I hope the patch takes priority...

[Mavfin]

Over the editor....

The patch is out for PC, so I hope we see a Mac patch by this time next week. I mean, I paid as much or more for the game than the PC people did, so I should get patches within a reasonable time frame, eh? We know the editor's waiting, but I hope the editor gets its changes *after* the gameplay changes in the patch, as it makes no sense to delay a patch to update an editor that isn't public yet....

Well, good luck, Brad, and I hope they get you some help if you need it.

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by Mavfin
The patch is out for PC, so I hope we see a Mac patch by this time next week. I mean, I paid as much or more for the game than the PC people did, so I should get patches within a reasonable time frame, eh?

I don't even have the new code yet, and we're under no contractual obligation with MacSoft to deliver a matching Mac patch - it would be gratis on our part. This time next week would be an extremely optimistic target, given that I have to get the code, roll in the changes and put it through something that resembles QA while at the same time preparing Galactic Battlegrounds (for which I am under contract and deadline) for final. Unless the patch is hairy (which it doesn't appear to be from the readme), it'll probably arrive before the editor. I'll have a better idea after I've had a chance to go over the changes.

Brad

 

[Mavfin]

So the Mac version was published with no contracted provision for support matching the other version. How nice. (I understand that it's not *your* problem, Brad, so this isn't directed at you)

Well, I just tossed that timeframe out there. Those of us who use Macs are a patient lot for the most part, as you probably know. If it takes two or three weeks, so be it, as long as it works when it gets here. It's not like 1.17g is bad, or crashes a bunch or anything. But some of the new changes might be nice. Thanks for whatever comes out, when it comes out. Sounds like you're busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.

Supporting Macs is like supporting Novell. People who don't use them, can't understand why you would want to use them rather than wonderful M$ products. (of which I support my share, including [blech] AD) Of course, much of this is Microsoft FUD.

Keep up the good work. I've had all of 3 crashes in the past two months with Civ3 on 9.2.2 (384 MB RAM partition to the game, no virfual), and they were usually after the game's been open for 5 or 6 hours on a big game, and it died *right after* autosave, so no big loss.

 

[elTenedor]

So the Mac version was published with no contracted provision for support matching the other version.

I have heard this before in reference to other games and have never, ever understood why the contracts are done this way on either side. Why Westlake wouldn't want extra $$$ for patching and why MacSoft (or whoever) wouldn't want to keep their customers satisfied with a quality product. Patches are a fact of modern-day software--it's not like they are a rare occurance.

Although I generally have found MacSoft/Westlake products to be some of the best, I still have been annoyed that two high-profile titles in my library that were produced by MacSoft/Westlake were stranded in beta-land: Unreal and Falcon 4. Admittedly, the former was only a minor loss of playability/compatibility and the patch history for it was long, long, long. But where Falcon 4 was left was a huge disappointment.

Civ3, especially after the 1.17 patch, is yet another great product. Thanks for continuing to support it beyond what someone was willing to pay...

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by elTenedor
I have heard this before in reference to other games and have never, ever understood why the contracts are done this way on either side.

For two reasons: one is that you never know what the future holds in terms of patches. It could be one patch, it could be two, it could be 4 huge ones. It would be impossible to budget ahead of time for that, particularly if sales of a given game tank. The second is scheduling. There's no room in our schedule for patches - and for good reason. If we had scheduled, say, April for me to work on Civ3 patches, then it would throw off everything else on my plate if said patch didn't materialize at the start of April. FWIW, I've worked on a lot of games without PC patches after our Mac release: Alice, Age2 and Centipede spring to mind. The truth is that for most games, they've already seen all the patching they're gonna get before the Mac version ships. It's those exceptions that screw everyone up.

Brad

 

[elTenedor]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
For two reasons: one is that you never know what the future holds in terms of patches. It could be one patch, it could be two, it could be 4 huge ones. It would be impossible to budget ahead of time for that, particularly if sales of a given game tank.

A good point, but I'm just surprised there seems to be nothing substantial to cover any extra work. Certainly beyond a certain pre-defined cap, there would have to be a new work agreement, no future work, or gratis. Like you mention below, I can see where certain games might not be expected to have future PC patches, but I would think something released so close in time (and not based on a prior engine) like Civ3 or Unreal/UT should be expected to have some fiddling.

The second is scheduling. There's no room in our schedule for patches - and for good reason. If we had scheduled, say, April for me to work on Civ3 patches, then it would throw off everything else on my plate if said patch didn't materialize at the start of April.

I, unlike the original poster, have no expectations of a week turnaround--especially given that you don't even have the code yet (patch-in-progress-communication is yet another oddity I don't get though --shame on Firaxis). I've been a programmer for too many eons to know better than that . I completely understand the difficulty with scheduling. I was mostly addressing my confusion with the the (lack of) funding issue, which, as I see it, leads to this strange interaction between the community and the programmer/porting team, with the publisher out of the loop.

FWIW, I've worked on a lot of games without PC patches after our Mac release: Alice, Age2 and Centipede spring to mind. The truth is that for most games, they've already seen all the patching they're gonna get before the Mac version ships. It's those exceptions that screw everyone up.

Sadly, that statement isn't a completely positive one, in my book. The fact that Mac ports are still coming out so long after the PC releases is a far greater bummer than the patch situation, imho. AoE2 is a perfect example of a product who's time was just too far past for me to justify paying full price when newer things like Civ3 were just around the corner.

But again, I know Westlake is at the end of a long food chain in this process and my comments are certainly not directed specifically to you. Your comment just triggered a general venting

Thanks for the speedy reply!

 

[Mavfin]

I didn't edit the original post, but keep in mind that when I wrote this, I figured there was some contractual agreement about patches...

Once Brad explained the facts to us, I understood how it worked, and I'll be happy to see the patch when it's done....

Brad: Thank you for being candid. Many people in your position would not have been. I still have to wait, but that's OK. I now have a reason why.