Should SI employ an open patching strategy?

Maybe this doesn't need a new thread as there is a patch thread open but I need this to get noticed because I think changes are required. I believe it is a slightly different debate and would just get swallowed up in the patch release date thread.

My questions is; does FM require a different strategy for patching? It has been reported that they are following a 3-patch strategy, one just after release, another around Christmas and a final one in the new year. The thing is for a game that releases a new edition once a year is that enough?

I play this game slowly. I run a larger number of leagues and I play matches on full match speed. I take my time between fixtures and try to make everything as realistic as possible. All that taken into account it takes me a fair wedge of time to get anywhere.

It would be all well and good if I could play a reliable save from day 1 but I don't seem to be able to do that.

So far for FM10 it has gone as follows:

1) Started save in England and game crashed just before end of friendlies. Didn't expect it so hadn't saved. Never saved earlier than that in previous games and had no problems.

2) Couldn't get back into that game starting again so started a new game in Belgium. The game crashed just after the end of the pre-season friendlies. It the emerged that i wasn't the only one having this problem and further discussion has resulted in a lot of testing of a memory bug.

3) I started a new game in Scotland. I started to really enjoy this game and finished 4th to qualify for the D3 play offs. I got my draw last night but got hit with the memory crash bug just before the match. I went to bed and got back into my game this afternoon, enthusiastic about my semi-final. It was then that I realised I had fallen foul of a bug that stops the Scottish play offs from scheduling. The long and short of it was that this combined with very regular auto saving had left me with no reliable save to progress from and another save fubared.

Now I want to start another game because I enjoy this version of FM but I am reluctant to do so. I don;t want to encounter another game ruining bug after weeks of progression. In posting on the Scottish league issues thread I did a bit of further reading and have seen possible problems in countries as varied as Brazil, China and Indonesia. Add Scotland to that and there are 4 leagues that just don't work. If you look at possible issues in other countries such as Norway then I just can't be sure that I am not going to start a game only for it to become unplayable in 4 weeks.

Okay, so that is a long lead up to final idea but here goes:

What is wrong with an open patching schedule? It happens fine in MMOs (and I am a seasoned MMO player) so why can't it work in FM? If there is a minor problem in a league that can be fixed then why can't it be fixed with a minor update?

Let's make an example of Scotland. They say that they will patch a solution to the play off issue when the next patch comes out, but that may not be until Christmas, so here I am with a save that I want to play and could play if it was fixed. Thing is I can't until Christmas because the patch to fix a small issue can't be put out on its own. If it could then i could just get back to my save and enjoy it again before Christmas.

I want to know why not?

Dragon Age came out just after FM this year and Bioware released a small patch a few days after release. A week or so after that they released an update to that patch.

It obviously is a viable solution. If you have an update that fixes an issue without compromising other parts of the game then why not make it available? If you compromise something else does it matter? Something doesn't work and can't be played anyway.

Maybe the issue at hand here is really to make sure these problems don't surface in the first place, but that is a hot issue. I personally wonder if SI's test team is big enough to cope with the size of the game as it is anyway. Surely every league should be tested thoroughly before release. The issues cropping up make me wonder if it is.

So as it is I have an enjoyable save I can't play till possibly Christmas (if I even will be able to repair it then) and I am reluctant to start a new save and fall foul of problems with league rules and bugs affecting scheduling. I could play another save and play through it faster like a lot of people do, but that is not my style even though I feel a year between editions pushes that play style on people so they can progress further. With bugs affecting playtime of saves that problem is further accentuated.

Add to that the memory bug and devs suggesting we play smaller saves till things are fixed and we have a best way to play a game that has a huge depth to it. Why not just get rid of all the extras and have a smaller game with one or two ways of being played that is easier to catch bugs in?

I like FM and I've enjoyed my save up till now. I am not one to go off the handle but I feel let down by things this year. I am usually the one asking people to sit back a bit and accept SI are doing their best but I'm annoyed and now think it is time to ask probing questions.

Long post, I know, but I'm eager to read people's views.

i know its off topic, but can you guys on here give these si guys a break i think they have delivered a great game, which of course will have its problems, their only human, im sure the game will be vastly improved in future patches, as from threads on here many users think their repuation is on the line!! whatever happens they sare doing their best and you cant ask for more than that!!

Seriously what is a forum for if people can't put their opinions about the game on line?

thanks i totally agree, thats why i gave my opinion hahahahahahah

Let's keep it to the original topic. We don't need to be discussing other users posting style.

I think in the last 2-3 days I have seen about 30 patch threads, I hope Miles is reading this and not thinking about chrismas turkey!

Maybe this doesn't need a new thread as there is a patch thread open but I need this to get noticed because I think changes are required. I believe it is a slightly different debate and would just get swallowed up in the patch release date thread.

My questions is; does FM require a different strategy for patching? It has been reported that they are following a 3-patch strategy, one just after release, another around Christmas and a final one in the new year. The thing is for a game that releases a new edition once a year is that enough?

*snip*

Long post, I know, but I'm eager to read people's views.

I agree wholeheartedly. OS X in particular have an excellent framework for allowing software updates to be pushed out as and when they are ready.

