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

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
Don Incognito said:
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! :p
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
Something Amyss said:
CaitSeith said:
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?
 

BarkBarker

New member
May 30, 2013
466
0
0
A game is finalised some time before it goes off to get mass produced at least in physical. All that fiddling with master copies and whatnot puts you behind so anything found since it left the company needs a fixing. Of course more strenuous testing and care to not ship off the master copy as millions of buggy games are copied is also a pretty good idea...digital got less excuse.
 

Don Incognito

New member
Feb 6, 2013
281
0
0
Lightspeaker said:
Don Incognito said:
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! :p
Mustard absolutely belongs on a hot dog. It is the prime hot dog condiment.

Ketchup, however, is an abomination before the lord, and is cordially invited to GTFO.
 

distortedreality

New member
May 2, 2011
1,132
0
0
Don Incognito said:
Lightspeaker said:
Don Incognito said:
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! :p
Mustard absolutely belongs on a hot dog. It is the prime hot dog condiment.

Ketchup, however, is an abomination before the lord, and is cordially invited to GTFO.
Ketchup, hot English mustard, cheese.

If you're not hot dogging with this holy trinity, you're doing it wrong dude.
 

Don Incognito

New member
Feb 6, 2013
281
0
0
distortedreality said:
Don Incognito said:
Lightspeaker said:
Don Incognito said:
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! :p
Mustard absolutely belongs on a hot dog. It is the prime hot dog condiment.

Ketchup, however, is an abomination before the lord, and is cordially invited to GTFO.
Ketchup, hot English mustard, cheese.

If you're not hot dogging with this holy trinity, you're doing it wrong dude.
Congratulations! You have volunteered yourself to be first against the wall when the Glorious Revolution comes!
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
CaitSeith said:
It sounds like you weren't around when AAA didn't mean just big budget and spectacle.
Well, that rules out the post-crash 80s, which featured the bit wars heavily. It also rules out the 90s, which featured the 3D wars heavily. I guess maybe the 2000s? But by about 2003, we were already drooling over shinier graphics with more linear cooridors.

I guess you could make an argument for pre-NA crash 80s, since "AAA" included crap like Pac-Man for Atari, which was not even about spectacle. Was that it?

honestly, it sounds like revisionist history.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
It can be a bit annoying but modern games are a lot more complex with a lot more moving parts than the old 8/16-bit games that came on a cartridge. So you can't really compare the two. I mean, you can't really hold a simple 2D platformer to the same standard as some hugely complex open-world game. And even then I've been around long enough to remember the simplest games having glitches and bugs. Also back in the day when a game was broken it stayed broken and now practically every game can be fixed with a patch.

In a perfect world no patch would ever be needed but with deadlines and test teams that have nowhere near the proficiency of millions of players probing the game; that's an unrealistic expectation. As long as the game is playable and issues get fixed over time that's fine by me.
 

Don Incognito

New member
Feb 6, 2013
281
0
0
Something Amyss said:
CaitSeith said:
It sounds like you weren't around when AAA didn't mean just big budget and spectacle.
Well, that rules out the post-crash 80s, which featured the bit wars heavily. It also rules out the 90s, which featured the 3D wars heavily. I guess maybe the 2000s? But by about 2003, we were already drooling over shinier graphics with more linear cooridors.

I guess you could make an argument for pre-NA crash 80s, since "AAA" included crap like Pac-Man for Atari, which was not even about spectacle. Was that it?

honestly, it sounds like revisionist history.
I remember downloading several different patches for Civilization II. That was, what, 20 years ago?

It is DEFINITELY revisionist history.
 

F-I-D-O

I miss my avatar
Feb 18, 2010
1,095
0
0
Something Amyss said:
CaitSeith said:
It sounds like you weren't around when AAA didn't mean just big budget and spectacle.
Well, that rules out the post-crash 80s, which featured the bit wars heavily. It also rules out the 90s, which featured the 3D wars heavily. I guess maybe the 2000s? But by about 2003, we were already drooling over shinier graphics with more linear cooridors.

