127 réponses à ce sujet

[Zy-El]

For a lot of people, the game does work and you won't see them posting here because they have no reason to complain. Either they can live with the bugs inherent in the game or else are totally oblivious to them. As long as you enjoy the game, why would you have reason to complain??

I'm sort of one foot in that camp and at the same time wanting Bioware to fix its products all the same. But I count myself lucky in that I can finish the game and enjoy it for hours on end which is more than a lot of people can say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Seifz wrote...

Besides, the console makers have almost total control over when you patch your system.  To give a recent example, I lost the "Other OS" functionality on my PS3 recently when I was forced to install the system update to play a new game that I purchased.  My choices were "gimp my PS3's functionality" or "don't play this game that you really want to play and don't play any future games, either".  What kind of choices are those?!  Bah!

They're choices you made.  You know how consoles work.  And yet you continue to play using them.

[Dracul_Age]

Never have, never will purchace DLCs.
Such a cheesey cash grab.

[Lulia]

I haven't experienced any bugs in Awakening.

I had DAO installed and got myself Shale and the keep dlc, then did the 1.03 patch and then installed Awakening. Runs fine.

DAO has always crashed occasionally, but it'll only do it once per session soon after starting and a regular F5 fixes that.

Modifié par Lulia, 01 juin 2010 - 06:34 .

[Bahlgan]

Lulia wrote...

I haven't experienced any bugs in Awakening.

I had DAO installed and got myself Shale and the keep dlc, then did the 1.03 patch and then installed Awakening. Runs fine.

DAO has always crashed occasionally, but it'll only do it once per session soon after starting and a regular F5 fixes that.

Hahaha I thought you were completely delusional until you mentioned F5, thus comp system. My bad 

[Seifz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Besides, the console makers have almost total control over when you patch your system.  To give a recent example, I lost the "Other OS" functionality on my PS3 recently when I was forced to install the system update to play a new game that I purchased.  My choices were "gimp my PS3's functionality" or "don't play this game that you really want to play and don't play any future games, either".  What kind of choices are those?!  Bah!

They're choices you made.  You know how consoles work.  And yet you continue to play using them.

I purchase games for the PC whenever possible.  I did just that for DA:O.  However, many of the best games are only available on consoles.  I purchase those games for the consoles.  Get it?

In any case, I was simply responding to the claim that the user is in complete control of what gets installed on a console such as the PS3 or 360 when that's demonstrably false.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Seifz wrote...

In any case, I was simply responding to the claim that the user is in complete control of what gets installed on a console such as the PS3 or 360 when that's demonstrably false.

But it's not false.  You can choose to play offline.  You can choose not to play expansions.  And through this, you can choose not to install patches.

I've chosen not to play Awakenings or any of the newer DLC because I don't like patch 1.03.  I got to choose that.

XBL is not the only way to install new content on a 360.  Microsoft says it is, but they're wrong.

[Demx]

Zy-El wrote...

Siradix wrote...

mcomommy wrote...

Zy-El wrote...
I agree with your points but at the same time, the consumer must take some of the responsibility for their choices.  Any knowledgable consumer would have researched the product before buying it.  I bought Origins in late December for $25 but didn't play it until almost a month later after reading the forum and getting a handle on all of the bugs.
As in anything else in this world, it is buyer beware! 

Wait wait.  I'm confused.  You're saying that EAWare broke Dragon Age after we bought it, but it's our fault?

If everyone followed what Zy-El said no one would purchase video games because we are all waiting for some magical being to come in and tell us all the bugs in the game. The customer is never to blame for a buggy product, the company is to blame.

magical being = Internet

The customer is to blame for buying a product known to be bug-filled and then complaining about the known bugs afterwards.  Why did you buy the game in the first place, if you already knew it contained bugs?  Why did you buy Awakening when you already knew that Origins had lots of bugs from the outset?

Are you telling me that none of you did your research?    Who is to blame for that?? 

By your own admission, you've lined Bioware's pockets for buggy software.  Playing devil's (ie EA's) advocate.

I knew when I bought Origins that it was not perfect.  I knew when I bought Awakening that it had serious flaws.  Yes, I put my money forward and was willing to take the risks.  Therefore, I have no reason to complain about the bugs that I already knew were there.  I did my research.  I learned about the workarounds and the mods that would alleviate most of the bugs so that I could play and enjoy the game.  I did my due diligence.

To buy software that you already knew was buggy and then complain about it afterwards is DUH! 

