PDA

View Full Version : Two Massive Patches Shouldn't be Required to Experience the Game Properly...



bruise2010
11-18-2012, 02:28 AM
... but they are, which is absolutely atrocious to those of us who bought on day one - patches should be fixing obscure bugs that are rarely encountered, not ones we've all seen.

Anyone else not going to buy a Ubisoft game on day one after AC3's bugs?

I don't appreciate a development team being rushed into this kind of thing Ubisoft, don't do it again.

edit: Don't get me wrong, I love the game and all that, but the bugs and lack of QA testing are way too evident for a triple A title they are going to have to fix eventually anyway. They could have released it later, but I guess Ubisoft the corporate side wanted it out earlier...


http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1341747&type=sigpic&dateline=1359432244

Assassin_M
11-18-2012, 02:29 AM
If you`re not gonna buy anymore of their games, Why are you asking them not to do it again ?

MT4K
11-18-2012, 02:34 AM
If you`re not gonna buy anymore of their games, Why are you asking them not to do it again ?

He didn't say he wasn't going to buy anymore of their games. He just said "on day one". Learn to read M http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/smilies/rolleyes.png lol.

Assassin_M
11-18-2012, 02:35 AM
He didn't say he wasn't going to buy anymore of their games. He just said "on day one". Learn to read M http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/smilies/rolleyes.png lol.
Oh... Sorry xD..My 2nd grade English teacher was drunk :P

Anyways..

scottmapex
11-18-2012, 02:37 AM
i completely agree with the title of the thread.

A game should come out completed. End of.

Ubisoft ( and other developers ) seem to disregard the fact that some people may not have internet , and may not be able to download the patches.
So what happens then?
Are they just supposed to put up with the enormous amount of glitches because they simply don't pay for internet?

Not everyone has the internet. But games these days require you to buy more than just the game. you need internet for the patches.

How is this fair? Do they simply disregard this because they know those people effected cant voice their concerns?

I love Assassins Creed , but i think the community deserve's some kind of acknowledgement from the devs.

Yeah yeah blah blah they are patching it next week. But all those glitches shouldnt even be in the game anyway!! Not that many. And they are still not fixing all of them!

But whatever. I wont get a response from a dev on this issue so no point right? Pathetic.

Jexx21
11-18-2012, 02:37 AM
That and it isn't required for all players.

Jexx21
11-18-2012, 02:38 AM
i completely agree with the title of the thread.

A game should come out completed. End of.

Ubisoft ( and other developers ) seem to disregard the fact that some people may not have internet , and may not be able to download the patches.
So what happens then?
Are they just supposed to put up with the enormous amount of glitches because they simply don't pay for internet?

Not everyone has the internet. But games these days require you to buy more than just the game. you need internet for the patches.

How is this fair? Do they simply disregard this because they know those people effected cant voice their concerns?

I love Assassins Creed , but i think the community deserve's some kind of acknowledgement from the devs.

Yeah yeah blah blah they are patching it next week. But all those glitches shouldnt even be in the game anyway!! Not that many. And they are still not fixing all of them!

But whatever. I wont get a response from a dev on this issue so no point right? Pathetic.

Bugs don't magically get fixed, it takes time.

bruise2010
11-18-2012, 09:40 AM
i completely agree with the title of the thread.

A game should come out completed. End of.

Ubisoft ( and other developers ) seem to disregard the fact that some people may not have internet , and may not be able to download the patches.
So what happens then?
Are they just supposed to put up with the enormous amount of glitches because they simply don't pay for internet?

Not everyone has the internet. But games these days require you to buy more than just the game. you need internet for the patches.

How is this fair? Do they simply disregard this because they know those people effected cant voice their concerns?

I love Assassins Creed , but i think the community deserve's some kind of acknowledgement from the devs.

Yeah yeah blah blah they are patching it next week. But all those glitches shouldnt even be in the game anyway!! Not that many. And they are still not fixing all of them!

