-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fez glitched-patch goes back online, will not be fixed due to re-cert fees
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
"only a few months left" of XBLA exclusivity
https://twitter.com/Polytron/status/225746712692662272
https://twitter.com/Polytron/status/225746712692662272
Wait a minute, didn't this game make bank? I get that sometimes developers aren't paid out immediately, but I would hardly think money is an issue.
Also, why would they choose a patch that breaks the game for some people over the previous version of the game? The previous version seemed fine.
Also, why would they choose a patch that breaks the game for some people over the previous version of the game? The previous version seemed fine.
They should've given them the best experience possible before they let gamers give them money, not after.
Indie bums strike again.
I want to give the game the benefit of the doubt but if it's really one of those "platforming for the sake of platforming" games with no challenge whatsoever than that isn't encouraging.
Maybe if there were a PC version I could see for myself.
grimshawish
Banned
MS have this policy for a reason. Its not to steal from people; its to force devs to publish workable games and not to patch unnecessarily or without testing first.
Don't bring out a broken patch. Fez always looked cool but its been a bit of a mess.
Don't bring out a broken patch. Fez always looked cool but its been a bit of a mess.
The Faceless Master
Member
"Had FEZ been released on steam instead of XBLA, the game would have been fixed two weeks after release, at no cost to us. And if there was an issue with that patch, we could have fixed that right away too!"
yep, that's a great mentality... just push out patches since you can fix the shit you break!
yep, that's a great mentality... just push out patches since you can fix the shit you break!
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
They pay MS for exclusivity!? Why the fuck would you do that?
Seriously. Get this shit to Steam and make that money.
Seriously. Get this shit to Steam and make that money.
IrishNinja
Member
no, and it makes even less sense for tiny houses like this one. and how exactly is it an "excuse" when poly - much like we saw before with castle crashers and others - clearly want to fix the issue, but are being actively prohibited from doing so?
take a look at steam - my games seamlessly update all the time from these "lol lazy devs" responding to their community, as though that were a negative, and the platform oddly flourishes.
that other gaffer who called XBL a toxic platform for indie devs nailed it.
this part is also confusing me, idve thought publishing/exclusivity would be a bit more forgiving.
Dog Problems
Banned
Yeah, that was definitely an ignorant thing to say.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I hope disgruntled customers express their frustration over Twitter so good ol' Douchey Phil Fish can tell everyone to suck his dick again.
Those fees are there to make Microsoft cash. If Microsoft cared about the experience of gamers they wouldn't have such restrictions because those restrictions end up giving gamers buggier games. Nobody in their right mind should be defending Microsoft here.
linko9
Member
Well they (he) posted this:
and I assumed that meant they were no longer bound, but is there a lifetime "live" (be it GFWL or XBL) contract involved as well?
Holy shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit he's never gonna live that one down.
Most likely promotion and marketing.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Cmon now. It can be both, not just one. 1: Make money in case someone has to re-fix their fixes and 2: encourage developers, financially, to not ship broken shit.
D
Deleted member 102362
Unconfirmed Member
So I get the impression this guy says a lot of things he ends up regretting (or that he should regret.)
IrishNinja
Member
ah, good for them. will likely support on steam then.
you do realize this was like 2 guys, right? i think the righteous indignation this thread's kinda seeing belongs more to massive conglomerates like EA, ubi etc.
yeah, this'd be my guess, based on stuff from indie movie too.
toythatkills
Member
No, those fees are there to encourage developers not to release broken shit, and they work for the most part.
Someone said to think of it like a fine rather than a fee, and that's spot on.
"Had FEZ been released on Steam we could be on our 30th patch by now. What bug will we introduce next! Stay tuned to find out!"
Unlimited free patches is not good for gamers. Getting developers to get it right first time is good for gamers.
I don't follow modern gaming development. Why couldn't they get it right the first time?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Not just the first time, second time as well. It's the third time that they decided "we won't pay!"
