View Full Version : When are the next patches?
Empress_Zoe
02-05-2003, 17:32
Hello all,
I have been waiting for quite some time for another patch, the game does work well, but some glaring balance and ai issues are still there, i was just wondering if any more patches will be brought out? I really hope so, Shogun in its original form got quite a few, then more goodies in addon packs.
However......
I really would be offended if the only patch that came out was available solely in a mod that you have to pay for, somebody, say it ain't so
Z http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
MonkeyMan
02-05-2003, 17:35
hi empress http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Unfortuantely the new patch is called the viking invasion and should be out in the next month or so. It will probably cost you £15-20($20-25) though. guess you just don't get anything for free these days http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Empress_Zoe
02-05-2003, 17:48
Hi Monkey,
Point in fact, we can get our patches because we hold the votes with the money http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
but seriously, it is a joke that they make it 'compulsory' to pay for a patch, i already forked out 90 dollars here for mtw, i thought that price would justify the same amount of patches as shogun got?
I bought a couple of games recently, EU2 and hearts of iron, paradox is patching them(good that they still care about eu2, hoi needs it tho grrrr), I really think many companies are turning these into cash cows, c'mon peaople at CA, i payed full price the game is ok as is, but why should we have to pay for patches? easy, just make a patch without the british isles addon campaign, i think thats fair enough, what do you guys think?
Z http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
HopAlongBunny
02-06-2003, 10:41
I agree with you completely Empress_Zoe. Fact is, looks like no new patch before the add-on. Personally I doubt I will buy it as there is no evidence that it will be supported either. Good news is there are plenty of games out there...some of which the vendors do support http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
:-/
i have an ancient pinball game,
the company that made it release a new patch each time PC architecture changes and makes the game unplayable,
why?
because as long as they do they still get to sell copies...
c'mon CA, just becaue the game is not currently in prodcuction does not mean you can't re-release it next year,
IN FACT, there has been quite a demand for the Shogun Demo, so much so i got tired with having to send email replies pointing out it was no longer available,
you can now download the shogun demo from the org...
the FACT that CA games are not supported very long IS becoming a known fact,
even the dudes at my local EB tell potential customers that support is of a low quality, this CANNOT be good for sales...
I've been beta testing for a computer game company for a couple of years now. They can remain nameless since I'm not here to hawk their wares. One of the continuing series I test has seven games published so far. Every single title going back to the first gets updated with each new game that is released. Occasionally a special update has been done when a significant bug surfaced between games. Of course all these updates are free.
Compare this with the support for MTW from Activision and CA. One patch and the support is ended even though a number of bugs have been acknowledged by them in these forums. Instead of support we are offered the chance to buy an expansion that might fix some bugs in MTW although that isn't clear from the hype.
Continued support for MTW would go a long way toward convincing me to buy Vikings and/or RTW. Without that my money stays in my wallet. I doubt that will mean squat to Activision/CA but it might if enough people sit on their wallets and post their reasons in these forums.
Elmo
Elmo, maybe I know the company of which you speak? Not the now defunct Talonsoft and its battleground series? Yes, they were magnificent in their patches policy (designer John Tiller has still put out some add-ons for those games gratis), but lamentably they are no more. I don't know if they were not selling enough or were doing too well and got bought out. But if VI funds a good RTW game, I'm swallow my pride and buy it. I wish CA had TS's policy on patches, but I wish it avoids TSs fate even more...
Simon
Actually I was a beta for Talonsoft's Bombing the Reich but that isn't the company. I'll give you a big hint. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I do test for John Tiller.
Elmo
Portuguese Rebel
03-01-2003, 23:27
Pay for patches? has the world gone crazy?
First you realease a game with bugs and multiple problems (wich is, per si, a legal problem) then you sell the fix? I would like to see someone try that on my country... They would be sued dry...
Computer gaming is a competitive industry, if a company starts charging for patches i will not buy anything from them. Patches are the only thing that keeps people from warez versions of games and applications. If all developers charged for their patches what would be the advantage of owning the original? i sure wont pay for a patch... because in some games the patch is allways followed by a patch.
And if someone even thinks of pointing out that warez are immoral (wich i think they are), just think about this:
You gonna buy a TV set. You see a model that you like, you read the tech stuff and it is just what you want. You buy it, and when you get home, you turn the TV on and there is a black line across the screen. You think its broken and so you go back to the store and start talking to the store owner:
You: - Sir i think something is wrong with my TV set, it has a black line all across the sceen.
Store owner: - Errr... im sorry sir, but your TV is not broken... if you want to remove the black line (BUG) you just have to apply this quick self installing fix (PATCH).
You: -Great so lets have it then...
Store owner: Well if you are only so kind as to pay this small fee...
