How is it the publishers decision to release patches?
They are the boss/project manager in the scenario. Devs are working for the publisher. The publisher decides how to allocate dev resources and ultimately determine workflow.
How is it the publishers decision to release patches?
Isn't the budget for patches on the publisher's side?How is it the publishers decision to release patches?
They are the boss/project manager in the scenario. Devs are working for the publisher. The publisher decides how to allocate dev resources and ultimately determine workflow.
Isn't the budget for patches on the publisher's side?
Basically the tittle shouldn't be released if it is broken in any way. Everyone really should be observing a policy to never buy on launch in order to really force the issue home and waiting for announcements of this nature to indicate which way the wind is blowing.If your game is broken on release you have an obligation to fix it and not shove dlc down our throats instead.
I'm getting sick of getting incomplete, broken games where it's all too easy for the dev/publisher to just promise a patch later and never follow through with fixing their games because they already got your money. I'll be thinking twice before I buy any games from WB now.
Its almost like they secretly have nothing but contempt for their customers and think we are all a boatload of idiots.
Yep.If you buy the next Rocksteady Batman game, you're still supporting this - it will be a publisher decision to forgo adequate patching.
Exactly, even more so in this instance since the publisher owns the developer. You may find that if it was a Rocksteady game, they might have more leverage if they wanted to get a patch out and WB wanted them to just work on the DLC as they've knocked 2 well recieved games out, so it may "dilute the brand" of Rocksteady. But these guys probably have nothing even if they did ask for resources for more patches.
Honestly, there could be some legal action taken here.
It was a defective product that they refuse to fix
Not patching your "finished" product to fix game-breaking glitches in order to sell more DLC to fatten your wallets?
Don't think that's what he meant - just that Rocksteady has a sufficiently prestigious reputation that they might be given more leverage than WB Montreal was.Pretty sure Warner owns a controlling majority of rocksteady.
You'd be wrong. If warner wanted them to prioritize dlc over patches, they will...and have. Just like both the previous arkham games.Don't think that's what he meant - just that Rocksteady has a sufficiently prestigious reputation that they might be given more leverage than WB Montreal was.
You'd be wrong. If warner wanted them to prioritize dlc over patches, they will...and have. For both the previous arkham games.
I'll preface this by saying choosing to not support publishers and developers for making such decisions is fine.
However, the same thing happened with Rocksteady and you never saw a reaction on the same level as this. No one was saying that Rocksteady should no longer work on the series. A similar situation with Bethesda published games; the bigger, more well-loved the developer, the more they are forgiven for mistakes.
That's a pretty shitty reply. I'm one of the lucky ones I guess that was able to complete this fantastic entry. It's more of the same but with the best plot of the entire trilogy. It's sad that so many people won't play it just because it's not innovative.
For some reason Halo, God of War, and CoD get by with 5+ main entries without much real innovation but if Batman isn't brand spanking new this time it's the end of the world. Also, I think it's kinda funny how many just chalk this up to another negative for this dev studio when the orders come from up high (WB). It's quite possible the developer made this public statement to collect community outcry as leverage.
It's crap like this that is making me want to stop supporting the major studios. There is no point in preordering , buying a season pass/ dlc , or not waiting to just buy the game used if they don't even bother to patch the bugs in their game .
You forgot to mention that the game doesn't work for people and it won't be fixed. You know, the entire point of this thread.
Yeah, I learned to stop preordering a long time ago (when I did it for Red Faction Armageddon because I loved Guerrilla, ugh).
The problem was that I had heard the game HAD been patched so I thought it was safe to buy during the holiday Steam sale... but clearly I should have been reading forum impressions and not news articles talking about the patch.
I wasn't aware of any huge, widespread game breaking bugs. What are they and on what platforms?
In the time it took to be needlessly snarky you could have answered his question.Read the thread or use google would be my suggestion
In the time it took to be needlessly snarky you could have answered his question.
