More beta patches in the future?

[Ozymandous]

From what has been said thus far the feeling is that we may get one more "official" patch, if that, before the process is done. Since most people who have played games long term understand that rarely do "mega-patches" solve everything or tweak a game into what it *could/should* be, can we have multiple "beta" patches instead?

By "beta" patch I mean like the one we have now. A patch tested just enough to make sure it doesn't crash the game, but put out in enough time to get feedback from enough of a test bed to see what's really working or not. A "beta" patch could be released for any GUI or design changes, to see if they really work or not, or to tweak a part of the game that might have changed a little but QSI may not be sure people will be happy with.

"Beta" patches could be rolled out for different small things and then combined and meshed once they have been refined into their psuedo-permanent form.

Now some will say there are already "beta testers" but how large is the pool? 10? 20? 50? 100? The game is already out so it's not like there is a large amount of secrecy that still needs to be kept regarding that so why not enlarge the pool of testers? Put out additional public 'beta' patches and have people beat them up, wring them out and say what's good and bad.

One or even two "mega" patches aren't going to cut it. Let the folks who *want* to help mold the game with insight, patience and good ideas do so, we'll all end up with a better game in the long run.

[grinningman]

I'd like to add that the current way of releasing a beta patch before the 'official' patch seems to have worked really well. Fans have been giving positive feedback about bugs in the patch, and QSI have been listening and fixing them as they are verified.

It's great to see a bug reported one day, and then the fix up on the official patch info thread a few days later.

I think it would really help improve and balance the game if the next patch could go through this same beta patch -> feedback from fans -> official patch process. (There is going to be another patch, right? :))

[Craig P.]

I'm not sure QSI wouldn't like to do that, but the issue is that anything that changes the core exe has to go through Atari copy protection and hence two weeks of Atari QA.

[grinningman]

Originally posted by Craig P.
I'm not sure QSI wouldn't like to do that, but the issue is that anything that changes the core exe has to go through Atari copy protection and hence two weeks of Atari QA.

I know, but they (QSI, Chantz?) seem to have got around this requirement for the recent code patch. We're asking if they can do it again.

You might be right in saying that QSI don't have any clout when it comes do doing things like this. In that case, we're asking Chantz/Atari to do it.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by grinningman
I know, but they (QSI, Chantz?) seem to have got around this requirement for the recent code patch.Not at all. We got the beta patch after a 2-week pass through Atari QA. Now the final release candidate is getting another 2-week pass through Atari QA. I can see this happening again in the future for substantial patches, but not more frequent ones of the sort that I think Ozymandous proposed.

[Daveybaby]

Just one more example of how copy protection hurts legitimate customers, while doing *nothing* to deter piracy.

FYI, this problem isnt limited to QSI/Atarigrammes. Medieval:Total War still has some serious bugs (including some new ones introduced by the recent expansion pack) and there are no plans to produce any more patches. Although it hasnt been explicitly stated, i strongly suspect that this is due to the QA costs incurred due to the publisher requiring that every patch be a formal release, which is directly due to the insistence on adding copy proection which will be cracked within an hour of the patch being released.

[richieelias]

We all know about your copy protection conspiracy theory Davey, but QA is about making sure that the patch doesnt completely screw up peoples computers or destroy the game in some way. Nothing to do with copy protection. And if Atari says that any code patch has to go through 2 weeks of QA, then thats it. final. Not going to get around it. As far as Quicksilver is concerned, Atari is god.

[Phezzan]

Originally posted by richieelias
We all know about your copy protection conspiracy theory Davey, but QA is about making sure that the patch doesnt completely screw up peoples computers or destroy the game in some way. Nothing to do with copy protection. And if Atari says that any code patch has to go through 2 weeks of QA, then thats it. final. Not going to get around it. As far as Quicksilver is concerned, Atari is god.
I agree with Davey, and I realize you are right.
I feel no paradox.

I also believe that allowing QA to work on other projects and just releasing weekly beta patches would be a great thing, and would result in a much better game per unit time. Alas - I do not pull the strings, nor do I presume that I know how to. But of end product I am certain. I offer the game as it currently stands, and these forums as evidence that I am right.

Phez

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by richieelias
We all know about your copy protection conspiracy theory Davey, but QA is about making sure that the patch doesnt completely screw up peoples computers or destroy the game in some way. Nothing to do with copy protection.I think you've missed the sequence of cause and effect here.

1) moo3.exe must be released with Atari copy protection (to which QSI does not have access).
2) Atari wishes to do a QA cycle prior to applying copy protection and releasing.
3) Ergo, no changes to moo3.exe can be made without going through a full two week QA cycle.

Without the copy protection, there would at least be one less barrier to QSI doing a direct release of in-progress patches -- I'm not saying there would be such provided without the Atari copy protection, just that the Atari copy protection is a showstopper. As such, there is indeed a direct link between the copy protection and the QA cycle.

