Forum Posts: 7 | Comment #1 by onidemon Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:48:22 AM | |
I can see his point but at the same time why don't they test these games a bit better as well. If it's game breaking then it must have been fairly obvious if they'd test run the game a few times.
I dread to even think how much Bethesda must have already spent on patching Skyrim then? |
|
Forum Posts: 0 | Comment #2 by CaptainTac0 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:49:40 AM | |
| Cheap ass developers. |
|
Forum Posts: 425 | Comment #3 by stevedb79 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:50:04 AM | |
| i can see this kind of thing causing problems in the future :( |
|
Forum Posts: 250 | Comment #4 by macd Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:50:50 AM | |
I get MS and Sony not wanting to allow patches on the cheap. I do expect that would lead to a publish now, patch later situation where games end up being released with more patches than is currently normal.
I also get EA not wanting to spent a pile of money patching a game that isn't going to make them money. That's business. Though it is a double edged sword in so much as perhaps more people would buy a game if it was patched. Enough to cover 40k? No idea. Guess EA estimated not. |
|
Forum Posts: 0 | Comment #5 by powerlesscheese Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:54:33 AM | |
| maybe ms shouldnt charge for everything when pc gamers get stuff for free. |
|
Forum Posts: 670 | Comment #6 by metallicorphan Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:00:57 AM | |
| Answer-test the shit out of it to make sure your game works before releasing(although perhaps Publishers are putting the pressure on them) |
|
Forum Posts: 1493 | Comment #7 by HabsCen10ial Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:01:07 AM | |
$40,000 is the main reason TRI never patched the Ghostbusters achievements and EA never patched NHL11's HUT playoff bug.
I wonder how much they made of the original sales. |
|
Forum Posts: 0 | Comment #8 by Bills4815162342 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:01:11 AM | |
| I don't feel sorry for him. If you are going to release a broken game, then make sure you have enough cash saved up to fix it. EA should have patched Brutal Legend for the people that actually spent $60 on the game. This guy has come out twice now with statements about needing money. Maybe if you stop putting out trash like Happy Action Theater then your studio might make a profit. As someone who spent money on Brutal Legend, I just don't feel sorry for him. |
|
Forum Posts: 133 | Comment #9 by shavron Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:04:28 AM | |
| I can understand a fee involved in releasing a patch but $40K is just ridiculous. And, #2 it's not cheap ass developers. Bigger developers like Bethesda have the money to do these patches and do them. Double Fine is an independent developer that don't have it in their budget to spend that much money on a patch. EA not wanting to cough the money is a bit cheap though. That's cheap ass publisher. But I do understand the logic, since the game didn't perform all that well. |
|
Forum Posts: 150 | Comment #10 by Arron114 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:08:28 AM | |
That bug with the chip costume got me.
@Lee
I think youre missing the big story here though off the back end of this story :
They asked for 40.000$ to make a new adventure game as devs dont want to touch them anymore(adventure games). Enter this story.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure
1.4 million raised. |
|
Forum Posts: 44 | Comment #11 by Serpream Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:08:52 AM | |
| Interesting comments above. But more obviously... Why the HELL am i paying for Xbox live for the ability to patch/DLC/Download if Microsoft is making another 40k from the developers O_o Seems odd that the very feature we pay for is infact also blocked by Microsofts practices. |
|
Forum Posts: 1138 | Comment #12 by Vigor Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:18:27 AM | |
| As if 40K is justified, get checked, fool. |
|
Forum Posts: 1206 | Comment #13 by duckydan Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:20:20 AM | |
| I have a hard time believing that a patch would cost $40k to produce and upload (as I'm basing it that the patch cost is development costs and not actual upload costs). There would be no charge on either MS or PSN to replace the existing DLC with the patched version meaning the only costs would be development costs. Since the DLC likely didn't cost $40k to produce to begin with the numbers seem a bit high. |
|
Forum Posts: 67 | Comment #14 by PluralAces Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:21:10 AM | |
| I wonder if that is why Ubisoft will not fix the AC: Revelations multiplayer... |
|
Forum Posts: 692 | Comment #15 by DocRevolt Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:21:29 AM | |
| They need to incentivize patches by developers, not charge them vast quantities of money for it. It makes no damn sense to force the people who are making your system worthwhile to shell out tens of thousands of dollars just for fixing game bugs. That's just backwards thinking and asks for developers to abandon past projects in favor of more recent games, leaving already released games riddled with glitches and errors that would have otherwise been fixed. |
|
Forum Posts: 1147 | Comment #16 by MartyMcFly Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:24:26 AM | |
Make a better game and you'll receive more money from your publisher for patches.
Tim Schafer is just bitching because his games aren't as successful as the big AAA titles. I'm sorry Tim Schafer that Brutal Legend and Psychonauts have nothing on Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Gears of War, any Rockstar game, etc.
Stop making cartoon games, grow up, and then you'll be successful. Game on Schafer fanboys. |
|
Forum Posts: 2 | Comment #17 by DC KUSH 91 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:27:55 AM | |
The obvious thing to do would be to test the games more throughly before release, but some bugs only appear after extensive play.
Like the PS3 skyrim bug that only appeared after your game size became larger than 6mb (i think, correct me if i'm wrong).
It seems as if patches are being used as a way to rush games out without extensively playing them, with the game devs knowing they can fix any problems after cashing their cheques.
Still, at least we have patches now....anyone remember the un-patchable super bounce from halo 2?? |
|
Forum Posts: 233 | Comment #18 by ModernSith2010 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:31:33 AM | |
| I don't understand why everyone want's everything to be a download, me personaly I like owning a physical source if that be in form of a disc or card. At least this way there is no way you can lose if they change TOC or get rid of it of the system. |
|
Forum Posts: 81 | Comment #19 by dementedlullaby Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:41:50 AM | |
@1 Pretty much every game is going to have bugs these days. Games aren't as easy to play test as SNES games and the like were.
Steams patching system is really awesome, pretty sure there's no charge for patches on Steam or if there is it's really minimal. I have around the same number of Steam games as 360 games and love both though. |
|
Forum Posts: 393 | Comment #20 by BlackTitan666 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:45:48 AM | |
| hey devs don't want to pay 40k to patch a game them make sure it works before you put it out. |
|
Forum Posts: 21 | Comment #21 by gambit444 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:47:33 AM | |
"services like Xbox Live and PSN, ...around $40,000 each time you release a patch."
This is not to say XBL charges 40K. could be 10 XBL, 10 for PSn, 20 for development of patch. This might be his cost & it may be vastly cheaper for other developers.
|
|
Forum Posts: 140 | Comment #22 by MAD MAZTEC Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:51:38 AM | |
| Well then, they should take more care in creating a game so they release fewer patches...of course it's all about money to them....idc I'm a gamer, happy to be a gamer, proud to be a gamer.....Forever Alone :'( |
|
Forum Posts: 33 | Comment #23 by Sidish Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:56:16 AM | |
I wonder if they'll pass on the cost to the us the consumers??? We've release a patch, and if you want it please deposit $5
I just hope it doesn't ever get to that. |
|
Forum Posts: 177 | Comment #24 by Frankie Godskin Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:02:50 AM | |
| That $40k price tag explains why a lot of devs wait to identify multiple problems before they release a patch: might as well do everything in one shot if it's $40k every time. It also explains why poorly-performing games don't receive patches, since there's no reason to throw good money after bad. I guess that money goes to pay the salaries of the cert team and for the certification hardware and software. |
|
Forum Posts: 33 | Comment #25 by Woody28 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:05:52 AM | |
| yeah but, imo Minecraft sucks. |
|
Forum Posts: 24 | Comment #26 by TF003 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:13:17 AM | |
crysis 2 is a expensive game
(over 10 patches released) |
|
Forum Posts: 74 | Comment #27 by BillyBobTwo Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:13:21 AM | |
Here's a BOLD proposition for you. Test your game better so these idiotic bugs don't show up, then they won't cost you 40 grand to fix.
