Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
United Kingdom 06/02

Regularly scheduled events

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.

26. Re: Op Ed Jul 22, 2012, 01:03 Prez
007Bistromath wrote on Jul 21, 2012, 16:50:
This writer is a short-sighted douche. An objective look at what the console business model has done to gaming in general makes the appropriate context for this pretty clear.

It's true: console players expect a simpler experience. Console makers have catered to this desire by making an environment that is artificially and unsustainably error-free. The limitations necessary to provide this have bled into parts of the market where they don't belong, pulling devs away from anything capable of advancing the state of the art.

To prop up this slowly and painfully failing approach, Microsoft has chosen to inflate the cost of business, moving the line between "customer" and "partner" to a higher-than-natural class. The message here is quite simple; if you don't put a certain amount on the bottom line for MS, you could work on something that brings thousands of people to their platform, and still be totally expendable and negligible. It's great business sense, so naturally plenty of people will be willing to defend it with sycophantic non-sequitirs like "they deserve to get paid" and "it's their right."

These, however, are the realities of the boardroom, sold to us by the people who work in it so we will continue to accept their terms, no matter how destructive they become. Our hobby is one of countless resources the boardroom can exploit. That's the game they play, and they can play it equally well with hog futures or lawn furniture. When the market for anything reaches a certain level of maturity, it inevitably succumbs to foreign leadership by people who are specifically in the business of exploitation.

The only way to protect our hobby from these people is to support those who put quality of workmanship over powergaming. That ain't Microsoft.

I have to say while I see validity in both sides here this was a brilliant post.
Avatar 17185
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
    Date Subject Author
  1. Jul 21, 13:30 Re: Op Ed [VG]Reagle
  2. Jul 21, 13:35  Re: Op Ed Sepharo
  3. Jul 21, 14:35   Re: Op Ed Draugr
  4. Jul 21, 15:05 Re: Op Ed Ozmodan
  5. Jul 21, 15:50  Re: Op Ed Beelzebud
  6. Jul 21, 16:07  Re: Op Ed Dmitri_M
  18. Jul 21, 20:34  Re: Op Ed briktal
  7. Jul 21, 16:22 Re: Op Ed Dev
  8. Jul 21, 16:50 Re: Op Ed 007Bistromath
>> 26. Jul 22, 01:03  Re: Op Ed Prez
  27. Jul 22, 01:06   Re: Op Ed Prez
  28. Jul 22, 01:13    Re: Op Ed PHJF
  29. Jul 22, 01:46     Re: Op Ed killer_roach
  9. Jul 21, 17:28 Re: Op Ed Silicon Avatar
  19. Jul 21, 20:54  Re: Op Ed Zyrxil
  21. Jul 21, 21:15   Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  30. Jul 22, 01:58  Re: Op Ed Devinoch
  31. Jul 22, 06:40   Re: Op Ed ChaosEngine
  10. Jul 21, 17:43 Re: Op Ed peteham
  11. Jul 21, 17:56  Re: Op Ed killer_roach
  12. Jul 21, 18:50   Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  13. Jul 21, 18:56    Re: Op Ed spindoctor
  14. Jul 21, 19:25    Re: Op Ed Beamer
  17. Jul 21, 20:16     Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  23. Jul 21, 23:55     Re: Op Ed Crustacean Soup
  15. Jul 21, 19:27 Re: Op Ed Mashiki Amiketo
  16. Jul 21, 19:33  Re: Op Ed ASeven
  20. Jul 21, 20:54   Re: Op Ed Mashiki Amiketo
  22. Jul 21, 21:29    Re: Op Ed ASeven
  24. Jul 22, 00:22     Re: Op Ed Mashiki Amiketo
  25. Jul 22, 00:30 Re: Op Ed SimplyMonk
  32. Jul 22, 11:08 Re: Op Ed Ray Marden
  33. Jul 22, 12:35  Re: Op Ed Overon
  34. Jul 22, 17:08  Re: Op Ed Mordecai Walfish
  35. Jul 22, 20:12  Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  36. Jul 25, 02:47 Re: Op Ed KilrathiAce

Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.


Blue's News logo