Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    Fez

    Game » consists of 15 releases. Released Apr 13, 2012

    A puzzle platformer developed by Polytron that uses a 2D perspective shifting mechanic to solve puzzles and complete levels. The main character, a white creature named Gomez, wears a fez and is obsessed with collecting hats.

    Microsoft Deflects Responsibility Over Fez Patch Problems

    Avatar image for alex
    alex

    3983

    Forum Posts

    7447

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    Edited By alex
    Fez won't be getting re-patched, and it was the developer's choice, says Microsoft.
    Fez won't be getting re-patched, and it was the developer's choice, says Microsoft.

    Yesterday's news that indie developer Polytron wouldn't be patching its Xbox Live Arcade platformer Fez, due to prohibitive costs from Microsoft, sparked some rather heated debate from writers and commenters alike. Some, myself included, took studio head Phil Fish's claims at mostly face value, assigning the heaping helping of the blame to Microsoft, due to the company's policy of charging "tens of thousands of dollars" for updates via Xbox Live. Others noted that Polytron's long history of development on Fez, coupled with the fact that the agreement Polytron signed to release via Xbox 360 would have outlined any such costs, meant there was ample blame to be spread around for the issue.

    Microsoft, it seems, doesn't want any part of the discussion. The console maker released a brief statement today disputing Fish's claims that it was the rigid costs of releasing a title update that prevented the patch from happening.

    “Polytron and their investor, Trapdoor, made the decision not to work on an additional title update for FEZ. Microsoft Studios chose to support this decision based on the belief that Polytron/Trapdoor were in the best position to determine what the acceptable quality level is for their game.

    While we do not disclose the cost of Title Updates, we did offer to work with Trapdoor to make sure that wasn’t a blocking issue.

    We remain huge fans of Fez.”

    Take that statement as you will. Fish never mentioned anything regarding attempts to alleviate the problem, though we also don't know exactly what level of assistance Microsoft was offering. All you can really say at this point is that neither party looks blameless. Microsoft's costs for updates, which developer Tim Schafer has quoted as being as high as $40,000, definitely seem prohibitive to smaller, independent developers. On the other hand, you've got a years-in-development game with a patch causing save corrupting bugs, and a contract explaining up front the costs associated with the company's update regulations.

    According to Polytron, less than a 1% of Fez players are vulnerable to the bug in the original patch. The bug specifically affects saves from completed games, or near-completed games.

    Avatar image for alex
    alex

    3983

    Forum Posts

    7447

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #1  Edited By alex
    Fez won't be getting re-patched, and it was the developer's choice, says Microsoft.
    Fez won't be getting re-patched, and it was the developer's choice, says Microsoft.

    Yesterday's news that indie developer Polytron wouldn't be patching its Xbox Live Arcade platformer Fez, due to prohibitive costs from Microsoft, sparked some rather heated debate from writers and commenters alike. Some, myself included, took studio head Phil Fish's claims at mostly face value, assigning the heaping helping of the blame to Microsoft, due to the company's policy of charging "tens of thousands of dollars" for updates via Xbox Live. Others noted that Polytron's long history of development on Fez, coupled with the fact that the agreement Polytron signed to release via Xbox 360 would have outlined any such costs, meant there was ample blame to be spread around for the issue.

    Microsoft, it seems, doesn't want any part of the discussion. The console maker released a brief statement today disputing Fish's claims that it was the rigid costs of releasing a title update that prevented the patch from happening.

    “Polytron and their investor, Trapdoor, made the decision not to work on an additional title update for FEZ. Microsoft Studios chose to support this decision based on the belief that Polytron/Trapdoor were in the best position to determine what the acceptable quality level is for their game.

    While we do not disclose the cost of Title Updates, we did offer to work with Trapdoor to make sure that wasn’t a blocking issue.

    We remain huge fans of Fez.”

    Take that statement as you will. Fish never mentioned anything regarding attempts to alleviate the problem, though we also don't know exactly what level of assistance Microsoft was offering. All you can really say at this point is that neither party looks blameless. Microsoft's costs for updates, which developer Tim Schafer has quoted as being as high as $40,000, definitely seem prohibitive to smaller, independent developers. On the other hand, you've got a years-in-development game with a patch causing save corrupting bugs, and a contract explaining up front the costs associated with the company's update regulations.

