“We’re bringing the first FEZ patch online, it’s the same patch,” he said in a letter overnight. “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.”
And yes, that sounds utterly bonkers, and it’s one of the things that makes Sony’s PSN stand out for smaller developers.
The problem with (the quite lovely) Fez is that the first patch actually introduced a fairly major bug – it corrupted the save games of a number of users. Phil says it’s “less than a percent” but that’s largely irrelevant, especially if it’s you that’s affected.
“It’s a shitty numbers game to be playing for sure, but as a small independent, paying so much money for patches makes NO SENSE AT ALL,” he adds, “especially when you consider the alternative. Had FEZ been released on Steam instead of XBLA, the game would have been fixed two weeks after release, at no cost to us.”
“If you hadn’t already seen most of what FEZ had to offer, your save file is probably safe. It doesn’t happen if you start a new game,” Fish claims, saying that he believes “the current patch is safe for an overwhelming majority of players.”
The patch does fix a lot, save game corruption aside: framerate issues, loading times, death loops. It originally came out a few weeks back but was pulled when the save game corruption issues appeared.
“To the less-than-1% who are getting screwed, we sincerely apologize,” he says. “We know this hurts you the most, because you’re the ones who put the most times into the game. And this breaks our hearts. We hope you dont think back on your time spent in FEZ as a total waste.”
“Microsoft gave us a choice: either pay a ton of money to re-certify the game and issue a new patch (which for all we know could introduce new issues, for which we’d need yet another costly patch), or simply put the patch back online.”
“We already owe microsoft a LOT of money for the privilege of being on their platform. People often mistakenly believe that we got paid by Microsoft for being exclusive to their platform. Nothing could be further from the truth. WE pay THEM.”
Hardly an ideal situation, but where’s the real issue here? That Microsoft charge so much money for a patch to be certified, or that Phil Fish doesn’t want to pay it?
PoorPaddy89
“…pay a ton of money to re-certify the game and issue a new patch (which for all we know could introduce new issues, for which we’d need yet another costly patch)…”
This just sums things up for me; they SHOULD know if it will introduce new issues, and if it does then deal with them! Clearly their testing stage is a waste of time if this is the mentality of the company.
And where did they get this 1%> from? What’s that based on? If it’s reported issues you can be damn sure there were tons more cases that weren’t reported. Then again if their analytics is as reliable as their testing stage then this figure isn’t surprising.
Yes, it really sucks that these big costs can effect indie devs so much, but the lack of responsibility here is astounding and they aren’t going to last long as a company if this is how they continue, bugs or no bugs. They would have known the terms with MS and should have properly tested their game/patch before release.
Dazbobaby
I think everyone’s forgetting another important factor, publishers pay Microsoft for exclusivity, take a percentage of of your earnings, then charge you for patching your own game.
1. Why wasn’t the bug picked up my MS before the game went live.
2. Why wasn’t the patch bug picked up before it went live?
3. I think I need to make a console of my own to rival Microsoft and Sony, I’d be rich without making a single game.
You are all angry at Phil Fish, but it’s money that comes from the customers that pay for the game.
If games are exclusive, and have a couple of patches then eventually those cost will be passed on to us, either in the next release or through DLC.
hazelam
yeah, but the customers paid for the game already, and now he’s not gonna fix the broken patch he put out.
this is something i regularly criticise the big publishers for.
being quick to take the money and just as quick to abdicate any responsibility when something goes wrong.
Dazbobaby
And what if they pay the $50,000 what then? What if they introduce another bug?
What exactly are Microsoft doing for the money?
Publishers have to pay to make the game, and this can be hundreds of thousands of $’s, then they pay Microsoft to host it on their console, then they see their games earnings after Microsoft take another bite, then finally they pay $50,000 just to patch it a second time. What are Microsoft labs doing in the mean time? Testing to make sure the game doesn’t break the system security and nothing else?
first off Microsoft and Sony should be reducing all fee’s or giving money upfront for an exclusive deal.
Secondly they should be testing games and patches for bugs and helping out the developers and not trying to hamstring them into paying for a 3rd patch.
We all complain about bugs, and all games have them, very few people here know what it’s like to debug a game, beta test, and fix any problems that crop up. But now we understand what devs and publishers have to go through and the money they have to pay out.
Some one said they should go to steam instead. thats fair enough, but if more and more indie’s do that, where does it leave consoles?
hazelam
i’m sorry, but that’s their problem.
if they introduce another bug, then surely it’s their responsibility to fix it?
the paying customers deserve a certain level of quality.
don’t they?
i agree, the amount ms charges for this is tantamount to extortion, but like i said, that’s his problem.
he chose to go to xbla for the benefits, but he doesn’t want the responsibilities that go with it.
he could have made it an indie title, i’ve seen little one man outfits put out multiple patches for their games there.
but he wanted the higher profile that came from an xbla release.
and i’m sure he was made aware of things like this fee beforehand
and it’s not like this is the only industry that does this, you see those shelves on the ends of the isles in supermarkets?
companies pay to get their products put there.
there’s an unspoken expectation that if a developer puts out a broken product, they will at least try to rectify it.
he should probably get into another business after this.
people are going to be reluctant to trust anything this guy makes in future.
