Continued Updates vs Overall Quality

[BQ32]

I have been pondering lately if the ability to constantly update a game may in some ways actually be leading to a decrease in quality of gameplay. This at first seems counter intuitive but as I logged into UFC 4 today I was instantly reminded of how much less enjoyable this game feels to me now comparatively to a few months ago. Obviously there can be unnoticed exploits when a game releases and are in dire need of a patch, but on the flip side a team may spend a year testing and tuning different aspects of gameplay so when they put out a patch that sometimes drastically changes the gameplay there is just no way they have had the time to playtest and tune it to the same degree.
Worse yet I believe many companies are using the ability to patch games as a crutch and an excuse to put out unfinished products. This also creates a lot of frustration in two camps. First the people that bought it and are not happy with certain aspects of the game not being as fleshed out as they would expect, and another group that like and purchase a product because of how it plays initially and then later have buyers remorse when that product is change substantially. It seems like there is a correlation between games in the past and overall gamer satisfaction relative to expectations and games nowadays. It seems to me that games should be better with being able to change them but then I just keep thinking back to games that did not have continued updates and just felt so much better for the life of the product. First for me would be Fight Night Round 4, when I initially played it it felt vastly different then Round 3 and I did not really like it, but I gave it time, mastered the gameplay, fell in love, and it became my favorite game of all time. Flash forward to today, where just as i may have mastered the gameplay they would decide to update it based on a couple of weeks of testing and twitter complaining and now it becomes something different. It seems counterintuitive to me, but I miss the days when a product was what it was.

[Pedro_Guap]

There were many patches delivered for Fight Night 4 and Champion.

Both games released with issues. They are actually examples of how great a game can become via post-purchase support.

UFC 4 is an example of the opposite.

[BQ32]

I don't remember round 4 having many patches but it was a long time ago. Champion on the other hand did receive many. But they at one point had the game in a very good place and the last patch for champion really put that game in the crapper imo. The game now is an exploit fest and the judging is horrendous. Round 4 was the only really balanced game the team ever released with different styles all being viable at the highest level.

[Blackman316]

Though they've managed to update EAUFC3 significantly, I'm more a fan for keeping your product intact. Fix the bugs (ffs), maybe add some content (paid DLC or not), actualize it. But don't change things too much.

Any damage to your audience has most likely been done at release. You're better off to release a new game the next year, unless your release what a nightmare (which, in the case of EAUFC, has never happened imho). Plus you alienate people who tried your game through the demo and bought it based entirely on that trial.

I once gave the - albeit ridiculous - example of Waterson's hair being changed. Its significance might be very limited, but that's what I'm talking about: don't change existing content. Yes, this qualifies as actualization, but I'm talking about the end result: a hair piece being deleted from the game files. This should be a no-go for devs. It's the same thing as maps being removed from shooters. It's the principle.

[Granbyroll]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackman316

Though they've managed to update EAUFC3 significantly, I'm more a fan for keeping your product intact. Fix the bugs (ffs), maybe add some content (paid DLC or not), actualize it. But don't change things too much. Any damage to your audience has most likely been done at release. You're better off to release a new game the next year, unless your release what a nightmare (which, in the case of EAUFC, has never happened imho). Plus you alienate people who tried your game through the demo and bought it based entirely on that trial. I once gave the - albeit ridiculous - example of Waterson's hair being changed. Its significance might be very limited, but that's what I'm talking about: don't change existing content. Yes, this qualifies as actualization, but I'm talking about the end result: a hair piece being deleted from the game files. This should be a no-go for devs. It's the same thing as maps being removed from shooters. It's the principle.

Hair peices dont mean anything to me if the gameplay is lacking in critical areas. They took a whole position away(double unders) rather have that then hair

[Blackman316]

I fully knew the position was gone when I made the purchase, so no argument in trying to "get it back" post-release. If you are still waiting for it to return, you're a fool. It was never going to.


I don't like that it's gone, and I also would like it to return, but it is what it is. The good outweights the bad imho, so I got the game. Let's hope it's back in EAUFC5.