Yet another ridiculous defense of day-one DLC

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]We've never enjoyed an era within this medium where software was released as pristinely and flawlessly as you seem to be implying here.

Software has always shipped with bugs, many of them crippling and even game-breaking (I still remember the Carth bug in Knights of the Old Republic) and subsequently, when a game ships with a particularly bad glitch that cannot be patched, you enter an entirely new realm of annoyance.Black_Knight_00

There's really no room for argument as it pertains to this particular issue: the simple and documented history of this medium demonstrates that software has always been released imperfectly.

From Kill Screens to software revisions for arcade fighters, videogames have a lengthy and storied history of being released unfinished, occasionally rife with glitches, or in need of some post-launch programming polish.

Earlier eras, specifically when the shift to three-dimensional gaming became the focus, saw those early constructs facilitating all manner of glitches and errors as programmers came to terms with handling geometry and gameplay within the 3D paradigm.

Of course there are those developers that abuse the post-launch patch and release software that clearly wasn't ready for public consumption but those same programmers are likely to have delivered the same slipshod product even without the safety net of patching.

Regardless, I have seen a clear and consistent evolution of programming that I would argue delivers, generally speaking, a more constant and polished delivery of software than observed in past generations, even when factoring in the logistical difficulties of multiplatform releases.

Firstly, there's no way in hell that Skyrim was finished 'months' before release. They rushed it out the door for that golden 11/11/11 deadline and attempted to finish it later via patches (which actually made things worse for a while there). Planeforger

Said it before, but I'll say it again: games have to be finished at least a couple months in advance to ensure there's enough stock to send out to retailers. The game could have reached a finished stage earlier in the process, for all we know, the team spending rest of the time untilthe deadline fixing as many bugs as possible before having to submit the game for release.

http://n4g.com/news/1224577/ghostlight-working-with-atlus-and-nintendo-to-fix-devil-survivor-overclockeds-game-breaking-bugsBlack_Knight_00

Only in the European version? Whew. Had me worried for a second.

The thing is that when someone buys a day one DLC, he encourages the kind of business practice that goes against his interests as a customer. You send the message to developers that it's fine to charge you an extra for content that was created before the game was released. It's not at all that I feel ripped-off when developers don't give me access to some content; if I don't think that the game is worth $60, I don't buy it at $60. 

But essentially, it encourages developers to put in their game the minimum amount content that they think a large amount of customers would buy at $60, and then charge for the rest. This doesn't mean that every developer is going to do it, far from it, but some will simply because the incentive is there. Just look at how widespread cosmetic DLC is right now. 10 years ago, PC developers included that sort of thing for free in patches, and were only charging for significant amounts of new content (expansion packs).

It also encourages developers to look for ways to extract every possible nickle from the customer in a very cold, calculated way, which is not the best way to deal with a product that needs creativity and artistic freedom to really hold my interest. It shifts (another) part of the creative process from the artistic team to the marketing team.

ReddestSkies

Publishers and companies as a whole are going to monetize as much as they can but truly, how does the purchase of some superficial items that have no bearing on the actual substantive content of the game in any way harm people like you or I, who don't give two ropey rat turds about skins and avatar items?

Honestly, it doesn't harm us in the least.

What you are suggesting employs a slippery slope argument but despite many people postulating that DLC was going to ensure the reduction of initial content for the sake of milking supplemental DLC, that scenario hasn't been particularly prevalent and I can't recall a single game I've purchased where any substantial content (i.e. levels, characters, etc.) was offered as day-one DLC.

But here's the nastiest truth: even if we rally against day-one DLC, any publisher that wants to withhold initial content to maximize profit can do so by simply waiting to release the DLC at a later date; we'd never be the wiser. So ultimately, we must decide if the initial product is worth the asking price.

That isn't to state that some of these companies aren't clearly looking to nickel-and-dime us but like anything else, DLC is a double-edged sword that can be incredibly beneficial to gamers or be abused by some developers and publishers.

At this juncture, I'd assert that DLC has delivered more positive ramifications than negative.

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]Other then capcon related games what dev released day-one DLC that you had to pay for? And Im referring to meaningful DLC like an extra mission or a new playable character. Im not talking about skins or clothes for your avatar.ReddestSkies

I couldn't tell you because I almost never buy DLC at all, but I don't understand how this has anything to do with what I'm saying. Even if there was no day-one DLC at all in the industry, I'd still post the same thing regarding hypothetical day one DLC...

