As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Industry Thread] I shall call him...Mini Wii.

1656668707199

Posts

  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    vegeta_666 wrote: »
    Tattoo Artist Sues THQ Over Unlicensed Use Of Tattoo
    Tattoo artist Chris Escobedo is suing THQ over the unlicensed use of a tattoo that appears on fighter Carlos Condit in the UFC Undisputed 3. Escobedo is the owner of Elite Tattoo in Arizona, and he created the tattoo that appears on Condit's side.

    Polygon reports that the tattoo in question is an original creation by Escobedo, and THQ did not request permission for the tattoo's appearance in the game. Escobedo says he would not have offered permission had THQ reached out to him. According to Escobedo's lawyer, tattoo artists have full creative rights in regard to their work.

    So this is a thing.

    Look, you only license the use of the tattoo. Getting it put on your skin is not proof of ownership.

    Those periodic Terms of Use changes are a pain....

    >_>
    <_<

  • DritzDritz CanadaRegistered User regular
    Sony and Microsoft could put out 16-core systems with 24 gigs of RAM and 1 terabyte hard drives, but none of it is worth a tinker's cuss if they don't ensure that the system is manufactured in such a way as to avoid the clusterfuck that was the RROD and YLOD. The PS3 was supposed to be the safe bet for console quality this gen, and I still got burned twice, which is nothing compared to some of the people who sent their 360 back in four or five times. Hopefully they will learn from that and ensure that the quality control is tip-top before unleashing their machines onto the public.

    Eh the more complex stuff gets, the higher the failure rates'll be. Even Nintendo stumbled on the quality front this gen and their stuff is usually solid.

    There I was, 3DS: 2621-2671-9899 (Ekera), Wii U: LostCrescendo
  • vegeta_666vegeta_666 CanadaRegistered User regular
    Also an update on the Bohemia Interactive employees arrested in Greece:
    Things have to get worse before they can get better. It would seem, however, that the universal rules of life forget to apply that second part to the case of ArmA III developers Ivan Buchta and Martin Pezlar. They’ve now been imprisoned in Greece for nearly 70 days, and their recent attempt to post bail was completely unsuccessful. So then, what’s next? At this point, it’s looking like a trial is inevitable. And in the event that the Greek legal system treats Buchta and Pezlar as well as the Greek prison system, they could be facing up to 20 years of jail time.

    Back in September, Buchta and Pezlar were arrested on charges of espionage for allegedly snapping photos of a Greek military based while on holiday in Limnos. However, they claimed to have done no such thing, and Bohemia corroborated that by noting that ArmA III’s rendition of Limnos is a few steps away from completion. As such, there’s no need for further reference materials.

    That argument, however, has not swayed the Greek authorities, who have kept Buchta and Pezlar under lock and key even longer than usual due to a strike. Meanwhile, the pair has publicly stated that conditions are quite harsh, and a statement from their parents makes it sound like things have only gone downhill in recent weeks. “Our boys, they no longer tell us that it’s alright, that they are holding it together,” they said in the (translated) statement. “During the phone call they basically told us one thing: ‘Mom, dad, please save us.’”

    RPS’ legal crystal ball on this one, meanwhile, remains fuzzy. On one hand, there’s precedent for this. Specifically, two Dutch and twelve British plane-spotters were arrested on similar charges in 2001. After being detained for an equally absurd amount of time, they were ultimately found guilty. Thankfully, though, the verdict was eventually overturned in an appeal. So there’s hope yet, but it’s a dim and flickering sort.

    Sob24Nm.png
    Steam: abunchofdaftpunk | PSN: noautomobilesgo | Lastfm: sjchszeppelin | Backloggery: colincummings | 3DS FC: 1392-6019-0219 |
  • TeeManTeeMan BrainSpoon Registered User regular
    That story just gets worse and worse

    steam_sig.png
  • NitsuaNitsua Gloucester, VARegistered User regular
    That is just plain horrible. Was not expecting that when I came in here looking for thoughts on how the Wii U will do this weekend.

    Speaking of... thoughts? I'm sure it's sold out, but I thought the same thing when the 3DS launched and then I was able to see them for weeks on end in every store. So, will this be like the 3DS or closer to the Wii?

