Patches are a copout

[drake]

As someone whos played a lot more console games in my life than pc games, I can honestly say, that dating back to nintendo 8 bit days (even atari!), I think I've probably played and finished somewhere in the realm of 3-400 games and maybe 1 or 2 of them had "bugs". The console game makers can't afford to put a half completed or buggy game on the market without severe consequences, and therefore did a better, complete job from the get go.

I understand the desire for mod packs or expansion sets for games on pcs, and it is a nice advantage to have this ability. But patches? Patches are a poor excuse for pc game makers to release sub par products and then fix them when time is available. (This isn't just about civ3, its about pc games in general.)

And what may I ask are civ3 players without internet connections supposed to do to obtain these patches? Do they have to order a disc? I can't begin to imagine the hassle this game in sections system works for someone who doesnt have internet connection and/or is not computer savvy.

Bottom line. Why do consumers put up with this? Why can't pc game makers get it right the first time like their console counterparts? Can anyone give me a REAL reason? Besides the usual excuses?

[FrantzX]

The hardware in any XBox is identical to any other XBox, and so on with the other console. That eliminates the chance for any hardware conflicts; there go half the bugs. Also, console games have to be approved by the console maker, so that additional testing by a third party. PC software companies can release any drek onto the market. Just look at a Pool of Radiance II.

[drake]

I'm not really referring to compatibility/system issues Frantz, but point well taken

But then, I ask...if known bugs can be fixed before release, why aren't they? And why isn't there some sort of third party test market for commercial pc games?

[vancomycin]

my theories:

1. the developers assume that the majority of the customers won't even notice the existence of the bugs (unless they're show-stopping bugs which prohibits playing of the game). my friend didn't even know of the existence of the editor in civ 3...

And what may I ask are civ3 players without internet connections supposed to do to obtain these patches? Do they have to order a disc? I can't begin to imagine the hassle this game in sections system works for someone who doesnt have internet connection and/or is not computer savvy.

2. the developers assume that the demand for patches resides mainly in the group of hardcore gamers who would presumedly have internet connection and are computer-savvy. (ps. just my opinion, no flames)

Bottom line. Why do consumers put up with this? Why can't pc game makers get it right the first time like their console counterparts? Can anyone give me a REAL reason? Besides the usual excuses?

i feel some game companies just do not have pride in their products and hence release ****ty games. also, the usual bull**** about meeting harsh deadlines is nonsense because if they think they cannot meet the deadlines in the first place, why take on the job. blaming the publisher is just as lame as blaming your teacher for setting you a deadline for the essay and you convienently leaving it until 2hrs before it's due.

hopefully, market forces will consolidate the gaming industry and rewards survival and prosperity to talented, honest developers and publishers who have pride and honour in their work.

[drake]

blaming the publisher is just as lame as blaming your teacher for setting you a deadline for the essay and you convienently leaving it until 2hrs before it's due.

"Mrs. Smith, I am going to pass in half of my essay today and the other half will be passed in by me in the next few months, in 5 different sections. I know it will be technically 5 months overdue at that point, but I know you'll understand."

[felder]

I agree completely. Hardware problems aside, one would think most games could be released relatively bug free. It must be that console game makers are well aware that they can't patch post release, so they actually have a much more thorough test process.

My assumption is that PC game makers are just being cheap on us. They release hurried games without adequate testing, knowing full well they have bugs. However, they can get away with it because they figure they'll just keep working on the game while they get revenue. The scary thing is Civ3 isn't even close to the worst of games like this. There have been quite a few game releases that were just utterly unplayable without considerable patching (i.e. Ultima 9 took several patches and still has problems).

[Griff000]

Originally posted by felder
I agree completely. Hardware problems aside, one would think most games could be released relatively bug free. It must be that console game makers are well aware that they can't patch post release, so they actually have a much more thorough test process.

My assumption is that PC game makers are just being cheap on us. They release hurried games without adequate testing, knowing full well they have bugs. However, they can get away with it because they figure they'll just keep working on the game while they get revenue. The scary thing is Civ3 isn't even close to the worst of games like this. There have been quite a few game releases that were just utterly unplayable without considerable patching (i.e. Ultima 9 took several patches and still has problems).

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Hardware should be much less of an issue now-a-days with compatibility layers like DirectX. Prior to DirectX I would agree, developers had their work cut out for them simply getting a game to work. But I don't remember endless patches then... it's a fairly recent phenomenon.

Here's what I'd guess happens...

Why not have the whole team working flat out to get the game 7/8ths finished. Sell the almost complete game to the public. Let the majority of the team move on to the next big thing. Leave a couple of developers to patch and finish the original game.

This has unfortunately becoming the accepted norm for PC games.

[TrainWreck20]

Well, I agree that I would prefer a complete product at shipping time, I can?t say that I am completely dissatisfied with how the market currently works. I have some opinions on why the patch is an integral part of the game nowdays (actual a button to click on the interface on some!).