Publishers and companies as a whole are going to monetize as much as they can but truly, how does the purchase of some superficial items that have no bearing on the actual substantive content of the game in any way harm people like you or I, who don't give two ropey rat turds about skins and avatar items?

Honestly, it doesn't harm us in the least.

What you are suggesting employs a slippery slope argument but despite many people postulating that DLC was going to ensure the reduction of initial content for the sake of milking supplemental DLC, that scenario hasn't been particularly prevalent and I can't recall a single game I've purchased where any substantial content (i.e. levels, characters, etc.) was offered as day-one DLC.

But here's the nastiest truth: even if we rally against day-one DLC, any publisher that wants to withhold initial content to maximize profit can do so by simply waiting to release the DLC at a later date; we'd never be the wiser. So ultimately, we must decide if the initial product is worth the asking price.

That isn't to state that some of these companies aren't clearly looking to nickel-and-dime us but like anything else, DLC is a double-edged sword that can be incredibly beneficial to gamers or be abused by some developers and publishers.

At this juncture, I'd assert that DLC has delivered more positive ramifications than negative.

Grammaton-Cleric

I guess we'll see what happens on the long term. The economic signal is definitely present when people buy day one DLC. Only time will tell how the majority of publishers will react to it. I think I agree that, at least for this generation, DLC has been mostly positive this gen because I tend to think that it actually led to the creation of more content. Long term, though, I'm not so sure.

But if its free then whats the problem? Free stuff isnt cheating the consumer, cause you know... its like, free and stuff. And if you issue is that making DLC takes away from bug fixes then all I can say as a developer I have never seen all the staff members on a team work on bug fixes. The testing team works mainly on QA and you have a team or pool of devs dedicated toward fixing reported bugs flagged by the testing team, usually about 50% of the developers. The rest of the team is put to work on the next project. In game development the next project would either be DLC or the next full game. Diablo-B

I have nothing against free DLC... It's a very good thing if you ask me.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]There's really no room for argument as it pertains to this particular issue: the simple and documented history of this medium demonstrates that software has always been released imperfectly. From Kill Screens to software revisions for arcade fighters, videogames have a lengthy and storied history of being released unfinished, occasionally rife with glitches, or in need of some post-launch programming polish. Earlier eras, specifically when the shift to three-dimensional gaming became the focus, saw those early constructs facilitating all manner of glitches and errors as programmers came to terms with handling geometry and gameplay within the 3D paradigm. Of course there are those developers that abuse the post-launch patch and release software that clearly wasn't ready for public consumption but those same programmers are likely to have delivered the same slipshod product even without the safety net of patching. Regardless, I have seen a clear and consistent evolution of programming that I would argue delivers, generally speaking, a more constant and polished delivery of software than observed in past generations, even when factoring in the logistical difficulties of multiplatform releases.Black_Knight_00

Seriously?

We can start with the original Donkey Kong and other arcade games of that era that would literally cease functioning when you reached a certain point in play, lovingly referred to as Kill Screens.

The original version of Street fighter II in the arcades was plagued with glitches, including the infamous Guile Handcuffs and other well-documented anomalies.

Most of the games in the Mortal Kombat series were rife with glitches and issues, requiring numerous revisions. Even then, many of the MK games were rendered unplayable at the competitive level because of bugs such as infinite techniques that were never fixed.

Knights of the Old Republic, which was universally acclaimed, was a technical mess and featured game-crashing bugs and data corruption. It remains one of the most universally-loved yet incredibly unpolished games I've personally encountered.

Soul Calibur III on the PS2 actually had a glitch that would destroy not only that game's data but the data from other games on the card as well. Actually, the game was such a mess that Namco eventually released an arcade version to correct the mistakes of the PS3 exclusive.

It's also interesting that you mentioned Skyward Sword because technically, Nintendo doesn't allow patching on Wii games and yet both Twilight Princess and SS had game-breaking bugs.

There's plenty more out there but I imagine you get the crux of my point. Patching hasn't facilitated some proliferation of sloppy and unfinished software because clearly, that was already in abundance long before this generation began. If anything patching allows bugs, many of which aren't necessarily easy to find even with thorough debugging and testing, to be fixed so that our software ultimately performs at the optimal level.

I got Skyrim for the ps3 when it first came out and it was not that bad. It just slows down after playing the game for a few hours. I would not say it was really a game breaking bug.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I hate to sound pedantic, but most of the games you mentioned are arcade games. Only two are console games and I have specifically requested a list of retail console games that have *game breaking* bugs. This excludes the Mortal Kombat games, in which I have accumulated thousands of hours in the 1990s and never seen any game breaking bug in them. This is also the first time I hear of the KOTOR glitch - are we sure it was present in the console version at all?S0lidSnake

You cant be serious. He listed several console games that had game breaking bugs and yet you are still here arguing god knows what.