  • skeldareskeldare Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    Nitsua wrote: »
    That is just plain horrible. Was not expecting that when I came in here looking for thoughts on how the Wii U will do this weekend.

    Speaking of... thoughts? I'm sure it's sold out, but I thought the same thing when the 3DS launched and then I was able to see them for weeks on end in every store. So, will this be like the 3DS or closer to the Wii?

    Nintendo handhelds don't tend to sell out as fast as their consoles.

    Nintendo Console Codes
    Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
    PM Me if you add me!
    HAIL HYDRA
  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    I'd just check around. If you have an obscure Kmart around people seem to forget about those when it comes to video games.

    Anecdotal but the wii I was able to walk in and get on or around launch day.

  • DritzDritz CanadaRegistered User regular
    Tommatt wrote: »
    I'd just check around. If you have an obscure Kmart around people seem to forget about those when it comes to video games.

    Anecdotal but the wii I was able to walk in and get on or around launch day.

    Anecdotal to the extreme.

    Still it's tough finding any console on launch day, I'm kinda worried that pre-ordering might not be enough for the Wii U after all the horror stories I've heard from past console launches.

    Re: Handhelds - I would think it would be easier to mass produce those, no moving parts. Then again you have to deal with screens.

    There I was, 3DS: 2621-2671-9899 (Ekera), Wii U: LostCrescendo
  • NitsuaNitsua Gloucester, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Around here the DS was sold out right away... along with the PSP. Which was why the 3DS surprised me a bit. Because of Zelda being at launch, I got a Wii at midnight without preordering it.. if they had the same for the Wii U I'd be there for this launch too. HD Zelda would be pretty bad ass.

    I'm just not sure the launch games will be enough to pull the people the Wii did... too many ports and not enough Nintendo games. Iwata seems to know what he is doing though.

    Nitsua on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Launches are almost always shit. Nintendo Land and Super Mario Bros. U should be the biggest games with most of the rest being the usual launch bottom feeders.

    For no apparent reason, the Donkey Kong Country games are being taken down from the Wii VC. I don't know what Nintendo is thinking doing that.

  • CadeCade Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
    DKC HD collection for the Wii U is the best guess.

  • skeldareskeldare Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    Cade wrote: »
    DKC HD collection for the Wii U is the best guess.

    HD would be next to impossible for Prerendered games like DKC.

    Nintendo Console Codes
    Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
    PM Me if you add me!
    HAIL HYDRA
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Depending on Rare's archiving policy at the time or whether someone took the initiative, they could use the original models. However, shitloads of gaming information such as source code and the like have been lost over the year so I would be kind of surprised if they made sure to keep all of that. I also think it might require enough reworking of the original games to just make it easier to remake the damn games.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Some game studios, I could see being careful to preserve assets.

    Rare does not strike me as one of those sorts of studios.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Some game studios, I could see being careful to preserve assets.

    Rare does not strike me as one of those sorts of studios.

    Nintendo does, however. And DKC and its affiliated IPs were definitely parts they retained after the sale.

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    This popped up in the WiiU thread and it's way too relevant and important to not look under a closer eye here:
    Hey, so, dunno if this is new. eShop stuff:

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/18/nintendos-steams-up-the-wii-u-eshop

    tl;dr - Devs can set prices and sales in the eShop, and Nintendo apparently has no basic payments for dev patches.
    This is pretty much what I was predicting earlier this year from Microsoft (and then, y'know, they didn't do it), with regard to dev patches. Regardless, leaving things in the hands of developers is a big step toward digitizing content. But that barrier for patches being removed? Fuck yes. I hope it becomes the standard. It should at least sway developers to focus on the WiiU some more if they were skeptical.

  • LorahaloLorahalo Registered User regular
    I don't give a rat's about the tech of next gen consoles, so long as it doesn't launch at a truly ridiculous price like $999. Oh wait, the PS3 already did that here, never mind.

