View Full Version : Request - Fixing Total War: The Bigger Picture
locked_thread
06-14-2007, 23:55
edit
centurie
06-15-2007, 00:00
what bugs are you talking about ??have you patched to 1.2 ??please list the bugs
While your idea possesses merit, the ideal is the following: do not release until superior quality is secured.
DVX BELLORVM
06-15-2007, 00:11
what bugs are you talking about ??have you patched to 1.2 ??please list the bugs
:inquisitive: Take a look: buglist (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=82991)
Why is every Total War game overwhelmed with bugs and play balance issues?
I don't think they are. In terms of bugs, I think STW, MTW and RTW were left in pretty good shape, just as M2TW 1.2 is in pretty good shape now.
If you had said "overwhelmed on release" or "Total War game 1.0", you might have had a point about M2TW. I'm not sure about the older titles.
darth_napo
06-15-2007, 01:06
1) CA offer game 'licenses' on a monthly renewal program. To run the game, you log into their secure server instead of inserting the CD. Licenses should be affordable, say $10 per month, with reduced fees levied for periods with less activity.
to the hell with it, I'm living in a 3rd world country :no: :embarassed: :wall:
Absolutely screw the monthly license thing. I bought the game, I'm not playing an MMORPG, and I will not pay to continue playing something I already paid for. If I wanted that, I'd play Everquest. I'm not paying for a service; its a stand-alone game. Maybe do something like Steam and use that as a patch release system, a way to connect to others for multiplayer games, and even a way to sell the game initially. Hell, even sell "episodic" content, as Valve does with HL2, which is basically a more frequent expansion pack system. I'd pay for that, as long as the "new" content added worthwhile things. I don't want to, nor do I think I should have to pay to have the game I bought fixed when it has bugs. No company on earth would last doing that for very long.
Sorry. I read the original post and became inflammed. No worries, ibuprophen took care of it. ;)
Sorry but I actually like 1.2 like a few others here. It's not perfect, but it's fun and it's definitely better than monthly fees and giving everybody my adress and credit card data or having to buy some sort of tickets at game shops all the time. Not to mention that if I payed 10$ per month for a game, I'd expect a bit more than just bugfixes.
I actually think that's a horrible idea, especially for people who cannot afford that.
Rebellious Waffle
06-15-2007, 02:35
When dealing with folks from abroad, I have a maxim: "Don't make fun of their English unless you speak their language really well."
The same applies to CA. There are bugs in the games they make, certainly. But am I a better game programmer, project lead, graphic artist, producer, historical researcher and beta tester than everyone at the company? No; their games are enormous. They also have the most detailed and realistic strategy game engine on the planet today that I know about. They've contrived a battle system that lets you put thousands of soldiers on the screen together in real time. There's a wing and a prayer of real diplomacy, which is unheard-of in most other strategy games.
Given how many lines of code and how many man-years go into creating games like those of the Total War series, I'm not all that upset about an occasional bug. It's not like I could have written less buggy code myself and still get the level of functionality they provide. If their patches are no more than bug fixes, what of it? The game has lots of interesting content as it is. I'm more than content to wait for the expansion, if they feel like releasing one.
Absolutely screw the monthly license thing.
You could have stopped right there. This is unequivocally my stance, I refuse to pay subscription fees for games. If I wanted that (which I don't), I'd go play WoW or some other MMO. Sorry to be blunt about this, but CA does need to get their act together about patching. Memory tells me that STW and MTW were reasonably stable at release. Some view RTW as miserable at launch, I didn't mind it that much. M2TW at launch made Oblivion look like a bug-free game, and that's saying a lot. My hope is that in the future, CA will spend more time polishing and refining what they have, and stop taking away all the so called "little things" like cityview that really round out and add that extra layer of polish to the games.
I'll play advocate here though for a moment. IF they tried to go with a subscription model, it's a given that they'd have to invest a very significant, serious amount of time in the multiplayer aspect of the game, which they've effectively demonstrated with the current title that MP is essentially an afterthought. People don't pay monthly fees for patches, they pay for rather significant regular content updates, the exclusivity of subscription-based online play, and regular/reliable online services.
They also have the most detailed and realistic strategy game engine on the planet today that I know about.
erm are you playing the same game as me
I think that may be a slight exageration
I really like the original poster's idea!
See, I'm a game developer myself, and it sounds wonderful. Heck, if you guys are not only willing to buy an unfinished game, but will actually pay extra for it, on a monthly basis, who am I to say no?
Maybe we could apply this reasoning to other fields, as well. I'm sure they'd love it, too.
"Oh, we didn't really have time to put wheels on your new SUV. Pay us extra and we'll be happy to, though."
"Of course your new wide-screen TV doesn't have a picture. It's a complicated piece of equipment, and some features have to be sacrificed for a reasonable production schedule. Just sign up for our monthly subscription, and we'll add a color periodically. Let's start with green."
"We here at Regal Furniture pride ourselves in customer support. Sure, some of our chairs only have two or three legs, but we're dedicated to adding new legs at regular intervals for a minimal monthly fee."
Genius!
God I love bad consumers.
EDIT: Wait... CyanCentaur, do you work for Microsoft? ^_^
I really like the original poster's idea!
EDIT: Wait... CyanCentaur, do you work for Microsoft? ^_^
no blizzard
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-15-2007, 03:56
If I pay 10 bucks a month for patches, they better be 100% bug free, completely historically accurate, and cure cancer.
Furious Mental
06-15-2007, 03:58
Licence fees? No x 10 to the 58th power.
Nebuchadnezzar
06-15-2007, 04:04
Consumers with such deep pockets and shallow minds.
Here's an idea. What say if I pay 50 bucks as a once of payment for a 98% bug free game. It doesn't even need to cure cancer or be historically accurate!!!
Doug-Thompson
06-15-2007, 04:05
Is this a joke?
No. Never. I'd quit and play checkers before paying a monthly fee, without regret or a second thought.
heynow21
06-15-2007, 04:18
People saying this game has no bugs are kidding themselves. The game has ZERO AI. There was a poll earlier asking if anyone had ever lost a campaign game and I had to chuckle, because basically it's impossible to lose one.
M2TW had alot of bugs when it came out. Many were so obvious a five year old would have spotted them off the bat. CA got sloppy about catching those and SEGA got sloppy too by missing them as well. The first patch didnt really fix a whole heck of alot neither IMO. It was the modders that fixed alot of the big items IMO and they should be commended for doing what CA and SEGA should have done in the beginning. Hopefully CA will learn from this mistake and not do it again but I have a feeling they won't. This isnt their first time at being sloppy IMHO.