Grammaton has clearly proven we have had game breaking bugs or regular bugs since well before this gen. Stop moving goal posts and just admit you were wrong and move on.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] http://n4g.com/news/1224577/ghostlight-working-with-atlus-and-nintendo-to-fix-devil-survivor-overclockeds-game-breaking-bugsc_rake

Only in the European version? Whew. Had me worried for a second.

I think it still counts as an example of poor QA, no?Black_Knight_00

Oh, totally. I was just worried those glitches applied to the US version, which I'm steadly working through right now.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I think it still counts as an example of poor QA, no?c_rake

Oh, totally. I was just worried those glitches applied to the US version, which I'm steadly working through right now.

I guess we'll see what happens on the long term. The economic signal is definitely present when people buy day one DLC. Only time will tell how the majority of publishers will react to it. I think I agree that, at least for this generation, DLC has been mostly positive this gen because I tend to think that it actually led to the creation of more content. Long term, though, I'm not so sure.

ReddestSkies

I'd venture to state that the signal these types of DLC purchases send to publishers is that there is a segment of the consumer populace willing to shell out money for unsubstantial ancillary content.

That said, anything can become corrupted and gradually grow worse so we'll see.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]Stop expecting thse insanely complicated software products to run flawlessly. It's just not going to happen.Black_Knight_00

Easiest question I've been asked. Simple. Games have never been this complex. The bigger, the more complex the game, the buggier its going to be. 

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]Stop expecting thse insanely complicated software products to run flawlessly. It's just not going to happen.S0lidSnake

Easiest question I've been asked. Simple. Games have never been this complex. The bigger, the more complex the game, the buggier its going to be. 

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]Stop expecting thse insanely complicated software products to run flawlessly. It's just not going to happen.S0lidSnake

Easiest question I've been asked. Simple. Games have never been this complex. The bigger, the more complex the game, the buggier its going to be. 

With respect, I have an even better answer:

They are not buggier than games from previous generations DESPITE being far more complex.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] I don't expect that. But do answer my question: why did this generation have esponentially buggier games compared to the previous? Is it so outlandish to postulate that software houses have been putting less effort into QA and chosen to focus on something else instead?Black_Knight_00

Easiest question I've been asked. Simple. Games have never been this complex. The bigger, the more complex the game, the buggier its going to be. 

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]There's really no room for argument as it pertains to this particular issue: the simple and documented history of this medium demonstrates that software has always been released imperfectly. From Kill Screens to software revisions for arcade fighters, videogames have a lengthy and storied history of being released unfinished, occasionally rife with glitches, or in need of some post-launch programming polish. Earlier eras, specifically when the shift to three-dimensional gaming became the focus, saw those early constructs facilitating all manner of glitches and errors as programmers came to terms with handling geometry and gameplay within the 3D paradigm. Of course there are those developers that abuse the post-launch patch and release software that clearly wasn't ready for public consumption but those same programmers are likely to have delivered the same slipshod product even without the safety net of patching. Regardless, I have seen a clear and consistent evolution of programming that I would argue delivers, generally speaking, a more constant and polished delivery of software than observed in past generations, even when factoring in the logistical difficulties of multiplatform releases.Grammaton-Cleric

Seriously?

We can start with the original Donkey Kong and other arcade games of that era that would literally cease functioning when you reached a certain point in play, lovingly referred to as Kill Screens.

The original version of Street fighter II in the arcades was plagued with glitches, including the infamous Guile Handcuffs and other well-documented anomalies.

Most of the games in the Mortal Kombat series were rife with glitches and issues, requiring numerous revisions. Even then, many of the MK games were rendered unplayable at the competitive level because of bugs such as infinite techniques that were never fixed.

Knights of the Old Republic, which was universally acclaimed, was a technical mess and featured game-crashing bugs and data corruption. It remains one of the most universally-loved yet incredibly unpolished games I've personally encountered.

Soul Calibur III on the PS2 actually had a glitch that would destroy not only that game's data but the data from other games on the card as well. Actually, the game was such a mess that Namco eventually released an arcade version to correct the mistakes of the PS3 exclusive.

It's also interesting that you mentioned Skyward Sword because technically, Nintendo doesn't allow patching on Wii games and yet both Twilight Princess and SS had game-breaking bugs.