    I have a podcast about Digimon called the Digital Moncast, on Audio Entropy.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    This popped up in the WiiU thread and it's way too relevant and important to not look under a closer eye here:
    Hey, so, dunno if this is new. eShop stuff:

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/18/nintendos-steams-up-the-wii-u-eshop

    tl;dr - Devs can set prices and sales in the eShop, and Nintendo apparently has no basic payments for dev patches.
    This is pretty much what I was predicting earlier this year from Microsoft (and then, y'know, they didn't do it), with regard to dev patches. Regardless, leaving things in the hands of developers is a big step toward digitizing content. But that barrier for patches being removed? Fuck yes. I hope it becomes the standard. It should at least sway developers to focus on the WiiU some more if they were skeptical.

    Costs for title updates (First one's free on Xbox!) may be a factor, but ease of development as well as the quality of any working relationship matters just a bit more. Of all the console makers, Nintendo is just a bit more of a hardass when it comes to doing business.

    Kind of weird to see the argument against trying to get the game as bug free as possible before release be brushed aside in favour of 'Hey! Patches are freeeeeee!!!!!'

  • reVersereVerse Attack and Dethrone God Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Kind of weird to see the argument against trying to get the game as bug free as possible before release be brushed aside in favour of 'Hey! Patches are freeeeeee!!!!!'

    Games aren't bug free even with the fee. The fee just makes it so that the publisher is probably not going to release any patches, leaving the users with a buggy product.

    reVerse on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    reVerse wrote: »
    Kind of weird to see the argument against trying to get the game as bug free as possible before release be brushed aside in favour of 'Hey! Patches are freeeeeee!!!!!'

    Games aren't bug free even with the fee. The fee just makes it so that the publisher is probably not going to release any patches, leaving the users with a buggy product.

    And yet, many games do get multiple updates. So we still blame MS when a dev/pub releases a buggy game and then bitches about how unfair it is that they have to pay a fee that is basically there to prevent buggy releases in the first place.

    Sure, that makes all the sense in the world. Devs are cheap and incompetent, blame MS!

    Commodore75
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    If the policy does a shit job at accomplishing its goals while actually harming smaller developers that want to fix shit that fell through the cracks, it is perfectly appropriate to blame MS.

    LockedOnTarget
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    reVerse wrote: »
    Kind of weird to see the argument against trying to get the game as bug free as possible before release be brushed aside in favour of 'Hey! Patches are freeeeeee!!!!!'

    Games aren't bug free even with the fee. The fee just makes it so that the publisher is probably not going to release any patches, leaving the users with a buggy product.

    And yet, many games do get multiple updates. So we still blame MS when a dev/pub releases a buggy game and then bitches about how unfair it is that they have to pay a fee that is basically there to prevent buggy releases in the first place.

    Sure, that makes all the sense in the world. Devs are cheap and incompetent, blame MS!


    I don't know about "we", but I blame the dev when a game is buggy on launch.

    However, MS's certification process (which is what the fee is paying for) doesn't prevent that from happening. And in most cases that's simply because these are issues that can't really be discovered until you've had circa 1,000,000 people poring over all aspects of the game. Most devs, surprisingly, don't want to release buggy games because that gets slated in reviews and ravaged by fans.

    That this causes issues is ESPECIALLY true for multiplayer games and balance ( my personal bugbear since personally, most of the bugs I ever see or hear about in SP games are usually minor, pretty hard to find and often benign).

    What the certification process ends up doing at that point is several things. It delays fixes for extended periods of time while certification goes through, it encourages bulk megapatches which typically break other balance issues in the process, hurts smaller devs, and generally slows down adapting and responding to balance issues.

    That's basically my view on it anyway, it's mainly based off of years of dealing with it PC-side with GFWL. If you want to know the specifics of my nerd-angst in that regard, I've copy pasted my issues with it from a post I did years ago. Spoilered since realistically, I know most people don't care about Dawn of War 2.

    For a game that’s been GFWL certified, any and all updates have to go through Microsoft for certification before they can be applied to the game. This is a process that in itself can take well over a month, and the developer has to pay for every certification. Frankly, this is utterly utterly HORRENDOUS for online balance.

    What this means for a game like DoW2 is that updates cannot be pushed out incrementally and regularly. Instead what happens is that you wait for months on end whilst game breaking balance issues are in the wild, only to receive massive mega-patches that try to fix everything at once and end up breaking something else.

    You see similar on XBL for that matter. But this has the effect of hampering online play to a ridiculous degree as the game remains unpatched for months (Gears of War 2 was particularly legendary for just how broken its multiplayer was, and remained, long after its release).

    Let me put this in comparison for you. Within one month of being released, Supreme Commander 2 (using Steamworks, and as such they can update freely and whenever they want) had already had more balance updates than Relic were able to push out in about six months.

    Because of GFWL certification, Relic have to focus on extra-large, balance breaking updates so that they don’t extend the delays on patching further and have multiple paid certifications going at once. They aren’t Infinity Ward, Microsoft won’t “bend the rules” for them in order to fast-track updating. You'd see posts on the main Relic website saying things like "Balance patch X is complete. Now we just have to wait until MS certifies it before we can deploy it."

    For singleplayer games this isn’t really an issue. For multiplayer games it effectively destroys balance because developers can’t incrementally and immediately update the titles. It needs to go, or else needs some drastic changes. Imagine for a moment, if Team Fortress 2 had to not only have a month long certification process every time they wanted to roll out even a minor update or patch, they also had to pay for it.

    EDIT: Let me put this in some perspective here since the latest release. The situation was so bad for the community and for Relic that for the 2nd expansion pack, they switched to Steamworks. They actually took on the cost of re-writing the multiplayer back-end to make it work with Steamworks (including an entire new matchmaking system). The result was also that because Steamworks and GFWL aren't interoperable, the multiplayer community was literally split between the two releases (something that Relic has always worked extremely hard to avoid). All this, and this was still viewed as the best case scenario for the game and better than simply sticking with the old system. To me that’s about as big an indictment as you can get.

    After the switch to Steamworks things improved in quite a few areas. For patching, you'd literally see an issue appear in the wild, and minor hotfixes could get applied within the space of a week. Balance patches shrank in size and became more frequent. And generally, the game was able to adapt better. Heck, one of the Relic devs even commented on that:
    FYI on the bug fixing front a Steam patch can be applied in a matter of hours, most of which involve making coffee, chatting about the latest season of Survivor and pressing the upload button.

    subedii on
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    That cuts both ways, though. As somebody who had to play Valve games on 360 before building a PC again after some years, sometimes the developers are just pitching fits about not getting to do whatever they wanted. Valve bickered with Microsoft for years about patching stuff, during which Valve basically didn't patch their games at all past the first couple of weeks. I don't care who you are, that's totally shitty behavior to expect another company to eat the costs for your shitty bug/balance testing. Everything in the Orange Box was affected (though mostly TF2, naturally), and I ragequit on L4D simply because the game was totally unplayable in versus mode thanks to enormous oversights that were ignored after a couple of months because Valve came along and announced L4D2. Deplorable.

    The process could definitely be better, but a lot of devs could also be a lot better about not releasing broken, buggy games so the whole thing isn't as much of an issue.

    Microsoft ditching the certification process, or at least stripping it down to almost nothing, would be a big step. The certification process isn't even for the game itself, right? Just to make sure the patch doesn't do horrible things to the system? So if the core game didn't wreck the system, I'm pretty sure that a patch doesn't need to go through some ridiculously rigorous testing to prove it won't wreck the console if the main game didn't.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Nintendo is requiring people spend fifty cents each by credit card to register minors' accounts. They can always just lie about their age. On the other hand, this could result in so many bans with certain multiplayer games.

  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    Devs have to be held responsible for releasing working games, no doubt. But like I said, the certification doesn't really seem to make that happen.

    On a side note, one of the key issues with Orange Box was that EA did the porting, and weren't too interested in helping maintain it. And TF2, you have to admit, is a VERY different kettle of fish in terms of its evolution (it was already pushing RAM limits as it was when it first launched). Issues with L4D were inexcusable though, I'll agree there.

