What are the chances of a patch?

[sanskrit]

I'm sure a patch depends on the willingness of LA to QA one. Also probably dependant upon the sales of the game.

 

Is the intent there though? Some are worried that there will not be any afterthought for the game. I assumed there would be but now they have me doubting myself.

 

You will continue to support the game... right?

[213374U]

I'm sure a patch depends on the willingness of LA to QA one. Also probably dependant upon the sales of the game.

False. It's not exclusively dependant on LA funding. Obviously if LA approved and funded a patch there would be one, but it's ultimately up to Obsidian to choose if they want to stand by their product and show some care for customer satisfaction, or just take the cash and run.

[NeverwinterKnight]

False. It's not exclusively dependant on LA funding. Obviously if LA approved and funded a patch there would be one, but it's ultimately up to Obsidian to choose if they want to stand by their product and show some care for customer satisfaction, or just take the cash and run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

actually, that might not necessarily be the case. im not sure what their contract with lucasarts specifies, but sometimes the publisher is the only one who can give the ok for a patch, even if the developer wants to patch the game.

 

in the case of troika and vampires, an activision higher up even confirmed that it was up to activision to say whether a patch could be made or not, and troika had no say in the matter.

[JediMaster0012]

Just hope they do make a patch for both PC and XBOX to stop all this complaining about this great game.

[DarthShad]

Just hope they do make a patch for both PC and XBOX to stop all this complaining about this great game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

[213374U]

actually, that might not necessarily be the case.  im not sure what their contract with lucasarts specifies, but sometimes the publisher is the only one who can give the ok for a patch, even if the developer wants to patch the game.

 

in the case of troika and vampires, an activision higher up even confirmed that it was up to activision to say whether a patch could be made or not, and troika had no say in the matter.

I find it rather hard to believe that the publisher would actually forbid the development of a patch, but in any case, it's irrelevant. I have seen patches being released by companies without official publisher sanction, and all they had to do was label it an 'unofficial' patch.

And anyway, if OE asked for permission to develop a patch on their own, without additional funding, why would LA refuse?

 

Yes, I know LA sucks big time. That's not news. However, I can't say the same for Obsidian, yet.

The question here is, are the people at Obsidian actually going to support their work or not?

So far, there hasn't been a single developer post in the PC tech support forum. Are you going to tell me that they are not allowed to post there, either?

[JediMaster0012]

Just hope they do make a patch for both PC and XBOX to stop all this complaining about this great game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

[JediMaster0012]

I'm not sure if it's even possible, but it would be nice if Obsidian or LA would put a "patch" or something on the Official Xbox Magazine's Demo disc to resolve some of the bugs customers are experiencing with the Xbox version of Kotor2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is from the XBOX support forum

[Stargate: 2000]

actually, that might not necessarily be the case.  im not sure what their contract with lucasarts specifies, but sometimes the publisher is the only one who can give the ok for a patch, even if the developer wants to patch the game.

 

in the case of troika and vampires, an activision higher up even confirmed that it was up to activision to say whether a patch could be made or not, and troika had no say in the matter.

I find it rather hard to believe that the publisher would actually forbid the development of a patch, but in any case, it's irrelevant. I have seen patches being released by companies without official publisher sanction, and all they had to do was label it an 'unofficial' patch.

And anyway, if OE asked for permission to develop a patch on their own, without additional funding, why would LA refuse?

 

Yes, I know LA sucks big time. That's not news. However, I can't say the same for Obsidian, yet.

The question here is, are the people at Obsidian actually going to support their work or not?

So far, there hasn't been a single developer post in the PC tech support forum. Are you going to tell me that they are not allowed to post there, either?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As someone else said it costs a lot to make a patch, and how many new companies do you know of that could afford to put that much money out without making anything in return? More than likely if LA hasn't given them the money for this patch then there will never be one and thats for two reasons the first being the one I stated above and the second fear of violating the contract with LA and the possible legal ramafications caused by doing so (i.e. issueing a star wars product without promission).

