ZylonBane on 18/1/2005 at 01:36
That may very well have been an honest sentiment, but it could just as easily have been Warren in Pod People mode. You know, the Warren that said peoples' biggest complaint with DX:IW was the installer.
Tortus on 18/1/2005 at 04:11
Quote Posted by Holywhippet
Perhaps this was a case where he should have ignored what he wanted and went with what he was good at.
IW sold quite well on Xbox. I can't find the source, but it was a press release from Eidos that listed the games that sold more than a million and the games that sold more than half a million, the latter of which included IW.
fett on 18/1/2005 at 05:54
:laff:
Fingernail on 18/1/2005 at 17:46
I hate all this NDA stuff for a released game. It's a patch. For a computer game. What's going to happen, Eidos' rivals going to release a hacked patch for T3 before they do???
It's not like ISA are dealing with CIA intel here. It's a video game.
lokki on 19/1/2005 at 05:27
Well, there are lots of reasons for NDAs... the most obvious is to curtail corporate espionage (but that happens, anyway).
In the case of a patch, it's probably because they haven't decided exactly what will be fixed, when it will be released, and how it will be distributed (rather, will it make it to new pressings of the game, or will there be an announcement that you should just go get the latest version from the site as soon as you buy it).
That's a very basic explanation, but it does mean something to the company. To wit; credibility. If they shoot their collective mouths off about some fix/feature, then fail to deliver, they look really bad. If they just issue the patch and list what it does on distro, then they don't look quite as bad.
Pheonix on 19/1/2005 at 18:25
Quote Posted by lokki
In the case of a patch, it's probably because they haven't decided exactly
what will be fixed,
when it will be released, and
how it will be distributed (rather, will it make it to new pressings of the game, or will there be an announcement that you should just go get the latest version from the site as soon as you buy it).
That's a very basic explanation, but it does mean something to the company. To wit; credibility. If they shoot their collective mouths off about some fix/feature, then fail to deliver, they look really bad. If they just issue the patch and list what it does on distro, then they don't look quite as bad.
Well, they could, at the least, say that they are working on "something." They don't have to give out details, just make a statement that they are aware of the list of problems with the game and they are looking into ways of fixing at least some of those problems. Notice, that statement doesn't promise anything, except that they aren't ignoring us. This total dead silence is a bit bothersome, to say the least.
ZylonBane on 19/1/2005 at 18:36
If a patch is actually being worked on (not particularly holding my breath), there's the additional concern that what many of us consider design flaws, they probably do not, since they're the ones who designed the game in the first place. So for example, why would they patch in an option to disable the load zone confirmation, when clearly they thought it was a peachy-keen idea to include it in the first place?
New Horizon on 19/1/2005 at 18:54
I honestly think it would be in their best interest to include a patch with the editing tools or at least provide enough materials to fix it ourselves. Oh well, we won't have to worry about load zones when we get the tools, we can merge those suckers...and...hopefully we can make some missions with Briefings. :)
TF on 19/1/2005 at 19:18
New Horizon, I advise thee to drop that signature image hack, they're not taken kindly by admins. :erg: