Poll: Day-One patches...is it justifiable?

[F-I-D-O]

The game has been packaged and shipping for months before release. It would be silly to think that there wouldn't be patches or any dev work performed during those months.

Are you saying that the games get packaged and shipped intentionally with flaws, so the devs have something to do? Because the only reasons for games to require huge day-one patches is that they are released full of flaws or incomplete (something that shouldn't be accepted in certified games)

That's where there's a difference between a small day one patch and a "fix it in post" mentality.
Even before games go gold, the process of console certification takes months, and is expensive. When a build is deemed sufficiently bug free, content complete, and up to publication standards, it gets sent for certification. Certification is a console maker's way of saying if the game meets the console's stability/functionality requirements, and they might catch additional bugs (usually associated with nuances of that console's software, like trophies or achievements). However, cert isn't focused on glitched quests - it's focused on how the game operates with the console's systems. During that time, devs don't just sit around and wait for an answer. They keep working, and keep testing, possibly finding weird bug behaviors and odd connections in the game. If they find bugs, they might pray that they don't get found by the cert team, and still work on fixes. If the game passes cert and goes gold, those changes aren't discarded. They're made into a patch to be fixed at release. The disk still meets minimum quality standards, but it could be improved through additional fixes.

Cert also isn't the best way to gauge quality, since they mostly test integration and general standards - things like online integration, message functionality, share features, etc. Keep in mind Ride to Hell: Retribution passed certification.

A 2GB patch might be hundreds of minor bug fixes found during the cert time. Nothing that would make you fail cert, but maybe audio glitches, disappearing npcs, the like. Usually when you see bigger patches it's due to textures or audio, which have large file sizes. A minor audio bug can make a single issue patch much larger than expected, but it's still a quality of life improvement. It's not that games are intentionally released with bugs to keep devs paid - it's that games naturally have bugs from the strangest of conditions, which are constantly looked for after certification, during manufacturing, and after release - all of which imply a point where you can't modify the on-disk content anymore.

This is all an improvement over the Atari days where a game breaking bug gets listed as a feature in the manual, since they can't afford to remake the cartridges.

 

[mrdude2010]

It kind of depends on the individual game. I understand that they find bugs after the game goes gold, but at the same time, it really pisses me off when I have to go online and patch a game for a long time right after I buy it. This especially applies to very large patches, because I have limited bandwidth.

 

[TallanKhan]

Fundamentally I don't have a problem with a patching being available Day 1. After all, from the point of production, shipping etc, to the point I get a console home, bugs have probably been worked out and if they can fix those day 1, great.

However, when a console is shipping in basically a non-functional state with the intention of making it functional by day 1 via a fix then no. When you sell a product it should work, I should be able to just take it out of the box and play games on it. Optional update? Great, and I probably will download it first, but I shouldn't have to do so before I can use what I paid for.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

I'm sorry, but it saddens me the level of complacency that has crept on the gaming industry. They no longer aim for A or B grades (D- now is good enough)

 

[HardkorSB]

These days, the publishers are often rushing the developers to finish a game as soon as possible.
Chances are, the developers might not finish the game in time so they release day 1 patches to give you a complete game.
As far as I know, they're always free so it's not a big deal.

The patches themselves aren't the problem.
The developers pushing for an early release date are.

 

[Tomeran]

Of course they're okay. If you want to expect a game at launch that doesnt have any bugs or glitches at all then every game release would be postponed to...infinity and beyond?

Patches are generally good things. Some arent, but in my experience most of them tend to fix more things then they break. Usually its the devs at least TRYING to make things right. I find devs that release patches a hellova lot better then the ones that cant bother and not release any at all because -all games- have glitches and bugs, more or less.

 

[Don Incognito]

I'm confused; did you mean to ask if Day One DLC is justifiable?

Because the question as it stands makes zero sense.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm confused; did you mean to ask if Day One DLC is justifiable?

Because the question as it stands makes zero sense.

Eh. It sort of makes sense. Back in the day, you could just pop a cart in and play. You technically still can, but with so much reliant on online functionality, this can hamper even ostensibly single player games.

Thing is, I still find it preferable to buying a game and finding it doesn't work, or there's some game-breaking bug.

