Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chops

Where is the 2.01 Patch?

Recommended Posts

I am unable to locate the new 2.01 CMSF2 patch.  As you can see from the screenshot below, only a 2.0 patch is listed on the Battlefront > Patches website.  Is this another one of those "soft releases" where BFC keeps the patch link buried in another thread?   This is really quite annoying and frustrating.

 

CM Patch.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The 2.01 Patch was released 9 days ago, however, it still is not named correctly on the Battlefront > Patches website.   How is it that Battlefront releases a patch and does not give it the correct name on their own website?  Could we please have some attention to detail and professionalism on this issue?

This is has caused unnecessary aggravation and frustration for this customer, and I am sure others as well.

Additionally, it would be helpful to have the date that the patch was posted listed next to the patch download link.

Edited by Chops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chops said:

The 2.01 Patch was released 9 days ago, however, it still is not named correctly on the Battlefront > Patches website.   How is it that Battlefront releases a patch and does not give it the correct name on their own website?  Could we please have some attention to detail and professionalism on this issue?

Holy crow.  We put out a great patch within a month of release and the only thing you have to say about it?  Yeah, if anything is going to make me want to go the extra mile for a customer, it's being insulted.  But you have inspired me to be professional and point out that if you had spent 1 second clicking on the link you highlighted, instead of the several minutes to take a screenshot and complain here, you'd have seen this:

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 9.12.49 PM.png

Links don't bite, so as a general rule I'd recommend when in doubt click.  Very often download links go to a page with more information.  Even if the link is directly tied to a download file, you can cancel.  Links don't bite.

With that out of the way, I'll point out that there is no typo.  I do understand you not seeing why at first glance, but you're still wrong.  If you look again you may notice all our links direct people to patches based on the version they currently have.  You have v2.00, so that's the link for you.  Pretty straight forward for CMSF2 since there's only one patch, but look above it to see how this simplifies things for more complex products (CMBN being the big one).

Why did we do this?  Because (believe it or not) people got confused by long list of links with version numbers as we had on the old site.  People would say "I have v3.0 and I don't know what patches I need".  Yes, the info was there and yes they obviously couldn't be bothered to read it, but that's the way people are.

Quote

This is has caused unnecessary aggravation and frustration for this customer, and I am sure others as well.

You're definitely the first, so I'm not so sure about the others.  That said, being that I am an unprofessional guy who obviously doesn't care about the details, I made an adjustment to the link name to hopefully make it clearer without making the link inconsistent with the others.

Quote

Additionally, it would be helpful to have the date that the patch was posted listed next to the patch download link.

Not a bad idea, though it's really not important IMHO.  If someone has v2.00 and there's a v2.01, does it really matter when v2.01 was released?  Plus, if one clicks on a link the upload dates are there.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not the first.  There have been a few people who came in other areas looking for it.  It took me 15 - 20 minutes of poking around to find it.  Not the end of the world, but on the cusp of aggravating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know, but I'm baffled.  Honestly.  There's a list of links by game.  There's one and only one link for a patch for CMSF2.  How does it take 15-20 minutes to figure out that's the link you need?  Especially when the person looking is aware there is only one patch out there.

I'm NOT being judgmental here, I'm truly and honestly not getting how this could be such a time intensive and frustrating task for someone who uses the Internet on a regular basis.

I be-bop around the Internet for all kinds of things, as we all do.  When in doubt, I click on a link.  If the link doesn't take me to where I need to be, I back up and try something else.  The fewer the options, the fewer chances I go down the wrong road.  The only time I ever find myself spending that kind of time looking for a link is when it's truly hidden.  Like Apple not having a direct link on iTunes for an older OS version.  And even then it probably took me only 10 minutes to find a blog talking about this and providing a hidden direct link to it on iTunes.

Steve

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the same thing. Went to the website but didnt click the link past the op screenshot. Got it on forum to make sure.

op needs to not be so overdramatic the patch isnt fixing a broken game. It's cool. 

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who didn't figure out the link quickly... does the link look less confusing now?

https://www.battlefront.com/patches

In my defense, when I made the link text I did think it looked a little weird out of context with the other links.  But then there was the context of the other links and people probably know there's only one patch available.  And even if that didn't work, an exploratory click would solve everything.  I had not thought people would be confused AND not click.  I stand corrected.

Related, in a primary school class (dinosaurs weren't roaming the Earth) we did an exercise where Person 1 had to give Person 2 instruction on how to do something.  As I remember it, the first task had Person 1 giving instructions while watching Person 2 do the task.  Task was completed quickly and accurately.  Second task was done with a visual blind between the two, however Person 2 could ask questions and the task was completed reasonably well within a reasonable period of time. Third task had Person 2 unable to ask questions, only follow verbal instructions.  Things didn't go so well ;)  That's always stuck with me and I bend over backwards trying to see things from multiple, even unexpected, perspectives as I design games, websites, whatever.  But it ain't perfect!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it says 2.00 on there. So to me that looks like the patch that we all bought (Which can't be in there that makes no sense! :)). Since it's the Patches page of the website and people would generally call it the "2.01 patch" I think most would look out for the 2.01. That's pretty much how I thought about it when skimming

 

A very interesting anecdote. Can't remember exercises like that back in my classes. We missed out 

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not purchased CMSF2 yet, as I was waiting until the game was patched.   So in my case, there was no reason for me to click on the patch link.  I went to the patch page several times hoping that the patch had been released, only to find that 2.01 was not posted based on what I saw on the website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For those who didn't figure out the link quickly... does the link look less confusing now?

So this is the patch I apply to my CMSF1 install that will magically change it to CMSF2?  :D  

 

For anyone reading this who doesn't know better it was a joke.. no this is not it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Artkin said:

Well it says 2.00 on there. So to me that looks like the patch that we all bought (Which can't be in there that makes no sense! :)). Since it's the Patches page of the website and people would generally call it the "2.01 patch" I think most would look out for the 2.01. That's pretty much how I thought about it when skimming

For sure that's logical.  It is the way our previous patch page was organized.  But as I said above, we had people confused by it because they didn't understand what they needed based on their current version.  As with almost everything in life, there is no one "right" way to do something and therefore someone will always be left behind.  Always.  The best thing I can do is minimize the number confused, not eliminate confusion entirely.

Again, does the verbiage "For v2.00" make things clearer?

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

A very interesting anecdote. Can't remember exercises like that back in my classes. We missed out 

I was quite fortunate to have a school that had the interest in experimenting and a teacher who was very capable of pulling something different off.  Most kids in my school, even, didn't get a chance to take the class.

1 hour ago, Chops said:

I have not purchased CMSF2 yet, as I was waiting until the game was patched.   So in my case, there was no reason for me to click on the patch link.  I went to the patch page several times hoping that the patch had been released, only to find that 2.01 was not posted based on what I saw on the website.

So what exactly did you think a link in the Patch page was there for if not for a patch?

And yes, I've not made the announcement on the front page yet or changed the version number in the CMSF2 pages.  As you guessed, as per standard proceedure we wait a bit until we're sure it's worth crowing about.  However, we did not keep the patch link "buried in another thread".  It's got it's own pinned thread (currently #2) in this very Forum and it has a fairly obvious title "CMSF2 v2.01 Released!" with a link in the very first post.  It was within a few inches of the button you clicked to open this complaint thread.

I understand the specific signs you were focused on finding weren't there, however it's pretty clear you missed rather obvious opportunities to find the answer to your question within seconds or a minute or two.  I'm not expecting an apology, but it would be nice if you at least acknowledge to yourself that our "professionalism" wasn't really a factor in this.  We aren't perfect, but perfection is not a requirement for professionalism.  If it was, 0.0% of the people and organizations of this world would be fitting of that definition.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Artkin said:

Since it's the Patches page of the website and people would generally call it the "2.01 patch" I think most would look out for the 2.01. That's pretty much how I thought about it when skimming

Same here. I guess I need to remind myself to approach this with fewer preconceptions. Installing a new CM game is always an adventure full of surprises.

:wacko:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Same here. I guess I need to remind myself to approach this with fewer preconceptions. Installing a new CM game is always an adventure full of surprises.

:wacko:

Michael

Exactly, and it doesn't seem like a good idea for a company to send a customer on a surprise-filled adventure when trying to purchase products or download patches for products.

When I recently saw the new thread "CMSF2 v2.01 Released!"  I went to the Battlefront > Patches download page to see if it was posted.  This page only showed a CMSF2 v2.0 patch link, so I obviously assumed that it was the 2.0 patch.   Initially after looking at the forum and website, it seemed that two patches had been released , v2.0 and v2.01.  As a result, I started this thread in order to locate the 2.01 patch.

The first person to respond to this thread, stated that the patch was named incorrectly on the website, and it was actually the 2.01 patch.  Since then, I have seen other posts from customers in different threads, also stating that the patch was named incorrectly. 

A simple solution to this unnecessary confusion, would be to name the patch download link the same as the actual patch name.   For example -  patch v2.01 is released, and the download link is also named patch v2.01. This seems like a normal, logical, and rational approach.   Putting the dates next to the patches will really help reduce confusion as well.

I noticed that the patch download link was just renamed to "for v2.0"  I have no idea what this means.  Why can't the patch download link just be called v2.01, or better yet v1.01 since it is the first patch for CMSF2?

This whole thing may seem like no big deal to people that frequent the forums and website on a daily basis, but for someone that does not, this is the end result...confusion and frustration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chops said:

This whole thing may seem like no big deal to people that frequent the forums and website on a daily basis, but for someone that does not, this is the end result...confusion and frustration.

Totally valid view and if you had left it at that originally I think you'd have ended with a different response.  Calling Steve out for being unprofessional when no one had yet suggested to him that his naming convention might not have been best is what escalated this.  Word choices do matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah getting worked up is dumb. 

Looking at what Steve said, the Patches page is organized in a stupid simple kind of way. 

Youre supposed to check game version, check website for that number and download it. We all have SF 2.0, we should have looked at the 2.0 update. Especially now since it says FOR 2.0. So in that context, yes Steve it definitely helps. But I think most will approach the patches page the same way Emrys and myself did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just beat this horse again...things like the patch page, installs, drm activation, etc all seem so simple if you come to this forum every day, are a beta tester, or constantly install and reinstall.  But for people who might take long absences away from the game, like me at times, coming back in and seeing how a patch page is organized, or not having spelled out exactly what needs to be downloaded, what order serials need to entered, not having enough activations, etc., can be a very frustrating experience for a game that is priced at CM's level.  The help desk is very helpful in resolving issues, but its still frustrating.

If you look around at the bad rep the BFC gets on some sites, that is the crux of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

I'll just beat this horse again...things like the patch page, installs, drm activation, etc all seem so simple if you come to this forum every day, are a beta tester, or constantly install and reinstall.  But for people who might take long absences away from the game, like me at times, coming back in and seeing how a patch page is organized, or not having spelled out exactly what needs to be downloaded, what order serials need to entered, not having enough activations, etc., can be a very frustrating experience for a game that is priced at CM's level.  The help desk is very helpful in resolving issues, but its still frustrating.

Thankfully, there is an easy solution:
http://community.battlefront.com/forum/114-cm2-general-tech-support/

There is an entire sub-forum dedicated to answering people's questions. THIS IS WHERE YOU GO FIRST.

Had it occurred to Mr. Chops to head over there and simply ask, "The only patch I see is this one, is it the correct patch?"
Someone would have answered, "Yes."

Then this entire thread wouldn't have to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point.  The wrong name was up there over a week after being pointed out several times across a few threads.  Having to go to the help desk shouldn't have had to happen.  Its just sloppy and exudes a lack of consideration to customers, whether people who read the forum daily, or only play the game.  Any company I have worked for, as soon as someone point out something like that, it would have been changed post haste.  I have worked for companies from four people to 40,000 people.

Why make your customer have to go through a couple extra steps when fixing a single character on a label as soon as you hear about it would have solved it?  Why make the customer go through more work and aggravation?  This would not have been accepted with such timidity for any other game I can remember.  A big game company like Paradox or Matrix would have excoriated on their own forums for doing that.

As I said before, there is some general sloppiness leaking into launches and website execution that I never thought I would see at BFC.  BFC used to be all about first time quality.  Its why length of time between patches never used to bother me.  Now, we are seeing months and fractions of a year go by before stuff gets fixed.  I dread seeing any issues in the games because I know it will be a while before it gets fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

You're missing the point.  The wrong name was up there over a week after being pointed out several times across a few threads.  Having to go to the help desk shouldn't have had to happen.  Its just sloppy and exudes a lack of consideration to customers, whether people who read the forum daily, or only play the game.  Any company I have worked for, as soon as someone point out something like that, it would have been changed post haste.  I have worked for companies from four people to 40,000 people.

Why make your customer have to go through a couple extra steps when fixing a single character on a label as soon as you hear about it would have solved it?  Why make the customer go through more work and aggravation?  This would not have been accepted with such timidity for any other game I can remember.  A big game company like Paradox or Matrix would have excoriated on their own forums for doing that.

As I said before, there is some general sloppiness leaking into launches and website execution that I never thought I would see at BFC.  BFC used to be all about first time quality.  Its why length of time between patches never used to bother me.  Now, we are seeing months and fractions of a year go by before stuff gets fixed.  I dread seeing any issues in the games because I know it will be a while before it gets fixed.

IIRC, the previous web site had a tab that was simply labeled "Patches." When you accessed if, you saw the base game, followed by the subsequent patches by version number. You clicked on the patch you wanted. In this case, you saw CMSF2 V 2.00. If you clicked on that version, you saw "CMSF2 V 2.0.1 and the updated campaign. Personally, I don't really see how the two numbering systems are so different or difficult to understand without hand holding. Talk about "A Tempest in a Teapot!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

BFC used to be all about first time quality.

Still are old boy, still are.

Name one BFC product that was unplayable out of the box.

Happens all the time with AAA companies, has never happened here. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×