A patch gurantee would be good.

**centrelink4** · November 15, 2006, 06:46 AM

I would love it if publishers would stand by there products and give us an unequivical gurantee that they would patch there games.

I dont expect a game to be completely bug free, I do expect those bugs to rectified.

To be honest the biggest problem I have with buggey games is patches arent guranteed; you pay your money and you may get some patching. You may not, you certainly wont be getting any sort of refund or anything though if they dont, you just have to suck it up!

So I'm not too concerned about it so far as CA have said they will patch most of the major bugs, but as we have seen they dont have too, do they? They said day 0, now its day 14, it may seem unlikely but it could very well become day never. And then what do we do?

If there were some sort of publisher promise that guranteed patches then it would be fine. Or perhaps they could give you a refund if they didnt patch it within a certain time.

Why dont they put it in the EULA or something like that? Theres plenty of law for publishers about not pirating games but not too much for consumers about getting tech support or quality products.

**Lusted** · November 15, 2006, 06:49 AM

Because its nice to trust the publishers and developers to make patches. The only reaosn the day 0 patch is now happening 2 weeks later is that there will be more bug fixes in it. Not really a bad thing is it?

**Henry of Grosmont** · November 15, 2006, 07:05 AM

And that goes both ways. First as you posted, they don't have to, and the fact they do, says something. CA, actually, released 4 patches for RTW and 2 for BI. So ,I wouldn't worry about that. As Lusted posted, the only reason it's day 14, it's because they want to fix as much and as good they can now (at least I see it that way).
Second, yes, it would be nice, to have guarantees, because publishers and developers should take responsibilities for their products.

**Thorrbert** · November 15, 2006, 07:24 AM

Centre, I really can understand your point of view. Not because CA has delayed the patch for two or three weeks - such things happen. The problem is, that a company could decide to release no patch at all and leave a game in a broken condition. To prevent a misunderstanding: I DON´T say that Medieval II is broken, and I really appreciate how CA handles the communication to the community this time. But even the TW series had some "dark times" in the past. I still remember what happened with the Rome Patch that came 4 months after release. And Rome really had some ugly flaws (remember the fact that for archer the distant attack value was used for melee, too). I still remember the growing anger after 3 months without a patch and the disapointing answers from the CA/Activision: "Take the red pill", "Patience is a virtue"... This really left me in a bad mood, I don´t like such a unrespectful behaviour. For this reasons, Lusted, "trusting the publisher" is not always enough...

But, hurray, this time it seems to be much better.

Thorrbert

**DougyM** · November 15, 2006, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Thorrbert

Centre, I really can understand your point of view. Not because CA has delayed the patch for two or three weeks - such things happen. The problem is, that a company could decide to release no patch at all and leave a game in a broken condition. To prevent a misunderstanding: I DON´T say that Medieval II is broken, and I really appreciate how CA handles the communication to the community this time. But even the TW series had some "dark times" in the past. I still remember what happened with the Rome Patch that came 4 months after release. And Rome really had some ugly flaws (remember the fact that for archer the distant attack value was used for melee, too). I still remember the growing anger after 3 months without a patch and the disapointing answers from the CA/Activision: "Take the red pill", "Patience is a virtue"... This really left me in a bad mood, I don´t like such a unrespectful behaviour. For this reasons, Lusted, "trusting the publisher" is not always enough...

But, hurray, this time it seems to be much better.

Thorrbert

That was all due to Activision as they were the ones who greenlight patches.

under sega, the TW series has already gotten more attention and support in the last 6 months than TW ever did with activision.

**z2ei** · November 15, 2006, 07:49 AM

It's not really the company, it's the publisher. For starters, a lot of publishers don't want to -pay- for the time/work it costs to patch, like Activision. But look how many patches we've gotten from Sega and CA compared to when Activision was publishing. A bunch.

As I've said in another thread, these things take time. Identifying the bugs, finding out what's causing the bugs, actually fixing them, testing (repeatedly), then sending to the publisher to approve (and copy-protect the EXEs), then release. So just have a little patience before this "The sky is falling! They'll never patch it!" nonsense.

**centrelink4** · November 15, 2006, 05:02 PM

Because its nice to trust the publishers and developers to make patches. The only reaosn the day 0 patch is now happening 2 weeks later is that there will be more bug fixes in it. Not really a bad thing is it?

Isnt it?

Why not give me a patch now and another patch in 2 weeks with extra stuff? If the patch delay is merely the inclusion of extras that is.