I'm sorry, but it saddens me the level of complacency that has crept on the gaming industry. They no longer aim for A or B grades (D- now is good enough)

Were you not around for the 80s or 90s? I'm sorry, but I'm just sort of baffled that you think this is complacency that has crept into gaming, rather than something that's been around for ages.

 

[DoPo]

Because the question as it stands makes zero sense.

How so? You get a game released as version 1.0.0, the 1.0.1[footnote]number that's higher than the release version[/footnote] version is available on the same day. In those situations, the OP asks, is that acceptable. It's not like it doesn't happen - it does, here are examples[footnote]Do note, I just pulled few of the top results that came up in Google[/footnote]:
http://www.destructoid.com/assassin-s-creed-syndicate-has-teeny-tiny-day-one-patch-316457.phtml
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-3-day-one-patch-notes/1100-6427404/
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2015/10/20/halo-5-has-a-9gb-day-one-patch

 

[Redryhno]

In theory, nope, no problems. I saw my roommates programming homework years ago, there's alot of bull in those lines of code that not everyone can immediately see the first few tries. Even CDPR, the savior of [s/]anime[/s] gaming for alot of people for reasons I'm still not entirely sure of, had problems with Witcher 2 and 3 that they had to crank out patches for when they were released.

In practice/reality? Fuck that noise. Far too many companies using it as a crutch to justify release dates and to ship products they KNOW have fundamental problems and rush to get that shit fixed before release so that nobody notices. If it was toned back a bit to where there weren't a dozen a month, or some of the biggest games of the year being shipped in an unfinished state, I could get behind it.

 

[Lightspeaker]

In theory, nope, no problems. I saw my roommates programming homework years ago, there's alot of bull in those lines of code that not everyone can immediately see the first few tries. Even CDPR, the savior of [s/]anime[/s] gaming for alot of people for reasons I'm still not entirely sure of, had problems with Witcher 2 and 3 that they had to crank out patches for when they were released.

In practice/reality? Fuck that noise. Far too many companies using it as a crutch to justify release dates and to ship products they KNOW have fundamental problems and rush to get that shit fixed before release so that nobody notices. If it was toned back a bit to where there weren't a dozen a month, or some of the biggest games of the year being shipped in an unfinished state, I could get behind it.

Pretty much all of this.

The issue here is the fact that games companies have gotten extremely complacent about bugs and fixing said bugs when testers pick up on them. Damn near every game these days has a day one patch. Even on consoles. THAT is not acceptable. For literally decades games were released as-was and the developer had to do their damndest to make sure there were no problems or get hammered in the reviews. Now there's a tendency to just stick with the release date, push it out the door and patch it later.

Personally I find this to be much more of an annoying problem with consoles than PC though. When I game on a PC I sort of expect having to tinker a bit sometimes to get things working purely because hardly anyone has the exact same system and setup. So there's bound to be variations resulting in glitches. But in the case of consoles its just beyond reasoning because the hardware is all standard; any bugs beyond fairly obscure ones absolutely should be being picked up and fixed prior to launch.

 

[Don Incognito]

Because the question as it stands makes zero sense.

How so? You get a game released as version 1.0.0, the 1.0.1[footnote]number that's higher than the release version[/footnote] version is available on the same day. In those situations, the OP asks, is that acceptable. It's not like it doesn't happen - it does, here are examples[footnote]Do note, I just pulled few of the top results that came up in Google[/footnote]:
http://www.destructoid.com/assassin-s-creed-syndicate-has-teeny-tiny-day-one-patch-316457.phtml
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-3-day-one-patch-notes/1100-6427404/
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2015/10/20/halo-5-has-a-9gb-day-one-patch

....it's a patch. It is fixing bugs. Why wouldn't it be justifiable?

Bugs exist in every game. Always have, always will. The sooner they get fixed, the better.

I am utterly baffled by this thread.

 

[Estarc]

Silly question is silly. With the state games are shipping in nowadays day one patches are necessary. You can certainly make a case that fixing bugs should be done before the game goes gold, rather than after with a patch though. I understand that when a game is released to the public a lot more bugs get discovered due to user volume, but companies seem happy to ship games that are riddled with bugs that they are aware of.

 

[DoPo]

Because the question as it stands makes zero sense.

