Microsoft lift title update fee.

[DrTrouserPlank]

http://www.dealspwn.com/report-microsof ... bla-145924

I genuinely don't understand Microsoft sometimes. They'll happily shout news guaranteed to piss people off from the the rooftops (before hastily doing a u-turn), but then when they do something good it happens incredibly quietly.

Don't be embarrassed Microsoft. You are allowed to be nice every once in a while!

Anyway, news reaches us today that Microsoft have quietly revised their policy on game patches for XBLA games, removing the need to pay tens of thousands of dollars for bug fix.

Eurogamer reports that although Microsoft have traditionally charged a (sometimes hefty fee) always charged a fee for submission to certification and for title updates after the first free one,sources have revealed that Microsoft have altered their policy to make subsequent re-certification attempts as a result of a title update free. According to the site,this applies to Xbox Live Arcade games and full retail games.

The report mentions a few caveats, such as that developers should be careful not to make "an excessive number of re-submissions due to an update failing certification", as Microsoft would reserve the right to issue a charge. But it should make patching games post-release easier and more friendly for low-budget teams.

Furthermore, OXM reports that Microsoft's more lenient policies will also extend to games that fail certification at the first hurdle. According to their sources, XBLA games will no longer "be charged for resubmission if they fail certification - there is a single charge for the first submission, but if it fails then the developer is not charged for resubmitting it.

"This has apparently been added to assist smaller development teams who don't have the resources to test games as thoroughly as the larger publishers - although as with the title updates, Microsoft reserves the right to charge for excessive submissions."

This good news. This is positive stuff. This is change for the better, however incremental. Be proud Microsoft, jeez!

I wonder if this make it possible that we might get another update for SDOJ, or maybe even one to fix the mess of UnderDefeat HD?

[ZellSF]

I like how both Microsoft and Sony should be proud and gets praise for doing stuff right that no one should have managed to do wrong in the first place.

[trap15]

I like how both Microsoft and Sony should be proud and gets praise for doing stuff right that no one should have managed to do wrong in the first place.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, I can see how they'd wonder if certification for low-volume games could present opportunities to recoup that cost if it's done repeatedly or for free. Looks like they're going to give it a shot though, so it must work out!

Aside from rare circumstances, I don't think bug fix updates are going to bring many people into a game. A game gets one shot with most people, and that's essentially been the story for so many gamers after the Xbox One DRM saga, who cite a non-functional policy being adhered to by one policy and not the other. (Not everybody is so fickle, but many are.)

This is pretty much the same story with "Windows 8.1" except that there's even less reason to be happy there, because it's not a service improvement to an existing system - although they are promising a rapid release model now - but it's just the flogging of Windows, where you have to pay out the wazoo for some broken attempts at diverting attention away from open standards (yes!) and for a handful of neat ideas that you'd actually pay a little bit of money for.

I think if Intel follows a "tick-tock cadence," Microsoft uses a "flip-flop" cadence, with new features mooted (and, now, occasionally reversed!) and made to work after a fashion within a generation...or two, or three, or maybe never.

Speaking of things to crow about: Opting out of Gmail's email-driven ads (by courtesy in roundabout fashion of a duplicitous MS ad campaign).

[Austin]

I like how both Microsoft and Sony should be proud and gets praise for doing stuff right that no one should have managed to do wrong in the first place.

qftt.

I'll admit though, it is good to see them easing up on it.

[Ganelon]

It makes all the sense in the world business-wise to not publicize this change so as to not encourage its abuse. I actually think this change to free patches will result in a slightly worse user experience and is a dangerous precedent. More pricing limits and conditions would've likely been a better compromise for players and publishers.

Yeah, games like Rez can get fixed now so niche game supporters should be happier than ever. On the other hand, early supporters of AAA games will likely encounter more bugs than ever since companies can just release early and save bug fixes down the line. And they likely will, because it makes more sense to have players QA the game to uproot the biggest bugs than to pay for even one additional tester. Players will complain but if every AAA game from here on out had bugs, then that will be the new expectation.

[gameoverDude]

I like how both Microsoft and Sony should be proud and gets praise for doing stuff right that no one should have managed to do wrong in the first place.

QIA.

The title update fee should not have been there to start with.

AAA releases like Call of Duty would probably spam out updates either way. Killing the title update fee would make it easier for Cave et al. to fix issues with something like SDOJ.

Patch, patch, patch is the way it seems to always be. Consoles have started to get a little TOO close to PCs now. I miss the "NO FUCKUPS... get it right the first time" policy of 32-bit.

[Sumez]

Yeah, games like Rez can get fixed now so niche game supporters should be happier than ever

Fez


Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your quote

[BulletMagnet]

On the other hand, early supporters of AAA games will likely encounter more bugs than ever since companies can just release early and save bug fixes down the line. And they likely will, because it makes more sense to have players QA the game to uproot the biggest bugs than to pay for even one additional tester.

Part of me agrees on this point, but at the same time I wonder if it'd really make that much of a difference; maybe you're aware of data that I'm not privy to, but at least off the cuff it seems to me that there are no fewer bugs to be found in 360 releases versus PS3 ones, despite the former having charged for fixes to a greater extent than the latter. If nothing else it seems that many creators would rather avoid said fees by simply leaving a buggy game in its messed-up state, as opposed to testing more thoroughly at the outset; the first example to come to mind is Konami, which decided to patch only the PS3 version of the Silent Hill collection, and plans to take the same path with the Zone of the Enders package, and just leave the 360 editions to rot. That isn't to say I approve of the path they're taking, but I'd propose that the companies are eyeing a path of even less resistance (to them) than you suggest.

[Udderdude]

I think the only reason they removed it is the 360 is reaching the end of it's lifespan, and they finally broke even on the damn thing.