But whatever. I wont get a response from a dev on this issue so no point right? Pathetic.




http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1341747&type=sigpic&dateline=1359432244

bruise2010
11-18-2012, 09:41 AM
Bugs don't magically get fixed, it takes time.

Of course, bugs can't get magically fixed, which is why you take the time to fix them before release and THEN release the game, rather then making paying customers wait or lose out if they don't have internet. OH wells :)


http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1341747&type=sigpic&dateline=1359432244

pirate1802
11-18-2012, 10:02 AM
I wonder, those who do not have the internet, how do they register their games?

TwoDents
11-18-2012, 10:03 AM
At least it isn't as buggy and glitchy as Bethesda games. Those are a nightmare on launch. Most of the bugs I have encountered are very minor.

CarthageBP
11-18-2012, 10:27 AM
i completely agree with the title of the thread.

A game should come out completed. End of.

Not everyone has the internet. But games these days require you to buy more than just the game. you need internet for the patches.



I'll agree with you on these things, and I've been burned by Ubisoft, so I don't exactly want to defend them per se, but let's be realistic.

It's a reasonable assessment that most of their market will have internet connectivity. They sell video games. People play video games on one of three platforms: A PC, a console, or a mobile device. We're talking here about a game designed for either PC or console. If someone is playing on PC, in one of the major markets (North America, EMEA) then odds are they have a gaming machine with some form of internet connectivity. Equally, if a person is playing on a console in those same markets, the odds are highly in favour of a person having internet.

10 years ago that wouldn't have been the same reasonable assessment to make, but today I get free internet service in my local McDonald's. It's cheap enough and widespread enough that assuming people will have internet, is no longer unreasonable.

Is it an "incomplete" product? Possibly. Is it inconvenient for some people to fix? Absolutely. Is that number statistically significant? Probably not.

BATISTABUS
11-18-2012, 11:03 AM
The thing that seems weird to me is that the game was apparently done a year or so ago, and the rest of the time they spent polishing, cutting, and fixing things. If that's what resources went to in that span of time, I wonder how broken the game must've been before that. :nonchalance:

playassassins1
11-18-2012, 11:19 AM
Clearly the OP hasn't played Skyrim, or any other Bethesda game...

ProdiGurl
11-18-2012, 12:16 PM
I think it's obvious that bugs & glitches are bad all the way around. They used a new engine and I do expect some issues with such an overhaul even tho it shouldn't have happened to this extent. But I'm sorry, I just don't dig scolding threads on a well known issue already that they've busted their rears trying to rectify for us..

And I agree about Bethesda....
As for internet, I do suffer with a connection issue in my area that hasn't gotten the high speed lines yet, so I can't play any MP & haven't downloaded anything ever.
850-920kb just doesn't cut it, so I avoid anything online. *sigh* Thankfully my game isn't a buggy mess. For the first time I finally experienced 1 real glitch of NPC's disappearing in Boston... I laughed and kept riding my horse to my next fun mission.

SaintPerkele
11-18-2012, 02:28 PM
So people are now basically complaining about the patches fixing the bugs? At least Ubisoft tries to solve these problems. Sure, they shouldn't exist at launch, but the day one patch came out at day one as the name implies, so it is basically launch (besides those who have no internet of course.But these wouldn't be posting on this forum either I suppose.).

BBALive
11-18-2012, 02:38 PM
I guess the trade off would have been less content. Would you have preferred less content or no bugs at launch? The bugs will be rectified eventually, but the lack of content would not receive the same treatment. You choice. Honestly, I prefer having more content.

You're right, major bugs shouldn't be shipped with a game, but developers have to work towards strict deadlines, and sometimes bugs will slip through the cracks. Besides, framerate drops, pop-in, poor draw distance and other issues are down to hardware.

Jexx21
11-18-2012, 03:05 PM
I think it's obvious that bugs & glitches are bad all the way around. They used a new engine and I do expect some issues with such an overhaul even tho it shouldn't have happened to this extent. But I'm sorry, I just don't dig scolding threads on a well known issue already that they've busted their rears trying to rectify for us..

