Game patches and updates have given devs the opportunity to be lazy.

Before patches devs had to release the game with as little problems as possible, as when it was released that was it, no more changes and if it was broken it wouldn't sell so they would need to test it extensively. Now, they can just release patches to cover any bug up. So when most games are released now there are dozens of problems and the devs just let the players test the game instead of doing it theirselves.

patches are nothing new.

so there were no glitches/bug in games before updates and patches... think before you post

So fixing games are now a problem.genaroll

He didn't say that, I got his point actually, look at Bioshock for PS3, they release the game with a lot of glitches and then they release a patch of 300mb!!! that's absurd

I agree. It really bothers me when I put in a new game for the first time and have to wait for updates and patches to load. It's not so much about fixing the problem, that's great, but that games would have more polish and care if the option wasn't there for postrelease updates.

Dont worry TC...I have your back. You are right. Gaming now days is a lazy mans job. Throw some new skins on top of an old game, put out some patches, ect...and bingo you have a game. What if we didnt have internet? What about those people that still DONT have internet? What do they do when a game needs fixing or a console needs updated all the time??

patches are nothing new.

CaseyWegner

so there were no glitches/bug in games before updates and patches... think before you post

Vinegar_Strokes

I guess you never played games before they were capable of being patched. Developers were just as lazy back then as they are now in some cases... but now they get a chance to fix mistakes without having to release a new version of the game and make players buy new copies.

I actually agree. I totally see TC's point... lots more games are being shipped with glitches and bugs now that developers know they can just fix them later.

So fixing games are now a problem.genaroll

I guess you never played games before they were capable of being patched. Developers were just as lazy back then as they are now in some cases... but now they get a chance to fix mistakes without having to release a new version of the game and make players buy new copies.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

patches are nothing new.

HuusAsking

does pc gaming not exist?

Such as?HuusAsking

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

patches are nothing new.

CaseyWegner

does pc gaming not exist?

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Such as?foxhound_fox

I don't really think that it allows devs to be lazy as much as publishers to enforce deadlines, then just patch the game after it's released because the game is still playable upon release. This is because marketing and timing is so crucial to success, and they don't want little bugs to get in the way of their money.

It amazes me how people say "lazy devs" all of the time. Apparently you have no idea how long QA can take and how expensive it can be.

It amazes me how people say "lazy devs" all of the time. Apparently you have no idea how long QA can take and how expensive it can be.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]

so there were no glitches/bug in games before updates and patches... think before you post

HuusAsking

I'd rather see no game than a bad game. HuusAsking

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]I'd rather see no game than a bad game. AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]

so there were no glitches/bug in games before updates and patches... think before you post

AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]I'd rather see no game than a bad game. HuusAsking

No it doesn't, it just means that one part of the process of development had issues. There are plenty of games with fantastic potential that are plagued by bugs and we still appreciate the intent of the developer. This is the same as a writer with a good plot, but mediocre narrative. Games like Mass Effect can rise above technical flaws to still become great games and series.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]

so there were no glitches/bug in games before updates and patches... think before you post

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]I would rather see broken game that's later patched, than no game to begin with

tempest91

No it doesn't, it just means that one part of the process of development had issues. There are plenty of games with fantastic potential that are plagued by bugs and we still appreciate the intent of the developer. This is the same as a writer with a good plot, but mediocre narrative. Games like Mass Effect can rise above technical flaws to still become great games and series.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]I'd rather not. It speaks of a bad work ethic.HuusAsking

No it doesn't, it just means that one part of the process of development had issues. There are plenty of games with fantastic potential that are plagued by bugs and we still appreciate the intent of the developer. This is the same as a writer with a good plot, but mediocre narrative. Games like Mass Effect can rise above technical flaws to still become great games and series.

