New Civ 4 patch coming up?

[T.A JONES]

I really doubt that anywhere close to 10% of the buyers had any problems with the initial release.

Then your not considering the understated specs that lead to out of box pain in the arse's before patchs came to pucker up. Gameforums ringing alarms bells of frustration worldwide meant that less then 90% were sitting pritty playing the product. (IMO)
The total posts were probably only in the thousands I know, but that won't fool me into beliving thats the total indicater. Im convinced that 100 players for every member who spoke up on Civ FAnatics, Aploylton, EVo games, international affilites and the official Web page never knew ENOUGH about these outlets, wern't comfortable joining them for only that reason, OR NEVER CARED ENOUGH to bother venting publicly. It works both ways I know ( lots more were happy who didn't publicy state it but not 90% OUT OF THE BOX PRE PATCH, like, if Im not mistaken the bold statement indicated. THis game was very unusual in that it pissed off a record amount of people. Mybethe fans as a whole, this time were expecting a game that was refined, who knows? but 90% not reality, pure hogwash. it has to be addressed

It reminnds me of that resturant philosopy I was taught about that the one custumer who speaks up on the crap service or food he was served. for everyone of him, theres ten more who kept silent as they walked out that door..........to come back no more( mulply that in this sitchy)

 

[Shigga]

UPDATE: Still no reply from Firaxis on my inquiry via "Ask Sid" wether there will be further vanilla patches. Now that comes as a surprise...

 

[Danicela]

Danicela, I'm yet to meet a more annoying internet forum poster than yourself. Congratulations.

I'm not annoying.
Why should I ?
Don't flame, it's prohibited.

-

(OT) = ?

I agree.

He's wrong.

His/Her name is the one name on my /ignore list.

Why ? I do not deserve it.
And what does the ignore list? I can't send you mp coooool .. I never send mp, and that you will longer see my forum posts and topics.

Regarding the original post; I hope that 2K/Firaxis does continue to patch Civilization IV "vanilla".

You see, you agreed me ..

As the developers of the expansions become aware of any fixes or valuable tweaks for Civ4, it should be easy enough to gather them into patch/es. Cementing brand loyalty is a good thing.

Lol you hate me for no reasons but you have the same ideas as me ..
I say too that continuing patching Civ4 stand alone is a GOOD thing.
And that a patch for both games like Blizzard does for War3 is easy.

As I said

You didn't say it.

laws are the way to enforce the ethics

What?
ethics > laws, but we are obliged to obey laws but not ethics.
Firaxis can ignore ethics, but if they do, they are a bad team.
But don't say that we find ethics in laws, it's possible, but for patching, it's not.

(unfortunately they are none that could benefit the gamers).

No law ? Yes.
But ethics? => Patching civ4 like warlords.

After all, games are developed for the money, not to be on high moral ground.

It depends on the maker ...
But then we see which one is a good team, the one who continue to patch.

EDIT:
It's really difficult to respont to quoted posts, if post is compilation of responses to dozen of other posters, without their name in the quote listed.

how do you do it ?

Oh man, how did I manage to miss that thread?

The post or the thread?
Eh, this post just show me that I can do a rational debate.
Severus is totally wrong.

They gave us Diablo II singleplayers the finger, and went on to only support their lucrative fans (WoW is pay per month, and professional SC and WC tournaments are big business in Asia.) At least Firaxis has made an effort this far.

The results are there : These patches are done for everybody.
Maybe they don't do it for ethics but for money because of tournaments.
But if you see the results in theirselves, the task is done.

Yeah, I'm beggining to think its like talking to a brick wall.

Why ?
It's false.
Just say me something true.

T.A adds some truth to this little read

in addition to my posts xD

T.A adds some truth to this little read. Your number of 90% is questionable. Stated for this post its less so, do to the specifics in question, but its still majorly blown up and was widened earlier in the thread to make the number 90% include the overall tech trouble expierened by WORLD market out-of-the-box. That high of a satifactory report is a lie and quite fan boy revealing on your part. If im wrong (misread) please inform and I'll apologize, otherwize I'll continue to say its the most false statement and most laughable line from a possible fanboy thats ever been stated. For real.

You talk to Duuk ?
If you talked to me, you are wrong.
Try to prove what you say before saying this kind of thing.

-

For the 90% topic => I agree that more people than 10% experience one specific problem, but it depends on the problem after.

 

[player1 fanatic]

how do you do it ?

Simple:

(quote=Danicela)
how do you do it ?
(/quote)

Swap () with [].

 

[Danicela]

Simple:

(quote=Danicela)
how do you do it ?
(/quote)

Swap () with [].

