Combat Mission - Introducing the $5 Vista Patch

[Jason]

<strong>[ Patch ]</strong>

Battlefront just did the wargaming community a solid by finally overcoming the Combat Mission Vista compatibility problem with patches for <strong><a href="http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=196&category_id=7&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26" target="_blank">Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin</a></strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=198&category_id=8&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26" target="_blank">Combat Mission: Afrika Korps</a></strong>. Hooray! But then they managed to sour this fuzzy feelgood moment by charging us $5 per patch. No, this isn't one of those mini-expansions or DLCs or whathaveyou, this is strictly a compatibility patch for Vista. That you need to pay for.

 

[OSK]

Wow. This has to be a new low.

 

[Sovard]

Cool. Shit don't work and it costs $5 to fix it. I have a couple things come to my head.

All of GOG's games work with vista and you can half of them for $5.99. Not a fix, a whole game that touched you in wonderful ways back in the day.

Second, I bet these guys will piss and moan about the Vista market now. How it's not their market, or there is no market for it, or how the desire to have the compatibility just isn't there. They will have the numbers to prove it, too, except it will be with dumb shit like charging existing customers for said fix.

Wow.

 

[Applegate's Breasts]

The Battlefront developer throws a tantrum over people complaining:

I agree!!! A game company offering support for a 6 and 8 year old game products is absolutely ridiculous and unheard of in my 30 years of computing gaming experience. Thanks for pointing that out.

Oh wait... you were being abusive. Silly me. OK, so please enlighten me. What software companies you know provide free patches for 6-8 year old software? Or better still, which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.

We were under no obligation, of any sort imaginable, to produce a fix for Vista for pre-existing customers. Not to mention for product that was probably 10 times under priced for the experience it has given the average customer per hour of entertainment. Perhaps 1000 times under priced for the hardcore customer. Therefore, if you think you have something to complain about for a patch which costs less than an average lunch out, go right on ahead and complain. If I could see into the future like that I'd be putting my money in the stock market, not wasting my time with this stupid game company stuff.

Steve

http://www.battlefront.com/community/sh ... ost1145246

I think the "underpricing" bit was lulziest.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Silly me. OK, so please enlighten me. What software companies you know provide free patches for 6-8 year old software? Or better still, which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.

Didn't Bioware release a Neverwinter Nights patch last year?
Seriously, someone tell him

 

[DraQ]

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of warez.

 

[Oarfish]

The fact that BF is charging $5 - a song and a dance - for a compatibility patch - NOT a bug fix - for Microsoft's uncompatible OS

Its totally Microsoft's fault that we are sloppy arse programmers who used hard coded paths rather than the appropriate API or tried to write to our executable file directory or used magic registry keys or initialised directx using a copypasta code sample posted on codeproject.com in 1998 by a 15 year old. Give us $5.

 

[Yeesh]

I don't know. I like free stuff, but programmers cost money. You can't really say that something that game out before Vista was supposed to work "in the first place." It's one thing to expect companies to patch their games for free because they fucked it up when coding (which practice, by the way, many companies that make tactical games *cough Russian* don't even follow), but do devs really owe you free compatibility with future operating systems?

I don't know.

 

[MetalCraze]

Yes they do. They got paid for the product, it must work.

 

[coaster]

It would have been better, if only from a PR point of view, to include new features, units, campaign, scenarios...whatever. Paying for a pure compatibility fix rather sticks in the gullet.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Why does everyone believe that patches have to be free? Especially if the product was never released for the mentioned OS (Windows Vista)?? This ain't communism, bitches.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

OK, so please enlighten me. What software companies you know provide free patches for 6-8 year old software? Or better still, which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.

• Starcraft: 1998; Latest Patch: 1.16.1 (2009) - 11 years.
• Diablo 2: 2000; Latest Patch: 1.12a (2008) - 8 years.
• Neverwinter Nights: 2002; Latest Patch: 1.69 (2008) - 6 years. "adds a dragon's trove worth of new content and bug fixes to the game". FOR FREE!!
• Doom: 1993; Source Code released: 1997 - 4 years.
• Morrowind: 2002; Latest Patch: 1.2.0722 (2008) - 6 years.
• Daggerfall: 1996; Entire game released for free: 2009 - 13 years.
• Elder Scrolls Arena: 1994; Entire game released for free: 2004 - 10 years.

I count four companies and that's just off the top of my head. Blizzard obviously win the patch game however id Software win a prize for releasing source code and making everyone code their own patches. Also patch-wise are BioWare who are doing pretty good. Bethesda surely have to take home a special prize though for releasing two entire games for free. Who else does that? ZOMG NO-ONE THAT'S WHO. YOU SHOW ME ONE OTHER GAME COMPANY THAT DOES THAT EVEN ID SOFTWARE MAKE YOU BUY THE GAME TO GET THE CONTENT IN THE WAD FILE.

Not to mention for product that was probably 10 times under priced for the experience it has given the average customer per hour of entertainment. Perhaps 1000 times under priced for the hardcore customer.

Yeah, that's not really an argument. He should charge more and see how that works out for him.

Therefore, if you think you have something to complain about for a patch which costs less than an average lunch out, go right on ahead and complain.