There's plenty more out there but I imagine you get the crux of my point. Patching hasn't facilitated some proliferation of sloppy and unfinished software because clearly, that was already in abundance long before this generation began. If anything patching allows bugs, many of which aren't necessarily easy to find even with thorough debugging and testing, to be fixed so that our software ultimately performs at the optimal level.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] I don't expect that. But do answer my question: why did this generation have esponentially buggier games compared to the previous? Is it so outlandish to postulate that software houses have been putting less effort into QA and chosen to focus on something else instead?Black_Knight_00

Easiest question I've been asked. Simple. Games have never been this complex. The bigger, the more complex the game, the buggier its going to be. 

You dont think linear games like God of War Ascenesion, Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 are more complex than PS2 games? KZ and Uncharted do more with physics and animation than any game before it. God of War PS3 games are in a league of their own when it comes to scale and graphical fidelity. 

Yet all three games have severe audio sync issues. Uncharted 3 has frozen on me more times than Mass Effect 1,2 and 3 combined. It shipped with a broken aiming system. KZ2 shipped with a broken aiming system. God of War Ascension shipped with broken audio. KZ3's cutscenes routintely go out of sync with the audio and the ending was more rushed than ME3's ending. Hell, the final nuke sequence is practically broken on the Elite difficulty. 

Point is, games have become more complex and even linear games like Sony's quality first party games are struggling. 

Make my life easier, Grammaton: how many of those glitches you linked to are game breaking?

Also, I have shifted nothing at all: in my reply to your first post I say as follows:

"I'll need a few more examples of game breking bugs from previous generations before I can consider your point valid. Not counting PC gaming, of course (PC gaming has had patches since the dawn of time). Consoles only."

And such it has remained.

Guys. Game breaking bugs. Not bugs in general.Black_Knight_00

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Guys. Game breaking bugs. Not bugs in general.GodModeEnabled

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] I don't expect that. But do answer my question: why did this generation have esponentially buggier games compared to the previous? Is it so outlandish to postulate that software houses have been putting less effort into QA and chosen to focus on something else instead?Grammaton-Cleric

Easiest question I've been asked. Simple. Games have never been this complex. The bigger, the more complex the game, the buggier its going to be. 

With respect, I have an even better answer:

They are not buggier than games from previous generations DESPITE being far more complex.

I will take your word for it. I didnt play any RPGs last gen and stuck with action adventure, sports and racing games for the most part so my knowledge is a bit limited when it comes to past gens.

But just for argument's sake, I'll say have enountered more of these bugs this gen than I did last. I remember the god awful tearing in most early PS3 games... Heavenly Sword, Assassin's Creed, every UE3 PS3 port. Mass Effect 360 probably has the worst framerate in a video game ever during the Frozen planet missions. Worse than SOTC which had a god awful framerate at times. I dont remember any game shipping with input lag like KZ2 or a simply broken aiming system like Uncharted 3. This new God of War has some of the prettiest graphics I have ever seen but the sound design feels incomplete. Just plain incomplete. It's like some audio files never get executed. No game ever has run at 0 fps... Skyrim PS3 managed it. Crysis 2 was unplayable for me on the 360 during the game's biggest firefights. It was a smooth 30 fps whenever I'd take the stealth approach. Recently the PS3 version of Black Ops 2 failed to even load the Title screen after installing Patch 1.03 barely three days after the game came out. I was forced to uninstall the patch and play offline. So no MP for me. I ended up buying the Wii U version.

I hate to sound pedantic, but most of the games you mentioned are arcade games. Only two are console games and I have specifically requested a list of retail console games that have *game breaking* bugs. This excludes the Mortal Kombat games, in which I have accumulated thousands of hours in the 1990s and never seen any game breaking bug in them. This is also the first time I hear of the KOTOR glitch - are we sure it was present in the console version at all?Black_Knight_00

You cant be serious. He listed several console games that had game breaking bugs and yet you are still here arguing god knows what.

Grammaton has clearly proven we have had game breaking bugs or regular bugs since well before this gen. Stop moving goal posts and just admit you were wrong and move on.

Maybe Bethesda should pay modders for fixing their buggy games.

Back on topic, I understand developers have plenty of time for make new content before releasing a new game. But what annoys me is the fact that you must pay $60 for a game and in top of that if you want more content on release day give from 10 to 20 dollars more. What a way for saying to your loyal customers: you want the real experience? Release more money.

They could give it for free as a reward for people who bought it on release week or let brand new games have a code for get the DLC for free.