If you're looking at it from a version management POV, it would be better if they could test their latest versions locally and then "migrate" the changes to our machines with a simple opt-in that opens up when you launch the game.

I don't know why anyone would have a problem with such a system, other than SI maybe having to implement it. From an end-user perspective, it means problems can be fixed iteratively. For example, Neil could fix my *SHOW STOPPING* Mac OS X bug tomorrow morning. Why do I have to wait until January to get it?

i know its off topic, but can you guys on here give these si guys a break i think they have delivered a great game, which of course will have its problems, their only human, im sure the game will be vastly improved in future patches, as from threads on here many users think their repuation is on the line!! whatever happens they sare doing their best and you cant ask for more than that!!

Suggestion: the next time someone makes a post like this one, we put them into a canon and fire them through the icy freeze of space, into the heart of the sun.

Seriously, though, why is it people bother with such dross? It's not a personal slight on Sports Interactive. Platitudes like "they try their best" don't make games work. It's imperative that they receive frank feedback from users. They say so themselves. If pressure from the community leads to an open patching schedule which means I am able to play FM 2010, like, AT ALL, then all the better for it.

I don't understand why people feel so partisan towards SI, as a company. Have you got Stockholm Syndrome or something? They extend us the opportunity to engage with them, which everyone is grateful for and which is unlike any other game developer on the planet (except perhaps 3D Realms... *sniff*), so really to not use it for criticism on occasions would be doing them a mammoth disservice.

Rant over. Please just STFU next time instead of writing another bleating handjob of a post.

i know its off topic, but can you guys on here give these si guys a break i think they have delivered a great game, which of course will have its problems, their only human, im sure the game will be vastly improved in future patches, as from threads on here many users think their repuation is on the line!! whatever happens they sare doing their best and you cant ask for more than that!!

To be fair the OP is written very well and more importantly, it is not just a pointless rant but it is constructive.

If I had the problems that anagain had that I would be very annoyed and angry with SI as for me it has problems but is playable, but with many people like the OP then this is not acceptable. You can say SI do their best and that the amount of data and game is so advanced and due to the amount of data there there will be problems but SI provide a game that we purchase and we as a customer expect the game to be satisfactory and 'do what it sais on the tin' and it many cases this is not the case.

Are the various 'big problems' out fault no, they are SI's problems and they as a company have a right to provide a product that is up to standard. Given that Miles has said many times that it was number one in the PC gaming charts for many months and no 1 or 2 game of all time and the amount of money that they make then they should have the expertise and man power do avoid these massive faults that make the game unplayable like the OP.

If many people like myself do not have any 'major issues' then they will say the game is fine but put your self in the OP's position and you may a different viewpoint.

One patch on release day and then waiting nearly three months for the next patch is unacceptable in my opinion. I haven't had many issues with the game except for a colossal bug which has been around for years. But those who would like to download progressive 'beta' or open patches should have the option to do so. I think the primary reason that SI waits to release a second patch is because of the stupid transfer window. Ignore that rubbish. Leave that to a pure data update when the time comes. In the meantime, there should be at least a monthly patch update.

In terms of a patching strategy then yes for me it is not up to standard. Instead of producing a patch that has the so called fixes for everything, why not produce a patch this is specific for the user. E.g. we as the user know what the major and minor bugs are regarding our game so why not SI produce lots of small patches that fix a certain aspect of the game. I know this may be just not doable and in reality it may be impossible I don't know, but I think we do need something different at the minute as we as the customers are not happy - just look at the amount of patch related threads.

Many people wait untill the final patch to play FM - how can this be a good thing?

This is certainly an interesting idea, especially the built-in update thing. Tho judging by the fact some people are so outraged that FM wants to report back about your system, I hate to think what they may think about that idea!

The point about MMO's is also a good, personally I'm a LOTRO player and usually get hotfixes for any issues that may arise after updates, but when the servers are shut down once a week I suppose this is an easier thing for those types of games to do.

Personally I havent came across any of the memory problems or crash dumps on either of my machines (1 is a Vista laptop with 2GB RAM, the other my gaming rig running Win7 64-bit and 6GB RAM) but I'm sure the people who have got these problems must be pulling their hair out at the fact that they essentially cant play their game.

It's in these instances that IF they issue can be easily found and fixed then a hotfix should be sent out.

i know its off topic, but can you guys on here give these si guys a break i think they have delivered a great game, which of course will have its problems, their only human, im sure the game will be vastly improved in future patches, as from threads on here many users think their repuation is on the line!! whatever happens they sare doing their best and you cant ask for more than that!!

Well, yes I agree that SI are a good team and I don't like to be the one bringing this sort of thing up. The problem is, though, I can not get a game going in FM10 due to bugs. My first 2 games were messed up due to memory crash errors and my third (enjoyable game) is unplayable because of an error that should not have emerged from a tight and thorough testing schedule...if that is the case.

I'm not one to be annoyed by a game. I am usually the one to sit back and accept that errors happen and that the devs do their best to make sure they don't.

