BF2 : patch v1.03 officialy delayed (!)

[dadu]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

BF2 : patch v1.03 (planed for end August) is officially delayed (!).

It is now sure for me, EA and/or DICE developpers are lamers... :-<


Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25562

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:21:24 +0200, Dadu <angry@angry.fr> wrote:

>BF2 : patch v1.03 (planed for end August) is officially delayed (!).
>
>It is now sure for me, EA and/or DICE developpers are lamers... :-<

Perhaps you would like them to release a broken patch just because
some lame twat on a newsgroup says so, but the bulk of us would prefer
them to release something that works properly and has been tested.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:vl1ig1l5br9hjol35j20cc236e29gul5ln@4ax.com...
>
> Perhaps you would like them to release a broken patch just because
> some lame twat on a newsgroup says so, but the bulk of us would prefer
> them to release something that works properly and has been tested.
>


Well said. However, while we would all like it if all games were bug-free
upon release, that's not a reality and you always take risks being an early
adopter. The same could be said for hardware as well!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Right on Night I agree with you the games should work right out of the box.
Don't tell me how tough that is either. there is nothing more inherently
tough about a computer game than airplane. or medicine,or may other
products.
The one part of the product that is usually worked on beta testing is
usually done by free volunteers with no supervisision or salary which in
many places is illegal by the way. we as gamers at least some have become
conditioned just to accept major bugs and to attack the consumer who wants
it to work out of the box.
Even in the commercial software market it's not like that. There
are usually heavy penalties attached to a product that needs allot of work
after released..
"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:11gikmj8iuqht2f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:vl1ig1l5br9hjol35j20cc236e29gul5ln@4ax.com...
>>
>> Perhaps you would like them to release a broken patch just because
>> some lame twat on a newsgroup says so, but the bulk of us would prefer
>> them to release something that works properly and has been tested.
>>
>
>
> Well said. However, while we would all like it if all games were bug-free
> upon release, that's not a reality and you always take risks being an
> early adopter. The same could be said for hardware as well!
>
>

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:33:58 -0700, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote:

>Right on Night I agree with you the games should work right out of the box.
>Don't tell me how tough that is either. there is nothing more inherently
>tough about a computer game than airplane. or medicine,or may other
>products.
> The one part of the product that is usually worked on beta testing is
>usually done by free volunteers with no supervisision or salary which in
>many places is illegal by the way. we as gamers at least some have become
>conditioned just to accept major bugs and to attack the consumer who wants
>it to work out of the box.
> Even in the commercial software market it's not like that. There
>are usually heavy penalties attached to a product that needs allot of work
>after released..

No program of any significant size is ever bug free when released.
Given that games are getting larger and more complex, and that an
inherent problem with PC's is an almost infinite number of hardware
and software permutations, we cannot expect games to be perfect when
they are released. In fact, I am amazed how much more stable they are
now than a few years ago.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:1kkkg1dufaau4l022dna0eai8j997g9suh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:33:58 -0700, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Right on Night I agree with you the games should work right out of the
>>box.
>>Don't tell me how tough that is either. there is nothing more inherently
>>tough about a computer game than airplane. or medicine,or may other
>>products.
>> The one part of the product that is usually worked on beta testing
>> is
>>usually done by free volunteers with no supervisision or salary which in
>>many places is illegal by the way. we as gamers at least some have
>>become
>>conditioned just to accept major bugs and to attack the consumer who wants
>>it to work out of the box.
>> Even in the commercial software market it's not like that. There
>>are usually heavy penalties attached to a product that needs allot of work
>>after released..
>
> No program of any significant size is ever bug free when released.
> Given that games are getting larger and more complex, and that an
> inherent problem with PC's is an almost infinite number of hardware
> and software permutations, we cannot expect games to be perfect when
> they are released. In fact, I am amazed how much more stable they are
> now than a few years ago.

But it's amazing how bug free console games are when compared to PC games.
When the developer and/or publisher knows there's no way for the user to
patch, they take the time to do it (mostly) right.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <I8idnXJgzNQ5EZfeRVn-qQ@giganews.com>,
Nonymous says...

> But it's amazing how bug free console games are when compared to PC games.

Not really, when they're coding for 1 hardware platform.

