It took about a month from when Victoria went gold until it appeared in stores. To me, the fact that a patch appears almost before the game itself is out is an indication that the development team didn't just mope around during that time, but kept working on the product, fixing the minor stuff that weren't worth delaying the release over. As for further patches, bugs are going to appear post-release, no matter how much development and testing went into the game.Originally posted by Odin1970
Originally posted by Scythe
b)Victoria (a newer game) shows that Paradox games still need patches after release. This model/policy hasn't changed. You might not like it, but it's been proven that it continues to be the case.
I dont forsee CK not needing a patch. What I do hope for is that if dosent need patching for bugs or stability issues, that hope is based on longer development time for CK, which we disagree as to how it was used or its productivity. The fact that Victoria was released with a patch tells me that it was shipped without all the developers changes in, thats what I dont want to see. I dont want a god dam download to *tweek* something before I have even bought it. GET IT IN THE GOLD VERSION. That so hard? even with 3 months develepment time ?
Generally, I think that Victoria is the best Paradox game so far, at least technically. I have experienced no CTD's or other major problems so far - something that was quite a nuisance for me with EU2 - and only minor bugs otherwise.
Getting back on-topic, I do certainly hope that CK will live up to or perhaps exceed that standard, but as has been mentioned earlier, both the lack of information about the game and the apparent dual-developer situation might cause one to have certain concerns.
But in any case, I'm such a fanatic - about both Paradox and the period - that I'll probably buy it no matter what.