Are Patches Really Good for Gamers?

Feature Article

Submitted on: 08/14/2008 by Will Soistman

August 12th has come and gone and many of us have played Madden 09 in some way or form by now. In fact, on the PS3 the 1st patch has already made its rounds to those who have internet access. Wait a minute... The game has just been released, and there is a patch for it? There is also a 2nd patch announced too?! A lot of people see it as great news since the developers are fixing any mistakes that the community has found with their games. But are patches really a great thing for gaming?

Life With/Without Patches

How did gamers survive without patches in the gloomy days of previous generations? I believe developers in the previous generations knew they had one shot to get a game right. If there was a possible glitch or bug in a game that could render the game unplayable, then they knew that word would get around and the game wouldn't sell. Thus, development teams were more thorough and more careful to make sure to release a more polished game.

Am I saying that developers are simply not trying as hard as those of yesteryear? No, I am saying that they now have a crutch to lean on in times of trouble when a bug threatens a release date. If they have a deadline to reach, then they can simply extend what they needed to finish into a patch and release the game before then even if it's broken.

Another thing that makes me irritated when talking about patches is the fact that a lot of gamers are not getting a quality game.

One recent game that seemed to follow this example was the game MLB 2k8 (2k8) for the PS3 and the XBOX 360. 2k8 was already under enough pressure being the sole sim baseball videogame for the XBOX 360 and when it was released, it immediately came under fire from the community. The frame rate that shipped in the retail version was beyond abysmal. One would be lucky enough to actually throw the pitch they wanted to or even swing the bat remotely close to the ball thanks to the frame rate.

After the release of the game it seemed almost coincidental that the developers immediately knew what the consumers were talking about and told everyone in a press release that a patch was already underway. Did this mean 2K Sports already knew the frame rate was terrible, but had to ship the game the way it was?

Another thing that makes me irritated when talking about patches is the fact that a lot of gamers are not getting a quality game. What I mean by this is not everyone has access to the internet from their video game console. What happened to the people who ran out and bought 2k8 on release day, only to never realize beforehand a patch was already in development to fix the terrible frame rate? It just seems like the "casual" gamer will never get the same experience as the person who has Xbox Live or the one connected to Playstation Network. I really feel for those with limited access to the Internet who just want a solid video game in this day and age.

Are patches really all they are cracked up to be?

Possible Solution(s)?

Every year for the big name sports titles (Madden, NCAA, NBA Live) there are community events where several people from leading websites have a firsthand experience with the new product. At these events, players usually only experience human vs human gameplay. There are almost never “solo” times when a player will check out the franchise or career mode to make sure it works, or play a cpu on the hardest difficulty to make sure the game doesn't cheat. One thing that could be done is to break down the community events into segments. One day could be devoted to human vs human gameplay, the next committed to franchise, and maybe the last day have an online test.

I feel in order to be truly satisfied in this generation of games, gamers are going to need a patch to fix a certain area or areas of a game.

Something else that seems to be overlooked is the QA staff in gaming companies. There should be fully committed staff workers who do nothing, NOTHING but test the game in every single way the game can be played: Practice, create-a-player, online, tournaments, etc. This may seem like such an easy task to perform, but as MLB 2k8 and NCAA 09 have shown us, testing games must be taken for granted at these companies. If it wasn't, how could such big bugs such as the frame-rate issues in MLB or the roster glitches in NCAA have come to pass?

So from a gamer's perspective, is this a good thing for gaming? I feel in order to be truly satisfied in this generation of games, gamers are going to need a patch to fix a certain area or areas of a game. NCAA Football 09 was recentely released, and now the developers have come out and told us about two planned patches, one of which has been released already. This is also an example that of what could be the main problem with patches: developers are now coming out to the community and subtly admitting that there are problems with the games they put out, and that there are fixes already on the way. Hearing this only makes me wonder more about how effectively these games are tested, and in general these actions make it look as if developers have rushed to get the game out on time.

What do you think? Are patches causing developers to push back fixes for games and ship us broken products or should we be grateful that we can now get fixes for games we never could before? Chime in and play nice!

Member Comments

# 1 gsugators @ 08/14/08 04:40 PM

Great article. I totally agree as an owner of NCAA 09 for the Xbox 360. They released a beta version of the game. Then as soon as we complained. patches were already in the works. When we as owners complain about paying $60 for a unstable, buggy game, NCAA 09 developers on these boards (I won't mention their names) tell us "Don't cry over spilled milk." EA is lucky no one has filled a class action lawsuit yet.

# 2 N51_rob @ 08/14/08 04:55 PM

Double edge sword. It's good because there are some things that could come up and devs never have a chance to catch. They are bad because it is an escape to ensure that games hit their street dates no matter what.

Not to bang of EA, (because I am having a blast with NCAA 09 this year) here but NCAA 09 for example. There were things that Ryno and Russel05 mentioned to them before NCAA went gold and they weren't fixed pre-release. Some will be fixed in patch #2.

At the end of the day that is better for all gamer to have patched to fix things in the game.

# 3 therockstar2005 @ 08/14/08 05:00 PM

I would agree with what you're saying. However, there were plenty of games which had bugs and glitches in it in the last generation which wound up suffering because patches weren't available. So if they are opportunities to "fix" the game, I think its a good thing to have the option available.

# 4 jddcp @ 08/14/08 05:13 PM

The ability to patch console games is a good thing. PC gamers for years (if not decades) were able to gloat over the fact that their games could be patched, modded, ect. Bringing this technology to console is a good thing.

In the past, we'd have to wait for the following year's version to get things fixed. Now, they can get fixed immediately. Like the earlier poster said, there were glitches and problems on PS2, Gamecube, SNES and every other console (except for maybe Atari....). I for one am very grateful for patches.

# 5 HechticSooner @ 08/14/08 05:15 PM

I think the better response to this is not a question of patch/no patch, but one of dev cycle and the time it should/should not be given. I think that the ave game cycle is much larger then those of the average sports title. The short dev times lead to the dev deciding on things to quickly and then have issues come up with hasty code, and incomplete code. This is easily solved in the modern era.

How you may ask, well EA has already talked about using pay for play internet models. Why not allow these titles the ability to update over the internet, and give the dev two cycles worth of time to design the next installment. The updates would take a couple guys off the new program a few months before the update release but essentially will do nothing to the time that can be devoted to the new product. You are still making money off the old product, (even for those that adopt late in the cycle and buy used) and put out better products (hopefully) that increase brand loyalty (which we all know is the true key to product marketing).

Will this come about? Who knows but it could very well lead to the best of both worlds, higher profit for the companies and better games for the users.

# 6 RoyalBoyle78 @ 08/14/08 05:16 PM

That's a no brainier, of course they are.

# 7 yamabushi @ 08/14/08 05:19 PM

It just leads to shoddier and sloppier work being done, as "we can always patch it later".
Its all fine and good when unexpected issues do crop up, as everyone is so fond of saying "no game is perfect" (even though Ive played plenty that have never needed patch 1) But, when youve got a game that hasnt even hit store shelves yet and your already working on known issues for a patch (or 2, or 3) that just shows either inexcusable laziness or ineptitude and a contempt for the consumer on both the developers and publisher part.

# 8 jmood88 @ 08/14/08 05:35 PM

I don't see how patches can be a bad thing. If people really think that without patches we would get more complete games they're kidding themselves.

# 9 jmood88 @ 08/14/08 05:49 PM

Don't buy the game then, it's pretty simple. I will never understand why people keep complaining about things being broken but won't wait a few days to hear reviews before buying or just renting the game. You don't need to have everything on day 1.

# 10 Tycobbler @ 08/14/08 07:08 PM

Beta testers cannot catch everything, and some glaring issues go out the door upon game release. That's just the way it is. "Rent it first" should be a common practice.

As games come out it's always a welcome plus to have a patch released to the consumer. 1. it shows that the company is showing concern. 2. you get some of the issues resolved early enough to enjoy an overall better game.

# 11 ehh @ 08/14/08 09:46 PM

There's no doubt that patches are good for gamers, it's just unfortunately when developers announce a patch is coming before a game even hits the shelf. That's sad because it makes the game companies seem lazy. But when devs sit in the forums and listen to our feedback and then release a patch to fix our concerns a la College Hoops 2K8, well we couldn't ask for more as gamers. CH2K8 went from about a 7.5 to the best nex-gen sports game yet because of 2K's patch.

# 12 elicoleman @ 08/14/08 09:54 PM

I really want to say no because it allows the developers to rush a product just to make a deadline, releasing an unfinished product and having the attitude that "we'll just release a patch later".

Obviously, patches can be good if it improves a product.

Problem is, I think we are seeing far too many things needing patched simply because the developers are relying far too much on patches.

# 13 mwjr @ 08/14/08 10:31 PM

I think patches can be good, in terms of tweaking games. But patches aren't being used for tweaking; they're being used for major game fixes. While we're fortunate that we have the capability to fixthese games, I do think that patches convert what used to be hard release dates for programmers into initial releases followed by the final releases.

# 14 thescoop @ 08/14/08 11:05 PM

I believe patches are good thing but are being GROSSLY OVERUSED!

What do I mean by this? I mean that a lot of patches we see now are for bugs that should have never made it to the retail floor. We are seeing fatal bugs making it into games instead of delays on the release of the title we would have seen in the past.

Now some might not want the game delayed so that's another debate. I personally would rather see it delayed than having to wait a month or longer to play a game I already bought.

While the article is a good one, the question you ask is wrong because anyone with half a brain will say yes patches are a good thing. I mean even the most tested game may have a bug or two slip through the cracks. But I think the question we should be asking are developers depending on patches too much to meet deadlines?

