next »

[Richard Kain]

Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it has been effective. The fact that such a prominent bug has made it to players is evidence that it does not, in fact, work. Deterrents aren't safeguards.

You're right, of course. Deterrents aren't safeguards, and Microsoft has hardly put together a perfect system. In the case of the Fez bug, we have an example of an issue that was almost impossible to test for, and was most likely to show up when applied to an enormous user-base. No matter what the system, bugs and errors are simply a part of development.

Now, that is why Microsoft allows a "gimme" patch that they don't charge for. They built that concession in as a nod to the fact that bugs happen.

At the end of the day, I can't say that their policy is unfair. It achieves the objective that Microsoft had for it. However, it does mean that XBLA is a system that caters far more to players, than it does to developers. Stringent requirements like this are good for players, who get a more polished product on release, but terrible for developers.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the certification process that Microsoft puts the game through ISN'T to test it for errors in the game itself. It's not a QA process for the game or its content, it's a technical review to make sure that the game is working properly with the 360 hardware, and that it meets all the requirements for Microsoft's software standards. (such as leader-board integration) As far as game-related bugs are concerned, the developer is on their own. That's why a buggier version was allowed to go live in the first place.

[Zaphos]

I agree with Nix.  A deterrent against fixing software bugs just seems like a bad decision from MS.

It would be nice if pushing out an update were free, but they do cost man hours to test.  MS isn't certifying your game is functional so much as they're ensuring your patch isn't the new way modders get root on the 360...  There's no fucking way MS is going to stop the certification process.

Didn't modders already get root on the 360?  Also, Apple has a closed platform in iOS and doesn't charge 40k for updates, so security concerns don't really seem to validate a 40k cert process.

Microsoft is not really at fault. Their contract was known about ahead of time, and their terms are spelled out clearly. There isn't even anything unreasonable or unfair about the policies they have established.

You're focusing on unfairness to developers but I think the unfairness here is really for consumers.  Of course Polytron knew about MS's fees (or should have) but the end result is that MS set up a cost structure where it's not worth it for developers (not just polytron, but also double fine and more) to fix bugs in their games, purely due to cert costs.

[Nix]

At the end of the day, I can't say that their policy is unfair.

It's not about fairness. It's about effectiveness.

It achieves the objective that Microsoft had for it.

You keep saying this, but the fact that a game is going unpatched because of the prohibitive cost is evidence that it just isn't true!

[C.A. Sinner]

I'd just like to add that updates doesn't have to mean bugfixes necessarily. For instance online multiplayer games need them because it's nearly fucking impossible to come out with a perfectly balanced game right off the bat.

[Radix]

It's not about fairness. It's about effectiveness.

It's not really about either. Fair or not or effective or not it's what you sign up for. In the long run MS are probably not helping themselves by creating barriers to fixing the products they deliver (but then again, maybe they have stats to say this is a better approach, who knows), but that's in their hands and it's not like this is a surprise they're springing on anyone. Moral is, when you're going into a deal with big bucks at stake your partners *and you*, pretend to be professional and test your shit.

[Nix]

I thought we were talking about whether we thought it was a smart policy of M$. I don't even know what game this thread is about.

[Radix]

Maybe, but that's kinda pointless to discuss without more data than anyone's presented here (which is none). I thought this was going back to people saying "it's not worth it!" like the money is for a service.

edit:

M$

Don't do that. Cool people stopped doing that.

[Richard Kain]

You keep saying this, but the fact that a game is going unpatched because of the prohibitive cost is evidence that it just isn't true!

(shrug) Microsoft's objective with this policy is to actively discourage developers from patching their games. I'd say it is a smashing success. After all, Polytron has been discouraged from patching their game. As far as Microsoft is concerned, their policy is working as intended.

I'm not attempting to ascribe some altruistic motivations to Microsoft's rather inflexible policies. They are behaving like a lumbering juggernaut would be expected to.

[VortexCortex]

It would be nice if pushing out an update were free, but they do cost man hours to test.  MS isn't certifying your game is functional so much as they're ensuring your patch isn't the new way modders get root on the 360...  There's no fucking way MS is going to stop the certification process.

