I'd just like to say, and this is to no one in particular...
If you have never been involved in a large scale software development then you
can have no idea what it is like to
release updates as frequently as Valve do.
It is the very players the updates are aimed at, as there is not another
You're right, I can't think of another game creator that makes people
pay to beta test their software instead of making sure it works in-house
first...
James Tucker wrote:
I'd just like to say, and this is to no one in particular...
If you have never been involved in a large scale software
In a bold display of creativity, Joseph Laws wrote:
You're right, I can't think of another game creator that makes people
pay to beta test their software instead of making sure it works in-house
first...
I can't tell if that's sarcastic or not, but if not, you need to get out
more. Have you
EA is worse, of course. However, I'm not sure if EA releases two
patches in one day: one to patch the game, one to patch what they broke
in the patch earlier in the day.
Eric (Deacon) wrote:
In a bold display of creativity, Joseph Laws wrote:
You're right, I can't think of another game
In a bold display of creativity, Joseph Laws wrote:
EA is worse, of course. However, I'm not sure if EA releases two
patches in one day: one to patch the game, one to patch what they broke
in the patch earlier in the day.
Exactly. That second patch would be released another two or three
LOL :) I think we're on the same wavelength here, however you'd think a
patch would be tested before release instead of needing another patch
within a few hours. Am I right?
Eric (Deacon) wrote:
In a bold display of creativity, Joseph Laws wrote:
EA is worse, of course. However, I'm not
In a bold display of creativity, Joseph Laws wrote:
LOL :) I think we're on the same wavelength here, however you'd think a
patch would be tested before release instead of needing another patch
within a few hours. Am I right?
Are you saying it wasn't tested? You think they do a full system
On Oct 30, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
In a bold display of creativity, Joseph Laws wrote:
LOL :) I think we're on the same wavelength here, however you'd
think a
patch would be tested before release instead of needing another patch
within a few hours. Am I right?
Are you
As you should have read about it in the digest, Alfred already gave a statement
about this:
When it's done.
We all don't want a binary that causes problems after release, or do we?
;-)
hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com schrieb am 28.10.05 04:26:26:
Will Vac 2 ever be released on AMD64 bit
Hi
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:25 AM
To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] RE: hlds_linux digest, Vol 1 #4721 - 3 msgs
As you should have read about
No, we don't. I think that's why most GSP's will start pushing COD2,
Quake4 and F.E.A.R. instead of relying on VALVe to get their act
together. The people playing the game are just as frustrated as those
who host it, perhaps a drop of players is just the medicine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As
I am still very confused by how Valve could release a
VAC2 update without including all platforms. What has
it been 4 months now and no 64bit version of va2.
Here is the press release from Valve on March 7, 2003
announcing 64bit support for Counter-Strike.
Would it be the first time? As far as I can tell, my CS:S still has a
memory leak and I've seen at least one release where we actually had
to update again to fix a problematic update. I wonder what the rest of
the gaming industry thinks about the involved parties.
On 10/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13 matches
Mail list logo