And guess what? If bugs do show up, you have a responsibility to your customers to fix them, 40k or not. |
|
Forum Posts: 831 | Comment #28 by ginge88isfun Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:15:36 AM | |
Test the damn thing before public release.
Simples. |
|
Forum Posts: 91 | Comment #29 by EvilWays Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:18:19 AM | |
As I understand it, the $40k covers fees for MS and Sony to do their round(s) of testing/verification before it's released to the public.
Oh, and fuck Bethesda for not allowing Mad Doc to release further patches for Star Trek Legacy (wish I could find that article again), and the need for umpteen patches between Fallout 3, New Vegas, and now Skyrim. |
|
Forum Posts: 724 | Comment #30 by jeffy x360a Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:26:16 AM | |
| how can he even whine about the cost of patching games. like everyone else said do it right the first time and everyone can be happy. |
|
Forum Posts: 1442 | Comment #31 by DecadentBeaver Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:39:36 AM | |
If that's the case, then Too Human is well expensive. I received yet another patch last night for it. Had one not long ago.
But that amount is astronomical. Surely that's just puttin the smaller guy out of business. Oh wait, Bill Gates and Microsoft has been doing that for years.
Best bet to all devs is, test your products before you release them to us. Your consumers! |
|
Forum Posts: 83 | Comment #32 by ShinAkuma Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:41:07 AM | |
| the testers are humans. They make mistakes -_- |
|
Forum Posts: 139 | Comment #33 by Chuunks Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:41:09 AM | |
Consider it a $40k gamble that you TESTED it well enough.
... and if you lose the bet. PAY. |
|
Forum Posts: 200 | Comment #34 by Kisushima Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:45:33 AM | |
Here's a crazy idea. Thoroughly test your games. I'm pretty sure you could gte some gamers to thoroughly test them for a week for less than $40,000? I admit multiplayer games would be harder, but it's the risk you take.
Saying this, MS is to blame for part of it. They do charge a lot for patches. I feel if a Dev has taken the time to release a game on YOUR console making YOU some profit, charging so much for a patch is a bit cheeky. Less of a cost for smaller games? Charging bigger franchises more and smaller franchises less seems fair. That way the bigger frnachises won't feel so compelled to throw out a half-baked iteration of the previous years installation (hint).
Just my 2 cents.. |
|
Forum Posts: 16 | Comment #35 by kabel1987 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:46:30 AM | |
@modernSith2010 i agree... especially coming from a country where satisfactory download speeds are goldust expensive( I come from INDIA btw). I can understand patches being available for download... and at some point I can sympathise with the developer... but there is no excuse for letting a game-breaker bug get into ur live code... the testing team isnt doing their job...
|
|
Forum Posts: 67 | Comment #36 by PluralAces Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:52:28 AM | |
so this is just for XBOX Live Arcade games right?
Patches made to retail games dont cost $40,000, do they? |
|
Forum Posts: 138 | Comment #37 by Tanelorn Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 09:59:43 AM | |
40K to release a patch is insane ! It should be easier for developers to release a patch.
As a software developer, I know it's really hard to release a bugfree software/game/whatever. Developers and testers are humans... mistakes are made.
Ok, granted, a game breaking bug should never happen.. but small ones will almost always be seen in a game. |
|
Forum Posts: 1380 | Comment #38 by linktriforce007 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 10:21:42 AM | |
@26 My thoughts exactly.
Guess they didn't want to pay $40,000 to patch the achievement glitches. |
|
Forum Posts: 645 | Comment #39 by xtye Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 10:22:48 AM | |
So they think a digital download costs more? They must not remember how much it costs to make the discs and cases and such.
Idiots. |
|
Forum Posts: 333 | Comment #40 by Poisonheadcrab Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 10:23:44 AM | |
| This is THE main reason Monday Night Combat has remained how it is now. While more rigorous play testing might help other developers, remember this isn't the 90's, where not everyone ran on an internet faster than dial-up. Back then, you HAD to make sure your game was bug free, because the opportunity to patch the game was not there. |
|
Forum Posts: 459 | Comment #41 by pauly_27 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 10:42:36 AM | |
I feel for him if it's updates to generally improve the game or add free content, but he has no defence aginst a game breaking bug that should have been picked up by the testers of said game.
Funny how these price gripes are not an issue when it comes to adding over priced DLC to a game isn't it. |
|
Forum Posts: 167 | Comment #42 by secretkaos187 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 10:52:08 AM | |
| after reading the article and the posts my opinion is up in the air about this situation. I personally have had a "game breaking glitch" affect me (DEAD ISLAND!) and although it was patched waayy after I turned it back in, I wondered how it made it past the BETA phase/Demos. IMO: when I purchase a game I expect it to be as close to flawless as can be,they get paid to make a product,I in turn pay for it. I understand that thousands of minds playing a game will find a bug or glitch faster than in-housers. 40k doesn't seem that bad to me when there are millions of XBLers out there that will determine your financial future as a developer. I personally won't knowingly purchase a game if I've heard there are "game-breakers" REMEMBER, Word of mouth is the best advertisement! and there is plenty of that on XBL. Sorry for the extremely long post! |
|
Forum Posts: 91 | Comment #43 by EvilWays Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 10:52:34 AM | |
#39, "pennies" for each item because of volume purchases (in lots of several thousands).
#36, I would think that's "across the board". What's weird is the last time I've heard the cost of testing then releasing a patch for a game through XBL, it was around $25k per patch.
People can preach "test your game more before releasing it" all they want, but the fact is their testers only account for a small fraction of potential ways a game can be played. Some people intentionally look for exploits, but many of us tend to find them by accident. The irony is that the Xbox 360 (as well as the other non-PC platforms) is a monolithic platform in that the hardware is always the same, so comes down to either complex code issues or just sloppy coding. Another thought is that some developers tend to lean to heavily on middleware to perform their tasks without considering that the middleware itself may lead to issues. |
|
Forum Posts: 144 | Comment #44 by WaahhJedi Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 11:00:03 AM | |
I doubt that every one of you knuckleheads who proclaim that they should test before selling have any idea what it takes to fully test a game. You don't hit a button and hope everything compiles properly. It is serious hours of mind-numbing repetition. For a small developer like Double Fine, that gets expensive.
If it was SOOOOO easy to do, why do you think that AAA multimillion dollar releases still have glitches? |
|
Forum Posts: 6 | Comment #45 by cursednaruto Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 11:00:41 AM | |
| To be fair both Sony and micro$oft need to have a major console shake up and on top of publishers when it comes to idiots ea are always dumb about games. Like the 1 thing we all need as gamers is online passes |
|
Forum Posts: 7 | Comment #46 by xCRKx TyPHooN Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 11:05:31 AM | |
Do any of you make games for a living? Do you even understand the debugging process?
It takes time and money to fix bugs in the development process. For large companies, they have entire sections of their development team that work on bug fixes alone. For independent companies, they don't have this luxury and all testing is done in-house.
The issue here is certainly NOT that developers are releasing buggy games. Give the developers some slack and try making games yourself before you start trashing the people who make playing them possible. |
|
Forum Posts: 39 | Comment #47 by Ptit Ver Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 11:09:22 AM | |
| To anyone at MS: guys, that's not the way to promote independent games... |
|
Forum Posts: 227 | Comment #48 by A BENGAL HOBO Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 11:10:36 AM | |
| makes sense why they cant afford it,but shouldnt microsoft charge u to publish it with 1 or 2 free updates so u can fix game breaking glitches?????? |
|
Forum Posts: 2118 | Comment #49 by Andreas_loel Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 11:13:34 AM | |
| Sure its expensive but selling a broken product at launch is more bullshit, Schaefer lives on old hype and hence why he can only make decent arcade titles, because that market gets less gems and AAA worthy titles so its an easier ground to get in on compared to the retail world. |
|
Forum Posts: 6 | Comment #50 by cursednaruto Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 12:27:39 PM | |
| So it cost them money to fix in production then they do dumb stuff like dlc which was in the game but they take it out so they get charge by Microsoft to put it in the market place for us to waste money |
|
Forum Posts: 201 | Comment #51 by Ceejus Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 12:28:07 PM | |
| I agree with 12. 40k is anything BUT justified. I could buy a brand new BMW for what it costs to fix a few costumes on a game? That's completely ridiculous and it makes absolutely 0 sense. To all the people blatantly playing devil's advocate and supporting Microsoft and Sony's greed just for the sake of presenting a "different" argument - I say to you, you are all pathetic sheep. The more you idiots stand up for them, the more the consumer base gets hurt as a result. Grow some balls, seriously. |
|
Forum Posts: 30 | Comment #52 by Smurfboy Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 12:55:33 PM | |
#1, I was thinking the same thing! I thought Beta-tester(s) should always test everything, like literally to find bugs and everything, to make sure everything will be fixed before releasing the game.
