When a Patch is Just Too Late to Save a Game

[D_Money]

Considering that games go to press 45-60-75 days before release, I expect an on Day 1. That at least gives me the idea that the company recognizes some issues as opposed to you and I discovering them.

So my hope is that there are at least 2-3 patch cycles. That would give me a feeling that the game is evolving as opposed to a one-shot 'this-i-it' deal.

I wonder how much of effort and cost it is for post- release maintenance? To me, that maintenance investment would build and hopefully maintain loyalty and more satisfied users.

[D_Money]

Considering that games go to press 45-60-75 days before release, I expect an on Day 1. That at least gives me the idea that the company recognizes some issues as opposed to you and I discovering them.

So my hope is that there are at least 2-3 patch cycles. That would give me a feeling that the game is evolving as opposed to a one-shot 'this-i-it' deal.

I wonder how much of effort and cost it is for post- release maintenance? To me, that maintenance investment would build and hopefully maintain loyalty and more satisfied users.

Meant to say "I expect a patch on Day1"......

[Young J 334]

Re: When a Patch is Just Too Late to Save a Game

While patches give companies an excuse to rush an otherwise unfinished product, it does provide free beta testing from such die-hard fans from communities like OS.

I don't like it, but I'd rather have patches for a game that I like than to buy something completely broken with no chance of fixing.

I'm glad patches are only for games, imagine if it were for cars. "Nice pretty new engine, design is flawless, handles great." A month later.....

CAR COMPANY ANNOUNCES NEW PATCH TO PUT BRAKES INTO THE CAR...

Intriguing! Lol that would be a disaster. Kinda like NCAA. But just like we still play this, people would attempt to drive their vehicle to see if it works right "post-patch".

[buzzguy]

Patches...gotta love 'em! Imagine if there were no patches...at some point all of us would be stuck with a game with no solution to in-game problems in-sight...ever.
I spent a few years as a pc gamer, so they don't bother me that much. As long as they show-up in a timely manner.

[fjccommish]

"Patch delivery is standard software support practiced throughout the industry....for business application development or gaming. The problem here is: EA Sports drops their support too soon after release."

Great point. NBA Live 09 should have a second patch to fix the injury problem in Dynasty or season. If people are injured they never return to the active roster. One developer, in the forums, actually mentioned that the consumers hadn't found it in time to make a fix in the first patch.

So it took people some time to realize it. Why not come out with a second patch to fix it?

[rudyjuly2]

Patches are good but there is no question they lead to a sloppy and rushed product. Why test it like crazy when the public can do it and you can patch it? Furthermore, patches take time. Unless it's something that is very simple we simply won't get them right away and you have to wait months.

[Bootzilla]

By the time most patches are released, all of my enthusiasm for the game(s) has dissipated. I end up spending so much time tweaking sliders to make the pre-patched game playable that I simply do not feel like going back and re-tweaking once the patch is released. As strictly a sports gamer I find myself spending less time with each years releases. Maybe expectations are too high or maybe it's just gamer burnout.

[Pared]

Re: When a Patch is Just Too Late to Save a Game

The biggest issue I have with patches is that games are released KNOWING they get a mulligan with the release of the first patch.

Developers know they can release a game and hopefully address the issues they KNOW are there via a patch. That's completely ridiculous and unfair to your loyal gamers who are there waiting on release day.

And before anyone goes on their fanboyerrific tirade in response, ALL companies are guilty of this. It's a problem with developers who use them as a safety blanket and companies who have their hands tied due to licensing agreements.

[asu666]

I dislike patches. We buy what is on the disc and too often that is incomplete or broken. NCAA 09 is a good example. It doesn't even have the rules right with the timeclock not being updated to reflect the change this year. We are three updates in and there are still generic stadiums being used. The offense rushes to the line and snaps the ball with 20 seconds left on the playclock on every play. Not to mention the gameplay issues and lack of presentation. How about how it takes forever to run through recruiting prospects becuase they take so long to load. Way too many issues for a title this deep into its run.

[D_Money]

We ask for a lot and the companies try to deliver a lot. So it goes both ways. The problem I do have is when a company over commits themselves knowing its limitations (resources/project funding).

[fistofrage]

Re: When a Patch is Just Too Late to Save a Game

Pretty pointless buying a game at release right now. Especially an EA sports game. I mean how many wasted hours did we have trying to make the abysmal AI playable when the sliders didn't work.

[shigogouhou]

Sports games especially get murdered by the patch system. For example, I passed on NCAA 09 this year after NCAA 08 had bugs galore (my first and only midnight release purchase, no less, what a great way to start that tradition right?), figuring I'd pick it up after it was patched.
As of right now, I can get NCAA 09 used on Amazon for $35; I save $25 and EA gets $0 from me (well, technically half of what the original owner paid for it), all because of the patch system. That price is only going to go down after the holidays, up until it's practically free once NCAA 2010 is released in July.

[Jeru3131]

So true. I had the same issue with Ncaa. By the time the patch came out my copy was back at Eb as a trade in for madden, which soon after was used as a trade in for nba 2k.

[bigwill33]

Some great comments gents. I feel many of your pains and agree with a good bit of what you guys are saying too.

However, I am from the mindset that patches are good, but there is a long way to go in perfecting on what they can do and how and when they can be released.

After being around the industry for nearly the past decade I believe strongly that gaming companies don't try to release broken products. But yes they are on a tight time line and that has to be met above all else. My main reason for stating this is because I know how many games were just broken before consoles were able to have patches at all. And I know if given the chance the developers would have fixed those problems any way possible and in fact usually have it fixed as point 1A for the next release.

I am sure if you think back you can recall an NCAA, Madden, Live, or NHL from EA that was just junk and unplayable in the past, well before patches existed. So to me that goes along way in ruling out the argument that patches are crutches.

Still with that being said and in relation to the article I would hope that future games bring a better and more efficient time table for patch release. With a strong agreement that games can be fixed and tuned well into the next games development cycle. Even if it means adding more people to work on the process, though I doubt that ever happens.

[Tycobbler]

If you don't know by now perhaps you never will. Dev's hype the game, people feed into it, and are let down by their own high expectations. It's further felt when you're made to wait an additional set period for the update/patch when you allready want what you want when you want it. Future practice for the masses- Day 1 game release. Read reviews, laugh at the early birds, learn from their mistakes. Days 2-whenever patch/update. When that day comes further peruse the forums, weigh the pro's and con's and then and only then make your final decision on what to do.
A patch is never to late, it's your patience that simply cannot wait.