|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:48AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
Notice how Sony's PSN was left out mostly in this convo? It seems like XBOX is the reason we [PSN] dont get patches either, because they dont want to be "unfair".
Thanks MS...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:57AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2012
|
Thanks Microsoft!! always screwing with peoples lives  That's why I'm a proud PS3 and Mac user, hope you rott in hell Microsoft! XD
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 12:49PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
I don't think it's just Microsoft, as I think it costs money to push patches through to Sony as well. In general, the console market is a little more closed and restrictive when it comes to developers and publishers with their games. I guess you shouldn't quote me on this though, as I don't have the article on hand. I just remember reading that (mostly indie) developers are discouraged from pursuing console releases because of this and would love to see this changed in the next generation of gaming consoles.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 1:18AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2011
|
From reading this it seems the game might cost 800 MP too.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:03AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2009
|
What is interesting is that a patch is not strictly required to fix the existing bugs. Stainless/Wizards have previously released an updated client with new features and program fixes. We experienced this with 2009. Also note that they could easily bundle bug fixes with the multiplayer-only DLC that is free of charge. This was done with both 2009 and 2012. To claim that bug fixes are cost prohibitive is simply not true when there are two obvious methods being used by Stainless/Wizards capable of delivering these fixes to the community.
EDIT: This would also lay blame on the QA process. Stainless had fixed a card bug in 2009 and then reverted back to the bugged state in 2012. This fault lies solely upon Stainless for failing to catch a mistake they had corrected once before. And this is just one example. There are quite literally hundreds of mistakes that they are not catching and many of them have nothing to do with specific card interactions. Furthermore, if Stainless is aware of their inability to patch the game then they should take time to ensure that as few bugs make it to release as possible. Particularly, they should not repeat bugs from previous versions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 2:01PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2011
|
I think what bothers me the most is that you can't argue about how much money a release costs when they're about to release a whole new game!
Why not release D13 *and* patch D12 while at it?
"But wait, how?" you might ask, "didn't you just mention two different releases?"
Well, a little creativity is all that's required. Release the 2013 decks as a patch to 2012. Along with whatever other UI changes and so on. Charge the full price for the large deck pack.
"but wait again, how do you balance 29 decks?" You don't. You start the application and it asks "which block do you want to use? 12 or 13?" Separate deck lists, separate matchups. It's like two separate games, but since it's only one game from the view of the systems publishing it the second game can be a patch on the first, including fixing bugs!
Does it cost more money to develop that? Well, obviously, you have to pay your developers to include the bug fixes to 12. That code isn't free to write. They simply don't want to pay to fix those existing bugs. I guess the question is if that's profitable, considering the number of players they may lose who don't trust the quality of D13.
In short - you can't dodge the argument about the price of a patch when you're about to publish new code anyways. That's no excuse.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 3:19PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
Here's an idea for all those that actually like Magic 12 and wanna keep playing it.
Play MAGIC 12!!!!
The game will still be on your system, just like the first one. If MAGIC 12 is so much better in your opinion, then play it and let the rest of us that wanna move on to MAGIC 13 play it without you all.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 5:01AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2006
|
I think what bothers me the most is that you can't argue about how much money a release costs when they're about to release a whole new game!
Why not release D13 *and* patch D12 while at it?
"But wait, how?" you might ask, "didn't you just mention two different releases?"
Well, a little creativity is all that's required. Release the 2013 decks as a patch to 2012. Along with whatever other UI changes and so on. Charge the full price for the large deck pack.
"but wait again, how do you balance 29 decks?" You don't. You start the application and it asks "which block do you want to use? 12 or 13?" Separate deck lists, separate matchups. It's like two separate games, but since it's only one game from the view of the systems publishing it the second game can be a patch on the first, including fixing bugs!
Does it cost more money to develop that? Well, obviously, you have to pay your developers to include the bug fixes to 12. That code isn't free to write. They simply don't want to pay to fix those existing bugs. I guess the question is if that's profitable, considering the number of players they may lose who don't trust the quality of D13.
In short - you can't dodge the argument about the price of a patch when you're about to publish new code anyways. That's no excuse.
Patching is a cost above and beyond the new game. They intend to release 2013 despite 2012's bugs. Fixing 2012 isn't going to make people buy it and they want people to buy 2013, so patching 2012 is literally a waste of money. The same scenario will be true when 2014 is to be released.
This is all corporate POV by the way. There is no upside to fixing 2012 when it's replacement is coming out.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 12:20PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2011
|
This is all corporate POV by the way. There is no upside to fixing 2012 when it's replacement is coming out.
but my question is: why treat D13 as a replacement at all?
Why not treat it as the same core software, but release a new pack of 10 decks? Same price, same number of sales - in fact, maybe even pick up a few new sales of D12 from people who start with D13.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 12:37PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2006
|
This is all corporate POV by the way. There is no upside to fixing 2012 when it's replacement is coming out.
but my question is: why treat D13 as a replacement at all?
Why not treat it as the same core software, but release a new pack of 10 decks? Same price, same number of sales - in fact, maybe even pick up a few new sales of D12 from people who start with D13.
Core games sell more than expansions.
If they release 2013 as an expansion their target demographic is, by default, those who bought 2012.
By releasing it as a new core game, they are enticing veteran players to return and new players to try it out.
|
|
|
