Jump to content



Photo

Phil Fish Won’t Release Fez II For Xbox Platforms


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#16 OP compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:38

You're right in expecting games to be free of game breaking bugs, but sometimes it happens. When the patch was released, MS allowed it through the cert system, then pulled it, then agreed the 1% of save game corruption was pretty low so allowed it back.

 

I'd just say there is enough blame to go around.




#17 dead.cell

dead.cell

    My Body My Temple

  • Joined: 09-July 04
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • OS: Win 7 Pro / Win 8 Pro
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5 Active

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:49

I prefer it when games are released without game breaking bugs personally more then patting peopel on the back for making a half done untested game and then for every time they fix their broken ****. 

 

True, but it's sorta ridiculous to expect anyone to be perfect. Even Microsoft's own games have their share of bugs and glitches. :ermm:



#18 vcfan

vcfan

    Doing the Humpty Dance

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:54

So Microsoft gives him the platform with the audience for the game to sell over 200,000 copies. At $10 a pop,thats 2 million dollars. He knows the terms of XBLA, writes ###### code, and now blames Microsoft. What? why don't you pony up some of that money you made and stop blaming others you cheap ass.



#19 vetFourjays

Fourjays

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 09-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:55

I prefer it when games are released without game breaking bugs personally more then patting peopel on the back for making a half done untested game and then for every time they fix their broken ****. 

I think it is unrealistic to expect games to be bug free on release (game breaking bugs at release are actually quite rare). But I don't want developers abandoning all improvements the second it is launched and "running". I want them to fix as many bugs as they can, improve mechanics, respond to user criticism and add new features or content if they feel like it. Several PC games I've got (some of which are relatively old) are still having bugs fixed and features improved.

 

The correct way to stop game breaking bugs on release is to vet the games pre-release. And let's face it, the companies most likely to release games in such a state are the same ones who basically abandon them post-release.



#20 OP compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:58

So Microsoft gives him the platform with the audience for the game to sell over 200,000 copies. At $10 a pop,thats 2 million dollars. He knows the terms of XBLA, writes ****ty code, and now blames Microsoft. What? why don't you pony up some of that money you made and stop blaming others you cheap ass.

 

Did MS make nothing from the arrangement?



#21 vcfan

vcfan

    Doing the Humpty Dance

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 21 June 2013 - 18:02

Did MS make nothing from the arrangement?

 

listen, its part of the terms that he agreed upon,before hand. he has no right to complain. if he really cares about his customers,he will pay up, but since he doesn't want to pay, of course he is going to pass blame. that is his problem,and his only.



#22 Buio

Buio

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 30-June 09
  • Location: Sweden

Posted 21 June 2013 - 18:26

I prefer it when games are released without game breaking bugs personally more then patting peopel on the back for making a half done untested game and then for every time they fix their broken ****. 

Games that are fine have been getting a lot of patches too, look for example at Blizzard who continually releases patches for their games. It's naive to conclude that patches are only good to fix "game breaking bugs".



#23 OP compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 21 June 2013 - 18:28

listen, its part of the terms that he agreed upon,before hand. he has no right to complain. if he really cares about his customers,he will pay up, but since he doesn't want to pay, of course he is going to pass blame. that is his problem,and his only.

No one is disputing that. 

 

The ###### patch released was vetting by the MS testing process. If MS cared about their customers perhaps they should have waived the recertification fee.



#24 Andrew

Andrew

    Guardian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:49

Has anyone seen the Indie Developers documentary? This guy is an arrogant tool.

 

Agreed. Phil, Jonathan Blow & Tommy from Team Meat all come across as very difficult to work with. Phil's partner was tired of him so much he left the company (I'm sure there was more to it than that), Jonathan Blow pretty much admitted he doesn't/didn't like working with others and Tommy has ADHD iirc so he gets very irate. However, there is plenty of others like the RCR dev (forget his name right now), or Lanning from Oddworld who all share the same sentiments so I don't doubt for a second their "essentials" and demands are frustrating to work around. They made sense when XBLA was in it's infancy but they're desperately outdated today. That's why it's going to be such a problem for the X1 too IMO, they don't seem to be doing anything to solve them.

 

Before anyone mentions BUILD, I really couldn't give a **** about it. It's not going to be the turning point for MS & major restructuring is required.

 

I'm pretty sure I remember people saying Sony charges for you to push out game updates as well.    One could say there's a incentive in charging devs this.  While on one hand it sucks because the little guy can't pay the costs right away, if it all, so the game takes long to get patched or never does.  On the other hand, if you know this policy ahead of time, and all of them did going in I'm sure, then all the more reason to beta test as much as you can before you send it out.

 

Both MS and Sony charge for updates which, if you believe Double Fine, amounted to $40K. There obviously needs to be some sort of quality control in place to stop developers releasing buggy games. It shouldn't be there to stop people releasing "crapware" as some call it. One man's trash is another's treasure yadda yadda. That overhead needs to be paid for so it will never be free. Is it really worth $20K at a time? I don't think so, especially when they don't get it right and we see TU after TU from some.

 

Can you offer any examples of devs who've had their fees waived? There might be some, but I've never heard of it.

 

If they are waiving the fees it completely negates the point of having fees to discourage poor development.

 

While maybe not exactly what you guys were talking about the biggest example would be Minecraft iirc. The updates are both free to push for 4J and download for gamers.

 

I know Major Nelson has spoke about it before on his podcast and depending on the negotiations they will waive them too. So you could assume that means they'll let them update freely if they stay exclusive or something.