Polytron Won't Fix Fez Patch

[DoctorFinger]

It's tough being an indie developer. This is something Polytron has known for a while now, but that fact has been reinforced once again. Earlier this year they released Fez, a really interesting platformer, on XBLA. Soon after they released a patch to clear up some nagging issues, but the patch itself caused save corruption for some gamers. So the patch was pulled and Polytron tried to patch the patch. That was two months ago. That changed yesterday.

We’re bringing the first FEZ patch online.
It’s the same patch.

We’re not going to patch the patch.

Why not? Because microsoft would charge us tens of thousands of dollars to re-certify the game.

Polytron says the save corruption "mostly happened to players who had completed, or almost completed the game." They estimate it affected only about 1% of gamers at most, although they also concede that the 1% affected are also among the game's most dedicated fans. But the simple fact is, they can't afford the re-certification costs. EA and Activision may spend tens of thousands of dollars a day on coffee for their devs, but a small studio like Polytron could be sunk by such an expense.

This isn't exactly an uncommon problem. Microsoft will do the certification for the first patch on a given game for free. After that the developer or publisher has to pay for the cert which, as Polytron says, can costs tens of thousands. They also point out that if they were on Steam the game would have been fixed right away, with no extra cost to them. But they're not on Steam. Although they noted in a later Tweet that their XBLA exclusivity expires in a couple months, and a Steam release is likely then.

Source - Polytron Blog

[fitbabits]

Wah, wah, wah...

It sucks for the people whose experience got corrupted, but it's not the fault of Microsoft, despite what people may think. It's not like these facts (cost of patch certification) are hidden from developers prior to them developing games for the platform.

They were probably compensated for XLA exclusivity as well.

[Sl1pstream]

They're complaining about Microsoft charging them for a mistake they made. It sucks, but this is their own fault, not Microsoft's.

This just sounds like them trying to blame Microsoft for not letting them fix the game, while they should've tested more before submitting the patch in the first place.

[Mike Kelehan]

Originally Posted by Sl1pstream

They're complaining about Microsoft charging them for a mistake they made. It sucks, but this is their own fault, not Microsoft's.

This just sounds like them trying to blame Microsoft for not letting them fix the game, while they should've tested more before submitting the patch in the first place.

What's the point of certification, then, if it misses a bug like this? What are they paying for? If they pay to get it certified, and a big bug like that makes it through certification, they should be able to fix that for free.

Originally Posted by fitbabits

They were probably compensated for XLA exclusivity as well.

They say it's the other way around. They payed MS, in both money and exclusivity, for promotional purposes.

[Sl1pstream]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelehan

What's the point of certification, then, if it misses a bug like this? What are they paying for? If they pay to get it certified, and a big bug like that makes it through certification, they should be able to fix that for free.

I'm not going to pretend that it's a good system, but they knew that before they signed up. They knew that when they submitted the patch. It's a little late to start complaining about it imo.

Wasn't this game supposed to be released on multiple platforms in the first place? They decided to go with MS exclusively. They also had time to make a game that didn't require patching. How long has Fez been in development? 5 Years?

[LordDon]

It is seriously beyond me why ANY indie developer would try to sell jack shit through XBLA anymore.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by LordDon

It is seriously beyond me why ANY indie developer would try to sell jack shit through XBLA anymore.

I don't understand it either, to be honest. Releasing on XBLA is one thing, but releasing there exclusively just seems like a bad idea for most small developers. They cut off a lot of potential sales by releasing only on the 360. They might pick up some more steam (no pun intended) when they release on the PC, but they'll likely hit in the fall rush when people are buying lots of higher-profile titles. :/

Fez has been a bit of a mess for years though, at least from what I've read. They ran into a lot of issues with that game, and it seemed like it was in development forever. At least 5 years, right?

[Exodus]

In other words they can't afford to patch the game.

I happily await the steam release.

[Savok]

Not to defend Fez because it really it the most pointless piece of indie crap I've ever seen but certification is a fucking extortion racket. So glad I've given up on consoles altogether, none of them are good for the industry at this point.

[menage]

Originally Posted by Savok

Not to defend Fez because it really it the most pointless piece of indie crap I've ever seen

That seems a bit harsh.

I loved it though.

[Gorvi]

That's pretty shitty, especially considering the nature of the fix.