    But either way, certification didn't prevent it from happening, and having to go through it doesn't make the subsequent patches anymore bulletproof when it comes to the actual game. I mean Crikey, Bethesda games are some of the biggest sellers in the industry and they're legendary for this.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Microsoft ditching the certification process, or at least stripping it down to almost nothing, would be a big step. The certification process isn't even for the game itself, right? Just to make sure the patch doesn't do horrible things to the system? So if the core game didn't wreck the system, I'm pretty sure that a patch doesn't need to go through some ridiculously rigorous testing to prove it won't wreck the console if the main game didn't.

    The process serves essentially the same purpose for all three: to ensure that the submitted software (game, update, whatever) meets the specific console's requirements. Mostly it's about metadata that we will never see, but there are also things like how buttons must be displayed in the game or messages or whatever.

    None of them are looking for actual game bugs. Of course, they can find them and will note them in their report*, but first-party finding a crash is not specifically enough to fail a game.

    Title updates don't take long for approval. It's usually the queue to get to it that might take longer. First-party will do a cursory run-through to make sure the game is basically stable, but that's the extent. At that point they just want to make sure it's within size limits and has all the proper metadata and so on.

    I still haven't seen evidence that small devs are somehow hurt by a fee. Frankly, if you can't afford the second update, then the game probably didn't sell well enough to warrant the effort. Most games simply don't have a long shelf life and so won't see update after update. It's the big games that get them and the big games come from the big devs.


    *Game crashes are noted and technically qualify as a failure for approval. However, at least with SONY and MS, they will waive it if the pub/dev says they'll fix it. If a title has too many crashes, then the game will be rejected outright, but one or two will not be enough.

  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    I still haven't seen evidence that small devs are somehow hurt by a fee. Frankly, if you can't afford the second update, then the game probably didn't sell well enough to warrant the effort. Most games simply don't have a long shelf life and so won't see update after update. It's the big games that get them and the big games come from the big devs.
    "Those systems as great as they are, they're still closed", Schafer told Hookshot. "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!"

    Interpret that as you will.

    Although with regards to your second point, there are plenty of small and indie devs that want to (and do) update their games long after release, even regardless of not making huge sales, simply because that's what they want to do for the game and its community.

    I mean speaking personally, if you've taken pride in something you put out and found there was something in it that wasn't up to the standard you wanted, you'd probably want to fix it if you could. Heck, I've seen even seen a dev put out unofficial patches for a game that was half a decade old and where the company that officially made the game didn't exist anymore (Anachronox IIRC, although it might be another game I'm thinking of).

    subedii on
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Yeah, a big problem with that system is that it's no barrier at all to a megalithic developer, but almost totally insurmountable to a small one. 40 grand when you've got a team of 5-10 people making 5 figures in a year from making a game? You're talking about a sizeable percentage of their income down the drain, yet they're likely the ones with the least game-breaking issues to patch.

    So the system is no real barrier at all to those likely to be the biggest offenders, but a brick wall to those least likely to chew up lots of resources with big updates. Not to mention that it completely hamstrings any neat, free stuff devs might hand out with patches, because if they can't patch the game, they can't give the stuff out. Instead, developers are gently "encouraged" to charge to charge for EVERYTHING so that Microsoft can get another slice of money.

    Ninja Snarl P on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Yeah, a big problem with that system is that it's no barrier at all to a megalithic developer, but almost totally insurmountable to a small one. 40 grand when you've got a team of 5-10 people making 5 figures in a year from making a game? You're talking about a sizeable percentage of their income down the drain, yet they're likely the ones with the least game-breaking issues to patch.

    So the system is no real barrier at all to those likely to be the biggest offenders, but a brick wall to those least likely to chew up lots of resources with big updates. Not to mention that it completely hamstrings any neat, free stuff devs might hand out with patches, because if they can't patch the game, they can't give the stuff out. Instead, developers are gently "encouraged" to charge to charge for EVERYTHING so that Microsoft can get another slice of money.

    Well, for one, I dispute the $40k figure. When I last worked anywhere near that end of the industry, the cost was $10k. Granted that was about five years ago, but that's what I knew at the time.

