Console Patch 3 Release?

[Biggs]

...Prolly Southland, NZ.

 

[Culmernation]

My money is on North Korea

 

[Biggs]

...if there's anything North Korea is well known for, it's Cricket gaming and delayed Playstation patches.

 

[Culmernation]

I wonder how north Korea's relationship with Sony is at the moment....

 

[tassietiger420]

Hmmmmm, someone said something eerily similar like, pages ago...

If you want people to actually listen to what you're saying maybe don't fill your posts with snarky comments and an overwhelming sense of superiority over everyone else.

 

[blockerdave]

To give me the choice between having only co-op vs all the extra improvements in patch 3 is unfair to say the least.

Well, let's see from this thread:

genuine question: would you rather have got co-op on top of patch 2.5 as a patch 3 and that was it for support (patch 3 was promised only because co-op wasn't delivered in patch 2), or would you rather wait for co-op and get it alongside a truly transformational patch? because that was the choice.

I would rather have got co-op on top of patch 2.5. The 1+ year wait is simply too long.

so it's not unfair to say the least, is it? it's just reminding you of what you said.

the choice was the game as it was a year ago, + co-op or major improvements as well as co-op that would take time to deliver. Big Ant made the right choice.

 

[tassietiger420]

Big Ant made the right choice.

I agree wholeheartedly. While yes of course I would have liked to see Co-op earlier, with the way the console patches approvals process is it makes complete sense to wait until you have a full package of tested and noticeable updates. Rushing Co-op out would have only meant that we would now be in a situation where the PC version had been fully updated with all the tweaks and improvements and the console versions would be without all these changes.

 

[tazzron]

I'll only say it one more time.

There was only ever going to be one more patch for the Consoles. We made a choice to add Co-Op and a lot of improvements/additions at the same time, otherwise you would have only received the promised Co-op and nothing else. Some of these improvements are only recent additions to the PC version and have taken time to implement, test and balance with the Steam community.

If we had just implemented the Co-op function for the consoles and left it at that I would have saved a load of $$$ and not had people complain about the timeframe but they would have no doubt complained along the lines of "why does Steam have this and that, etc... but Consoles do not, I feel ripped off" - and there would be a lot more of them than are complaining now for sure.

In any case, I decided to wear the timeframe because the outcome is better in the long term for all Console users.

Okay, you promised co-op, then released patch 2 without co-op because it wasn't ready yet. Didn't you then release a patch 2.5 a couple of months later? For a feature that was already in patch 2, but ended up needing more "testing and refinement", you could have easily prioritised co-op a bit more and included it in patch 2.5.[DOUBLEPOST=1443088807][/DOUBLEPOST]

so it's not unfair to say the least, is it? it's just reminding you of what you said.

the choice was the game as it was a year ago, + co-op or major improvements as well as co-op that would take time to deliver. Big Ant made the right choice.

Oh I know what I said. I just don't believe that was the choice.

 

[blockerdave]

Oh I know what I said. I just don't believe that was the choice.

it was. both in the hypothetical i gave you, and in the statement Ross made above.

 

[tazzron]

it was. both in the hypothetical i gave you, and in the statement Ross made above.

It clearly wasn't. A patch 2.5 was released a couple of months later. Why is it that co-op had to be in patch 3, a patch that has taken so incredibly long to release because of all these extra improvements, when they could have worked on it ( or prioritised it as I have been repeating so many times) and put it in patch 2.5?

 

[tazzron]

I'm sorry I'm going on and on but I genuinely believe my feeling of frustration is not unwarranted.

 

[blockerdave]

It clearly wasn't. A patch 2.5 was released a couple of months later. Why is it that co-op had to be in patch 3, a patch that has taken so incredibly long to release because of all these extra improvements, when they could have worked on it ( or prioritised it as I have been repeating so many times) and put it in patch 2.5?

because obviously it wasn't in a fit state to be released alongside patch 2.5 which was for fixes to issues introduced by patch 2.

you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[blockerdave]

I genuinely believe my feeling of frustration is not unwarranted.

newsflash: it is. totally unwarranted.

you bought the game on PS3, then stopped playing it because it didn't have co-op.

then you bought the game on PS4 knowing it still didn't have co-op, and that while the feature was promised it had no timescale for delivery but you somehow think that wasn't a mistake and is all big ant's fault.

then when Big Ant say in clear words:

I'll only say it one more time.

There was only ever going to be one more patch for the Consoles. We made a choice to add Co-Op and a lot of improvements/additions at the same time, otherwise you would have only received the promised Co-op and nothing else.

you say in equally clear words:

I just don't believe that was the choice.

you don't understand anything about software development, and the fact that a developer would not remove a feature from a patch if it was fine - it obviously needed significant work.

you are absolutely embarrassing yourself.

 

[barjatya]

Wow

what was 'Wow' in that ?

 

[angad]

what was 'Wow' in that ?

The fact that someone stuck to the purpose of the thread. Its quite rare here !