Didn't modders already get root on the 360?  Also, Apple has a closed platform in iOS and doesn't charge 40k for updates, so security concerns don't really seem to validate a 40k cert process.

Yes and No.  MS periodically revs the firmware for new shelf units, as well as via patches to existing units.  This means modders have to find a new way to get root frequently -- You have to check your serial numbers for known crackable batches before buying a new 360 if you plan to mod it.  In other words: Unless you lucked out and have one that is known to be exploitable, and haven't applied any firmware updates, then you can't get root.  The cert process does indeed detect buffer overrun errors and access violations, which are possible exploit vectors (not just for root, but also for malware).

Apple does have a closed system in iOS, but it is exploited days or hours after a new version of the firmware is released. Protip: "Jailbreak" == Security Exploit.  360 firmware tends to stay secure longer... I'm sure marketshare is also a factor.

Additionally, my words are somewhat out of context.  I agree the 40k cert process is too expensive; It's pretty well known that the elevated price is meant to incentivise proper QA instead of letting devs create an endless stream of patches.  However, my comment was about the idea that MS should NOT certify patches at all, and just let Polytron worry about QA issues themselves...  That makes no sense since QA isn't the certification process's goal -- It's primarily an automated test harness to ensure the patches aren't opening up vulnerabilities, or bricking the consoles after a crash.

Were I Microsoft's Game Devision lead, I would suggest drastically reducing or eliminating the patch fee for the first N patches in T unit time.  Say, You get 1 free patch every two months.  This way, urgent patches could be applied if the cost warrants it -- Said cost being free if you haven't recently patched the game.  (Also, instead of "XBox 360", I'd start calling it the "Ad-Box 24/7" in internal correspondences, but that's just me.)

[e_va]

i think it buys what it costs, not for the devs themselves of course (they just care about getting a game out and scamming people) but for the players.  for example, this is what happens without cert http://store.steampowered.com/app/104900/
(me and some others played this day1 and its a terrible game but not only that, itll crash in the first 10 minutes.

it can be worse for the players if the devs can't afford to patch the game.

that game in particular is still not patched. come up with theorys some more

[e_va]

anyway it is phil fish's fault. lets ignore the patch for a second. he released a knowingly buggy game. was working on the patch while the base game was going through whatever. didnt get the patch on time ( my guess: they wanted the patch to go live on day 1 hence why they didnt account for game save conflicts, or they just forgot, or they really dont care )

[e_va]

when bethesda makes a buggy game, i blame bethesda. not some certified faggots.

[Zaphos]

VortexCortex: Ah, thanks for the further explanation.  I agree keeping some amount of review / automated test harness makes sense.

[TomHunt]

I just tried this and my save game file did get hosed up. Not cool.

But not super terrible, OTOH - I had already gone through pretty much the whole game, so the fact that I have to start all over again and go through the whole game again (some of which appears to be updated) isn't horribly tragic. If I were in the middle of the game, it'd be a different story. Still, unrecoverable data file corruption is a very very bad type of bug to inflict on one's customers, and I kept help but wonder what percentage of people who bought the game were in the middle of the game and were affected by this bug. They would have the most valid reason to be angry.

I'm personally not about to get my pitchfork or torches out over this, but it does make me wince a little to see Microsoft's certification testing fail in this manner. Its purpose is to pick up on severe issues like this, not to buttrape developer partners for $40k over simple-but-urgent issues like this. It's draconian. I really do think that there is a lot of room for them to improve, judging by what happened here.

[Sam]

but it does make me wince a little to see Microsoft's certification testing fail in this manner. Its purpose is to pick up on severe issues like this

It has been mentioned repeatedly already in the thread, but I guess it needs mentioning again: Microsoft's certification testing is not the same as the quality assurance testing that hordes of game testers do when they try to fall through level geometry for days on end.

The certification testing is about making sure the game doesn't do things like alter another game's saved files, install a credit card logger, make the console unbootable, or freeze up the dashboard. Plus they check that the game conforms with a few design requirements like starting on a main menu rather than jumping straight into the game. Of course if it crashes each time the player reaches level 2 they'll pick up on that too. But they're not aiming to test the game as a game, but rather as a piece of software that has the potential to compromise the security of their console.