives seems a non issue for the most part.
Everyone is questioning Gabe's motives, and I think it's fair. But didn't Valve bring this up before the agreement with Sony regarding TF2. Valve wanted to release DLC for free but MS wouldn't allow it. And more importantly didn't Epic want to do the exact same thing with Gears1 and MS ended up charging for it?
So it's not only Valve that is concerned with this issue. So questioning Gabe's motives seems a non issue for the most part.
FunkyPajamas
Member
Oh, yeah, my point wasn't that it's an ideal solution, it's just that it exists and that maybe Sony has enabled some sort of API solution that allows developers to access the PSN store wallet in-game so that you can buy games while you game. Or something. In which case I could see some developers implementing these types of features.TheSeks said:
practice02
Banned
I'd really like to see numbers on how much Sony and Microsoft make on an individual chunk of DLC after all is said and done.
Yo Dawg we heard you like to buy games so much we put a store in your gameFunkyPajamas said:
John Rabbit
Banned
you don't actually, it is possible to turn off the automatic re-billing via the website.water_wendi said:
its not EASY, but it is possible.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
charlequin said:
Largely unrelated, I'll give you that, but I don't see how it's awful. Pretty much everything I said stands, especially the last part. People want something for nothing, or at least as little as possible. The way things are heading (developers collapsing left and right, publishers joining into super-companies only to remain competitive, retailers entering into idiotic exclusive content deals to keep the edge...), it's only the matter of time before we become witness to the rise of high-tech game development sweatshops in third world countries. The same thing has already happened with other goods, but hey, it's convenient for us to look the other way.
Still, you're right, this is not the right thread for that discussion so I apologize.
TheFightingFish
Member
I honestly don't think that Microsoft's initial motivation for the patch charging was that bad a thing, or even that it was intended to milk customers or developers. The intent seem to be that forcing in those charges would make publishers take pre-release bugs more seriously and never ship somethink broken like Elemental for instance. In the console space you have more consumers without continual internet access to their console or with expensive bandwidth fees and releasing something good enough and then execting to patch it to acceptability is just not ok. Steam doens't really have this issue as (yes, it does have an offline mode) it pretty much always expects to be connected to the internet and expectations for game bugs is different for PC versus console games.
The bigger issue here is Microsoft inflexibility to bend these initial rules to get with the times or to help out a company that could be a good partner. Tons of post releases for a single player game often means that a shoddy product was made, but tons of post release patchs for a competitive multiplayer game actually means the exact opposite. It means that players are playing the game, finding balance issues and glitches and that the developer is responding to that to patch and improve the game.
If EA can get MS to break the rules by shutting down servers early and requiring extra logons on top of Live then why can't MS bend to the rules to let multiplayer games like Team Fortress 2 or Bad Company 2 get fast, cheap and numerous balance patches like the PC versions? Instead they do hacks like the title specific storage patch that the Monday Night Combat devs use to tweak some basic game settings without having to pay for a full update.
The bigger issue here is Microsoft inflexibility to bend these initial rules to get with the times or to help out a company that could be a good partner. Tons of post releases for a single player game often means that a shoddy product was made, but tons of post release patchs for a competitive multiplayer game actually means the exact opposite. It means that players are playing the game, finding balance issues and glitches and that the developer is responding to that to patch and improve the game.
If EA can get MS to break the rules by shutting down servers early and requiring extra logons on top of Live then why can't MS bend to the rules to let multiplayer games like Team Fortress 2 or Bad Company 2 get fast, cheap and numerous balance patches like the PC versions? Instead they do hacks like the title specific storage patch that the Monday Night Combat devs use to tweak some basic game settings without having to pay for a full update.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Draft said:
Wow...
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I see a few people from the "anti-patch" brigade have popped up.
Consider the Wii, a console that doesn't have patches. Now, consider just games published by Nintendo, a publisher that undoubtedly has incredibly good QA, right?
- Mario Party 8; Last minute recall in Europe due to inappropriate language, discs destroyed.
- Endless Ocean; Recall in Japan due to game-crashing bug, discs destroyed
- Fatal Frame 4; Significant minor and major gameplay bugs causing crashes, no recall, no patches.