Okay, now having said all that I think the subscription idea is a bad idea for CA. I simply wouldnt subscribe. I'm thinking alot of other M2TW fans would feel the same way. M2TW isnt an online game so it wouldnt work in this situation. Nor would I like it which I have already said. I respect the OP's idea and the right to put forth that idea but I dont care for it personally.
Is this a joke?
No. Never. I'd quit and play checkers before paying a monthly fee, without regret or a second thought.
:yes: Though I'de rather player chess.
Monsieur Alphonse
06-15-2007, 05:29
I started with 1.01 and enjoyed it thoroughly. Before reading on this forum about the bugs I even didn't know about a lot of them. Of course I had some CTDs and other mischief but I have never played a game that didn't have bugs. Now I am playing 1.02 and still have a very good time.
overwhelmed with bugs and play balance issues Well you just have to play along with these and adjust your tactics. I have never played a game were the human player wasn't able in using exploits / out trick the AI. In the end it is a computer game.
If you don't like it don't play it. Pick up gardening. That has a nice calming effect upon people.
Paying extra for patches. If you succeed you will be awarded the businessmen of the year award :laugh4:
Paying extra for patches. If you succeed you will be awarded the businessmen of the year award :laugh4:
And suddenly sprout horns and a forked tail.
Of course, that's sort of of the same thing. ^_^
Kobal2fr
06-15-2007, 07:10
That's of course forgetting basic cynicism : if your income is suddenly based on bugfixes... well, you're not really that driven to fix ALL the bugs, are you ? More than likely, you'll be really thrilled when you design a patch that breaks something else for each problem it fixes. See : MMO patches, Microsoft, General Motors :grin:
EDIT : BTW, did you happen to know that most major antivirus companies have a few virus designers on the payroll ? You know, to create new breeds so that you actually need updated virus files all the time ? Food for thought :]
diotavelli
06-15-2007, 09:37
Got to agree with the majority opinion here.
There's normally roughly 2 years between TW titles coming out. That means the average player will play each one for 24 months. At $10 per month, that works out at $240 per title. That's six times the current cost. Add in an expansion after a year for a further $120 per year. Then consider that many of us go back and play the older titles occasionally. We could easily end up spending $400+ per year for the privilege of playing TW games.
Does anyone believe that the experience of playing bug-free TW games is worth that much?
Bug fixes don't sell games. Two years from now when CA announces their Next TotalWar Game, players will be a) drooling over carefully staged screenshots, b) drooling over bogus feature lists, and c) drooling over rave reviews written by crackheads.
I think you're only partly correct here. Two years from now, players will be "drooling over carefully staged screenshots". But, after the experience with M2TW, there will be a great deal more concern about the quality of the released game. A lot depends on the expansion planned for later this year: if it's largely clean, that will reassure many of the customer base; if it's not, CA will be in trouble.
If you go back to the comments on this forum around release-time, you'll find that people were asking whether the AI was any good and if likes/dislikes from RTW were still included. Then people started identifying and publicising bugs. That won't be the case next time around. The first thing people will be asking is: "is it bugged?" If the answer is "yes", a lot of people are going to hold off buying it until they know when the patches are due (or maybe even wait until post-patch).
Or, to put it more briefly, bug fixes do sell games: games these days are rarely bug-free on release but a company that provides timely and effective fixes will retain customers. CA has work to do in that area. Charging people to put right what you got wrong in the first place is not the way to do it.
What's really funny is that in the first few weeks of playing Medieval 2 I was actually amazed to have such a stable and bug-free game. I don't want to say that others are lying when they say it crashed often for them, but for me the crashes actually started in 1.01 when Mongols broke a gate or in some other cutscenes including Mongols, hasn't even been fixed in 1.02 for me but I deactivated cutscenes now, I like that better anyway.:2thumbsup:
But I seriously believed, until weeks after realease when the shield bug and the twohander bug became obvious, that this was one of the least bug-infested games I've bought.:laugh4:
And they actually fixed quite a lot and 1.02 is really enjoyable, I think MTW also needed two patches or so to feel really finished.
HoreTore
06-15-2007, 12:12
I don't really care how bugged a game is at release, if it's virtually bug-free after the final patch(like rtw), I'm happy.
I'd take an earlier release date over less bugs any day of the week. As long as the game is playable, and the bugs will be fixed eventually, I'll have fun while waiting for the bugs to be fixed. If they decided to hold the release until nearly all the bugs have been fixed, I'd get a lot less fun out of it. And getting the most fun out of the product is really all I want. That's accomplished better by an earlier bugged released date than a later one.
But I suppose I'm a patient man, and I don't get angry at something trivial like a computer game...
Many were so obvious a five year old would have spotted them off the bat. CA got sloppy about catching those and SEGA got sloppy too by missing them as well.
Your assuming they didn't spot them.
Oh yeah and the idea of paying a monthly fee for patches is not one i like, patches are, and always should be, free.
Rebellious Waffle
06-15-2007, 14:48
erm are you playing the same game as me
I think that may be a slight exageration
Compared to, say, Warcraft 3?
ASPER THE GREAT
06-15-2007, 17:52
NO WAY ~:angry: !!!! This is just ridicules :dizzy: I know that the computer gaming companies want to make $$$$$ expansion pack, internet play, "MONTHLY FEES" ect... screw that. Chess sounds good :pleased: .
Let us get real show me the money how much did it cost to make MTW2?
Now how much did CA/SEGA make from the sales? :2cents:
Are they going out of business "NOT", are they going to stop making Total War games "NOT". So just give me the next patch or game & let's get on with it :yes: . ~:cheers: :charge: :unitedstates: :italy: :unitedkingdom:
ps. TEST THE GAME FIRST BEFORE RELEASE :2thumbsup:
ps. TEST THE GAME FIRST BEFORE RELEASE
Do you think they list all those testers in the credits for fun or something?
Sheogorath
06-15-2007, 18:18
If CA goes to a monthly subscription for a SINGLE PLAYER OFFLINE GAME, I'll just have to find some alternative to the TW series, and you can bet that fanmade versions will start popping up as the TW series starts to hemmorage customers.
I dont see why people support the whole, "Pay $50 for a game, then every four weeks pay $10 to keep playing it." system.
And, y'know, there are games FAR more buggy than MTW2 was on release. I personally dont see what people complain about. It had some gameplay bugs, but I personally have never experienced a crash or lockup with MTW2 (that wasnt caused by something else.) I had one or two crashes with RTW, but they were easy to avoid.
Also, lets not forget the people out there without A) An internet connection on their gaming computer or B) 56k. Believe it or not, they exist. Used to be me a few months ago until we FINALLY got a DSL line in our neighborhood. If CA goes to the suggested system, they'll lose a TON of customers simply because of that.