And I agree about Bethesda....
As for internet, I do suffer with a connection issue in my area that hasn't gotten the high speed lines yet, so I can't play any MP & haven't downloaded anything ever.
850-920kb just doesn't cut it, so I avoid anything online. *sigh* Thankfully my game isn't a buggy mess. For the first time I finally experienced 1 real glitch of NPC's disappearing in Boston... I laughed and kept riding my horse to my next fun mission.
Is 850-920 KB your download speed? o.o

According to my browser when I download things, I normally get around 90-100 KB/s, yet I play MP and download things just fine.

pirate1802
11-18-2012, 03:08 PM
So people are now basically complaining about the patches fixing the bugs?

LOL my thoughts exactly when I read the title.

scottmapex
11-18-2012, 05:07 PM
Clearly the OP hasn't played Skyrim, or any other Bethesda game...

Thats kinda irrelevant. Yes Bethesda games are much worse for bugs etc. But it doesn't excuse other developers from being lazy , just because other developers are worse.

Now i enjoyed Assassins Creed 3. In fact i loved it.

But for a game that is their flagship franchise that was in development for 3 years and had a HUGE budget , the lack of polish is in-excuseable.

I can understand it with Brotherhood / Revelations because they only had 1 year cycle's. But cmon 3 years? And it still hasn't been polished? Its quite pathetic.

TrueAssassin77
11-18-2012, 05:31 PM
clearly the OP hasn't played DC Universe Online.... that game has had 21 patches....... and still has bugs from beta

Kaswa101
11-18-2012, 05:32 PM
I don't mind the smaller bugs in AC3, but Ubi's servers are terrible... Pivot-syncing is glitched, Limited Mode makes MP inaccessible and Leaderboards don't work properly. That makes me a sad panda. :( Hopefully the third patch won't be too far off.

Does anyone else have the glitch where sometimes after you fast travel, the game stucks for a while and the textures all around are really low-res for a couple seconds? It's been happening very often in the Frontier and New York specifically...

twenty_glyphs
11-18-2012, 07:11 PM
I guess the trade off would have been less content. Would you have preferred less content or no bugs at launch? The bugs will be rectified eventually, but the lack of content would not receive the same treatment. You choice. Honestly, I prefer having more content.

You're right, major bugs shouldn't be shipped with a game, but developers have to work towards strict deadlines, and sometimes bugs will slip through the cracks. Besides, framerate drops, pop-in, poor draw distance and other issues are down to hardware.

I would have preferred less content and fewer bugs. More than the bugs, the polish is missing from this game and that's bringing it down even more for me. A lot of the game feels rushed and thrown together. All the extra content in this game feels superfluous to me anyway. It feels like it's just there to blow out the size of the game for talking points in a marketing campaign instead of feeling cohesive. There's very little story to the side content, so it feels hollow to me. AC2 had less "content", but the side stuff was better integrated into the main game and had lots of interesting story.

The amount of bugs in this game is so huge that there's no way this stuff just slipped through the cracks. Map icons go missing regularly, the double holster glitch, disappearing NPCs... This is stuff that is not happening to a small subset of people, but triggered for everyone during regular gameplay. Then there's the awful mission balance that makes it feel like it wasn't play tested, because I don't know how you would have gotten through a round of that without feedback on how frustrating many missions were.

Sure, hardware plays a role in frame rate drops, pop-in, draw distance, etc. But ultimately, it's the software running on that hardware that determines a lot of that. If the frame rate drops, it's because the game is doing too much at once and taxing the hardware. There are ways to optimize some of that away, but it takes time and effort. If your vision is too grand to work on the current gen hardware, that's your fault, not the hardware's.

And yes there are strict deadlines, but the whole AC3 team knew what the deadline was right from the start of conception on the game. Failing to meet that deadline in a polished state is the result of poor planning, not some circumstances that were beyond anyone's control. I know shipping software this big and complex is no easy feat, but that's why they're the professionals. Cut a feature 6 months out if you have to in order to spend the time polishing the rest of the game.

