Fez
- Thread starter Gimpymoo
- Start date
If you are implying this practice is valid, shame on you.
In practice, it just means that MANY games get left with bugs which would otherwise be fixed.
$10,000 to an Indie is a stupid amount of money, especially if trying to fund another project.
Microsoft and Sony do not do this as an exercise to "increase the quality of the worlds games". They do it to line their pockets.
I for one will be throwing money at Polytron when Fez comes to Steam.
That comment looks like it came straight from the Microsoft PR handbook.
A true game developer, especially an Indie one, loves their art and the majority do not want to release bad work.
Steam offers the opposite to what Live Arcade does and for the most part is much loved by the community for that. Xbox Live/Live Arcade has MAJOR hate within its community so such steps are not working across the board.
MANY MANY MANY games on Live Aracde/Xbox Live have bugs which proves your corporate tripe to be nothing more than a greedy money making exercise which is counter productive.
There is nothing wrong allowing a developer to fix their game free of charge.
Trying to beat them with a "Hey, get this right second time round or we will bend you over" stick is not right.
They obvously do not do a good job as if they did, games would not be certified with "ground breaking" bugs.
May I ask how many "Perfect" games you have made in you career?
You obviously have no love for the industry, or the people who help make it what it is. You seem more interested in justifying Microsofts stance on the matter.
I will add this as my final input on the matter:
Polytron said:
Last edited:
That was a well formed post and rather informative, thanks.
$10,000 to $40,000 to release a patch just seems obscene.
I can only assume that small devs simply do not bother after the first patch and simply take the money and run, I cannot blame them for that but it all seems counter productive to what MS say they are trying to enforce in which case maybe they should look at changing such policies?
Just seems very unreasonably strong handed.
$10,000 to $40,000 to release a patch just seems obscene.
I can only assume that small devs simply do not bother after the first patch and simply take the money and run, I cannot blame them for that but it all seems counter productive to what MS say they are trying to enforce in which case maybe they should look at changing such policies?
Just seems very unreasonably strong handed.
Last edited:
