How do you feel they've handled the BtS patching process so far?

How do you feel they've handled the BtS patching process so far?

  • They've done a good job with their patching (nothing needs to be changed).

    Votes: 22 12.6%
  • They've tried to do a good job with it, but stumbled some (minor changes might be needed).

    Votes: 58 33.1%
  • They've bumbled their patching, regardless of their intentions (changes are definitely needed).

    Votes: 54 30.9%
  • They've botched their patch releases, bordering on incompetence (major overhauls are needed).

    Votes: 41 23.4%

  • Total voters
    175

Loopy

Warlord
Joined
Nov 15, 2001
Messages
202
By "They", I mean Take Two games and their entire 2k Games publishing label, which includes Firaxis Games. If you feel changes might be in order, how about making some reasonable suggestions as to how they might improve their process? Please try to limit it to constructive criticism.

The big (but locked) 3.13 change list poll garnered around a 90% favorable response. The less popular follow-up poll has around a 75% favorable response at the time of this posting. I wonder how things stand now.
 
If it comes out today, which is doubtful but announced somewhat officially then its great, if not as long as its complete ill be happy. There are a ton of bugs in bts so its understandable if it takes a while just as long as they actually fix it.
 
I'm gonna go ahead and say the process isn't so good right now considering that Tuesday is just about over and there is no sign of the patch. I imagine several people will call for alexman's head since he last said it would be out on "Monday or Tuesday". Well...

Disclaimer: I am not upset personally, nor do I really care. I'm patient and understanding enough to know that sometimes it might take a while. I'd rather having a completely working patch instead of a rushed one. :)
 
Well, at the risk of jumping into a soon-to-be-locked discussion, I'm holding off opinion until the patch comes out. I actually think that a three month timeframe between "big patches" is acceptable, and even longer is fine if there aren't major, glaring bugs. There are a couple of more serious bugs that need to be fixed, and while Solver's patch solves most of those, I am anxious for the new patch.

For anyone who's unhappy, just bear in mind it could be much, much worse. In particular, support for WH40k Dark Crusade was awful, and a severe black mark on Relic, as they went the "one patch and we're done" route with WH40k DC, and the game is more or less permanently broken. Graphically an incredibly well-done game, but an abysmal failure on the balance side--and balancing it would have only required some XML-level changes that even one lowly programmer could have taken care of.

It's clear that Firaxis is committed to their products, so getting BtS right is not a question of if, but when. Take2 has its own processes, but I don't doubt that Firaxis will make sure Civ4 gets the right level of support.
 
Please, just STOP this. I won't vote in this. You already have one thread to make whatever point it is you want to make. Don't clog the forum with redundant threads, thinly masquerading as a poll.

Please?
 
Please, just STOP this. I won't vote in this. You already have one thread to make whatever point it is you want to make. Don't clog the forum with redundant threads, thinly masquerading as a poll.

Please?

I wouldn't call it redundant. I gather this may be something of interest to generate numbers from opinions given recently (in other threads) and to make it easier for those that do not wish to post, respond, and debate to give a quick opinion (vote). Perhaps some wish to vote on a previous experience with a patch or patches also. Not voting is a perfectly valid choice. The post/poll is not trying to make a point, it is trying to get to a 'point' ?
 
I want the patch as bad as anyone, but I want it done right. Hopefully it's done sooner than later, but I'm alright with later if it means getting it done right.
 
Well, I can only comment on patches I currently have. Obviously there are still bugs to be worked out, but I have yet to see a software designer that released a completely bug free product. All in all I would say that Take2/Firaxis have done a better than average job at getting us updates and patches and at the same time have provided us new content as well.

Sure they have tripped over some stumbling blocks, but all in all they have done a pretty stellar job.
 
3.03 was an embarassing mistake (and I'm sure no one's more sorry about that then the Firaxians themselves).

3.13 sounds like a good patch, it seems to fix many issues, among those some showstoppers like the "infinite loop" bugs. If 3.13 works well, then (at least from my perspective) they managed to wipe out the mistake they made with 3.03. That 3.13 has been announced several times now, but still hasn't arrived, is certainly unfortunate, but understandable if you know how the patching and QA process works. The wait doesn't bother me much, since I find BtS very enjoyable as it is, and I'll play Civ4 for years anyway. Hence, the quality of the patch is much, much more important for me than when exactly it arrives. I also never stopped playing in anticipation of a patch. So from my perspective, I wouldn't care if the process takes another month, provided that the end result is a good patch.

I do however think that issuing beta patches might have been a good solution for the people who had their games grind to a halt. Some zip download without an exe installer, with a disclaimer "use at own risk" attached, might have done the job. I'm not sure whether that's possible though, copy protection and the fact that Take2 would have to authorize such a distribution might be an issue here.

