| dcIKeeL said: I agree patches are better than no patches of course, but maybe there should be a price to pay for ignoring KNOWN bugs and broken online systems/servers just to make a deadline. Like a penalty of some sort if it can be proven by an overseeing authorative entity. Games are getting real huge and so are dev teams and their pockets. This kind of buisness practice is rarely tolerated elsewhere in big buisness and maybe developers (and the publishers that hound them) should begin to be treated as such, big buisness with big consequences. Do you perceive though that whereas pre online patch games being too glitchy was the exception (albeit a tedious one) that post patch games being bug ridden is becoming the norm? Patch or no patch, raw games should never become the norm, and if they do, they should never be tolerated, at least i think. |
I don't think they're doing anything illegal. What is an authorative enetity going to do? They're going to punish Epic because there's a 10 minute wait to get into a Gears 2 match? What's the industry standard? There isn't one, and it was never advertised that a certain waiting time in Gears 2 would be in place.
Raw games aren't the norm. They are currently the exception. Unfortunately you can't test something like Gears 2 and it's huge 2 million opening before the game comes out. You test a few thousand and hope when you multiply that it accounts for the massive overload of people that will test the system all at the same time on release day. Betas do help, so maybe that is an answer for games with online components. COD:WaW had one and the game had flawless online come release.
Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.
