For the past several weeks, people have constantly been asking where patch 3.3.4 is. Right now we're at
patch 3.3.3, and Soon™ we'll be basking in the
Ruby Sanctum with
patch 3.3.5. We seem to have missed an entire numeral! Clearly this is a sign of the end times, shows how Ghostcrawler is really slapping us all in the face and how the "B team" is so
special that they can't count to five without screwing things up.
Or ...
Blizzard just skips numbers all the time.
For instance:
- Patch 2.2.0 lead directly into patch 2.2.2
- Patch 2.3.0 lead directly into patch 2.3.2
- Patch 3.0.3 lead directly into patch 3.0.5
- Patch 3.0.5 lead directly into patch 3.0.8
- Patch 3.2.0a lead directly into patch 3.2.2
- Patch 3.3.0a lead directly into patch 3.3.2
So why was 3.3.4 skipped? Your guess is as good as mine, as long as your guess is that they've left 3.3.4 open in case they need to do an emergency client patch to fix some major error. Just like they have in the past.
Tags: ghostcrawler, patch-3.3.4, patch-3.3.5, patch-3.3.5-changes, patch-3.3.5-wow, world-of-warcraft-patch-3.3.5, wow-3.3.5-changes, wow-new-patch, wow-patch, wow-patch-3.3.4, wow-patch-3.3.5, wow-patch-news
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion
May 21st 2010 at 11:00AM 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Tri May 21st 2010 11:04AM
Conspiracy theory much? :P
I dont think there's an actual rule against skipping version numbers xD
Anyways, I'm MUCH more excited about 4.0 anyways :D
murabayashi.harukaze May 21st 2010 12:28PM
"Three is the number thou shall count, and the counting of the numbers shall be three. Five it RIGHT OUT."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One, Two, FIVE!"
"Three Sir!"
"THREE!"
::Arthur chucks the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch::
Artificial May 21st 2010 4:02PM
"There go to eleven."
(Hint: Arbitrary numbers are arbitrary.)
Artificial May 21st 2010 4:03PM
"THESE go to eleven."
WTB edit button
jishdefish May 21st 2010 11:37PM
In Japan the number four is unlucky. Maybe the developers agree?
(The reason is that the Japanese word for "death" is very similar to the word for "four.")
Azshaara Jun 22nd 2010 10:51AM
THEIR TRYING TO STOP THE COUNTING I TELLS YAS! UNEDUCATE OUR CHILDREN! AND MAKE EM NOT KNOW HOW TO ADD SO THEY CAN BUY MORE THINGS FOR WoW!!!
Vaylein May 21st 2010 11:10AM
I'm going for the emergency fix. Very plausable!
Elmo May 21st 2010 11:38AM
I agree, the next patch after 3.3.5 that has been announced is 3.3.9
I don't see them filling up 3 patches in between those either they just keep them open for emergency fixes.
Sumanai May 21st 2010 11:49AM
next patch should be 3.9, not 3.3.9.
zubbiefish May 21st 2010 11:19AM
When a topic like this one pushes its way to the front of the line it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. You know why? I'll tell you why. This is a feel-good topic, not for its content but for what it represents. When you see something like this getting a space all to itself it can only mean that all is right with the world.
Either that or it's a red herring, thrown to us by wily Blizzard shadow agents bent on ruining their cash cow just to spite a bunch of whiny internet pseudo people. That's right folks, there's an internal conspiracy at Blizzard and Greg Street is the puppet master, pulling the strings, bent on destroying all of WoW. Gird your loins, the Cataclysm isn't an expansion, IT IS THE END OF DAYS.
Hank May 21st 2010 11:19AM
Perhaps an internal version number...
Donhorn May 21st 2010 4:25PM
That's what I was thinking.
Culhag May 21st 2010 11:20AM
Internal builds.
catharsis80 May 21st 2010 1:09PM
When I write scripts at work, I use sequential arbitrary version numbers. Some don't actually make it to production until the next number. It's probably the same, or a similar thing, with Blizzard's number. This is nothing new: many software companies do this all the time. Oracle does it with their databases as well.
Brittyl May 21st 2010 11:20AM
I am also going for the emergency fix.
My guess is that the base of patch 3.3.4 contains all of the Ruby Sanctum, and the other things in the patch notes, EXCLUDING the Battle.net changes. 3.3.4 is probably very stable, or at least as stable as most other "content" type patches.
Battle.net is probably largely contained in 3.3.5 on top of 3.3.4. Battle.net is a HUGE change comparitively, and could very well cause a lot of problems. It's a "functionality" change, which is much more in line with an expansion patch. Think about how buggy your 2.0 and 3.0 releases were.
Would be nice to be able to rollback just to having Ruby Sanctum, no?
Grovinofdarkhour May 21st 2010 11:20AM
I don't give a rat's ass if they start numbering them π, Ω, ∆, √-1, or ∞.
Juz gimeh ma lootz!
Tirrimas May 21st 2010 11:22AM
Personally, I vote for Omega.
Heh.
Sithril May 21st 2010 12:19PM
Now that would be cool.
Grovinofdarkhour May 21st 2010 12:24PM
On second thought, if they ever do "the infinity patch", it had better have Sargeras in it.
But no, other than that, I don't give a rat's ass.
catharsis80 May 21st 2010 1:11PM
Except Omega would be a sign that we should probably start playing something else very soon.