Anyway, in summary, a monthly subscription would be the death of CA.
trickydicky
06-15-2007, 18:22
"We here at Regal Furniture pride ourselves in customer support. Sure, some of our chairs only have two or three legs, but we're dedicated to adding new legs at regular intervals for a minimal monthly fee."
Loooollll, we run a furniture company, needless to say that was really funny.
We would love to be able to do things like that. :laugh4:
And to the original poster.
Pigs will fly and hell will freeze over, before that happens.
I don't mind paying a monthly fee for a MMORPG, but for a normal game I have already purchased?
I would rather stick my head in a hornets nest!
DVX BELLORVM
06-15-2007, 18:58
First, I must say the CA has done a great job producing M2TW. It is a great game, and the RTW was great too. I can't say anything for MTW and STW because I didn't played them.
But all of those games were very much bugged upon their release. Considering the complexity, it would be strange if they were not. This brings the first issue - those games were released too early and were not properly tested, despite of all of the testers mentioned in the credits! Unfortunately, this has become a trend for all publishers lately.
Basically we buy faulty, unfinished games. Therefore, it should be the obligation for the developers to release the patches until all of the bugs are fixed! It should be their first priority! I don't care if they are already working on their next product and don't have the time or resources to work on the patches. I paid for this game and I expect it to work as it was meant to!
BTW, HoreTore, Rome TW is not bug-free after the last patch, there are at least two major bugs: the siege tower bug and the flood bug (which is unfortunately, still present in M2TW!).
EDIT: CyanCentaur, IMO, the idea to pay a monthly tribute to play the game is absurd!
The first priority should be to make certain version 1.0, the release version, of the game is flawless. And there should be no announcements of any kind even hinting at the new game in development unless it's certain it will be bombin' us all to hell in perfect goodness.
If you do something do it right or don't do it. Of course the money issue would come in, but ah...
:)
I'll say one thing about the TW games: they made me permanently shelf other similar games (Age of Empires, Rise of Nations etc.) because of the superior realism of Total War. That alone is a very worthwhile achivement. With that said however, I must add that unless MTW2 is properly purged of bugs (1.2 patch was a step in the right direction but not enough imho) I will not be buying its expansion, nor will I be buying their next title until at least a year after its release.
GAH!
Vanya sez monthly fees are absurd! Vanya will not pay such a ridiculuous thing.
Vanya sez...
Patches are a cost of doing business.
What is at stake is reputation. No patches means reputation suffers. Reputation will have an effect on future sales.
It comes down to delivering quality.
If CA finds that having 100 developers in England is too expensive, they can cut that to 20 and hire 10,000 Indians. With all that extra manpower, they can cut dev time and increase quality.
Mind you, Vanya has experience with this. It is not easy to do, and using Indians means you must manage them very carefully, which increases management costs.
The point is: there are options and avenues.
Vanya does not have time to waste spending 23 hrs a day in a "virtual world". GAH! Crazy!
Vanya sez... the current product is fine. While not perfect, it can be made better with the next release of the game (ie, "Kingdoms"). Software is iterative, and perfection never comes on the first try. Why do you think Microsoft products only really start working after Service Pack 2?
Developers do not like to hear "this does not work" or "this sucks". Rather, they would rather get something specific and descriptive so they can focus their efforts. Don't bash, be constructive with your criticisms, and CA might put in extra effort.
Vanya works in this field. Vanya knows what He is talking about. Listen to Vanya and heed His words of wisdom. Oh, and cut heads off!
GAH!
VANYA!!! Gah!
Methinks that, while great in practice, cut heads off would be counterproductive in terms of taking CA to task, though...
Syrous_PL
06-15-2007, 21:25
AI issue:
What I found perplexing was that the original M:TW had a pretty smart AI. Then the R:TW was released, so there should be no way that the AI had to be reworked from the start. Why didn't the developers use the experience from in programming the AI from the previous 2 games?
Even in 1.2 I still see the computer controlled reinforcements moving in in total disarray like a mob not an army...
But all in all when you look at the game it is pretty impressive. So, ppl shouldn't be nitpicking because there is not a single game on the market right now that can offer you the features that Total War does...
Doug-Thompson
06-15-2007, 21:35
Let me explain my earlier, strong reaction.
I'm hit up ever day for wonderful things for "only" $10 a month. Car insurance. Health insurance. Unemployment insurance. Cell phone plans. Faster internet.
EVERYBODY keeps digging at me: "Just $10 a month!"
One reason I enjoy computer games is that they are virtually commercial-free, if you ignore the product placement in some of the trendy games.
Now I'm supposed to pay a monthly fee for the one thing that doesn't hit me up for a monthly fee?
No thanks.
Kobal2fr
06-15-2007, 22:14
The first priority should be to make certain version 1.0, the release version, of the game is flawless. And there should be no announcements of any kind even hinting at the new game in development unless it's certain it will be bombin' us all to hell in perfect goodness.
If you do something do it right or don't do it. Of course the money issue would come in, but ah...
:)
With the ressources needed to make a game these days, there's just no way to survive releasing "flawless" games anymore, unless we're talking 3D tic-tac-toe simulators :)
I'm sure you've heard the saying "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time" ?
Now consider that M2TW took 3 years to develop, and that's using much if not mostly Rome's code. To release M2 pristine would most likely have taken two, three more years. Who feeds CA during that time ? I'm sure they're all great guys who are utterly dedicated to the quality of their work, but they still have metabolisms. And mortgages.
So SEGA does. And SEGA watches over CA's shoulder and sends auditors in little grey suits who use words like "return on investment" and "honor the blood compact, minion !". Publishers are fairly rarely altruistic people. They do look snazzy from the top of their pitchforks to the bottom of their hooves though :clown:.
So CA rushes the game for Xmas, because the choice between having to disappoint its fanbase a bit, for a few months, until they can iron out that other 10% ; and missing out on the millions of grandmas and mummies who want to buy something cool for little Kevin who likes knights, weeeell... It's not even a choice at all :/
Especially considering the fact that the perfect, mindblowing game they wish they could have released if not for ugly monetary considerations, they can hope to achieve through later patches and expansions.
And frankly, CA has been pretty frickin' committed to their bugfixing and feature-adding in the past, compared to some other studios I could name (Troika, anyone ?).
This is my view, a view shared by many others.
Why is every Total War game overwhelmed with bugs and play balance issues? Why are gamers frustrated with CA?
Hah, stop whining. If it was overwhelmed, you wouldn't be able to play it at all. I personally am able to play the game and find that almost all units are bug free, and nearly everything works as it should.
Because CA has no immediate financial incentive to invest manpower in "released" products.
And yet we are on patch version 1.2. Kinda defeats your argument.
Bug fixes don't sell games. Two years from now when CA announces their Next TotalWar Game, players will be a) drooling over carefully staged screenshots, b) drooling over bogus feature lists, and c) drooling over rave reviews written by crackheads.
