When a Patch is Just Too Late to Save a Game

[RaychelSnr]

When a new sports title drops, anticipation surrounds the release. People scourer message boards and try to get first-hand impressions from their peers. They read reviews, watch game footage and inspect every little screen capture they can on the Web. Still, nothing beats getting it into our grubby little hands for the ultimate experience.

When a game has major flaws, especially a much-anticipated title, it is a letdown to say the least. You can hear about these problems through the grapevine, or you can discover first-hand the reason why you may have wasted your $60.

Read More - When a Patch is Just Too Late to Save a Game

[spit_bubble]

"...this situation made me think about how patches are great..."

I really think patches are nothing less than a disgrace. It means the product is broken and needs fixing. Downloadable content, expansions, and add-ons are another story, as they augment already finished products. Patches however, are a bad thing in my mind.

[jkra0512]

While patches give companies an excuse to rush an otherwise unfinished product, it does provide free beta testing from such die-hard fans from communities like OS.

I don't like it, but I'd rather have patches for a game that I like than to buy something completely broken with no chance of fixing.

I'm glad patches are only for games, imagine if it were for cars. "Nice pretty new engine, design is flawless, handles great." A month later.....

CAR COMPANY ANNOUNCES NEW PATCH TO PUT BRAKES INTO THE CAR...

[ASB37]

Patches have become a necessary evil almost. We would all rather not have our games patched, but we will always find flaws in a release. A patch addresses these flaws. My biggest gripe is that the testing before a game is initially released does not seem to be as comprehensive. As others have mentioned a games release is seen as a free worldwide beta test for the companies. That is where I have a problem.

[duke776]

Great Article

[kestrel]

Patches are supposed to be used to fix an overlooked error, glitch, or security issue; something that somehow slipped through testing and made it into the retail version of a program.

Unfortunately, as mentioned, patches have become a crutch to rush a program and meet a deadline: Get the product out on time in as minimal a working condition as necessary, then patch it when all the kinks get out. Patches have become a way to get more development time in.

Now, I have no hard evidence to indicate this, but the issues that plagued this year's iteration of NCAA Football, and how and when they were discovered, seem to lend themselves to this conclusion: the game seemed rushed and contained some glaring issues, some not even resolved from the previous year (roster re-ordering, broken sliders, game-play issues) that were discovered almost immediately as the game found its way into people's consoles. Many wondered what the testers were testing or even if there were any testers to begin with.

All the while, programming for this generation of consoles is far more difficult and complex than in previous generations. Patches have become a necessary part of console gaming from here on out. Case in point, I don't own many PS3 games, but almost all of them have been patched, some of those two or more times.

So, patches are a good thing, if they are used as they are intended. Unfortunately, as with all good things, their use is easily (and most likely has become) perverted.

[DubTrey1]

Great article - Patches are a necessary evil at this point and time. It seems so much time is spent on development that little time is allowed for proper testing and QA. Either case, I am for patches. Even more so considering there is no "getting it right the first time" in so many cases - sports titles especially.

[Solidice]

patches don't bother me. but I'm used to it being a PC gamer as well. heck, they are still patching BF2 and that game has been out over 2 years.