You mean an extra $5 on top of lunch I've already bought because it's not compatible with my fork? I mean okay, sure, he can argue he doesn't owe anyone shit but really. It goes beyond that. Good customer service. Loyalty. "Hey guys, here's a patch for a ten year old game that makes it work on Vista for free. How awesome are we? Tell all your friends!" works a lot better than "Suck it. I don't have to do this, I can charge for it so I will. ALSO MAKING GAEMS SUKS ASS LOL AND I SHULD B A STORKBRAKER".

If I could see into the future like that I'd be putting my money in the stock market, not wasting my time with this stupid game company stuff.

The guy's not really enjoying the whole game programming thing, is he?

It would have been better, if only from a PR point of view, to include new features, units, campaign, scenarios...whatever. Paying for a pure compatibility fix rather sticks in the gullet.

Except in that case, the actual Vista patch itself would need to be released free with the extra content being an extra $5 option.

Why does everyone believe that patches have to be free? Especially if the product was never released for the mentioned OS (Windows Vista)?? This ain't communism, bitches.

If I have to start paying for patches with no content...

 

[Yeesh]

If I have to start paying for patches with no content... :rage

But of course you don't have to do that, silly. Just don't game on Vista. Hasn't that been everybody's plan so far?

 

[mondblut]

Yes they do. They got paid for the product, it must work.

ORLY? Must it also work on some Commodore Macintosh 2048 that will replace x86-compatibles by 2030 or something?

They owe it to no one to foretell compatibility with future hardware and operating systems. It is, you know, the OS maker's responsibility to ensure backward compatibility with existing software, not the other way around.

Charging for patches is still not nice, of course, but if it's either paid patch or no patch and games being lost in incompatibility limbo...

 

[Ryuken]

These are games from 2004 and 2002 respectively, that's five and seven years old. There really aren't that many titles from those years which weren't compatible with Vista when it came out. About the only issues I recall were caused by DRM incompatibility (the StarForce/Tages shit) or poor engine coding.

I am not saying MS gets a free-out-of-jail-card here but if so many other games can run without problems on Vista, from earlier periods even, and that fans often make a Vista fix of their own for free then a question mark next to a $5 price tag is justified.

Even Horse Armor is cheaper than that.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

So I registered on their forum in hope of some lulz.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/sh ... 926&page=7

I posted DU's post with proper linking. A few posts later the thread got locked by a mod. His last post:

WWWolf - When we ban someone then it is for a good reason and with the intended effect that that person does not post on our forums anymore. What you are doing is effectively getting around the ban, and we cannot allow that. I have edited our forum rules to close this particular loophole. You will only get a warning for now, not an Infraction.

I don't know, is he mistaking me for a guy that got banned earlier or I'm such a badass poster that to stop me forum rules have to be modified?

What does "Infraction" mean btw?

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

I, uh... think he thinks DU is a banned member and you're passing on messages from him. Or something.

 

[kris]

I, uh... think he thinks DU is a banned member and you're passing on messages from him. Or something.

No they even said they thought it was "Killroy" coming back.

Also they ignorantly claimed Paradox have not made any patches for a 6-8 year old game. That is incorrect, EU2 got a patch in 2008 for Machintosh and one for PC in 2007 and it was released in 2001.

Total fail.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I posted DU's post with proper linking. A few posts later the thread got locked by a mod.

My posts are just that awesome.

 

[MetalCraze]

Yes they do. They got paid for the product, it must work.

ORLY? Must it also work on some Commodore Macintosh 2048 that will replace x86-compatibles by 2030 or something?

Yes.
Games are just like any other software. Non-gaming companies do such stuff always, it's like a norm and a matter of prestige and not letting their clients get upset. Unless game developers are somehow speshul. Software not working under a new version of the same OS? It's a bug - you must fix it.

 

[1eyedking]

Shut up and torrent it.

 

[mondblut]

Games are just like any other software. Non-gaming companies do such stuff always, it's like a norm and a matter of prestige and not letting their clients get upset. Unless game developers are somehow speshul. Software not working under a new version of the same OS? It's a bug - you must fix it.

Oh really? So that's why they release a new version of Photoshop, 3D studio etc etc etc every single fucking year, and guess what, you have to purchase it again every single time. You may stick with an older version, but don't get surprised when you aren't even able to load a file saved with a newer version into there, let alone it working in some future environment.

 

[MetalCraze]

So what you are saying is that every developer releases new version only with OS compatibility fix and nothing else?
Not mentioning that in Photoshop/3d studio etc etc etc they have a special option called "maximize compatibility" which lets all that work loaded into a much much older version (7-8 years old even). Oh and they lower prices for the old-time clients.

I imagine Nvidia and ATI should also charge for videocard drivers that they release for 6 years old videocards incl. for the new OSes every month.

 

[Burning Bridges]

then play photoshop and stfu

 

[mondblut]

So what you are saying is that every developer releases new version only with OS compatibility fix and nothing else?

There is hardly a *need* for a cosmetically changed version every goddamn year.

Not mentioning that in Photoshop/3d studio etc etc etc they have a special option called "maximize compatibility" which lets all that work loaded into a much much older version (7-8 years old even).

Strangely, the professional modellers I've been working with had to have like 4 versions of 3d studio installed instead of using that "special option", and to find out which exact version they should use for this or that project for third party contractors.

I imagine Nvidia and ATI should also charge for videocard drivers that they release for 6 years old videocards incl. for the new OSes every month.

So my old 8mb ATI Rage will work in windows 7? Hooray!