Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

[spursfan]

the problem isn't with the actual pathes themselves. Let me clarify. Sports games(EA,2K) are the only ones in the industry shipping titles every 12 months, when it takes most games at least 18 months to complete. They know about these bugs/glitches in the game before it ships. They have to. There's nothing that would convince me otherwise. Most of these companies seem to care more about turning a profit for shareholders, than making good games. Granted it cost a lot more to develop for next-gen(excluding wii). But for the most part it has taken three or four years before the gameplay was remotely compareable to the last generation of hardware. As mush for the graphics and all that it takes 18 to 24 months to release a decent game. Don't beleive me. The old nfl 2k on dreamcast was in development for two years before it released. I still haven't seen a game that even comes close to the animations and camera views on that game. If u weren't paying attention, u would think u were watching a game on tv.

[coogrfan]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

I think the whole premise of the article is off base.

We aren't getting more patches because developers are using the process as a crutch -- we're getting them because next-gen games are far more complex than their last-gen predecessors. The following quote is taken out of context, but the basic principles the author describes can apply to any increasingly complex system:

"In complex systems, there are more "parts" and whenever there are more parts, there are more things that can go wrong. Think only of how many more "parts" there are to a jumbo jet, as opposed to a 1920's plane or an ox-cart.

...the more complex a system becomes, the less it takes for the system to become destabilized and the more quickly it can become destabilized. A jumbo jet can be disabled by something being wrong with about a pounds worth of small parts..."

[XCalmLikeABombX]

Great, well thought out article. I agree that we may be seeing patches as a crutch, rather than a way to fix a few glitches that pop up. It does truely seem
that we as the gamers have become certain companies beta testers. It just seems like so much is being released, with so many glitches. I honestly do not see how this many errors get through at QA team.

[CoachDavid]

YES, YES, YES... I remember when bugs and glitches ended up being part of the game.... Remember the sack glitch in Super Tech...

I am a developer (not a game developer) so look at it from my point of view. Companies have marketing and sales people calling the shots, especially when it comes to release day features. So... if you take out patches you get the same games you are today, but you have to wait until next year to get the fix.
Also, it cost money to make patches. Someone has to write the code and test the code, and now you have the added complexity of the patch. On PC's its easy (most of the time), but think of consoles... whoooh.

I love patches.

[erichoya]

My longterm hope for sports title development would be along the lines of an MMO style cycle. You look at something like World of Warcraft and the way its incremental patches and occasional expansions enrich and develop the title in an almost organic growth pattern. In this way, patches help grow the title rather than being a salve to fix holes that rushed development cycles cause.

I just look at the way the user communities have supported and grown orphaned PC titles like nascar 2003 and mvp 2005 and can only imagine if there was a more focused regular development cycle on the major titles focusing on sustained incremental development rather than entirely new products every year.

(all credit due to the one of the 1up podcast crews who initially threw this idea out)

[areobee401]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

Only one answer for this question.

YES

If something makes the game better then yes.

Should games have to be patched in the first 2-4 weeks of the ship date is a different question.

[Brandon13]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

You first have to provide evidence that we're getting incomplete games because of the ability of developers to patch their games later down the road. And judging by the fact that console games in the pre patch era still had bugs and sometimes game ruining bugs, I'd say your premise that patches are bad for gamers is off.

[dbrandon]

I think it all depends on the team the made the game and how much they really care about the product that they release. Looks like the Madden team is finally participating in after the release discussions with us while the team that released Nascar 09 won't participate any for of post game discussion of any kind anywhere. The TW 09 team sure didn't listen to any feed back the TW 09 demo is a step back words as far as gameplay goes.

[savoie2006]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

Patches are fine,but caution is also necessary for the developers when making a patch,as sometimes they can open a whole new can of worms.It's also important to note that most of the sports games are usually required by the league they represent to be released by a certain day.It puts that much more pressure on the developers of these games.Not to mention the fact that they have to try and correct any issues from the previous year(s) and put in features the fans want.Sports gamers are ruthless too,so I feel for those developers.

[Trick_]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

Game killer for those without online or those who don't know what kind of patch they are getting and what they are getting it for. I don't know if there are many people who wouldn't know...but I know quite a few people who don't have internet. As for those of us who are fortunate to have online capability then its a saving grace. Ability to "upgrade" or further enhance your game is really nice. Additional content such as Rock Band or Mass Affect's extra planet as well as roster patches and being able to fix glitches are awesome. Only concern I have is that I fear companies would just release games on time just to get them out with the thought that they could fix the games. We are now at the point where we would buy games if they had D/L content...such as Guitar hero or rockband. I think in most genre's of games the DLC was much needed and will only grow stronger in supply and demand for it.

[aukevin]

I'm going to try and not be too cynical by thinking developers leave bugs in because they know they can patch them later, so I think patches are indeed very good for the consumers.

One thing that developers must start doing though is providing a way to allow users to update their game without having to get their console online. I'm online all the time for free with the PS3 so it's not a big deal, but some don't put their consoles online. Simply putting the patch in downloadable form on the developer's website would suffice if they'd do it.

[Swingking77]

In my opinion, were patches used as they were intended (to fix legit bugs found by gamers) then there wouldn't be a problem. I think that everything is rush rush rush, sell sell sell and in the end it's the consumer that suffers.

In my opinion patches in sports games should be for nothing more then roster, uniform, or other simple updates. We shouldn't be seeing complete overhalls of certain aspects of games. The way things have been, people could do without up to the secound updated rosters, as the games were fine. Now that we're in a "new age of gaming" developers are cheating us.

It isn't just sports games either as in game such as Battle Field Bad Company, an entire portion of online play was left out (conquest mode), which was always a part of the game before.

Also, one has to ask just how good a game is that requires a patch as I'm sure that the effective results of a patch are limited, once the game has been released, where as a game that is tested and fixed before it is launched can have every aspect of the engines (AI, Graphics, Sounds, ect) fixed to a degree that a patch simply can't reach as the game's framework, at that time, in pretty much set in stone to a certain degree...

In my opinion, I've noticed a great decline in game quality at a time when the games are supposed to be getting better and better, which isn't the case... Games have gone the way of Hollywood and replaced substance with eye candy and the result is... Well, terrible.

[jmood88]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

When were there ever games that didn't need things fixed once released?

[Swingking77]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

Most games released before patches were made available worked fine right out of the box... Perhaps it was a simpler time with less options/game content and what not, but at least it worked. If games were like cars, I wouldn't want a brand new fully loaded shinny new car that caught on fire. If the older ones worked fine and never broke, all the AC, power windows, and vibrating seats dosen't mean a thing...

[jmood88]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

How many games nowadays don't work at all? Alot of the older games had plenty of glitches/bugs but people didn't care.