12-14-2008, 09:44 AM
|
#11
|
MVP
|
Re: When a Patch is Just Too Late to Save a Game
I'll preface this by saying I don't have concrete evidence about what I'm go say. But I believe EA is most focused on meeting a deadline than making a game devoid of flaws. In an ideal world, the best business model for EA would be to make a near "perfect" game that everyone rave about. It would sell like hot cakes as word spreads about how this game is so great. I actually hate writing this but I highly doubt we'll ever see that.
Sports game generally don't lend themselves to best business models, especiall sports games with traction and history like NCAA and Madden. It's not like the developers are marketing a new untested game. These are games with an already established fan base of buyers and people who are fans of the particular sport. The author of the article is exactly the type of person EA needs and loves. It's someone who can't do without their fix of this year's version of their favorite sport, no matter how messed up it had been in the past. So the best business model for these types of games is to meet the deadline and then patch what you know is broken later. People are going to buy the damn game anyway, at least through anticipation or in hopes "they fixed what was broken last year." I don't know the author but I would bet good money he is going to buy this game next year. And if he comes away disappointed by his purchase, he is going to reward the culprits by buying their other product, Madden. It's an endless cycle that is a win win for EA. People just can't do without their virtual crack.
I don't think for a minute that EA QA/test these games with the intention to fix everything that is broken. Of course they fix some glaring issues prior to release. However, I would bet money that in the end time and budgetary constraints trumps devotion to create the best product possible. A big purpose of the QA process is to figure out what will be patched after release not what will be fixed before release. Basically, "find out the minimum amount of work we need to do for the game to be deemed at least acceptable."
If you accept the reality of the development cycle, a patch is much better than no patch. Why would you want a game where there is no hope its flaws will be fixed? I say be careful about writing that you don't like patches and how they are evil. It could be interpreted the wrong way. I actually don't like the article because it just says to EA that no matter what you guys do, you guys should just keep doing what you're doing. But of course, it's only a confirmation as I'm sure EA already knows that.
__________________
----------
PSN: RuFF_NeXX
MLB: Toronto Blue Jays
NBA: Toronto Raptors
CFL: Toronto Argonauts
NFL: Miami Dolphins
NCAA Football: Miami Hurricanes
NCAA Basketball: Miami Hurricanes
NCAA Baseball: Miami Hurricanes
Last edited by deadlyCane; 12-14-2008 at 09:47 AM.
|
|
|