WHY games aren't getting patched

Tim Schafer wrote:

“But the indie community is now moving elsewhere; we’re figuring out how to fund and distribute games ourselves, and we’re getting more control over them. Those systems as great as they are, they’re still closed. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game. Those are things we really want to do, but we can’t do it on these systems. I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch – we can’t afford that! Open systems like Steam, that allow us to set our own prices, that’s where it’s at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That’s where people are going.”

He's talking about the cost to post a patch to console...

$40,000

Fuckin A M$/$ony!! You DO realize it's your PAYING CUSTOMERS that are getting shafted here as a result right??

This is why a game that sells 10x as much (CoD vs BF) sees so many more patches.... they have the revenue stream to cover it. (and they still only see 2x as many patches )

Fuck consoles... I can't wait to get on Steam.

I would be interested in knowing why the PC version doesn't see more patches though.... other then potentially not wanting the uproar from jelly console players.

Fuck Tim Schafer.

3.3 million...

didn't say anything about shafer (I actually don't know shit about him other than that he makes games I don't give 2 shits about.)... I was just using his quote to point out the Patching cost on console...

which I've always known, but wondered, what costs they put on publishers for patching.

I mean seriously... aren't patches supposed to be part of what we're paying our goddamn subscription fees for??

RoninHo'in wrote:

didn't say anything about shafer (I actually don't know shit about him other than that he makes games I don't give 2 shits about.)... I was just using his quote to point out the Patching cost on console...

which I've always known, but wondered, what costs they put on publishers for patching.

I mean seriously... aren't patches supposed to be part of what we're paying our goddamn subscription fees for??

Oh, yeah, patching on consoles is fucking awful and always will be. They have a fucking retarded screening process and go through the patch with a fine-tooth comb. The only reason developers are willing to go through all that is because the console market is so lucrative. Gaben knows better then to try and screen patches on Steam, he provides the platform, devs provide the games and patches and games. There's not really any downside for you not putting your game on Steam.

As for Tim Schafer, long story short: People invested 3.3 million into his new platforming game on Kickstarted (a site dedicated to funding projects that otherwise could not go ahead) and that image was all he has released. He's now asking for MORE money so he can continue to sit on his fat arse and do nothing but bathe in 3.3 million dollars.

more money?

Didn't they exceed their target by like 6x?? (originally a $500k target)

And yah... Steam is the epitome of how patching should be done... but MS and Sony want to hand hold dev's through everything...

as if people already don't automatically blame the developers for any problems in their games >.<

In any case, the main cost is distribution, not reviewing the code. It does NOT cost MS $40,000 to certify a patch... so why is there a $40,000 fee on submitting a patch?

We, the consumer, are already paying MS $$$ for the services rendered, and it can't cost more than a small teams wages of 5-7 days work to run through certification...

so where is the justification of these fees other than just being greedy fucks?

Oh... waitaminute... I think I just realized something...

I just wrote:

so where is the justification of these fees other than just being greedy fucks?

Oh, and FWIW: It sounds like Minecraft has worked out a special deal (probably only worked out because M$ wanted it and wanted it exclusive) in order to bring more frequent updates to users. Lets hope this paves the way for better patching in other games in the future.

Makes me wanna get into PC gaming.

Steam blows. It's giant overwhelming reason number 3 for me playing on consoles.

1. Uneven platforms (powerful PCs vs meh PCs)
2. The hacker paranoia (is this person just REALLY good, or is he hacking... you'll never know for sure, but that doubt ruins games for me)
3) Steam blows

PC capability is one of the driving forces that led me to console gaming....

however, games are at the point now where after you get past the "high" settings power level (not difficult to achieve.) then there is no real advantage gained with higher levels, and actually max settings can make it harder as more foliage will render at longer distances providing more concealment for the enemy at range.

The hacker paranoia... sure... but play enough and you can usually tell the difference.

but steam? How the fuck does steam blow?? They have MASSIVE sales that make any console deals look like a joke. They provide a better system for devs to patch their game and the community to share mods, oh yah, and there's still no fees

It's centralized and bulky and spammy and pop-up-y and so on. I make my firewall block it when I don't need to be on Garrysmod.