You see where this is going...would you pay? i wouldn't. Is it moral? of course not...
You can leave your game unpatched (BUGGY), hell, before the NET began widespread there was no patches at all. But now its a whole new ball game, because without the patch you can't play multiplayer. And the game box said multiplayer didn't it. This smells like contract braking practice. Im no law wise guy but it does not take much. It's called service deprival and advertising with intention to take your money. In my country this is a crime... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Baron von Beer
03-02-2003, 00:48
Actually, Law wise, EULA's, etc, are largely uncharted waters.. I have a close friend, and also a brother in law school, and have become quite interested myself, so learn a lot from them. For example, it hasn't been determined yet if an EULA is legaly binding. Why? The sale of software is, in essence, a contract. You pay X dollars for Y games. You are paying for use of the product. But then.... You get home and go to install, and whats this? EULA.... agree/disagree. Why, it's an amendment to the previously closed sale/contract This was not agreed upon at time of purchase, so technically would be void. Unless, an average person would have reason to believe that an EULA DOES exist on the software. You get Mr. Jones and the kids out buying their first PC, and buy a software title. If you asked him what an EULA was, he would say a university. But, take someone whos been on PCs since the 286 8mhz days, and he could probably recite one verbatim. The same goes with patches. Many EULAs state the product is sold As Is. Thus removing them of the burden of support. Or so they would like. Reading the box, IE the only info you have upon purchase, does it state any of this? No. So how does the law determine what an average person knows? No one has touched that yet, AFAIK, and likeley will not for some time.
I learned a lot reading about a specific case. A company bought some software, and broke the EULA by Reverse Engineering it to fit their needs. They didn't break any copywright laws, etc, as they did not sell it, claim it as their own, etc. They bough as many copies as they needed, modified it to do what they wanted. The maker found out, and sued, afterall, the buyer broke the EULA. In this instance, the buyer won, but IIRC, on some technical issue, so as to not set a trend for the next case, or the one afterthat.
So by the EULA of most titles, they can sell you something that doesn't even install, and not be liable. Will they last long? No. They will make it work, if they intend to be around to release another title. Nearly every type of product made leaves the maker liable to ensure it preforms the function intended. Software really is a black hole as far as that is concerned.
I would love to see a developer release a termite nest of a title with widespread sales. MANY people buy it, find the colony of bugs it houses, and launch a large class action suit. Would be quite interesting to see how the ruling goes, and the resulting changes (if the developer was found to be liable) in the software biz. I guarantee that no longer would products be released 3 months too soon just to make a holiday, and only working after 4 patches, and several months. (I am in no way implying CA/activision. I find the game runs quite well, but patches to improve are always welcome)
KukriKhan
03-02-2003, 11:56
Interesting. So the companies/titles that release several patches are also the ones out of business? That correlation can't be lost on the surviving game dev's and publishers.
I would be interested to discover the cost-to-earnings ratio of game publishing, patch & sequel development, etc.
I confess to ignorance about most other games. For example, does Microsoft, a company with much larger resources than CA, issue more patches for its games? If not, why not? Is it just a losing proposition economically after patch #1?
Sir Black Raven
03-02-2003, 12:25
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif its always the same. They always do after a game is so succefull. They forget who gave them the sucess. About the add on and patch for Medieval be together is just a way of getting out smootly from the problems everybody wrote here. But in long term they will realize that buyers wont tolerate this anymore and wont buy games. I won't for sure.
Knight_Yellow
03-02-2003, 15:08
*trys his hardest to defend CA*
since when did viking invasion become a patch?
all that CA said was that the addon would fix a few balance issues (LIKE EVERY SINGLE ADDON EVER).
its only 20 quid and aqs far as im concerned im buying it to play the new campaign, not to get a patch
i consider the fact that CA are throwing in an update with the new addon very honarable.
I really would be offended if the only patch that came out was available solely in a mod that you have to pay for, somebody, say it ain't so
so by ur definition all expansion pacs are mods that should be free?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
lets all jump of the wagon and just be happy that not only do u get a completely new campaign and a whole lotta stuff for the original u also get a patch.
Big King Sanctaphrax
03-02-2003, 15:38
I agree with Knight_Yellow. VI is an addon, and is designed to make the game more enjoyable. CA have simply fixed a few issues at the same time. Would you be complaining if CA WEREN'T fixing any issues? Would you still pay £20 for VI? I expect you would. The patch is just an extra. Think of it as a free gift, if that helps. It's not that Ca are making you buy it anyway. If you don't like it, abstain, and miss all the pillaging.