Slightly off topic, but why doesn't Nintendo allow patches for their games?Travo_basic

I think that there is a cost to releasing the patches. Nintendo already have your money so why worry about how good the game run and try to fix any problem and get nothing from it.

I hate to sound pedantic, but most of the games you mentioned are arcade games. Only two are console games and I have specifically requested a list of retail console games that have *game breaking* bugs. This excludes the Mortal Kombat games, in which I have accumulated thousands of hours in the 1990s and never seen any game breaking bug in them. This is also the first time I hear of the KOTOR glitch - are we sure it was present in the console version at all?

Black_Knight_00

You keep shifting the parameters of this discussion.

First you claimed that previous generations of software were almost without bugs or glitches (untrue) and when I rebutted that notion you asked for evidence.

I provided you with evidence and now you claim that arcade games for some mysterious reason don't qualify as evidence while now modifying your call for substantiation by insisting that the only viable examples must be game-breaking glitches.

The reality is there are very few games that have game-breaking glitches in any generation but it is rather telling that the Wii, which did not support patching, had no less than three major titles (Other M, Skyward Sword and Zelda: TP) that suffered from severe, game-breaking glitches.

Regardless, I'm going to adhere to the spirit of the original discussion and provide a torrent of evidence to put this debate to sleep.

Here's a list of 50 glitches spanning several console eras, some of them minor and others quite severe.

http://www.complex.com/video-games/2012/04/the-50-wost-video-game-glitches/

Here's a wiki with all manner of glitches spanning just about every console (clearly incomplete)

http://glitches.wikia.com/wiki/Video_Game_Glitches_Wiki

This is an interesting article that discusses six famous glitches that actually helped propel the industry forward:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19262_6-glitches-that-accidentally-invented-modern-gaming.html

There's plenty more out there but again, you get the point.

2) If bug fixing is such a trivial and routine matter and the development of DLC doesn't interfere with it, why did the trend of releasing buggy, unfinished games start simultaneously with the DLC trend? In other words: last gen had no DLC and I can't think of a single game that had a game-breaking bug.

Black_Knight_00

I take it you didn't play Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, with it's 'randomly fall through the game world' bug. :/  That one was a real show-stopper, and I encountered it many times.  Bethesda has always released buggy games.

3) This guy doesn't realise that we have no objection to day-one DLC per se: we object to being charged extra for it when it could be included in the game disc.

Can't put in the disc? Either release it for free or be smart and release it a few months later so that no one will complain. Just stop blaming us for your greed/stupidity.

Black_Knight_00

I actually think they should delay any DLC until some time after the game's release.  If the product in the box is their original vision, and it offers a lot of play-time, I don't really want to get distracted by something additional on the day of release, especially if it serves to make the game easier in some way.  I actually dislike any DLC that gives you super-powerful armour or weapons, because it just spoils the difficulty and immersion of the game if you use it.

I often wish developers would just go back to making 'expansion packs' that were generally released a good few months after a game's release.  They help to renew your interest and offer something fresh to keep you playing a title.

[QUOTE="Travo_basic"]Slightly off topic, but why doesn't Nintendo allow patches for their games?wiouds

I think that there is a cost to releasing the patches. Nintendo already have your money so why worry about how good the game run and try to fix any problem and get nothing from it.

It is a fact that before having decent internet speeds was widespread, patches were rare at best, or would only come along with an expansion. Going gold meant the game was ready to be sent to the publisher and whatever was going on the disk was the game the vast majority of people would play and would remember forever. I think that sense of finality forced developers to polish their products quite a bit more than they do now, and the more relaxed attitudes that developers have today towards testing, content, and the overall state of the game at release is a result of a loss of that sense of finality. Day one DLC stems directly from this, and no amount of equivocating from Pete Hines or anyone else is going to change this.

Before the DLC trend started, what do you think creative teams in dev studios did in the final months of a game's life? They helped to make the game better, adding little pieces of content or tweaks or subquests wherever they could. Small portions of the dev team might have been split off to begin brainstorming ideas for expansion packs or even sequels, but most people were working on the game that mattered, you know, the game about to be released.

I don't buy his logic for a second.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

I wouldn't dream about insulting your intelligence, but I stand by my assertion: games in previous console generations were less buggy than they are today, I can't recall a single game that shipped broken in the NES to XBOX eras, aside maybe from some unlicensed craps like Action 52, while I can name quite a few major releases off the top of my head that have been pushed out broken in this generation and required a patch to become playable. I'm sorry we can't agree on this concept but that's what I maintain.

