Konami Not Patching Silent Hill HD on Xbox 360 Because, Well, It's Hard

#51 Posted by Xtrminatr (261 posts) -

Guess I'll be keeping my copy sealed.

#52 Posted by IAmNotBatman (634 posts) -

Company doesn't do what it should, 'cos it's difficult. Well it is Konami we're talking about here.

#53 Posted by flippyandnod (383 posts) -

This is double bad. First, Konami have massively fucked up.

Second, yet another patch controversy on 360? Things are getting ugly over there.

#54 Posted by SmilingPig (1337 posts) -

One could argue that bad audio synch, bad frame rate and poor gameplay are an integral part of a classical Silent Hill experience… HD collections are usually shit anyway, people should know better by now.

#55 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Are fan patches even possible for this type of thing? Or will we have to wait until 2037, when 360 emulation will be a thing and hackers can make the fan patch then?

#56 Posted by mrpandaman (864 posts) -

@august said:

@stalefishies said:

I feel like people were way, way more lenient towards Phil Fish for doing pretty much the exact same thing. He shouldn't get a bye just because he's 'indie'.

I think Konami might have a few more resources than Phil Fish.

But I'm not an expert.

Plus the problem for Fez reportedly only affected 1% of players whereas this affects seemingly all the players on 360. I'm pretty sure had Fez had a larger affected base, Phil Fish may have bit the bullet to patch the game. but who knows?

#57 Posted by HerbieBug (4212 posts) -

That is an Alex caliber snark headline, Patrick. Kudos to you! :D

#58 Posted by makari (597 posts) -

Look man, these struggling indy devs have it hard. It costs them like 40 grand to get an update pushed on xbla, and that's probably less than they made on Silent Hill HD.

#59 Posted by deerokus (540 posts) -

@vdortizo said:

@deerokus: I don't think it could be a size limitation for the patches because there are patches in the 360 that go at least in the hundreds of MBs (like the day-one patch for Battlefield 3), I'm guessing Microsoft is just asking for more $$$.

To the people who ever bought the PC version of SH2 and SH3, do these still work on newer systems? Or do they require a lot of hassle to get working?

While that's true - I'd forgotten about those - BF3 and Bad Company 2 seem to have been designed with patches like that in mind. Those big patches are delivered as DLC, rather than title updates.

#60 Posted by beard_of_zeus (1683 posts) -

Well, in Konami's defense, they already have your money, so na-na-na-na boo boo, screw you. /sarcasm

@Turhaya said:

Konami let a busted version of the game collection go gold and get out the door. Unfortunately not as rare as it should be. The release quality of a game should be higher regardless whether or not day zero patches are the status quo.

In the other corner you have what is basically Microsoft's taxation of game patches and DLC. The idea was allegedly one of quality control, yet I've only seen these policies do more harm than good. Instead of sticking to their guns that acted to discourage poorly developed titles, wouldn't it be better to allow these types of patches gratis of releases on their system, and therefore elevate the brand as a whole?

"Technical issues and resources", whichever company is more at fault, still doesn't serve the customers that fuel their business. Build a better product and for heaven's sake let those people improve their product easily! Maybe there really were unsolvable technical issues. My bet's on money.

I would have to agree that Microsoft's policies on patches seem to have done more harm than good. In an ideal world, yes, it would discourage developers to not push shitty games out the door, but the reality doesn't seem to line up with the theory.

It's a strange parallel to make, but their policy reminds me a lot of the criminological theory of deterrence, which on paper seems like a good principle to follow when creating laws, but in reality, I find it doesn't work all that well. Microsoft's potential "punishment" (in this case, $$$) isn't enough to deter developers from cutting corners because they think they can get away with it, or in this case, just give a big ol' middle finger to the consumer.

#61 Posted by Arkasai (701 posts) -

I like how angry people are in the comments, when no one really cares about Silent Hill anymore Konami included.

#62 Posted by NegativeCero (2995 posts) -

Great! I'll continue to not buy it then, seeing that they don't care and all. This is a terrible precedent. Why bother making HD remakes if you're not going to put in the effort that fans of the franchise would appreciate, and I don't mean just making it look sharper, but maybe old developer diaries, even concept art... anything. But money, right?

#63 Posted by louiedog (2335 posts) -

@beard_of_zeus said:

Well, in Konami's defense, they already have your money, so na-na-na-na boo boo, screw you./sarcasm

@Turhaya said:

Konami let a busted version of the game collection go gold and get out the door. Unfortunately not as rare as it should be. The release quality of a game should be higher regardless whether or not day zero patches are the status quo.

