Community: Message List - Every patch costs $40,000

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:11:09 GMT

well good thing they have all of our Elite $

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:06:08 GMT

Those of you who bothered to read the story might have found that the Shafer didn't provide any context for the 40.000$. This means it could include developer time, internal testing, taxes, insurances, etc. Without this context nobody can argue how greedy MS really is

On the other side it would be interesting if all the money spent on 8 title updates and countless hotfixes wouldn't have better be used in a public beta. This way they coould have resolved many issues before they released a product like this. #justsaying

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:04:30 GMT

A one dollar loss to a comapny is still a loss. If it wasnt a planned amount of loss they already set themselves up to budget then they still lost a dollar they were not expecting to.

How much money they made on the game also means nothing when you have to subtract everything that has to "go out".

I mean sure you can get a 40 dollar unexpected bonus in your paycheck for example, but when you cant even spend it then 40 bucks extra in your check means nothing when you really need 1000 more.

My 2200 tax refund this year only helped me get ahead by 800 bucks. Of course I blame that on my new health equipment I got, called the Kinect

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:58:39 GMT

SalemInChains wrote:

BTW, if dev studios had propper BETAs and propper testing instead of "Hurry up we need the BILLION in cash, screw the glitches, we will fix them later!" attitude that they have now, they wouldnt have to wrry about $40k per patch.

Get it right the first time like they sued to do with games before the internet.

Wild concept I know.

BF3 had a beta out, and look at the amount of things they listed in their patches they had to fix. Having a beta wasnt the god send that you may think it was. Especially because the beta was still from a build from an earlier build of the game. all those bugs in the beta were patched in a newer version of the games build. We didnt get to play the "September build" of the game at all. Most likely the beta version we got to play was an August or July version of the build .

They had the luck of being able to fix SERVER side issues with the beta and not much else.

The BF3 beta had come out 6 weeks before the release date. They didnt have enough time to fix the IN GAME items before the game went gold. It was very likely 3 weeks from the release of the beta and the date the game went gold. Thats not enough time at all to fix patches on the released side of the game.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:48:27 GMT

Aero_Stryker wrote:

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2012/02/16/microsofts-40000-per-xbox-patch-expla ins-why-updates-are-slow-to-roll-out/

The link is legit. Apparently, Micrococks charges game companies $40,000 to roll out a patch. Makes me wonder if IW could still afford dedicated servers.

Thats a nice fact to know. I didnt think it cost so much though. But that doesnt mean thats the REAL reason they are slow to come out. You should see details on the patching process that was posted in the Blops forum. It takes at LEAST 4 or 5 weeks to get a patch online from the moment the devs get the word "go" from Activision for example. If the patch is not OK with MS then they have to go back to square one.

You also have to consider the agreement devs have "signed". You must make certain types of patches for your game as well and you are responsible for making sure they work AND it gets approved by MS.

From the corporation standpoint, MS get you coming and going. But hey, they ARE a business. You wouldnt believe some of the ways they charge fees, etc for use on their service. Thats why some of the small time companies choose to go a different route on their gaming setups.

Try making an XNA game for the xbox and see the stuff you have to go thru. And thats small potatoes.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:56:15 GMT

Yep and besides the price MS tests the patch to make sure it does not break anything with how xbl works. Which is another reason why they come out slow in these games. This is nothing new to me. Back on the BO forums this was discussed before, but I do not think the price it self was ever mentioned.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:06:56 GMT

yalikethat wrote:

When you make 1 billion in your first two weeks.......40k ain't so bad

exactly.... its peanuts...

however.... whats to really say? does a small game pay the same as a cod where the patch is going out to millions? is he including his own costs?

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:52:16 GMT

whether that figure is accurate or not another little known fact is the the console platforms also take a % of the ticket price of a game, im oretty certain for AAA titles like cod theres some leaway given on the certification charge given the amount microsoft recieve just in their cut of the sales total

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:43:02 GMT

Aero_Stryker wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable for a large company that makes as much money as Activision, I just want dedicated servers, because with all the money they're making off of use, 40 grand isn't that big of a pill to swallow.

Dedicated servers cause as many problems as they solve.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:38:09 GMT

I don't think it's unreasonable for a large company that makes as much money as Activision, I just want dedicated servers, because with all the money they're making off of use, 40 grand isn't that big of a pill to swallow.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:15:47 GMT

I'd guess that hotfixes don't count, with Activision only paying for Title Updates. At least I assume MW3 hotfixes are similar to how other companies have handled full patch restrictions. (Mortal Kombat 9 used such a system, allowing them to do quick updates by avoiding the normal patch approval system. Conduit 2 on the Wii used a hotfix approach for a system that didn't support normal patches.)

It doesn't change the fact that IW/SH/whoever are completely bungling MW3 though. The game was a mess at release, and the patches appear to be just as badly if not even worse planned and executed as the game itself.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:14:58 GMT

vims1990 wrote:

If Microsoft are charging 40k per title update/patch, shouldn't that encourage game devs to make sure their games are running without too many issues?

This franchise makes too much money to bother with optimizing the game. That is why eight patches have went by.

I never seen a game get so many patches like CoD. Especially in such a short amount of time. Eight patches in 2 months? Lawl.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:12:03 GMT

If Microsoft are charging 40k per title update/patch, shouldn't that encourage game devs to make sure their games are running without too many issues?

If not, well they should at least delay their games until they are 100% sure it it fully optimized.

I greatly appreciate that the devs are supporting their games but after so many patches, it seems they don't test their games enough with the amount of bugs/glitches etc that the community find.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:09:25 GMT

Even if it is true, do you really think the Activision cares? MW3 has produced what, over 1 billion in sales so far? Even if they release 10 patches, do you think the 400k is even a drop in the bucket to them?

Great logic there, yea we won't patch our game because we have to spend 40k from our 1 billion+, uh huh.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:07:23 GMT

Aero_Stryker wrote:

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2012/02/16/microsofts-40000-per-xbox-patch-expla ins-why-updates-are-slow-to-roll-out/

The link is legit. Apparently, Micrococks charges game companies $40,000 to roll out a patch. Makes me wonder if IW could still afford dedicated servers.

Not surprising... I get larger chargebacks at work for less than 40 hours of development time for fixes to our ERP.

If you think this is unreasonable, you don't understand business. Sorry.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:05:47 GMT

BTW, if dev studios had propper BETAs and propper testing instead of "Hurry up we need the BILLION in cash, screw the glitches, we will fix them later!" attitude that they have now, they wouldnt have to wrry about $40k per patch.

Get it right the first time like they sued to do with games before the internet.

Wild concept I know.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:05:38 GMT

When you make 1 billion in your first two weeks.......40k ain't so bad

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:40 GMT

Im just purely saying, with the amount of patches that go out, there is no way that the money grubbing douches at activision would pay out 40,000 thousand for each patch. No way.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:03:53 GMT

Why should XBOX or PSn review patches for free?

After all, the fact that they are pacthing something is because they F'ed up. Its not XBOX or PSN's screw up. Why should they cert it for free? XBOX didnt make the game or its obvious flaws.

Re: Every patch costs $40,000

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:55:05 GMT

good i hope its true it will learn game companys not to rush games out with so many problems