Riley is hilarious. I think he's been bitching and moaning about Valve for, what, the last 6 years or so? I remember him doing his little-boy tantrum routine on here constantly.

Don't you guys ever wonder what kind of biological defect he's got in his brain that makes him like this? He obsesses over Valve and Steam. He talks like he knows everything there is to know about software development and game development, but he's seemingly never given his credentials. The way he talks, he must a grizzled veteran of the game development industry. I bet he created C++. Maybe he invented the transistor. We'll never know.

I like the way he has to change his login every year or two, so that he'll get the attention he craves.

Riley is hilarious. I think he's been bitching and moaning about Valve for, what, the last 6 years or so? I remember him doing his little-boy tantrum routine on here constantly.

Don't you guys ever wonder what kind of biological defect he's got in his brain that makes him like this? He obsesses over Valve and Steam. He talks like he knows everything there is to know about software development and game development, but he's seemingly never given his credentials. The way he talks, he must a grizzled veteran of the game development industry. I bet he created C++. Maybe he invented the transistor. We'll never know.

Was Portal a buggy game to you when you played it? Did you have any real problems when you played every level, beginning to end?

More importantly, perhaps, if you did happen to encounter any major issues with Portal, were they not fixed within a week or two? Are these bugs they're fixing now, 2 and a half years after the game's release, things that have pissed you off for the last 2 and a half years?

Would you have even known that these bugs existed, having personally encountered them, or even seeing them mentioned on the internet, had Valve not published a changelist saying that they fixed it?


If you didn't encounter issues, or issues you did encounter were fixed quickly, and the issues they're currently fixing are those you didn't even know existed in the first place, why do you care?

Krovven wrote on May 15, 2010, 02:45:
Actually when it's caused by a user disabling a font, that doesnt need to be disabled, and could easily be re-enabled by the same user...it's a non-critical bug.

First, the problem could also have been caused if the font were simply missing or corrupted. The patch notes on the issue aren't very elaborate but it is likely from the description and symptoms. Second, you are being presumptuous in first assuming that the user knowingly disabled this font and second that he could simply re-enable it. To my knowledge Windows doesn't have a command or menu to "disable" a font. Fonts can be easily deleted, but reinstalling them after doing so wouldn't necessarily be easy. Finally, it's still a critical bug because it makes the game not run properly, and the user may not know why. That still makes it a potentially significant support issue which would require resources to resolve. So, blaming the user and expecting him to fix the problem is misguided or wrong and doesn't make the effect less critical on the game. So, as I wrote below, it is in fact a critical but uncommon bug.

No, it's a fact of ALL software development.

No, releasing software with copious, obvious, and/or significant bugs is NOT a fact of all software development. It's only a fact for that of companies and developers like Valve which aren't thorough and disciplined in their testing and quality control. Whether or not they choose to be this way for economic reasons is irrelevant as far as the end result to the customer is concerned. Sure perfection is unrealistic, but there is a huge chasm between perfection and the shoddy job Valve has been doing with regards to quality control.

What Valve has done is not just release software with a few innocuous or inconspicuous bugs. It has frequently released software and even patches with significant and obvious bugs which could have and should have been rooted out before being rolled out to the public. Dev gave some good examples below, and those are far from comprehensive.

No software is released without bugs

While you can't be absolutely certain that is true in the history of computer software, it's also irrelevant here because I didn't contend or expect otherwise. But, excusing Valve's behavior because you think it can't or shouldn't do better since software can't be perfect is ridiculous.

This comment was edited on May 15, 2010, 06:36.

Having text not being rendered in the game is a critical bug.

Actually when it's caused by a user disabling a font, that doesnt need to be disabled, and could easily be re-enabled by the same user...it's a non-critical bug.

No, it's a fact of undisciplined software development not all.

No, it's a fact of ALL software development. No software is released without bugs, end of discussion.

At least it isn't like Photoshop patches! You're lucky to get one very minor patch per version. I've experienced several obvious bugs. The only way to fix some of them is to pay the $199 upgrade fee, and that often introduces more bugs than it fixes.

It's hard for me to complain about Valve when their $20 game gets more support than an $700 application.

When patch story threads go bad!

When patch threads go bad and refuse to die.

This is a guy who changes his ID every few years...start here:
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=userinfo&user=21035

Thanks for pointing that out :).

Kevlar wrote on May 14, 2010, 10:02:
Indeed. It seems foolish to debate, but if we're going to fan the flames: Apparently some favor the EA method where they ship a comprehensive patch every 1.5 years and that STILL cause bugs.

No I dont, but it IS possible to catch a lot of these issues with some rudimentary testing.

Krovven wrote on May 14, 2010, 14:17:
ALL of the fixes were for non-critical bugs.

Having text not being rendered in the game is a critical bug. It's not a common bug given the cause listed in the changelog, but it is a critical one if it occurs as the game would be hardly or much less playable.