    Second, I repeat that MS only charges the fee for the second update. Small developers making small games shouldn't be in a position to need update after update. They're small games from small devs. Why on earth can't they get it even close to right the first time? Saving it up for a megapatch that breaks more than it fixes? Again, what small, indie game out there ever needed a GIGANTIC update to fix a game made by '5-10' people?

    I think what we're really doing here is trying to equate both large and small dev work as being equal when the reality is that it's not. Any small game that has so many issues that can't be beneficially addressed in a single update is probably a bad game made by a company with too little talent.

    As for the second idea, that they might want to give away free bits and bobs and now cannot? If they're so hand-to-mouth already, why work for free later on? If anything, charging a couple of bucks for some thing is in their better interests. Even if MS takes a cut. Plus, don't we hear about how awesome it is to support the little guy? Are we now saying that of Zeboyd charged a buck for some DLC we'd gripe about it?

    All development is not equal. And perhaps MS should rethink their policies based on a particular need or whatever. But I still maintain that small indie games are not typically the ones that need constant tweaking post-release. There are plenty of XBLA games released by small devs that aren't buggy and broken and thus don't need update after update to correct.

    I remember when I played more PC games and how easy (and [mostly] free) it was to get the patches. But I'd long settled the fact in my mind that consoles aren't PCs. And that the post-release landscape is a different beast. I've been burned a few times by developers who abandoned the game to its fate because of whatever reason. But that's just how it is.

    My point still remains, if you can't afford to get it right the second time, then get it right the first time.

  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Second, I repeat that MS only charges the fee for the second update. Small developers making small games shouldn't be in a position to need update after update. They're small games from small devs. Why on earth can't they get it even close to right the first time? Saving it up for a megapatch that breaks more than it fixes? Again, what small, indie game out there ever needed a GIGANTIC update to fix a game made by '5-10' people?

    I think what we're really doing here is trying to equate both large and small dev work as being equal when the reality is that it's not. Any small game that has so many issues that can't be beneficially addressed in a single update is probably a bad game made by a company with too little talent.

    If we're talking larger companies, then Double Fine aren't "small" in the sense of being an Indie dev (relative terms lol etc.), but when Tim Schafer's talking about how they can't afford the kind of money being asked to issue patches, that's something to take notice of.
    As for the second idea, that they might want to give away free bits and bobs and now cannot? If they're so hand-to-mouth already, why work for free later on? If anything, charging a couple of bucks for some thing is in their better interests. Even if MS takes a cut. Plus, don't we hear about how awesome it is to support the little guy? Are we now saying that of Zeboyd charged a buck for some DLC we'd gripe about it?

    Nobody would gripe if they wanted to charge for DLC. At the same time if Zeboyd said they wanted to release DLC or even minor additions for free but couldn't, there'd be plenty of griping, and it'd be understandable. Heck, I still remember all the accusations flying at Valve when they would release DLC free PC side (like they often do) but not on the 360. The reason being that MS didn't view the PC as the competing platform to the 360 and so didn't extend the same courtesy of free DLC as they did when a game's getting it for free on the PS3 (which is also why Portal 2's "Peer Review" was available for free on Live). And those were significant additions. If you've got a neat little thing that you'd think the fans would like and took all of a few hours to whip up, it's easy to see how the charges would be prohibitive.

    Looking at Magicka for example, my copy of the game's got loads of updates for free. Still plenty of paid DLC going, but little things like alternate costumes they just dole out willy-nilly. Just because they want to.
    All development is not equal. And perhaps MS should rethink their policies based on a particular need or whatever. But I still maintain that small indie games are not typically the ones that need constant tweaking post-release. There are plenty of XBLA games released by small devs that aren't buggy and broken and thus don't need update after update to correct.

    I remember when I played more PC games and how easy (and [mostly] free) it was to get the patches. But I'd long settled the fact in my mind that consoles aren't PCs. And that the post-release landscape is a different beast. I've been burned a few times by developers who abandoned the game to its fate because of whatever reason. But that's just how it is.

    My point still remains, if you can't afford to get it right the second time, then get it right the first time.

    As for smaller companies...