- Battalion Wars 2; begging for Wii Speak support, never patched in.
- Mario Kart Wii; endemic online hacking, probably requires server side and client side patches.
- Twilight Princess Wii; buffer overflow in save loading bug is root cause for Homebrew and Piracy on Wii.
- Super Smash Bros Brawl Wii; buffer overflow in level loading bug is root cause for post-TP homebrew
- Super Paper Mario EU; game-breaking bug, voluntary disc replacement.
- Wii Sports Resort; error in code for Wii M+ caused 3 minute mandatory video to be viewed again and again and again, required firmware patch to avoid.
Also on Nintendo systems:
- Tales of Graces, perhaps the most significant third party game released in the last 12 months in Japan, RECALL.
- Lego Indiana Jones Wii, buffer overflow, homebrew, etc.
- Guitar Hero 3 Wii, by far the best-selling third party game on any Nintendo system since the NES, error with audio mixing, voluntary disc replacement.
- Card Fighters Clash SNK whatever DS; RECALL
- Tomb Raider Anniversary/Legend Wii; game-breaking bug, no recall
- Bully Scholarship Edition Wii; many many many glitches, bugs, and freezes. Patched on 360.
- Bubble Bobble Revolution DS; impossible to finish, no recall
- Age of Empires DS; GAME BRICKING BUG--if your game username is fewer than four letters (Tom, Bob, Jay, Dan), your game bricks. Voluntary replacement of bricked cards.
- Pokemon Mystery Dungeon DS; erases GBA save games randomly depending on the cart you put in the slot. Voluntary card replacement.
- My Japanese Coach DS; erratic stroke order in some kanji recognition.
- Zack and Wiki; new version of game released due to inappropriate music.
I own 10 of the preceding games.
This doesn't even take into account that patching isn't just fixing bugs, it's also adding new features.
Yes, there are tons of day one bugs on PS360PC games. Yes, stuff gets patched in on day one, including online co-op. Yes, stringent QA is important and the situation of PC games in 2000-2004 where some games literally shipped entirely broken and weren't playable for months is not acceptable. None of this means that patches are bad.
Consider the Wii, a console that doesn't have patches. Now, consider just games published by Nintendo, a publisher that undoubtedly has incredibly good QA, right?
- Mario Party 8; Last minute recall in Europe due to inappropriate language, discs destroyed.
- Endless Ocean; Recall in Japan due to game-crashing bug, discs destroyed
- Fatal Frame 4; Significant minor and major gameplay bugs causing crashes, no recall, no patches.
- Battalion Wars 2; begging for Wii Speak support, never patched in.
- Mario Kart Wii; endemic online hacking, probably requires server side and client side patches.
- Twilight Princess Wii; buffer overflow in save loading bug is root cause for Homebrew and Piracy on Wii.
- Super Smash Bros Brawl Wii; buffer overflow in level loading bug is root cause for post-TP homebrew
- Super Paper Mario EU; game-breaking bug, voluntary disc replacement.
- Wii Sports Resort; error in code for Wii M+ caused 3 minute mandatory video to be viewed again and again and again, required firmware patch to avoid.
Also on Nintendo systems:
- Tales of Graces, perhaps the most significant third party game released in the last 12 months in Japan, RECALL.
- Lego Indiana Jones Wii, buffer overflow, homebrew, etc.
- Guitar Hero 3 Wii, by far the best-selling third party game on any Nintendo system since the NES, error with audio mixing, voluntary disc replacement.
- Card Fighters Clash SNK whatever DS; RECALL
- Tomb Raider Anniversary/Legend Wii; game-breaking bug, no recall
- Bully Scholarship Edition Wii; many many many glitches, bugs, and freezes. Patched on 360.
- Bubble Bobble Revolution DS; impossible to finish, no recall
- Age of Empires DS; GAME BRICKING BUG--if your game username is fewer than four letters (Tom, Bob, Jay, Dan), your game bricks. Voluntary replacement of bricked cards.
- Pokemon Mystery Dungeon DS; erases GBA save games randomly depending on the cart you put in the slot. Voluntary card replacement.
- My Japanese Coach DS; erratic stroke order in some kanji recognition.
