Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

[mwjr]

I think patches can be good, in terms of tweaking games. But patches aren't being used for tweaking; they're being used for major game fixes. While we're fortunate that we have the capability to fixthese games, I do think that patches convert what used to be hard release dates for programmers into initial releases followed by the final releases.

[thescoop]

I believe patches are good thing but are being GROSSLY OVERUSED!

What do I mean by this? I mean that a lot of patches we see now are for bugs that should have never made it to the retail floor. We are seeing fatal bugs making it into games instead of delays on the release of the title we would have seen in the past.

Now some might not want the game delayed so that's another debate. I personally would rather see it delayed than having to wait a month or longer to play a game I already bought.

While the article is a good one, the question you ask is wrong because anyone with half a brain will say yes patches are a good thing. I mean even the most tested game may have a bug or two slip through the cracks. But I think the question we should be asking are developers depending on patches too much to meet deadlines?

The answer to that quesion is a 100 percent yes, at least in sports games. None sports titles will go the delay route quicker, but we the Madden fans, the NCAA nuts, we must have our copies at a certain point in the year and this has driven developers to cut corners in this new next gen world.

I for one I'm tired of it and would rather see Madden delayed than released buggy, but that isn't going to happen. I almost think you might see more people complaining if they were told Madden/NCAA or MLB 2k were delayed than those of us who are upset by having to wait on the patch.

Patches are a good thing for gamers, but they shouldn't be the standard that they've become in sports gaming.

[DJ]

This article brings up a few great points. I think patches are a bad idea and are clearly being used as a crutch by the game companies. They'll ship a game with bugs/glitches/errors just to meet their deadline and fix it later.

When we, the consumer are shelling out over $60 for a new game, we should expect it to play a certain way. I'm not saying a game will be perfect (every game has flaws), but there's no excuse for these major gaming flaws to be in the retail version.

The point about those gamers who don't have Live or Sony's online network shouldn't be taken lightly. Not everyone has their system online capable for whatever reason, and they are stuck wtih these broken games and no way to fix them. I feel bad for them.

Sports where one company has the exclusive license, there's no reason why they can't push a release date back in order to get the game right. It's not like we're going to go out and buy another football or baseball game. Who cares if it doesn't ship a month before the season starts?

[BrsFan34]

I think you're all being whiny bi**ches... its a f'n VIDEOGAME.. and at the end of the day making these games is about making MONEY... EA needs to have a new football/basketball/hockey game out every 12 months and with all the new things these "next gen" systems can do.,. the programming takes LONGER and LONGER.. 12 months just isn't enough time to reinvent the wheel every year like most people on these boards seem to expect. so just relax enjoy the game or god forbid... DON'T BUY IT...

[BobbyZ23]

My problem isn't that games are being patched. My problem is that the only way to receive the patch is through the Playstation Network or X-Box Live. This is a major problem for those of us that don't have high speed internet. At one time I did have high speed internet (a recent move to the country means dial-up is my only option) and I remember I was able to download most patches in a few seconds. That tells me that the patches files are very small. Why can't Sony, or for that matter EA, offer patches for download from their web site? I know it can be done because Sony currently offers their dashboard update on their web site.

[Bahnzo]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

I think patches can be good, in terms of tweaking games. But patches aren't being used for tweaking; they're being used for major game fixes. While we're fortunate that we have the capability to fixthese games, I do think that patches convert what used to be hard release dates for programmers into initial releases followed by the final releases.

This pretty sums it up, and echos what I've been saying for some time now. People who think patches are good aren't really thinking things through. By continuing to allow patches, game companies will gradually become more and more dependent on them. Instead of a shipping a complete game, they instead can ship whatever is ready and patch it later. We've already seen this with Madden.

And then what of the people who for any number of reasons don't have the ability to connect their console to a high speed internet connection? I think companies should be required to come up with a solution for these people. They are just as deserving to have the fixed game as anyone else who paid $60 for it.

Like the poster I quoted said, patches are great for tweaks, small bugs not discovered, etc. But companies are intentionally shipping games now that need to be patched, and that's *not* what patches were intended for. And it will continue to get worse. You already have DLC being left off the games so extra money can be generated from consumers.

How much longer until a "patch" is 400 MS points? Don't laugh, I wouldn't put it past any company to try and pull that off.

[DubTrey1]

In the case of a developer like EA, they are a part of day to day business. They figure, hey we know that there are some issues with XYZ title, but only the hardcore guys will complain/notice, so we can still hit our street date and have a patch in the works to appease those guys as well. It must be a part of the EA business model. I am not opposed to patches that correct the gameplay issues etc. and actually end up making the games value even better (see CHoops2K8) So, I would have to say as long as they work their hardest to get the game out in it's most playable state, I am for patches delivered in a a timely manner after the games initial release. Besides, the patche(s) at least for me and Madden 09 is why I have yet to buy the game.....