    Singleplayer games? Like I said, it's usually not so much of an issue (although to be honest, even there I'd still prefer it if they had the option). There's certainly an argument to be made. But Multiplayer games? Those are constantly changing beasts, and even if you're indie, you NEED to be able to issue updates to take account for that. Speaking personally, one of my favourite games of last year was Frozen Synapse. A turn based squad level multiplayer game made by all of 2 people. If they had had to pay even the $10,000 you're suggesting (which being PC only, they didn't), that would run them through the floor so fast it's not even funny. Even paying half of that would be prohibitively expensive to consistent updates.

    Now here's the thing, being turn based I could also see the game working on Live. But now you've got a scenario where one version of the game gets updated, and the other doesn't. Or both don't get updated. I don't see the value there.

    In those, or whatever scenario, your arguments still don't really justify the nature and approach of MS's certification system as such. They're just arguments for why you feel smaller devs shouldn't be updating.


    EDIT: Let me summarise how I feel. Every game should be bug free on release. Large AAA blockbusters and Indie games. But being one or the other doesn't in and of itself prevent bugs from happening. To be honest I see plenty of bugs coming from both stables. Indie games are less complex but made with smaller teams and outside of what the devs do themselves, often little to no QA budget.

    What I notice from the indie scene (at least PC-side) is if the developer cares about their product there's often a far greater willingness to actually do something about any issues that do crop up. However in their case, added price tags are going to be prohibitive. "Get it right the first time" is all well and good, but it's not something that the major players need to concern themselves with if the budget for a patch doesn't mean much to them. So it doesn't stop them in that respect.

    As I've said before, most game developers do everything they can to make sure it doesn't get to that. It's not that small devs are allowing bugs through on purpose of through lack or effort any more than large devs do. And the current scenario has a far greater effect on how the former can respond than the latter.

    subedii on
  • AstaleAstale Registered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    vegeta_666 wrote: »
    Tattoo Artist Sues THQ Over Unlicensed Use Of Tattoo
    Tattoo artist Chris Escobedo is suing THQ over the unlicensed use of a tattoo that appears on fighter Carlos Condit in the UFC Undisputed 3. Escobedo is the owner of Elite Tattoo in Arizona, and he created the tattoo that appears on Condit's side.

    Polygon reports that the tattoo in question is an original creation by Escobedo, and THQ did not request permission for the tattoo's appearance in the game. Escobedo says he would not have offered permission had THQ reached out to him. According to Escobedo's lawyer, tattoo artists have full creative rights in regard to their work.

    So this is a thing.

    Look, you only license the use of the tattoo. Getting it put on your skin is not proof of ownership.

    Those periodic Terms of Use changes are a pain....

    >_>
    <_<

    He is suing THQ?

    Well you can already tell he's not the brightest bulb on the christmas tree. If he's lucky they might still exist by the time it gets to trial! But I doubt it.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    People would bitch about not getting free stuff? Colour me surprised. Frankly, people bitch anyway. Remember when LIVE had connectivity issues four or five years ago? So MS gives away a game for free.

    And people bitched because it wasn't one they wanted. You'll never satisfy people when it comes to money and free crap.

    And can anybody provide an example, just one, of a small developer who was harmed by the fee? I mean, sure, there's Fez. But their first update was buggy. And now it's MS's fault because they don't want to pay to fix the problem again. But is there anybody else?

    Who are these indie/small dev single or multiplayer games that are on the Xbox who have to keep releasing updates? I respectfully ask that we stop using PC games and devs as proof that the MS situation is so bad. Not when we already know and acknowledge that console and PC environments are a little bit different.

    I am not saying MS shouldn't change their policy. I'm saying that the policy isn't the impediment that people make it out to be.

  • reVersereVerse Attack and Dethrone God Registered User regular
    Yes, when developers say that the policy is an impediment, they're just lying.

    programjunkie
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Yes, that's what I said.

    Commodore75
  • ZiggymonZiggymon Registered User regular
    What Microsofts policy also leaves open is the ugly idea that developers will try to cover update patches as paid for DLC to cover additional costs.

  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    People would bitch about not getting free stuff? Colour me surprised. Frankly, people bitch anyway. Remember when LIVE had connectivity issues four or five years ago? So MS gives away a game for free.