It was patched. I was able to play through the entire game on PC and the major side missions. I didn't do everything as I'm not a completionist, but all the story driven side quests I tackled just fine. The only big I ran into was the radio tower glitch and that was patched.
This is absolutely disgusting.
I skipped this game because it obviously wasn't worth $60 at launch and will definitely refrain from ever picking it, or any other WBM title up in the future.
Ok so you were able to complete the game. That still sucks but it doesn't sound game breaking at least.
Not really. As long as Rocksteady continues to make Arkham games he can still play those. He just doesn't want to support a developer that wont fix issues with their games that they know to be broken. Nothing wrong with that at all.A ridiculous stance to take.
I wasn't aware of any huge, widespread game breaking bugs. What are they and on what platforms?
If you buy the next Rocksteady Batman game, you're still supporting this - it will be a publisher decision to forgo adequate patching.
lmao I love people like you.
"I've never heard or experienced said bugs, so they don't exist!"
Despite the developer themselves acknowledging that problems exist, people like you will still try to claim it isn't an issue. It really is amazing
But the only difference will be people will pretend it doesn't exist or throw themselves in front of a train for the rockksteady game in order to defend it, just like with the previous two rocksteady games
As has already been said many times, this is almost certainly WBIE's call, not that of the dev team itself.Not really. As long as Rocksteady continues to make Arkham games he can still play those. He just doesn't want to support a developer that wont fix issues with their games that they know to be broken. Nothing wrong with that at all.
In the time it took to be needlessly snarky you could have answered his question.
No, but you also don't have to be rude towards them either. There's a middle ground, find it and grow up.Is it really my job to make sure people read the thread they're posting in?
I'll preface this by saying choosing to not support publishers and developers for making such decisions is fine.
However, the same thing happened with Rocksteady and you never saw a reaction on the same level as this. No one was saying that Rocksteady should no longer work on the series. A similar situation with Bethesda published games; the bigger, more well-loved the developer, the more they are forgiven for mistakes.
If that decision is being made by WB (the publisher), then those people should focus their attack on WB themselves and not use the decision as justification for saying "small, inexperienced devs shouldn't be able to step in on big series."
*claps*That's the thing: it IS warner's fault. Publishers decide release dates, and thus publishers decide to ship a game that's obviously not ready. Publishers, especially ones that own the studio, dictate what the development team is working on, and thus the publisher chose to focus the team on something that earns the company more money (dlc) vs something that doesn't (patches).
I meam fuck there's really no way you can pin this on the devs here. Just look at the games credits ffs. There must have been 3 studios and over 100 people listed in the qa section of the credits. You think those people don't know how to do their job or something? Fuck no. To get to be in those positions on a tripple a game in the extremely competitive montreal development community you /have/ to be good at your job. So the implication that these bugs even could have been missed just totally blows my fucking mind. The qa teams knew. Warner mont knew. And warner knew. The latter didnt care, and the former two probably ended up working multiple 100+ hour work week to get the game even in the shape it was in in the first place. And what does all that hard work get them? Lower review scores that their bonuses are effected by because of bugs that were left that they had no way to fix due to an impossible to meet deadline and Morons like the one's in this thread calling them lazy and/or incompetent.
And that's why people usually don't end sticking around in game development. They work impossible hours for mediocre pay and the end result of all that time and effort? Coming home after a 14 hour shift and reading online that you're lazy and/or incompetent AT BEST, and at worst people telling you to go kill yourself and your family because of something 99% of the time you had no control over.
But yeah.
Must be nice to be that delusional.
Wb knew the game wasn't ready and wb put it out anyways. Game development is not a science, it is an art. Shit happens and bugs are encountered that need more time to be quashed. Wb chose not to and pushed the game out anyways because their wallet needed a boost.
They're at fault here no matter how you try and spin it.
Publishers decide release dates, and thus publishers decide to ship a game that's obviously not ready.
Fucking wow. Glad I didn't even bother with Origins. Rocksteady or bust.