Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

[RaychelSnr]

Ever since companies have figured out how to patch console games, it seems as if the number of big bugs being shipped with games has gone up exponentially. Will Soistman checks in today with an article to discuss what has become a hot button topic in the community lately, are patches really a good thing for gamers?

"August 12th has come and gone and many of us have played Madden 09 in some way or form by now. In fact, on the PS3 the 1st patch has already made its rounds to those who have internet access. Wait a minute... The game has just been released, and there is a patch for it? There is also a 2nd patch announced too?! A lot of people see it as great news since the developers are fixing any mistakes that the community has found with their games. But are patches really a great thing for gaming?"

[kcxiv]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

I am just going to reply to the title of this thread.

Yes, patches are good. Ever single sports game released in the last 20 years could have used a patch one time or another. So now that they have the ability to patch, why not use it? There is no reason not to if your able too.

Someone may say, well they should put out a finished game before they release it. I agree, but the problem with that is, when you have people testing the game. They can only reasonably have a few hand fulls. When a game goes live hundreds of thousands to millions play it and everyone plays it different, so they find bugs that a few dozen people cant.

[gsugators]

Great article. I totally agree as an owner of NCAA 09 for the Xbox 360. They released a beta version of the game. Then as soon as we complained. patches were already in the works. When we as owners complain about paying $60 for a unstable, buggy game, NCAA 09 developers on these boards (I won't mention their names) tell us "Don't cry over spilled milk." EA is lucky no one has filled a class action lawsuit yet.

[N51_rob]

Double edge sword. It's good because there are some things that could come up and devs never have a chance to catch. They are bad because it is an escape to ensure that games hit their street dates no matter what.

Not to bang of EA, (because I am having a blast with NCAA 09 this year) here but NCAA 09 for example. There were things that Ryno and Russel05 mentioned to them before NCAA went gold and they weren't fixed pre-release. Some will be fixed in patch #2.

At the end of the day that is better for all gamer to have patched to fix things in the game.

[therockstar2005]

I would agree with what you're saying. However, there were plenty of games which had bugs and glitches in it in the last generation which wound up suffering because patches weren't available. So if they are opportunities to "fix" the game, I think its a good thing to have the option available.

[jddcp]

The ability to patch console games is a good thing. PC gamers for years (if not decades) were able to gloat over the fact that their games could be patched, modded, ect. Bringing this technology to console is a good thing.

In the past, we'd have to wait for the following year's version to get things fixed. Now, they can get fixed immediately. Like the earlier poster said, there were glitches and problems on PS2, Gamecube, SNES and every other console (except for maybe Atari....). I for one am very grateful for patches.

[HechticSooner]

I think the better response to this is not a question of patch/no patch, but one of dev cycle and the time it should/should not be given. I think that the ave game cycle is much larger then those of the average sports title. The short dev times lead to the dev deciding on things to quickly and then have issues come up with hasty code, and incomplete code. This is easily solved in the modern era.

How you may ask, well EA has already talked about using pay for play internet models. Why not allow these titles the ability to update over the internet, and give the dev two cycles worth of time to design the next installment. The updates would take a couple guys off the new program a few months before the update release but essentially will do nothing to the time that can be devoted to the new product. You are still making money off the old product, (even for those that adopt late in the cycle and buy used) and put out better products (hopefully) that increase brand loyalty (which we all know is the true key to product marketing).

Will this come about? Who knows but it could very well lead to the best of both worlds, higher profit for the companies and better games for the users.

[RoyalBoyle78]

That's a no brainier, of course they are.

[yamabushi]

It just leads to shoddier and sloppier work being done, as "we can always patch it later".
Its all fine and good when unexpected issues do crop up, as everyone is so fond of saying "no game is perfect" (even though Ive played plenty that have never needed patch 1) But, when youve got a game that hasnt even hit store shelves yet and your already working on known issues for a patch (or 2, or 3) that just shows either inexcusable laziness or ineptitude and a contempt for the consumer on both the developers and publisher part.

[jmood88]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

I don't see how patches can be a bad thing. If people really think that without patches we would get more complete games they're kidding themselves.

[bigjake62505]

Yes they are good, but when they are used for a crutch it gets ugly. And if there any gamers who do not have internet access they are screwed. Gaming in general is a big rip off broken $60 games, $400 systems that last about as long as a lingering fart, pricey monthly subscriptions, and outrageous accessorys= PILE OF $#!T

[jmood88]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

Don't buy the game then, it's pretty simple. I will never understand why people keep complaining about things being broken but won't wait a few days to hear reviews before buying or just renting the game. You don't need to have everything on day 1.

[Tycobbler]

Beta testers cannot catch everything, and some glaring issues go out the door upon game release. That's just the way it is. "Rent it first" should be a common practice.

As games come out it's always a welcome plus to have a patch released to the consumer. 1. it shows that the company is showing concern. 2. you get some of the issues resolved early enough to enjoy an overall better game.

[ehh]

There's no doubt that patches are good for gamers, it's just unfortunately when developers announce a patch is coming before a game even hits the shelf. That's sad because it makes the game companies seem lazy. But when devs sit in the forums and listen to our feedback and then release a patch to fix our concerns a la College Hoops 2K8, well we couldn't ask for more as gamers. CH2K8 went from about a 7.5 to the best nex-gen sports game yet because of 2K's patch.

[elicoleman]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

I really want to say no because it allows the developers to rush a product just to make a deadline, releasing an unfinished product and having the attitude that "we'll just release a patch later".

Obviously, patches can be good if it improves a product.

Problem is, I think we are seeing far too many things needing patched simply because the developers are relying far too much on patches.