    And people bitched because it wasn't one they wanted. You'll never satisfy people when it comes to money and free crap.

    I believe you misunderstand what I mean. People here wouldn't be upset about not getting free stuff, so much as be upset because Zeboyd wouldn't be able to do cool stuff with their game that they wanted to because the costs would be prohibitive. Because we all know and like Zeboyd here, and it'd suck to see them given short shrift like that.
    And can anybody provide an example, just one, of a small developer who was harmed by the fee? I mean, sure, there's Fez. But their first update was buggy. And now it's MS's fault because they don't want to pay to fix the problem again. But is there anybody else?

    Who are these indie/small dev single or multiplayer games that are on the Xbox who have to keep releasing updates? I respectfully ask that we stop using PC games and devs as proof that the MS situation is so bad. Not when we already know and acknowledge that console and PC environments are a little bit different.

    Depends what you're defining as being "harmed". I know for example, that Uber Entertainment haven't been able to patch Monday Night Combat nearly as rapidly or as frequently as they'd have liked to because of the certification process. Which means that even though they started off on the 360, and their primary playerbase for it is still actually on the 360, they actually pushed out patches faster and more frequently when they finally got around to the PC release, then backported things en-masse to the 360 version. Which also didn't last long. These days they seem to be focussing even more on PC development as well. If you visit their forums you'll find a fair amount of their original fanbase feels pretty jilted about this whole affair. If we're defining harm, then yeah I'd say that's been pretty harmful all around, and not a little toxic.

    IIRC Introversion have also come out saying they're not going to release Prison Architect console side, or if they do it'll only be after they pass it on to a 3rd party. Largely because of their experiences with MS's certification process when they ported Darwinia.

    For that matter, a fair few developers have come out speaking against MS's Live policies, in particular how they handle certification, and that this has been a factor in them moving elsewhere. I'd link the articles but to be honest, I'm sure you've already read this stuff before. You can say that they're lying of course, that's your prerogative. But if I say I don't believe they are, then we're effectively at an impasse.

    As for the console and PC environments being a little bit different. Yes they are. But I don't see how that in particular relates to how MS have implemented their certification policies. Particularly when, if we're talking console side, Nintendo are going the route that I'm guessing is supposed to be described as "PC" (and which basically started this whole thing off in the first place). And if we're talking the previous examples, I mean the reason I brought up Dawn of War 2 in the first place is that whilst it's a PC game, it was still making use of the MS Live certification process owing to it being a GFWL title. As far as I'm concerned DoW2 could have been a 360 release and I'd have still had the same problems with it.

    subedii on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Who are these indie/small dev single or multiplayer games that are on the Xbox who have to keep releasing updates?
    Updates are a huge part of many indie games nowadays. For example Dungeon Defenders. Not coincidentally, guess which version isn't receiving constant updates?

  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Who are these indie/small dev single or multiplayer games that are on the Xbox who have to keep releasing updates?
    Updates are a huge part of many indie games nowadays. For example Dungeon Defenders. Not coincidentally, guess which version isn't receiving constant updates?

    http://dungeondefenders.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes_(PC)

    http://dungeondefenders.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes_(Console)

    It also launched on PC about a year after the console version.

  • KiTAKiTA Registered User regular
    So in Dragon Quest news, the new Dragon Quest 7 remake for the 3DS apparently has a "Mysterious Shards" system, which is based on the Roguelike Key World elements of Dragon Quest Monsters 2: Cobi and Tara. Which is a huge hint that they are going to remake DQM2 next.

    (For those who have played DQ9, the DQM2 Key World System was similar, except instead of randomly generating a dungeon, it randomly generated a world map, 1-10 dungeons, and a few random towns, then gave the whole kit and caboodle bosses, minibosses, etc. It was probably one of the more engaging Roguelike style gameplay elements, especially when you consider it was an original Gameboy game.)

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Team Meat basically had to use a very limited loophole that wouldn't really work for most games to get the free bonus 360 levels out for Super Meat Boy. It works for small amounts of data but anything cumulative or large won't really work.

    Couscous on
Sign In or Register to comment.