The thing that really boggles my mind is the statement Alex Hutchinson made in Game Informer in March that they were close to an alpha stage, were going to have more time than usual to polish, and that their goal was to ship AC3.5. How laughable that seems now when this is the least polished game of the franchise. Considering the other times Hutchinson put his foot in his mouth during interviews, I guess it's not too surprising.

And based on past experiences with Ubisoft, not all of the bugs will be fixed eventually. They will patch a lot of things, but they won't fix everything because they won't devote the resources required. It will just eat into their profits at this point. There were several issues in Revelations that were never fixed, despite the 4 or 5 patches they released. And no amount of patches will fix the general lack of polish.

the_heat11
11-18-2012, 07:15 PM
While I do agree that Ubisoft rushed this game into stores, it does not in any way change my mind. I love this game. It's the best game i've played all year and would be my favourite in the series if ACII did not have such an amazing story.

WarriorAegis
11-18-2012, 07:16 PM
I disagree that a game should come out finished and totally polished with no bugs. Why? Because it's not possible. Look at Starcraft II, look at the Metroid series. These games had bugs in them. Not obvious bugs like AC3, but bugs. In Metroid, players would exploit these bugs to sequence break the game. Did any of them complain about it? No. They actually complained when those bugs were fixed.

As for StarCraft II, many, many patches will be needed to experience the game well. There are bugs, balancing issues, etc. that are needed for a complex game.

As for AC3, I would say Ubisoft rushed it. They should have waited a few months to polish it. However, what's done is done. One highly buggy game does not mean the next one in the series will be excessively buggy on launch. So, relax. It's not possible for a game to come out without a single bug. There will always be a bug in the game.

egriffin09
11-18-2012, 07:36 PM
I guess the trade off would have been less content. Would you have preferred less content or no bugs at launch? The bugs will be rectified eventually, but the lack of content would not receive the same treatment. You choice. Honestly, I prefer having more content.
This^. This game was developed with a completely new engine and the scope & size of the game is Huge. Are bugs that big of a deal that people have to dedicated numerous entire threads too it???really. If the people stop complaining about let's say a animal getting stuck in a tree or in mid air and I don't know maybe go kill another animal just like it a few meters away it wouldn't be so bad. Basically get back to having fun with the game and move on to the next animal or set of guards or whatever. Patch coming in 4 days. All this bug/glitch complaining is annoying, like AC III is the first game to have bugs in it. I wonder if these same people complained this much about the buggiest/glitchiest game in history Skyrim???

pirate1802
11-18-2012, 07:42 PM
Meh. I'd take more bugs over less content. Bugs would be fixed with patches eventually but they won't add new content via patches. Then you would have the fanwhine about how Ubisoft didn't add enough new content (there are some already, so imagine the situation then).

JediJabroni
11-18-2012, 08:16 PM
This is the new reality of gaming. The ease with which patches can be rolled out essentially gives companies permission to half-a their beta testing. Best just get used to it.

Shingram
11-18-2012, 08:43 PM
This was the glitchiest major game I have played in a long time. NHL, Dead space, borderlands, Diablo, all games I played the week they came out. Diablo was the worst b/c of server issues not actual game glitches. They took how long to fix these AC issues with patches? a week or two? How long was this game in development? Seems like a very poor job testing the product. That said in this age where we all have internet who cares? It gets fixed though the lack of professionalism is disconcerting at best. If you dont have internet I'd be shocked if you can't give the game back or get a hold of a fix somehow otherwise it'd be a PR issue I'd think.

