| S.Peelman said: This wasn't a problem in any of the previous gens. Developers were forced to release 'finished' games. Meaning way higher quality. Costs are irrelevant in this case and should be no excuse. Today, with the ability to download so easily, a lot of publishers are content at releasing half-assed games because they don't care and if anyone complains, do a quick fix. |
Yes, and games were a) much less complex, and b) far cheaper in previous generations than they are today. That's comparing apples to oranges.
Costs are irrelevant? Games are products of business, if they don't profit, they don't get made. Costs are one of the most relevant aspects to the formula.
It doesn't matter what you think should be done, however, the economics is all there. Post-release patches reduces risk. Lower risk means lower cost. Lower cost means more games.
It's also fairly impossible to release bugless software, there are always going to be glitches. In the past it didn't matter as much, because games were offline, some people discovered glitches, but they didn't actively hunt them out, so they weren't as crippling. Nowadays, you get gamers actively hunting them down and learning them, because it gives them a upper hand in the gameplay.