 

Just hope they do make a patch for both PC and XBOX to stop all this complaining about this great game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

[213374U]

As someone else said it costs a lot to make a patch, and how many new companies do you know of that could afford to put that much money out without making anything in return? More than likely if LA hasn't given them the money for this patch then there will never be one and thats for two reasons the first being the one I stated above and the second fear of violating the contract with LA and the possible legal ramafications caused by doing so (i.e. issueing a star wars product without promission).

Huh? What kind of nonsense is that? I don't know about you, but I'm not getting the game for free. Which means they aren't making the patch in return for nothing. They are making the patch in return for the money people is paying for their game. If they can't afford to make a patch, I can't afford to buy half a game.

 

And about all the legal mumbo-jumbo, that's nothing but speculation so far. I'm not taking that for a fact until I see somebody in green say so.

[Stargate: 2000]

As someone else said it costs a lot to make a patch, and how many new companies do you know of that could afford to put that much money out without making anything in return? More than likely if LA hasn't given them the money for this patch then there will never be one and thats for two reasons the first being the one I stated above and the second fear of violating the contract with LA and the possible legal ramafications caused by doing so (i.e. issueing a star wars product without promission).

Huh? What kind of nonsense is that? I don't know about you, but I'm not getting the game for free. Which means they aren't making the patch in return for nothing. They are making the patch in return for the money people is paying for their game. If they can't afford to make a patch, I can't afford to buy half a game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahh yes but OE isn't getting the money we are spending on the game LA is, OE got their money way back when the game developement started or as soon as it went gold. SO unless they planned for patches in their budget they will have little to no money to make one with out the promise of money comming back in from the sale of said patch. So if LA decides not to put up the money for the patch then I would doubt that OE would be willing to cough up the money themselves since more than likely the wont be able to afford it.

[213374U]

Ahh yes but OE isn't getting the money we are spending on the game LA is, OE got their money way back when the game developement started or as soon as it went gold. SO unless they planned for patches in their budget they will have little to no money to make one with out the promise of money comming back in from the sale of said patch. So if LA decides not to put up the money for the patch then I would doubt that OE would be willing to cough up the money themselves since more than likely the wont be able to afford it.

You are just making this all up, aren't you? OE gets royalties from the game sales too, even if LA gets the better part of the cake.

 

But even if they don't, it is their fault that the game doesn't work as expected. Not mine. If LA won't move a finger to put out a patch, OE should. If they don't, why should anyone bother buying any of their games knowing that they might stumble into an unpolished, unsupported ripoff?

[Azazel005]

This is all conjecture neither of you can be completely sure of the terms of the contract LA engaged OE upon.

 

LA to my knowledge doesn't have a wild reputation for leaving completely un-patched and un-supported works on the shelf and I would be surprised if the product remains entirely un-patched.

 

But to question exactly how the companies are being paid over all this is fairly moot. Ultimately it is LA's license there product and there responsibility to either a) pursue OE if they have a contractual obligation to patch the product or b) sufficiently support there customers by ensuring the product is functional by whatever means necessary.

 

Obisidian can do *nothing* without such authorisation anyway, nothing at all.

[Jitawa]

actually, that might not necessarily be the case.  im not sure what their contract with lucasarts specifies, but sometimes the publisher is the only one who can give the ok for a patch, even if the developer wants to patch the game.

 

in the case of troika and vampires, an activision higher up even confirmed that it was up to activision to say whether a patch could be made or not, and troika had no say in the matter.

I find it rather hard to believe that the publisher would actually forbid the development of a patch, but in any case, it's irrelevant. I have seen patches being released by companies without official publisher sanction, and all they had to do was label it an 'unofficial' patch.

And anyway, if OE asked for permission to develop a patch on their own, without additional funding, why would LA refuse?

 

Yes, I know LA sucks big time. That's not news. However, I can't say the same for Obsidian, yet.

The question here is, are the people at Obsidian actually going to support their work or not?

So far, there hasn't been a single developer post in the PC tech support forum. Are you going to tell me that they are not allowed to post there, either?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Actually, I have heard of publishers "forbidding" a patch. It happened with Activision and a game called 'Wizards & Warriors'... that needed a patch pretty bad. When the patch wasn't greenlit, the programmers took it upon themselves to make a patch and have someone else host their "unofficial" patch. I remember thinking the politics of the whole situation were odd. Why wouldn't a company want their game patched? The patch was good though, fixed almost everything... dunno what happened to them since then though.

