Kyle "Pezman" Peschel, the Senior Online Producer at Atari has posted an update about the patch on the Atari <a href="http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=04ca07bf9da5c502af258a36be364524&threadid=329635">forums</a>. Labelled as the most anticipated patch of the year by Greyhawk fans, it has many people waiting in lines for it.<blockquote><i>Pezman</i> <br> <br> We are targeting this Friday as a release provided everything progresses as planned.</blockquote> How many things can go wrong in a time space of 3 days?
Considering the countless times things like this one have been delayed in the past, and taking Murphys' Law in account of that... Monday. Earliest possible release date definately feels like Monday*. *If the Patch happens to show up earlier than this Monday, or even makes it on time, this is one of those rare occasions I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
Any time a company admits that it's going to release a patch the day after the game's release date gets HUGE bad marks in my book. It shows that the creators of the game weren't able to keep the sales dogs at bay and that they were forced into the position of corporate puppet. I know that sometimes bugs arise after the game has been on the market for a little while and that these same bugs are nearly undetectable without a large pool of playtesters. But they put ToEE out in the full knowledge that the game contained bugs that could have been hammered out with a little more testing. I won't buy into this game or any other game that requires you to patch it within a week of the release date. To do so only exacerbates the situation and gives the corporate puppeteers more leeway to do this in the future. Do you really want buggy games in need of patches to become the norm??
Yes, rise up against the oppressors! A) It already is the norm. B) Be happy that they even bother releasing a patch at all. Even games I've played that are *perfect* need one or two things fixed. I think a patch gives them an opportunity to do that. Kind of like a giant public beta, only where the user pays. I personally don't like the way it works, but I want ToEE, so don't really care about any protest. If they want it, they will buy it. If enough of them buy it and it's buggy, it will be patched.
I'll concede it's become the norm, but I won't be happy about it. I agree that it's nice when a company goes back to patch a game that's been on the market for a while. It's ridiculous when they let a game hit the market in the full knowledge that it's incomplete and they have begun work on a patch as the game is making its way to shelves. Stop pre-ordering games, I say; this is what the PR departments use as leverage against the creators of games. Deadlines can really crimp one's creative impulses and if we allow the marketers to take over the gaming industry we will get crappy, fomulaic games which could be likened to the crappy, formulaic movies which are crowding our theaters or crappy, formulaic books which are crowding our bookstores! Think of how much better these things could be without the marketing representatives riding the backs of our creative talents like old men of the sea, pissing and shitting on them while reaping all the benefits! "If they want it, they will buy it," sure, but I don't want buggy games and I won't buy into it -- neither should you.
Heh. Truth be told, I haven't bought it and it's because of the bugs. I've been waiting for the patch to be released. My first play through is intended to be an army of Paladins, laying waste to the temple but after hearing about Paladins not quite dieing and then causing crashes... I held off. However, I think people buying the game and then vocally complaining about the bugs works better than people not buying it at all. I think the main reason Atari got the patch, was because most of the reviews have said "ToEE, it's great! Pity about the bugs." If no-one buys the game, no-one knows if it's buggy or not.
I think we're in the same boat on this one, DU. I just hate to see people giving the marketing leeches the go-ahead by giving them what they're after, namely: money. If the gaming review magazines weren't spin machines that were at the beck of those same leeches maybe we wouldn't get overhyped games and the gaming community would have a little more say in what up-and-coming games are ACTUALLY good. If the makers of a game release an unfinished product, the reviewers give a completely frank review of it, and then the thing flops at stores, I'd like to think that the makers would realize their mistakes and perhaps prevent them the next time. Really, I'd like to see those types of makers go belly up for getting the fiscal beatdown that they deserved.
