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

# 21 jmood88 @ 08/15/08 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahnzo


	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.

The only game I've seen shipped with issues that the developer knew about is Madden and that's likely due to their development cycle. It's ridiculous that someone can turn a fix for problems in a game into an issue to complain about.

# 22 El Greazy 1 @ 08/15/08 10:29 AM

As another person stated, it's a double edged sword. Sure it allows for any errors that made it past Quality Control (or lack there of) to be fixed but at the same time it gives developers an easy pass. Games are so complex now and so long that it's nearly impossible for a small team of testers to catch every error, that's fine, and this is when millions of consumers get to test every facet of the game. So patching is a neccessity at times.

Much like the case of MLB2K8, we say a myriad of problems with Madden 09. We see a game with CPU AI running out of bounds, horrible clock management, beyond effective CPU QB, broken Franchise Mode (2 years in a row) etc from THE BIGGEST GAME COMPANY & BIGGEST FRANCHISE OF ALL TIME. To me, this screams rush-work and lack of quality on the side of the developer and this has been the case for many years now. It's very clear with NCAA 09 & Madden 09 that patches aren't the exception but the rule. This is a company with infinite resources and an obligation to put out an as-near-perfect addition to the millions of consumers who purchase & support the game each year, yet they're given a free pass, of sorts.

There are many people to blame for this. You can blame the companies who are pushing harsh deadlines on developers and only care about the bottom line. You can blame the developers for being sloppy and not putting out quality even though they're reputation is on the line. And most imporantly, you can blame the consumer for giving both a free pass. By purchasing a product half-finished, you essentially are giving the companies & developers a "get out of jail free" card for their lack of quality and laziness. Until the consumer makes a stand you will not see anything change.

Games should not be allowed to get shipped knowing there are problems with the product. How would a consumer feel if a car company would put out a vehicle with faulty brakes? How would a consumer feel if a food company put out an item that could be poisonous or bacteria laden? Maybe, just maybe the government should start stepping in as they have with other products to ensure that the consumer isn't being sold false goods.

# 23 ab2c4 @ 08/15/08 10:44 AM

Patches are bad in my opinion. Yes, they do fix problems in a game after release. However, if developers knew they couldn't release patches they would make sure the game was completely finished and tested before they would release it. If they didn't, they know they would loose a lot of money through the lack of sales once word got around that the game was released unfinished or full of problems.

Patches make developers lazy and are bad for consumers. Companies like EA and others are knowingly releasing unfinished games with the attitude of "it is ok, we can finish later in a few months with some patches". Consumers can change this I believe. If enough of us refused to buy games on their release day, instead waiting to see if it is a finished product, and not buying until the game was "finished" (read: patched) then I think developers would stop with their shady tactics.

# 24 ab2c4 @ 08/15/08 10:47 AM

Come to think of it, if a game is properly tested then the only "patches" that should be needed after release are Roster Updates.

# 25 jmood88 @ 08/15/08 10:53 AM

Yeah because there were never problems in games before patches. What perfect game have you played?

# 26 ab2c4 @ 08/15/08 11:21 AM

No game is perfect, but it would eliminate the huge game breaking glitches that companies like EA are knowingly letting out the door on release day.

# 27 TarHeelsUNC @ 08/15/08 12:09 PM

I'm going to say "Not Good," because not every gamer gets on the Internet with their console.

# 28 spursfan @ 08/15/08 01:17 PM

the problem isn't with the actual pathes themselves. Let me clarify. Sports games(EA,2K) are the only ones in the industry shipping titles every 12 months, when it takes most games at least 18 months to complete. They know about these bugs/glitches in the game before it ships. They have to. There's nothing that would convince me otherwise. Most of these companies seem to care more about turning a profit for shareholders, than making good games. Granted it cost a lot more to develop for next-gen(excluding wii). But for the most part it has taken three or four years before the gameplay was remotely compareable to the last generation of hardware. As mush for the graphics and all that it takes 18 to 24 months to release a decent game. Don't beleive me. The old nfl 2k on dreamcast was in development for two years before it released. I still haven't seen a game that even comes close to the animations and camera views on that game. If u weren't paying attention, u would think u were watching a game on tv.

# 29 coogrfan @ 08/15/08 01:30 PM

I think the whole premise of the article is off base.

We aren't getting more patches because developers are using the process as a crutch -- we're getting them because next-gen games are far more complex than their last-gen predecessors. The following quote is taken out of context, but the basic principles the author describes can apply to any increasingly complex system:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leadership and Change in Human Services by Wolf Wolfenberger


	"In complex systems, there are more "parts" and whenever there are more parts, there are more things that can go wrong. Think only of how many more "parts" there are to a jumbo jet, as opposed to a 1920's plane or an ox-cart. ...the more complex a system becomes, the less it takes for the system to become destabilized and the more quickly it can become destabilized. A jumbo jet can be disabled by something being wrong with about a pounds worth of small parts..."

# 30 XCalmLikeABombX @ 08/15/08 06:01 PM

Great, well thought out article. I agree that we may be seeing patches as a crutch, rather than a way to fix a few glitches that pop up. It does truely seem
that we as the gamers have become certain companies beta testers. It just seems like so much is being released, with so many glitches. I honestly do not see how this many errors get through at QA team.

