I dont think you would Purposefully but answer this question so I can maybe better understand = Why such a long wait between update 2 and update 3 when people were reporting issues so long agoBalthagor wrote:We always have demos for our games and we welcome well informed customers.
And we work hard to earn a living and hope we're successful at what we do. I can't imagine anyone thinks we would purposefully do something to hurt our chances or damage our products.
In relation to steam users whom can’t seem to try the latest beta patches, I am sure they are pretty gutted .
In relation to those of us whom can use the beta patches = well this obviously stems the flow of complaints because we are seeing things being done and can fiddle with the latest versions even though we know they are just beta patches .
I think this game is a little gem but now and again, I just can’t hold in my opinions and frustrations relating to fix timescales . This last couple of months have been a massive improvement as far as I am concerned due to beta patches and if this was to become precedent then I am sure I would buy the next BG game at release. What I will not do however, is buy a new BG game at released and expect to wait nearly a year between patches. Trying demos is one thing but if I recall correctly, the demo for this game is usually released at same time as full version!
I am sensible and can draw the line between game breaking and tolerable exploits/bugs and there always comes a time when we as users have to sit back and say we got our money’s worth and to expect anything more from the devs would be unreasonable ( barring the cheeky consumers ).
Combat Mission Battle for Normandy will be charging a small fee for a patch to their game as it will be bring the game up to the level of a new version of the same engine (fortress Italy). You won’t see any ranting from the community relating to paying for a patch because they know it makes an already good game better. If BG can't afford to offer same patch development time due to them being a small company, maybe it would be better to offer a paid patch as the engine is improved. That is of course once you first sorted out the key issues that class the game as broken / bugged to the majority of players.
What I am saying in short is that should 1.3 sort out the major issues, I would personally see nothing wrong with BG suggesting that 1.4 may come at a small fee. I am guessing the majority of players here are somewhat mature and could also see little wrong with this.
Anyway, enough of this hypothetical pontificating and et on with 1.3 (whip, whoosh whoosh whip)