No one wants a broken game. I just feel that if there were no patches, then developers can be held more accountable. Yes, it's obviously nice to give developers the tools needed to fix their games after release. But really, if we keep patches, then developers will never give 100% effort. I remember arguing about XBL a long time ago and how people were saying the online fees help pay for development costs. Well I searched on google and I found out that it costs $40000 just to release one patch! So are patches really that necessary? Why can't developers ensure their games are solid quality by release?

Just take a look at a game like Skyrim, critically acclaimed and won many game of the year awards. But soon after release, the game was found riddled with bugs and some PS3 gamers found it unplayable due to the save file lag. Does a game like that deserve all the sales it got? I haven't even gotten the game myself because I don't want to deal with all those bugs. I don't think they even fully fixed the PS3 version yet.

Maybe if there were no patches, then Bethesda would've taken better care of their game. They essentially knew all the problems that their game had beforehand but sold it anyways. We don't really hear about it anymore because Bethesda probably have finished patching up most of their game now, but how long did that take?

I agree, but there are devlopers who do that. 

I think it's no question that having to patch or update a game is a negative aspect of the current generation. However, in many cases, the trade off of an improved gaming experience makes up for the hassle of patching, so overall there's a net benefit.

In terms of long term support of patches, I think it really depends on where services like PSN and XBL head in the future. For example, if all PS3/360 disc-based games eventually become available through PSN/XBL, and work on all future PlayStation and Xbox hardware, then the ability to download these games and their subsequent patches should not disappear.

I personally see both PSN and XBL becoming hardware agnostic at some point, with software not being all that dependent on hardware, like iOS, iOS apps, and iPhones.

Though I think this will be a challenge for both Microsoft and Sony. Sony has always struggled in their software design, especially when their software must straddle across multiple platforms. For example, look at the headache that is buying a PS1 game on PSN/PS Suite. Only some games work on PSP, a different set of games work on PlayStation phones, and Vita can't even play PS1 games yet! Knowing what platforms what games will work on is a hassle.

I would assume Microsoft would be better able to implement such a platform if they so chose, but they seem to simply not want to, given they do not allow people to play a purchased game on either GFWL or 360. You must buy and play games like Fable III separately on each platform, as opposed to a one time purchase that works on both, saves and all. Though from what I understand, Windows 8 will be integrating the two to a higher degree, though I'm not sure to what extent it will go.

Meanwhile, Valve has created a software delivery method that both Sony and Microsoft would do well to emulate, in my opinion. For example, buying a copy of Portal 2 on PS3 is really buying a copy of Portal 2 that works on PS3, PC, and Mac.

Even though updates and patches are initially lent to good intention, the problem is they're abused. And that's where the negativity comes in. Same with DLC