    According to Polytron, less than a 1% of Fez players are vulnerable to the bug in the original patch. The bug specifically affects saves from completed games, or near-completed games.

    Avatar image for grissefar
    Grissefar

    2904

    Forum Posts

    384

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #2  Edited By Grissefar

    fuck yes, I did it

    @TooWalrus said:

    @Grissefar said:

    first

    Grats?

    Thanks, man.

    Anyway, while I can understand the wish for Microsoft to keep the quality control high so consoles don't brick, you have to wonder if the barrier to entry is too high. You often hear developers complain about useless TCR they have to conform to in order to put stuff out on the platform. Microsoft probably wants to avoid Apple Store type of garbage and clutter, but in the end these useless rules and long cert times really hurt the consumer. Have a little more faith in the developer, man.

    @The_Nubster said:

    @Grissefar said:

    first

    Did that count? I thought saying first stopped you from getting the quest. Or maybe your subsequent post counted.

    Don't know, already had it.

    Avatar image for morningstar
    morningstar

    2548

    Forum Posts

    351

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #3  Edited By morningstar

    Mr. Fish...

    Avatar image for toowalrus
    toowalrus

    13408

    Forum Posts

    29

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #4  Edited By toowalrus

    @Grissefar said:

    first

    Grats?

    Avatar image for wjist
    WJist

    330

    Forum Posts

    5087

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 7

    #5  Edited By WJist

    It's unfortunate that the parties can't seem to agree "who's on first" for blame, but regardless, less than 1% of Fez players losing save data to this patch is still less than 1% acceptable.

    Avatar image for superanos
    Superanos

    16

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #6  Edited By Superanos

    What are Fez's sales numbers? If the game was a big success, they could afford the $40k easily.

    Avatar image for zaapp1
    Zaapp1

    716

    Forum Posts

    556

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 9

    #7  Edited By Zaapp1

    I haven't bought this yet. Let's say I did, would the game automatically corrupt once I got near the end, or is this only for people who were already at the end when the Title Update was issued?

    Avatar image for morrelloman
    morrelloman

    645

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 4

    #8  Edited By morrelloman

    It's 99.9% acceptable in my opinion.

    Avatar image for the_nubster
    The_Nubster

    5058

    Forum Posts

    21

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #9  Edited By The_Nubster

    @Grissefar said:

    first

    Did that count? I thought saying first stopped you from getting the quest. Or maybe your subsequent post counted.

    Avatar image for august
    august

    4106

    Forum Posts

    332

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #10  Edited By august

    This dosen't really seem like a refutation. Nothing they said outrightly contridicts Phill's claim that updates cost tens of thousands of dollars.

    Avatar image for beepmachine
    beepmachine

    631

    Forum Posts

    280

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #11  Edited By beepmachine

    That statement from Microsoft is nonsense. "They decided not to patch the game, they could have but they didn't want to." Yeah, right. And just because Fish knew going in what the cost would be to update the game, it doesn't make the price fair, especially not for a really small company. What was he supposed to do? You just have to release it and hope everything works. And if you can't afford the 80k bill of two patches then I guess you're F'd in the A.

    Avatar image for peanut
    Peanut

    965

    Forum Posts

    94

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #12  Edited By Peanut

    Make your dumb fucking game work the first time out. How do devs think this shit worked before you could instantly patch a game? And honestly, I prefer the small quick Live updates to the absolutely brutal PSN updates. I bought Modnation Racers a couple months ago, put it in and seriously spent over an HOUR downloading an absolutely ridiculous amount of patches, and if Microsoft's bullshit iron grip on the way patching works for their console is the reason for it, I don't give a shit how draconian their process is.

    Avatar image for verlin
    Verlin

    4

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #13  Edited By Verlin

    Sounds like Phil Fish might have burned some bridges in the game development community. I don't think his comments were in any way productive. Maybe he doesn't care, though, as an indie developer.

    Avatar image for hollitz
    hollitz

    2398

    Forum Posts

    5

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 12

    #14  Edited By hollitz

    You'd think these are the kind of costs that Microsoft would eat, at least for exclusives. Seems a little predatory.

    Avatar image for mbkish
    mbkish

    255

    Forum Posts

    3

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #15  Edited By mbkish

    Doesn't seem like they refute it because they still have to pay for it. Microsoft is basically saying "It's not our fault they can't pay for it! We said we would work with them about the price." Microsoft probably said they would cut the cost in half, which is still thousands of dollars for a damn patch.

    Avatar image for koolaid
    koolaid

    1435

    Forum Posts

    16

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #16  Edited By koolaid

    @august:

    I don't think that's the issue. I think what they are trying to say is

    a) that it isn't their fault.

    b) It costs money not because we are trying to squeeze Phil Fish, but because it costs money because it a worldwide digital marketplace and that costs money to run

    c) I think that are also saying to say is that P. Fish is painting an unfair picture and can be difficult to work with.

    Avatar image for tehmaxxorz
    TEHMAXXORZ

    1190

    Forum Posts

    4491

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #17  Edited By TEHMAXXORZ

    I don't know who I don't like more, Microsoft or Phil Fish...

    Avatar image for viking_funeral
    viking_funeral

    2881

    Forum Posts

    57

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 6

    User Lists: 5

    #18  Edited By viking_funeral

    Phil Fish continues to make friends. More news at 11.

    Avatar image for alex
    alex

    3983

    Forum Posts

    7447

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #19  Edited By alex

    @mbkish: I said "refute" when I meant to say "dispute." Big difference. I corrected it in the story.

    Avatar image for jazzycola
    Jazzycola

    672

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 5

    #20  Edited By Jazzycola

    @dennisthemennis: Or Fish could've done more testing and QA to make sure it didn't break people's game saves then he'd only need to do one patch. This isn't a matter of who's more to blame. They both equally are to blame. Microsoft's quality assurance should allow for some leeway. As for the cost, I don't know how much it takes to maintain a server but I'm sure it's not free. Microsoft is hosting the server and bandwidth to download the patch. Not to mention the certification process is also not expense free. Now whether or not those expenses equal "tens of thousands of dollars", I don't know but there is some cost associated. And this is business we're talking about so they do want to make money on that side too.

    Avatar image for mbkish
    mbkish

    255

    Forum Posts

    3

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #21  Edited By mbkish

    @Alex: Makes sense and a fairly easy mistake to make. Thanks for the heads up.

    Avatar image for koolaid
    koolaid

    1435

    Forum Posts

    16

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #22  Edited By koolaid

    My thoughts are that there is enough "blame" to go around. Basically, while I think that Fish made the right choice, he should be held to the same standards that Mircosoft, EA, Blizzard, etc should be held to.

    Fish said that it was a shitty numbers game. The fact of the matter is all of business is a shitty numbers game. All the other companies have to deal with the same shitty numbers game, but on a bigger scale. People take big companies to task for doing the same thing Fish did. He is discovering what these businesses figured out a long time ago.

    Again... I personally don't think he made the wrong choice. But he should be held to the same standards as everyone else. If you are the kind of duder who takes studios to task for doing this kind of thing and you give Fish a pass you are a hypocrite.

    Avatar image for salarn
    salarn

    495

    Forum Posts

    6

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #23  Edited By salarn

    http://kevin-zhdcp.posterous.com/an-open-letter-to-polytron

    Kevin Durst had a good post on this.

    Avatar image for jdillinger
    JDillinger

    193

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #24  Edited By JDillinger

    Phil Fish is a scumbag and Microsoft is a scumbag company. Good to know.

    Avatar image for bkbroiler
    bkbroiler

    1739

    Forum Posts

    438

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 11

    #25  Edited By bkbroiler

    "We remain huge fans of Fez" sitting alone at the bottom of that statement really makes me laugh. Not really sure why.

    Avatar image for talis12
    Talis12

    524

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #26  Edited By Talis12

    is it less than 1% because only 1% has finished it? or is it that 1% of a lot more that have finished it has problems?

    Avatar image for themasterds
    TheMasterDS

    3018

    Forum Posts

    7716

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 31

    #27  Edited By TheMasterDS

    Microsoft needs to fix those policies, full stop. Especially if their plan is to court Free To Play games next generation. Free To Play games thrive on timely updates and additions.