Grammaton-Cleric

Firstly, your initial assertion wasn't merely that games used to be less buggy but rather that previous generations enjoyed practically zero bugs, which is simply and demonstrably false.

As to the assertion that contemporary games suffer from a greater amount of glitches than their counterparts of yesteryear, the problem is that you are trafficking in broad strokes predicated entirely on anecdotal evidence. You are stating that because you can't recall earlier games having bugs then they didnt exist yet I've provided lists (albeit incomplete) that proves the contrary.

Now, whether or not the glitch system is worse or better is ultimately only provable if we could survey every game from each console cycle and tally the numbers and aggregate the data. Truthfully, when I claim that things haven't gotten worse, I am engaging in conjecture based on available evidence because truthfully, without the above numbers there is no way to verify that this generation is worse or better in terms of software stability.

However, I have provided numerous examples of glitches and software and proven that such bugs have always been present, regardless of the era. With respect, your failure to recall these glitches and bugs does nothing to negate their existence.

I would also remind you that the Wii being victim of three first party games that suffered from game-breaking bugs is evidence that also acts as a refutation of the notion that patching facilitates lazier programming. To my knowledge, neither Sony nor MS released any first party software that included game-breaking bugs so at the very least we can conclude that such flaws can and will occur within a construct that doesn't allow for patching.

All of that said, I would be remiss not to concede that SOME developers no doubt abuse this current model but I would also assert that the benefits of patching far outweigh the pitfalls.

Black Knight, my original response was directed at this comment:

 And as I said before, HDD and internet are concurring factors. But still, going from almost zero bugs to what we have today is quite the downfall. I find it hard to imagine that developers have started slacking off on QA just because they now can procrastinate and fix it post release.

Black_Knight_00

There has never been an era where we enjoyed even a relative proximity to a bug-less, glitch-free software paradigm.

So you can play obstinate and pretend that you haven't shifted the parameters of this discussion but clearly you have.

You're a smart guy and I would never insult your intelligence so please stop insulting mine.

Your initial postulation was false and I've proven as much. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that games are any more unstable now than they have ever been, even as the complexity of software design increases. Furthermore, the one current gen console that didn't support patching suffered from no less than three first party games that had game-breaking bugs and this fact alone blasts a pretty sizeable hole in your theory that patching facilitates lazy, bug-ridden programming.

And as I've mentioned earlier, game-breaking bugs are relatively rare but they have existed throughout the full history of this medium. You can continue to cherry pick what you personally want to consider relevant but given the amount of documentation and evidence I've provided I'd venture to state that any attempt to further pursue this argument is merely a stubborn refusal on your end to concede that you made an erroneous statement.

Again, you have my respect but in this instance you are flatly wrong.

It is a fact that before having decent internet speeds was widespread, patches were rare at best, or would only come along with an expansion. Going gold meant the game was ready to be sent to the publisher and whatever was going on the disk was the game the vast majority of people would play and would remember forever. I think that sense of finality forced developers to polish their products quite a bit more than they do now, and the more relaxed attitudes that developers have today towards testing, content, and the overall state of the game at release is a result of a loss of that sense of finality. Day one DLC stems directly from this, and no amount of equivocating from Pete Hines or anyone else is going to change this.

Before the DLC trend started, what do you think creative teams in dev studios did in the final months of a game's life? They helped to make the game better, adding little pieces of content or tweaks or subquests wherever they could. Small portions of the dev team might have been split off to begin brainstorming ideas for expansion packs or even sequels, but most people were working on the game that mattered, you know, the game about to be released.

I don't buy his logic for a second.

Brendissimo35

Well obviously patches were rare before widespread online functionality; there would have been no viable way to distribute them.

Regardless, there is no actual evidence to support the notion that games have gradually gotten worse as it pertains to bugs and glitches due to the widespread usage of patching.

The fact that Nintendo ignored this widespread trend and yet released three high-profile, first party games that were crippled with game-breaking bugs suggests that the ability to patch software post-release has no overt bearing on the quality and amount of polish said game receives before being unleashed onto the consumer.

That isn't to say that there aren't those developers and publishers who abuse this current model as I'm certain there are but I would argue those same developers would release subpar products regardless.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

I don't understand the outcry. What's the big f*cking deal about day-one add-ons? If you don't want them, don't buy 'em. Acting like they're some affront to our rights is just ridiculous.

Black_Knight_00

I will take your word for it. I didnt play any RPGs last gen and stuck with action adventure, sports and racing games for the most part so my knowledge is a bit limited when it comes to past gens.