It's been well over a month of FM10...nearly 2 in fact and I have yet to really progress on a save. Is that because of my slow playstyle or because bugs have hampered me? Should I play different than I want to get around bugs or should bugs be caught and fixed in an open schedule? There's only a year of each FM as it is. I paid £30ish for my game and why should I be able to play a version where the bugs are fixed only from Christmas, or whenever patch 2 is?

I don't want to lay in to SI, but I don't understand why small bugs that affect the continuation of a save can't be patched in small patch throughout the course of the year.

I'm annoyed that a save I was enjoying can not be played because of something that shouldn't make it through testing. It's that annoyance, coupled with the reluctance to start a new save game that could well go the way of the dodo in 4 weeks, that has led me to start asking questions.

I know that SI have shown themselves to be upfront enough to explain to me why this is the case. I feel like I am being corralled into playing the game a certain way in order to get anywhere or avoid game issues. I want to play it my way and I can't help thinking a relaxed patching schedule could be an idea.

anagain,

Are you basically asking for more regular releases?

What computer/operating system do you use? I'm just curious as you've had a lot of problems with FM.

One patch on release day and then waiting nearly three months for the next patch is unacceptable in my opinion. I haven't had many issues with the game except for a colossal bug which has been around for years. But those who would like to download progressive 'beta' or open patches should have the option to do so. I think the primary reason that SI waits to release a second patch is because of the stupid transfer window. Ignore that rubbish. Leave that to a pure data update when the time comes. In the meantime, there should be at least a monthly patch update.

I don't think they are holding the 2nd patch back for the data update.

There plan this year was to release a patch on release day, A 2nd patch around Xmas time to fix any bugs and a 3rd and final patch around Febuary with the data update.

I reckon a open patch could work. Last years FM was not good to play untill the 3rd patch. Which came out Febuary ish i think. Which only leaves you just over 2 months untill the end of the season in real life and a couple of months untill the start of the next season.

So not long after the final patch as come out, People are already thinking about buying up to date games for the next season.

Given that Miles has said many times that it was number one in the PC gaming charts for many months and no 1 or 2 game of all time and the amount of money that they make then they should have the expertise and man power do avoid these massive faults that make the game unplayable like the OP.

This is exactly right. I can't escape the feeling that there are people at SI who aren't up to the job. Are there people writing debugging tools based on the problems the game traditionally suffers? Are they held solely responsible for the problems which ship?

I think we need to draw a distinction here: coders do write buggy code on occasions. The number of problems is proportional to the number of coders you have. The more cooks, the more people potentially ruining the stew.

However there should be individuals tasked with writing systems to catch these bugs before they even get to live code. Those are the people who I would really like to talk to at SI

If many people like myself do not have any 'major issues' then they will say the game is fine but put your self in the OP's position and you may a different viewpoint.

Ah you said it better than me

One patch on release day and then waiting nearly three months for the next patch is unacceptable in my opinion. I haven't had many issues with the game except for a colossal bug which has been around for years. But those who would like to download progressive 'beta' or open patches should have the option to do so. I think the primary reason that SI waits to release a second patch is because of the stupid transfer window. Ignore that rubbish. Leave that to a pure data update when the time comes. In the meantime, there should be at least a monthly patch update.

In terms of a patching strategy then yes for me it is not up to standard. Instead of producing a patch that has the so called fixes for everything, why not produce a patch this is specific for the user. E.g. we as the user know what the major and minor bugs are regarding our game so why not SI produce lots of small patches that fix a certain aspect of the game. I know this may be just not doable and in reality it may be impossible I don't know, but I think we do need something different at the minute as we as the customers are not happy - just look at the amount of patch related threads.

Many people wait untill the final patch to play FM - how can this be a good thing?

I agree. I don't think the infrastructure is there at the moment to push these updates live (why on earth SI are still using mirrored downloads to install patches is beyond me, it would take a week to write a module that checks the software signature against a certificate on a server and then if it doesn't match, automatically notifies the user and begins downloading.) but it has to be something they consider in the future.

The key problem with patching like this, is that there's an overhead in getting a release out of the door. You can't just decide to upload a new patch whever you like, you need to be sure that that patch is as solid as it can be and that means getting to a point where everything's 'finished' and effectively stopping work while it's being tested and just focussing on fixing any issues that arise. Basically, if one guy's finished fixing a small bug, it's pretty tricky to release the fix if another guy is in the middle of fixing another massive bug because you don't have a stable codebase, you've got to wait until he's finished aswell. The more often you release patches, the less fixes you'll ultimately be able to include in them.

If I had the problems that anagain had that I would be very annoyed and angry with SI as for me it has problems but is playable, but with many people like the OP then this is not acceptable. You can say SI do their best and that the amount of data and game is so advanced and due to the amount of data there there will be problems but SI provide a game that we purchase and we as a customer expect the game to be satisfactory and 'do what it sais on the tin' and it many cases this is not the case.

I just wanted to get straight that I can play the game. I hope I didn't suggest that the game is unplayable for me. The problem is that i keep running into things that halt my enjoyment and I can not get going. I am now reluctant to start again if it means I may meet another issue. And I half expect to from reading the bugs forums.

I was really enjoying my Forfar game, but because of a probably minor issue that stopped the play offs from scheduling I can't play it. Now if the patching schedule was open then SI could find a fix for that play off issue tomorrow and release a small fix (I have provided save games). I'm happy because I can play my game and a bug is out of the way.

