Eidos looking into Tomb Raider Wii bug Comments by Tom Bramwell

"Lara trapped forever. Until patch"

Are there patches for any wii games yet?

I hope this isn't the first of many memory devouring Wii patches because it's cheaper than testing your games. It probably isn't even cheaper, just lazy.

If anything, this is a demonstration of why patches can be a good thing. You can be sure they didn't intend to patch this later (if it's even possible) because it's not really the 'done' thing on Wii. Patches are only an issue when publishers take advantage of them.

Well that's what happens when a company makes their entire UK QA team redundant, expect other Eidos franchises to have problems in the future too. A shame to see it happen really. :(

QA must be a BIG part of Eidos.

I'm glad I didn't buy *that* game for the Wii then because I have no space left in my machine's measly 512 MB of internal RAM to store one on and it's the reason I stopped buying VC games over a year ago and have never bothered with the WiiWare ones.

Wiilol

"I hope this isn't the first of many memory devouring Wii patches because it's cheaper than testing your games. It probably isn't even cheaper, just lazy."

Sorry but piss off with that crap. OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPERS ARE LAZY. You know, despite the fact that they work tirelessly for years on a game, putting out more hours than most on here. I'm so sick and tired of people making the lazy comment. IT'S NOT LAZINESS. It always boils down to one thing: money.

I would guess it's not the developer, but the publisher. Rushing the game out before it's been properly finished or tested. Using words like "infrequent" and "rare" is just spin.

This really is shocking. It's bad enough enough that 360 and PS3 publishers rely on patches, but this could set a startling precedent for doing it on wii too.

Bad bad Eidos

@the_dudefather
I know the Wii PaperMario game had a patch released for it (at least the US version did)

@Xerx3s
""I hope this isn't the first of many memory devouring Wii patches because it's cheaper than testing your games. It probably isn't even cheaper, just lazy."

Sorry but piss off with that crap. OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPERS ARE LAZY. You know, despite the fact that they work tirelessly for years on a game, putting out more hours than most on here. I'm so sick and tired of people making the lazy comment. IT'S NOT LAZINESS. It always boils down to one thing: money."

Indeed, developers don't want to be part of producing buggy software so it comes down to someone making the call that it's "good enough" and can be released in X weeks time. Games are hugely complicated and very difficult to test completely: it's the combinations that screw you up. It's obvious that shooting a Blorg with the Blorg-blatter either works or doesn't: the Blorg is blatted or it isn't. But what happens if you do so after jumping. Or through a particular texture? Or from behind cover?

The sheer number of combinations and number of things to test (in a 3D game especially) is enormous.

Eidos QA really went downhill after I left... :)

@IronCladChicken

I know the Wii PaperMario game had a patch released for it (at least the US version did)

In Europe it was replaced, even Nintendo don't put out patches. I'm not sure that the Wii can do patches, at least in the current version of the OS.

(Of course if the US they did put out a patch then ignore that last part...)

Actually, the developers aren't blameless. Publishers make them aware of the release deadline months and months in advance. Publishers have to invest millions in booking advertisting campaigns for a specific release date months in advance, and that's not something that can be changed. Its the developer's contractual obligation to ensure they've fixed all reported bugs before that deadline. If the developers fall behind schedule, it's their fault.

... unless the publisher QA doesn't find some show-stopping bug until the night before you're due to subit a master candidate of course.... then it's the publishers' fault for having sloppy QA... And of course most publishers pay their QA peanuts so that's not surprising.