[213374U]

Obisidian can do *nothing* without such authorisation anyway, nothing at all.

False. They can support their product as other developers have done before. It's not unheard of. Now it's you who's making conjectures.

[NeverwinterKnight]

Yes, I know LA sucks big time. That's not news. However, I can't say the same for Obsidian, yet.

The question here is, are the people at Obsidian actually going to support their work or not?

So far, there hasn't been a single developer post in the PC tech support forum. Are you going to tell me that they are not allowed to post there, either? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

oh i agree. id hope obsidian does support their work. im just giving you a possible "legal" reason why they wont. whether or not that actually applies to their situation is only known by obsidian and lucasarts.

 

also, i read somewhere (again, i apologize for not actually having a source, so you might just think this is conjecture or opinion on my behalf) where a developer of a company had stated that it was in their contract with the publisher that any comments, even ones posted on a message board, had to go through that publisher first before posting, otherwise he could face legal action should the publisher deem that what he posted contained information they didnt authorize to be released.

[Azazel005]

Obisidian can do *nothing* without such authorisation anyway, nothing at all.

False. They can support their product as other developers have done before. It's not unheard of. Now it's you who's making conjectures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok then, legally to my extent of the understanding of such laws, which while is not extensive but certainly not limited.

 

They cannot make any changes to software that they have produced under license unless it is approved by the license holder. Notwithstanding that there own contract my provide them such an autonmous right (again I don't pretend to have such information).

 

This has been held tonnes of times, and developers have been known to be setting there with finished patched code awaiting release approval from publishers, yet publishers being weary it may in fact cause more problems and not giving final approval for many weeks after it was made availabel to them.

 

This is not up in the air, it's legal precendant. And it's very likely that any independant amendments to the program could face legal action by LA.

[Stargate: 2000]

Ahh yes but OE isn't getting the money we are spending on the game LA is, OE got their money way back when the game developement started or as soon as it went gold. SO unless they planned for patches in their budget they will have little to no money to make one with out the promise of money comming back in from the sale of said patch. So if LA decides not to put up the money for the patch then I would doubt that OE would be willing to cough up the money themselves since more than likely the wont be able to afford it.

You are just making this all up, aren't you? OE gets royalties from the game sales too, even if LA gets the better part of the cake.

 

But even if they don't, it is their fault that the game doesn't work as expected. Not mine. If LA won't move a finger to put out a patch, OE should. If they don't, why should anyone bother buying any of their games knowing that they might stumble into an unpolished, unsupported ripoff?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your right it is their Fault and by no means am I saying that it isn't I am just saying that they may not either be allowed to patch the product or there may not be money to patch the product. But the thing to keep in mind is that no one is/was holding a gun to you head making you purchase the game, you either have done so or are gooing to do so because you wanted to and for no other reason. I am betting that from their current level of Tech support for the Xbox version that anyone who has bought the game recently isn't going to be impressed nore should they look forward to a patch until one is released because it might never happen.

 

This is all conjecture neither of you can be completely sure of the terms of the contract LA engaged OE upon.

 

LA to my knowledge doesn't have a wild reputation for leaving completely un-patched and un-supported works on the shelf and I would be surprised if the product remains entirely un-patched.

 

But to question exactly how the companies are being paid over all this is fairly moot. Ultimately it is LA's license there product and there responsibility to either a) pursue OE if they have a contractual obligation to patch the product or b) sufficiently support there customers by ensuring the product is functional by whatever means necessary.

 

Obisidian can do *nothing* without such authorisation anyway, nothing at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your right we don't know how their contract is layed out and we wont know until a dev comes on a says that either we are to SOD off with the idea of a patch or that one is in the works.

 

Obisidian can do *nothing* without such authorisation anyway, nothing at all.