Instead we just get told a fix will be issued in the next patch. That's no good for my save.

The memory bug is a bigger issue but I am able to get around that. I play slow enough that 5 or 6 games before a crash is a days play. I also save very regularly now. Not that I'm saying it should be ignored.

I'm going to stop repeating myself, but I'm pleased with the constructive nature of the replies to this thread. I don't want things to turn into a slanging match but I felt this was important.

anagain,

Are you basically asking for more regular releases?

What computer/operating system do you use? I'm just curious as you've had a lot of problems with FM.

I'm using XP and easily above recommended. It's not a power PC but I'm playing on system that ran 09 with no problems. I ran a huge game then and enjoyed it for years.

I hope I am making myself clear that the bugs I'm encountering are not technical but errors that crop up in the database such as league programming producing errors and league structures breaking up to a point where a save is damaged. The fact that I played a whole season in Scotland before encountering a bug that stopped the play offs from scheduling is an example. These are errors that can easily be fixed by small patches so that people don't have to wait 3 months for a schedule update.

I used by crash history to show my frustration.

The memory bug is the only technical issue I've faced. Others have faced more technical issues though.

The key problem with patching like this, is that there's an overhead in getting a release out of the door. You can't just decide to upload a new patch whever you like, you need to be sure that that patch is as solid as it can be and that means getting to a point where everything's 'finished' and effectively stopping work while it's being tested and just focussing on fixing any issues that arise. Basically, if one guy's finished fixing a small bug, it's pretty tricky to release the fix if another guy is in the middle of fixing another massive bug because you don't have a stable codebase, you've got to wait until he's finished aswell. The more often you release patches, the less fixes you'll ultimately be able to include in them.

I respectfully disagree. I assume SI use SCRUM, which means that they get to the end of their cycle before doing what you mention. That is: big list of things to fix, they prioritise them in order, then work solidly to the cut-off point. Then they have a big push to test and debug, then they release.

If you're doing that iteratively there is a minor additional workload to get the patch pushed out. The workload balances out because you're only testing each minor fix at a time. So if it takes 100 days to debug and test 100 new bug fixes, it only takes 1 day to debug 1 bug fix and push it live.

SI could also include a "roll-back" feature to avoid a scenario to mitigate problems with patches, BTW.

I'm going to stop repeating myself, but I'm pleased with the constructive nature of the replies to this thread. I don't want things to turn into a slanging match but I felt this was important.

Its all to do with the quality of your opening post, rather than a childish rant, its constructive and understanding of SI's plight and puts across a somewhat viable solution, good job.

I hope I am making myself clear that the bugs I'm encountering are not technical but errors that crop up in the database such as league programming producing errors and league structures breaking up to a point where a save is damaged. The fact that I played a whole season in Scotland before encountering a bug that stopped the play offs from scheduling is an example. These are errors that can easily be fixed by small patches so that people don't have to wait 3 months for a schedule update.

These are often the most frustrating bugs. At least on mine I can't play at all. It's worse if you're playing and suddenly the FA schedule a meaningless friendly in mid-April over a premier league weekend, meaning you're without any of your major players.

That has happened after about 9 or 10 years to me with every game I've played on any FM, from CM3 right through to 09.

I respectfully disagree. I assume SI use SCRUM, which means that they get to the end of their cycle before doing what you mention. That is: big list of things to fix, they prioritise them in order, then work solidly to the cut-off point. Then they have a big push to test and debug, then they release.

If you're doing that iteratively there is a minor additional workload to get the patch pushed out. The workload balances out because you're only testing each minor fix at a time. So if it takes 100 days to debug and test 100 new bug fixes, it only takes 1 day to debug 1 bug fix and push it live.

SI could also include a "roll-back" feature to avoid a scenario to mitigate problems with patches, BTW.

Personally, I doubt SI are using SCRUM, but that's beside the point. Whatever development methodology they are using, you can't just throw releases out at arbitrary points. FM is so interconnected, that any change at any point in the code is going to need serious testing (weeks at minimum) and potentially time spent fixing. And any time spent in codelock while testing is in it's final stages, is time not spent 'working'.

I am the OP from the other current patch thread open and I have to say, I like your viewpoint.

I am pleased that other people are taking notice of this issue, and more importantly I hope the game developers are as well. This is the whole reason I wrote my OP as it is time that we stop just accepting that this is the way things are, and put pressue on the dev to sort it out.

If SI are getting worried, then quite frankly - good.

They make an absolute shed load of cash from this game and need to realise the pressure that will come fom such a high selling game. It is their responsibilty to take the bull by the horns and resolve.

I get sooo fed up with them acting so unremorseful regarding our needs. We are called whiners, moaners etc. Well if you dont like the responsibility that comes with producing such a high selling game. Dont produce one! You cant have all your cake and eat it!

Dragon Age came out just after FM this year and Bioware released a small patch a few days after release. A week or so after that they released an update to that patch.

Its only fair to point out that Bioware released the update because they messed up the original patch which created a serious bug.

The best games software company I have seen when it comes to patch policy is Paradox Interactive. There are a handful of formal patches - "it will be ready when it is ready".