Teutonic Knight
03-02-2003, 17:05
Quote[/b] (Empress_Zoe @ Feb. 05 2003,10:48)]Hi Monkey,
Point in fact, we can get our patches because we hold the votes with the money http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
but seriously, it is a joke that they make it 'compulsory' to pay for a patch, i already forked out 90 dollars here for mtw, i thought that price would justify the same amount of patches as shogun got?
I bought a couple of games recently, EU2 and hearts of iron, paradox is patching them(good that they still care about eu2, hoi needs it tho grrrr), I really think many companies are turning these into cash cows, c'mon peaople at CA, i payed full price the game is ok as is, but why should we have to pay for patches? easy, just make a patch without the british isles addon campaign, i think thats fair enough, what do you guys think?
Z http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Where in blue hell are you paying 90 dollars for MTW?
rasoforos
03-02-2003, 17:15
the problem , and the reason that makes so many people compain, is that practically the game isnt even finished. I mean GA does not work properly and everyone knows that , it is mentioned in the Box as a feature so it should . A patch came and did not correct the problem and another one is not coming. The game is nice but paying full price money for an 'almost finished' game and then refusing to correct it is not good. I will not be surprised if i see RTW not so sell a lot during the first week or two , i personally am going to wait for a month or two before i buy.
it does seem weird, would be nice if CA could advise us of their official patching policy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Rob The Bastard
03-02-2003, 18:45
TK...
Quote ]Where in blue hell are you paying 90 dollars for MTW?.[/b]
Most games here are 100$NZ, sometimes 105-110$NZ... but with the Exchange rate that would be equivilent to 56$US.
100$NZ seems a reasonable price to me... if I want a game I don't mind paying that much for it. If the price is more than that I start to question whether I need the game or not.
Interesting. So the companies/titles that release several patches are also the ones out of business? That correlation can't be lost on the surviving game dev's and publishers.
I would be interested to discover the cost-to-earnings ratio of game publishing, patch & sequel development, etc.
Talonsoft is gone, not because they made patches, but because wargaming is a small niche market. They made their name in that market, but never were huge sellers. They tried to expand into other areas but couldn't come up with successful designs. It's too bad, since I liked their games, I still play Napoleon in Russia from time to time, but it can't be seen as any indication of the economics of patch design. I would be very leery of buying a game that didn't have a patch, just because I don't believe that companies can get it everything right out of the box. There are many competing computer architecture and software configurations to accomodate, and many unanticipated problems will always emerge.
I doubt that patches take up that much time, since the issues addressed are usually rather narrow.
If only CA would fix the AI problems that have been addressed in the dungeon, especially the programming error that leads the AI not to consider whether it has enough troops to defend a province after it moves troops out to invade another province, I would be satisfied.
That's not sexy enough to bring in new buyers, however, so fixing known problems is not a very high priority apparantly.
Red Harvest
03-02-2003, 23:14
Patches *shouldn't* be hard to continue doing to fix bugs--including general gameplay issues. It should be possible to continue patching older versions of the series. The economic driver is that the series *must* continue new sales for this to be viable. You can't support old games with no new income. I don't mind buying new add-ons as long as patches continue for older versions of the games. Unfortunately, that isn't happening.
One thing I've learned is that strong players are often better at fixing games than developers... I've done a few mods in various games and what I end up is always far closer to the developers stated intent than the game that is in the box (with or without patches). Strong players should be tapped for AI improvements. In strategy games like this I'm sure I could set down with the AI programmer or team and help them write a set of additonal rules/algorithm's that would make their games much stronger (thereby improving future engines and sales...) You can't get a strong AI until people have had a lot of time to find the loopholes and flaws in the first AI. It is an iterative process. The programmers know how to put it in code, but many of the players are better at discovering new plans and developing a rule set.
I cringe when I hear any game is based on a new XXXXX engine. Why? It usually means many of the same bugs that have been fixed with the previous engine, will reappear all over again. On the other hand, crappy engines like Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator series should be scrapped entirely, yet they recycle it without addressing the obvious flaws from the last iteration--ARRGGGGGGGGGGG MSCFS series is notorious for utter lack of support, but I digress.
Knight_Yellow
03-03-2003, 15:05
at the end of the day i am going to buy viking invasion and realisticly if u arent then musnt have liked the original mutch so i dont see why u whant a patch.
maybe if every1 here whent out and picked up any mexpac they would realise that they all enhance the original game or patch it if u will.
Teutonic Knight
03-03-2003, 16:40
Quote[/b] (Rob The Bastard @ Mar. 02 2003,11:45)]TK...
Quote ]Where in blue hell are you paying 90 dollars for MTW?.
Most games here are 100$NZ, sometimes 105-110$NZ... but with the Exchange rate that would be equivilent to 56$US.