Nickboss1
Let me sort this crisis out with 6 little words.
DONT RELEASE YOUR GAMES ON XBLA……..thank you :)
Sympozium
Why not, they’d still get money from sales right?
Nickboss1
Come to psn people here are much nicer.
Nickboss1 does not indorse sony product. Terms and condition my apply. See below for full details.
Dazbobaby
But then you’d complain that not enough games are being released on consoles.
Nickboss1
I dont conplain. I get EVEN!
Sympozium
I can’t blame him, if I made games consoles certainly won’t be the affordable path to take.
Sympozium
Oops…. that reads as if I would make Games Consoles. Silly me
Kev
Although it seem obvious now, I had never considered that patches would have a cost attached to them. But at least this explains why a trophy patch for MGS4 still hasn’t surfaced – why would you spend x amount without any return. Most gamers would either already have the game or buy it pre-owned rather than a brand new copy, unless of course you could only get the trophy patch by buying a special edition game … (doh)
Forrest_01
Erm, a trophy patch for MGS was announced the other day!
But you are on the right lines if you have to weigh up cost of the patch against what it’s actually going to fix.
Nickboss1
Actually i think i really can sort this crisis out in 3 words:
KICK STARTER PATCHES!
If you want your games fixed you donate, simple….. NEXT!
hazelam
don’t say stuff like that.
somebody from ea might be reading this. O_O
Nickboss1
Oh maybe i didn’t think my previous comment through. Can you imaging what would happen if publishers like Activion or EA get hold of my previous comment. We could all see costly DLC Patches being released EVERYWHERE! TSA you have my permission to delete/remove my previose comment by however means possible :)
The Lone Steven
If we have to start paying to get our games fixed in order for them to be playable, i’m sending Tuffcub around to have a “word” with you. ;)
Nickboss1
If Tuffcub doesnt remove my comment then I cant be held responsible for any costly DLC patches that may get released.
I do however want 10% from any publishers or devlopers for releasing costly DLC patches.
I will pobably have to leave the uk and find a very small secluded island rather than live in fear of some angry gamer trying to kill me.
colmshan1990
You cannot hide from angry gamers.
Bin Laden was rumoured to be involved with the PSN hack. They got him days after it went down.
It didn’t take the gamers long after they were properly motivated.
The Lone Steven
But only Peter has the power to remove comments as he has implented Hug if you want a favour policy. Plus, you can’t hide from gamers. We will find you and force you to place ET:the game for the rest of your life as well as Duke Nukem Forever. And as a extra treat, force you to listen to JB.
I’m surprised the bald space marine wasn’t involved, although does explain lack of massive explosion and walking in slow motion. ;)
Nickboss1
Ok screw the 10% i’m outta here!
Good bye tea and scones……..hello coconuts.
The Lone Steven
I knew MS charged a bit for patches but not that much! 10grand plus for a single patch is too much for some developers/publishers. I would understand if it was the total for 5 or more patches but 1? No wonder some publishers refuse to patch their games. That said, he shouldn’t have agreed to those terms as he is now in a position where he has to decide whether to risk driving away the fanbase or pay a lot of cash and hope that it doesn’t cause his studio to get into debt.
He should have went with Sony and Valve as i think they are a bit more lenient with the cost of patches. Also, i didn’t know that they had to pay MS. :O I thought MS gave them an incentive to allow their game to only be on XBLA. I wonder if he is planning to release it on Steam and PSN when the exclusive deal runs out?(if it’s a timed exclusive)
Grey_Ghost13
One thing this article makes me appreaciate (I’m looking for a silver linning in this cluster fuck of a situation) are developers that do patch games. Even if charges are cheaper on PSN, thank you Polyphony for the number of great updates we’ve had for PS3, even a full year after release. Yes I am a GT fanboy!
Makes you understand also why alot of games get pre-DLC patches, I know part of it is to prepare the game for the DLC, but it makes sense to put some fixes in there also and absorb the cost into the DLC costs.
colmshan1990
Anyone defending these developers for taking this stance:
What would you guys say if the word ‘Polytron’ was replaced with Activision or EA?
Microsoft may be charging too much (I don’t know how many developers have complained about them before and literally nothing was said about what Sony charge by the developer) but they chose to go with Microsoft.
This is apparently an easy fix too- it would have taken 2 weeks to fix if it were released on Steam- well, why didn’t they test the game or the patch and add those 2 weeks then! And at no cost too? It really mustn’t involve much coding if you aren’t paying your programmers anything. It sounds like it this is squarely Polytron’s fault.
Finally, the idea that they owe Microsoft a lot of money for publishing exclusively on their platform. I find this utterly laughable. I’m pretty sure they’re making a lot more from sales than they are spending on licensing.
If anyone owes anyone anything, I’d assume it’s Microsoft owing them money, not the other way around.