Console Patch 3 Release?

[tazzron]

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.

It wasn't a mistake to presume co-op would have been released sooner than this, that is without question. The "no timescale for delivery" comment is a cop out, something even Big Ant does not use as an excuse.

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.

It didn't 'obviously' need significant work. When they say it needed more "testing and refinement", that clearly suggests it specifically didn't need significant work. You don't refine something by making significant changes. Which leads me to think they didn't prioritise getting co-op right enough for release in patch 2.5.

 

[Daniboy95]

Can u answer one question bro, if the co op was added in patch 2.5 with some uncorrected glitches, what would u have done with that.

Would u simply say that "I have got co-op, but I never mind the glitches"?

After understanding ur need (or interest) for co-op, I guess u would have been the first person to raise a complaint against the co-op that was released without the refinement.

 

[mixz0r]

I'm going out to buy the PS4 version as soon as Patch 3 drops. The PS3 controller feels crap once you go to PS4!

Looks like I'm restarting my career again (again).

I've been spruiking DBC14 for a long time; ever since I heard it was coming out (just after the other one flopped in 2013). I have about 6 cricket-game-enthusiast mates who have been asking me for a very long time 'has that cricket game got 2 player yet?'. I'm pretty sure they'll all make the investment now as well.

Good work @BigAntStudios and team.

UNSUBSCRIBE

 

[BigAntStudios]

We have done the best that we could under the circumstances, circumstances that cannot be known by anyone outside of Tru Blu and Big Ant - there is no point second guessing from the outside what we could or should have done or what the state of the code is or was, it is reasonably irrelevant and performed with 20/20 hindsight.

The decisions made are in the best interests of the purchasers of DBC and honouring the deal struck prior to purchase that there would be co-op.

 

[tazzron]

Can u answer one question bro, if the co op was added in patch 2.5 with some uncorrected glitches, what would u have done with that.

Would u simply say that "I have got co-op, but I never mind the glitches"?

After understanding ur need (or interest) for co-op, I guess u would have been the first person to raise a complaint against the co-op that was released without the refinement.

That question is somewhat irrelevant because I'm not saying they should have rushed through a glitch ridden co-op mode. I'm saying they didn't prioritise co-op enough.

But just to answer anyways, I would point out the relevant glitches like I have done with any other glitch that exists in the game.

 

[blockerdave]

It wasn't a mistake to presume co-op would have been released sooner than this, that is without question. The "no timescale for delivery" comment is a cop out, something even Big Ant does not use as an excuse.

it's neither a cop-out nor an excuse, but a statement of fact.

you bought a product that you knew didn't have the feature you wanted.

i'll agree it's not unreasonable to have assumed it would have come out by now, but there was no promise or other guarantee of it being so.

therefore, given you had already stopped playing the game on a previous platform because of the lack of that feature, it was unreasonable to not simply defer your purchase until you knew the feature you prioritised over the significant improvements subsequently delivered was included.

 

[Daniboy95]

That question is somewhat irrelevant because I'm not saying they should have rushed through a glitch ridden co-op mode. I'm saying they didn't prioritise co-op enough.

But just to answer anyways, I would point out the relevant glitches like I have done with any other glitch that exists in the game.

How do you feel that we can set the priority list for the developers to get added in the patches or any development.

For any developer the priority will be to correct the glitches and errors that are already there in the game rather than adding an additional feature. Correct me if I am wrong.

As Ross mentioned in one of his posts, if we only got the co-op for the consoles and all the other glitches were left unattended, there would have been several more threads for each and every propblem in the game. PC version would have been completely updated and the console versions would have been nowhere near to it.

 

[tazzron]

it's neither a cop-out nor an excuse, but a statement of fact.

you bought a product that you knew didn't have the feature you wanted.

i'll agree it's not unreasonable to have assumed it would have come out by now, but there was no promise or other guarantee of it being so.

therefore, given you had already stopped playing the game on a previous platform because of the lack of that feature, it was unreasonable to not simply defer your purchase until you knew the feature you prioritised over the significant improvements subsequently delivered was included.

I thought that I would buy the PS4 version and simulate co-op through swapping controllers until co-op arrived, which you agree I was right to assume that it would have arrived earlier. No one would have even considered the possibility that co-op would take 15 months to arrive. So to say that there was no timescale given thus I should have considered the possibility that co-op would take as long as it takes for a whole new version of a game to come out (and therefore hold off buying the PS4 version) is unfair.

 

[tazzron]

How do you feel that we can set the priority list for the developers to get added in the patches or any development.

For any developer the priority will be to correct the glitches and errors that are already there in the game rather than adding an additional feature. Correct me if I am wrong.

As Ross mentioned in one of his posts, if we only got the co-op for the consoles and all the other glitches were left unattended, there would have been several more threads for each and every propblem in the game. PC version would have been completely updated and the console versions would have been nowhere near to it.

Why is there always an either or argument? In this case, either co-op with no glitches attended to or no co-op and all glitches attended to. That should not be the choice. In light of the promise they made, a compromise should have been made.

 

[BigAntStudios]

Why is there always an either or argument? In this case, either co-op with no glitches attended to or no co-op and all glitches attended to. That should not be the choice. In light of the promise they made, a compromise should have been made.

Because I am telling you it was exactly that - an either or situation and I made the call on it.

"a compromise should have been made" and it was, and here we are.

 

[blockerdave]

Because I am telling you it was exactly that - an either or situation and I made the call on it.

"a compromise should have been made" and it was, and here we are.

If you take the Henry Clay / Lary David approach that a good compromise leaves both sides unhappy: I'm unhappy that you cut off improvements before giving me more AI edges, & tampon is unhappy that you made any improvements at all... so you can be very satisfied on a job well done!

p.s. this is intended as a joke, not an insult
p.p.s no, that isn't an autocorrect

 

[tazzron]

Because I am telling you it was exactly that - an either or situation and I made the call on it.

"a compromise should have been made" and it was, and here we are.

Are you implying that if you did not work on any of the problems in patch 2, you'd have been able to release co-op in place of patch 2.5? Why not address some of the bugs while working on co-op? In any case, if that was the situation, fair enough.

Even if I concede the current outcome is the best you could have come up with, it doesn't change my frustration at how long it's taking (which I feel is justified) and the fact that I bought the PS4 version expecting co-op to arrive in the near future, and after all this time it still isn't here. I guess if you had more knowledge of when co-op would actually arrive and had communicated that to us between the months of making the promise and the PS4 version being released, I'd have felt a little better about the situation.

 

[Biggs]

You have had me and a bunch of others and now the CEO of the company, telling you you're wrong and you just continue to ignore him and everyone else... I told you this shit pages ago. Repeat; You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Biggs]

I'm unhappy that you cut off improvements before giving me more AI edges, & tampon is unhappy that you made any improvements at all... so you can be very satisfied on a job well done!

I'm utterly baffled by the evolution of the argument now. It's apparently "you should have given us a broken co-op instead of fixing bugs and other improvements" because apparently months ago there was the rabid demand for co-op on consoles that we all totally missed in all those threads and stuff... Oh and, nobody would complain about broken co-op being pushed into consoles and that totally wouldn't have caused issues months on from the community... and apparently it's cool to make things up, buy versions of the game that don't have features at all and blame others for that.

This is the strangest thread of all time.

 

[tazzron]

You have had me and a bunch of others and now the CEO of the company, telling you you're wrong and you just continue to ignore him and everyone else... I told you this shit pages ago. Repeat; You're embarrassing yourself.

5-6 people either understand my logic or agree with me.