100$NZ seems a reasonable price to me... if I want a game I don't mind paying that much for it. If the price is more than that I start to question whether I need the game or not.
Oh, I see, I thought you meant you were paying 90 U.S. dollars for it...
Empress_Zoe
03-03-2003, 18:19
In Australia, many new games come out at around 80 to 90 Aussie dollars, and im usually a waiter when it comes to games, i will continue to be one again methinks....
I remember when i started with comp games on my C64 when i was a kid, patches were not existant, however, air conditioning in cars was a luxury too so......times are changing, back in the dark ages of computing the bugs were a maker or breaker of games simply because if the bugs ruled, the game was kaput, period...
nowdays, you can escape this with the online patch system, medieval is a very entertaining game, however, the ai especially in strat mode does leave a LOT to be desired, so, in my argument, perhaps making it more intelligent would be a great idea, its not a lot to ask for, not a lot at all, im sure it wouldn't even cost a great deal either....
im fairly certain from reading here that most ppl would agree with me? many games that need very little in the way of patches still get a few to address fan concerns etc, so why is this so hard? even Barocca stated that CA is getting a name for being poor in supporting its products.....not good.
as for my 'paying for patches' theme, think about it, i even said release a patch that does NOT include the bells and whistles of the addon pack, just fix the issues that consumers have with their product....pays to read a post sometimes...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Im really sorry if i have offended anyone here, im not a girl that tends to stick to any particular company, i respect that they are money making businesses, but i will happily give credit where it is due, and also voice what i would like to have for my money, in that i have the same power as every other person here, by that i mean part power to make or break a company, regardless of slick marketers lol
That is why i have decided that i will be watching with great interest what the people in here have to say about VI and will certainly wait out the incubation period before i buy.....i've been gaming for quite some time, so im more than happy to sit on my laurels in this area even to the point of getting it in the bargain bin, which is my usual trick.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Im quite happy with medieval, however im not that happy that i will pay full price for any new games straight away, Shogun made me happy enough to do just that, time to remember hard lessons i have learned already
have a good one
Z http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Empress_Zoe
03-03-2003, 18:42
Just reread some of the posts......one alarming attitude i saw was 'The patch is just an extra. Think of it as a free gift, if that helps. It's not that Ca are making you buy it anyway.'.....A free gift??? omg, who told you this? a company executive? pleeeeeeeaaaaasssssseeeeee
A patch is NOT a gift, it is a correction that makes a game much more playable and usable than it is straight out of the box, it is a 'fix' of weak or broken points of the game that annoys and/or angers players of the game in question and allows the game company to make good of its promises or improve the game to a standard expected from players to increase sales and the possibility of consumers buying the next product without fear of another faulty or poor product(and make sure they don't wait around for it to appear in the bargain bins, hence destroying the companies profit... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif), in short, it says 'hey there, we are sorry for those glitches, let us try and fix some of those for you' instead of the current attitude 'heres a little fix, sorry we rushed the game, but times up, the game is done to OUR satisfaction, we don't feel like doing anything with it....at least not for free' (envision that little sleazey corrupt mexican guy at Drassen airport in Jagged alliance 2 saying it)....
So please don't let yourself be beaten into thinking that way about patches, they are not a 'gift' they are a goodwill fix that make consumers happy, and deliver what was advertised and expected from the players in the first place....a little late, but hey, better late than never CA
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
Yellow knight, I do enjoy playing MTW however it is not done to the same standards as shogun was, and therefore i am not completely happy with it, at all
So, if i choose not to buy VI, it has no other meaning other than that i am not paying for a patch, and if it doesn't have a very LARGE amount of great things in it, stated that is by members of the playing community, NOT by what CA says, then i will wait for RTW, and again wait to see what the intrepid pioneers that buy the game first have to say......over a few months of course.
cya,
Z http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Old Bald Guy
03-03-2003, 18:48
I dunno...from what I've read about Vikings Invasion, it doesn't appear CA is addressing many of the things that have been posted as good ideas, much less must haves. I've been wavering about whether or not to buy the expansion pack. From the recently posted interview, I don't think I will. I want MORE of what I have, not different. VI doesn't appear to do that, but be a nearly new game. I don't particularly want to play it, honestly. I want to play M:TW with more diplomacy, a better economic engine, and more aggressive AI when it comes to attacking other factions.
It doesn't seem as if patching what we've got already should be that hard. The jury is still out whether I will buy Rome:TW. I love this game, but wonder if, based on what I've read, it will be more of the same: new game--not finished.
Guess I never will find the perfect game.
Well just to be different, too many patches are a bad thing too. I mean look at Half-Life, it must have had dozerns of patches, although that might well be why it is so popular, because it can move with the times *ponders...* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.