5 ms·

Apparently they do this because they do their own QA/testing. It's pretty sad that they are charging users $50/year and then charging developers $10,000+ for pa

by AUmrysh 13y ago

Apparently they do this because they do their own QA/testing. It's pretty sad that they are charging users $50/year and then charging developers $10,000+ for patches. Isn't the subscription supposed to pay for the infrastructure? I can understand MS wanting to protect their baby, but the walls on the garden are so high they keep light out. Valve wasn't having any of that pay per update deal and that's why TF2 on the 360 hasn't had anywhere near the number of updates as on PC. MS has done a lot to hurt not just indie developers, but first party (Bungie) developers as well. Remember that ordeal with MS forcing them to release Halo 3 before it was ready and then the whole team threatened to quit? It's sad that they've taken a digital distribution system like Xbox Live and turned it into a cash cow on both ends. They're stifling not only innovation, but regular development processes, with their blind profiteering.

usea 13y ago
Not only that, but the fact that such a buggy patch (Fez) came out which deleted save files etc, it wasn't exactly clear what value $10k patch QA was getting you.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  First patch is free--only the 2nd patch and beyond cost the developer.
  - jonny_eh 13y ago
    So they don't QA the first patch, but they'll QA the second patch? I don't follow your logic.
    - gamblor956 13y ago
      They QA both, but only the first patch is gratis.
- winter_blue 13y ago
  What the heck? Why do you developers have to pay to submit patches? This makes no sense to me. Devs don't pay Apple or Google to update their Android or iOS apps. What kind of unearthly nonsense is this?
  - usea 13y ago
    Microsoft has/had a somewhat captive audience, so they can do a lot of milking. The justification from Microsoft is two-fold: 1) Having to pay for patches gives publishers an incentive to release less-buggy games the first time. When consoles first started enabling developers to release patches, it was fashionable for gamers and reviewers to complain about patches. Many people subscribed to the idea that patching was lazy and games shouldn't have bugs at all. These days people are more likely accept patching as a good thing, so this patch cost is really more damaging than helpful. 2) Microsoft does extensive QA on your patch (just like they do initial releases) to make sure it doesn't do anything egregious, and this process costs money. Gamers don't always care who screwed up, they will blame the console-maker. So Microsoft benefits from ensuring patches don't brick your console, etc. However, it's not exactly clear how worthwhile this process is considering the buggy patches that have come out. Surely it doesn't cost them anywhere near 10 grand to pay for the testing process. Although the top-end games are still getting more and more expensive to produce, the quality of game that the average developer is able to make on her own has risen dramatically. You no longer have to have very specialized skills to create a great game that will sell a million copies. Publishers and console-makers don't hold the power they used to. There are so many available open channels for developers to release their games to large audiences with no interference. MS is refocusing away from the gamers who rely on them less and less, to a more broad audience. Other similar behaviors Microsoft gets/got away with: charging gamers for the ability to play online, charging a 'licensing fee' for any game released on the system (other console manufacturers do this as well), showing advertisements while navigating the console's menus.
georgemcbay 13y ago
"Apparently they do this because they do their own QA/testing." They do supposedly do their own TRC/QA pass on all patches, but the system is highly flawed. As Exhibit A I present Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. Quite an enjoyable multiplayer game, IMO, but despite already having a handful of updates in the half-a-year or so since release, the online is still terribly buggy. I've never seen an Xbox game with such poor networking and matchmaking (unlike every other 360 game I've played with friends, the party is always being split into different lobbies, lobbies get into weird states where you're supposedly able to join them but you can't until the party leader leaves and recreates them, etc, etc, total amateur hour shit). From a QA perspective that game is an absolute mess, so either Microsoft's QA is worthless shit or they are willing to look the other way for games with high enough profile.
- pandaman 13y ago
  Submission process is not a game QA, TRC is not checking if the game is fun or if you get correct ads on your players in Madden. TRC is checking for uniform behavior (like loading UI, save game UI, correct naming of parts of the console and actions, handling pulled out controller, disk errors etc) and security issues (correct libraries, proper protocols for online etc). Another thing - big titles break TRC routinely. Failing CoD for a TRC is like giving a speeding ticket to Obama's motorcade. That game sells 10M and brings ~100M in licensing fees every year.
m_mueller 13y ago
What makes this situation even worse is that Microsoft was once such a high quality game publisher. Remember the days of Age2?