- Zack and Wiki; new version of game released due to inappropriate music.
I own 10 of the preceding games.
This doesn't even take into account that patching isn't just fixing bugs, it's also adding new features.
Yes, there are tons of day one bugs on PS360PC games. Yes, stuff gets patched in on day one, including online co-op. Yes, stringent QA is important and the situation of PC games in 2000-2004 where some games literally shipped entirely broken and weren't playable for months is not acceptable. None of this means that patches are bad.
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Yes, it's a real shame that video game consumers now actually want to have a say in how the consoles they invest in are run, versus the older days when they'd just shut up and take whatever was given them.
Stumpokapow said:
I think that there is some merit to the argument that consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360 allowing patches has given some developers a green light to just ship their product and worry about fixing it later, but your list of examples proves why that possible negative is something we should be willing to put up with in exchange for the much larger positive experience it can bring us. Game bugs are always going to slip through, no matter what, and for a long time it was simply a case of "deal with it".
Games are getting more complex, and more complexity brings with it a higher chance for programming errors. Obviously I don't want companies to be sloppy and just call an unfinished game finished (to actually be finished later), but gaming platforms having no system at all for game patching really need to go away.
practice02
Banned
But Halo was allowed to do it. I think the interest in stuff like that just isn't there with consoles I mean even halo and little big planets level creator stuff isn't really used.stuminus3 said:
CrushDance
Banned
:lol Beautiful mental image.Draft said:
*dies*
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
FunkyPajamas said:
Oblivion really wasn't consolized. The design decisions in Oblivion were pretty clearly made for reasons other than placating the console fanbase. Morrowind on OG Xbox was big, as was Oblivion. Fallout 3 and NV don't appear to suffer from Oblivion's broken-ass designs. I don't think the level scaling was a concession to consoles.
BioShock and DE:IW you most definitely have a point with, and the general trend is there, but I just don't see it in Oblivion. The design streamlining was pretty clearly intention, and the asset streamlining was pretty clearly due to cost of production.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Holy shit at this thread! :lol
charlequin
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
This new internalized-self-hatred gamers-should-accept-whatever-terrible-ideas-are-proposed-to-them-or-they're-spoiled meme is just incredibly unattractive. It's like telling people how awesome it was that your boss cut your wages so now the shareholders can get an extra dime in dividends.
TheFightingFish said:
Well, because the former makes Microsoft extra money for their trouble and the latter doesn't.
You're correct to suggest that there are good reasons one might initially be drawn to the idea of charging for patch cert, but I think it's clear that in practice it doesn't have the intended effect because it doesn't change the incentives to launch an early, buggy game (i.e. that delaying your game costs you a lot of money) but it does create an incentive not to actually release a fix for a problem that already exists.
I agree with anyone who says that paying to play online at this point is just ridiculous. People see it as if it was a commodity, its not, its a necessity, its something that should be a santard.
I know he´s talking about paid updates, dlc content etc, but i also agree there.
Im still getting an Xbox though (not gonna use it to play online or buy "maps", already have a PC, thanks but no thanks.), i cant blame Microsoft for doing this when people are responding in a positive manner, paying for live and buying map packs and stuff.
I know he´s talking about paid updates, dlc content etc, but i also agree there.
Im still getting an Xbox though (not gonna use it to play online or buy "maps", already have a PC, thanks but no thanks.), i cant blame Microsoft for doing this when people are responding in a positive manner, paying for live and buying map packs and stuff.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Reknoc said:
Oh yes. I knew there was something with SPM but I couldn't remember what it was. Thanks for the heads up!
Monty Mole
Member
From what I remember, Microsoft's policies on free title updates were originally due to pressure from publishers like EA and Activision. Sony hasn't caved in under the same pressure, but I'm sure there's a reason why Xbox Live gets far more time-exclusive content.
It's stupid though. Just because Game A has free title updates galore doesn't mean the general public automatically expect Game B to have free title updates.
It's stupid though. Just because Game A has free title updates galore doesn't mean the general public automatically expect Game B to have free title updates.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Stumpokapow said:
I don't see many people bitching about patches in general. I see the excessive patching that is the problem. That's why the first patch is free from the console maker. If you want to excessively patch your game, then you have to excessively pay for it.