But there are also a larger number (depending on the game, resources and interest, sometimes many) 'beta patches'. Fixed a few issues but not fully tested? Release a beta patch. Get some feedback on it. If users don't want to mess about with beta patches, they don't have to download them.

Personally, I doubt SI are using SCRUM, but that's beside the point. Whatever development methodology they are using, you can't just throw releases out at arbitrary points. FM is so interconnected, that any change at any point in the code is going to need serious testing (weeks at minimum) and potentially time spent fixing. And any time spent in codelock while testing is in it's final stages, is time not spent 'working'.

I don't know about that. I don't know what SCRUM is but I can only assume it is some sort of planning tool for getting a game out.

That's besides the point anyway. I don't see what small patches to change league rules can't be released. I've seen a number of threads where SI say they are aware of a problem and it will be fixed with the next patch. Does that mean they've already fixed it but can't release it? If so, then why not?

Will fixing a small issue that stops a play off from being scheduled cause the whole Scottish league structure to fall apart or have they fixed the issue in house but just want to keep to a schedule. If it can be fixed reliably then I want it fixed so I can play my game.

I will add that I don't want SI to go about breaking half the game just to fix a small issue. I do play a lot of MMOs, though, and they fix a lot of things regularly. I'm sure they don't have substantially bigger teams.

If I'm not looking at this issue openly, and SI come on to tell me so, then I'll accept it. I'm just frustrated and annoyed and I want reasons.

I am the OP from the other current patch thread open and I have to say, I like your viewpoint.

I am pleased that other people are taking notice of this issue, and more importantly I hope the game developers are as well. This is the whole reason I wrote my OP as it is time that we stop just accepting that this is the way things are, and put pressue on the dev to sort it out.

If SI are getting worried, then quite frankly - good.

They make an absolute shed load of cash from this game and need to realise the pressure that will come fom such a high selling game. It is their responsibilty to take the bull by the horns and resolve.

I get sooo fed up with them acting so unremorseful regarding our needs. We are called whiners, moaners etc. Well if you dont like the responsibility that comes with producing such a high selling game. Dont produce one! You cant have all your cake and eat it!

Let's be fair please, Gypsy. I understand your frustration because I'm there too, but I do believe that SI have our interests at heart and I don't want this to turn into a 'let's slag off the devs' thread.

Much of this problem would likely lie with the money men. It is more and more a case of games being rushed out these days to satisfy the funders. I remember a game I looked forward to for years being released in a rush and suffering seriously for it. That game was an MMO called Vanguard.

Let's not turn to insulting the devs despite our frustration.

I start to think I shouldn't have brought this up. I started one thread before I did this one but cancelled it out of not wishing to stir up a hornet's nest of insults.

SI need honest opinions to assess where they go with regards to patching. They need critical appraisals of the current situation, too, but abuse would just anger me. How would you feel if you worked hard only to be shouted at? It would be like working at Tescos with me.

I'm sure they know that league breaking issues shouldn't make it through testing but how do they avoid it?

Its only fair to point out that Bioware released the update because they messed up the original patch which created a serious bug.

That is fair, thank you Cougar. I'll hang my head in shame for not saying that but put my hands up and also say I didn't know. The only Dragon Age patches I have updated to are the small ones I mentioned. Of course it may have patched efficiently and speedily when I installed. They have a very good updates system.

The best games software company I have seen when it comes to patch policy is Paradox Interactive. There are a handful of formal patches - "it will be ready when it is ready".

But there are also a larger number (depending on the game, resources and interest, sometimes many) 'beta patches'. Fixed a few issues but not fully tested? Release a beta patch. Get some feedback on it. If users don't want to mess about with beta patches, they don't have to download them.

I knew that name rang a bell. I have Majesty 2 on my hard drive but hit a bug with some afterlife mission. I was waiting for it to be patched but forgot all about it. Did they fix that with a beta patch?

You make a good point. No reason beta updates can't be released. A 'this will fix your play off scheduling but it's not fully tested' patch. I'd be happy with that and I'm fully believing of SI being able to fix an issue such as that.

My angst is because I want it when they've done it rather than wait for a scheduled update. That would solve that.

That's besides the point anyway. I don't see what small patches to change league rules can't be released. I've seen a number of threads where SI say they are aware of a problem and it will be fixed with the next patch. Does that mean they've already fixed it but can't release it? If so, then why not?

Yeah good question. Some people may say well if you could get this specific patch for league rules then it could trigger other bugs onto your game, but for me I would assume this is a very small risk.

I start to think I shouldn't have brought this up. I started one thread before I did this one but cancelled it out of not wishing to stir up a hornet's nest of insults.

SI need honest opinions to assess where they go with regards to patching. They need critical appraisals of the current situation, too, but abuse would just anger me. How would you feel if you worked hard only to be shouted at? It would be like working at Tescos with me.

YOU certainly should have, its a shame other people have to come in and spoil it with their insulting way of posting.

I knew that name rang a bell. I have Majesty 2 on my hard drive but hit a bug with some afterlife mission. I was waiting for it to be patched but forgot all about it. Did they fix that with a beta patch?

