Op Ed

GamesIndustry International - Fez, Fish and The Problem with Patching.
Fez has grossed over a million dollars, and even after Microsoft has taken a lump of that, it would be outright negligent and irresponsible of Fish not to have money left over to cover an unforeseen problem like a reissued patch. Catch-22. If you're able to complain about it, you're also able to pay for it, and your users are quite entitled to excoriate you for using them as hostages in a debate with Microsoft which is of no real relevance to them.

"I don't care how indie you are, or how free and loose your ideas of commerce and creativity may be - once you've taken a million bucks from consumers, professionalism isn't optional" Equally, though, one can have sympathy with Microsoft. The company gives one patch for free, and charges for subsequent patches - not because it's greedy and avaricious (it does lots of other things for those reasons, of course), but because it doesn't want to see XBLA games being released buggy or incomplete and patched repeatedly. The Xbox is a console, and players expect not to be confronted with the kind of endless match of bugs and patches which so often afflict PC games. Microsoft has a duty to its consumers to try to enforce that, and ultimately, Fish bears responsibility for creating a patch with such a serious bug in it.

View : : :
24.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 22, 2012, 00:22
24.
Re: Op Ed Jul 22, 2012, 00:22
Jul 22, 2012, 00:22
 
ASeven wrote on Jul 21, 2012, 21:29:
But they are.


I gotta ask, just what did Captain D.Bag develop on anyway, an abacus?
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
2.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
3.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
4.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
5.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
6.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
18.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
7.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
8.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
26.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
27.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
28.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
   Re: Op Ed
29.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
    Re: Op Ed
9.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
19.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
21.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
30.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
31.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
10.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
11.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
12.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
13.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
   Re: Op Ed
14.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
   Re: Op Ed
17.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
    Re: Op Ed
23.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
    Re: Op Ed
15.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
16.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
20.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
22.
Jul 21, 2012Jul 21 2012
   Re: Op Ed
 24.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
    Re: Op Ed
25.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
32.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
33.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
34.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
35.
Jul 22, 2012Jul 22 2012
36.
Jul 25, 2012Jul 25 2012