The only difference is balance patches for online games. That should be done server side without the need for patching that a lot of developers are doing now. Every game/problem you mentioned could have been taken care of by their one free patch.
If you want to complete your list...Stumpokapow said:
(Wii)The Conduit - Online multiplayer exploits
(Wii)Indiana Jones: And the Staff of Kings - random bugs keeping the game from loading the next area and multiple game breaking bugs.
(GBA)European version of Zelda: The Minish Cap - Unable to get 100% completion
(GC)Metroid Prime - Game breaking bug and the first print had a corridor load bug
(GC)Metroid Prime 2: Echoes - Game breaking bug
And there's more Wii games with game breaking and nasty bugs that I can't recall at the moment...
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Firewire said:
Just because someone makes a stupid argument doesn't mean it makes sense to respond with a stupider argument.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
OldJadedGamer said:
All that does it hurt the consumer. We can all agree we should be able to have a working game out of the box, day 1, but that just isn't the reality with most games. When developers have to delay patching a game, because later patches will cost them, that ends up hurting the consumer the most.
I also fail to see how excessive patching is a problem at all. I would rather have my game patched 10 times, then have it patched twice and still have bugs/glitches.
Not all online games an be patched "server side" as not all run on dedicated servers. Bad Company 2 can do server side patching, as it runs on EA's dedicated servers. However most games are P2P and require the client itself to be patched.
DirtyHarry
Banned
Darkshier said:
This is where MS is making most if not all of its money though. Without the XBL service, they would be fucked.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Stumpokapow said:
Internet forums: Where two wrongs make a right.
I can see why Valve has flip-flopped on the console front. I bet at first they thought "Well Xbox and Xbox 360 must be similar to PC, so we should develop for that." Then the PS3 bashing came along. Then they wanted to release L4D updates quickly and even update TF2, Microsoft put them through hell about that. It's likely they were like "Fuck it, let's look at this PS3 thing." And now that's where they are. Bottom line: PS3 was probably unappealing to them because it wasn't as similar to PC, but the myriad of policies and red tape to go through to do anything on Xbox was too much for them to handle, which is why the seeked out PS3. This is why I think all this happened.
charlequin
Banned
OldJadedGamer said:
What exactly makes it "excessive"? Where is the downside to multiple patches? Aren't, indeed, all the best-thought-of PC games the ones that release multiple patches over a long period of time to continue to address issues that crop up after the initial release?
practice02
Banned
Don't you think that comparing patches to a PC game and a console game are little unfair seeing as one has uniform hardware and the other doesn't. And don't you think gameplay balance should be done at the beta level? I can excuse multiplayer balance, but the rest is crazy.charlequin said:
IsntChrisL
Member
watership said:
Developers have to sacrifice one of their firstborn to get clearance to patch a Wii game.
Of course PS3...
charlequin
Banned
practice02 said:
- No I don't, and
- still irrelevant to my point, which is: what makes some number of patches "excessive"?
To be "excessive" is to be "more than is necessary, normal, or desirable." What is undesirable about receiving many patches if there's content worth patching in each? Similarly, why should companies accept that only balance issues that arise during beta should ever be fixable when the mechanism is right there to allow them to fix them later as well?
At some point, a game ships. It may or may not have been well-balanced and bugtested during beta and QA. At that point in time, is it ever better for the developer to not improve it with balance tweaks, bugfixes, and added content?
charlequin said:
All I know is this:
Id rather go back to the days when a game was unplayable for a week or two after buying then patched up to speed...then the days now where games are unplayable and NEVER get patched, lol.
As bad as it was with some pc gaming developers shipping out beta's at retail, it's clearly the LESSER evil. Look at Team Fortress 2 on 360 compared to Steam, for all this extra QA that supposedly gets done it's clear we, the consumers, are the losers.
charlequin said:
Plus, multiple patches are ALWAYS better and keep the game alive since you dealing with problems as they come up; not until you have enough of them piled up until it's worth it(ruining the experience for whatever playbase you have left), lol. With AAA multiplayer titles coming out every other month, imho it's even more important to nurture a community and want them to stay and being on top of 'your shit' can go a long way