Of course I rather have patches then not but I would rather have developers putting the extra effort into the game before release and minimize patching which I think they are not doing today. Take GTA as an example, one of the greatest games this generation and it´s so bugfilled that I have to use bugspray in my room to be able to play this buginfested game. Alone in the dark is another game that would have been great and is great untill the bugfest begins. The list can go on...

Don´t need links just the share ammount of extremly buginfested console games are higher then ever. If you play games you will notice this.

As long as people are willing to buy buggy unfinished games then that's what studios will produce. Unfortunately it's simple economics. Why spend months finishing a game properly when you can rush it out, rake in the money and then release a patch when you've got the cash in the bank?

Well, I do see more bugs per game than there used to be. But, there has always been bugs in about every game ever made. But, yeah, I guess then, overall, I see more bugs, yes. Which is exactly why I very much welcome downladable patches on the console. Because, like I said, more can go wrong with games today, they are far more advanced and complicated.

I don't have your view that in general, developers need to spend even more time on debugging the games. They spend more time testing games today than ever before. There are certain games that it was a bad decision to not test it more, just like there has been in the past. But I completely welcome the ability to patch console games today. I do think the downloadable content is getting a bit out of control though.

I wasn´t talking about forbidding patches, I was talking about developers doing a better job before releasing games. I ask this question again since you haven´t answered it. How about gamers all over the world that can´t patch (which is the majoroty of gamers in this world)?

Like I said, I don't share your view that in general, they need to spend more time on testing games.  Certain games, yes.  As it has always been, there are certain cases that they should have spent more time on testing and debugging, but not in general.

You can't tell me E.T. wasn't buggy.  Or that those people, who couldn't download a patch for their Atari 2600 game, were in any better a condition than gamers without online access today.

wow way to go and use the most extreme example in history.

My point of view is that the games released should be as bugfree as possible (most are but not enough of them) so gamers that can´t download patches doesn´t have to suffer which they do in todays gaming world.

ZOMG console gaming is becoming a lesser form of PC gaming GASP. It was bound to happen. Quit whining.

::laugh:: Ok. How about Warlords then, for the Atari 2600. The bug where, in 3 player mode, it sometimes would not give out another ball after a score.

There have always been bugs. There have always been certain games that releasing them was rushed. Businesses are no more greedy than they used to be. It's not cost effective to play test a game to death until ALL bugs are gone from the game.