Nevertheless, while it's *very* important for me that *final* patch for BtS is a good one, I don't care much when it arrives or when the intermediate steps come. Because of this, I find it hard to vote in this poll - I can't even judge Firaxis' effort in the past weeks because I haven't seen the result yet. In any case, I still think (like I voted in the very first poll) that the patch is worth the wait of it does what is claims.
 
I do however think that issuing beta patches might have been a good solution for the people who had their games grind to a halt. Some zip download without an exe installer, with a disclaimer "use at own risk" attached, might have done the job. I'm not sure whether that's possible though, copy protection and the fact that Take2 would have to authorize such a distribution might be an issue here.

I have heard that idea come up in other forums and for other games also.
I could see issuing a closed beta to a small group of registered, dedicated volunteers (that have a lot of time to play and don't get paid); Augment the QA and get some additional feedback....Not sure why companies won't go this route and 'share' a bit more. Perhaps copy protection, as you point out, would be an issue, such as passing it on to one's friends.

My idea is more radical (and could get me laughed off the forum).
Pre-Pay $5 each for 3 patches to be delivered at 3, 6, 9 months intervals, for example, so the whole thing becomes quantified and quasi-contractual. I never thought this idea through but then we would be dealing more with the known instead of the unknown.

Sure, a company could go under, have a fire in the office, a million things...but there is a concept. Still, passing to a friend who did not pay in an issue and the like....just a weird idea.
 
I don't like the poll options because there is a conclusion drawn from the choices, namely whether something should be changed. This conclusion shouldn't be part of the poll and I guess that the OP isn't satisfied him/her self or otherwise he/she wouldn't have added such a conclusion.
Sometimes things don't go as planned and still there is no way to systematically improve the procedure. We stay human and delays will happen due to individual human errors.

I personally would have preferred a two stage patching, one to remove the major bugs and another to fine tune. Those two patches combined would form the present patch 3.13. Firaxis/2K Games went for one big patch and that makes it take a long time. (I'm not talking about the recent delay after Alexman's post, just the general time it takes until the first major patch.) There could be good reasons to go for one big patch. Maybe 2K games only allows two big patches before they want the product to be in its final form and this is the first of them and Firaxis wants a good final version of the game. Maybe it is more efficient to just fix everything that is reported without considering whether it is a major or a minor bug. I don't know, I'm not part of the gaming business. Whatever the reason, at present I don't want something to change. Firaxis usually gives a close to 100% working balanced game after a few major patches and I'm satisfied with that.
 
Nevertheless, while it's *very* important for me that *final* patch for BtS is a good one, I don't care much when it arrives or when the intermediate steps come. Because of this, I find it hard to vote in this poll - I can't even judge Firaxis' effort in the past weeks because I haven't seen the result yet. In any case, I still think (like I voted in the very first poll) that the patch is worth the wait of it does what is claims.
I think we can take it as a given that we will get a patch that delivers much, if not all of what was promised. We can pretty much assume that it'll have the balances BtS needs and quash the known bugs.But that's not really what I was hoping to get at, but more like what entwood and Roland mentioned in their posts. Either solid support for the status quo or suggestions as to how things might be done better.

To address the points Roland brought up, I included the bits in parenthesis because I thought it was a logical continuation to the poll options. While it'd make sense to separate them out to a second poll, it's probably impossible with the forum software and people like MarkM would be even more upset with additional polls. I tried to make the options fairly balanced, but no doubt people will read into things however they want.

One suggestion I've seen mentioned in the other threads would be to have someone popping in (be it here or elsewhere) and providing semi-regular updates. Not only could it be used to quiet the natives, but it could also be used to pimp whatever the latest wallpaper or modpack or review they wanted to pimp.

I've brought up the suggestions of "beta patches" before and don't see it hitting that many copy protection issues. I'd expect it to be something along the lines of Solver's patches. Or mod packs. Some skill involved to install, and neither of which interfered with the copy protection.

And please try to keep the comments on topic and any criticism constructive. If you're bored to death with the topic just hit your back button, the next thread link, or the previous thread link.
 
lol, I bet this'll be the next thread that gets closed :p

But seriously, there's a simple saying I think is relevant here.

"Expect nothing and you will not be disappointed."

If you receive more than what you expect you will be pleasantly surprised.:)

Oh, and my constructive criticism for Firaxis:
1. Communicate.
2. Try to fix the critical bugs sooner. Example - the broken civilopedia links. We would have appreciated a quick follow-up patch that at least fixed that for example.
 
First closed then re-opened......it's not just the patch that seems to be getting bungled.....
 
Top Bottom