relic new patch when

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Akranadas]

I never talked about a law that says they have to release patches, mr. experienced in what he is talking about. I was talking about economical survival. If you dont care about a game after release, customers will be less likely to buy the next game or suggest it to their friends. Doesnt have anything to do with your great knowledge about developer dependance from producer.

You've obivously never heard of Electronic Arts then, almost all games receive 0-1 patches and thats about it, your lucky to get 4 when you play EA games, and yet... people still buy them. With your logic; EA should be bankrupt by now.

Even Relic; With Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, two patches and everyone is going crazy over the expansion, yet there is glaring issues with the current version. Again, by your logic, even Relic should be bankrupt. 

Compare it to a car. You buy one, and it has a built in problem with the stereo. The car manufacturer may not be bound by law to fix that, but bound by economic sense. You are not going to buy a second car from that brand, or advise it to your friends, if such things are not fixed automatically for free. So post release repairs are a sure thing to do, if only because of profits. Relic wanted to fix the stereo and broke the engine while doing so.

You are putting it as if we should be grateful that the car manufacturer fixes the broken parts which were his fault in the first place, and should therefore not criticise when half the car breaks down in the process.

You can't compare a Car to a Game, they are totally different. Company of Heroes and Opposing Fronts both worked when you bought it and the retail versions will always work. They patch the game because they feel they need to, not because they have to. Patches do not bring in profit, it's been shown in the past with Relic games that they don't. No one buys a game because it's been patched or balanced; they buy it for the game itself.

Relic messed up big with the last patch and that cannot be denied, and peoples reactions are comprehensible.

Relic did mess up and they are fixing the problem. The bigger problem is that the community is going shit face all for nothing. If your game broken from the 2.2 patch? NO it's not. Can you still play OF online? Yes you can. Should you be bitching about it? No you shouldn't. The way I see it, most people didn't even get patch 2.2 yet they are complaining about it, which is retarded. Thats like complaining about bread that you went to buy and it was recalled because it had poison in it.

[Unkn0wn]

Actually, a lot of the EA titles also get a ton of patches. Battlefield 2 for instance has received at least 7 and while there were some issues at retail indeed, none of them were truly gamebreaking.

CoH is horrible, at the release Opposing Fronts was an unfinished product, Relic owes us those patches to bring OF to a playable and enjoyable level. If they do not patch they'll lose all community support. THQ is responsible for a shitty QA, a shitty deadline causing a shitty retail game and Relic is to blame for some horrible patches and server support.

[Thtb]

Honestly if the next THQ game isent called "Europa in Ruins" i wont buy it.

[The_Saint]

u do make a good point akranadas by why are you defending relic so much, its not like you work for them . Since im a big homeworld fan i also know that relic do provide good support for their games EVENTUALLY. Opposing fronts will be fixed people just need patience which is something the COH community is lacking.

[Thtb]

He gets loves letters from them.

[Apex]

EA is quite different from a normal publisher. Its is one of the market leaders. It has a wide variety of games, and is constantly chewing out new. This oligopol position allows them to negatively affect the game quality, without affecting their money that much, but it does, and EA is quite unpopular. There is a difference between not making as much money as you could, losing money and going bankrupt.

I dont quite understand how you try to argument against the basic process of caring for current customers so they stay future customers. Patching is part of it and a must thing to do. Good Patches bring future profit. EA does that too, maybe not as much and as good as they could but they are not dumb.

If Relic will bring out a game where I am not sure whether it is good or not, things like messed up patches will come into play when deciding whether to buy or not.

And you can compare cars to computer games concerning the sales process and repairing after being sold. You did not seem to understand my example.

[Akranadas]

Apex. You can seriously not tell me when you go to purchase a game, you think about how many or the quality of the patches?

It has been shown that nearly 75% (rough estimate) of all Company of Heroes owners only bought it for Single Player and never ventured online. Would they care about patches? I seriously doubt it. Same with Opposing Fronts, the 75% of players there only bought it for single player and only download the patches because they're forced to, and hey; seeing as 2.2 didn't auto patch, it was like they never downloaded it, so I doubt their pissed.

