way OT I need to know what you guys think...

I do not think it should be legal to sell a game that is not completely ready for shippin. In other words all PC games should be patch proof.

When I buy a chair I don't have a salesmen telling me "Opps we forgot to include an arm rest oh well you just pay for it now and well send you the rest later."

If I buy a car or almost any other product I get what i pay for. I am tired of these gaming companies taking shortcuts to profit at the PC owners expense. Playstion and Nintindo owners don't have to wait for patches why should we?

I think game makers actually count on making patches before they even start creating the game! I think all games should ship 99% to 100% ready or not at all. A patch should be a rare event not an expected occation, I mean hell when we spend 50.00 on anything else we expect it to be perfect why do game creators get off any easier? they want more and more money for games that crash systems built to run them (take origins UO9 for example)!

What do you guys think? If we are spending the bucks don't we have a right to expect a certian level of professionalism?

 

that is why I invest in consoles. At least there the product is 100% finished

 

IMHO they can't release a game without bugs. That's because every PC is different from another. With consoles, every game is patch proof because every PS2 is the same as another PS2 (for example).
The consoles' drawback is that u cannot upgrade it like a PC. U must buy another one. And it's the price to pay. I still prefer PC gaming for the possibility of upgrading and customizing

(argh forgive my pitiful english :smile

 

are you crazy? what price to pay? If a console costs 400$ and all the games on it look 2x better than on pc since their engine is optimized what are you loosing? nothing since the state of the art graphics card alone costs 400$!!! If you buy a console that is new, it will be good for years. A graphcis card is absolete after 2 years max.

 

about the bugs

if you force your self from buying bug free pc games, i think you'll be playing less, cuz bug free games doesnt exist

 

I can see where you're coming from, Rex, but don't think it would be possible to legislate for such things. The matter of liability is very complex.

If I release a game, and say it will work on Windows 2000, who would be responsible if the next day MS release a new build of Windows (eg. a security update required to combat a virus) that broke my game? Would we want the games manufaturer to attempt a patch within a reasonably small timeframe (and potentially cause bugs) or jus throw up their hands and say "It worked as we claimed?"

To apply one of your metaphors, how would the automotive manufacturers react, do you think, if the transport department came out tomorrow and said, "As of next Tuesday, everything runs on rails?"

The truth is that this is a quality issue. Computer programs are immensely complex - much more complex than almost any other product on the market - and talking in absolutes isn't always useful. This why such analogies as your chair/armrest one may not be applicable; a chair is simple, and has few variations of use, all of which can be verified in an easily quantifiable way (eg. it will collapse if a 30 stone man sits on it).

Quality in software is driven by the market rather than governments - except in certain domains where safety or security are critical issues. The market can apply pressure in several ways, all of which hit the publisher where it hurts: the bank balance.

Some of these are:

• Don't Buy It: it may hurt you in the short term, but the reality is that enough people buying a game will cause the game publishers/creators to see it as a success and therefore be less inclined to feel the need for improvement next time. Clearly, knowing whether to buy something or not BEFORE spending the money relies on:
  • Reliable information (reviews, etc) being published.
  • The (potential) user making an effort to investigate games before buying (resisting that oh-so-sweet impulse buy)
• Contribute to the Quality Process: either by becoming a beta tester, or by communicating your opinions to the market, so that others may avoid buying unsatisfactory games.
• Write your own: I know it sounds unreasonable, but in any situation where you are criticising others, you probably should ask yourself if you could do better, and if you believe the answer is "Yes" then maybe you should attempt it. Please note, I believe the answer "I could do better, but don't have the time/money/resource/luck, etc" is equivalent to a "No."

Well now, I should probably say at this point (or much much earlier :grin: ) that I do not think Arcanum is unacceptably buggy/shoddy. I think it could certainly have been of better quality (especially compared to my latest passtime, Civ3, for instance) and that its low quality probably stems from an over-reliance on patches or rushed development, but haven't experienced anything making me want to ask for my money back.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2001-12-04 03:32 ]</font>

 

Although it would be nice to get bug-free games, even on the console market you will find bugs. I don't like getting bugged games either, but if you were to try to force companies to have completely bug-free programs then NONE (well maybe 1 or 2) would be in business. Most products on the market have problems, but most aren't considered unless they are a safety problem...just look at American cars, they all suck (well at least the current ones) :wink:
If a product has more bugs than you can deal with then return it. I don't care if it is beyond the return policy. I have returned a number of products, INCLUDING games that are beyond the return length, but I raise hell about it.

Pool of Radiance didn't get pulled from the shelves, but those signs posted warning customers of the bugs (including places like Best Buy) hurts sales a lot.

 

thanks for the feed back guys i was just wondering how everyone felt about the subject :smile:

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - it is impossible to write error-free code not only for your system, but for other people's systems as well.

Sure, a simple program might be bug-free on your computer, and on the computer of everyone you know, but someone out there is going to have a problem with it, almost guaranteed (I mean a program that only does 1 + 1 probably will be error free, but there's always something that can crop up to cause problems.).

EVERY software company in the world will tell you that it is impossible to write a decent program without any bugs. In some cases, they CAN'T do better. The only way to reduce the bugs for everyone is to customise a product for each person's computer. Companies aren't going to take the time and effort to do that, so they release the most widely working product that they can.