You need a working game to carefully stage screenshots. It is illegal to advertise features that are not in the game.
And when the can of worms is revealed, players are horrified.
You mean you are horrified. I personally, like thousands of others, will be enjoying the game.
The gaming community demands increasingly complex and lengthy campaigns, which inherently requires more tweaking and feedback to get things dialed in.
And we get them. Do you know how many campaigns are going to be in factions?
I am sick of hearing people whining about how the game is filled with bugs and is unbalanced. How can you possibly expect every bug to surface in the beta testing period if some bugs take months of careful combing of the game by a forum viewed by hundreds? I was suprised when viewing the bug list - I hadn't noticed any when playing myself. But then, I wasn't specifically looking for any.
If you want a real horror story about poor customer service look no farther than Blizzard.
This is a company who deliberately sold faulty copies of their Burning Crusade Collectors Edition to thousands of European customers and then considered that they were doing them a favour by offering to put the fault right, but only if they ruined their collectors sets by posting a unique collectors card at their own expense to a post office box in France.
And when predictably hundreds of these went missing in the post and in their offices they just shrugged and and walked away.
Now thats Customer Service the Blizzard way.:furious3:
locked_thread
06-16-2007, 00:19
edit
Thank you for your comments, everyone.
It might be a good idea to remember, if this topic is to continue, that CA is - surprise surprise - staffed by living, breathing people. Some of them read these forums.
So it would be great if you all could all make an effort to refrain from criticising the people, even if you feel the need to criticise the product.
Oh, and it'd also be nice if everyone could tone the language down a little, too :yes:
And a final reminder that this is a thread about a possible alternate pricing method for TW games, not for a discussion about how evil blizzard is.
We have the Arena for that sort of stuff :laugh4:
~sapi
unknown_user
06-16-2007, 05:41
Just want to add my two cents, and say that monthly fees are OK, in certain situations. These situations are as follows:
When the game is an MMORPG.
I don't see any reason to pay monthly for other situations. MMORPG's require a certain amount of manpower and dedication that greatly surpasses that of any patch development team I know of. They require a large amount of servers to be reliably maintained online.
Paying monthly for patches and maintained quality in overwhelmingly single player games would cut off many gamers, not just those incensed with the idea. I, myself, would be unable to play, and not just because I disagree with paying. I'm moving into a somewhat financially unstable situation soon, and I don't know for sure how much extra money I'm going to be taking in for a few months. I'll have more bills than I know what to do with, and the question becomes: Do I pay $15 to play City of Heroes this month, or do I buy these groceries so I can eat?
Ramses II CP
06-16-2007, 06:35
I won't pay a monthly fee for gaming personally. I also waited until 1.02 was released to buy MTW2, and I didn't buy or play RTW (Though I loved Shogun and MTW and especially VI). I stopped buying broken games after Myth III came out. That, BTW, is the game that saw the development team fired about 2 weeks after the game was released, before they could complete a patch to make the game playable. Not that Take Two pulled it off the shelves or anything, they just sold it with full on broken MP and severely crashy SP, and quite a lot of websites reviewed it positively despite that.
Be a responsible consumer. The only way to 'fix' the gaming industry is to buy games only when they're stable and playable. A good general rule is not to buy *anything* at 1.0.
Ramses II
IrishArmenian
06-16-2007, 07:09
$10 a month? I cannot possibly get that! Do you realise what that money is in other parts of the world?
Rushed products are never the fault of the developers, rather the fault of the producers for rushing the game's developers. I don't blame CA for anything. Sega is another story entirely.
Well it sounds like most people don't like my idea. That's ok.
I think the problem with your subsciption idea has been fully covered. Mainly it just doesn't give the software provider enough incentive to correct the software.
However, at the moment the only incentive is its reputation as a company and as Blizzard have shown most software companies have little interest in that either.
Perhaps one solution would be a system where one paid a deposit to play a game 'On Approval' and were only required to pay the balance of the agreed purchase price once you were satisfied that the game was free from playability problems and fit for purpose. That would put the pressure on the supplier to ship quality product and to fix any faults discovered by customers quickly.
But to be honest I can't see that happening, and its not really much different to the existing option of taking the game back to the shop and demanding your money back.
But there IS a longstanding quality problem with the TW series and I think it's partly due to the payment structure. I once read a comment (rumor? fact?) on the STW boards that sent a chill up my spine - that CA refused to pay programmers to generate patches but allowed them to issue patches in their personal free time only!!
There is a long standing quality problem with computer software in general, and with the payment structure of paying for it. The TW series is just one small part of a much bigger problem. What has become even more apparent with the Blizzard incident is that the larger software companies consider themselves beyond the reach of normal legislation designed to protect the rights of their consumers, and do not consider that their businesses should be subject to standard consumer rights legislation.
The scary thing is they seem to be right. Consumer protection agencies seem to be incapable of dealing with quality issues related to computer software or with breaches of consumer protection which are instigated beyond their national boundaries.
Buy an iron that doesn't heat up or an oven that doesn't cook and their right there on the case. Ring them up with details of poor quality programming and a bug list as long as the forth bridge and their completely dumbfounded.
For a perfect example: look no further than windows.
As for not paying programmers to correct their own bugs. I don't know if its true but it sounds perfectly reasonable. If you contract with a programmer to produce a peice of code to a given spec, and that code is delivered with numerous bugs in it, why would you then pay the programmer to correct his own mistakes. The requirement would have been for bug free code and any remedial work ought to be completed at the programmers own expense. After all we would not expect to play CA for the patches we need to correct those bugs in the game after it was sold to us.
Kobal2fr
06-16-2007, 11:07
The scary thing is they seem to be right. Consumer protection agencies seem to be incapable of dealing with quality issues related to computer software or with breaches of consumer protection which are instigated beyond their national boundaries.
Have you ever taken the time to read any of those "by clicking next, you implicitly accept all these terms" blurbs they put in installation setups ? Very informative. Lawyerly brilliance at its shiniest. They stop short of printing "also, you accept to give us heartfelt thanks and the virginity of your daughter should this particular piece of software make your computer explode and give you genital warts", but one gets the feeling it was an automated spellchecker's conscience that dictated it to remove the line.
HoreTore
06-16-2007, 11:53
BTW, HoreTore, Rome TW is not bug-free after the last patch, there are at least two major bugs: the siege tower bug and the flood bug (which is unfortunately, still present in M2TW!).
I rate both of these as minor bugs. I've never been too bothered by them. Heck, it took a pretty long time before I even noticed them.
As for the "Patching is the number one priority!"-thingy, I guess that means you want everyone at CA to work with the patches before they start any work on an expansion?
