|
|
Feedback With -Hacks: Game Patches
Submitted by HolmesInFive; February 18, 2012
Game patches nowadays are a necessity for all the latest platforms and game genres. Whether it be the PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, or PC, updates are always coming out. The point which I was in a vigorous banter about with a friend on Skype just half an hour ago, is the purpose of these aforementioned patches.
Take yourself back to the days of PS1, PS2, Gameboy Colour, even the PSP and more. No patches, no problems, just power on and play no questions asked. Now, with newer consoles and more immense and advanced games, there is a lot more to do before a game can be finally released. The one thing that frustrates me so much, is that these patches are not only used to update the game for new DLC, but to also fix problems both big and small that have been found in the game since release.
I'm going to give you my two cents on the matter and then pass the proverbial mic on to you about the purpose of patches and what you believe should be done in terms of game release times.
Take "Ratchet And Clank: All 4 One". A good game IMO, and a fun multiplayer game. When I bought the game just after release, I had finished it in a matter of days. The things that bothered me about my experience: loading times between levels, slow stat display, autosaving paused gameplay and was not done in the background, and most importantly, there was actual content missing that could be unlocked in the main menu. Later in patch 1.03 all of this was fixed, but the point I am trying to make is all of this should have been done before release. Even with "Skyrim" for PS3, Bethesda knew that there were going to be problems with the game on release day. Did that stop the game from being released? Obviously not.
Patches/updates for games now seem to be an excuse for getting a game released earlier, more than a way of enabling a game for new DLC etc. Personally, I would rather wait an extra 3-4 months or however much time is necessary for a game to come out in its prime, rather than be given a game that is quite literally not finished yet. I believe developers need to think less about an earlier release date, and more about a quality game on release.
To sum it up, I believe patches should only be a means of updating a game for new DLC, and fixing only the slightest of bugs in a game that manage to slip under the radar.
Leave a comment with your opinion on the matter. I'm interested to see what you have to say on this.
Note:This is my own personal opinion, and in no way sums up the opinion of all -Hacks staff.
Tags: developer excuses, lazy, minimum release time, ps3 xbox pc useless patches, what are patches for
|
|
CREATE ACCOUNT NOW TO POST COMMENTS!
Why create an account on the Dashhacks network? Because being logged in has its privileges! • COMMENTS! Only logged in users comments go live without waiting for moderator approval! • No video! The video ad in the upper right doesn't interrupt you on all pages! • Customize your profile! Flaunt your xBox Live & PSN gamertags! • It's FREE and it's EASY! And one login works for all of the Dashhacks review sites! So what are you waiting for?
Go to the TOP RIGHT of the page and LOGIN or click REGISTER!
| ||
Comments
I have nothing to say but I agree with you very much the delay for finished games would be worth it but
they want the money now so unlikely to happen but especially would be nice for people that don't have
or don't want to go online
Reply
ya I know what that feels, also new patches sometimes screw your game up, or downloading it uses tons of your time, specially if you live somewhere where internet is ultra slow. And as I remember,DLCs where added to extend the length of you playing that game, and fixed some issues, not constanly making security sht or fixing even more bugs the game has like nowadays
Reply
KOTOR 2 could have been en excelent game but was rushed and released early. Bugs, crashes, corrupted saves, missing content and a ending that left you saying, HUH? Then there are programmers like the ones at blizzard that have games in devolpment hell for years but always seem to release a quality product. I would rather wait for a finished game.
Reply
Unfortunately, as games become bigger and bigger, there's more and more opportunities for tiny bugs to be missed in the code. Two hundred beta testers working diligently working for years on a large game might not find the bugs that thousands of gamers dicking around might find, especially because it's hard to test for the unexpected. Not to mention that extending the beta testing period just makes for a longer period that the devs aren't recouping the development costs, the game gets older and older even though it hasn't been released, competing developers can get their software out, and gamers get more and more impatient, and may decide on a different game instead of waiting. Then there are bugs that are discovered after the game is already sent to the manufacturers...
It's a catch-22. Damned if you release, damned if you don't. You just have to pick a date and go for it. Blizzard opts for longer development and quality-assurance periods, and as a consequence, you can never really predict release dates for them. They have strong enough brand names to overcome this, though - the majority of their target audience will still buy their games, even if they have to wait impatiently for a long time. This isn't true for the majority of games and game companies out there, though.
Reply
I think this has less to do with developers and more to do with publishers. In the old days the publishers had no way to patch a game so they had to choose to release a bugged game or grant the developers more time. Now with patches Publishers can sell the bugged game now and use the proceeds from the game to offset the cost of the extra time needed to fix the bugs and make DLC.