The fact that Valve does continue to fix problems on all of their games is a positive thing.

It is positive in light of the fact that Valve continually creates so many bugs and doesn't adequately catch or fix them before deploying its patches.

It's a fact of all software development.

No, it's a fact of undisciplined software development not all.

A patch story thread goes out of control on Bluesnews.

And I wasnt even involved.

As Batman said, it's a wonder the conversation even got to this point.

ALL of the fixes were for non-critical bugs. If you've ever had anything to do with software development, you know that bugs get prioritized, and the product always ships with known problems, generally most of which are non-critical and get "might" fixed after release. The fact that Valve does continue to fix problems on all of their games is a positive thing.

Have a problem with it? Get over it. It's a fact of all software development.

I've Got the News Blues, why are you so angry? What did Valve do to piss you off so much?

This is a guy who changes his ID every few years...start here:
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=userinfo&user=21035

Kevlar wrote on May 14, 2010, 10:02:
Indeed. It seems foolish to debate, but if we're going to fan the flames: Apparently some favor the EA method where they ship a comprehensive patch every 1.5 years and that STILL cause bugs.

Yes because those are the only two possible ways of handling game patches: EA's way and Valve's way. Competency is not an option.

The Half Elf wrote on May 14, 2010, 07:22:
You need to check his past posts and your the 2nd or 3rd person to totally miss the sarcasm about Valve patching their games. :P

I didn't miss the sarcasm. I got it exactly. You simply didn't get my reply. He was praising Valve for patching its games. I pointed out why it wasn't worthy of that praise.

Sho wrote on May 14, 2010, 06:07:
For the record, I don't particularly care about Valve's games.

Your posts in this thread suggest otherwise. What you actually don't appear to care about is reading about a subject before jumping in uninformed.

Actually I mostly took offense at the boundless arrogance you embedded in those posts, combined with the fact that you didn't do your homework properly

No, you didn't do your homework properly and arrogantly thought that you must be right because you are an all-knowing software engineer. Those aren't bugs in your software. They're unexpected features. Your twin must be a programmer for Valve.

It does rub me the wrong way if people grandstand without making sure they have their ducks in a row to justify it, that is true.

Well you must rub yourself the wrong way because that is exactly what you did in this thread.

In any case, I think the topic of the patch is pretty well-covered by now, and continuing this cock fight seems rather pointless.

Since you obviously don't have much of a cock, that's true.

This comment was edited on May 14, 2010, 15:55.

I've Got the News Blues, why are you so angry? What did Valve do to piss you off so much?

Was Portal a buggy game to you when you played it? Did you have any real problems when you played every level, beginning to end?

More importantly, perhaps, if you did happen to encounter any major issues with Portal, were they not fixed within a week or two? Are these bugs they're fixing now, 2 and a half years after the game's release, things that have pissed you off for the last 2 and a half years?

Would you have even known that these bugs existed, having personally encountered them, or even seeing them mentioned on the internet, had Valve not published a changelist saying that they fixed it?


If you didn't encounter issues, or issues you did encounter were fixed quickly, and the issues they're currently fixing are those you didn't even know existed in the first place, why do you care?

Sho wrote on May 14, 2010, 05:51:
There may be technical reasons for that, such as keeping the version numbers in sync for multiplayer compatibility.

no viable reasons

You don't need to change the PC version to fit the Macintosh even for multiplayer (and especially since this game has no multiplayer mode at all). Efficiency and compatibility would demand the opposite.

They may also have made further minor changes not mentioned in the changelog that apply to the game on all platforms.

Certainly because why list all changes and fixes in a changelog. Something must be left to the imagination!

If you find fault with my technical explanations, do tell

They are simply speculative and in some cases veiled excuses such as the Tahoma font and intro video explanations, but you have now admitted that.

I think I explained fairly well earlier why those fixes on the whole don't seem to apply to bugs that were introduced years ago but in relatively new code :).

No, actually you didn't. With bug #3 your bias blatantly prevented you from even entertaining the notion that it could be a long standing bug. Valve's history suggests otherwise.

This comment was edited on May 14, 2010, 14:10.

Overon wrote on May 14, 2010, 08:46:
A patch story thread goes out of control on Bluesnews.

When patch story threads go bad!

Trooper119 wrote on May 14, 2010, 01:40:

I've Got The News Blues wrote on May 14, 2010, 01:03:
I would prefer that Valve stop putting bugs in them to start with. This game is almost three years old. At least some of these bugs (like the first four) could have been caught and fixed long before now like in testing before the release of the game.

So your saying they not only left the bugs but created them in the first place? On top of that you wanted them to delay the game for bugs I've never even heard people complain about let alone experienced myself.

I'm going to assume you simply didn't realize what you were typing because I doubt anyone could be that ignorant.

^ This.

Indeed. It seems foolish to debate, but if we're going to fan the flames: Apparently some favor the EA method where they ship a comprehensive patch every 1.5 years and that STILL cause bugs.