Day 1 Patches Are Getting Out Of Hand

@StarvingGamer: Yeah I do see your point, sometimes things are out of your own control and there is very little you can do about it.

I'm not demanding anything really , I'm just saying that I think the industry should steer away from running into things like these. If we look at successful studios then as you said, they seem to have a much smoother experience with development. That is also probably because of how well they structured their development schedule and the processes they go through to make sure that if something were to go wrong, they have enough time to fix it and push it out.

In the end it is their own product, and they can release it at whatever stage they do please to ensure they can make money out of it. I just think that moving forward the industry needs to learn from mistakes like these, and maybe even publishers, such as EA in this case, would realize that putting unrealistic deadlines might actually affect the game negatively and lead to a lower return on the long run.

@believer258 said:

I don't pretend to know everything about game development but there is something called "crunch time"; it's when the due date's approaching and people are working mad overtime to get shit done. Even if they did have time to finish the game from beginning to end and test that playthrough for bugs, glitches, etc., they would never have time to properly fix them for release. You're talking about a problem occurring in a product with millions of lines of code written by a combination of computer programs and about 75-100 people, any problem of which can have one or several causes, and fixing one thing can potentially cause another problem.

In short, this is a vast underestimation of the sheer size and complexity of a modern full-priced video game. EDIT: And I'm not talking about complexity of design, I'm talking about the actual things used to make these games. The coding, the engine, etc.

Your argument would hold a lot more weight if day 1 patches were the norm. This is, however, not the case, nor has it been for any generation of gaming. Yes, games are more complex nowadays (sort of, I'm sure hindsight makes everything before seem simpler), but there are a lot of games that have come out this generation that didn't require a patch on the day of release to make the game playable. All I'm saying is that maybe the release date shouldn't be set in stone, thereby avoiding a "crunch time."

@Video_Game_King said:

I just fail to see the issue when the game's actually fixed essentially in time for release.

For those with internet access, yes. But you and I both know, at least in the U.S. there are a lot of people without it, and it's not even their fault.

@LikeaSsur said:

@Video_Game_King said:

I just fail to see the issue when the game's actually fixed essentially in time for release.

For those with internet access, yes. But you and I both know, at least in the U.S. there are a lot of people without it, and it's not even their fault.

How did I know that was a link to Cracked?...Anyway, I imagine that's more a criticism of the execution than the concept. It could be possible to develop the patch such that it would be included with the games when you buy them. I know that Skyward Sword came packaged with a Netflix update out of the disc. I know this because my Wii wasn't even connected to the Internet when I first put the game in, and I still got the update. Scary.

It feels like i am the only person who thinks of this guy, whenever i read/hear a gaming corporation does a real dick move to save money

How to know if a topic is going to be really dumb before you even click on it.

If something is "getting out of hand".

If something is complaining about something PC gaming did a decade ago.

How to know if you should quickly hit the back button should your mouse slip and you wind up inside such a topic.

If it contains a video of themselves talking in front of a camera. No, you aren't getting any of that sweet, sweet, Youtube money.

As long as consumers dont care, why should developers?

Rather have a day 1 patch than a broken game.

The real issue is defiantly the folks left behind who have no connection to the internet from their console. While I think it's amazing we live in a world now where games can be fixed, games like the new Medal of Honor cross the line when they release potentially broken games into a consumer market that may or may not be able to acquire the day one patches.

My major problem with it is the process of archival and history as far as a gaming goes.

For a lot of our older titles, all you need is the cart and you're good to go. But in the future, when we plug in our old PS3's and 360's, there will be no servers to download patches from. There will be a wide number of games that will simply be unplayable or incomplete.

Of course, I'd never advocate the end of patches, that ship has long since sailed. It's just disturbing that many developers don't even bother to get their games working before they ship them.

@Hyunickel: MOH is hardly the first game and it certainly won't be the last game requiring a patch of some kind, even on day one or just after launch. Again, regardless of the format in which software is distributed, no software is ever launched bug free, it just doesn't happen. Between publishers breathing down the necks of the developers to hit a launch date and how software runs when released to the general public, there are always some issues to resolve whether they be enhanced functionality or patch a glitch.

For EA to catch it that soon and have a remedy already in place, I'd call that great customer service.

@believer258 said:

I'm not watching your video.

Anyway, you need to remember that there are at least a few months between the time a game is done and the time it can be shipped. It's entirely possible that the development crew can just go back and find a bunch of bugs that they didn't have time or didn't notice before, and go in and fix that; otherwise they wouldn't be doing anything, except making Day 1 DLC. Or they could do both.

Almost all bugs that will ever matter are known to the devs before the game ever goes gold. It's totally reasonable to trust you can fix those in time to get the game out the announced date.

Day 1 patches are the opposite of the problem. Day 1 patches= not broken games. It's the games that NEED those patches but take weeks or even months to be updated that should be looked at.

A game should definitely be playable from initial retail release. Little hard to come by bugs are entirely understandable, and as long as they don't prevent you from playing through the single player campaign/entirely break multiplayer, they are something which cannot be avoided in the complex world of video game creation.

But I'll point to my most recent example; an otherwise stellar game known as Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward. A good number of people have been experiencing a bug where saving during a puzzle sequence will result in a corrupt save file on the 3DS version, which also only allows for one save file ever due to the cartridge size limitations and their apparent inability to enable a save to SD card option. This is a * catastrophic* problem because the story has numerous ways of playing out and you have to experience every one of them to get a full grasp on the story.

The 3DS does not allow for game patches. Okay, it does. Mario Kart was patched for race exploits. However, that's the only exception that has ever existed in the history of the 3DS, and it was for a first-party Nintendo game. This is a third party title that is, begrudgingly admittedly, fairly obscure here in the States. The chances of this crippling bug being patched (where it even existed in the Japanese version for months before localization release over here) are slim to nil.