As far as issues and bugs I had with this game there were a LOT. Running on a horse was oftentimes frustrating...way too often. Theres a foot between me and the tree why do I come to a full and complete stop? I actually got stuck in the ground during a timed mission where the game refused to let me dismount. I saw horses get glitched into buildings...glitched on top of objects. I frequently saw the lip synching was not even close to the words being said. The jump detection (despite rebecca's email claims to the contrary) was the worst I'd seen out of AC, 2, 3, BH, RV. On the chase Lee mission I wanted to launch my control through a window. Also worse I've seen in any AC game was the running assassinations. One missions optional objective as you chase a guy with a map piece on a boat you ahve to get three running kills. I tried over a dozen times I'd nail the first two but eventually you come upon two guys side by side and I'd just shove them instead of assassinating. Many times I'd hit A to use a body shield and I'd break D instead. Chasing paper and jumping to the wrong ledge.

Missions where you have to have someone folow you absolutely suck. I was guiding the black guy and priest to his pregnant wife and they both somehow dismounted on their horse and hid in hay! Pretty much on every mission though the check points were placed correctly and thank god or this game could have been disastrous.

ProdiGurl
11-18-2012, 08:55 PM
Is 850-920 KB your download speed? o.o

According to my browser when I download things, I normally get around 90-100 KB/s, yet I play MP and download things just fine.

Seriously?? The guy at the store told me if I didn't have 3MB that I couldn't play any MP & downloads might take up to an hour ??????
Maybe I should try it out & see for myself. But 90-100kb is snail slow..... don't know how that would work?
So far I don't need a patch but if I do, maybe I shouldn't be that worried that I can download it.

Chariflame
11-18-2012, 09:13 PM
I wouldn't particularly be upset about imperfections, but on multiple occasions the devs said that it wouldn't be rushed because of the 3 year development process, and that they'd finished the basic build of the game early on so they could spend a good amount of time before release perfecting it. There were a lot of glitches and bugs that have appeared in most, if not every game, which would of been very hard to miss during QA.

Silly glitches like floating muskets and ragdoll physics are okay, I can laugh at them and move on. But the amount of game breaking glitches (I had to restart my console quite a few times) was a little disappointing to say the least. :(

NumberSix1967
11-18-2012, 09:29 PM
I agree with the main post. A game should be as finished as possible before release. It's shoddy to release something that requires so much in the way of latter updates. Not everyone will get the chance to download the two patches, and it's those people we should consider, as well as the day/week/month one buyers of the game who will suffer from a heavily tested, yet in-need-of-more-testing engine. All credit to them for the hours of development, but I don't think it would have been too bad a circumstance to put the release date back because everything needed tightening up. Irrespective of the story's deadline, this is a work of fiction and can therefore be set at any time, and has been set at any time. If the game was to come out in March, then maybe we'd have had less patching and hey, who knows, maybe more time to have the content of the game altered too.

Mr_Shade
11-18-2012, 09:33 PM
With a game the size and scope of Assassin’s Creed III, it has taken an equally humongous community to ferret out the code gremlins waiting to unleash their treachery… but you’ve risen to the occasion admirably and have not hesitated to alert us on every communication channel available to you, be it Facebook, Twitter, our Forums or Customer Support call centers.


That's the official comment about the need for patches..


The team are supporting the game and are attempting to remove all of the issues some people have found.




I personally managed to play through the entire game, without hitting any - apart from a slight frame drop when it was very busy, however some have seen many problems.

AdmiralCole
11-18-2012, 10:21 PM
Look, all games have bugs with them.
This is Ubisoft's only way to fix them. A game can be in development for years, and it will still be really buggy.
Patches are GOOD. It's have them fix it over time, or keep the really buggy release day bugs.
Your opt, dude.

Jexx21
11-18-2012, 10:25 PM
Seriously?? The guy at the store told me if I didn't have 3MB that I couldn't play any MP & downloads might take up to an hour ??????
Maybe I should try it out & see for myself. But 90-100kb is snail slow..... don't know how that would work?
So far I don't need a patch but if I do, maybe I shouldn't be that worried that I can download it.