You make a good point. No reason beta updates can't be released. A 'this will fix your play off scheduling but it's not fully tested' patch. I'd be happy with that and I'm fully believing of SI being able to fix an issue such as that.

My angst is because I want it when they've done it rather than wait for a scheduled update. That would solve that.

I think Majesty is released but not developed by Paradox, so it may follow a different path. Not sure.

YOU certainly should have, its a shame other people have to come in and spoil it with their insulting way of posting.

One would asusme that comment is aimed at me. I care not your thoughts on how I post. I am entitled to my opinion. I am angry, am I am allowed to be.

I have already said that the game will be the best one yet. It is simply disappointing that we will will have to wait longer for it to fulfill that role.

Personally, I doubt SI are using SCRUM, but that's beside the point. Whatever development methodology they are using, you can't just throw releases out at arbitrary points.

Heaven forbid! That's what version management is, in its essence.

FM is so interconnected, that any change at any point in the code is going to need serious testing (weeks at minimum) and potentially time spent fixing.

I wouldn't have thought so. You seem to imply that the same amount of testing and debugging is needed for a point update as there is for a major update. That's not the case. For example, when they fix the £90p/w bug (hahahahahahahahahaha, yes, I said 'when') they won't need to run weeks of zombie games to make sure things go smoothly. Most of the testing is already done. You have to take a common sense approach to testing, not a blind panic which sees you testing every little thing after every little tweak.

I appreciate that FM is more interconnected than the average game, but for most of the minor tweaks it simply would not require huge amounts of testing. Really it's all academic. Plenty of software developers do this. It's just a case of structuring your resources to cope with the bugfixing periods of development.

I don't know about that. I don't know what SCRUM is but I can only assume it is some sort of planning tool for getting a game out.

It's a software development 'philosophy' which is quite popular with large scale applications. I'm guessing it's what SI use, but it may be that they have their own management style. From what I've heard from Jesper et al. on the boards, it sounds very similar to SCRUM.

From SCRUM's wikipedia page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/ScrumLargeLabelled.png

That's besides the point anyway. I don't see what small patches to change league rules can't be released.

That's because there's no reason that they can't. Ignore the people quibbling semantics. SI could restructure their teams, and I think they very likely will, to accommodate more minor revisions.

I've seen a number of threads where SI say they are aware of a problem and it will be fixed with the next patch. Does that mean they've already fixed it but can't release it? If so, then why not?

Because they are probably doing cumulative testing at the moment. That is, they fix all the problems, then do all the large-scale testing in one go. They need to stop doing that and do lots of smaller tests. They need better debugging tools.

Will fixing a small issue that stops a play off from being scheduled cause the whole Scottish league structure to fall apart or have they fixed the issue in house but just want to keep to a schedule.

It shouldn't happen with good debugging tools.

If it can be fixed reliably then I want it fixed so I can play my game.

I will add that I don't want SI to go about breaking half the game just to fix a small issue. I do play a lot of MMOs, though, and they fix a lot of things regularly. I'm sure they don't have substantially bigger teams.

They may or may not have, but it's beside the point. SI have the resources to cope with issuing a lot of smaller updates. They choose not to because it's more convenient for them. It's inconvenient for their userbase, though. Therefore this should change.

If I'm not looking at this issue openly, and SI come on to tell me so, then I'll accept it. I'm just frustrated and annoyed and I want reasons.

SI will probably say one of two things on this, if they say anything at all:

1. The concrete scheduling for the bug fixes makes the patches more manageable

2. Introducing a framework like this for the patches would swallow a lot of time.

Either way it's not an insurmountable problem for them. I believe SI are stretching the capabilities of a limited team at the moment, and they need to suss it out.

Let's be fair please, Gypsy. I understand your frustration because I'm there too, but I do believe that SI have our interests at heart and I don't want this to turn into a 'let's slag off the devs' thread.

QFT.

Much of this problem would likely lie with the money men. It is more and more a case of games being rushed out these days to satisfy the funders. I remember a game I looked forward to for years being released in a rush and suffering seriously for it. That game was an MMO called Vanguard.

I would compare it to losing your post-Xmas bulge. The first few pounds fall off very quickly, but the last few take months and months. The same is true with pouring money into a development team. You can get the game to a reasonable standard without spending (comparatively) that much. But then the amount of money required to increase quality whilst maintaining agility gets several orders of magnitude higher.

I like FM and I've enjoyed my save up till now. I am not one to go off the handle but I feel let down by things this year. I am usually the one asking people to sit back a bit and accept SI are doing their best but I'm annoyed and now think it is time to ask probing questions.

i felt like this after 09.

Yes, something like the £90 bug might not need massive amounts of retesting, but things like memory leaks, match engine issues and any tweaks to long terms things (finances, regens/player development) will. I'm not saying the same amount is needed for major and point updates, but cumulatively you'll spend more time testing for a serious of point releases than for one major update, if anything just because you'll potentially be retesting the same areas of the game over and over again.

I'm using XP and easily above recommended. It's not a power PC but I'm playing on system that ran 09 with no problems. I ran a huge game then and enjoyed it for years.