How so? You get a game released as version 1.0.0, the 1.0.1[footnote]number that's higher than the release version[/footnote] version is available on the same day. In those situations, the OP asks, is that acceptable. It's not like it doesn't happen - it does, here are examples[footnote]Do note, I just pulled few of the top results that came up in Google[/footnote]:
http://www.destructoid.com/assassin-s-creed-syndicate-has-teeny-tiny-day-one-patch-316457.phtml
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-3-day-one-patch-notes/1100-6427404/
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2015/10/20/halo-5-has-a-9gb-day-one-patch

....it's a patch. It is fixing bugs. Why wouldn't it be justifiable?

Bugs exist in every game. Always have, always will. The sooner they get fixed, the better.

I am utterly baffled by this thread.

I believe OP suggests there should not be bugs in the first place to be fixed.

 

[Don Incognito]

Because the question as it stands makes zero sense.

How so? You get a game released as version 1.0.0, the 1.0.1[footnote]number that's higher than the release version[/footnote] version is available on the same day. In those situations, the OP asks, is that acceptable. It's not like it doesn't happen - it does, here are examples[footnote]Do note, I just pulled few of the top results that came up in Google[/footnote]:
http://www.destructoid.com/assassin-s-creed-syndicate-has-teeny-tiny-day-one-patch-316457.phtml
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-3-day-one-patch-notes/1100-6427404/
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2015/10/20/halo-5-has-a-9gb-day-one-patch

....it's a patch. It is fixing bugs. Why wouldn't it be justifiable?

Bugs exist in every game. Always have, always will. The sooner they get fixed, the better.

I am utterly baffled by this thread.

I believe OP suggests there should not be bugs in the first place to be fixed.

There shouldn't be ketchup on hot dogs, either. Shit happens, man. All games have bugs, it has always been thus. I'd rather they get fixed as soon as possible.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

It comes across as really dickish. But probably it costs less to screw up the fanbase than pay the penalty to the publisher for delays

 

[Mikeybb]

Wholly dependent on circumstance and implementation.

If it's because post gold testing has revealed game crippling bugs then it's disappointing but fair enough.
It'd be better to have the patch than have a broken game.

In the past I used to wonder if day one patches were an effort to add another layer of drm, in the sense that to access the patch you'd have to either use a registered copy through a digital distributor or access it via the developer using a registered copy.
Learning how inventive some game crackers can be disavowed me of the notion for the most part, given that the time between a patch being released and a cracked version being available is so small.

 

[DoPo]

Because the question as it stands makes zero sense.

How so? You get a game released as version 1.0.0, the 1.0.1[footnote]number that's higher than the release version[/footnote] version is available on the same day. In those situations, the OP asks, is that acceptable. It's not like it doesn't happen - it does, here are examples[footnote]Do note, I just pulled few of the top results that came up in Google[/footnote]:
http://www.destructoid.com/assassin-s-creed-syndicate-has-teeny-tiny-day-one-patch-316457.phtml
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-3-day-one-patch-notes/1100-6427404/
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2015/10/20/halo-5-has-a-9gb-day-one-patch

....it's a patch. It is fixing bugs. Why wouldn't it be justifiable?

Bugs exist in every game. Always have, always will. The sooner they get fixed, the better.

I am utterly baffled by this thread.

I believe OP suggests there should not be bugs in the first place to be fixed.

There shouldn't be ketchup on hot dogs, either. Shit happens, man. All games have bugs, it has always been thus. I'd rather they get fixed as soon as possible.

I don't know why you're directing that at me and not at OP.

 

[Lightspeaker]

There shouldn't be ketchup on hot dogs, either. Shit happens, man. All games have bugs, it has always been thus. I'd rather they get fixed as soon as possible.

I've never heard something so ridiculous in my life.

I mean...you DON'T put tomato sauce on a hot dog? What's wrong with you, man?!? You'll be saying you don't have mustard next!

 

[CaitSeith]

I'm sorry, but it saddens me the level of complacency that has crept on the gaming industry. They no longer aim for A or B grades (D- now is good enough)

Were you not around for the 80s or 90s? I'm sorry, but I'm just sort of baffled that you think this is complacency that has crept into gaming, rather than something that's been around for ages.

It sounds like you weren't around when AAA didn't mean just big budget and spectacle. It meant quality in content and execution too. Or has people got so used to mediocrity that they forgot already?