False. They can support their product as other developers have done before. It's not unheard of. Now it's you who's making conjectures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong, OE holds the title for the game but LA holds the rights to everything else which means that IF LA says no then OE can't do anything about it, they just have to push it under the rug and forget about it. Now if this had been an in house game then yes OE could do whatever they wanted but without LA's permission they would be leaving themselves open to leagal action and it is highly doubtful that they would want to get suied over something as stupid as a patch no matter how much a game may need it.

[213374U]

also, i read somewhere (again, i apologize for not actually having a source, so you might just think this is conjecture or opinion on my behalf) where a developer of a company had stated that it was in their contract with the publisher that any comments, even ones posted on a message board, had to go through that publisher first before posting, otherwise he could face legal action should the publisher deem that what he posted contained information they didnt authorize to be released.

That certainly doesn't seem to be the case. We have had devs who were rather post-happy (for a dev, anyway) until the release of the Xbox version. I don't think they submitted each of their posts' contents to LA for approval before posting.

 

 

This has been held tonnes of times, and developers have been known to be setting there with finished patched code awaiting release approval from publishers, yet publishers being weary it may in fact cause more problems and not giving final approval for many weeks after it was made availabel to them.

I know. I'm not debating the possibility that OE might need permission from LA to release an official patch. That doesn't account for their absence from the tech support forums so far, for example. I just hope they're too busy addressing all the issues to waste time here.

 

I'm not suggesting that OE should get into legal trouble with LA for this. But I find it somewhat funny that all of you are here defending OE when it's ultimately them who made the very bug ridden game you complain so much about. I mean, did they include you guys in their payroll and forgot about me?

 

 

Your right it is their Fault and by no means am I saying that it isn't I am just saying that they may not either be allowed to patch the product or there may not be money to patch the product. But the thing to keep in mind is that no one is/was holding a gun to you head making you purchase the game, you either have done so or are gooing to do so because you wanted to and for no other reason. I am betting that from their current level of Tech support for the Xbox version that anyone who has bought the game recently isn't going to be impressed nore should they look forward to a patch until one is released because it might never happen.

Huh? Surely you are not suggesting that because I wasn't forced to buy the game, I'm not entitled to a finished product worth what I pay for it. Because that's exactly what it seems you're suggesting.

 

 

Wrong, OE holds the title for the game but LA holds the rights to everything else which means that IF LA says no then OE can't do anything about it, they just have to push it under the rug and forget about it. Now if this had been an in house game then yes OE could do whatever they wanted but without LA's permission they would be leaving themselves open to leagal action and it is highly doubtful that they would want to get suied over something as stupid as a patch no matter how much a game may need it.

No. Haven't you been reading? There have been instances of unofficial patches, not endorsed by publishers. User made mods happen all the time, and their authors don't get sued. An unofficial patch works much the same way. As I said, it's been done before and nobody got fined.

 

Really, despite all of this, I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong by one of the people in green. I don't see it happening, though.

[Azazel005]

Actually I am not really defending them at all, they created the product and for whatever reason (deadlines, time constraints blah blah) it's not a worthy finished product, my copy of the title crashed 3 times while selecting the characters portrait, and that's a touch annoying, but I was just making the point that they can't just fix it themselves. They need permission (depending again on the terms of their contract with LA).

 

I still see it as LA's responsibilty to gwt the thing fixed either by having OE deliver a patch or by whatever means. OE is being remiss if they think to ignore the faults of the game, and should expect that LA will demand some sort of patch, but it's still LA's licence and product and hence there responsibility

[Shady]

It does matter how their contract is laid out, but I would be willing to bet that any patch ok's go through LA.

 

I remeber reading on Biowares forums and someone asking about another patch for Kotor and Bioware said no becuase LA was happy with the game and would not allow anymore patching.

 

Other examples would have patches built into the contract. In the case of Activision and CA, Rome Total War is only allowed two patches by the developer and the developer can release them whenever. Activision would only fund the two patches. So right now RTW has gotten is final patch and until an expansion comes out, there is no more patching of that game.

[dantivirus]

Well hopefull the devs are reading and will get a patch done because I would really like to swoop race. I can race but because of some scripting error or such it says I never finish the race when I do.