Yet you continue to ignore the fact that a customer has to buy the game in the first place to tell everyone online that it is bugged. Is it their fault, when there is no information available about the product being bugged? No, it is not. There are people out there that bought Origins before it was released and the bugs known.  There are people out there, who were content with the known bugs in Origins, and preordered Awakening.

A customer will always have to make the purchase to find out if a product is bugged or not. Then, if they are kind enough, post the bugs they find on the internet.

[Wicked 702]

It still blows my mind when people say things like "all software has bugs, deal with it."

No, they don't. There are plenty of games out there with little to no bugs. In fact, I couldn't even name a game with the long laundry list of bugs DA: O and Awakenings has. It's just not normal.

We console players are generally used to having mostly bug free experiences due to the fact that patches were essentially impossible on consoles up until the most recent generation. And even then, I can name a strong handful of personal experiences where major bugs in a console game were patched fairly quickly after launch (Borderlands is one). There is NO excuse for the lack of fixes to this game. It is a CHOICE Bioware is making. Well guess what! I paid for a product with expectations that it deliver at a bare minimum what is in the owner's manual. As my game does not do that I will continue to voice my discontent until hell freezes over or I get WHAT I PAID FOR.

[Fexelea]

What the in-disc patch for Region 3 Awakening did to my game is beyond a "bug". It rendered BOTH origins and Awakening unplayable freezefests. That should be fixed, since people with this problem cannot buy anything else as it is unplayable.

[pvpgirl]

Lulia wrote...


DAO has always crashed occasionally, but it'll only do it once per session soon after starting and a regular F5 fixes that.

Pre 1.03, Origins never crashed for me once.  In around 300 hours of play between ps3 and pc.   Post 1.03, it takes me 15 hours to get +10 hours on a save time in because it crashes so much. 

I recently upgraded my cpu from a 2.4 to a 3.0.  This actually is helping out with the crashes.   Should that be a fix?  No.  Especially not when you consider my rig far exceeds the minimum requirements to play the game, and did so even before the cpu upgrade.

(Christ, I can see it now -
BioWare:  Due to bug 179362, we've come to the conclusion that the only fix for this is to upgrade your system hardware to at minimum double what was previously stated as the minimum to play the game.  Doing this will give you a crash free, bug free perfect game.  This is in no way our fault, but yours for thinking the system minimum requirements that we printed on the box were actually what it takes to run the game.)

[Seifz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Seifz wrote...

In any case, I was simply responding to the claim that the user is in complete control of what gets installed on a console such as the PS3 or 360 when that's demonstrably false.

But it's not false.  You can choose to play offline.  You can choose not to play expansions.  And through this, you can choose not to install patches.

I've chosen not to play Awakenings or any of the newer DLC because I don't like patch 1.03.  I got to choose that.

XBL is not the only way to install new content on a 360.  Microsoft says it is, but they're wrong.

I play DA on the PC.  I've said that a few times now.

However, I play some other games on a PS3.  There is no legal way of downloading patches or new content without installing the latest system update.  I haven't yet installed the update that removes the "Other OS" functionality from my console because I have important data residing on the 10GB Linux partition that I've been too lazy to back up.  However, there's a game coming out in about a week that will require the latest system update to play.  At that point, my only choice is to lose the "Other OS" functionality or not play the new game.

What good is a console if I can never play new games?  Obviously, I'll eventually need to install this update to make my purchase worthwhile.  However, there is absolutely no way to have known two years ago that Sony was going to remove a major feature like "Other OS", which I used extensively for research.

Get it, now?  Choice A sucks.  Choice B sucks.  Users don't have control over their consoles.  Anyone who believes that they do is living in a fantasy world or is otherwise illegaly circumventing the system.

[Seifz]

mcomommy wrote...

Lulia wrote...


DAO has always crashed occasionally, but it'll only do it once per session soon after starting and a regular F5 fixes that.

Pre 1.03, Origins never crashed for me once.  In around 300 hours of play between ps3 and pc.   Post 1.03, it takes me 15 hours to get +10 hours on a save time in because it crashes so much. 

I recently upgraded my cpu from a 2.4 to a 3.0.  This actually is helping out with the crashes.   Should that be a fix?  No.  Especially not when you consider my rig far exceeds the minimum requirements to play the game, and did so even before the cpu upgrade.

(Christ, I can see it now -
BioWare:  Due to bug 179362, we've come to the conclusion that the only fix for this is to upgrade your system hardware to at minimum double what was previously stated as the minimum to play the game.  Doing this will give you a crash free, bug free perfect game.  This is in no way our fault, but yours for thinking the system minimum requirements that we printed on the box were actually what it takes to run the game.)

