VargasPrime's forum posts

#1 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

Obviously everyone is comparing this to the Phil Fish situation, and with good reason.

But a huge difference is that, while the Fez patch may have borked the save files of a minute percentage of players, leaving the rest unscathed, the Silent Hill collection has completely unavoidable issues for everyone who bought it. There's no getting around the shitty technical glitches in that game.

At least the Fez owners who got screwed by that patch still have a perfectly playable game they can enjoy again. SHHD owners are left with a buggy mess that will never be fixed.

#2 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@Humanity: From all accounts I've heard (and several people confirming it here in these comments) any money from direct sales on XBL are not passed on to the developers/publishers until 4 months after the game's release. So it's possible that Polytron has not actually seen any money yet from Fez sales.

And no, we don't know whether it's "can't" as opposed to "won't." But given that Polytron is a young company consisting of two people, and has been working on this one game for 5+ years, I would assume that the money needed for recertification is a pretty big blow to them. Even if they had the cash on hand to pay it right now, it's probably a hefty sum for such a small developer.

#3 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@VargasPrime said:

@Humanity said:

$40,000 is a lot of money but that doesn't change the fact that essentially he's saying "I'm not going to take responsibility for my errors because it's going to cost me too much money."

You know, part of the reason MS charges so much money for companies to patch their games is because they test/certify everything that gets put on XBL.

So, by that right, this bug that is now affecting 1% of the people who bought Fez is just as much their responsibility as it is Polytron's. For MS to charge them to now fix a bug that their certification process missed seems just as unfair, if not moreso, than Polytron deciding that they could not afford to pay the cost to recertify.

So, Microsoft should absorb the cost of fixing Polytron's shitty work because they didn't find a seemingly rare bug?

Here's a better idea; Let them patch for free but pull the game from XBLA until it actually works as intended. The game gets fixed, no-one buys it while it's broken, both sides absorb the cost through lost or deferred sales.

"Absorbing" the cost is probably a misnomer. The other part of the reason MS charges that insane amount is as a deterrent from rampant patching. The fact that it's a blanket policy no matter the reason for the patch is the problem, I think.

I see no problem with your suggested idea of pulling the game in order to fix it. But I would be very surprised if MS was flexible enough to allow that. Polytron's choices seem to be: pay to recertify, or leave it as is. They can't afford to do the former, so for now, it gets left alone.

#4 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@Humanity said:

$40,000 is a lot of money but that doesn't change the fact that essentially he's saying "I'm not going to take responsibility for my errors because it's going to cost me too much money."

You know, part of the reason MS charges so much money for companies to patch their games is because they test/certify everything that gets put on XBL.

So, by that right, this bug that is now affecting 1% of the people who bought Fez is just as much their responsibility as it is Polytron's. For MS to charge them to now fix a bug that their certification process missed seems just as unfair, if not moreso, than Polytron deciding that they could not afford to pay the cost to recertify.

#5 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@Cirdain: You're right, I could have been more polite. I was responding to the snarky attitude that I interpreted from his original comment. It came off like "I know more than you people, but I'm not actually going to back that up."

#6 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@SubTact said:

@MrXBob said:

I love the fact that everyone here seems to be hating on Microsoft as if they're the only people to do this. Sony do it. Nintendo would do it if they allowed as many patches as other systems do.

Fact of the matter is, they cannot let patches fly out for all games whenever the developers decide to do one, for many reasons - the main one being that if something fucks up, it makes the console manufacturer look bad. Patches need testing and certifying, and that costs money to pay people to do.

The Fez patch was tested for what it was made to do - the problem is, nobody seemed to check what happened to older saves, and that is why the corruption error slipped through.

Please, enough of the circle-jerk.

@MrXBob: Thank you for breaking up the near constant stream of ignorance and stupidity in this comment thread. It's as if the CBS Interactive acquisition brought with it a bunch of Two and a Half Men fans, and the lower level Gamespot comment trolls.

People who enjoy games really wouldn't want to live in a world where there were no consequences (to devs and publishers especially) for putting out patches on premium platforms. It definitely hurts the earnest little guys, and that indicates there should be some sort of shift in policy, but to condemn the entire practice is idiotic.

I get not buying into the whole "MS is the evil bad guy here" attitude, but if MS's policy of testing/certifying patches (and charging money to do so) is so fair, shouldn't this save-breaking bug be their responsibility as well? If they test and certify every patch that gets released, aren't they just as responsible when the patch gets released and creates a new bug that Polytron did not anticipate? Is it still fair for them to charge Polytron the normal certification fee for the new patch when this new bug made it past their testing process?

#7 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@rebgav said:

I guess Fez didn't sell enough to recoup costs, huh?

I don't think the dev/publisher starts seeing the actual money from XBLA sales for a certain period of time after the game releases. It's possible Polytron hasn't actually earned anything from the sales that Fez has garnered.

I could be wrong, though.

#8 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@Cirdain said:

@VargasPrime

@Parsnip said:

So many uninformed comments in here about all of the things.

So educate. Be a part of a discussion instead of just making it sound like you know more than everyone.

Wow jeez, being a little bit of a prick there :) From what I'm reading there is no discussion, there are multiple separate discussions and complaints. It gets a bit difficult when there's a mass of uninformed people like this.

I wasn't really trying to be a prick. His comment didn't contribute anything other than seemingly to indicate that he had some knowledge of the situation that others here don't.

Why post something like that just to let everyone know that you're more informed? Shed some light on the uninitiated instead of just sniping and walking away.

#9 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@Parsnip said:

So many uninformed comments in here about all of the things.

So educate. Be a part of a discussion instead of just making it sound like you know more than everyone.

#10 Posted by VargasPrime (304 posts) -

@CosmicQueso said:

@VargasPrime said:

@Gunslinger0130 said:

Last time I checked this was Fish's baby, a piece of art he poured his soul into for years and now he's saying that he's not going to patch it into a solid product because it's too expensive? Fuckin' sellout.

I...

don't think that's what "sellout" means. Not being able to justify spending what he says is "tens of thousands of dollars" to re-certify the game is not something I can really fault him for. They're a small indie developer. They're not Ubisoft or EA. They don't necessarily have a spare $20k to plunk down.

Well he may not be a sellout but he is definitely an inexperienced businessperson. When he signed the deal, he should have considered the costs like these and fully understood what he was signing. It's completely unfair to his customers to shrug his shoulders and say that it isn't his fault he can't support the people that gave him money.

Had he considered these and the other costs, perhaps he would have done something different in his distribution strategy and would have avoided all this mess and supported his customers?

Team Meat managed all this just fine, hundreds of other indie devs have as well, what makes this guy so special that he gets a pass for turning his back on his customers?

I think you're being overly general here. No one is psychic. He was making a game, he wanted that game published, and Microsoft paid to have it exclusive to their platform. Many other companies, much larger and more solvent than Polytron, have taken the same deal. No one anticipates that their game or patch is going to create a save-breaking bug for <1% of their players.

Maybe, once the exclusivity is up, and the game releases on PC and Polytron can bring in more money, they'll be able to afford to pay the certification costs and patch the XBLA version. I think some people are really presumptuous to think that Polytron are just automatically obligated (and financially able) to pay that cost right now.