Reply
Unfortunately, as games become bigger and bigger, there's more and more opportunities for tiny bugs to be missed in the code, and more and more people working on small parts of games, meaning more of an opportunity for human error when no one knows the whole thing. Two hundred beta testers working diligently working for years on a large game might not find the bugs that thousands of gamers dicking around might find, especially because it's hard to test for the unexpected. Not to mention that extending the beta testing period just makes for a longer period that the devs aren't recouping the development costs, the game gets older and older even though it hasn't been released, competing developers can get their software out, and gamers get more and more impatient, and may decide on a different game instead of waiting. Then there are bugs found after the game is sent to the manufacturer...
It's a catch-22. Damned if you release, damned if you don't. You just have to pick a date and go for it. Blizzard opts for longer development and quality-assurance periods, and as a consequence, you can never really predict release dates for them. They have strong enough brand names to overcome this, though - the majority of their target audience will still buy their games, even if they have to wait impatiently for a long time. This isn't true for the majority of games and game companies, though.
Reply
You are correct. However the oder side of this matter are games like Duke Nukem Forever - which release dates have been prelonged for MANY yearsbecause of bug fixes, updating the graphics engine, etc. Like in all things there perfect solution is the golden center between applying patches and releasing the game early.
Reply
What about people who don't even have internet? Then what? You're screwed until a GOTY version comes out.
Reply
That's a good point, though nowadays pretty much everyone has the internet, or can use their friends for a quick download.
Reply
Thanks for your feedback! Its good to know I'm not the only one.
Reply
Very true. Fortunately most patches for games now end up improving the experience (R&C All 4 One and Skyrim are great now), it's just unfortunate that they weren't this way to begin with.
Thanks for your feedback!
Reply
Money is certainly a frustrating factor. I doubt there are any games nowadays on next gen consoles that don't turn a huge profit. It is annoying that the money comes first over a customers happiness.
Thanks for the interesting feedback!
Reply
I agree as well. It would be better off for developers to set aside some extra time to iron out those bugs and then release the game a few months later (just look at what happend to CoD: MW3 and all of its updates). The only reason to add updates/patches to a game should be for DLC and/or new features.
Reply
This is just ignorant. Making megaman and making skyrim are two very different tasks. It's impossible to test a game the way millions of users will on launch. Bethesda thought they had fixed the ps3 issues on skyrim. On all of their test consoles the issues were resolved. And really it's not their fault sony didn't put enough RAM in the PS3. As for ratchet and clank those updates were minor improvements to make it feel more polished. It doesn't mean that the game wasn't ready for release when it came out. if patches didn't exist both games would have stayed the way they are, does that sound better to you? Most of you commenters don't seem to understand setting asude time for extra testing would mean skyrim comes out 4 years later, when it's already outdated. With a AAA game you cannot possibly test every possible combination of things or every corner of every level to make sure that it's all perfect.
Reply
the PSP does have updates.
one game comes to mind.
Little Big Planet.
It wont check for updates itself, but it has them.
you need to go and look at the store for it.
Reply
Not all ps3 games are buggy and not all ps2 games are bugless. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a pretty bugproof game and they barely release any update cause its pointless, and back at the PS2 era GTA San Andreas was so full of bugs you could fall through land in the middle of a drive for no apparent reasons also buildings would take time to appear (I once crash an airplane and died in midair just to see the building appear right after the explosion) and most platinum games where actually updates rather than cheaper versions so you had to repay for a less buggy platinum version of your game, thats why I prefer free updates in this generation.
Reply
It's Gameboy Color, not Gameboy Colour, nice typo. =P
Reply
Personally updates for me depend on the tye of game itself. If the game is like Skyrim then I forgive having to wait for updates to download and install since the world of Skyrim is so massive that it'd be virtually impossible to bug testers to find all the bugs and errors in the game in a convient amount of time so that when it is released the game would still be considered "hot and new". But if the game is like God of War or Call of Duty where the platform of the game is linear (as in there isn't much to do then beat the storyline itself) then I'm not so forgiving since bug testers could have easilly fixed them before release. (P.S I don't remember if God of War 3 had a patch release but GoW still fits in to the category of "ignoring the update")
Reply
SO. DAMN. TRUE. The quality and time taken on a game in production shows the value to it and increases the appreciation for the work. But all the damn companies are worried about is increasing the money in their pockets -___- Disgusting.
Reply
What i think is funny about patches is that i have bought a couple games on day 1 at midnight and as soon as i pop it in...BOOM! a patch is availabe for the game! I mean really?! It just came out! If it ain't done right, just wait. I would rather play a game that is complete rather than waiting 4-5 months of patches to make it complete. Then they want to 'balance' the gameplay? So now all this work i did that was uber hard is now made easier for people? Come on designers, make the games like they used to. right the first time!!!!