The games are, in most regards, much more complex. The countless hours of playtesting required to catch the glitches would be enormous. The $$$ of the games would go up accordingly, maybe so much so that the public would not buy it and the games would not be developed. The detailed playtesting has now been shifted to the purchaser with the understanding that a patch would fix legitimate bugs (not complaints).

Granted, some seem like they should be caught before shipping, but I can live with the problems if they are taken care of eventually. IMHO, Firaxis came out in a timely manner with a first patch. I have not had any of the crashing problems, so I really believe that is due to the almost infinite hardware configurations out there, although I do not play the huge map/16 civ games, so those might have their own problems.

Regarding the console games, they just aren?t that complex. Yes, they can be flashy, but strategy on a console is not a real market, to me. I hate football/racing/skiing/etc arcade games, and other than graphics, are they really that much different from each other? I play them over at a friends once or twice, have a little fun, then totally forget the game ever existed. CIV III, for all its problems, has in itself entertained me more than all the Sega or Nintendo games put together (well, some years ago I did have a stretch of Mario III or something ).

I also think the average computer game customer is a little more demanding than the average console customer, acknowledging that some people, obviously, play both. The typically console player either likes the game or not, end of story. At least here, the games have generated a huge amount of discussion, which is part of the fun of the game, no?

[drake]

Regarding the console games, they just aren?t that complex.

You havent played many of the newer console games have you?

[GodSpawn]

Hmm. I can't help feeling that I've heard all this before. Now, where was it? Ah yes:

On just about every forum I've ever been a member of!

There's a good rant about it here, btw.

[Elowan]

Originally posted by Griff000

Here's what I'd guess happens...

Why not have the whole team working flat out to get the game 7/8ths finished. Sell the almost complete game to the public. Let the majority of the team move on to the next big thing. Leave a couple of developers to patch and finish the original game.

This has unfortunately becoming the accepted norm for PC games.

But this is not just a problem of PC games and it's been going on for years. The same thing goes for software in general. The beta test group is never large enough to catch all the bugs and such individuals tend to be relatively sophisticated and generally don't make 'beginners faux pauxs'.

Years ago, someone said: "Never buy version 1 of anything."

That said, pre-patch CivIII was version 1.

But the same thing happens out in the 'real' world. It's happened that drugs, tested and approved by the FDA, released into the market, end up killing folks or show sufficient serious side-effects (not seen in testing) amongst the general population that they have to be recalled.

That doesn't mean that we should be complacent or not blow the whistle in the case of drug problems but we can show some restraint in matters that are not life-and-death.

I submit that software bugs are not (generally speaking) life-or-death matters - particularly games.

Hence - if you bought version 1 - be prepared for some glitches or wait to buy it. If you bought it - ask yourself whether you got any entertainment from it. Then possess yourself with patience.

[ColdWizard]

why pay for testers when you can have the gamers test your product for you? the makers just pay attention to the gripes and then release a patch. no salaries for testers, and still got the revenue.

[drake]

thanks for the link godspawn...yes it certainly sounds familiar!!!

These few paragraphs did a nice summation:

Part of the problem is the very concept of a game patch. Originally, patches were designed to fix compatibility problems and tighten up niggling flaws in game code or to add enhancements that couldn't make it into the game by the time of release. They were meant to supplement a finished product.

Nowadays, they're meant to fix horrible, Godzilla-sized bugs and are sometimes not released for a good month after the game comes out. They are no longer supplemental - some games require patches to be even considered playable. Half the time, the patches only solve a few problems, like slapping a band-aid on a broken leg. Patches have become the developer's crutch.

In fairness, much of the blame can be handed to publishers, who often cut short funding for projects in order to get the games out in time for big events, like the annual Christmas crunch of crap. They think that shipping an unfinished game in time for Xmas is better than shipping a completed product a few weeks later. It's exactly this kind of perverse thinking that is driving the gaming business into the ground.

[Golgo13]

I think the key word in this discussion is abuse. Patches are not a horrible thing and most PC gamers accept them as part of the gaming experience. However, the possibility does exist for publishers/developers to abuse patches. Just because a bug can be fixed or a feature added post-release does not justify releasing a buggy game with half the features missing. The positive side to patches are expansion packs. These are great ways for a company to build upon a good game. Now these too can be abused by companies, but the consumer always has the power not to buy the expansion.

[Daveraver]

you know, the point could be made that Firaxis represents something of a poly-chronic culture. Meaning that they do not place as much value on the timing of important events as those of us from more mono-chronic cultures (i.e. america, europe, etc). Therefore, where this timing issue may be important to us, to them it is simply an issue of "it will get done, don't worry about it."

I'm sorry, I just finished a research paper for my Cross Cultural Communications seminar.

Personally, I think its bull. Hardware issues aside, some large (but I agree non-showstopper) bugs made into the shipping version of this game, and there is really no excuse for that. Hey, a friend of mine is a play tester, the absolutely best job out there, let ME in on it Firaxis. I'm sure TONS of people would have loved to help out in that department. A hundred hardcore gamers from this site alone would have spotted those bugs, and I doubt that it would have hurt sales.