But just for argument's sake, I'll say have enountered more of these bugs this gen than I did last. I remember the god awful tearing in most early PS3 games... Heavenly Sword, Assassin's Creed, every UE3 PS3 port. Mass Effect 360 probably has the worst framerate in a video game ever during the Frozen planet missions. Worse than SOTC which had a god awful framerate at times. I dont remember any game shipping with input lag like KZ2 or a simply broken aiming system like Uncharted 3. This new God of War has some of the prettiest graphics I have ever seen but the sound design feels incomplete. Just plain incomplete. It's like some audio files never get executed. No game ever has run at 0 fps... Skyrim PS3 managed it. Crysis 2 was unplayable for me on the 360 during the game's biggest firefights. It was a smooth 30 fps whenever I'd take the stealth approach. Recently the PS3 version of Black Ops 2 failed to even load the Title screen after installing Patch 1.03 barely three days after the game came out. I was forced to uninstall the patch and play offline. So no MP for me. I ended up buying the Wii U version.

S0lidSnake

You make some good points but I also think many of the issues you are alluding to are performance issues and hardware limitations.

For example, Heavenly Sword was an early PS3 exclusive and it is clear Team Ninja was having some difficulty maximizing the architecture of that system, which was notorious for having a steep learning curve. That type of thing tends to happen at launch, and you can see such problems as far back as the early titles released for the SNES, which suffered from its own unique design bottleneck that in turn made many of the launch games play very poorly.

Something like Crysis 2 is simply suffering because of the limitations of the hardware, as is the cause of other issues such as screen tearing and chugging frame rates. You see this type of thing each and every generation and to be fair this generation has lasted a very long time and has subsequently forced developers to squeeze every ounce of performance from these outdated pieces of technology.

You are also correct that the complexity of modern gaming makes patching necessary but can also makes things worse, such as the COD problem you mentioned.

My point is that I don't see any real evidence that glitches and bugs have increased but rather I think they manifest in different ways.  

Black Knight, my original response was directed at this comment:

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

 And as I said before, HDD and internet are concurring factors. But still, going from almost zero bugs to what we have today is quite the downfall. I find it hard to imagine that developers have started slacking off on QA just because they now can procrastinate and fix it post release.

Grammaton-Cleric

There has never been an era where we enjoyed even a relative proximity to a bug-less, glitch-free software paradigm.

So you can play obstinate and pretend that you haven't shifted the parameters of this discussion but clearly you have.

You're a smart guy and I would never insult your intelligence so please stop insulting mine.

Your initial postulation was false and I've proven as much. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that games are any more unstable now than they have ever been, even as the complexity of software design increases. Furthermore, the one current gen console that didn't support patching suffered from no less than three first party games that had game-breaking bugs and this fact alone blasts a pretty sizeable hole in your theory that patching facilitates lazy, bug-ridden programming.

And as I've mentioned earlier, game-breaking bugs are relatively rare but they have existed throughout the full history of this medium. You can continue to cherry pick what you personally want to consider relevant but given the amount of documentation and evidence I've provided I'd venture to state that any attempt to further pursue this argument is merely a stubborn refusal on your end to concede that you made an erroneous statement.

Again, you have my respect but in this instance you are flatly wrong.

I wouldn't dream about insulting your intelligence, but I stand by my assertion: games in previous console generations were less buggy than they are today, I can't recall a single game that shipped broken in the NES to XBOX eras, aside maybe from some unlicensed craps like Action 52, while I can name quite a few major releases off the top of my head that have been pushed out broken in this generation and required a patch to become playable. I'm sorry we can't agree on this concept but that's what I maintain.

Black_Knight_00

Firstly, your initial assertion wasn't merely that games used to be less buggy but rather that previous generations enjoyed practically zero bugs, which is simply and demonstrably false.

As to the assertion that contemporary games suffer from a greater amount of glitches than their counterparts of yesteryear, the problem is that you are trafficking in broad strokes predicated entirely on anecdotal evidence. You are stating that because you can't recall earlier games having bugs then they didnt exist yet I've provided lists (albeit incomplete) that proves the contrary.

Now, whether or not the glitch system is worse or better is ultimately only provable if we could survey every game from each console cycle and tally the numbers and aggregate the data. Truthfully, when I claim that things haven't gotten worse, I am engaging in conjecture based on available evidence because truthfully, without the above numbers there is no way to verify that this generation is worse or better in terms of software stability.