Steam does offer a lot of freedom for devs and amazing deals on games, but its interface leaves a lot to be desired for. As fido said, it full of pop up windows when you try navigating about and it will make you jump through 5000 hoops just to do something like add a friend.

RoninHo'in wrote:

I would be interested in knowing why the PC version doesn't see more patches though.... other then potentially not wanting the uproar from jelly console players.

You talking about BF3 patches? for some reason DICE likes to roll out patches at the same time now... in LARGE chunks rather than the frequent and small patches of most PC only titles (TF2, CS, LoL, etc...)

They don't want to develop them twice, just once across all platforms, consoles and PC

Fido wrote:

It's centralized and bulky and spammy and pop-up-y and so on. I make my firewall block it when I don't need to be on Garrysmod.

Yeah, the interface could use an overhaul, yet Valve isn't known for UI design...

It gets the job done and IMO isn't intrusive.

It isn't that large of a resource hog

GnarlyBromance wrote:

Fido wrote:

It's centralized and bulky and spammy and pop-up-y and so on. I make my firewall block it when I don't need to be on Garrysmod.

Yeah, the interface could use an overhaul, yet Valve isn't known for UI design...

It gets the job done and IMO isn't intrusive.

It isn't that large of a resource hog

That's pretty much my opinion of it.

Sure it ain't perfect... but it works and I don't notice much impact even on my laptop.

I feel like it's intrusive. If I'm not doing anything Steam-related, and Steam pops up windows on my screen, it's intrusive. If my internet connection fails, the first thing I want to see is diagnostics, NOT Steam telling me in 20 windows that it can't connect to the internet and what would you like us to do about it sir shall we retry automatically or do you wanna like log in or just kinda leave these 3 nice pictures of a game that you aren't interested in on your desktop or oh so you wanna hit X huh I accept your challenge CTRL+ALT+DELETE END PROCESS

?

Well... I don't ever actually RUN steam unless I'm going to actively play games or browse the store.... and then when I'm done, I proactively quit the program.

there's ur first problem.

I don't run it anymore. Like I said, I don't see it until I need to play Garrysmod. Just because I don't let it be on by default doesn't mean it's not a shitty program. I've had adware that was less bothersome.

Yea, I can agree 100% with Steam and internet. Internet loss?

...
...
..."Steam cannot connect to the internet, would you like to play in offline mode?"
*click yes*
"Steam cannot do that without an internet connection."

Fucking retarded.

I leave steam on in the background 24/7. (then again I really only use my desktop for gaming) However, I don't notice really pop-ups and rarely have drops in internet.

I only get the initial promo pop-ups each day, and that is about it. I like those... good to know what is on sale for me to be buying!

I'd be fine with it if it wasn't so invasive, or centralized, or annoying, or monopolistic.

GnarlyBromance wrote:

I only get the initial promo pop-ups each day, and that is about it. I like those... good to know what is on sale for me to be buying!

Yah, actually I like seeing what's on sale any time I log in.

That's how I wound up grabbing DoW2 actually.

I knew Gnarly couldn't resist ballwashing

Skreshavik wrote:

Yea, I can agree 100% with Steam and internet. Internet loss?

...
...
..."Steam cannot connect to the internet, would you like to play in offline mode?"
*click yes*
"Steam cannot do that without an internet connection."

Fucking retarded.

No, you're fucking retarded because that's not what Steam does.

Single-player example: Skyrim.

-When you first start Steam it will try to connect to your account. You WILL need internet access at this point.
-Once you're logged in, and you see your library with all your games, you don't need to be online any more. You're free to be disconnected so long as Steam has gotten what it needs to log into your account in the first place.
-From this point on, as long as you don't exit Steam, you never need to be online to play Skyrim again. EVER.
-And of course, if you want to completely shut down your machine/quit Steam, and you know that you're not going to have internet available next tie you want to play SKyrim (like you're getting cut off, or going on a trip or whatever), you can just restart Steam in offline mode and you're prepared for all future no internet situations.

That's how it works. If you want to play a multiplayer game, then sure, you need to be online. And I know that several devs force DRM once you get into a game regardless of how Steam operates. But Steam itself only requires internet for that first log in.

Gee, I wish it worked like that in my world. I'm also quite positive CS:S doesn't have any of the said DRM issues.