by AUmrysh 13y ago

usea 13y ago

Not only that, but the fact that such a buggy patch (Fez) came out which deleted save files etc, it wasn't exactly clear what value $10k patch QA was getting you.

gamblor956 13y ago
First patch is free--only the 2nd patch and beyond cost the developer.
- jonny_eh 13y ago
  So they don't QA the first patch, but they'll QA the second patch? I don't follow your logic.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    They QA both, but only the first patch is gratis.
winter_blue 13y ago
What the heck? Why do you developers have to pay to submit patches? This makes no sense to me. Devs don't pay Apple or Google to update their Android or iOS apps. What kind of unearthly nonsense is this?
- usea 13y ago
  Microsoft has/had a somewhat captive audience, so they can do a lot of milking. The justification from Microsoft is two-fold: 1) Having to pay for patches gives publishers an incentive to release less-buggy games the first time. When consoles first started enabling developers to release patches, it was fashionable for gamers and reviewers to complain about patches. Many people subscribed to the idea that patching was lazy and games shouldn't have bugs at all. These days people are more likely accept patching as a good thing, so this patch cost is really more damaging than helpful. 2) Microsoft does extensive QA on your patch (just like they do initial releases) to make sure it doesn't do anything egregious, and this process costs money. Gamers don't always care who screwed up, they will blame the console-maker. So Microsoft benefits from ensuring patches don't brick your console, etc. However, it's not exactly clear how worthwhile this process is considering the buggy patches that have come out. Surely it doesn't cost them anywhere near 10 grand to pay for the testing process. Although the top-end games are still getting more and more expensive to produce, the quality of game that the average developer is able to make on her own has risen dramatically. You no longer have to have very specialized skills to create a great game that will sell a million copies. Publishers and console-makers don't hold the power they used to. There are so many available open channels for developers to release their games to large audiences with no interference. MS is refocusing away from the gamers who rely on them less and less, to a more broad audience. Other similar behaviors Microsoft gets/got away with: charging gamers for the ability to play online, charging a 'licensing fee' for any game released on the system (other console manufacturers do this as well), showing advertisements while navigating the console's menus.

georgemcbay 13y ago

"Apparently they do this because they do their own QA/testing." They do supposedly do their own TRC/QA pass on all patches, but the system is highly flawed. As Exhibit A I present Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. Quite an enjoyable multiplayer game, IMO, but despite already having a handful of updates in the half-a-year or so since release, the online is still terribly buggy. I've never seen an Xbox game with such poor networking and matchmaking (unlike every other 360 game I've played with friends, the party is always being split into different lobbies, lobbies get into weird states where you're supposedly able to join them but you can't until the party leader leaves and recreates them, etc, etc, total amateur hour shit). From a QA perspective that game is an absolute mess, so either Microsoft's QA is worthless shit or they are willing to look the other way for games with high enough profile.

pandaman 13y ago
Submission process is not a game QA, TRC is not checking if the game is fun or if you get correct ads on your players in Madden. TRC is checking for uniform behavior (like loading UI, save game UI, correct naming of parts of the console and actions, handling pulled out controller, disk errors etc) and security issues (correct libraries, proper protocols for online etc). Another thing - big titles break TRC routinely. Failing CoD for a TRC is like giving a speeding ticket to Obama's motorcade. That game sells 10M and brings ~100M in licensing fees every year.

m_mueller 13y ago

What makes this situation even worse is that Microsoft was once such a high quality game publisher. Remember the days of Age2?