The answer to that quesion is a 100 percent yes, at least in sports games. None sports titles will go the delay route quicker, but we the Madden fans, the NCAA nuts, we must have our copies at a certain point in the year and this has driven developers to cut corners in this new next gen world.

I for one I'm tired of it and would rather see Madden delayed than released buggy, but that isn't going to happen. I almost think you might see more people complaining if they were told Madden/NCAA or MLB 2k were delayed than those of us who are upset by having to wait on the patch.

Patches are a good thing for gamers, but they shouldn't be the standard that they've become in sports gaming.

# 15 DJ @ 08/14/08 11:10 PM

This article brings up a few great points. I think patches are a bad idea and are clearly being used as a crutch by the game companies. They'll ship a game with bugs/glitches/errors just to meet their deadline and fix it later.

When we, the consumer are shelling out over $60 for a new game, we should expect it to play a certain way. I'm not saying a game will be perfect (every game has flaws), but there's no excuse for these major gaming flaws to be in the retail version.

The point about those gamers who don't have Live or Sony's online network shouldn't be taken lightly. Not everyone has their system online capable for whatever reason, and they are stuck wtih these broken games and no way to fix them. I feel bad for them.

Sports where one company has the exclusive license, there's no reason why they can't push a release date back in order to get the game right. It's not like we're going to go out and buy another football or baseball game. Who cares if it doesn't ship a month before the season starts?

# 16 BrsFan34 @ 08/14/08 11:26 PM

I think you're all being whiny bi**ches... its a f'n VIDEOGAME.. and at the end of the day making these games is about making MONEY... EA needs to have a new football/basketball/hockey game out every 12 months and with all the new things these "next gen" systems can do.,. the programming takes LONGER and LONGER.. 12 months just isn't enough time to reinvent the wheel every year like most people on these boards seem to expect. so just relax enjoy the game or god forbid... DON'T BUY IT...

# 17 BobbyZ23 @ 08/15/08 01:57 AM

My problem isn't that games are being patched. My problem is that the only way to receive the patch is through the Playstation Network or X-Box Live. This is a major problem for those of us that don't have high speed internet. At one time I did have high speed internet (a recent move to the country means dial-up is my only option) and I remember I was able to download most patches in a few seconds. That tells me that the patches files are very small. Why can't Sony, or for that matter EA, offer patches for download from their web site? I know it can be done because Sony currently offers their dashboard update on their web site.

# 18 Bahnzo @ 08/15/08 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwjr


	I think patches can be good, in terms of tweaking games. But patches aren't being used for tweaking; they're being used for major game fixes. While we're fortunate that we have the capability to fixthese games, I do think that patches convert what used to be hard release dates for programmers into initial releases followed by the final releases.

This pretty sums it up, and echos what I've been saying for some time now. People who think patches are good aren't really thinking things through. By continuing to allow patches, game companies will gradually become more and more dependent on them. Instead of a shipping a complete game, they instead can ship whatever is ready and patch it later. We've already seen this with Madden.

And then what of the people who for any number of reasons don't have the ability to connect their console to a high speed internet connection? I think companies should be required to come up with a solution for these people. They are just as deserving to have the fixed game as anyone else who paid $60 for it.

Like the poster I quoted said, patches are great for tweaks, small bugs not discovered, etc. But companies are intentionally shipping games now that need to be patched, and that's *not* what patches were intended for. And it will continue to get worse. You already have DLC being left off the games so extra money can be generated from consumers.

How much longer until a "patch" is 400 MS points? Don't laugh, I wouldn't put it past any company to try and pull that off.

# 19 DubTrey1 @ 08/15/08 02:06 AM

In the case of a developer like EA, they are a part of day to day business. They figure, hey we know that there are some issues with XYZ title, but only the hardcore guys will complain/notice, so we can still hit our street date and have a patch in the works to appease those guys as well. It must be a part of the EA business model. I am not opposed to patches that correct the gameplay issues etc. and actually end up making the games value even better (see CHoops2K8) So, I would have to say as long as they work their hardest to get the game out in it's most playable state, I am for patches delivered in a a timely manner after the games initial release. Besides, the patche(s) at least for me and Madden 09 is why I have yet to buy the game.....

# 20 tutking @ 08/15/08 02:15 AM

It sucks to see it happening like this it happens with different companies but look at Madden this year.

After years of bug filled games you'd think that they had something to prove, but the bugs thread was put up the day before the game was released, and who put it up? THE DEVELOPERS. Asking not only for the bugs to be listed but had an specific way to list the problem and urgency. I looked at that and thought "what? are people paying $60 to be involved in the Tiburon game testing staff" theese people who bought the game early are basicly debuging a game they payed for. Makes me sick.

Developers get on your job!!!

Gamers we gotta show them were not puttin up with half assed games dont fall for the hype

my 2 cents

« Previous12 3 Next »

More Links