8899 réponses à ce sujet

[Pheonix52gx]

Ragke wrote...
That post by Chris is so subtly haughty. I have a feeling he is a machine; he has no people-skills. "Hey look dumb-people. Patches are hard. It takes a million steps to make a patch. I will bullet-point them for you since you're so stupid kthx." That's how I felt when I was reading that post.

I don't think he was going for that impression but I understand where you're coming from. It does provide a reason as to why these things are taking so long for those unaware.

Unfortunately, when you've worked QA for a first party console developer, that information doesn't provide any answers. But on the other hand, much more information (such as an ETA) would mean they'd have to be accountable for that information (such as sticking to that ETA) and that could backfire on them. I don't like Bioware's "we'll let you know when it's ready" approach, but I can understand their reasoning. Also it was nice to know they're still active and not just ignoring the forums altogether.

[Lambda Diamond]

ChannelDelibird wrote...

How did this not come up as a problem before you shipped the game?

This?

[Malcroix]

Ragke wrote...

That post by Chris is so subtly haughty. I have a feeling he is a machine; he has no people-skills. "Hey look dumb-people. Patches are hard. It takes a million steps to make a patch. I will bullet-point them for you since you're so stupid kthx." That's how I felt when I was reading that post.

Same feeling here.

Instead of giving us an honest ETA, they prefer a condescending lecture which basically boils down to "you'll get it when you'll get it, quit whining".

Also I LOLed @ the painstaking list of their bureaucratic procedure. If they were 10% as "rigorous" in their Quality Assurance and Beta-testing, I'm certain this enormous blunder with face imports would not have happened.

What is actually alarming, however, is that apparently Chris Priestly's latest post is meant as an "update" on ALL "issues", including the face import.

Which means the fix is going to be delayed until the big patch comes out.

And considering how many issues they're likely planning to address in that patch... and their lengthy bureaucratic process... that will probably take a long time.

[DoctorEss]

Malcroix wrote...

Ragke wrote...

That post by Chris is so subtly haughty. I have a feeling he is a machine; he has no people-skills. "Hey look dumb-people. Patches are hard. It takes a million steps to make a patch. I will bullet-point them for you since you're so stupid kthx." That's how I felt when I was reading that post.

Same feeling here.

Instead of giving us an honest ETA, they prefer a condescending lecture which basically boils down to "you'll get it when you'll get it, quit whining".

Also I LOLed @ the painstaking list of their bureaucratic procedure. If they were 10% as "rigorous" in their Quality Assurance and Beta-testing, I'm certain this enormous blunder with face imports would not have happened.

What is actually alarming, however, is that apparently Chris Priestly's latest post is meant as an "update" on ALL "issues", including the face import.

Which means the fix is going to be delayed until the big patch comes out.

And considering how many issues they're likely planning to address in that patch... and their lengthy bureaucratic process... that will probably take a long time.

Likely so.  Thing is, they've earned so much negative backlash and ill-will over this, by the time they actually bother to remember we pay their salaries, and the entire reason Bioware still exists today is because of us buying their games early on in their existence... it might be very well too late, and they'll have lost us.

Sure, some of us might go ahead at that point and play through it once, but buying more DLC/giving them more money for this product, knowing how we're not considered important to them?  Pah.  Not bloody likely.

[Ashaman X]

I've just spent a couple hours of installing ME1 & 2 again and opening up my old saves so I could take screenshots of my Shep. I then used these as a reference when trying to create him in ME3, but I couldn't come anywhere close enough to make it feel like the real Shep. There's no ginger hair colour, and the hairstyle with the "gelled spikes" at the front has been reduced to something I can't describe. Eyebrows don't seem to match either.

So no matter how hard I try, I cannot recreate him as the options are not there. It makes me wonder if that content is even in the game files. Guess I'll have to keep waiting and hope BioWare knows how to fix this 100%

[PalAvian]

Malcroix wrote...

Same feeling here.

Instead of giving us an honest ETA, they prefer a condescending lecture which basically boils down to "you'll get it when you'll get it, quit whining".

Also I LOLed @ the painstaking list of their bureaucratic procedure. If they were 10% as "rigorous" in their Quality Assurance and Beta-testing, I'm certain this enormous blunder with face imports would not have happened. [...]

LoL. You nailed it. So you just efficiently demonstrated that the list is effectively: BS and in just a few lines

[King Espi]

Dimensio wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

m0gwa1 wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

Yep, all we wanted was the promised "update" on what is happening. We knew it akes time. I'd be surprised if we see it within the next month as I expect they'll want to address a number of issues with one patch to save on certification costs and compatibility issues.

