Any more patches planned?

[fallen851]

I just wanted to know if anyone had heard any news about CA perhaps doing another patch to fix some of the many problems that still plague RTW...?

[fallen851]

So 1.5, with all the bugs is it?

Wow.

This can't be...

[gardibolt]

I sure hope not, since I've come down with the 237 BC bug and can't progress at all. That basically makes what was a wonderful game unplayable. At least I still have a 1.0 installation I can go back to.

[SirGrotius]

237 BC bug--oh no! Haven't heard about this one.

I recall being a fan of Viking Invasion, and there was a game-killer bug out where your king would expire at age 54 no matter what. It made for some real cheesy strategic decisions.

It seemed to take about 2 years to patch, I'm not sure on the exact date though.

:dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can confirm I don't have the 237 bug so its not universal. I would expect at least one more patch but I think I know why new bugs keep popping up.

[Antiochius]

i wish that no new patch will come in the next time. I`mplaying still with 1.2 the main version and with 1.3 Bi, beciause of the mods. Sure, for some people who have problems is thsi very good, but for me.. I don`t need some new patches in the next time. Everything is wonderful.

[player1]

In my experience publishers stop funding patches after gold/complete version of game get released. Basicly, such version should be complete patched game with all XPs, requiering no future patching.

[rory_20_uk]

At the VERY least they should make a sum of the unofficial patches and make them official.

Unofficial patches, whilst are a godsend are a pain in that they create a panopoly of possibilities concerning further mods (are they included, will they ruin the mod or are they basically required alongside?)

Unless the game is as simple as Bat and Ball there will be bugs as all iterations are untestable. But I think that if errors are found and a solution is even written for them expecting it to be implimented is not asking too much.

~:smoking:

[Ciaran]

Two reasons, time and money. And time is money. Publishers earn nothing from free published patches and funding something that doesn´t bring cash back in is bad management. Heck, were I CFO of Activision/Sega I´d be screaming murder at someone proposing funding a fifth free patch. I know, I know, other companies which I won´t mention here keep patching their games even after years, but compare the sales figures (and lacking those try public name recognation) of these games and RTW.
As for the programming teams/companies, they´re probably working on other projects or have dispersed.

[tai4ji2x]

^yes, but they could also see things more long-term, and realize that it can be profitable in the long run to show how much support you give your product. :book:

of course, not many companies think in those terms anymore. :wall:

[Watchman]

Quarterly capitalism and shareholder value. The only thing they don't suck at is making money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think there will be another patch, if the guys didn't care about the gamers they wouldn't post here, hell the Org gets a mention in the RTW credits! They care, the only concern id whether Sega will let them do another patch. CA don't produce hundreds of games so they can't be known as a crappy developer, plus they probably can afford the time coding while the art and concept guys work on the next game.

If none of that convinces you consider the fact that the next game will probably use the same engine, so getting it right now is actually cheaper.

[C-F]

In my experience publishers stop funding patches after gold/complete version of game get released. Basicly, such version should be complete patched game with all XPs, requiering no future patching.

Hope you're wrong... check RTW Gold here (http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=646498) :no:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah, the double pack release for MTW still got patched.

[GFX707]

Publishers earn nothing from free published patches and funding something that doesn´t bring cash back in is bad management.

....and putting out a half-finished game is even worse management.

[player1]

....and putting out a half-finished game is even worse management.

Is it?

[Ciaran]

If the gaming community as a whole had a long-term memory, then yes. The point is, it doesn´t. Games are a short-term industry, much like the movies. It´s the one game being published now that has to bring in the cash, not the ones planned for the future. Plus, the game industry believes in revolution, each game has to be (percieved as) completely new instead of an evolution. Even games of a series tend to change radically in order to attract new customers.
Don´t get me wrong, I do wish that companies supported their games, or rather I´d much more wish no support were necessary in the first place, but I can see and understand the publisher´s point of view, too.

[Butcher]

Some publishers do still patch games long after the game has gone gold. in fact, they use the patching process as a 'test' for a planned expansion, thus benefitting from the feedback that generates to improve the expansion.