# 31 CoachDavid @ 08/16/08 04:46 PM

YES, YES, YES... I remember when bugs and glitches ended up being part of the game.... Remember the sack glitch in Super Tech...

I am a developer (not a game developer) so look at it from my point of view. Companies have marketing and sales people calling the shots, especially when it comes to release day features. So... if you take out patches you get the same games you are today, but you have to wait until next year to get the fix.
Also, it cost money to make patches. Someone has to write the code and test the code, and now you have the added complexity of the patch. On PC's its easy (most of the time), but think of consoles... whoooh.

I love patches.

# 32 erichoya @ 08/16/08 11:36 PM

My longterm hope for sports title development would be along the lines of an MMO style cycle. You look at something like World of Warcraft and the way its incremental patches and occasional expansions enrich and develop the title in an almost organic growth pattern. In this way, patches help grow the title rather than being a salve to fix holes that rushed development cycles cause.

I just look at the way the user communities have supported and grown orphaned PC titles like nascar 2003 and mvp 2005 and can only imagine if there was a more focused regular development cycle on the major titles focusing on sustained incremental development rather than entirely new products every year.

(all credit due to the one of the 1up podcast crews who initially threw this idea out)

# 33 areobee401 @ 08/17/08 12:09 AM

Only one answer for this question.

YES

If something makes the game better then yes.

Should games have to be patched in the first 2-4 weeks of the ship date is a different question.

# 34 Brandon13 @ 08/17/08 12:18 AM

You first have to provide evidence that we're getting incomplete games because of the ability of developers to patch their games later down the road. And judging by the fact that console games in the pre patch era still had bugs and sometimes game ruining bugs, I'd say your premise that patches are bad for gamers is off.

# 35 savoie2006 @ 08/17/08 09:59 PM

Patches are fine,but caution is also necessary for the developers when making a patch,as sometimes they can open a whole new can of worms.It's also important to note that most of the sports games are usually required by the league they represent to be released by a certain day.It puts that much more pressure on the developers of these games.Not to mention the fact that they have to try and correct any issues from the previous year(s) and put in features the fans want.Sports gamers are ruthless too,so I feel for those developers.

# 36 Trick_ @ 08/17/08 10:44 PM

Game killer for those without online or those who don't know what kind of patch they are getting and what they are getting it for. I don't know if there are many people who wouldn't know...but I know quite a few people who don't have internet. As for those of us who are fortunate to have online capability then its a saving grace. Ability to "upgrade" or further enhance your game is really nice. Additional content such as Rock Band or Mass Affect's extra planet as well as roster patches and being able to fix glitches are awesome. Only concern I have is that I fear companies would just release games on time just to get them out with the thought that they could fix the games. We are now at the point where we would buy games if they had D/L content...such as Guitar hero or rockband. I think in most genre's of games the DLC was much needed and will only grow stronger in supply and demand for it.

# 37 aukevin @ 08/18/08 12:44 PM

I'm going to try and not be too cynical by thinking developers leave bugs in because they know they can patch them later, so I think patches are indeed very good for the consumers.

One thing that developers must start doing though is providing a way to allow users to update their game without having to get their console online. I'm online all the time for free with the PS3 so it's not a big deal, but some don't put their consoles online. Simply putting the patch in downloadable form on the developer's website would suffice if they'd do it.

# 38 Swingking77 @ 08/30/08 04:22 PM

In my opinion, were patches used as they were intended (to fix legit bugs found by gamers) then there wouldn't be a problem. I think that everything is rush rush rush, sell sell sell and in the end it's the consumer that suffers.

In my opinion patches in sports games should be for nothing more then roster, uniform, or other simple updates. We shouldn't be seeing complete overhalls of certain aspects of games. The way things have been, people could do without up to the secound updated rosters, as the games were fine. Now that we're in a "new age of gaming" developers are cheating us.

It isn't just sports games either as in game such as Battle Field Bad Company, an entire portion of online play was left out (conquest mode), which was always a part of the game before.

Also, one has to ask just how good a game is that requires a patch as I'm sure that the effective results of a patch are limited, once the game has been released, where as a game that is tested and fixed before it is launched can have every aspect of the engines (AI, Graphics, Sounds, ect) fixed to a degree that a patch simply can't reach as the game's framework, at that time, in pretty much set in stone to a certain degree...

In my opinion, I've noticed a great decline in game quality at a time when the games are supposed to be getting better and better, which isn't the case... Games have gone the way of Hollywood and replaced substance with eye candy and the result is... Well, terrible.

# 39 jmood88 @ 08/30/08 04:58 PM

When were there ever games that didn't need things fixed once released?

# 40 Swingking77 @ 09/03/08 11:06 AM

Most games released before patches were made available worked fine right out of the box... Perhaps it was a simpler time with less options/game content and what not, but at least it worked. If games were like cars, I wouldn't want a brand new fully loaded shinny new car that caught on fire. If the older ones worked fine and never broke, all the AC, power windows, and vibrating seats dosen't mean a thing...

« Previous 123 Next »

More Links