Yah but they already released one patch that fixed different bugs across different platforms.

Yep, but I think Microsoft, for one, allows one patch for free (usually at launch to address any issues that were found post Gold certification) and then they charge for additional patches.

I am unaware of Microsoft ever charging or requiring charges for game patches.

An article came out a week or two ago with some XBLA developer saying how games cost $40,000 to patch. This was also said by other developers and never denied by Microsoft or any other developer.

You get a free patch if I'm not mistaken as someone has pointed out. After that you get charged.

[Fillydilly]

The patch is probably going to be incorporated in a DLC. So expect to pay for it.

[shadepiece]

Finally!!! An update! See it wasn't that hard just to post a hey here is the deal with the patch. Why did it take over a week?

[FemShep 4 President]

King Espi wrote...

An article came out a week or two ago with some XBLA developer saying how games cost $40,000 to patch. This was also said by other developers and never denied by Microsoft or any other developer.

You get a free patch if I'm not mistaken as someone has pointed out. After that you get charged.

What's the logic behind that? I mean, why would Microsoft charge for it? Cost of their verification procedures, or just a disincentive not to screw up?

[Akeashar]

King Espi wrote...

An article came out a week or two ago with some XBLA developer saying how games cost $40,000 to patch. This was also said by other developers and never denied by Microsoft or any other developer.

You get a free patch if I'm not mistaken as someone has pointed out. After that you get charged.

This is especially true of console gamers. A key part of Chris' post, which I don't consider haughty, just explaining to forums goers why they can't click their fingers and make a patch appear, is that they have to submit any patches for certification to MicroSoft and Sony.

The cost of developing patches amd getting them Ok'd is one of the reasons that not every game, especially smaller titles such as Corpse Party which has a known bug preventing 100% completion, is able to get patched. That also fits into why they'd want to package fixes for several issues rather than just slapping out a patch every time a bug is corrected

This is pretty standard practice, look at the various MMOs that people play, and how long it takes issues there to get fixed (if they ever do) and you get the myriad changes all in one go. I'm not a programmer (unless you count Apple BASIC) so I'm not sure how complex fixing the issue on multiple systems (360, PC and PS3 if its affecitng them as well) would be, but can you imagine how annoyed folks would be if they slapped out a PC patch right away and left those that had been playing it since its original launch on the 360 be due to the certification and patch compilation process? Lots of folks clamouring 'Wheres mine?!' (including me XD)

As someone that works parallel to a triage system, I'm kind of curious what level of triage 'Consumers insist on not playing the game due to an issue' is compared to 'issue that causes the game to literally not work'

[RealStyli]

Dimensio wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

m0gwa1 wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

Yep, all we wanted was the promised "update" on what is happening. We knew it akes time. I'd be surprised if we see it within the next month as I expect they'll want to address a number of issues with one patch to save on certification costs and compatibility issues.

Yah but they already released one patch that fixed different bugs across different platforms.

Yep, but I think Microsoft, for one, allows one patch for free (usually at launch to address any issues that were found post Gold certification) and then they charge for additional patches.

I am unaware of Microsoft ever charging or requiring charges for game patches.

http://mp1st.com/201...ox-360-and-ps3/ 

In an interview with Hookshot, Schafer shed some light on how much it costs to release a patch on Xbox 360 and PS3 (he was referring to modern consoles). Schafer explained, “those systems as great as they are, they’re still closed. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game. Those are things we really want to do, but we can’t do it on these systems. I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch – we can’t afford that! Open systems like Steam, that allow us to set our own prices, that’s where it’s at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That’s where people are going.” 

Modifié par RealStyli, 15 mars 2012 - 06:46 .

[RealStyli]

FemShep 4 President wrote...



What's the logic behind that? I mean, why would Microsoft charge for it? Cost of their verification procedures, or just a disincentive not to screw up?

Because the certification costs money, which accounts for a certain amount of it, depending on time and how many people are involved. There may be 100s of people involved in the process, I don't know. There's also the fact that they can charge so they do.

[Dimensio]

RealStyli wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

m0gwa1 wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

Yep, all we wanted was the promised "update" on what is happening. We knew it akes time. I'd be surprised if we see it within the next month as I expect they'll want to address a number of issues with one patch to save on certification costs and compatibility issues.

