Microsoft's $40,000 patch fee

[BladeVenom]

Microsoft attacked for five-figure Xbox 360 "patch fee"
Charging so much for patches is not a good way to get developers to fix their games.

 

[tfinch2]

It could be a good way of forcing devs to test their shit before releasing it as fast as possible.

 

[HeXen]

Or be an excuse for them to use a different platform instead. IF the 360 was not so popular, this issue wouldn't exist, but because it is, MS thinks they can charge more for this "privilege"

 

[Ns1]

fix such a minor issue

That patch gave rise to new problems for some players, though, by causing their save files to appear as corrupted, in effect erasing their progress through the game.

that's minor?

 

[Bryf50]

Why does the number keep increasing every time I hear this story?
I don't know. It cost MS money to deploy a patch and I'm sure things like this were known well in advance. Not to mention the game has sold over 100k copies meaning they have the money but its just not important enough to them to pay up. I've also heard the developer was kind of an asshole.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's only the second patch that costs money, the first patch is free.

So, you get 2 chances to get things right (release + patch #1) before you have to pay.

 

[Dominato3r]

I cant open the link but IIRC MS gives a developer two free patches, after which they begin charging

edit: ^ above me

 

[gorcorps]

The dev sounds like he's full of shit. He says he has to pay MS to be exclusive to the 360? What? If he wanted to be exclusive to the 360 that's his choice. The cost doesn't change...

 

[PingviN]

Test game
Find bugs
Fix bugs
Test game
Find bugs
Delay launch
Fix bugs
Release
Patch minor issues

Not

Test game
Find bugs
Fix some bugs
Release the game
Find more bugs
Patch bugs
Find more bugs caused by patch
Patch those bugs
More bugs
Fix bugs
More bugs
Fix bugs

Good on Microsoft. Thanks.

 

[BD2003]

The dev sounds like he's full of shit. He says he has to pay MS to be exclusive to the 360? What? If he wanted to be exclusive to the 360 that's his choice. The cost doesn't change...

It was probably to get advertising on the dash (which Fez definitely got).

I'm with microsoft on this one. They had two chances to get it right, and they messed up. They should have tested it better.

 

[BladeVenom]

I'm with microsoft on this one. They had two chances to get it right, and they messed up. They should have tested it better.

So you think it's a good idea that some people are left with a game breaking bug? That's what's happened thanks to Microsoft's stupid policy.

Windows gets patched once or twice a month, and even after a hundred patches Microsoft has yet to get it right.

 

[Anteaus]

The dev doesn't tell the whole story. Microsoft offers smaller Indie developers a different path to get there games out there as well as offering a much more affordable patch system. The catch is that MS doesn't advertise as heavy or in some cases not and all and they don't offer the same level of tech support, but small developers can thrive.

This particular dev went the route of the big boys and found out they couldn't afford to play at that level. So what happens is the developer goes through the process and releases a patch. After discovering that the patch has a bug, the dev requests that MS pull the patch. The dev then declares the intent of releasing a new patch that has the bug fix in it. MS informs the dev that since this is a new patch it must be certified, which costs ~40K. The dev bulks and ultimately decides that since the bug only affects a very small group of players, they re-release the original patch. Then they attack MS publicly, hoping to get special treatment in order to get their cake and eat it to.

I don't know what goes into patch certification, so I'm not going offer an opinion as to whether 40K is fair or a pure ripoff. What I will say is that the dev made a deal with Microsoft Games, good or bad, and they need to play by the rules or go to another platform.

 

[Dominato3r]

So you think it's a good idea that some people are left with a game breaking bug? That's what's happened thanks to Microsoft's stupid policy.

Windows gets patched once or twice a month, and even after a hundred patches Microsoft has yet to get it right.

So you're comparing an xbox game to the most widely available and distributed piece of software on the planet. Awesome. :thumbsup:

 

[HeXen]

So you're comparing an xbox game to the most widely available and distributed piece of software on the planet. Awesome. :thumbsup:

how about a comparison to some of MS's games that's been patched multiple times?

 

[Skel]

So you think it's a good idea that some people are left with a game breaking bug? That's what's happened thanks to Microsoft's stupid policy.

Windows gets patched once or twice a month, and even after a hundred patches Microsoft has yet to get it right.