Thanks for the answer. I'm also using XP, but using a very powerful PC (one which XP can't take advantage of). As I said above, it was just curiosity that brought me to ask.

i would agree in principle.

A lot of things that are fixed in the patch will be un-connected and unrelated

fixing something like the player registration bug, or problems with leagues should surely have no knock on effect elsewhere and hence the problem could be fixed without requiring extensive testing.

on the other hand tweaks to something like the match engine, or ai behavior could have unforseen effects and need to be tested extensively to ensure that "fixes" dont produce new problems.

i would suggest that for the former, it would be immensely preferable if si woudl release patches as and when the problems can be solved. For the latter it is understandable why they would still need to have just one or two major patches that are thoroughly tested.

Are you using the latest patch?

Yes, something like the £90 bug might not need massive amounts of retesting, but things like memory leaks, match engine issues and any tweaks to long terms things (finances, regens/player development) will. I'm not saying the same amount is needed for major and point updates, but cumulatively you'll spend more time testing for a serious of point releases than for one major update, if anything just because you'll potentially be retesting the same areas of the game over and over again.

I think the benefit of 'point' or beta updates is that you can get the users to do much of the testing for you; with that testing then all feeding into the major update development and testing.

Perhaps it might also be possible at some stage to isolate key components of the game, to be able to do separate updates for competition, regen, finance, match engine issues etc.

The best games software company I have seen when it comes to patch policy is Paradox Interactive. There are a handful of formal patches - "it will be ready when it is ready".

But there are also a larger number (depending on the game, resources and interest, sometimes many) 'beta patches'. Fixed a few issues but not fully tested? Release a beta patch. Get some feedback on it. If users don't want to mess about with beta patches, they don't have to download them.

Can you imagine the fuss if SI released a game in the state that Paradox release theirs? I am a massive Paradox fan and own every one of their titles, but they release alpha games and expect the community to test them for them. Yes they release a lot of patches, but you can wait years between them (over 2 years in one case).

To the OP, there are a few reasons why it wouldn't always work, whilst there is some merit.

Possible significant disbenefits include two main ones off the top of my head. Firstly, it would make things considerably harder for SI to track bugs as they would be forever trying to replicate exactly what set-up a bug report was created under, ie which version was the game started as, which minor patches had been introduced when, and which current version was running. Many bug reports would become superfluous as they would have either been removed in later versions or would only appear with certain set-ups.

The second main problem would be the obvious one, that beta patches have a lot more problems than gold patches, and these boards would have exponentionally more complaints, affecting the image and reputation of FM. Beta patches can break games, be impossible to roll back, lose saves etc at a far higher rate than gold releases. Whilst I am sure people would say now that that is a chance they would be willing to take, I am certain that they would post here about it (they should - it wont get fixed otherwise) and casual observers would take it that a game without many serious problems was actually far less stable than it actually is for the majority of users.

I think SI are one of, if not the best company world wide when it comes to customer support and patching.

It is the last thing I would complain about and quite frankly I never ask for when a patch will be released or demand quicker patches, they always work hard and do a very good job.

Games like Dragon Age are a lot more linear and easier to solve problems and the knock on effect of their patches is a lot lesser than something as complicated as FM.

What in hell is "MMO" ???

On topic...

An open patching system would be good for some but not others.

me personally would hate opening up the game and being constantly told

"There is a new update availabe"

Bad enough with iTunes & Windows... oh & Java just ****es me off too.

I'm not an angry person though

Massively Multiplayer Online game is a MMO game.

MMORPG is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Play Game, like WoW

anagain i've got a lot of sympathy for you regarding your encounters with bugs, i was very much in the same boat last year and wasn't able to play FM09 until the 2nd patch effectively due to gamebreaking bugs (and then really, the 3rd because the match engine was poor with the 2nd) it was unbearable tbh and i'm very impressed you've handled yourself so well. with the july 24 or so bug last year where the game crashed after the end of the first season, i was told the issue was solved more or less but being held back from release for another month basically because that was when the next patch was going to be released. i assume there's a lot of logistical issues involved (heh) because there's no way that's justifiable otherwise.

I think SI are one of, if not the best company world wide when it comes to customer support and patching.

It is the last thing I would complain about and quite frankly I never ask for when a patch will be released or demand quicker patches, they always work hard and do a very good job.

Games like Dragon Age are a lot more linear and easier to solve problems and the knock on effect of their patches is a lot lesser than something as complicated as FM.

I suggest your opinion might change if you found yourself in the position that the OP is currently in.

I have been lucky enough never to really crave a patch due to encountering a gamebreaking bug, but if i had taken as long to finish a season and find out that play offs can't be schedualed i feel i might have reacted in a much less polite manner in which anagain has done.

I think this a great post, one in which SI should appreciate and take on board.

Everyone has to realise that as customers, we are paying money for an unfinshed game. I have often wondered what happens to gamers who do not have internet access on the machine they install the game.

Totally agree that the game has outgrown the patching methods SI have used for so many releases. But then I don't know if the resources are there to build and test new patches any more often than they do already.