I knew that it was something like quote=name of player but not exactly what, but it also more difficult because you have to write something more and you can forget the name of the poster, it's more complex than /quote ...

 

[player1 fanatic]

What?
ethics > laws, but we are obliged to obey laws but not ethics.
Firaxis can ignore ethics, but if they do, they are a bad team.

Unfortunately ethics alone is not enough to make publishers invest in extra patching.

You could always say I won't buy the game thing, but then sometimes good games made by good developer (like Civilization4 made by Firaxis), have not so good publishers (Take2).

That's why I suggested that maybe some law that protects customers could be a real help. So that the gamers knows what he is buying. Game with good support or game without good support.

It depends on the maker ...
But then we see which one is a good team, the one who continue to patch.

So?
I still like to play Civ4 more then Warcraft, so it doesn't really help me that Blizzard has good team, when they don't make games I like (although it's not matter of developer team, but of the publisher).

On the other hand I like Civ-type games a lot, so having no patch support of base game after expansion is not even lesser evil for me (since I do buy the expansion).

 

[player1 fanatic]

I knew that it was something like quote=name of player but not exactly what, but it also more difficult because you have to write something more and you can forget the name of the poster, it's more complex than /quote ...

Actually, it shouldn't be big problem since I guess you copy/paste quoted posts (can't quote 10 posters by single click), so you could copy/paste poster name this way too.
Trust me, it makes your posts much easer to read.

Another alternative is to have one post per poster.

 

[Shigga]

If you bother to read them at all, that is...

 

[Lars_Domus]

The results are there : These patches are done for everybody.
Maybe they don't do it for ethics but for money because of tournaments.
But if you see the results in theirselves, the task is done.

So the task is "done", is it? Very good then, if you would please direct me to the download for the Gloom lightning damage fix... What, there's isn't an official one you say? And there never will be, beacuse it's apparently "a feature" now? Well there you go, Blizzard is just as bad as all the rest of those money hungry junkmongers.

Edit: And as for the "how did I miss that thread" comment, it should be obvious to the average reader what I meant. A hint: It was not a support of your.. Ehr... Debate techniques (if they can be called such at all).

 

[Commander Bello]

I really doubt that anywhere close to 10% of the buyers had any problems with the initial release.

(marking by me)

Well, the initial release bugged the ATI-card users. Granted, not all of them, but a huge fraction.
Then there was the memory problem.
Then there were the grinning-cat-faces.
And so on, and so on. Just read about the release notes of the patches, how many issues there had to be solved.

I would say, 10% is even under-estimated for the initial release to cause problems.

 

[player1 fanatic]

..and they are all fixed with patches.

P.S.
The really bad publisher would not even fund patches for those bugs.

P.P.S.

(marking by me)

Well, the initial release bugged the ATI-card users.

Which had workaround released in a few days.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
Which had workaround released in a few days.

Granted, but the fact itself remains.

And let's be honest, ATI cards have not been that rare, have they?
The pure fact of this issue illustrates dramatically how much effort was put on quality assurance, if you were going to ask me.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Granted, but the fact itself remains.

And let's be honest, ATI cards have not been that rare, have they?
The pure fact of this issue illustrates dramatically how much effort was put on quality assurance, if you were going to ask me.

Well, considering how the workaround worked (unpakcing the packed files), there is a good explanation why something like this wasn't noticed in beta testing. Probably those versions had those files unpacked for whole time, and mishap happend in final days when files got packed and readied for release.

This is pure hypothesis, of course. Never been part of testing base Civ4 or anything.

 

[Commander Bello]

Well, considering how the workaround worked (unpakcing the packed files), there is a good explanation why something like this wasn't noticed in beta testing. Probably those versions had those files unpacked for whole time, and mishap happend in final days when files got packed and readied for release.

This is pure hypothesis, of course. Never been part of testing base Civ4 or anything.

That is, why companies like mine are doing socalled "integration tests" prior to going live.
We run tests based on our customer's need and business processes to ensure that it works like intended.

To go "market" with something without having tested it in the final version is just so ... (insert the appropriate term here).
How long was the time between going gold and selling the product? 14 days, IIRC. So, they just didn't try to test the final product, because otherwise this first patch would have been available already.

However you turn it, it clearly demonstrates how much effort they put on their quality. Almost none at all.
"The sheep outside will buy it anyway, so let's just wait for what they may detect." This very much seems to be the approach of that glorious company.

 

[player1 fanatic]

How long was the time between going gold and selling the product? 14 days, IIRC. So, they just didn't try to test the final product, because otherwise this first patch would have been available already.

Well, workaround was available in first week.

 

[Commander Bello]

Well, workaround was available in first week.

And does that change the fact that they didn't test what they were going to release to the paying customers?

