Silent Hunter 4 Patch 1.1

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

And so... I talked with my editor, and he has decided, since the patch is out before the program is out, to review the patched version and then make it very clear to the readers that you need to get and apply the patch for this review to be accurate.

So, things do change! I'm still not convinced it's the "right" thing to do, since they're shipping 1.0 to all the stores, but I can take advanatge of the leeway.

Plus - it means I can stop playing 1.0 and play the patched version (as soon as the official released patch is out) - it is always frustrating to have to play a game that has problems that you know are fixed in a patch.

That's good news jeff ... do you have others like yourself that you could influence in the publishing business to do the same?

Uhmm? maybe a little coffee mug could be in your future ...
whoops is that a bribe

[Rickenbacker]

Same here, I'm reviewing the patched version (for a monthly gaming mag). If they read the review, they'll know they need the patch, so it all works out. No idea what the score will be though, ask me when I'm done writing :-).

And while some mags live on ad revenue, not all do. Our main source of income is sales and subscribers, and we don't let advertisers tell us what to write.

[vodkavera]

It´s finaly official at the SH 4 site.
http://silenthunter4.uk.ubi.com/

/VV

[Kaleun]

http://silenthunter4.uk.ubi.com/

[AS]

Just downloading the patch and wondering...

Can someone please explain to me UBI´s policiy? I mean let´s have a look at the facts:

-SH4 goes gold

-Beta Testers had had time enough to comment on the game

-the game is released, most people immediately complain about lacking sounds, bad interface etc.

-12-24 hours after the official (European) release date a 160Mb patch (!) PLUS a 150Mb German speech patch are released

Now it´s pretty obvious the patch had been developed some time BEFORE. What I conclude from this is that the game was released ALTHOUGH not all the programming was included. My simple question is: WHY the hell couldn´t they have waited just one day (or one week) in order to get the already patched file on DVD and into the box?

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question, I really don´t understand why a publisher would do this. I mean, they wouldn´t have sold LESS copies just because people had to wait ONE DAY LONGER...

So what´s that all about???

I´m waiting for the day when a patch is released two weeks before the actual game comes out :rotfl:

[ryuzu]

Originally Posted by geetrue

That's good news jeff ... do you have others like yourself that you could influence in the publishing business to do the same?

Uhmm? maybe a little coffee mug could be in your future ...
whoops is that a bribe

Good news? Apparently the patch can cause a CTD when trying to change depth by clicking on the depth meter... I suppose the question is whether that is better or worse than a crashing stadimeter and the lack of imperial units.

r.

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by AS

Now it´s pretty obvious the patch had been developed some time BEFORE. What I conclude from this is that the game was released ALTHOUGH not all the programming was included. My simple question is: WHY the hell couldn´t they have waited just one day (or one week) in order to get the already patched file on DVD and into the box?

Full explanation here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=78

[vodkavera]

I think that it takes a long time to print and produce thousands of DVD copys.
My guess is that it was ready at least a month ago!
During that time they have worked on the patch....

/VV

[ijozic]

Originally Posted by vodkavera

I think that it takes a long time to print and produce thousands of DVD copys.
My guess is that it was ready at least a month ago!
During that time they have worked on the patch....

Of course! They make a build that goes to copying and then continue to test and work on corrections.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

Don't wanna hijack this thread and turn it into a "reviews" thread, but just a couple of comments:

The writers I know and respect, especially in the Sims genre, are hard core simmers. Most, like Andy Mahood (a very cool guy, hard core simmer, and real life race car driver) are as experienced and passionate about sims as anyone here, and really WANT sims to be great, because they don't just review them and toss them, they play them for years. This generally, for the major outlets, is not some kid thinking "cool, free games" reviewing. Again - for the major outlets (CGW, CGM (rip), PCG, Gamespot, etc.) There's a lot of crappy stuff on a lot of less professional sites (incuding a fair bit of plagiarism and laziness, like when you can tell they spent about 5 hours total on a game.) And the writers do not give a flying fatooie who advertises and who doesn't. In fact, if there's unfairness, it may be giving little indie publishers more of a break even if the game costs the same.