I guess you could make an argument for pre-NA crash 80s, since "AAA" included crap like Pac-Man for Atari, which was not even about spectacle. Was that it?

honestly, it sounds like revisionist history.
Even arcade games were a race for graphics and appearance, as the flashier and louder machines got more quarters. And Pac-Man on Atari had the spectacle of a home version of the arcade - it was just lost everything in translation.

Games have always been racing to be the best, or at least best looking. When developers push forward rapidly, they're bound to encounter issues and bugs, some of which won't be seen due to their obscure nature. This only escalates with technology and the complexity level. Accepting that reality isn't becoming complacent - it allows new thinking about how to build and design with the knowledge that bugs will come about. I fail to see how developers continuing working on games is lazy - hell, even A:CM had a day one patch that improved on the review build, and a month-one/two patch that added in improved textures. Very much polishing a turd, but they at least put in the effort, despite having all reason to cut ties with the game and leave.

I don't say writers got lazy because I buy a book with a typo - at best I notice it and move on, at worst it makes me reread a sentence/paragraph. However, I'd still buy a reprint if it promised no typos because it's an improvement over the initial version. Games offer that improvement for free, and they've been offering improvements since downloading and widespread internet usage became prominent.

Sidenote: Everyone saying developers are aiming for D rank games, rushing things out, are lazy, or are trying to deceive you into buying a buggy game is wrong. I don't know any developer who wants to make a bad game. They want to release the best game they can. But the reality of a business is that deadlines and money are factors, and are controlled by publishers, who want return on investment. If an ambitious project spirals out (or an existing one gets horribly mismanaged like A:CM), a publisher reels the devs back in and makes them wrap up and release.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Don Incognito said:
I remember downloading several different patches for Civilization II. That was, what, 20 years ago?

It is DEFINITELY revisionist history.
Ah. Communication problems. I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about consoles. Consoles had a "it just works" history right up until the PS3/360 generation. I infer this from words like "rental," as most places didn't rent PC games. Actually, I don't know of any that did.

I mean, I remember the days of futzing around in DOS to get my games running at all, but that's not what we're talking about here, I think.

The major difference between say, the 90s and now is that you actually can get a patch if your game is broken. If Pokémon X/Y had launched with a save glitch in the 90s, you might have had to wait for a new run of the game, if it was fixed at all. I owned console games that did that.

Also, it would rip a hole in the space-time continuum.
 

Don Incognito

New member
Feb 6, 2013
281
0
0
Something Amyss said:
Don Incognito said:
I remember downloading several different patches for Civilization II. That was, what, 20 years ago?

It is DEFINITELY revisionist history.
Ah. Communication problems. I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about consoles. Consoles had a "it just works" history right up until the PS3/360 generation. I infer this from words like "rental," as most places didn't rent PC games. Actually, I don't know of any that did.

I mean, I remember the days of futzing around in DOS to get my games running at all, but that's not what we're talking about here, I think.

The major difference between say, the 90s and now is that you actually can get a patch if your game is broken. If Pokémon X/Y had launched with a save glitch in the 90s, you might have had to wait for a new run of the game, if it was fixed at all. I owned console games that did that.

Also, it would rip a hole in the space-time continuum.
(Filthy console peasant, etc. etc. etc.)

Console games had bugs and glitches too, they were just never fixed.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
sgy0003 said:
Remember those days where you either rented/bought the game, pop it in the console, and just play the game?
I do. I also remember games back then having bugs that would never be patched. That never could be patched.

I also remember how much simpler, smaller, and vastly less complex those old games were as compared to many games today. Times change. Software becomes exponentially more complex. Bugs and errors occur. It's nearly impossible to account for every single issue that may pop up in the more complex software packages, especially under real-world conditions.

As such, day-one patches are absolutely justifiable.

Or would you rather the developer never patch the game at all?