Reply
It all has to do with competition and money. As a programmer myself, I can speak from experience--it is impossible to deliver a bug-free product. Release can be delayed on a product to devote more time to reduce bugs, but then you aren't earning any revenue on the product. Release on the promised date and there is likely to be more bugs, but with the modern consoles, providing patches and updates are not difficult--so you can release on schedule, but then release a patch to fix bugs. It's a matter of how severe are the bugs--are they so severe as to make the game unplayable? If not, then how much impact would the existing bugs have on your reputation and the game experience? As much as I'd like to see a bug-free product when I purchase, these companies have to make money somehow, and every day delayed is lost revenue.
Reply
I agree and disagree. first off the agree, its true that they do that to get games out earlier, but some games cant be tested on such a large scale as publically. now to the disagree part, like in oblivion, there was an unknown glitch that allowed you to multiply the items in the games, now the first one was patched, a second was found, people look for glitches to make the game easier for them but its meant to be played fairly and equally. another example is the ea game battlefield 3. great game right off the bat, if it was not for the server connection overload on most console versions, some things cannot be tested until release day and thats why there game developers are ready for a full days work to fix problems like that.
sure they probably could test it for a few extra months and get more major problems like skyrim had but then they would deffinately lose money, cause if there competitor releases a game earlier then them they may not get nearly as much sales and then there business would decrease substancially. what im trying to say is they could for a better game but they could lose money in the process of it. also some games are given a budget and cant go over it so they may have to release early to stay in budget.
there is a lot of variables that change game production and release including production time marketing so on and so forth.
Reply
Oh, a bit of a miscommunicatio n on my part. I know that most earlier UMD's didn't have updates. Downloaded games did though.
Reply
Haha I'm Australian! It's how I roll.
Reply
It's essentialy a hit and miss.
I'm in favor of updates honestly. Games released earlier. simple.
Think of back in the day, No updates! yay...no not so yay.
No internet connection(with most systems) no HDD(with the exception of ultra-rare consoles/addons like the n64-dd) and not nearly as much code on a cartridge.
I honestly think that updates are well overdue, as the ps2/xbox could update easily(with a hard drive on the ps2 of course, which many consoles don't have unless you played final fantasy 11, or something) as they both had broadband connections, and hard drives. now internet on consoles wasn't nearly as popular back then as it is today(of course live was but that's another story)
Take today's consoles, the two big dogs, the 360, and ps3, they both have large media formats, decent hard drives, and broadband access. with so much data on a disc, there's not going to be a faultless game ever. so developers release updates to fix bugs that they find later on. Broadband helps this because it makes these bugfixes so much accessable. and with the hard drives to store the bugfixes when the code on the disc is used in conjunction with the update.
So yes, they're really a hit and miss, especially with people who don't have great internet(like me here in a college with the bandwidth for DSL--at best.) and yes, the bugs are annoying, but they get their games out faster, and you don't have to wait 12 F*ckin years to play the next best game *cough*Duke Nukem Forever*cough* and you get to take arrows to the knee while adventuring in skyrim, while that bug that makes you fall through the floor into the abyss of the skybox, and enjoy.
Reply
It's essentialy a hit and miss.
I'm in favor of updates honestly. Games released earlier. simple.
Think of back in the day, No updates! yay...no not so yay.
No internet connection(with most systems) no HDD(with the exception of ultra-rare consoles/addons like the n64-dd) and not nearly as much code on a cartridge.
I honestly think that updates are well overdue, as the ps2/xbox could update easily(with a hard drive on the ps2 of course, which many consoles don't have unless you played final fantasy 11, or something) as they both had broadband connections, and hard drives. now internet on consoles wasn't nearly as popular back then as it is today(of course live was but that's another story)
Take today's consoles, the two big dogs, the 360, and ps3, they both have large media formats, decent hard drives, and broadband access. with so much data on a disc, there's not going to be a faultless game ever. so developers release updates to fix bugs that they find later on. Broadband helps this because it makes these bugfixes so much accessable. and with the hard drives to store the bugfixes when the code on the disc is used in conjunction with the update.
So yes, they're really a hit and miss, especially with people who don't have great internet(like me here in a college with the bandwidth for DSL--at best.) and yes, the bugs are annoying, but they get their games out faster, and you don't have to wait 12 F*ckin years to play the next best game *cough*Duke Nukem Forever*cough* and you get to take arrows to the knee while adventuring in skyrim, while that bug that makes you fall through the floor into the abyss of the skybox, and enjoy.
Reply
I see where your coming from but I like the game being updated. Be my guest if you wanna fix things. For example, check out the latest update to battlefield 3, they listened to players and tweaked a crap load of things to make the game better.The older games had bugs, maybe not major but they had bugs and they could never be fixed.
Reply
I think that your looking at the wrong thing. These updates are fine. The real problem lies with something all these titles have in common. The download. They should have figured out a way to let you play while the patch dowloads. That way who cares. I agree with you on a decent quality though. Things like loading time and save file corruptions should always be on the kill list before release.
Reply
Reply