 

[player1 fanatic]

And does that change the fact that they didn't test what they were going to release to the paying customers?

No, it just means they contained situation very quickly.

 

[Danicela]

Unfortunately ethics alone is not enough to make publishers invest in extra patching.

It depends on the team ... good or bad, patching is always good.

You could always say I won't buy the game thing, but then sometimes good games made by good developer (like Civilization4 made by Firaxis), have not so good publishers (Take2).

I don't see why Take2 have to give their agreement, why don't Firaxis do the patches alone ? It's Take2 that prevent Firaxis from doing patches ? Firaxis want to do it but they can't?
Anyway, I will buy the game, if I want it, I just find a problem that they don't patch it...

That's why I suggested that maybe some law that protects customers could be a real help. So that the gamers knows what he is buying. Game with good support or game without good support.

You suggest a law to oblige makers to do patches, this is a good idea, because we can't continue with this patches decision. (if it's true : not making patches for Civ4 anymore because of the expansion)

So?
I still like to play Civ4 more then Warcraft, so it doesn't really help me that Blizzard has good team, when they don't make games I like

I just say that we can see if the team is good, according to the patches, and this can make you buy or not ...

(although it's not matter of developer team, but of the publisher).

Why ?

On the other hand I like Civ-type games a lot, so having no patch support of base game after expansion is not even lesser evil for me (since I do buy the expansion).

yes but it's a lack of total respect for the Civ4 users, Firaxis force people to buy the expansion, this is immoral.

Actually, it shouldn't be big problem since I guess you copy/paste quoted posts (can't quote 10 posters by single click), so you could copy/paste poster name this way too.

yes but you have 2 things to do instead of one, and other transformations too, it's too long when i quote many messages.

Trust me, it makes your posts much easer to read.

Yeah, surely... , but sorry I don't have the time.

Another alternative is to have one post per poster.

Lol no, I won't post 10 posts each time, it's impossible.

If you bother to read them at all, that is...

A post is made to be read...

So the task is "done", is it? Very good then, if you would please direct me to the download for the Gloom lightning damage fix... What, there's isn't an official one you say?

I know that many things need to be patched for Blizzard games...
but they do better than Firaxis : They do patches for both the stand alones and the expansion, this is absolutely necessary.
Then Blizzard > Firaxis.

And there never will be, beacuse it's apparently "a feature" now? Well there you go, Blizzard is just as bad as all the rest of those money hungry junkmongers.

No, because Blizzard do patches for stand alone when expansion came out, but Firaxis not, even if Blizzard didn't solve all problems of his games, he does better than Firaxis, even if they are not perfect, one is better than the other...

Edit: And as for the "how did I miss that thread" comment, it should be obvious to the average reader what I meant. A hint: It was not a support of your.. Ehr... Debate techniques (if they can be called such at all).

I don't know what you want, but it's clear, I do what should be done, I know to do a rational debate, but often you can't see what should be ...

P.S.
The really bad publisher would not even fund patches for those bugs.

Yes this would be the really bad, but we can do a classification :

The best : The one who correct all problems. (+ patch for stand alone)
After : The one who patches the stand alone. = Blizzard
Then : The one who correct some problems. = Firaxis
The worst : The one who never make patches.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I don't see why Take2 have to give their agreement, why don't Firaxis do the patches alone ? It's Take2 that prevent Firaxis from doing patches ? Firaxis want to do it but they can't?

Firaxis is small firm, that can't finnancialy support developing new games and patching old ones.
It's publishers responsibility to fund game development and patching process.

Blizzard has uniue position in being his own pulbisher and developer, which in itselfs means they are pretty rich and can support longer patching periods if needed.

 

[Lars_Domus]

No, because Blizzard do patches for stand alone when expansion came out, but Firaxis not, even if Blizzard didn't solve all problems of his games, he does better than Firaxis, even if they are not perfect, one is better than the other...

AFAIK there are no bugs in SMAC, Civ III, Pirates! or Civ IV as grossly game breaking as the Gloom lightning damage bug of Diablo II - it pretty much makes untwinked hardcore the feeble dream of a demented basketcase. And Blizzard has made in unambiguously clear that 1.11 was the final patch (only the third patch for LoD in 4 years... There has been as many for Civ IV in less than a year) and that they have no intention of fixing the bug. The 1.11 patch itself, contained little else than some exclusive online overpowered quests and charms. Single players got next to nothing - you see, they don't make any money on us because we don't log onto battle.net to see the adds. So actually I'd say Firaxis is doing far better than Blizzard.

Make no mistake, I used to love Blizzard to death. But it simply isn't the same company anymore. All the people who made the magic happen have gone on to work for other gaming companies.