We have no choice but to accept patches. For the most part, patches have been quick 20 second downloads. I don't mind too much. They usually solve a problem that developers AND reviewers failed to catch.

The patch mentality has always had its downfalls, such as those who use it as an excuse to release an incomplete product to market and make people download the last part. That use is especially inexcusable, but even the intended use (to give users the option to fix game-breaking bugs) is still questionable at best and suggests that proper testing was not done on the product. The excuse that games are getting more complicated doesn't fly; one of the responsibilities that comes with increased complexity is increased need to test the product to iron out bugs. You cannot simply increase the budget for one part of a game and expect to let the other parts just slide by on their old budget levels.

Bah, in the times of online gaming this is pretty much impossible. You cannot do a beta test large enough.
Games are so complex now that they cannot be tested perfectly anymore get over it. You will always have patches from now on and that is a good thing, because it enables developers to add features that would have been much too risky not long ago.

There is no 100% finished and playable product in IT history. (Except Latex )

Besides until now my experience on the PS3 has been great. I didn't encounter a serious problem yet (apart from Assassin's Creed crashing twice) and I think its nice that updates bring new features to me in Gran Turismo Prologue.

That doesn't mean, that I want to become a paying beta tester, something EA customers often are. Console games need to be tested better than other consumer software. But that doesn't mean that they have to be tested perfectly which won't be possible anymore.

Sky Render said: The patch mentality has always had its downfalls, such as those who use it as an excuse to release an incomplete product to market and make people download the last part. That use is especially inexcusable, but even the intended use (to give users the option to fix game-breaking bugs) is still questionable at best and suggests that proper testing was not done on the product. The excuse that games are getting more complicated doesn't fly; one of the responsibilities that comes with increased complexity is increased need to test the product to iron out bugs. You cannot simply increase the budget for one part of a game and expect to let the other parts just slide by on their old budget levels.

 

There is only so much testing that can be done, and even then people can find exploits that break the game.

A good example is BF2, if you've ever played the game then you would know about dolphin diving, if you don't then I'll briefly explain it, it involves running up to an enemy, jumping and then in mid air going into the prone postilion and then as soon as you land repeating the jumping and proning, hence the dolphin diving name, mind you this was done at the same time as shooting. now trying to shoot a target like that was near impossible and most often than not you would simply lose to another player doing this.

Now this wasn't a bug, but an exploit that could be done, and of course it become to wide spread that it started killing the fun for many, even to those that did the said dolphin diving, the exploit was then crushed in an update later on.

Now if exploits like this one aren't removed or fixed in online games, then it can become detrimental to the game it's self as well as the people who play the game online.

I do however agree with you on the part about certain developers releasing a half completed game, and then patching it to fill the rest of the content, and what's really inexcusable is if they charge for it as well.

vaio said: I still think that console games should be made/finished properly before release and avoid as many patches as possible considering the prices we pay for the games and we have to take into account that not all console gamers connect to internet and are able to patch their game.

You do realize thats still the idea right? They do their best to release a 100% bug proof product? Boogles my mind why you would not want the ability to patch a game.

I'm still pissed over the Puzzle Quest bug on my PSP. You get Allies, and the allies have special bonuses that apply to your battles. And you choose which 2 or 3 allies are currently active, so that you get those bonouses. Well, there is a bug that the bonouses don't work at all. So, that whole piece of your strategy does nothing. Irritates the hell outta me that there isn't a patch for it.

For the price I paid for my PSP Puzzle Quest game, I certainly think they should patch or have the ability to patch the bug.

jake_the_fake1 said: I do however agree with you on the part about certain developers releasing a half completed game, and then patching it to fill the rest of the content, and what's really inexcusable is if they charge for it as well.

 

I do agree with Jake on this.  Except that isn't a patch.  That is Downloadable Content.  I agree that they shouldn't try to nickle and dime us with downloadable content, releasing a less than complete game, yeah.  But not wanting the ability to patch? That makes no sense

Gran Turismo 2 can't be finished at 100%. Mario Kart Wii lets you finish time trials with crazy, unobtainable speeds. Metroid Prime Hunters on the DS is ruined because of cheat devices. Super Mario Bros., if you get too many 1ups, one death means game over. In GTA Vice City, players will lose health, just for running.


My point: Games have had fatal glitches long before (and during) the "Era of the Patch". The fact that we can now "fix" our broken games is a blessing. All hail the patch!!

Hawk said: vaio said: I still think that console games should be made/finished properly before release and avoid as many patches as possible considering the prices we pay for the games and we have to take into account that not all console gamers connect to internet and are able to patch their game. You do realize thats still the idea right? They do their best to release a 100% bug proof product? Boogles my mind why you would not want the ability to patch a game. I'm still pissed over the Puzzle Quest bug on my PSP. You get Allies, and the allies have special bonuses that apply to your battles. And you choose which 2 or 3 allies are currently active, so that you get those bonouses. Well, there is a bug that the bonouses don't work at all. So, that whole piece of your strategy does nothing. Irritates the hell outta me that there isn't a patch for it. For the price I paid for my PSP Puzzle Quest game, I certainly think they should patch or have the ability to patch the bug.

 

 The ammount of games that have bugs and need patches have risen substantialy and I find that unacceptable, what about gamers that can´t patch because they don´t connect to the internet with their consoles?

I am not saying that we shouldn´t have patches bucause we should but I am saying that game developers have to put more effort into making the games with less bugs so we need less patches. When I pay for a game I expect it to work properly without patches (some rare instances I can accept patches if they real badly are needed).

To me it seems that developers just rush the games out and try and fix it later which i find highly unaccetable.

If Nintendo can make games work without a greater need of patches then so can other developers too and I expect them to actually deliver a game with as little bugs as possible with the console prices we have today.

On the flip-side, patches can add new features for free. Patches can be annoying, but I would rather have the option of having a patch than not being able to have a patch at all.

vaio said: The ammount of games that have bugs and need patches have risen substantialy and I find that unacceptable, what about gamers that can´t patch because they don´t connect to the internet with their consoles?

 

Do you have some source to show the increase in need for patches? Because, personally, I haven't noticed much of a rise in the need for patches. Games have always had bugs, and in the past, they just didn't get a fix, like they can today. Besides the fact, that as games get more complicated and advanced, there is going to be more problems. The more something does, the more that can go wrong. That applies to anything in technology. The more complex, the more nuts, bolts, and gears there are, the more things there are to break.