    Honestly, cert seems incredibly silly to me. Consider the fact that Fallout New Vegas made it through cert and tell me it's a credible thing. In fact, realize that the first Fez and the broken Fez patch both made it through unscathed. Not only is cert horribly overpriced, it's also hilariously ineffective! Not to mention self defeating considering that it doesn't actually stop buggy patches, it just makes it so when bugs pop up there's nothing the developer can do about it for a few weeks.

    Certification seems like a system designed under the assumption that nothing could possibly go wrong. And as Douglas Adams put it "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

    Avatar image for mordeaniischaos
    MordeaniisChaos

    5904

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 5

    #28  Edited By MordeaniisChaos

    @mbkish said:

    Doesn't seem like they refute it because they still have to pay for it. Microsoft is basically saying "It's not our fault they can't pay for it! We said we would work with them about the price." Microsoft probably said they would cut the cost in half, which is still thousands of dollars for a damn patch.

    A patch they have to deliver to a whole hell of a lot of people, as I'm sure that game sold gangbusters, and from what I've heard Microsoft often works closely with developers. Sounds to me like Fish just googled for a number someone said it cost them for a patch and claimed it as his own, without ever working with MS to find out if his folks could get a better deal, which they probably could have.

    @Superanos said:

    What are Fez's sales numbers? If the game was a big success, they could afford the $40k easily.

    I would like to disagree. $40,000 is still a lot of money. That's enough to support a couple of kids as a single parent. For a year. The game also had a long development so costs must have been higher than they otherwise would have been.

    Avatar image for smilingpig
    SmilingPig

    1370

    Forum Posts

    5

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #29  Edited By SmilingPig

    So if I buy Fez my save might just get corrupt... Then I won’t buy Fez, problem solved.

    Avatar image for fobwashed
    fobwashed

    2818

    Forum Posts

    398

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 15

    User Lists: 16

    #30  Edited By fobwashed

    Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. First patch is free, 40K is the price for fucking up twice. It sucks that devs have to pay a price for patches after the first one but this shit costs money and ive gotta assume 40k isn't that bad if you consider the amount of people the patch is going out to and the man hours involved with its implementation. Everyone wants shit for free. The Internet is a weird place...

    Avatar image for pixeldemon
    Pixeldemon

    252

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #31  Edited By Pixeldemon

    Microsoft charges thousands of dollars for their content providers to release patches and improve their games? MS is the textbook example of a bloated, greedy, bureaucratically hobbled business. Success has continued to make them lazy and unwilling to improve. When will anyone learn anything from Valve? You can be successful while providing your customers and business partners with an amazing experience. Or you can be a garbage experience and rely on your marketshare and lack of competition to carry you.

    Avatar image for irrelevantjohn
    irrelevantjohn

    1207

    Forum Posts

    1223

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 19

    #32  Edited By irrelevantjohn

    I kind of missed the days where games came unbroken

    Avatar image for jazzycola
    Jazzycola

    672

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 5

    #33  Edited By Jazzycola

    @Salarn said:

    http://kevin-zhdcp.posterous.com/an-open-letter-to-polytron

    Kevin Durst had a good post on this.

    Imma be honest that post was not very good at all. For one, hitting enter after every freaking sentence is so annoying. There's more fluff there than actual substance.

    Avatar image for dvorak
    dvorak

    1553

    Forum Posts

    616

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #34  Edited By dvorak

    @IrrelevantJohn said:

    I kind of missed the days where games came unbroken

    They never really did. The problems just went largely unfixed. But patches have been pushed for PC games for decades now.

    Avatar image for audiosnow
    audiosnow

    3926

    Forum Posts

    729

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #35  Edited By audiosnow

    The cost of patching games on the Xbox 360 is prohibitively excessive, I think.

    But part of the reason the cost is so high is to ensure that game patches work the first time. When every update costs $40,000, you've an incentive to make positively sure that your update isn't going to ruin the experience of "less than 1%" of the player base.

    Microsoft may be playing Scrooge, but the developer is entirely at fault for the game-destroying patch.

    @TheMasterDS said:

    Microsoft needs to fix those policies, full stop. Especially if their plan is to court Free To Play games next generation. Free To Play games thrive on timely updates and additions.

    Honestly, cert seems incredibly silly to me. Consider the fact that Fallout New Vegas made it through cert and tell me it's a credible thing. In fact, realize that the first Fez and the broken Fez patch both made it through unscathed. Not only is cert horribly overpriced, it's also hilariously ineffective! Not to mention self defeating considering that it doesn't actually stop buggy patches, it just makes it so when bugs pop up there's nothing the developer can do about it for a few weeks.

    Certification seems like a system designed under the assumption that nothing could possibly go wrong. And as Douglas Adams put it "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

    This to some degree. Although certification seems more about filtering game crashing bugs (still there in Fallout, as you said), ensuring standards (box art and leaderboard integration, achievements, ease of access), and all that. I'm not sure how much bug testing is reviewed by Microsoft, but I'm fairy certain they only examine the results of testing done by the developer. And as someone with a 360 and a PS3, there are a few games in which Microsoft's cert process shines much brighter than Sony's (Skyrim, for one).

    Avatar image for iamjohn
    iamjohn

    6297

    Forum Posts

    13905

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #36  Edited By iamjohn

    @Talis12 said:

    is it less than 1% because only 1% has finished it? or is it that 1% of a lot more that have finished it has problems?

    @SmilingPig said:

    So if I buy Fez my save might just get corrupt... Then I won’t buy Fez, problem solved.

    It's that less than 1% of people who have downloaded the patch have had their pre-patch save files corrupted.

    @TheMasterDS said:

    Microsoft needs to fix those policies, full stop. Especially if their plan is to court Free To Play games next generation. Free To Play games thrive on timely updates and additions.

    Honestly, cert seems incredibly silly to me. Consider the fact that Fallout New Vegas made it through cert and tell me it's a credible thing. In fact, realize that the first Fez and the broken Fez patch both made it through unscathed. Not only is cert horribly overpriced, it's also hilariously ineffective! Not to mention self defeating considering that it doesn't actually stop buggy patches, it just makes it so when bugs pop up there's nothing the developer can do about it for a few weeks.

    This sounds about right to me. If Cert is charging obscene amounts of money to test games and patches to make sure they work and they don't, they're not doing their job and the expectation that developers need to pay Microsoft for this service is broken, especially when Steam doesn't charge for patches and PSN is allegedly a lot more fair about how they handle it. I understand the stance that Fish should've gotten it right the first time, but asking an indie developer to pay $40k to patch his small game that didn't sell that many copies anyway is not the right solution either.

    Avatar image for rjaylee
    rjaylee

    3804

    Forum Posts

    529

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 2

    #37  Edited By rjaylee

    @IrrelevantJohn said:

    I kind of missed the days where games came unbroken

    Games used to be a lot simpler with far less moving parts, mind you.

    Avatar image for authenticm
    AuthenticM

    4404

    Forum Posts

    12323

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #38  Edited By AuthenticM

    This is the first time I've read a story on Giant Bomb and was wrong about the identity of its author. Alex, stop being so neutral! You are not Patrick, but his evil twin. You're supposed to be snarky.

    Avatar image for vexxan
    Vexxan

    4642

    Forum Posts

    943

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #39  Edited By Vexxan

    Considering how well-received Fez has been, isn't 1% of it's user base a pretty large amount of people?

    Avatar image for vogon
    vogon

    107

    Forum Posts

    86

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 4

    #40  Edited By vogon

    @iAmJohn said:

    This sounds about right to me. If Cert is charging obscene amounts of money to test games and patches to make sure they work and they don't, they're not doing their job and the expectation that developers need to pay Microsoft for this service is broken, especially when Steam doesn't charge for patches and PSN is allegedly a lot more fair about how they handle it. I understand the stance that Fish should've gotten it right the first time, but asking an indie developer to pay $40k to patch his small game that didn't sell that many copies anyway is not the right solution either.

    cert is about verifying that the game doesn't break the Xbox device or the Live service, and that it doesn't behave improperly in obvious ways, not that it's 100% foolproof.

    if cert was about outsourced QA, it would cost way more than $40,000 and nobody would ever ship an Xbox game with bugs.