And, holy smurfy! $40,000 a pop to fix patch? Ouch.
|
|
Forum Posts: 134 | Comment #53 by lonesquiff Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 01:10:58 PM | |
| This whole thing just doesn't make any kind of sense. Why would services such as psn and xbla charge such an exorbitant sum from a developer who wishes to address revealed game issues by releasing a patch? IMO, if a patch is necessary the developer should support their game and be able to get it to consumers unhindered. If anything sonyµsoft should be the ones paying the developer so that the game featured on their network is up to date and glitch free |
|
Forum Posts: 600 | Comment #54 by PANIC ATTACK 10 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 02:38:06 PM | |
| well this explains why cryptic couldnt put champions online on for the 360. so we'll never see an MMO/MMORPG anymore. since MS is way to strict. i say MS needs to loosen up alot. so great games can come through. i bought a PS3 just for DCUO. you'd think MS would learn from its mistakes. this really does suck & will affect future game purchases. i'll have to find out through friends. if games are buggy. then see if developer will fix them before i buy them now. said state of affairs for video game lovers everywhere |
|
Forum Posts: 7 | Comment #55 by jbixler Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 02:44:11 PM | |
I'm a fan of Tim Schafer's games, especially Psychonauts, Brutal Legend and Stacking. But if his financial problems are as bad as they sound, it looks like we'll be seeing more PC-exlusives of his games, when I prefer them more on consoles.
I think he should hold off on making too many games, even those he usually makes good ones. And save some money up to support his games. He's in talks with Notch about Psychonauts so I think his money problem might be solved. Maybe. |
|
Forum Posts: 536 | Comment #56 by Durdens Wrath Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 04:02:01 PM | |
| Maybe he should admit there was shoddy testing. I program professionally and I always have "users" test. Never devs |
|
Forum Posts: 43 | Comment #57 by Unalive3 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 04:34:51 PM | |
| I'm having trouble understanding the article? M$ charges developers for issuing a patch? Or is it just developing costs associated with creating a patch. I understand the latter, but seriously why would M$ charge money for something like that. A game like Ghostbusters will always be known as a glitch fest wouldn't they want the developer to make a patch addressing issues so the game sells more copies which in turn lets M$ and the developer/publisher increase profits? |
|
Forum Posts: 110 | Comment #58 by oO Triple G Oo Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 05:38:19 PM | |
| You guys do realize that in order to do things like DLC, most games require a patch, right? I can't possibly be the only one here who knows this. |
|
Forum Posts: 110 | Comment #59 by oO Triple G Oo Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 05:42:21 PM | |
| @10: They actually asked for 400k. Get your facts straight. |
|
Forum Posts: 4 | Comment #60 by capirus Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 05:58:12 PM | |
While $40000 is not peanuts, it could be paid if and only if the development team was not planning on working on another game for the next year or so. They could apply for a bank loan but if they already had one, it is next to impossible to get another. What more could they should the loan officer that they haven't already? Especially when there is little chance of the loan being paid off.