Besides its nice to have a remedy when your trust in a publisher is misplaced (not that this has ever happened before lol)

Anyways this isnt about CA bashing or anything, I mean they dont even control patches do they? Sega could just say "No" we decided not to patch it and thats that, doesnt matter what CA think.

Its more about wishful thinking really.

I was just saying wouldnt it be good to for a publisher (the one who actually controls things not the developer) to come out and say clear as day without any sort of political double speak "we stand behind this game 100 percent and will patch any and all major bugs".

Most seem to have the attitude that a patch is a blessing they bestow upon us if they feel like it, when I think its our right to have a game patched.

**nameless** · November 15, 2006, 05:08 PM

Why not give me a patch now and another patch in 2 weeks with extra stuff?

Why not wait 2 weeks for a patch that fixes the majority of the problems with all of the compatiability issues corrected in one swoop? Their also entering their two week final testing as well to ensure the best.

In case you haven't noticed their focusing on quality, not quantity kid.

Unexpected things always happens, that's how things work in the real world.

**centrelink4** · November 15, 2006, 05:15 PM

Why not wait 2 weeks for a patch that fixes the majority of the problems with all of the compatiability issues corrected in one swoop? Their also entering their two week final testing as well to ensure the best.

Why well thats kind of obvious isnt it? Becuase then you could you used it fixed and not broken for two weeks.

In case you haven't noticed their focusing on quality, not quantity kid.

Unexpected things always happens, that's how things work in the real world.

I dont know know what this means. Whats unexpected? Whos the kid? Whats the quality? They new it was bugged its not unexpected. They can patch bugs now and some more in two weeks wheres the lack of quality in that?

Hmmm baffling really.

**savage_rabbit** · November 15, 2006, 05:18 PM

When it comes to bugs that have been fixed, I'm pretty sure quantity IS quality....

**Lusted** · November 15, 2006, 05:17 PM

It takes more than 2 weeks to make a patch, they decided to delay the first patch for 2 weeks to fit in some extra bug fixes.

**centrelink4** · November 15, 2006, 05:26 PM

It takes more than 2 weeks to make a patch, they decided to delay the first patch for 2 weeks to fit in some extra bug fixes.

Very well I just have to take your word for it as I dont know how long it takes.

I thought I had seen patches come far more quickly than this though for other games. Wouldnt the patch time be dependent on the work involved in making the patch? If they can add fixes in 2 weeks why cant they add them to a separate patch in 2 weeks?

**Lusted** · November 15, 2006, 05:28 PM

Generally patches that are released within days have been worked on even since the game went Gold. The 2 weeks time is the time CA have said it will take to add in more fixes and test the patch to make sure it works, and it doesn't add in more bugs.

**ProudNerd** · November 15, 2006, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by centrelink4

I would love it if publishers would stand by there products and give us an unequivical gurantee that they would patch there games.

I dont expect a game to be completely bug free, I do expect those bugs to rectified.

To be honest the biggest problem I have with buggey games is patches arent guranteed; you pay your money and you may get some patching. You may not, you certainly wont be getting any sort of refund or anything though if they dont, you just have to suck it up!

So I'm not too concerned about it so far as CA have said they will patch most of the major bugs, but as we have seen they dont have too, do they? They said day 0, now its day 14, it may seem unlikely but it could very well become day never. And then what do we do?

If there were some sort of publisher promise that guranteed patches then it would be fine. Or perhaps they could give you a refund if they didnt patch it within a certain time.

Why dont they put it in the EULA or something like that? Theres plenty of law for publishers about not pirating games but not too much for consumers about getting tech support or quality products.

indeed I'm angry as well. I used to tryst CA as a dev since they put so much effort in their games but this is just bs. I must remember to send them a thank you bomb

**drak10687** · November 15, 2006, 06:19 PM

The longer it takes them, the better it will be. Fixing a game isnt as simple as knowing whats wrong. The "fix" might affect more than one aspect of the game, meaning that though it make debug one thing, another bug might appear as a result. Hence patching isnt just about fixing whats wrong, a huge part is extensive testing that is supposedly done before release to insure that other errors do not a occur. As well, the game has JUST been released, and two or three weeks is a really, REALLY short amount of time. However, if you just cant bear to play the game the way it is, there are a lot of other useful and positive things you can do in the mean while.

**The_Grey_Rider** · November 15, 2006, 08:22 PM

I think....Think mind you.... that his point is someone should be responsable for their product. There are many other examples of products, like cars or electronics, that have recalls to fix things that were noticed after their release. Game consumers must depend on the benevolence of the publisher. I agree with CentreLink.