However, I have provided numerous examples of glitches and software and proven that such bugs have always been present, regardless of the era. With respect, your failure to recall these glitches and bugs does nothing to negate their existence.

I would also remind you that the Wii being victim of three first party games that suffered from game-breaking bugs is evidence that also acts as a refutation of the notion that patching facilitates lazier programming. To my knowledge, neither Sony nor MS released any first party software that included game-breaking bugs so at the very least we can conclude that such flaws can and will occur within a construct that doesn't allow for patching.

All of that said, I would be remiss not to concede that SOME developers no doubt abuse this current model but I would also assert that the benefits of patching far outweigh the pitfalls.

You always do your research very well, but I can tell this one time you were in a rush, because out of three links you posted, one (the cracked.com one) is almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion, while most of the rest are minor glitches that do not hamper the gameplay. But fine, since we always end up picking on each other's words and for the sake of brevity: I concede that the way my original assertion was phrased can be called inaccurate.

That said, and feel free to consider this a completely different question, I ask you again and I urge you to answer the question in the briefest manner possible: do you or you not agree that this generation had more game breaking bugs compared to previous ones?

Black_Knight_00

I wasn't entirely thrilled with the lists I provided but to be fair there isn't a central place where any of this data has been archived or aggregated. I don't mind doing some digging but when it comes to glitches it could take a while to compose even a rudimentary list of software with severe glitches.

As to your question, I don't think, in relative terms, software of this era is any more glitch-filled or bug-ridden than at any other time in the history of this medium and I've seen no evidence that we've suffered more game-breaking bugs. I do think there could be more of those types of bugs simply because the torrent of software is greater than at any other time but even that isn't something I have the numbers to quantify.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

You always do your research very well, but I can tell this one time you were in a rush, because out of three links you posted, one (the cracked.com one) is almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion, while most of the rest are minor glitches that do not hamper the gameplay. But fine, since we always end up picking on each other's words and for the sake of brevity: I concede that the way my original assertion was phrased can be called inaccurate.

That said, and feel free to consider this a completely different question, I ask you again and I urge you to answer the question in the briefest manner possible: do you or you not agree that this generation had more game breaking bugs compared to previous ones?

Grammaton-Cleric

I wasn't entirely thrilled with the lists I provided but to be fair there isn't a central place where any of this data has been archived or aggregated. I don't mind doing some digging but when it comes to glitches it could take a while to compose even a rudimentary list of software with severe glitches.

As to your question, I don't think, in relative terms, software of this era is any more glitch-filled or bug-ridden than at any other time in the history of this medium and I've seen no evidence that we've suffered more game-breaking bugs. I do think there could be more of those types of bugs simply because the torrent of software is greater than at any other time but even that isn't something I have the numbers to quantify.

That or maybe (just a guess) you were lucky and played most games post patch? On a side note, I've also been looking for a comprehensive list of notable bugs but couldn't find it. Oh well.

Black_Knight_00

I'll be honest, I'm shocked there isn't a more comprehensive list (I thought for sure Wikipedia would have something) and as you noted the way some of those sources organize the glitches is nonsensical.

I'd love to see an extensive list compiled of game-breaking bugs, starting from the inception of this medium and encompassing all platforms, consoles, arcade games, etc. because what I believe happens is that, over time, we collectively tend to forget many of the flaws from previous generations and focus on contemporary pitfalls because they are so much more relevant to us at this moment.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

That or maybe (just a guess) you were lucky and played most games post patch? On a side note, I've also been looking for a comprehensive list of notable bugs but couldn't find it. Oh well.

Grammaton-Cleric

I'll be honest, I'm shocked there isn't a more comprehensive list (I thought for sure Wikipedia would have something) and as you noted the way some of those sources organize the glitches is nonsensical.

I'd love to see an extensive list compiled of game-breaking bugs, starting from the inception of this medium and encompassing all platforms, consoles, arcade games, etc. because what I believe happens is that, over time, we collectively tend to forget many of the flaws from previous generations and focus on contemporary pitfalls because they are so much more relevant to us at this moment.

and I was under the impression that they worked right up until the release date and a little worker from the company hand delivers the copies of the game right at the stroke of midnight the tuesday of release. 

I do agree with the statement TO A DEGREE. I get that he's saying, "Hey, we're done the game and we want to do more, so we start making DLC before it's launch then release it." Ok, then why not make it a free download with a code in the box?? And it's hilarious that a guy from Bethesda said this! I love their games, but really any extra time they have needs to go soley to fixing bugs and glitches lol....