I think this would be a great idea i asked the guys who play FML and they seem to get updates more frequently and are starting to get them more often for the ME they said so it's somehing they could easily do by the sounds of it. Besides surely the more updates you do the better feedback you get which can surley only lead to making a better game for FM11? Because atleast it would be getting a lot better testing ME wise? Personally I am amazed still at how the game has so many bugs in it, perhaps a more efficent testing team in future? lol.

Thanks for all the great comments. I do agree that should an open patch schedule be even possible it would need to be worth the risks. It would indeed harm SI if they released a number of patches that got them bad press and made the game really bad. I just can't help but feel that if a small bug can be fixed without consequence then what is the harm in fixing it.

I've calmed down a bit since yesterday, of course, but I do miss the save I had going. I started a new save similar to my favourite save from 09 yesterday so hopefully I can get in to that and not meet a game breaking bug later on.

After starting unemployed I have ended up in Belorussia and I have loaded all of Eastern Europe as well as the major Western European leagues, so if anyone knows of a league issue out that way please tell me. No taking the michael now. Yes, it is a big game and that may cause me problems (with the memory issue for starters) but I am aware of that. It is the way I like to play the game and it is the way I will continue to do so or else it may become no fun for me. My system is capable of running the game (I just need to get a regular rotational save going) and the memory issue shouldn't be a cause of league rules breaking; the issue that I am feeling my current annoyance from.

I don't have Scotland loaded this time...strangely enough. At least I hope I don't.

I want to enjoy this game because I really like it. I am determined to do so.

I think SI are one of, if not the best company world wide when it comes to customer support and patching.

It is the last thing I would complain about and quite frankly I never ask for when a patch will be released or demand quicker patches, they always work hard and do a very good job.

Games like Dragon Age are a lot more linear and easier to solve problems and the knock on effect of their patches is a lot lesser than something as complicated as FM.

Ezequiel, I understand your position, I honestly do. SI are a quality team that produce a quality game. I wouldn't have played FM every year since I first saw a friend playing it if I didn't think that.

I have always taken your stance in the past. I remember last year that someone bought up the issue of Argentina's league being broken and demanded that it be fixed. I saw that post and I thought they were complaining unnecessarily and in a rude manner so I questioned them.

They were right and I was wrong. Argentina was broken and an SI dev had the decency to come on and try to apologise, insisting that they would fix it and didn't want these things to happen. I was embarassed to have taken the stance I did and left the thread alone.

Now I find myself in a similar situation and you are taking my former viewpoint. You're entitled to that viewpoint but please understand the time I have put into a game I was thoroughly enjoying. Try to look at the issue from both viewpoints.

If you bought a Formula 1 game and found that there was a 'rare' bug that meant you could not start the race after you had just qualified then you would be annoyed and you would like a fix.

I've found a bug that doesn't allow me to continue a game I am playing and it annoyed me. I felt I was within my rights to offer an alternative way to protect against these small bugs.

Yes, FM is a much more non-linear game than Dragon Age, though that is not to say Dragon Age is a small game. It is huge with limitless ways to progress your character. Bugs do creep into larger games much more readily than smaller ones and so I understand the realities that SI are faced with. That doesn't remove my frustration though.

amusingly enough the argentine league is arguably in a worse state than it was last year, if possible - probably just as bad and unplayable with a supreme amount of entirely random attributes given to players as discussed in the argentine DB issue thread elsewhere. of course it's been this case for several iterations now and SI have been 'aware' too but this is getting off-topic.

has there ever been a response / discussion on why the patching strategy is how it is?

I think the benefit of 'point' or beta updates is that you can get the users to do much of the testing for you; with that testing then all feeding into the major update development and testing.

Perhaps it might also be possible at some stage to isolate key components of the game, to be able to do separate updates for competition, regen, finance, match engine issues etc.

A point update is a 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 update. A beta is a piece of software which ships before the final product is ready. Don't confuse them. A point update ships to update the already finished product.

I think SI might have begun to rewrite the code for the game last year, and are just patching up and sending out shinier versions of FM08 in the meanwhile as they wait for the rewrite to finish. Hopefully FM11 will be a massive improvement.

On topic...

An open patching system would be good for some but not others.

me personally would hate opening up the game and being constantly told

"There is a new update availabe"

Bad enough with iTunes & Windows... oh & Java just ****es me off too.

I'm not an angry person though

It wouldn't have to be Java. Given that the updates would be much smaller in size, you'd only be downloading a few megabytes at at time, and they might only be every fortnight. You'd know you were running the latest version of the game and you would be able to see demonstrable progress on the patches.

There's an old saying in retail: a wait of two minutes in a shop feels like ten to the customer. That's what it feels like whilst we wait for SI to sort out the patch.

Totally agree that the game has outgrown the patching methods SI have used for so many releases. But then I don't know if the resources are there to build and test new patches any more often than they do already.

I think that's the point: SI need to change their strategy and if necessary reevaluate their testing process.

amusingly enough the argentine league is arguably in a worse state than it was last year, if possible - probably just as bad and unplayable with a supreme amount of entirely random attributes given to players as discussed in the argentine DB issue thread elsewhere. of course it's been this case for several iterations now and SI have been 'aware' too but this is getting off-topic.

has there ever been a response / discussion on why the patching strategy is how it is?

Nothing. As a rule I don't think SI discuss internal processes that much.