My official internet speed according to verizon is something like .75-1 megabits/second, but I have no idea what that is when converted to kilobytes. My MP is fine and when I download games it might take a day or two (games are normally around 5-10 GB), but it's nothing that I worry about.

zhengyingli
11-18-2012, 10:27 PM
Look, all games have bugs with them.
This is Ubisoft's only way to fix them. A game can be in development for years, and it will still be really buggy.
Patches are GOOD. It's have them fix it over time, or keep the really buggy release day bugs.
Your opt, dude.
I agree. Look at how long Skyrim's been in development, and still broken to this day, especially on PS3.

Assassin_M
11-18-2012, 10:36 PM
Love it how people think this a simple process...

twenty_glyphs
11-18-2012, 11:15 PM
Love it how people think this a simple process...

Think what is a simple process? Patching or polishing the game? I'm a programmer, and I know how hard it can be to fix the seemingly smallest of bugs. Sometimes it takes days just to track down the cause of a small bug. I know patches are difficult and take a matter of weeks, not days. I also know that many bugs will be deemed not important enough to fix. This is why it's so important to get the game into a good shape before it ships.

AC3 is the buggiest game I have ever played, and I poured about 200 hours into Skyrim. I would never expect it to be bug free; no game is. But this game has many more bugs than average games do. No, it's not simple to pull a huge project like this together on a tight deadline. But they managed to do it for 4 previous games in the series. I'm sorry, but the upgraded engine was not so much better than the previous games that it makes the decline in quality worth it. I still promise you that many issues will never be fixed. It won't be because the developers don't care, but because they'll only be allowed to work on it so much. Once again, that's why you have to get it right the first time and not think that patches will be able to fix all the issues.

Assassin_M
11-18-2012, 11:22 PM
Think what is a simple process? Patching or polishing the game? I'm a programmer, and I know how hard it can be to fix the seemingly smallest of bugs. Sometimes it takes days just to track down the cause of a small bug. I know patches are difficult and take a matter of weeks, not days. I also know that many bugs will be deemed not important enough to fix. This is why it's so important to get the game into a good shape before it ships.

AC3 is the buggiest game I have ever played, and I poured about 200 hours into Skyrim. I would never expect it to be bug free; no game is. But this game has many more bugs than average games do. No, it's not simple to pull a huge project like this together on a tight deadline. But they managed to do it for 4 previous games in the series. I'm sorry, but the upgraded engine was not so much better than the previous games that it makes the decline in quality worth it. I still promise you that many issues will never be fixed. It won't be because the developers don't care, but because they'll only be allowed to work on it so much. Once again, that's why you have to get it right the first time and not think that patches will be able to fix all the issues.
Also love it when Someone thinks I`m personally targeting him/her..

I was a Programmer too and my only Issue here is the people thinking this is a Simple Process with such a big game, Yes past games may not have had the same amount of problems, because they were not as big and as pushy as this one..

The Developers took a risk with this new Engine. It literally ****s with the Current generation of Hardware. It has so many exploits to actually manage it running. I agree that a game should not be shipped with so many bugs (I experienced none of the HUGE bugs reported....just saying), but I find it amusing how people still think this is a simple Process. A new Engine, outdated hardware and a GOD only knows Whiny fan base...Yes it was a Risk..

and at least we`re not paying for those Patches.Not that this an Extra..We Should not PAY for any patch. Those without Internet..Well..They have my Sympathies.

pacmanate
11-18-2012, 11:44 PM
Patches are easy they should do more noaw.

NumberSix1967
11-18-2012, 11:45 PM
Technical marvels aside, it was absolutely the case that the first release of AC3 had major running issues. There had to be a point when someone at Ubisoft said "release it" knowing full well that the game was littered with bugs. I can fully imagine many people pleaded for a longer testing/development period, even as far back as 2009/10 when the engine was in its infancy. Patches ARE good, yes, but it's not on to presuppose people will be okay with buying a game that just isn't finished and rely on a later update by way of an internet connection they may or may not have. It's not good business ethics.

pacmanate
11-18-2012, 11:51 PM
Tbh I think that this game was just too big for them to test it properly. It seems thats the case seeing that there are so many bugs and also so many blatent ones like the floating musket pretty much everyone got when playing it at the start of the game. You know which mission, the one where you have to shoot like 10 people with firearms.