You can not deny the fact that more people buy games for the single player content, it's just the way the market is.

[stumpster]

I hate to side against you on this one Ak, but I do think about the company and past work/patches performed, same with the majority of my friends (18-20 hardcore gamers).  I got about a dozen of then to get CoH when it came out for LAN parties.

How many of them have Opposing Fronts?  Just one.  Me.  How many have patched to 2.103?  Just one.  Me.  How many have played OF for at least an hour or two to get a feel for Opposing Fronts on my computer?  Nine.  Eight of those will buy it when the major issues are fixed so that they can play again without getting robbed by Brits and PE, or at least the promised Arranged Teams get inside the game.

Another example: Out of the seven of us that have C&C3, none are planning on buying Kane's Wrath.

[acker]

I have absolutely no problem if a computer company doesn't release patches for their software...as long as their software works properly the first time. If a company releases a half-baked product, I expect that the said company will do their best to fix the product, free of charge, or allow refunds; after all, the customer already paid for a product that was supposed to work, yet somehow failed.

The company doesn't have to release patches for a broken game. Then again, such a company will never become a Blizzard with such a track record. Thus, Relic. If I want Single Player, I might as well play a game that's made for single-player combat, like Crysis or Halo.

By the way...I'm exercising my capitalistic rights. I'm not buying OF. Not until it's patched.

[GeneralSteve]

I didn't even buy C&C3 because of C&C Generals.

Anyways, I think we all need to chill out. Yes, Relic made a mistake but they're working on it. If anything, OF should have been delayed a bit for more beta testing. I don't blame it on Relic either, it may of had something to do with their publisher THQ. No point crying over spilled milk, just let Relic clean it up. As long as Relic shows responsibility for their actions, I will have faith in them, and if all else fails, we'll have EIR to play soon. Now if Relic just left OF as the mess it is right now, then there is reason for us to complain.

[Apex]

You are drifting away Akr. Patching a computer game is a standard procedure to prolong the users bondage. This is especially true for CoH where there are still quite some issues and some features are still not implemented. When such a patch then makes half the game unplayable, it is quite understandable that customers, who paid money for that product, are angry about it.

Your response that a developer doesnt need to patch anything and therefore we should not complain if a messed up patch breaks the game is unjustified, thats what this is about.

[acker]

Steve, understood.

As long as Relic makes it easier for Fl and the other modders, I will be happier.

[Akranadas]

You are drifting away Akr. Patching a computer game is a standard procedure to prolong the users bondage. This is especially true for CoH where there are still quite some issues and some features are still not implemented. When such a patch then makes half the game unplayable, it is quite understandable that customers, who paid money for that product, are angry about it.

Your response that a developer doesnt need to patch anything and therefore we should not complain if a messed up patch breaks the game is unjustified, thats what this is about.

Okay, now your twisting my words.

I never said that patching wasn't a standard procedure to ensure the longevity of a game, because it is needed.

What I am say is that there is nothing that says they have to patch the game, and that every patch we get we get for nothing but it costs Relic lots to put of a patch.

If you actually looked into THQ stance on games and patches you'd know that according to THQ; if you can play the game out of the box (like you could) then the game is working as intended and that patches that come after that are to service the community. Thats it.

[Ucross]

I just want AT

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Apex is not saying it the law for them to patch the game, but it is a unwritten rule to keep their product working.

Useing Apex's car example: Only last week we were sent a letter saying that the designers had found a cosmetic problem wth our car model, not dangerious in anyway, and they were offeringa free retrofit, its called customer service and is a big part of PR for any company, if they are seen being thoughtful for their customers more will come and others will stay.

Of course not having the fault in the first place would be better, but that is near impossible to do. 

[Duckordie]

I am gay, sorry

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

good for you to have come out.....