It's not the push that's charged for, it's the *test*. Microsoft doesn't want to inadvertantly authorise a patch which results in the 360 being hacked wide open.
Not a problem on Steam, of course, because your computer is fundamentally open as it is. Consoles' entire business model is structured around the fact that the system is closed, however. You'd have a difficult time convincing any console manufacturer to allow untested code to run on their system.
Zomba13
Member
Phill wanted Fez to be like a Saturday morning cartoon style experience. Only available on a comfy couch in your living room and big TV.
lol. He doesn't care about revenue, but he won't pony up for a patch. Dudes full of it.
Could be an expiry date, but that's just idle conjecture on my part.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
... so, again, as everyone on earth would point out upon reading this--when are we going to get the mea culpa for the last year of "Nope, no need for a PC release, who needs a PC release, Fez is made to be experienced on a console!!!! LOL!"
Sometimes stuff just can't be foreseen, no matter how good the developer is. There is no good reason to punish gamers for this. The developer isn't getting punished here. It's 360 users who bought the game. Those are the real victims. You are supporting Microsoft crapping on it's users if you support this policy.
So why wasn't it on Steam then?
snoopeasystreet
Member
If you truly believe that everything should be fine the first time, then Microsoft's certification process should pick up on these things. The whole idea of putting patches behind a pay wall is crazy to me. I can't believe any developer out there wants to leave their game in a broken state but this is forcing them to.
I've complained frequently about Microsoft's shitty update process before but Phil Fish still comes across as a giant dickhead here.
Polytron released a buggy game, then released a sloppy patch which didn't fix the issue, then basically goes "oh well" and tries to pass off the blame instead of taking responsibility. Weak.
Polytron released a buggy game, then released a sloppy patch which didn't fix the issue, then basically goes "oh well" and tries to pass off the blame instead of taking responsibility. Weak.
IrishNinja
Member
man, your avatar and member title are just perfect for this thread
That would be cool.........if MS's own studios and games they funded weren't guilty of releasing games that need a bunch of patches as well.
ShockingAlberto
Member
"I don't believe this game should be on PC."
"Being on XBLA really fucked us."
"Being on XBLA really fucked us."
oneils
Member
Yeah, I remember reading an interview where he stated that he thought the game should only be on console. Can't find it right now.
Microsoft cert fees are probably partly in place to make them money, but in the grand scheme of things $40k actually isn't that much, since there are actual costs in pushing things through cert (actual people have to cert them, fairly insignificant hosting costs, etc). Also they want to not allow people to just put out patches constantly that could potentially break shit (like this) or have even worse effects (bricking the system or affecting something outside of the game).
Obviously MS could handle it much better and it could be at least cheaper, but there is at least a nugget of wisdom in there. I agree that in this case it's more baffling as it makes them look bad, and this is an exclusive of some kind. No idea.
Pretty much. I honestly only believe that Sony doesn't charge on PS3 (at least I don't think they do?) to get a one-up on Microsoft. Doesn't Sony charge for bandwidth used in demo downloads though?
Obviously MS could handle it much better and it could be at least cheaper, but there is at least a nugget of wisdom in there. I agree that in this case it's more baffling as it makes them look bad, and this is an exclusive of some kind. No idea.
Pretty much. I honestly only believe that Sony doesn't charge on PS3 (at least I don't think they do?) to get a one-up on Microsoft. Doesn't Sony charge for bandwidth used in demo downloads though?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
I understand where you're coming from, but they had two chances to do this without the fine - and decided to go ahead and not pay and release the bad patch. I understand mistakes happen, things can come out of extensive testing that in-house testing can't do, but if you want to have this bigass platform to showcase your game, you need to hold up your end of the deal as well. If there wasn't the fine? Then who knows how many games would have 'shipped' digitally and been forgotten, and possibly broken?
HamSandwich
Member
As a consumer, this is really aggravating. I don't care that Fish doesn't want to pay the toll, I only care that he's abandoning the people that bought his game in the first place and passing it off as some fight the power crusade.