In the other corner you have what is basically Microsoft's taxation of game patches and DLC. The idea was allegedly one of quality control, yet I've only seen these policies do more harm than good. Instead of sticking to their guns that acted to discourage poorly developed titles, wouldn't it be better to allow these types of patches gratis of releases on their system, and therefore elevate the brand as a whole?

"Technical issues and resources", whichever company is more at fault, still doesn't serve the customers that fuel their business. Build a better product and for heaven's sake let those people improve their product easily! Maybe there really were unsolvable technical issues. My bet's on money.

I would have to agree that Microsoft's policies on patches seem to have done more harm than good. In an ideal world, yes, it would discourage developers to not push shitty games out the door, but the reality doesn't seem to line up with the theory.

It's a strange parallel to make, but their policy reminds me a lot of the criminological theory of deterrence, which on paper seems like a good principle to follow when creating laws, but in reality, I find it doesn't work all that well. Microsoft's potential "punishment" (in this case, $$$) isn't enough to deter developers from cutting corners because they think they can get away with it, or in this case, just give a big ol' middle finger to the consumer.

The first patch is free. They don't have to pay Microsoft a dime to fix it. It's on Konami to take advantage of that and they aren't.

#64 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

Could it be that the game didn't sell well enough for Konami to dedicate more labor hours into fixing things? It's bad PR, but I don't think people will be hurt about it by the time the next popular Konami title is released.

#65 Posted by jayjonesjunior (1087 posts) -

@MongoosePL said:

@mcmax3000 said:

Fuck Konami. I would say I'll never buy their games anymore, but I honestly don't think I've purchased a Konami game this generation.

I would perhaps reconsider my console choice instead. Sure, Konami shipped a broken product, and that's not to be commended... But it's interesting how there have been more and more problems with publishing and maintenance on the Xbox lately.

buy a PC then cuz PS3 owners have bethesda fucking them over too.

#66 Posted by Homelessbird (526 posts) -

@beard_of_zeus said:

I would have to agree that Microsoft's policies on patches seem to have done more harm than good. In an ideal world, yes, it would discourage developers to not push shitty games out the door, but the reality doesn't seem to line up with the theory.

It's a strange parallel to make, but their policy reminds me a lot of the criminological theory of deterrence, which on paper seems like a good principle to follow when creating laws, but in reality, I find it doesn't work all that well. Microsoft's potential "punishment" (in this case, $$$) isn't enough to deter developers from cutting corners because they think they can get away with it, or in this case, just give a big ol' middle finger to the consumer.

Hmmm... I have a hard time believing the "quality control" line in the first place. Even if this policy did discourage developers from putting out unfinished games, there are ALWAYS going to be things that slip by developers, especially when you include smaller, indie folks who don't have huge QA budgets in the first place. But with the amount of gamers playing we have now, and the amount of multiplayer games, which make bugs yet more inevitable still (impossible though that may be), it's just straight-up unrealistic to say "just make your game right the first time or we'll charge you to fix it."

To me, it's pretty obvious that it's just an excuse to milk a little more money out. And we haven't even talked about title updates and content patches - developers paying to improve the games that are played on Microsoft's service. Bad business practices. But there just aren't any real industry checks at the moment.

#67 Posted by Bane122 (786 posts) -

@Arkasai said:

I like how angry people are in the comments, when no one really cares about Silent Hill anymore Konami included.

People may not care about Silent Hill, but there is a danger of things like this becoming more commonplace and it affecting a game they do care about.

#68 Posted by poheroe (154 posts) -

lame

#69 Posted by beard_of_zeus (1683 posts) -

@louiedog said:

@beard_of_zeus said:

Well, in Konami's defense, they already have your money, so na-na-na-na boo boo, screw you./sarcasm

@Turhaya said:

Konami let a busted version of the game collection go gold and get out the door. Unfortunately not as rare as it should be. The release quality of a game should be higher regardless whether or not day zero patches are the status quo.

In the other corner you have what is basically Microsoft's taxation of game patches and DLC. The idea was allegedly one of quality control, yet I've only seen these policies do more harm than good. Instead of sticking to their guns that acted to discourage poorly developed titles, wouldn't it be better to allow these types of patches gratis of releases on their system, and therefore elevate the brand as a whole?

"Technical issues and resources", whichever company is more at fault, still doesn't serve the customers that fuel their business. Build a better product and for heaven's sake let those people improve their product easily! Maybe there really were unsolvable technical issues. My bet's on money.

I would have to agree that Microsoft's policies on patches seem to have done more harm than good. In an ideal world, yes, it would discourage developers to not push shitty games out the door, but the reality doesn't seem to line up with the theory.