Look at what's happening now days. You get hyped for the game, you pre-order or buy on launch for whatever you do to get your hands on the game, you insert the disc or let the digital game install, and then......bullshit. A goddamn day one patch. And as your hype starts to crumble down, you now realize the patch can take anywhere from 5 min to 2 hours to download. Hell, if the game is digital, It takes even longer to download.
I'm not aware of any day-one patch that took 2 hours to download, even on slow connections. Most of the day-one patches I've come across were minimal patches designed to address minor launch issues. I've not come across any massive, day-one content patches that amounted to gigs and gigs of data.

Besides, many games will allow you to play without the patch.

I mean, i get the devs trying to iron out any bugs, glitches, and issues, but if there is going to a problem, why not fix it and delay the game? The best/only excuse I've seen so far is "Yeah, it's too late to delay the game now." And you guys didn't think of patching the game earlier because....?
You know there's a lot more to a game's launch window than just, "Oh, it's done. Let's ship.", right? And it takes time to code a patch. They didn't "patch it earlier" because the patch literally wasn't written yet.

I get the fact that most of the game now days use online feature and that requires patching, but goddamn, stop making us gamers wait even longer!
So you want them to put the game's launch on hold until everything's "ironed out"....but you also want them to stop making you wait for the game?

You see the contradiction in that, don't you? I mean, it's kind of hard to miss.

Look, I get it. It's easy to complain about this sort of thing because, at face value, it seems nonsensical. But when you understand the complexities of game design and releasing a software package (especially in retail), it's easier (even logical) to justify day-one patches.

:/
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
It really depends on the situation. Sometimes jackasses like publishers and force a release when a delay is more appropriate. Day one patches for anything other than minor-minor stuff, it seems like realistic deadlines were not used, and that's the fault of management. That being said, I'm alright with them. These things happen. I just hate it when a game loses support and there are still issues to be dealt with. Usually they aren't severe but can be constant annoyances.

The worst is when there are issues that prevent you from wanting to play the game and weeks go by with no word from the developers. Which is what is going on with Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 Director's Cut.

Then you have a game like Dragon Age: Inquisition that released in a shockingly terrible state and was like that for an unacceptable amount of time. Then you'd be begging for a day one patch.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Don Incognito said:
Console games had bugs and glitches too, they were just never fixed.
Basically my point in this thread. I'd rather have the capacity to fix things.

But the Apple "it just works" model is a popular one, and people often miss the points where it doesn't "just work."
 

the_dramatica

New member
Dec 6, 2014
272
0
0
A free hotfix? It's hard to hate on anything over a 2mb/s connection, expecially over something like xboxl where updates cost an upwards of 40 thousand dollars.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
If it's an online game, I don't see the point of complaining; patches will happen and happen a lot more in the future. Why get upset over the first? Up to two hours to patch a game you downloaded on day one? Before digital you had to pray the store you went to had any copies left. We also had rentals and you could go for weeks waiting to try a game when your video store had only two copies-- which were always rented out.

The only time I'm ever annoyed by patching or even just forced online connection is when it's not (or should not be) necessary to play the game.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
Something Amyss said:
CaitSeith said:
It sounds like you weren't around when AAA didn't mean just big budget and spectacle.
Well, that rules out the post-crash 80s, which featured the bit wars heavily. It also rules out the 90s, which featured the 3D wars heavily. I guess maybe the 2000s? But by about 2003, we were already drooling over shinier graphics with more linear cooridors.

I guess you could make an argument for pre-NA crash 80s, since "AAA" included crap like Pac-Man for Atari, which was not even about spectacle. Was that it?

honestly, it sounds like revisionist history.
I said J U S T. They were there, but not at the cost of everything that wasn't spectacle.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
CaitSeith said:
I said J U S T.
And not everything now is just about spectacle, even in AAA gaming. There, that's dealt with, can we get back to addressing the actual idea that gaming has somehow changed?