zhengyingli
11-19-2012, 12:14 AM
Tbh I think that this game was just too big for them to test it properly. It seems thats the case seeing that there are so many bugs and also so many blatent ones like the floating musket pretty much everyone got when playing it at the start of the game. You know which mission, the one where you have to shoot like 10 people with firearms.
I'm beginning to think they made them float on purpose for that mission, because I've stopped seeing floating muskets afterwards.

bruise2010
11-19-2012, 06:33 AM
Is it an "incomplete" product? Possibly. Is it inconvenient for some people to fix? Absolutely. Is that number statistically significant? Probably not.


http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1341747&type=sigpic&dateline=1359432244

bruise2010
11-19-2012, 06:37 AM
Meh. I'd take more bugs over less content. Bugs would be fixed with patches eventually but they won't add new content via patches. Then you would have the fanwhine about how Ubisoft didn't add enough new content (there are some already, so imagine the situation then).


Sorry, but there is no trade off, they still have to spend money fixing the bugs, so why didn't they do this before the release?

http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1341747&type=sigpic&dateline=1359432244

bruise2010
11-19-2012, 06:40 AM
Tbh I think that this game was just too big for them to test it properly. It seems thats the case seeing that there are so many bugs and also so many blatent ones like the floating musket pretty much everyone got when playing it at the start of the game. You know which mission, the one where you have to shoot like 10 people with firearms.

It would have been nice if they had given the QA more time I imagine.

http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1341747&type=sigpic&dateline=1359432244

scooper121s
11-19-2012, 07:14 AM
Seriously?? The guy at the store told me if I didn't have 3MB that I couldn't play any MP & downloads might take up to an hour ??????
Maybe I should try it out & see for myself. But 90-100kb is snail slow..... don't know how that would work?
So far I don't need a patch but if I do, maybe I shouldn't be that worried that I can download it.
Are you sure he didn't just say optimal, he's probably trying to scam you to make more money. Idiots like that always try to rip off my dad, little do they realize that my dads a whiz with tech and tools

pirate1802
11-19-2012, 07:31 AM
Sorry, but there is no trade off, they still have to spend money fixing the bugs, so why didn't they do this before the release?

Its absurd.

There is a tradeoff. The longer you make a game wait, the more time/money it costs, and if they don't want to cut their profits, content gets cut to make space for the testing time.

bruise2010
11-21-2012, 03:28 AM
There is a tradeoff. The longer you make a game wait, the more time/money it costs, and if they don't want to cut their profits, content gets cut to make space for the testing time.

They'd have spent the money on patches anyway. I think it was maybe pushed out too quickly, thats all :)


http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1341747&type=sigpic&dateline=1359432244

Deuely
11-23-2012, 07:39 AM
I am starting to notice that the people on here saying "bugs are expected, bugs are no big deal, give them some credit...blah blah blah" are also the same people that have experienced very few or no bugs at all. Its EXTREMELY frustrating when you have been following this game since its inception, know the reputation of very few bugs in previous installments, and then this supposedly "polished" game comes out and you lose map icons, horses get stuck in objects, the audio doesnt sync, you lose primary weapons and cant get them back without restarting the game(which the patch didnt fix), and at the end of the game....the whole weather system pretty much stops (no more winter) (which was a big selling point of the game) its BS to say the least. With as much development time as they had on this game it is utterly unacceptable. Everyone expects small glitches for sure. But glitches on this scale when A: it has never happened before and B: they have had so long to develop and complete it. VERY disappointing.

ThCharlie2
11-23-2012, 09:08 AM
and they never fixed desmond's hump clipping through his backpack and the dyes still don't appear in the cutscenes.

SardaHD
11-23-2012, 09:33 AM
I can't believe that after 2 patches, the dual pistol bug still exists! AND the random open conflict bug! These have has been reported since day 1 and one screws up the guns in a half a dozen ways but this completely passed the devs by 3 times now?