[Panthera]

They may have been aware of the policy, but a policy that discourages patching and hurts small developers is not in my mind a good one.

[fitbabits]

Originally Posted by Panthera

They may have been aware of the policy, but a policy that discourages patching and hurts small developers is not in my mind a good one.

Or you could look at it as a policy that encourages developers to release games without the need for constant patching, etc. If the financial 'penalties' were not in place, XLA would be flooded with games that were in various stages of being broken.

[muddi900]

Originally Posted by fitbabits

Or you could look at it as a policy that encourages developers to release games without the need for constant patching, etc. If the financial 'penalties' were not in place, XLA would be flooded with games that were in various stages of being broken.

Dude, they were charged the money when they released the game. Microsoft already tested the game. They were not compensated for XBLA exclusivity. The only way to release a game on XBLA is with a publisher or be exclusive.

Similar thing happened with Brutal Legend I think.

[Panthera]

Originally Posted by fitbabits

Or you could look at it as a policy that encourages developers to release games without the need for constant patching, etc. If the financial 'penalties' were not in place, XLA would be flooded with games that were in various stages of being broken.

That's what certification is for. It's unrealistic to expect games that don't need to be patched. This isn't the cartridge era anymore.

[Sl1pstream]

Originally Posted by Panthera

That's what certification is for. It's unrealistic to expect games that don't need to be patched. This isn't the cartridge era anymore.

Eh, Gamecube and PS2 didn't allow patching either. It's not that long ago.

And again, Fez was in development for 5 years. Would it be that weird for them to have tested the game properly? It's not like they were rushing it out the door. Unlike that patch they released.

[Savok]

Originally Posted by Panthera

That's what certification is for.

I was going to say that, only far more rudely. Like I said before, it's extortion, they never test shit, but god forbid some people stop sucking MS's cock for 5 seconds.

Originally Posted by Sl1pstream

Eh, Gamecube and PS2 didn't allow patching either. It's not that long ago.

And again, Fez was in development for 5 years. Would it be that weird for them to have tested the game properly? It's not like they were rushing it out the door. Unlike that patch they released.

They didn't have a fucking hard drive that's why.

And again, just before Fez is lazy shit for people in trench coats and fedoras with shitty little beards doesn't excuse the shit MS pulls daily.

[Doogie2K]

Originally Posted by Sl1pstream

Eh, Gamecube and PS2 didn't allow patching either. It's not that long ago.

And again, Fez was in development for 5 years. Would it be that weird for them to have tested the game properly? It's not like they were rushing it out the door. Unlike that patch they released.

I think anyone who's ever developed complicated software can tell you that sometimes, there are edge cases you can't anticipate or reasonably create/reproduce. This makes it very difficult to prevent the bug in the first place, never mind correct it, especially when you've been developing for five years. It's like writing something for five years: at a certain point, you've seen it all so many times, it just becomes white noise to your brain. (None of which is to excuse Fish for not taking advantage of every resource available to him, if the posted stories are true.)

As for the notion of bugs you don't necessarily see, my favourite remains "Thank you for playing Wing Commander." - Origin's way of papering over a memory-manager error that they couldn't find/fix. It happens.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by fitbabits

Or you could look at it as a policy that encourages developers to release games without the need for constant patching, etc. If the financial 'penalties' were not in place, XLA would be flooded with games that were in various stages of being broken.

Correct. Also Sony charges as well, as backed up by devs stating so. MS offers the first patch free of charge as well, while Steam allows for free patching you also run the risk of broken shit. Each has their positives and negatives. Whenever a dev says they love XBLA(many have) they don't mention that THEY pay MS like these guys did. It sounds strange.

But its obvious that these guys have some issues internally. I just wish they could control their PR. Because aside from the japanese dev comments they made, they have this strangely fishy smelling statement blaming everything on someone else, the someone else they sought out to be exclusive for. At a point you have to take it on your own shoulders. But I really don't get it when they say they MS to release their game and don't get PAID. Either badly worded or something else.

[violent]

Originally Posted by fitbabits

Or you could look at it as a policy that encourages developers to release games without the need for constant patching, etc. If the financial 'penalties' were not in place, XLA would be flooded with games that were in various stages of being broken.

Encouraging developers to release perfectly coded games the first time around? Why not encourage people to learn to fly to beat the traffic problem?