As to the issue of glitches,the problem is that no one really understands the code they've written for a game (people tend to memorize how to do things instead of learning them) so when a problem occurs, it takes them days to break it apart and cycle through each process to even begin to form a solution. There is also the problem of not thinking outside the box. A good example of this is during Halflife 2 when a man complained that his luggage was on the other side of a gate. When I heard this, I decided to throw every piece of luggage over the gate to the man. Apparently the programers never thought anyone would do this. The real issue is that the people who playtest the game are looking for bugs, not trying to break the game.
All things being equal, patches should be free and programmers should learn the "whys" instead of "hows" of the code they've written but since they are not equal...we, as consumers, are collectively screwed. |
|
Forum Posts: 16 | Comment #61 by Whitesnake75 Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:02:37 PM | |
| I wish that whenever patches and "broken" games are discussed people would stop throwing the likes of Oblivion, Fallout, Skyrim and other such large scale games out there... Games with a linear nature (COD, racing games, sports titles, corridor shooters) are going to be a hell of a lot easier to test than an open world game... Yes I know you can class games such as GTA and red dead as open world but they still have a linearity to the mission structure... Games that enable you to go places prior to being sent there on a quest or mission and therefore meaning millions of players will have a different gameplay experience are impossible to fully test... Please cut developers a little slack... Even in the most linear of games there is bound to be a combination of actions that never occurs for the testers... |
|
Forum Posts: 110 | Comment #62 by oO Triple G Oo Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:04:05 PM | |
| That's definitely something to consider, Whitesnake. |
|
Forum Posts: 127 | Comment #63 by cptmorgemaker Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:12:33 PM | |
| But Steam also just broke 5 Million users at once Live has that daily. Live makes all look like crap. Maybe if you spent more time on the game and more testing you wouldn't need so many patch's. And I PC Game a lil and can't do it I will always be console and console is where all the money is that pays your bills so stop complaining and 40k for a software firm is not that insane if u are making ok games that are paying off or maybe ur company is spending to much somewhere |
|
Forum Posts: 25 | Comment #64 by elsnoggler Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 07:34:11 PM | |
| Your knowledge of, well... probably anything, but especially largely independent gaming studios, is abysmal #63. |
|
Forum Posts: 44 | Comment #65 by JelDeRebel Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 08:58:30 PM | |
@Lee Bradley "Fine’s Costume Quest went untouched because the developer could not afford to fix it, despite Schafer’s public claims at the time that the studio’s limited manpower was the reason."
Seriously, get your facts straight. Shafer never said they didn't have the manpower. They've always claimed it was the lack of money. |
|
Forum Posts: 41 | Comment #66 by Z. slay3r Wednesday, February 15, 2012 @ 12:09:05 AM | |
| They could change their policies to allow a couple free patches, but any subsequent ones cost money. Or start with the first patch being the least expensive (5k?), and then increase the cost for every added patch after that. |
|
Forum Posts: 2118 | Comment #67 by Andreas_loel Wednesday, February 15, 2012 @ 01:28:24 AM | |
| #67 Ive heard that they are allowed 1 free patch after that its 10 000 but that might just be arcade |
|
Forum Posts: 176 | Comment #68 by Corpse87 Wednesday, February 15, 2012 @ 01:37:16 AM | |
| who gives a shit? |
|
Forum Posts: 536 | Comment #69 by Durdens Wrath Wednesday, February 15, 2012 @ 07:39:44 AM | |
| If double fine wants to make games on pc without live achievements then they don't want my business. |
|
Forum Posts: 121 | Comment #70 by Russman Wednesday, February 15, 2012 @ 08:48:31 AM | |
| Games are rushed because of the publishers not the developers. So if they change their minds and want it out 6 months early, the devs have to say okay we'll get it done, and that means cutting out lots of testing. |
|
Forum Posts: 0 | Comment #71 by XMusic2049 Sunday, February 26, 2012 @ 03:03:09 PM | |
| I think the reason for the steep price on patches is because the console makers want the best games on there consoles and so they want the games to be working properly when they are released and not rushed and unfinished crap. |
|
