[quote name='mogshaz']eh, I don't want to keep going off topic so, we can agree That you believe Rockstar shouldn't actually have to Test the game they are creating then distributing, and then when there is a problem with it they can then blame Microsoft for it. While I disagree with that.[/quote]
As cheapy noted the thread is pointless anyway, so we may as well go off topic. Microsoft is making ~$5.75 in licensing fees for every copy of Bully that is made. I never argued that Rockstar was without blame. I was merely arguing that Microsoft shares some fault in letting it happen. Do you think either of the following two statements are true?
1) Microsoft properly notified Rockstar of the various differences between the hardware revisions and Rockstar chose to ignore it (I'm assuming it was not a resource issue since the patch was released so quickly).
2) Microsoft bears no responsibility for notifying developers that there are variations in the way software runs on various hardware releases.
As cheapy noted the thread is pointless anyway, so we may as well go off topic. Microsoft is making ~$5.75 in licensing fees for every copy of Bully that is made. I never argued that Rockstar was without blame. I was merely arguing that Microsoft shares some fault in letting it happen. Do you think either of the following two statements are true?
1) Microsoft properly notified Rockstar of the various differences between the hardware revisions and Rockstar chose to ignore it (I'm assuming it was not a resource issue since the patch was released so quickly).
2) Microsoft bears no responsibility for notifying developers that there are variations in the way software runs on various hardware releases.