Cheers,
Rod.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Nonymous" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I8idnXJgzNQ5EZfeRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
>
> "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:1kkkg1dufaau4l022dna0eai8j997g9suh@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:33:58 -0700, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Right on Night I agree with you the games should work right out of the
>>>box.
>>>Don't tell me how tough that is either. there is nothing more inherently
>>>tough about a computer game than airplane. or medicine,or may other
>>>products.
>>> The one part of the product that is usually worked on beta testing
>>> is
>>>usually done by free volunteers with no supervisision or salary which in
>>>many places is illegal by the way. we as gamers at least some have
>>>become
>>>conditioned just to accept major bugs and to attack the consumer who
>>>wants
>>>it to work out of the box.
>>> Even in the commercial software market it's not like that.
>>> There
>>>are usually heavy penalties attached to a product that needs allot of
>>>work
>>>after released..
>>
>> No program of any significant size is ever bug free when released.
>> Given that games are getting larger and more complex, and that an
>> inherent problem with PC's is an almost infinite number of hardware
>> and software permutations, we cannot expect games to be perfect when
>> they are released. In fact, I am amazed how much more stable they are
>> now than a few years ago.
>
> But it's amazing how bug free console games are when compared to PC games.
> When the developer and/or publisher knows there's no way for the user to
> patch, they take the time to do it (mostly) right.
>

Ummmm, yeah and if there was one PC with one configuration, I'm sure they
could get it to work flawlessly too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:1kkkg1dufaau4l022dna0eai8j997g9suh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:33:58 -0700, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Right on Night I agree with you the games should work right out of the
>>box.
>>Don't tell me how tough that is either. there is nothing more inherently
>>tough about a computer game than airplane. or medicine,or may other
>>products.
>> The one part of the product that is usually worked on beta testing
>> is
>>usually done by free volunteers with no supervisision or salary which in
>>many places is illegal by the way. we as gamers at least some have
>>become
>>conditioned just to accept major bugs and to attack the consumer who wants
>>it to work out of the box.
>> Even in the commercial software market it's not like that. There
>>are usually heavy penalties attached to a product that needs allot of work
>>after released..
>
> No program of any significant size is ever bug free when released.
> Given that games are getting larger and more complex, and that an
> inherent problem with PC's is an almost infinite number of hardware
> and software permutations, we cannot expect games to be perfect when
> they are released. In fact, I am amazed how much more stable they are
> now than a few years ago.


Well, compatability issues are one thing, but blatant bugs that affect all
users is another. The way I see it there are several levels seen as "bugs"
even though they are all different animals:

(1) errors in the code - causing erratic behavior, crashing, or memory leaks
(2) hardware compatability issues - either with how the game is coded, or
possible driver issues
(3) good/bad design decisions - not bugs per se, just that the thing was
designed to do something that ends up being unfavorable
(4) graphical glitches - texture tearing, not lined up, etc. Not huge but
annoying.
(5) security issues - keep haxors out!

Errors in the code and blatant compatibility issues are not acceptable. It
should at least be compatible with most major vendor hardware. And allowing
a program to go foward with memory leaks or crashing shows very poor quality
control.

As far as I'm concerned however, BF2 rums very well with a little of (3) and
(4) above in it, which is good for the scope of this game. Hopefully there
aren't any major network holes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Note that 90% of current bugs (fix planed in 1.03) of BF2 are not
related to hardware, but to the software itself (servers management,
gameplay ect).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

>When the developer and/or publisher knows there's no way for the user to
>patch, they take the time to do it (mostly) right.

Right.

For the "fun", note that the Xbox 360 will have a feature to download
"updates" to its internal harddisk !!.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:18:47 +0200, David D. <dadu@spamme.fr> wrote:

>For the "fun", note that the Xbox 360 will have a feature to download
>"updates" to its internal harddisk !!.

I thought the XBox already does this.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 05:51:32 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at
gmail dot com> wrote:

>(1) errors in the code - causing erratic behavior, crashing, or memory leaks
>(2) hardware compatability issues - either with how the game is coded, or
>possible driver issues
>(3) good/bad design decisions - not bugs per se, just that the thing was
>designed to do something that ends up being unfavorable
>(4) graphical glitches - texture tearing, not lined up, etc. Not huge but
>annoying.
>(5) security issues - keep haxors out!

For a game that is as completely f***ed up as this thread seems to
make out, I am having a damn lot of bug free fun with it.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"RodP" <rodp@hotmail.com.nothere> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d755163de6fabee989ad6@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> In article <I8idnXJgzNQ5EZfeRVn-qQ@giganews.com>,
> Nonymous says...
>
>> But it's amazing how bug free console games are when compared to PC
>> games.
>
> Not really, when they're coding for 1 hardware platform.

Hardware differences have nothing to do with general gameplay bugs which
this game has tons of. If a console game was released with this many
gameplay bugs, people wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole.