3 ms·
(Author of the original article here) It was really pretty naive - nobody would plan for an RTS now without planning a series of patches to do the inevitable ad
by MarkTerrano 8y ago
(Author of the original article here) It was really pretty naive - nobody would plan for an RTS now without planning a series of patches to do the inevitable adjustments. Even for AOK we planned to patch and adjust. The 'general argument' was a MS publisher stance as quoted by Matt Pritchard - to do a patch in those days through the MS system meant a lengthy and expensive full test process, rollout, creation of a patch system, etc - so it was something you planned and budgeted for. The concept of 'day-one-patch' would have been pretty horrific. Patching is now something you integrate, plan for and expect - because we aren't shipping on gold masters to a printing company.
- gandreani 8y agoEven if we lived in a world with gold masters there would still be one reason for patches: Balancing. My thinking is to expect patches when making a multiplayer game. There's just no practical way around it
- MarkTerrano 8y agoThe Command & Conquer approach (used by them and some others in the era of gold masters) was to release expansions to the game that incorporated the balance and other fixes as part of the release cycle of the game. In those days they didn't do independent patches because of the logistical complexity. It was an entirely different ecosystem before the Internet was common-place.
- bitwize 8y agoThis is one of the reasons why Brood War exists.
- shawn 8y agoWelcome to HN :)