I can assure you that with some of the best hardware available today, DA still crashes more often after installing patch 1.03 and the expansion than it did with 1.02. 

[Azazel005]

Zy-El wrote...

JACKtheR1PP3R189 wrote...

Haexpane maybe we just feel like making our opinions heard? The point is that instead of fixing the game, and it desperately needs fixing, they string out more bogus DLCs. They're shamelessly just groping for more money. I wouldn't mind if they were taking a long time on the patch to make sure they got everything, but they're clearly not putting forth the effort they should. Thee problems could have been fixed a month ago.

The patch team is working on the patch.  The DLC teams continue to develop and release DLC's.  You seem to think they only have 1 team of 3 programmers working out of a garage.  Bioware devs are working on the patch and new DLC's at THE SAME TIME.

And how do you know how long it would take to fix these bugs?  Are you a programmer?  Have you ever tried to debug someone else's code.  The majority of bugs are on the consoles.  A third party did the code conversion to the consoles - not Bioware.  It's hard enough fixing your own bugs, but it takes even much longer to fix someone else's bugs.  And then they have to get these bug fixes past $ony, Micro$oft and None-tendo. 

I will be perfectly blunt. Why should I care?

I am not responsible for team management, for certification protocols and you are right I am not a programmer how would I know what it takes? Does it take longer then the charging of my credit card I used to purchase the product?

All these justifications mean nothing to an end consumer. What means something is:

I paid for something. It's not working how I in good faith expected it to work nor precisely how it's designed to work.

Now, as a reasonable person I can accept these facts. In return I should be treated as a reasonable person surely in a MONTH something has happened in relation to the issues? Let alone the ongoing months. The occaisonal blanket statement is no means of assurance when we are not updated nor have we seen any results of their work.

What is not unreasonable at this point is to expect that certain people are going to be upset. They have every reason to be upset and I can see no evidence that anything is being done to assail there concerns.

[ThrullX]

The patch team is working on the patch.  The DLC teams continue to
develop and release DLC's.  You seem to think they only have 1 team of
3 programmers working out of a garage.  Bioware devs are working on the
patch and new DLC's at THE SAME TIME.

Largely true. And more to the point, adding more people to fix bugs doesn't always make the bugs go away faster. There is an upper limit to how many people can effectively debug code. That being said, after months of time SOME form of patch should have been released to fix whatever bugs they have found.

I realize its become a standard in the industry to release 90% product and then offer patches over the next few months to fix bugs. (This is a BAD practice by the way, but everyone does it.) However, when doing this the patches need to actually fix bugs.

And how do you know how
long it would take to fix these bugs?  Are you a programmer?  Have you
ever tried to debug someone else's code.  The majority of bugs are on
the consoles.  A third party did the code conversion to the consoles -
not Bioware.  It's hard enough fixing your own bugs, but it takes even
much longer to fix someone else's bugs.  And then they have to get
these bug fixes past $ony, Micro$oft and None-tendo

Bioware needs to keep everything in house. (And, NOT team up with EA -- THAT was just idiotic.) They release excellent product. No reason they should go elsewhere. Even so, anything written to industry standard should be fairly easily to debug. It may take a while, (less than months though) but it shouldn't be terribly hard.

[Azazel005]

I just wanted to add that my previous post while quoting Zy-El was not intended to target them nor anyone else out. Just illustrating in general while I understand the justifications made. They really aren't my concern as the consumer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Seifz wrote...

What good is a console if I can never play new games?

You can play old games.  The cost of using a console is that you have to pick one or the other, but never both.

DAO, pre-1.03, is a different game because of the changes 1.03 makes to the game engine (specifically, making lieutenants unshatterable).  If you want to play 1.03, you can, and if you later want to play 1.02, you can.

But there's no going back on the console once you cross that threshold.  You can't try out a patch and then revert unless you are willing to install software to your hardware (and it is your hardware - you own that console) as you see fit without first checking with the manufacturer to see if you have permission.

What I don't get is why console manufacturers don't produce console emulators to run on PCs.  Their profits come from selling the games, not the consoles.  Increasing the market for their games without having to manufacture more consoles should be a good thing for them, and yet they don't do it (in fact, when someone else tries they do their best to stop it).  I don't get it.

I get to choose how I use the products I buy.

