Should Game Companies release more patches?

[Majingir]

I'm sure it's something people obviously hate about video games, but unfortunately, we're just accepting the fact that 99% of games are released, unfinished, so the game company tries making up for it with a patch.

The only problem...most companies release 1, maybe 2 patches(if the gamers are lucky) at most and then completely ignore the game for the rest of the time it's out.


So the question is...do you think video game companies should be required to release more patches? Cause they obviously can't fit everything in a single patch, and more problems come up as time goes on cause people play the game longer and notice more things. Sports games especially(specifically baseball,basketball,hockey), if a game releases in month 1, a patch gets released month 2, maybe a mini update month 3, but then from months 4-9 the game gets almost 0 feedback from developers and they just don't care about fixing the game anymore and just focus on the next years game(starting from month 10 is when they start advertising the next years game).

Video games are like the only thing I can think of, where if something goes wrong,consumers can't do anything about it.

If you buy something like a toaster or a microwave and it doesn't heat up/toast stuff,or somethings wrong with it, it'll get recalled/you can exchange it for a working one.
If you buy a TV and somethings wrong with it, you can exchange it for one that works.
If you buy a car and they find out that there's a problem with a part in it, it gets recalled and they fix it for you.


If you buy a video game and somethings wrong with it, you're just forced to accept it and "wait until next years game". It's crazy really how video games are easily allowed to be released despite the fact that they're unfinished, but it's essentially illegal(or if not illegal,it's not allowed/accepted to be sold like that) to sell almost any other product, if the product is unfinished.

[thedudedominick]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

I think it has more to do with what the consoles allow the companies to do than what they game company decides to do. I mean after a couple patches the company has to actually pay to patch their game.

This is where I really enjoy playing games on the PC, they get patched much more often and most of the time have better support from the developer or from dedicated fans who release their own patches and mods.

The issue with sports games is the yearly cycle. The consumers demand a new updated game with new uniforms and rosters and game modes every year and the company often times has to focus on the next release pretty quickly after the release of the current version.

Other types of games are better off with the ability to release big updates in the forms of paid DLC. They can get around 60 dollars extra for their game with all of the extras and use the extra profit to put more time into correcting any mistakes found. Plus their attention isn't always immediately shifted to the next version of their game or to another game. They will support the current release for longer while working on DLC.

[Valdarez]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

Personally believe if a game goes out and needs to be patched, the consumer should receive a refund as they received an incomplete product.

[Graphik]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

Personally believe if a game goes out and needs to be patched, the consumer should receive a refund as they received an incomplete product.

QFT

We're basically a bunch of unpaid beta testers. In fact, we actually pay them to test the games.

[thedudedominick]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

Personally believe if a game goes out and needs to be patched, the consumer should receive a refund as they received an incomplete product.

I disagree with this. The only time a refund should be received is if the game is unplayable. 90 percent of the time a patch will fix bugs that are not easily found until millions are playing it. Now if you put a game in and it wont play because of bugs, yeah get a refund.

I mean when I look at a bug list for fixes in a patch I generally think "wow I have never seen any of those things."

[Graphik]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

I disagree with this. The only time a refund should be received is if the game is unplayable. 90 percent of the time a patch will fix bugs that are not easily found until millions are playing it. Now if you put a game in and it wont play because of bugs, yeah get a refund.

I mean when I look at a bug list for fixes in a patch I generally think "wow I have never seen any of those things."

For example. I have NBA 2K13 on the PC. Playable to the average consumer but unplayable to the diehard bball fan. If I paid 30-40 bucks for this game and deemed it unplayable due to some serious bugs that plague the game with no patch release in sight, should I get my money back as a unsatisfied customer?

[thedudedominick]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

For example. I have NBA 2K13 on the PC. Playable to the average consumer but unplayable to the diehard bball fan. If I paid 30-40 bucks for this game and deemed it unplayable due to some serious bugs that plague the game with no patch release in sight, should I get my money back as a unsatisfied customer?

Due to the nature of gaming on the PC it's tough to get a refund due to all the ways for consumers to take advantage of the system. Of course if the game is unplayable for you there should be ways you can get a refund.

The issue with giving out refunds for games being "unplayable" it turns into people wanting refunds just for not liking games. Look at what happened with Mass Effect 3. The game was amazing for 99 percent of it but because of the ending the consumers demanded refunds, and forced the developers to expand on the ending.

I think of something like that as ordering a pizza, eating it completely until the crust of the last slice and then taking it back saying you want a refund because a couple bites tasted bad.

If the game plays and doesn't freeze or crash randomly then you shouldn't get a refund. You can't buy a car, drive it around for a couple weeks, then decide you don't like it and ask for a refund. Usually if there issues with it the company will cover the repairs or fixes which is like a patch for a video game. Of course video game issues aren't life and death like issues with a car would be.

[KMRblue1027]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

Personally believe if a game goes out and needs to be patched, the consumer should receive a refund as they received an incomplete product.

You do realize this is impossible? Games are so complicated now and QA teams are just 6 or 7 people. You simply cannot find the bugs without millions of hours poured into a game that you will only get when the public gets its hand on it. It's either patches or broken games.

Plus, games have been getting patches since the early days of PC gaming, Doom was patch something like 9 times before the final version and source ports fixed hundreds of bugs after that.

[PantherBeast_OS]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

Yes I do believe they need to do more patches. Madden, NCAA, and WWE games are good examples of why companies need to do more patches. They can't get the job done right the first time. So that is why they need to release more patches to fix stuff in the game. But the reason they don't release more patches is because their time is limited and more patches cost them money after the first few free ones are used up.

[Valdarez]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

You do realize this is impossible? Games are so complicated now and QA teams are just 6 or 7 people. You simply cannot find the bugs without millions of hours poured into a game that you will only get when the public gets its hand on it. It's either patches or broken games.

Plus, games have been getting patches since the early days of PC gaming, Doom was patch something like 9 times before the final version and source ports fixed hundreds of bugs after that.

As a software developer with nearly 20 years experience do I think producing quality, bug free software is impossible? No. Nothing is impossible. Difficult, time consuming, costly, yes, but impossible no. Companies push for releasing early so they can get a return on investment ASAP, with the quality of the game, and the gamers enjoyment, taking the brunt of negative impact of the early release.

There have been several games I've played this generation that were broken upon release. Games that never should have been green lighted, and still were. Most notable were Jumper (broken at a point that left gamers unable to advance) and Dante's Inferno (game breaking bug that mulched the game saves and left gamers stuck).

Sony, MS, and Nintendo should have a policy that any game with a game breaking bug should require a penalty on the developer with the penalty $$$ going straight to the gamers who purchased the product. They all have online stores now, so there's no reason not to do it. Guarantee if any console developer did it, gamers would cheer, and developers would be a LOT less likely to release buggy software.

[Jarbeez]

Re: Should Game Companies release more patches?

Patching for online/multiplayer games is absolutely necessary.

I think offline games should be able to be released without a need for a patch. Everyone in the QA team should have played through the full game to realize if there are any game breaking bugs out there. The developers should understand more than anyone else what complexities there are and should be able to test everything.

Online/Multiplayer is a different story altogether.