Yah but they already released one patch that fixed different bugs across different platforms.

Yep, but I think Microsoft, for one, allows one patch for free (usually at launch to address any issues that were found post Gold certification) and then they charge for additional patches.

I am unaware of Microsoft ever charging or requiring charges for game patches.

http://mp1st.com/201...ox-360-and-ps3/ 

In an interview with Hookshot, Schafer shed some light on how much it costs to release a patch on Xbox 360 and PS3 (he was referring to modern consoles). Schafer explained, “those systems as great as they are, they’re still closed. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game. Those are things we really want to do, but we can’t do it on these systems. I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch – we can’t afford that! Open systems like Steam, that allow us to set our own prices, that’s where it’s at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That’s where people are going.” 

I had misinterpreted the previous statement as relating to charges to the end-users, rather than to the developers.

[m0gwa1]

RealStyli wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

m0gwa1 wrote...

RealStyli wrote...

Yep, all we wanted was the promised "update" on what is happening. We knew it akes time. I'd be surprised if we see it within the next month as I expect they'll want to address a number of issues with one patch to save on certification costs and compatibility issues.

Yah but they already released one patch that fixed different bugs across different platforms.

Yep, but I think Microsoft, for one, allows one patch for free (usually at launch to address any issues that were found post Gold certification) and then they charge for additional patches.

I am unaware of Microsoft ever charging or requiring charges for game patches.

http://mp1st.com/201...ox-360-and-ps3/ 

In an interview with Hookshot, Schafer shed some light on how much it costs to release a patch on Xbox 360 and PS3 (he was referring to modern consoles). Schafer explained, “those systems as great as they are, they’re still closed. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game. Those are things we really want to do, but we can’t do it on these systems. I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch – we can’t afford that! Open systems like Steam, that allow us to set our own prices, that’s where it’s at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That’s where people are going.” 

That doesn't make it any better, really, it makes it worse. So, not only did they release a game with known bugs, but now they won't hurry and fix it cause its gonna cost them money? ugh.

[RealStyli]

Dimensio wrote...

I had misinterpreted the previous statement as relating to charges to the end-users, rather than to the developers.

Ah, I see. Yes, I was a bit less than clear. Apologies.

[RealStyli]

m0gwa1 wrote...

That doesn't make it any better, really, it makes it worse. So, not only did they release a game with known bugs, but now they won't hurry and fix it cause its gonna cost them money? ugh.

No, no. They've pretty much confirmed they're doing another patch or at least implied they are. The cost might just be a factor in whether they'll release multiple patches or they'll try to only release one patch to fix as many bugs as possible. I can't see it delaying it significantly unless there's a ton of bugs, the certification might though. This could be as soon as 2 weeks if we're lucky*.

*Edit: Of course, that depends on when it goes to cert or if they've fixed the issues yet. So yeah, what I mean is that the cert may only delay it, at best, 2 weeks.

Modifié par RealStyli, 15 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[ceforman]

m0gwa1 wrote...

That doesn't make it any better, really, it makes it worse. So, not only did they release a game with known bugs, but now they won't hurry and fix it cause its gonna cost them money? ugh.

I for one would much rather have had the game released late, with this issue already corrected.  I mean think about it.  Five years from now, who would really remember having to wait a few weeks longer to play ME3?  But I guarantee everybody who lost their Shep is going to remember this for the rest of their gaming lives.

[m0gwa1]

RealStyli wrote...

No, no. They've pretty much confirmed they're doing another patch or at least implied they are. The cost might just be a factor in whether they'll release multiple patches or they'll try to only release one patch to fix as many bugs as possible. I can't see it delaying it significantly unless there's a ton of bugs, the certification might though. This could be as soon as 2 weeks if we're lucky*.

*Edit: Of course, that depends on when it goes to cert or if they've fixed the issues yet. So yeah, what I mean is that the cert may only delay it, at best, 2 weeks.

I know what you meant RealStyli. I'm just frustrated with the state of game development these days. Buggy games shouldn't be acceptable and hearing excuses about why patches take so long doesn't help.

[Alchera7]

With heavy use of the Gibbed Saved Editor and about 30 face exports and imports I was finally able to mold very similar facial features and structure into what now is a near exact copy of my original shepard.


So there is still hope for those of you who know how to use the Gibbed Save Editor to Import and Export faces.

My best advice is find the facial features that best represent what your original shepard had, then as you are playing in free roam areas of the game where your weapons are holstered; look very closley at your Shepards face and make mental notes on the little micro adjustments you can make in the Character Creator.

1. Make two Save Games, one for backup and one for importing the new head morph you're about to create.

2. Open Gibbed Save Editor, and load the last Save Game you created.

3. Copy down the face code under the RAW tab. (This will be needed for pasting into the character creator.)

4. Start a New Game; and paste in the face code. Now make your adjustments; accept; then alt tab out.

5. There will now be a new auto save from your tweaked shepard you just made. Load that autosave into Gibbed and [b]export the Head Morph[/b] under Player>Apperance Tab, and [b]copy down the new and improved face code [/b]under the RAW Tab.

6. Load the save game again from Step 2 into Gibbed , and import the head morph you just saved in the previous step. Paste in the new and improved face code, and save your game.

Now when you load into the game continue to look at the face and make adjustments until the face is just right. 

I suggest looking at your face in areas where your Shepards face is well lit.

I came to the conclusion that Bioware really did screw up their Character Creator. All of the facial structures and features from the previous 2 games were heavily modified and some removed entirley from the game. So if you really want to get your shepard as close as possible to what he/she should really look like. Try my method out; because copy pasting, and import fixes simply aren't very reliable because every facial feature and structure in the game has been changed by bioware (width, depth, height, etc). Hope this helps some of you!

I'm 26 hours into the game now and its AMAZING! Those of you who choose not to play and who finally do play you will be in for a treat! Gameplay and Story blows away the first 2 games by a longshot.

Modifié par Alchera7, 15 mars 2012 - 08:54 .

[ThinkIntegral]

Pheonix52gx wrote...

Ragke wrote...
That post by Chris is so subtly haughty. I have a feeling he is a machine; he has no people-skills. "Hey look dumb-people. Patches are hard. It takes a million steps to make a patch. I will bullet-point them for you since you're so stupid kthx." That's how I felt when I was reading that post.

I don't think he was going for that impression but I understand where you're coming from. It does provide a reason as to why these things are taking so long for those unaware.

Unfortunately, when you've worked QA for a first party console developer, that information doesn't provide any answers. But on the other hand, much more information (such as an ETA) would mean they'd have to be accountable for that information (such as sticking to that ETA) and that could backfire on them. I don't like Bioware's "we'll let you know when it's ready" approach, but I can understand their reasoning. Also it was nice to know they're still active and not just ignoring the forums altogether.

I'm gonna have to disagree with your last statement.  Giving an ETA wouldn't backfire on them if they premised it with a simple, "well we make no guarantees but we can reasonbly see it being done in X amount of time."  It's the same argument an employee would give his employer.  Plus, they know their teams, the speed at which they work, the nature of difficulty in the type of bugs they face currently/have in the past. 

I mean really the whole point is to just give some kind of frame of reference in terms of time so that the person expecting completion has some sense of assurance rather than no assurance.

[ThinkIntegral]

ceforman wrote...

m0gwa1 wrote...

That doesn't make it any better, really, it makes it worse. So, not only did they release a game with known bugs, but now they won't hurry and fix it cause its gonna cost them money? ugh.

I for one would much rather have had the game released late, with this issue already corrected.  I mean think about it.  Five years from now, who would really remember having to wait a few weeks longer to play ME3?  But I guarantee everybody who lost their Shep is going to remember this for the rest of their gaming lives.

Seriously.  I echo your sentiments.  It's all the more reason why if you're gonna make the game, make it right the first time.  Especially, if it's gonna cost you $40k a pop.  While it may seem like pocket change to a multi-million dollar company, $40k can go a long way for other costs in maintaining one's business. 

Modifié par ThinkIntegral, 15 mars 2012 - 07:36 .

[Cootie]

Besides, they didn't acknowledge the face bug, but gave a general "We're working on a patch" statement which could mean anything.
They might even give Shepards the option of holstering their weapon instead of fixing the massive import bug.

Modifié par Cootie, 15 mars 2012 - 07:41 .

[ThinkIntegral]

Alchera7 wrote...
I'll make another post soon including before and after pictures, as soon as I can figure out how to take screenshots while in-game.

Print Screen button?

[Alchera7]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Alchera7 wrote...
I'll make another post soon including before and after pictures, as soon as I can figure out how to take screenshots while in-game.

Print Screen button?

I've tried that but when I look in the screenshots folder nothing is there. And when I paste into Paint, all I get is a black screen.

Modifié par Alchera7, 15 mars 2012 - 07:41 .