As for the "Patching is the number one priority!"-thingy, I guess that means you want everyone at CA to work with the patches before they start any work on an expansion?
Well I certainly do.
Kobal2fr
06-16-2007, 12:23
Why would both concepts be antithetic ?
They can work a truckload of fixes INTO the expansion. Thus having an economic incentive to fix bugs because we'd have to fork out our hard-earned cash (well, your hard-earned cash and my mooched-off sycophanted cash, I suppose) on the expansion to get the patchy-filled goodness under the "brilliant new campaigns, units, and stuff" crust. Hoorray !
What a novel idea I just had. I wonder why they didn't do just that with their earlier games... :grin:
DVX BELLORVM
06-16-2007, 12:27
I rate both of these as minor bugs. I've never been too bothered by them. Heck, it took a pretty long time before I even noticed them.
I'm surprised you consider those bugs to be minor. The sieges are important part of TW games, and the siege tower bugs makes them pretty annoying, especially towards the end of campaign, when there are more large stone walls, which are particularly affected by the bug.
As far as the flood bug is concerned, you may rate it as minor if you do not build many watchtowers and forts. I usually build WT all along my borders, and use forts to guard choke points and secure my supply lines. In my current English campaign, Bordeaux was struck early by flood, and it bothers me that I can't build anything there.
The same thing happened in Gaza, and since my major supply line passes through it, my conquest of Middle East was hampered by the slowly moving reinforcements.
As for the "Patching is the number one priority!"-thingy, I guess that means you want everyone at CA to work with the patches before they start any work on an expansion?
Yes of course! I'd rather have a bug-free vanilla than some fancy expansion filled with same old bugs.
Yes of course! I'd rather have a bug-free vanilla than some fancy expansion filled with same old bugs.
Every TW expansion to date has fixed a lot of bugs, as well as a new patch generally coming out at the same time as the expansion for those who don't buy it. So the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. No game dev company will devote all their time to solely patching a game that's already released, it doesn't make business sense.
DVX BELLORVM
06-16-2007, 12:55
Every TW expansion to date has fixed a lot of bugs, as well as a new patch generally coming out at the same time as the expansion for those who don't buy it. So the 2 aren't mutually exclusive.
It's true, and the CA does better job than many other devs.
No game dev company will devote all their time to solely patching a game that's already released, it doesn't make business sense.
Indeed, patching doesn't make money. But it makes reputation. And in the long run, inadequate support may lead to lower sales and less profit.
I didn't buy Barbarian invasion because it didn't fix some bugs I considered critical. I'm sure there were many more like me. I bought M2TW only after the 1.2 was released, and I'll buy the Kingdoms only if it doesn't contain critical bugs (or after they are patched).
HoreTore
06-16-2007, 15:24
Well, as kobal and lusted has pointed out, fixing bugs and making an expansion is NOT mutually exclusive. Further, what are all those guys who do not have the knowledge to fix bugs(like artists, researchers, etc) supposed to do, as you wont allow them to work on an expansion? Is it really better for them to sit around twiddling thumbs instead of working on an expansion? I certainly can't see the logic in that.
DVX BELLORVM
06-16-2007, 19:58
Further, what are all those guys who do not have the knowledge to fix bugs(like artists, researchers, etc) supposed to do, as you wont allow them to work on an expansion? Is it really better for them to sit around twiddling thumbs instead of working on an expansion?
No, they shouldn't sit around twiddling thumbs, they should be reading this forum, so they could give the programmers some informations about the bugs. ~D
With the ressources needed to make a game these days, there's just no way to survive releasing "flawless" games anymore, unless we're talking 3D tic-tac-toe simulators :)
I'm sure you've heard the saying "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time" ?
Now consider that M2TW took 3 years to develop, and that's using much if not mostly Rome's code. To release M2 pristine would most likely have taken two, three more years. Who feeds CA during that time ? I'm sure they're all great guys who are utterly dedicated to the quality of their work, but they still have metabolisms. And mortgages.
So SEGA does. And SEGA watches over CA's shoulder and sends auditors in little grey suits who use words like "return on investment" and "honor the blood compact, minion !". Publishers are fairly rarely altruistic people. They do look snazzy from the top of their pitchforks to the bottom of their hooves though :clown:.
So CA rushes the game for Xmas, because the choice between having to disappoint its fanbase a bit, for a few months, until they can iron out that other 10% ; and missing out on the millions of grandmas and mummies who want to buy something cool for little Kevin who likes knights, weeeell... It's not even a choice at all :/
Especially considering the fact that the perfect, mindblowing game they wish they could have released if not for ugly monetary considerations, they can hope to achieve through later patches and expansions.
And frankly, CA has been pretty frickin' committed to their bugfixing and feature-adding in the past, compared to some other studios I could name (Troika, anyone ?).
That is generally correct.
Augustus Germanicus
06-17-2007, 10:05
Well, my first thought when I read this was the launcher poll question - Would you pay $10 for a single expansion campaign? My answer: Yes, IF it was professionally done, added sizeable content to the main game, and was virtually bug-free and stand-alone balanced. A larger map in one, additions to Crusades and their frequency/effect, one for Medieval 2 Total War: Jihads!, an Eastern Orthodox pack, ect. As long as these "updates" were like this, more large upgrade than update, I'd be fine with them.
I would not however, want them handed out for a $10 monthly charge to the 'ole Visa or AMEX. Give me a list of campaigns/upgrades and let me buy what I want, yeah, I'd go for that. I know I can find almost anything I could ever want for free in player created mods - many of which look amazing and their creators must be given mad props for - but I'm hopelessly obsessive about things in their "Original" or "Manufacturer's Option" form.
Case in point: I wanted one of those DVD Navigation Systems in my dash. Instead of buying an aftermarket one for my car, I bought a new car that had it in an option package. I'm completely insane, but at least the new car sure is pretty. I'd seek help, but now I can't afford the therapist. Or $10 upgrades. Never mind. :wall:
Perhaps one solution would be a system where one paid a deposit to play a game 'On Approval' and were only required to pay the balance of the agreed purchase price once you were satisfied that the game was free from playability problems and fit for purpose. That would put the pressure on the supplier to ship quality product and to fix any faults discovered by customers quickly.
And what would keep you from "not approving" and still keep playing? Playability for a trial period, perhaps, but the that won´t solve the problem, since either you complete the game within the trial period, or its length would be chosen to end while the player isn´t fully aware of the bugs. Basically, we´d be back at the old shareware business model, and I don´t see that working for the majority of the game industry.
There is a long standing quality problem with computer software in general, and with the payment structure of paying for it. The TW series is just one small part of a much bigger problem. What has become even more apparent with the Blizzard incident is that the larger software companies consider themselves beyond the reach of normal legislation designed to protect the rights of their consumers, and do not consider that their businesses should be subject to standard consumer rights legislation.
The scary thing is they seem to be right. Consumer protection agencies seem to be incapable of dealing with quality issues related to computer software or with breaches of consumer protection which are instigated beyond their national boundaries.
Buy an iron that doesn't heat up or an oven that doesn't cook and their right there on the case. Ring them up with details of poor quality programming and a bug list as long as the forth bridge and their completely dumbfounded.
For a perfect example: look no further than windows.
The issue is, that you buy software "as is", which you would know if you carefully read the license agreement. You have consumer rights in case of product defects, i.e. if the disc is damaged, but you have no warranty on content, the same way you can´t demand your money back if you didn´t like a movie.
And SEGA watches over CA's shoulder and sends auditors in little grey suits who use words like "return on investment" and "honor the blood compact, minion !". Publishers are fairly rarely altruistic people. They do look snazzy from the top of their pitchforks to the bottom of their hooves though
That´s got nothing to do with being evil. I work for a finance company (in a different field, but still) as well, and I have to damn well make sure that the money we fork out (around one million € for a game, according to a recent interview) comes back in. Because it doesn´t appear on our accounts out of nowhere, either.
The issue is, that you buy software "as is", which you would know if you carefully read the license agreement. You have consumer rights in case of product defects, i.e. if the disc is damaged, but you have no warranty on content, the same way you can´t demand your money back if you didn´t like a movie.
Thats a 'red herring', at least in the UK. In the UK the Sale of Goods Act states that any product or service supplied to the consumer must be 'fit for purpose' and that this consumer right cannot be waived or overriden by any agreement or pre-sales statement.
Thus if you walk into a store which has large signs over the counter saying 'This store operates a non-returns policy' or 'Goods must be returned with 14 days of purchase' those signs are legally meaningless in the UK. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that by law such signs have to state that they do not affect the purchasers consumer rights. So, basically they are relying of consumers being stupid enough to beleive them and not bothering to try, e.g. the 'dumb' factor.
Quite apart from that the terms of license agreements are typically displayed during the installation sequence. As such they are terms being imposed after the 'point of contract' in that the purchaser and vendor entered into a legally binding contract exchanging goods for money in the shop, at which point the consumer should have been made aware of any conditions which affected his purchase and been made fully aware of the quality of the goods being purchased.
To put this into context.
You go into a garage and you buy a car, hand over the money, collect the keys and then get in it to drive off. As you go to turn the key in the ignition a sign pops up out of the dashboard which says.
'Please note the engine of this car may contain numerous technical faults which will cause the car to crash, stall, or stop without warning, if you turn the ignition key and start the engine you will be deemed to have accepted these faults and surrendered your right to any legal compensation arising from the poor quality of the engine. Thank you for choosing a Lada.'
That is patently ridiculous, but thats exactly what software companies think they can get away with, and thanks to the inept skills of consumer rights protection agencies its exactly what they do get away with. But its not legally correct.
Likewise, if we accept that the terms of the license agreement really can override our consumer rights then it would be perfectly feasible for a consumer to purchase a piece of software advertised as say 'An accurate real time simulation of the War in Iraq' go through the installation sequence and accept the license terms, press 'Play Now' and be presented with a 2 hour interactive presentation on 'Why George Bush is God'. Because in your scenario the consumer has waived all his consumer rights just by pushing the install button.
Incidently, in the UK you absolutely can walk out of a cinema and demand your money back because you didn't like the film. You can also refuse to pay of a meal in a restaurant.
Kobal2fr
06-17-2007, 12:50
That´s got nothing to do with being evil. I work for a finance company (in a different field, but still) as well, and I have to damn well make sure that the money we fork out (around one million € for a game, according to a recent interview) comes back in. Because it doesn´t appear on our accounts out of nowhere, either.
That's what I meant, yes : SEGA doesn't give CA pots of cash out of the goodness in their heart, nor do they patron CA's Michaelangelos to commission the best and most awesome game the world has ever seen. I think Pratchett worded it best when he said "every publisher's dream is to have so much money in his pockets that he'd need suspenders to keep his pants from falling down". But that's ok, I mean, don't we all ?
The "evil" part comes from the fact that they are absolutely necessary to gaming studios, and they know it, which gives them leverage. Combined with the fact that most of them wouldn't know a good game from a flying turd, and you have the basis for very, very wrong decisions when we players are concerned... and pushing for early releases is only a minor part in that. What sells better is not usually what makes a game more interesting.
Kind of like an "Anthony and Cleopatra" screeplay could end up set in the Bronx and include friendly aliens, a female rapper and lots of 'splosions after going through the "Hollywood producers" stage, see ? :clown:.
(EDIT : And that's not even considering the fact that "It's not evil, I do it too !" is not exactly likely to win the "most bulletproof of arguments, ever" award :clown: )
Kind of like an "Anthony and Cleopatra" screeplay could end up set in the Bronx and include friendly aliens, a female rapper and lots of 'splosions after going through the "Hollywood producers" stage, see ? :clown:.
I saw that movie!
No, wait, it was Romeo and Juliet... But it had Jet Li in it! ^_^
Actually, that wasn't all that bad a movie, but just because I like Jet Li.
Kobal2fr
06-17-2007, 15:16
I don't remember there being any aliens in "Romeo Must Die". That stupid fat guy might fit the bill though :]
Do we really need to have this thread done over and over and over like this?
Game is buggy.
No game is good.
<insert rediculous car purchase/other totally irrelevent analogy here>
Get thread to be ten pages.
Start new thread
celibrate another 5 birthdays.
Buy all the TW games as soon as they come out, plus the expansions.
Reread this same damn thread.
:wall:
repeat
Monsieur Alphonse
06-17-2007, 16:48
I totally agree with Tyrac. Besides CA have already taken care of those who are responsible for all the bugs.
Here are some of the CA employees that were responsible:
https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/486/image00028ql2.jpg
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
No. Never. I'd quit and play checkers before paying a monthly fee, without regret or a second thought.
With so many posts and not so much time to chime in. Doug, I think your idea is the most rational. Mind if I join you in a friendly game of checkers?
Tschüß!
Erich
Razor1952
06-18-2007, 00:40
No to monthly fees!
I would however pay a subscription to CA say once a year which would give you access to all patches and updates AND to the new TW games that are developed. At the least there should be an expansion or a new game every year.
The advantage to CA is that they would get a virtually guaranteed ~$75 / year plus a client base that can obviously be traded with their products. That makes CA more powerful when dealing with Sega or other distributers leading to a better deal for them and better value/quality games for us.
You gets whats you pays for!
1) CA offer game 'licenses' on a monthly renewal program. To run the game, you log into their secure server instead of inserting the CD. Licenses should be affordable, say $10 per month, with reduced fees levied for periods with less activity.
2) Licensed gamers are automatically eligible for all patches and upgrades.
3) CA invests the additional income into bug fixes and enhancements, at least one patch per month!
4) CA uses login fees to maintain their own patch servers, instead of foisting this onto third parties.
Your comments are invited.
Are you insane. I NEVER have played an MMO because of :daisy: subscription fees. I feel that its the developer's JOB to finish what they have produced and FIX what they have made. I work in a food processing plant and we pack FlavRPac (and other brand names) frozen vegetables. If the bags are not sealed properly or the date code isn't on certain bags, we have to strip all the vegetables out of the bag and reprocess them. This cost labor time and material fees (new printed bags needed to be processed as well as waste removal from the old ones.)
Another thing is console game makers CANNOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE RELEASE PATCHES TO FIX THEIR GAMES. If they don't work then the recall as well as the bad press could be catastrophic. I on the other hand believe that we should hold producers accountable for what they do.
1. A game should NOT NEED TO HAVE A PATCH TO DOWNLOAD, much less a HUGE ONE TO MAKE A GAME FUNCTIONAL.
2. A game designer should be more concerned about the finish product being enjoyable than what it looks like. For instance, I would rather have the vegetables that we produce taste good than have a pretty package and have it taste like :daisy:.
3. I should not be charged EXTRA for this to happen. Personally, I think this is why computer games although vastly superior, is DECLINING to consoles. I think its our job as consumers to not have to put up with this kind of :daisy:. Anyone agree with me?
This deserved its own reply. I AM NOT RICH, I am an educated laborer in a food processing plant with a morgage and raising children. I feel that I do NOT have extra money to throw out just because you all do. Please CA, just fix your products and make them work from the start. The next TW game, we do not need a new graphics engine, we need better improvements. Use the same engine again and "solve" the issues this game has. I would like to say that it works for Rockstar Games with the GTA series.
Well said Budwise.
Tschüß!
Erich
This is my view, a view shared by many others.
Hah, stop whining. If it was overwhelmed, you wouldn't be able to play it at all. I personally am able to play the game and find that almost all units are bug free, and nearly everything works as it should.
And yet we are on patch version 1.2. Kinda defeats your argument.
You need a working game to carefully stage screenshots. It is illegal to advertise features that are not in the game.
You mean you are horrified. I personally, like thousands of others, will be enjoying the game.
And we get them. Do you know how many campaigns are going to be in factions?
I am sick of hearing people whining about how the game is filled with bugs and is unbalanced. How can you possibly expect every bug to surface in the beta testing period if some bugs take months of careful combing of the game by a forum viewed by hundreds? I was suprised when viewing the bug list - I hadn't noticed any when playing myself. But then, I wasn't specifically looking for any.
Word!:logic: :gah2:
Nebuchadnezzar
06-18-2007, 07:55
Maybe someone can enlighten me but I have never ever seen any evidence that suggests if we pay more or by introducing a monthly subscription that the quality of games will improve or get more regular (working) updates.
Total Fantasy. Smells like another way to milk an already bloated cash cow for an industry thats already got the reputation of a used car salesman.
Now consider that M2TW took 3 years to develop, and that's using much if not mostly Rome's code. To release M2 pristine would most likely have taken two, three more years.
Your joking right! It took them only six months to deliver patch 1.2 using only 1-2 people.
Who feeds CA during that time ? I'm sure they're all great guys who are utterly dedicated to the quality of their work, but they still have metabolisms. And mortgages.
A common misconception that patches are free. They are not as their costs are estimated and incorporated into the final cost of the product. I am sure that CA are not starving nor will they starve if their games were of a more satisfactory level.
Sorry to pick on you but you made it sound as if CA have got it hard when infact its the consumers that are being shafted. lol
By the way SEGA are not simply publishers. SEGA own CA and CA I guess is something like a semi-autonomous division concerned with only the Total war franchise. SEGA does the beta testing, marketing, distribution, publishing etc.
Someone else here said that you get what you pay for. Absolute and utter nonsense. Only the smart shopper gets what he pays for.
HoreTore
06-18-2007, 09:43
Your joking right! It took them only six months to deliver patch 1.2 using only 1-2 people.
Make that 1-2 thousands. Yes, only a few were used to fix the bugs, but the difficulty(and time consumption) lies in finding them. A big part of that job was done by us(ie. the community). If that would had taken part exclusively at CA, it would have taken a very long time.
crpcarrot
06-18-2007, 11:04
i would just like to include my point of of view that its utterly riculous that any consumer must accept a half complete product. i know it is prevelant in every software that we buy but just cos it exists doesnt make it right and doesnt make it an excuse to abuse our rights as a consumer.
all the people who seem to think anyone who is agrieved at paying his hard earned money on somehting that doesnt work as it was intended to is a bit need to learn to respect other peoples views.
although the analogy to the car may not be perfect its the point that everyone is trying to make that matters.
consumer rights groups have always been slow to catch up with the current market, but they will eventually. i hope to see the day when i buy a game and then dont have to stop playing till the patch comes out.
to the poepl who can continue playing a broken product, good for you. but i personally would like to enforce my right to get what i pay for. in a way i campaign for this with my wallet. i only baught 3 games ever within a month of release Rome TW, Civ 4 and M2TW. afetr the RTW experience i was never going to buy a CA game on release again but got in with all the hype with M2. i hope it doesnt take 5 patches to get the game right like it did in Rome.
games are priced at market conditions and i dont agree with the argument "its only £30 u cant expect the CA to do everything for that". well if CA didnt factor in the the cost properly that CA's fault not the consumers. bad business and bad managment decisions is not our fault and we shouldn't pay for it (although we probably do all the time).
(EDIT : And that's not even considering the fact that "It's not evil, I do it too !" is not exactly likely to win the "most bulletproof of arguments, ever" award :clown: )
That is not how I meant my statement.
@Ditz:
Incidently, in the UK you absolutely can walk out of a cinema and demand your money back because you didn't like the film. You can also refuse to pay of a meal in a restaurant.
I´m no lawyer, much less for Britain law, but that might as well be accomodation. I have no idea what precisely might be covered by warranty (bugs, by the way, might, under certain circumstances, like causing crashes), but I´m rather sure that not liking the content is not.
All things considered, I´ll go with Tyrac.
Kobal2fr
06-18-2007, 20:14
That is not how I meant my statement.
Don't worry, I know that. It just struck me as funnily worded afterwards :sweatdrop:
I'd just like to add that your sig is both priceless and precious kobalt.
:balloon2:
I´m no lawyer, much less for Britain law, but that might as well be accomodation. I have no idea what precisely might be covered by warranty (bugs, by the way, might, under certain circumstances, like causing crashes), but I´m rather sure that not liking the content is not.
Well the basic and fundemental test in English Law is whether the product or service provided satisfied the reasonable expectations of the consumer.
What is a reasonable expectation is a judgement based upon the way the product or service was described by the vendor prior to the contract of sale and what 'any reasonable person' would expect from a product or service of that type.
Thus if one paid to go and see a film called 'Arthur: The true story of King Arthur.' and 30 minutes into the film it was apparent that it was a pile of dog's turd and not historically accurate at all you could quite reasonably walk out and demand your money back. The cinema might refuse to give you a refund, in which case it would be up to a court to decide if your objections to the content of the film were justified, but for the most part a cinema will simply pay out, unless you decide to sit through the entire film before complaining.
As far as restaurants are concerned I've actually witnessed a family on a table next to us in a 'Little Chef' eat and entire meal and then flatly refuse to pay the bill because they did not enjoy the it. Personally, I thought it was a damned cheek but they got away with it. The manager wanted them to leave their names and addresses so that he could follow up their complaints but they refused and just walked out.
Getting back to computer software, it seems to me that any reasonable person buying a peice of software would expect it to be fully functional and capable of being used for whatever purpose it was purchased. So far every CA game I've purchased has been capable of being played, but I've certainly bought others which were not, the most notorious being Napoleon 1813 and Lords of the Realm 3.
Usually, there is no problem in the UK if you decide to take these games back to the shop for a refund. Most Uk gaming stores operate a 'no questions asked refund policy' and HMV even offered a full refund on my Blizzard: Burning Crusade Collectors Editions despite the fact that it had been signed by several lying Blizzard employee's.
Returning bug ridden software is probably the best solution to poor software quality. If software houses begin to get a poor reputation for returns with their distribution agents then eventually their credibility will suffer. Blizzard definately damaged their reputation with UK distributors over the BC collectors edition, not least becuase they left them unable to fulfill their legal obligations to their customers under UK consumer law and triggered an investagation into unfair trading practices by both the Uk and European offices of fair trading. Blizzard basically dropped their distributors in the doodah's and left them to it which won't be forgotten in a hurry. HMV's European Customer Service Manager was absolutely livid about the situation she was left to deal with thanks to their intransigence and stupidity.
Kobal2fr
06-18-2007, 20:57
Well, I don't know how things are in the US/UK, but here in France most video game retailers operate on a (completely moronic) "we won't accept returns if the box has been opened" policy, because of software piracy.
They have a point I suppose, since it was common back in my high school years to buy a game, copy it, then bring it back to the store, but it completely shafts every legitimate buyer... and I'd wager those are more common than pirates. Especially since, what with broadband and kazaa and everything, most pirates these days just dl. their games.
@Whacker : thanks, mate ! (It's one of Sinan's oeuvres, of course)
Well, I don't know how things are in the US/UK, but here in France most video game retailers operate on a (completely moronic) "we won't accept returns if the box has been opened" policy, because of software piracy.
Yes! I gathered that from French consumers caught up in the Blizzard rip-off. The UK used to be like that about 25-30 years ago but I think the distributors got their wrists smacked often enough to make them change their policies. After all, until you install a game how can to tell whether it works or not, fortunately English Courts still operate on basic principles of common-sense and justice, and our small claims court system makes it quite easy to sue retailers without the need for expensive lawyers.
locked_thread
06-19-2007, 00:27
edit
Kobal2fr
06-19-2007, 01:48
Your forget #6 - in the end it'd be more of an incentive to HAVE bugs than to fix them. Let your modern, materialistic cynicism think about it.
locked_thread
06-19-2007, 02:13
edit
And what, pray tell, would be the incentive for any company to abandon the current scheme in favour of this consumer-friendly one?
I suppose legally speaking, if a deposit was paid on purchase which, in effect, granted you a limited duration user license of say 30 days after which you were required to pay the remainder of the purchase price. Then the consumer would have a chance to evaluate the quality of the product and reject it if they felt it was poor, and the vendor would get a positive acceptance of the product and whatever terms and conditions were stipulated in the license.
Kobal2fr
06-19-2007, 11:21
CyanCentaur : Don't you know anything about basic human nature ? It's pretty simple really. "Instant result" is the basic human drive.
If you put up a ransom for rat tails, hoping to curb the number of rodents in the realm, pretty soon every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country will have a rat farm in the cellar. If you pay firefighters per number of fires they put out, they'll soon go around the neighbourhood in pairs, saying stuff like "oooh, dry pine !" and "that bookshop would go in a flash, don't you think ?".
Same principle applies for "you're paid by the number of bugs you squash, and the number of patches you publish".
And yes, people would still play the game, and would still pay up, at least for a time, for the exact same reason they go to Church or get their Party card, and for the exact same reason those "Nigerian Prince needs your help in exchange of huge pots of money" e-mail scams are still around : next time might be the one ! People are suckers :clown:.
Also, you know.. because like Oblivion Morrowind : no matter how huge and glaring the bugs, it's still a bloody great game.
OK, so maybe they wouldn't break anything intentionally, but what would stop them from fixing stuff at a deliberately sloooooow pace ? "Yah, finally ! Here it is, loyal consumer : no more shield bug ! That was a LOT of work, folks ! Next time, we'll fix the 2H animations. Check, please ?"
unknown_user
06-19-2007, 19:57
One has to remember that a large part of the reasoning behind having monthly fees on MMO's isn't just for fixing bugs. It's for server upkeep, continuously releasing new content, AND for fixing bugs.
In City of Heroes, they're on (i believe) content patch 10, meaning that they've put out 9 MAJOR patches that add large amounts of new things to the game: character classes and powers, new zones, new enemies, new story-arcs. That doesn't include the numerous patches between content patches where they fix problems that came up.
MMO's generally have larger teams working after-release, whereas most other games do not. I do not see a large dev. team working for CA, making more and more content for M2TW (not counting the expansion. ;) ). I see a small patch team. They don't have a huge amount of servers up and running. They don't NEED the online play options for people to actually experience the game world.
There's a huge difference between MMO's and other games, and I cannot justify spending money monthly on a game that does not require the sort of follow-up that MMO's generate.
locked_thread
06-19-2007, 21:36
edit
Kobal2fr
06-19-2007, 22:32
You suggest a monthly fee to promote patching. How is that not "paid by the patch" ?
OK, so it's really "paid no matter what, but if you don't put up patches people will quit paying". Which actually makes your scheme even worse than my example : more delay between marginal patches to capitalize on the monthliness of the fee - the carrot is further away, the stick's still there, and there's a nail in it. Thanks for the correction :grin:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.