You can say that you don't give a damn if the casual gamer picks the game up at Best Buy and doesn't like it and tells their friends not to buy it, but if you want continued support and a SHV they need some serious sales, or they'll put their development dollars elsewhere. There's a reason that I don't have a lot of serious flight sims to review these days, compared to years ago when I'd play/review a dozen new combat sims a year. Publisher can get more sales with a mediocre FPS or RPG, so they invest their limited dollars in those.

Don't blame the writers/magazines if the publisher ships review copies and retail copies with 1.0 (and btw, only with some titles do the boxed copies get updated with the latest patches) and reviewers have been playing that one for some time, when they could have waited a week or so and released the fixed version. That's not the developers' desire, by the way - they surely prefer to ship the best product they can, every developer of a sim I've ever met has been pretty passionate about their product. The reviewers' obligation is to the readers. Unless my editor tells me to review the patched version (when it comes out) - and I asked - I'll mention in the article that a patch is out that addresses certain things, but the main body is what they shipped. Hopefully one day every publisher will build in an "auto-patch" function, such that anyone playing has the latest patch, but until then, ship to the stores what you want reviewed. What's the excuse not to?
*********************

And so... I talked with my editor, and he has decided, since the patch is out before the program is out, to review the patched version and then make it very clear to the readers that you need to get and apply the patch for this review to be accurate.

So, things do change! I'm still not convinced it's the "right" thing to do, since they're shipping 1.0 to all the stores, but I can take advanatge of the leeway.

Plus - it means I can stop playing 1.0 and play the patched version (as soon as the official released patch is out) - it is always frustrating to have to play a game that has problems that you know are fixed in a patch.

Well said, Jeff. Glad your review will be based on the patched version. I understand the time constraints print is under but on the other hand, if the developer/publisher is committed to patching and improving a released game, I feel it's good to acknowledge that.

cheers
Neal

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by ijozic

Of course! They make a build that goes to copying and then continue to test and work on corrections.

Exactly right. Even when the RC goes to QA testing, the devs keep working on the code. I would like to have seen them wait an additional 3~6 months before releasing the game, but I don't know Ubisoft's financials. When I suggest to my electric company waiting a few months before I pay them, they say mean things to me.

It's a shame that the most complex and interesting games (simulations) are not the top sellers and bringing in huge resource pools for future development.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

When I suggest to my electric company waiting a few months before I pay them, they say mean things to me.

The difference is that your electric company doesn't deliver a faulty product (at least they don't over here).

The thing is: Players are more and more getting used to patches on release days or even before the official release. But what will be the next step? Look at the German version of SH IV. The game has been available for less than 24 hours, and the German customers already have to download two (2!) patches, which have a combined size of 260 megabytes.

With all due respect, no matter how bad UBI's financials may be, it doesn't allow them to rip customers of like they just did with SH IV. The game may one day become a good, or even a top product, but the current state of the game is simply ridiculous.

The problem is, as I said before, that loads of people still buy games on the day the games get released. And believe me, once SH V will be released the majority of people will have forgotten how bug ridden SH IV and SH III were on their release dates. They will just again run into the shops and buy a bug ridden product.

[JamesT73J]

If any of you have ever been involved in implementing software for multiple users (even COTS packages) will know this is the rule, rather than the exception.

With enough planning, time, and resources (that means money as well as man hours) anything can be achieved. Sadly in the real world the latter two are usually limited in some way. Hence this less than ideal situation.

Ubi will get it right guys, just be patient. The money you've paid isn't just buying the box, it's also buying the fixes; even though the dev team probably isn't even getting a penny for those.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by JamesT73J

If any of you have ever been involved in implementing software for multiple users (even COTS packages) will know this is the rule, rather than the exception.

With enough planning, time, and resources (that means money as well as man hours) anything can be achieved. Sadly in the real world the latter two are usually limited in some way. Hence this less than ideal situation.

Ubi will get it right guys, just be patient. The money you've paid isn't just buying the box, it's also buying the fixes; even though the dev team probably isn't even getting a penny for those.

I don't disagree - they are only selling the product because there are so many folks out there that are willing to BUY the product as bad as it is.

[Regio Sommergibile]

Nothing about patrol orders bug.

I mean when i receive a patrol order (binoculars icon) and it's always incomplete, no matter for how long you go around in the area...