[tutking]

It sucks to see it happening like this it happens with different companies but look at Madden this year.

After years of bug filled games you'd think that they had something to prove, but the bugs thread was put up the day before the game was released, and who put it up? THE DEVELOPERS. Asking not only for the bugs to be listed but had an specific way to list the problem and urgency. I looked at that and thought "what? are people paying $60 to be involved in the Tiburon game testing staff" theese people who bought the game early are basicly debuging a game they payed for. Makes me sick.

Developers get on your job!!!

Gamers we gotta show them were not puttin up with half assed games dont fall for the hype

my 2 cents

[jmood88]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

This pretty sums it up, and echos what I've been saying for some time now. People who think patches are good aren't really thinking things through. By continuing to allow patches, game companies will gradually become more and more dependent on them. Instead of a shipping a complete game, they instead can ship whatever is ready and patch it later. We've already seen this with Madden.

And then what of the people who for any number of reasons don't have the ability to connect their console to a high speed internet connection? I think companies should be required to come up with a solution for these people. They are just as deserving to have the fixed game as anyone else who paid $60 for it.

Like the poster I quoted said, patches are great for tweaks, small bugs not discovered, etc. But companies are intentionally shipping games now that need to be patched, and that's *not* what patches were intended for. And it will continue to get worse. You already have DLC being left off the games so extra money can be generated from consumers.

How much longer until a "patch" is 400 MS points? Don't laugh, I wouldn't put it past any company to try and pull that off.

The only game I've seen shipped with issues that the developer knew about is Madden and that's likely due to their development cycle. It's ridiculous that someone can turn a fix for problems in a game into an issue to complain about.

[El Greazy 1]

As another person stated, it's a double edged sword. Sure it allows for any errors that made it past Quality Control (or lack there of) to be fixed but at the same time it gives developers an easy pass. Games are so complex now and so long that it's nearly impossible for a small team of testers to catch every error, that's fine, and this is when millions of consumers get to test every facet of the game. So patching is a neccessity at times.

Much like the case of MLB2K8, we say a myriad of problems with Madden 09. We see a game with CPU AI running out of bounds, horrible clock management, beyond effective CPU QB, broken Franchise Mode (2 years in a row) etc from THE BIGGEST GAME COMPANY & BIGGEST FRANCHISE OF ALL TIME. To me, this screams rush-work and lack of quality on the side of the developer and this has been the case for many years now. It's very clear with NCAA 09 & Madden 09 that patches aren't the exception but the rule. This is a company with infinite resources and an obligation to put out an as-near-perfect addition to the millions of consumers who purchase & support the game each year, yet they're given a free pass, of sorts.

There are many people to blame for this. You can blame the companies who are pushing harsh deadlines on developers and only care about the bottom line. You can blame the developers for being sloppy and not putting out quality even though they're reputation is on the line. And most imporantly, you can blame the consumer for giving both a free pass. By purchasing a product half-finished, you essentially are giving the companies & developers a "get out of jail free" card for their lack of quality and laziness. Until the consumer makes a stand you will not see anything change.

Games should not be allowed to get shipped knowing there are problems with the product. How would a consumer feel if a car company would put out a vehicle with faulty brakes? How would a consumer feel if a food company put out an item that could be poisonous or bacteria laden? Maybe, just maybe the government should start stepping in as they have with other products to ensure that the consumer isn't being sold false goods.

[ab2c4]

Patches are bad in my opinion. Yes, they do fix problems in a game after release. However, if developers knew they couldn't release patches they would make sure the game was completely finished and tested before they would release it. If they didn't, they know they would loose a lot of money through the lack of sales once word got around that the game was released unfinished or full of problems.

Patches make developers lazy and are bad for consumers. Companies like EA and others are knowingly releasing unfinished games with the attitude of "it is ok, we can finish later in a few months with some patches". Consumers can change this I believe. If enough of us refused to buy games on their release day, instead waiting to see if it is a finished product, and not buying until the game was "finished" (read: patched) then I think developers would stop with their shady tactics.

[ab2c4]

Come to think of it, if a game is properly tested then the only "patches" that should be needed after release are Roster Updates.

[jmood88]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

Yeah because there were never problems in games before patches. What perfect game have you played?

[ab2c4]

No game is perfect, but it would eliminate the huge game breaking glitches that companies like EA are knowingly letting out the door on release day.

[TarHeelsUNC]

Re: Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

I'm going to say "Not Good," because not every gamer gets on the Internet with their console.