If that's the case, then you are missing out on tons of good stories and games and I feel sorry for you. Another good example of this is the Bourne series of Novels. Very questionable writing at times, but fantastic action and plot made for decent books and even better movies, in my opinion. If you only judged them by the writing, they would never make it on their own.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="tempest91"]

No it doesn't, it just means that one part of the process of development had issues. There are plenty of games with fantastic potential that are plagued by bugs and we still appreciate the intent of the developer. This is the same as a writer with a good plot, but mediocre narrative. Games like Mass Effect can rise above technical flaws to still become great games and series.

tempest91

If that's the case, then you are missing out on tons of good stories and games and I feel sorry for you. Another good example of this is the Bourne series of Novels. Very questionable writing at times, but fantastic action and plot made for decent books and even better movies, in my opinion. If you only judged them by the writing, they would never make it on their own.

.....seriously? most games will get reviewed badly if there broken when shipped out too reviewers, and bad reviews mean bad sales, in most cases, so devs are motivated to still release games with as few bugs as possible, thread over?

.....seriously? most games will get reviewed badly if there broken when shipped out too reviewers, and bad reviews mean bad sales, in most cases, so devs are motivated to still release games with as few bugs as possible, thread over?

linkin_guy109

[QUOTE="linkin_guy109"]

.....seriously? most games will get reviewed badly if there broken when shipped out too reviewers, and bad reviews mean bad sales, in most cases, so devs are motivated to still release games with as few bugs as possible, thread over?

HuusAsking

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]See, for me, one bad apple spoils the bunch. A mediocre narrative can probably drive many people away from seeing the plot to its conclusion: good or bad. Similarly, a game with technical issues can drive me away from the game before seeing it through.HuusAsking

If that's the case, then you are missing out on tons of good stories and games and I feel sorry for you. Another good example of this is the Bourne series of Novels. Very questionable writing at times, but fantastic action and plot made for decent books and even better movies, in my opinion. If you only judged them by the writing, they would never make it on their own.

I haven't even seen Avatar as it doesn't interest me. I can see my point is lost on you, and I can only say that to expect near perfection is a fruitless endeavor. There are so many great writers with predictable stories, and decent writers with great stories, I'm not sure how an avid reader can cast these aside so easily.

Before patches devs had to release the game with as little problems as possible, as when it was released that was it, no more changes and if it was broken it wouldn't sell so they would need to test it extensively. Now, they can just release patches to cover any bug up. So when most games are released now there are dozens of problems and the devs just let the players test the game instead of doing it theirselves.

Wario_Kid

Yep, when the game was released that was it, broken or not. I can't imagine anything better than devs being able to improve their games after release when it comes to gaming. Whether those are improvements to an already good game or patches that make a near broken game playable, it's a good thing.

I guess you never played games before they were capable of being patched. Developers were just as lazy back then as they are now in some cases... but now they get a chance to fix mistakes without having to release a new version of the game and make players buy new copies.

foxhound_fox

Agreed.

tbh, before patches we had broken games and games with permanent bugs.

Not really.

How can you hate on a system to promote more games per year at the cost of your harddrive TC? which also is the method to make your game longer by cutting our content that they sell you afterwards to meet the RRPP and gain a substantial margin without having to deal with retailers?

Oh wait, I see your point TC.

As much as i enjoy getting my game fixed, the TC point stands, and as someone said it's a way for big corporations to meet deadlines. Also the way to reduce the game content and sell it calling it "downloadable content", when if this was the previous generation, the QA tests would have taken long enough to add the missing content at no additional cost to be better than the "other company big game".

But since gaming is starting to be everywhere and less geek/nerd every generation, i guess it's only normal the other common diseases join aswell.

Not all developers abuse the ability to patch on modern consoles and in PC games. There are two different scenarios for me.

It's one thing when a game offers a bunch of patches that are just "fine tuning", and taking care of user feedback, as well as things that update the multiplayer (i.e. re-balancing). It's a whole different matter when a game comes to retail and it's just totally busted from day one, then a patch is required just to make the game playable. Patching under the first scenario is great, when a game is totally busted until a patch it just disgusts me.

So devs knowingly release half-assed games? Well actually that sounds about right nowadays, for the most part.

i got patches on the Dreamcast so not really.

Before patches devs had to release the game with as little problems as possible, as when it was released that was it, no more changes and if it was broken it wouldn't sell so they would need to test it extensively. Now, they can just release patches to cover any bug up. So when most games are released now there are dozens of problems and the devs just let the players test the game instead of doing it theirselves.

Wario_Kid