Really not sure what your point is on this post. As it has been pointed out by "Anteaus" there are other ways to publish cheaper on the Xbox. Saying they're at fault for some publisher not willing to abide by the agreement they signed is pretty petty. I can't help but wonder if you're just trolling, or if you're just pissed at MS for some reason.

 

[gorcorps]

So you think it's a good idea that some people are left with a game breaking bug? That's what's happened thanks to Microsoft's stupid policy.

Windows gets patched once or twice a month, and even after a hundred patches Microsoft has yet to get it right.

Uh, it wasn't thanks to Microsoft's stupid policy, it's thanks to the Dev's stupid testing (or lack thereof) that apparently didn't catch a huge screwup in their new patch.

 

[BD2003]

Uh, it wasn't thanks to Microsoft's stupid policy, it's thanks to the Dev's stupid testing (or lack thereof) that apparently didn't catch a huge screwup in their new patch.

Right. The idea that you get one, and only one free patch, seems sane to me. It encourages devs to stop putting out buggy games, since there are actual consequences, yet still recognizes that it's hard to catch everything the first time.

Maybe they should even put it on a sliding scale and charge the big boys even more, that way we get less launch day disasters like BF3 or Skyrim.

Steam or Windows might offer free patching, but on the infinitely variable PC platform, anything less than that wouldn't cut it. On a console its a different story. It's a fixed platform.

 

[Oyeve]

Then MS should heed their own advice. Fable 2 and 3 were humongeous bug fests.

 

[exar333]

No issue with this at all.

Back 15 years ago, if you released a buggy game you would essentially have to recall all the game copies, re-print CDs/floppys, and send back to your customers. That would be WAY more than $40k. Release good software; MS doesn't want buggy stuff on their platform because it reflects poorly on them.

Not exactly the same, but that was a huge reason folks hated Vista so much. In that case, poor third-party drivers caused instability issues. MS took to the hit, and it hurt their reputation.

From an end-user standpoint, I want a well-performing application. If a publisher, to save some money, refuses to patch a critical bug, that tells me a lot about them and that they don't care about their usage base.

For the record, I create and manage software development/implementation as my job. No software is 100% bug-free, but relying on fix/bug patch after fix/bug patch only causes rifts between you (the dev) and your customers.

The article doesn't say if on-going content patches cost the same $40k. I am not sure how I feel about that, to be honest, if the same costs are applied.

 

[Ns1]

Then MS should heed their own advice. Fable 2 and 3 were humongeous bug fests.

they probably don't mind paying the fee

 

[gorcorps]

From an end-user standpoint, I want a well-performing application. If a publisher, to save some money, refuses to patch a critical bug, that tells me a lot about them and that they don't care about their usage base.

Bingo

Looked like a good game and I was excited to maybe see it on the PC (which at one point they said it was heading there). Now after this I don't think I'd touch it on the PC either. The perfect moral revenge is if it showed up on an Indie Bundle, and I could adjust how much I pay each charity/dev so he'd get NOTHING.

MUAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Ns1]

I bet this thread didn't turn out the way the OP expected

 

[shingletingle]

I bet this thread didn't turn out the way the OP expected

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[dagamer34]

A few things we need to keep in mind:

Because of multiplayer, all games need to be running the same version of code. This means that a game needs to always be in it's most updated state. This also means every time you push a patch, you really need EVERYONE to download it. And depending on the size of the patch, that could take a while to download, ruining the experience. (Because of assumptions the system must make for multiplayer games, this ends up affecting single player games as well).

The cost of the patch certainly doesn't cover the amount of time it takes for testing and distribution, but it prevents developers from using end users as beta testers. Patches really should be for critical bugs only, so DLC is used for everything else.

 

[thespyder]

It's only the second patch that costs money, the first patch is free.

So, you get 2 chances to get things right (release + patch #1) before you have to pay.

Um, yeah. But if they follow the MS business model, 'Release' is a Beta Test version. So there is really only one chance to get it right. And how many times has MS gotten it right on even the 'Second' try?

Seriously though. I do wonder how much of this is real and how much is overinflated hype to make a point. I mean (on the PC side) look at how many patches were pushed out for games like NWN?

Also, just because save games got corrupted (or were flat unusable), I don't see that is a HUGE deal breaker. Sometimes you have to change things more fundamental than the save game. Again, on the PC side, people might be mad about it, but it has been known to happen. Quite often in my experience.