It's a strange parallel to make, but their policy reminds me a lot of the criminological theory of deterrence, which on paper seems like a good principle to follow when creating laws, but in reality, I find it doesn't work all that well. Microsoft's potential "punishment" (in this case, $$$) isn't enough to deter developers from cutting corners because they think they can get away with it, or in this case, just give a big ol' middle finger to the consumer.

The first patch is free. They don't have to pay Microsoft a dime to fix it. It's on Konami to take advantage of that and they aren't.

You are right; my first comment was addressing Konami's current stance on the Silent Hill issue.

I ended up talking about the Microsoft policy more generally since someone else brought it up, and apparently I felt the need to barf my thoughts out onto the page. That discussion is more applicable to something like what happened to Fez, but it definitely seems like it's been a problem this gen.

#70 Posted by TheHT (11153 posts) -

@jayjonesjunior said:

@MongoosePL said:

@mcmax3000 said:

Fuck Konami. I would say I'll never buy their games anymore, but I honestly don't think I've purchased a Konami game this generation.

I would perhaps reconsider my console choice instead. Sure, Konami shipped a broken product, and that's not to be commended... But it's interesting how there have been more and more problems with publishing and maintenance on the Xbox lately.

buy a PC then cuz PS3 owners have bethesda fucking them over too.

Bethesda didn't just give up though, have they?

#71 Posted by NekuCTR (1663 posts) -

The great apathy pandemic of 2012 is now upon us!!!

#72 Posted by Xeirus (1298 posts) -

@jayjonesjunior said:

@MongoosePL said:

@mcmax3000 said:

Fuck Konami. I would say I'll never buy their games anymore, but I honestly don't think I've purchased a Konami game this generation.

I would perhaps reconsider my console choice instead. Sure, Konami shipped a broken product, and that's not to be commended... But it's interesting how there have been more and more problems with publishing and maintenance on the Xbox lately.

buy a PC then cuz PS3 owners have bethesda fucking them over too.

To be fair, the PC has terrible console ports and some games are console exclusive. But I haven't used my xbox on months and my PC has been getting so much play it's insane.

Not to mention insane ass discounts on PC, steam sale, and my recent love GreenManGaming

#73 Posted by SuperWristBands (2266 posts) -

So, that SMG in SH3. I'm guessing it doesn't sound like it's destroying sound in the PS2 game.

Just someone tell me. It didn't, right? Cause I don't understand how that got through testing on the HD collection. Even if they didn't do traditional testing, DID NO ONE TRY USING THAT THING AT ALL!?

#74 Posted by Ghost_Cat (1430 posts) -

I know Konami have been going downhill for some time, but this is just gross.

#75 Posted by umdesch4 (772 posts) -

Konami should trade some resources with Bethesda. That way Bethesda could get their PS3 fixes for Dong Guard working, and Konami could get their SH patches for the 360.

#76 Posted by Senate4242 (98 posts) -

At first I was glad that I picked this up on PS3 but then that quickly turned to bitterness for all the poor people having to deal with the technical mess on the 360.

Poor show Konami. Make this right.

#77 Edited by beard_of_zeus (1683 posts) -

@Homelessbird said:

@beard_of_zeus said:

I would have to agree that Microsoft's policies on patches seem to have done more harm than good. In an ideal world, yes, it would discourage developers to not push shitty games out the door, but the reality doesn't seem to line up with the theory.

It's a strange parallel to make, but their policy reminds me a lot of the criminological theory of deterrence, which on paper seems like a good principle to follow when creating laws, but in reality, I find it doesn't work all that well. Microsoft's potential "punishment" (in this case, $$$) isn't enough to deter developers from cutting corners because they think they can get away with it, or in this case, just give a big ol' middle finger to the consumer.

Hmmm... I have a hard time believing the "quality control" line in the first place. Even if this policy did discourage developers from putting out unfinished games, there are ALWAYS going to be things that slip by developers, especially when you include smaller, indie folks who don't have huge QA budgets in the first place. But with the amount of gamers playing we have now, and the amount of multiplayer games, which make bugs yet more inevitable still (impossible though that may be), it's just straight-up unrealistic to say "just make your game right the first time or we'll charge you to fix it."

To me, it's pretty obvious that it's just an excuse to milk a little more money out. And we haven't even talked about title updates and content patches - developers paying to improve the games that are played on Microsoft's service. Bad business practices. But there just aren't any real industry checks at the moment.

You make a lot of good points, and I definitely agree that there's always going to be some bugs, realistically, just with how complicated games how gotten. I guess I'm just trying to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, and hope that this policy was born from a good idea, and not just money grabbing. The policy could most certainly use some tweaks; it would be nice if the rate was not a flat rate, in that it took into consideration things like the developer resources, and what exactly is broken/needs to be patched, and maybe in a lot of the cases, just not having a fee for smaller fixes. All bugs aren't created equal, that's for sure. I assume Microsoft doesn't want players to have a bad experience playing games on their system, and making some policy changes would be a good means to that end.

I wonder if the PS3 has a similar policy to this? I never hear this issue getting brought up for games on that system.

#78 Posted by TopSteer (643 posts) -

@SmilingPig said:

HD collections are usually shit anyway, people should know better by now.

Where'd you get this from? The vast majority of them has been fine.

#79 Posted by Lazyaza (2176 posts) -

Lol Konami still being Konami it seems. Really is amazing the company hasn't crumbled under its own missmanagement and sheer incompetence by now.

#80 Posted by Bartman3010 (445 posts) -

I really would've wanted to see "Dig Deeper into Feces" on the right hand side of the page.

That said, I've a hunch that the development team is incapable of fixing the 360 version as their code would be impossible to repair. Assuming they might've had a great struggle working with the original code in the first place. You're dealing with unique system calls, graphical effects that may no longer be possible on newer hardware and a host of other issues.

I'm also assuming that this development team is not even Japanese, so you can expect a number of issues during translation that would have affected performance or at worst, inexperienced programmers that don't know anything about the Xbox's hardware.

Of course the other issue may be due to Microsoft's licensing fees and Konami is putting up bullshit terms.

It's like the Pinball Arcade people who say that the Wii is too weak of a system for something like Pinball Arcade, even though something like the iPhone iPad, Android or even the 3DS have versions of Pinball Arcade running and are/will be available for consumer purchase aren't too far in terms of raw system power. Not to mention they already put tables on the Wii through pinball game collections. It's highly likely a hard drive issue since Wiiware games can only be 40MB maximum. Blaming that the Wii is weak is just more business buzzword bull. Just be honest with your customers. It's makes you look bad in the long run if you let your PR spout this kind of nonsense.

#81 Posted by AlisterCat (5536 posts) -

This seems like a crappy 'resolution'. Way worse than the Fez issues.

#82 Posted by HatKing (5891 posts) -

I mean, if they can't fix it, they can't fix it. I really doubt they're taking this lightly. Or, I hope that a genuine effort was put in. I think it would have been smart for them to keep their mouths shut about it though, kind of comes of way worse when they make it public knowledge. Maybe I'm just being optimistic.

#83 Posted by laserbolts (5319 posts) -

So happy I'm switching to PC next gen.

#84 Posted by Clark (110 posts) -

Well this sucks.

#85 Posted by ninjalegend (428 posts) -

This is so sad. Microsoft's certification process is shit. Instead of charging 40 large to patch a game, why not instead charge 40 large a month until the game is patched (only for really egregious bugs)? This would not only encourage developers to put in the work, but also add incentive not to release a broken game in the first place. Broken game ships, then it costs developers. And they are on the clock.

#86 Posted by mrpandaman (864 posts) -

@Xeirus said:

Not to mention insane ass discounts on PC, steam sale, and my recent love GreenManGaming

Insane ass discounts, eh??

#87 Posted by doejonathan (172 posts) -

Konami just released a big title update for Metal Gear Solid 4 dubbed 2.0 which introduces Trophy support and a full install option... 4 years (!) after it's release even though it always ran pretty much flawless. But a patch to fix a broken 2012 release is beyond their resource pool. Priorities; get them.

#88 Posted by Nephrahim (1132 posts) -

Uh...l. How would Microsoft charge them for doing nothing? That's not how their relationship works.

#89 Posted by GreggD (4489 posts) -

@mrpandaman said:

@Xeirus said:

Not to mention insane ass discounts on PC, steam sale, and my recent love GreenManGaming

Insane ass discounts, eh??

So much ass, so few bucks.

#90 Edited by Turhaya (60 posts) -

@beard_of_zeus said:

@louiedog said:

@beard_of_zeus said:

Well, in Konami's defense, they already have your money, so na-na-na-na boo boo, screw you./sarcasm

@Turhaya said:

Konami let a busted version of the game collection go gold and get out the door. Unfortunately not as rare as it should be. The release quality of a game should be higher regardless whether or not day zero patches are the status quo.

In the other corner you have what is basically Microsoft's taxation of game patches and DLC. The idea was allegedly one of quality control, yet I've only seen these policies do more harm than good. Instead of sticking to their guns that acted to discourage poorly developed titles, wouldn't it be better to allow these types of patches gratis of releases on their system, and therefore elevate the brand as a whole?

"Technical issues and resources", whichever company is more at fault, still doesn't serve the customers that fuel their business. Build a better product and for heaven's sake let those people improve their product easily! Maybe there really were unsolvable technical issues. My bet's on money.

I would have to agree that Microsoft's policies on patches seem to have done more harm than good. In an ideal world, yes, it would discourage developers to not push shitty games out the door, but the reality doesn't seem to line up with the theory.

It's a strange parallel to make, but their policy reminds me a lot of the criminological theory of deterrence, which on paper seems like a good principle to follow when creating laws, but in reality, I find it doesn't work all that well. Microsoft's potential "punishment" (in this case, $$$) isn't enough to deter developers from cutting corners because they think they can get away with it, or in this case, just give a big ol' middle finger to the consumer.

The first patch is free. They don't have to pay Microsoft a dime to fix it. It's on Konami to take advantage of that and they aren't.

You are right; my first comment was addressing Konami's current stance on the Silent Hill issue.

I ended up talking about the Microsoft policy more generally since someone else brought it up, and apparently I felt the need to barf my thoughts out onto the page. That discussion is more applicable to something like what happened to Fez, but it definitely seems like it's been a problem this gen.

I think the Fez debacle was still lurking in the back of my mind when I vomited up my original post. While I had forgotten the first patch is free, that "solution" doesn't get a free pass either. So the first patch is free. Picture this: A developer wants to give back to their community by creating free new content and features for their title. However, severe bugs have revealed themselves that plague a good percentage of the userbase. While they don't crash or literally break the game (i.e., making it through cert was never a question), their impact on the experience will color the users. Release an immediate fix now and force them to pay for the content, or delay the fix to roll up into a patch you may not have an audience for by the time it comes out. That's a completely made up scenario but demonstrates how the current policies do not serve the customer. Technical issues aside, remember TF2?

Konami I almost expect this from, but I'd like to hold Microsoft to a higher standard. (My Apple lovin' coworker would giggle at that.)

If it's broke, don't release it! Or suck it up and fix it! Or recall. Something!

#91 Posted by Random45 (1141 posts) -

Wow, what a lazy lazy lazy way out. We blame technical issues, sorry Xbox gamers, better luck next time.

They better be offering a refund for those poor souls who wasted their money on this garbage.

#92 Posted by blueneurosis (98 posts) -

Look duders, there's a lot of complicated logistics that go into a patch, from the actual bug ironing to implementing the patch across a network. All Konami has on this project at the moment is a dog with a headset, and I'm pretty sure that dog is slacking off and calling people really profane names on multiplayer deathmatch FPS games.

#93 Posted by Quarters (1680 posts) -

I can't help but wonder if this has anything to do with the patching situation over at Microsoft. Hm.

#94 Posted by ch3burashka (5041 posts) -

@Ghost_Cat said:

I know Konami have been going downhill for some time, but this is just gross.

Downhill? More like Downpour!!!

I believe that Konami, this article, and my comment all deserve a slow clap.

...which I would have included, if Giant Bomb supported .gifs. Just pretend I posted that Citizen Kane .gif. Funny, no?

#95 Posted by eccentrix (1547 posts) -

Microsoft are falling fast.

#96 Edited by MosaicM80 (227 posts) -

Then Konami needs to stop making games for the Xbox 360 then if it's just to hard to support them.

On a related side note: I was thinking about picking up Microsoft's next console since I went PS3 this current cycle and I feel bad for missing stuff like Fez. But if Microsoft is this bad in supporting the developers with all this patch shit that has gone down, maybe I'll just go Sony again instead.

#97 Posted by MannAlive (155 posts) -

I own everything Silent Hill, and for years I've known that makes me a sucker. I guess this is Konami's way of telling me to stop being stupid. Deal.

#98 Posted by depecheload (496 posts) -

And developers want to blame used games for declining sales. Yeah. Right. Maybe stop shipping broken-ass games and we'll talk.

#99 Edited by Xeirus (1298 posts) -

@GreggD said:

@mrpandaman said:

@Xeirus said:

Not to mention insane ass discounts on PC, steam sale, and my recent love GreenManGaming

Insane ass discounts, eh??

So much ass, so few bucks.

I would say getting Spec Ops for $25 and Guild Wars 2 for $40 out the ass insane

#100 Posted by radioactivez0r (842 posts) -

If they thought for a second that they wouldn't be able to fix a problem once it reared its head, it never should have been released. This is unacceptable on so many levels. Fuck Konami. I mean, Jesus, Ubi at least tries to make nice with their customers once in a while and tries to amend screwups, but this...I can only imagine a guy in a board room with a malicious grin on his face thinking, "You'll take this and like it."

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.