[grinningman]

Originally posted by Craig P.
Not at all. We got the beta patch after a 2-week pass through Atari QA. Now the final release candidate is getting another 2-week pass through Atari QA. I can see this happening again in the future for substantial patches, but not more frequent ones of the sort that I think Ozymandous proposed.

I don't want to put words in Ozy's mouth, but I think he'd be happy with one mega-patch that has a new beta version released two or three times during the patch development, so that fans can give feedback before it is finalised. It's effectively the same as releasing lots of little patches.

That's what I'd like: one more code patch with an official release date in mid 2005. Until then, they can release an updated beta version of it every two weeks. Starting, say, two weeks from now :).

[Daveybaby]

Originally posted by richieelias
We all know about your copy protection conspiracy theory Davey,
Wierd... you say that as if its something ive discussed before... but IIRC this is the first time ive posted about it.


but QA is about making sure that the patch doesnt completely screw up peoples computers or destroy the game in some way. Nothing to do with copy protection. And if Atari says that any code patch has to go through 2 weeks of QA, then thats it. final. Not going to get around it.

Yes.... and the reason it needs to go through 2 weeks of atari QA is because atari has decreed that it is the only one allowed to release code patches... because atari need to add its copy protection to every release. Or... heaven forbid... the pirates might not have to wait that extra half an hour while the thing is re-cracked.

Why do you *think* QS are trying to make sure that as many parameters are externalised as possible? Its because then they can release data patches, which dont need atari QA, because they dont break the oh-so-important (more important to atari than the actual quality of the game) copy protection.

[Daveybaby]

Originally posted by grinningman
I don't want to put words in Ozy's mouth, but I think he'd be happy with one mega-patch that has a new beta version released two or three times during the patch development, so that fans can give feedback before it is finalised. It's effectively the same as releasing lots of little patches.
Thats the problem. Its exactly the same... Therefore it costs atari just as much to get a beta patch out of the door as a 'proper' patch.

I'm pretty sure there is a pot of money somewhere inside atari for funding these activities on moo3. Once its dry... we may not see another patch, ever (even if QS have written one). The fact that this patch has been released twice has probably made a further 'mega' patch less likely.

[zesuila]

Yes! With the fabulous case of Disney who extended the almighty copyright time, we will have moo3 source code in no less than 70 years! Imagine all the improvements the community(if there are still humans on this planet at that time...) will be able to do!

I can't wait!

[grinningman]

Originally posted by Daveybaby
Thats the problem. Its exactly the same... Therefore it costs atari just as much to get a beta patch out of the door as a 'proper' patch.

I'm pretty sure there is a pot of money somewhere inside atari for funding these activities on moo3. Once its dry... we may not see another patch, ever (even if QS have written one). The fact that this patch has been released twice has probably made a further 'mega' patch less likely.

Unfortunately, this sounds all too reasonable :(. Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised.

[NameisToad]

Originally posted by zesuila
Yes! With the fabulous case of Disney who extended the almighty copyright time, we will have moo3 source code in no less than 70 years! Imagine all the improvements the community(if there are still humans on this planet at that time...) will be able to do!

I can't wait! I think I'd rather get the source code to MOO1. We can update the graphics and have a better game than anything on the market today.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by grinningman
I don't want to put words in Ozy's mouth, but I think he'd be happy with one mega-patch that has a new beta version released two or three times during the patch development, so that fans can give feedback before it is finalised. It's effectively the same as releasing lots of little patches.

That's what I'd like: one more code patch with an official release date in mid 2005. Until then, they can release an updated beta version of it every two weeks. Starting, say, two weeks from now :).

That's what I meant. Release smaller "beta" patches that work on areas of the game that need improvement. Have the customers tweak them and see how theydo, and add improvements based on feedback. Once the individual fixes are made combine two of them to see how they work, get feedback. Then combine three, etc, until the whole "mega patch" has essentially been proven to fix most of the issues, then release it as the 'final' patch.

Interesting that IG/Atari has released some patches without the secure-cd thing because of the complaints but refuse to do so now. Too bad they don't want a good game on their hands instead of trying to protect the one we have now. *shrug*

[uXses]

I'm not buying Moo3 in the state it is in now, especially not at the 50€ it is still at in the local software shop.

Unfortunately, I'm starting to feel like the support from QS is drying up, so I fear we won't have any more major patches, with some of the extra 'features' that would make this game really shine. It's a shame really.

[Phezzan]

Originally posted by zesuila
Yes! With the fabulous case of Disney who extended the almighty copyright time, we will have moo3 source code in no less than 70 years! Imagine all the improvements the community(if there are still humans on this planet at that time...) will be able to do!

I can't wait!

I thought it was 95 with the possibility of never-ever.
70 is for individuals, what is the rule for companies?

Longer in the case of DRM or clerical errors.
It would be more likely that the source be destroyed before it could be released, and more likely still that no modern computer could run the antiquated code.

http://eldred.cc

Phez