Topic: @ Taldren; Any word on the official SFC3 patch!? (Read 24086 times)

Sorok · « **Reply #80 on:** June 13, 2003, 07:25:53 am »

Its not activisions fault. They've had plenty of other Trek titles that were successful and supported.

Cleaven · « **Reply #81 on:** June 13, 2003, 07:43:34 am »

Quote:

Its not activisions fault. They've had plenty of other Trek titles that were successful and supported.

You will have to practice a lot more on your sarcasm.

Alidar Jarok · « **Reply #83 on:** June 13, 2003, 08:31:21 am »

It is Activisions fault

Taldren would have released 2 or 3 patches by now (they've done it with the other games, they are still planning on releasing another OP patch, and very few people bought OP)

The problem is Activision has a policy of one patch only. And for a long time, didn't Beta test the patch Taldren made. They would have a couple guys play until they found a bug, and then sent it back because everything wasn't fixed. Eventually things were worked out, the Beta was posted for public download, and they are working towards the final version. But they can only make one patch, and that's not their choice

Hale · « **Reply #85 on:** June 13, 2003, 10:09:55 am »

So Interplay was the producer it was Interplay's fault, and when Activision is the producer its Activision's fault? The only constant I see is Taldren and their consistently buggy releases, and failure to fix them.

I can't really defend Interplay, but Activision usually does pretty well by their customers.

3dot14 · « **Reply #86 on:** June 13, 2003, 10:52:31 am »

1. OP patch has nothing to do with Activision (thank god). It's still Interplay territory. And therefore "Activision one patch policy" is not applicable at all. So Jarok didn't contradict himself at all.

2. Taldren's releases are buggy, perhaps. But they fixed them all for SFC1 EAW and now OP. SFC3 is an anomoly as far as patching goes. I won't argue about Taldren's release quality, but I will defend its ability and willingness for POST-SALE support (patches).

3. Activision has no Official one patch policy. But it does practices one. I play Medieval Total War (another Activision product) and it needs another patch on top of its 1.1 (Glorious Archievement still borken, it's the main "campaign" mode of the game), but won't get it cause Activision has already moved on to Rome Total War. (see Armada discussion below too)

4. Interplay's fault was to rush up release. But its hands off policy for patchs is much more helpful than Activision. (interplay does not advertise any patchins beyond 2007 and 2501, since those are the last official patches. But it does not get its, ahem, clothing in a knot if Taldren rleases more patches of its volition.) If Interplay is as uptight as Activision, we are still at EAW 2007 and OP 2501. But Taldren/KM took us all the way here. (Remember that Taldren DID try to take a public-beta patch to us months before the ATVI beta, with essentially the same content. But ATVI, namely SFC3's producer, took the initiative down. And that's what soured Taldren and ATVI relations.)

5. Activision is a big corporation and consists of many individual agent/producers. I don't mean to say ALL activision products are bad simply because SFC3 received shoddy treatment. However, the converse is false as well. Just because Armada and EF were good, doesn't mean the person handling SFC3 is as amiable.

6. While we are on the subject of Armada.
Armada 2 is only patched to 1.1.
And someone correct my A1 history if I am wrong. A1 was released with one patch only (1.1), A1's 1.2 patch was put together by Maddoc and the Former A1 dev team and community in an "extracurricular" role. The original patch 1.2's announcement at A1's official site DOES NOT include an Activision download. I remember that very clearly. It has a Fileplanet and a couple 3rd party downloads. No official ATVI server either. (later it was pciked up by Gaming.Startrek.com. Which is a joint site between Paramount and ATVI...)

BTW I am personally convinced that ATVI is holding up the release. As for what you feel, that's up to you, just so we get the facts (the public ones anyhow) of the cases striaght.

Sorok · « **Reply #87 on:** June 13, 2003, 11:54:38 am »

At the end of the day, the only Activision title that I've had a problem with is SFC3. As a consumer, that's what concerns me. Defend whoever you want whenever you want. But until someone posts some cannon facts, then my feelings remain status quo.

Ill even go one step further and point out that the a.) "buggy release", b.) inaccurate setting of consumer expectations regarding a patch, c.) the length of time it took to get our hands on the second patch ***AHEM*** the first "official" Beta patch and D.) the mismanagement of patch distribution coincidently happened at a time which Taldren was looking to hire someone as a product manager.

3dot14 · « **Reply #88 on:** June 14, 2003, 05:02:50 pm »

Like I said, Sorok, feel free to draw your own conclusions.

One one more thing, Armada and Elite Force were raised as "good Activision" products. I already talked about Armada (and in relation to one patch policy).

Now onto Elite Force. Elite Force 2 to be sure.

http://www.gamespydaily.com/news/fullstory.asp?id=5165

Ritual lays off Elite Force 2 team.

I wonder how many patches it will get.

BTW I am sorry for the EF2 team. EF2's demo was very good. I hope the best to the team for their next project.

Reverend · « **Reply #89 on:** June 14, 2003, 05:09:24 pm »

Well, it was him, or him or her, but we still don't have an official patch on a half-assed game that doesn't even come close to living up to its advertsied expectations, and sure as heck not up to its competition. Give us the source code, so someone can reprogram it to soemthing decent. I almost hate Star Trek because of these titles. It is like buying the car of your dreams only to find out that doesnt come with seats, wheels, or a steering wheel, and the company doesn't build them, and denies their lack of existence.

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #92 on:** June 14, 2003, 06:44:17 pm »

My petition for the release of the source code isn't to correct bugs, but simply to alter certain hard-coded elements for preference in mods.

Alexander

Grav · « **Reply #93 on:** June 14, 2003, 07:20:19 pm »

Sorok A1,A2,BC and EF all received only one patch each up to this point so it would seem activision stick by their one patch policy

Alidar Jarok · « **Reply #96 on:** June 14, 2003, 11:50:47 pm »

I don't want to start this again

No one can say Taldren has been this late on releasing a patch before

Erik Bethke posted an explanation, but removed it after he said things were worked out (or at least better)
The thread was turning into an Activision bashing thread, so it was probably good he removed it

After he said things were worked out, Taldren released the public data, and the weapons charts

I can't say I have all the facts, but I do know that this kind of thread will be annoying

Good night

Alidar Jarok · « **Reply #98 on:** June 15, 2003, 09:43:37 am »

I was talking about the initial patch

Reverend · « **Reply #99 on:** June 15, 2003, 10:13:45 am »

Why aren't I this, why aren't I that- I stand on no one's back and proclaim nothing more than I would by myself... you shouldn't speak in such tones; it is the same tones I hear oh so often- the flailings of someone who is mad they don't have anything better to do, and of someone losing an argument.

News:

Topic: @ Taldren; Any word on the official SFC3 patch!? (Read 24086 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Sorok

Cleaven

Sorok

Alidar Jarok

Sorok

Hale

3dot14

Sorok

3dot14

Reverend

Toasty0

Toasty0

Alexander1701

Grav

3dot14

xCLAVEx

Alidar Jarok

EmeraldEdge

Alidar Jarok

Reverend

Topic: @ Taldren; Any word on the official SFC3 patch!? (Read 24086 times)