    Avatar image for ohvee
    ohvee

    153

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #41  Edited By ohvee

    @SmilingPig said:

    So if I buy Fez my save might just get corrupt... Then I won’t buy Fez, problem solved.

    I'm not totally positive, but I think that the issue only potentially affects save files that were created before the patch.

    Avatar image for musubi
    musubi

    17524

    Forum Posts

    5650

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 8

    User Lists: 17

    #42  Edited By musubi

    For everyone throwing Microsoft under the bus realize that Sony does the same thing.

    Avatar image for sword5
    Sword5

    169

    Forum Posts

    14

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #43  Edited By Sword5

    Phil Fish wants to move on from Fez and doesn't have a clue how to fix the bugs. Shits on MS and everyone makes him a martyr.

    I guess anyone can be a hero if they blame the right people when they can't do their job.

    Avatar image for pw2566ch
    pw2566ch

    499

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #44  Edited By pw2566ch

    @Superanos said:

    What are Fez's sales numbers? If the game was a big success, they could afford the $40k easily.

    That's not the point. I understand $40k chump change to a high selling game, but no company should have to dish out that much just to upload a patch. Not even EA and Activision.

    I wonder if it's the same amount to upload a patch on PSN and Steam.

    Avatar image for ravenlight
    Ravenlight

    8057

    Forum Posts

    12306

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #45  Edited By Ravenlight

    @Jazzycola said:

    @Salarn said:

    http://kevin-zhdcp.posterous.com/an-open-letter-to-polytron

    Kevin Durst had a good post on this.

    Imma be honest that post was not very good at all. For one, hitting enter after every freaking sentence is so annoying. There's more fluff there than actual substance.

    While I agree that it's not the best piece of journalism, I think it touches on some important points. Namely, it calls Fish out for being a twat.

    Avatar image for koolaid
    koolaid

    1435

    Forum Posts

    16

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #46  Edited By koolaid

    @IrrelevantJohn said:

    I kind of missed the days where games came unbroken

    When is this time you spoke of? I seem to remember some save files getting corrupted in my SNES and NES days.

    Avatar image for ericw
    EricW

    4

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #47  Edited By EricW
    @Superanos The sales numbers may have been decent, but there are still te development costs that may have been fronted by the investor that need to be repaid. Considering how long it took to make, I'm sure that cost is really high.
    Avatar image for krakn3dfx
    Krakn3Dfx

    2746

    Forum Posts

    101

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 3

    #48  Edited By Krakn3Dfx

    @Demoskinos said:

    For everyone throwing Microsoft under the bus realize that Sony does the same thing.

    Is this something with facts to back it up, or is it just an assumption? Just curious, because I don't know.

    Avatar image for iamjohn
    iamjohn

    6297

    Forum Posts

    13905

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #49  Edited By iamjohn

    @vogon said:

    @iAmJohn said:

    This sounds about right to me. If Cert is charging obscene amounts of money to test games and patches to make sure they work and they don't, they're not doing their job and the expectation that developers need to pay Microsoft for this service is broken, especially when Steam doesn't charge for patches and PSN is allegedly a lot more fair about how they handle it. I understand the stance that Fish should've gotten it right the first time, but asking an indie developer to pay $40k to patch his small game that didn't sell that many copies anyway is not the right solution either.

    cert is about verifying that the game doesn't break the Xbox device or the Live service, and that it doesn't behave improperly in obvious ways, not that it's 100% foolproof.

    if cert was about outsourced QA, it would cost way more than $40,000 and nobody would ever ship an Xbox game with bugs.

    I'd say that making sure the game doesn't freak out when running on one of the various permutations of the different 360 hardwares (and from what I've understood and I could be wrong, but it sounds like the Fez patch is only affects one specific model of 360 using a particular chipset) is very much in line with Cert's job description. That's not QA; that's making sure your developer partners are covered by the fact that you've changed your hardware several times over the years while having said partners use the same basic tools since 2005.

    Avatar image for aurahack
    aurahack

    2561

    Forum Posts

    44959

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 8

    User Lists: 1

    #50  Edited By aurahack

    Great, because turning this into a finger-pointing match is the solution. Ugh, Microsoft.

    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.