| fastyxx said: the point is if you only read the later comments without the context of the original one, you're missing the intended message. One of the reasons people play games online is because titles like Halo or World of Warcraft or HalfLife or Counterstrike or TF2 or Oblivion change and evolve over time whereas Mario Kart or Brawl or the like barely change from iteration to iteration, let alone within the context of a single title's release. That's the only point I'm trying to make. It's not about Halo or 360 versus Wii or Halo versus Mario Kart. Developers getting rewarded for expanding and servicing their games over months and years past launch is good for gamers, as we will get the same treatment in the future. Gamers buying the games that have relatively lazy updates, like Mario Kart Wii in many ways, in huge numbers is relatively BAD for gamers. There's no motivation to push the envelope. Wouldn't we be in a better place as gamers if Portal sold significantly more than Hannah Montana's Makeup Party? Same idea, only for top sellers. |
Funny you say that, I quit Counterstrike when I felt the patches destroyed what I loved about it. The WoW expansion coming out looks like it's pretty game-breaking as well (not that I play WoW atm).
Game updates are not required for games, it's only preference. In fact, patches were one thing console games never had to deal with until recently, and people were fine with it. It didn't stop people playing SSBM for years after it came out, even with imbalances it may have had. You're just taking a PC gaming standpoint - it seems the PC / HD console crowd have been merged together nowadays.
Besides, servicing games after they're out doesn't fit very well with Nintendo's business model. They'd prefer to polish the game first, release it, and be done with it - just like console gaming has always been before hard drives were crammed into them.