[Demx]

Emulators would result in lawsuits, make it easier to pirate, and it would eliminate the need of dropping $200-$300 into their pockets.

[Vaeliorin]

Siradix wrote...
Emulators would result in lawsuits, make it easier to pirate, and it would eliminate the need of dropping $200-$300 into their pockets.

The thing is, that $200-$300 is actually a loss for the company.  Game companies have long sold consoles at a loss, and made up the profits on the games.

Honestly, emulators could only benefit the console makers (piracy is already rampant on the 360 anyway, and I'm not sure where exactly lawsuits would come from.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

The thing is, that $200-$300 is actually a loss for the company.  Game companies have long sold consoles at a loss, and made up the profits on the games.

Yes, this is my point.  Consoles are sold at a loss to create a market for the games.  So why not allow people to play the games evern without buying the console?

And as mentioned, pirating console games is no more difficult than pirating PC games.  PS3 piracy is limited by the number of consumers with BluRay burners, but 360 piracy faces a much lower hurdle.

[Maestro120]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

The thing is, that $200-$300 is actually a loss for the company.  Game companies have long sold consoles at a loss, and made up the profits on the games.

Yes, this is my point.  Consoles are sold at a loss to create a market for the games.  So why not allow people to play the games evern without buying the console?

And as mentioned, pirating console games is no more difficult than pirating PC games.  PS3 piracy is limited by the number of consumers with BluRay burners, but 360 piracy faces a much lower hurdle.

Thats not true.  Pirating console games tends to be more difficult because of the need to "mod" the hardware itself to play pirated games.  And once you mod the 360, you then miss out on on-line multiplayer and so on.

With PC piracy all you need to do is download the frikken game, full stop.

[Demx]

Let me ask you this then; why isn't there more PC games than home console games?



It's because not many people have gaming PCs, and are not willing to spend the money to upgrade their computers. In order to get an emulator for the current generation to work you will need a higher end computer.



Pirating PC games are way easier, because all you need to worry about it cracking the algorithm used to encrypt it in the first place. Those whom do end up cracking it, normally end up uploading a serial generator for everyone else. As Maestro stated, home consoles have the extra measure of having the hardware play a part in keeping people from simply placing a burned DVD into the tray.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maestro120 wrote...

Pirating console games tends to be more difficult because of the need to "mod" the hardware itself to play pirated games.

That's not generally necessary.

And once you mod the 360, you then miss out on on-line multiplayer and so on.

To the extent that that matters, sure.  But the same is true of more and more PC games as publishers run console-style online hubs.  Look at the newer Total War games, where the only available multiplayer is through Steam.  Or Starcraft 2, where there's no LAN functionality.

With PC piracy all you need to do is download the frikken game, full stop.

The two forms of piracy are no longer meaningfully different.

[Mordaedil]

Funny that misnomer there. Consoles actually usually don't check for piracy. There's very little they could do to prevent console piracy because of how inherent DVD's work now. It's all data to be interpreted or a special track on it that is read by a program and usually can be fooled.



And as far as I know, the online capabilities on consoles never can or will check if your copy is legitimate. The real reason piracy on consoles are rare is because it requires them to possess a program that can burn the copies properly, rather than miss a few things, like Nero burner would do, because it wasn't designed to copy game software, or because they don't possess a computer AND a console.



Also, it is a misnomer to assume the only requirement to use an illegal version of a PC is to just possess the downloaded data. You need to bypass the protection software as well, which requires for most games worth their salt (or NWN) that you access the source code of the executable and edit in a Hex-table and find the proper data and alter it so that it no longer does protection checks.



In most cases, you can find people online doing this for you and download their "fixed" executable from irreputable sites. This is what is called piracy. These are the pirates. Everyone else? They are sailors.

[Wicked 702]

Most of what you've said is true. What you have to do with a console, Xbox anyway, is modify the firmware to accept disks that are burned through a program like Nero. That done, it will bypass any of the specific protections that console games may or may not have.

However, Microsoft's Live service does check to make sure your firmware version (as does Sony) is in compliance with their code. If you are found to have a "modded" system, your console gets permanently banned from online play.

While it is possible to stay one step ahead of MS, you do have to be constantly on your toes and continually update your mods if you want to play online. It's quite a lot of effort actually. Most people either get caught or don't bother going online. Feel free to read about the 500,000 consoles MS perma-banned from online play after Modern Warfare 2 came out. It was a big thing in the news. Pirates got caught by the boatloads....

Modifié par Wicked 702, 02 juin 2010 - 10:10 .