How pissed off would you be if you had to pay for patching games?

[Zero]

(Capcom VS SNK 2 has like bazillion versions floating around. Each different for each platform but thats another issue. Thats just inconsistency in porting versions IMO)

Normally patching for games are free.

Not so in the world of console fighter games. Its kinda hard to patch a console game so it rarely gets patched. But in fighting game, patches are necessary, cause like multiplayer PC games, balance is crucial.

Most of times these changes get ironed out in the arcades, and HOPEFULLY (yes hope sigh) issues get resolved before console versions come out, so console can reflect the latest arcade version of that game. Well that ideal rarely gets achieved.

I'll use Virtua Fighter as an example. That game had quite a few revision in the arcade. And Virtua Fighter version C was released for the PS2 Console. But it still had balance issues (VF4 is an extremly balanced game, but in high competition, even the minor issues get blown out of porportion). So Virtua Fighter:Evo came out which added 2 new character and alot of balance changes. after 2 revision of Evo, console version was released fro $30. Since VF4:Evo had 2 new characters, it could be passes off as an "Expansion".

Now new Virtua Fighter is coming out this summer. No doubt it will have few revision in arcade before before released in console. Which will probably be $30 again. This time no new characters. Just all balance changes and new game modes. So that makes paying for this game alone: 40+30+30=100....

Its a great game and nearly flawless, but whenever they are going through revision, it feels like I'm paying for a patch. Sigh, at least you PC gamers don't have to deal with this.....

But I'm sure some of you can relate. Don't you feel that game developers rely too much on patches and expansion to fix things? And especially patches? (which you have to pay for). Civ was kinda like this. It took 2 expansion for civ to kinda become what everyone expected of vanilla civ3 initially....

[Frankychan]

It's cause in console-speak, they don't "patch" games. They just make some tweaks and call it an entirely new game.

My thinking is that if they don't make it right the first time, don't buy it anymore.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Qilue]

Morrowind is much the same as Civ in that there's been two expansions with each one fixing bugs with the later patches not available unless you bought the expansions.

Last patch version
Morrowind - v1.2.0722
Tribunal - v1.4.1313
Bloodmoon - v1.6.1820

Those who shelled out $50 or so for the original x-box version had to play the game as release version which had some serious bugs. Fortunately Bethsoft waited until the first bloodmoon patch was released before the GOTY release went gold.

[DrSpike]

Yeah companies rely too much on patches.........better to release it and see what the fans whine about then fix it, than test it thoroughly yourself. It pretty much sucks.

Looking at it from the other angle, the inherent difficulty with console games at least means that the developers try much harder to iron things out before the game is released.

And as for MP, I can't speak for fighting games, since it's a genre I've never competed in. However, for MP games I have like WC3 I would add that balance is an ever-changing concept. New angles appear all the time when you have over a million players worldwide, so keeping things balanced is a difficult task requiring constant updates.

[Urban Ranger]

I agree with Franky. If they make you pay for the patches which should be in the original game. Don't buy it. Vote with your wallet is the only way.

[shmily_dana]

You should at least have a valid registration key like in Galactic Civ. That might help a bit with piracy. Also, I would like the companies to send automatic emails if a patch is available. Otherwise you have to check web site periodically and waste time.

[alva]

It's cause in console-speak, they don't "patch" games. They just make some tweaks and call it an entirely new game.

I very much like that strategy and hope eveyone stops buying them

[bipolarbear]

LIVID PISSED.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Frankychan

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Tsk tsk, you said it the wrong way. You should say it the way dubya does it!

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio/foolmeonce.phtml

[Sava]

I wouldn't buy such a shitty game

[Space05us]

How pissed off would you be if you had to pay for patching games?

I would stop playing games

[Maquiladora]

I wouldnt stand for it with PC games, but with console id buy a sequel to any game that was good enough. Its more a collecting thing with console games, PC games ive traded hundreds of times, not to mention downloaded.

Besides i think fighting games are the extreme case of "patching" with a new game.

[Zero]

well what if the game was soo good and so balanced, but they keep changing around stats and plays around with game balance to tweak the balance even more? We all like patches... and we all prefer the game would be more balanced than it already is. But would you pay for it if it was already "good enough"?

Keep in mind if you dont update in multiplayer, you have you and your six year old cousin who comes over during christmas vacation to play with.... WHACK!

Besides i think fighting games are the extreme case of "patching" with a new game.

I used it because its the extrem case. And besides, I AM a fighting game player after all. I have to deal with that bullshit everytime.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Zero
well what if the game was soo good and so balanced, but they keep changing around stats and plays around with game balance to tweak the balance even more? We all like patches... and we all prefer the game would be more balanced than it already is. But would you pay for it if it was already "good enough"?

Not as a standalone game, no. Maybe $10.

[FlameFlash]

For console... just start having patches available online and those who want to can spend the money on buying a HD for their system (save for the x-box) and download the patch.

The let it be more like a computer, drop in the game disc, and then launch it from the HD.

[child of Thor]

In away the whole on-line thing for consoles is a trap, and an excuse for console game makers to release buggy software(+spend less on play testing and fixing).

Sure its a fun idea - and on-line mp console gaming is a nice option to have, but its not a free feature.

I've found quite an annoying bug in KOTR on the xbox(the star wars rpg), where by i can get two of the same character as part of my party - but one of the others is overwritten, so i cant get them back from that saved game - its a shame and spoilt my otherwise great experience with the game.

Morrowind has already been mentioned. And i'm sure there will be more - so its not just a case of buying a complete new game for the patched options, but also you may be forced instead to by an online package to get your patches. This also encourages less rigorous pre-release testing.

So i guess i'm going to become as cautious about buying my console games as i am about my PC ones - ie its becoming prudent to wait for reports on console games on forums before buying.
Which wont help the games industry much?

[Space05us]

In away the whole on-line thing for consoles is a trap, and an excuse for console game makers to release buggy software(+spend less on play testing and fixing).

Asher disagrees, unless he's changed his mind since the last time we had this discussion. I'd have to agree with Thort, consoles going online is a curse in disguise.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Space05us
Asher disagrees, unless he's changed his mind since the last time we had this discussion. I'd have to agree with Thort, consoles going online is a curse in disguise.

Of course I disagree, because this hasn't been the case so far.

What HAS been the case is that online can be used for balancing online games, which previously forced vendors to charge for new versions, is now done free.

Besides, the next version of the Xbox won't even have a harddrive.

The reason console games are less buggy than PC games is because it's static hardware. The vast majority of PC bugs come from the fact that everyone's hardware is slightly different and behaves in different ways. In a console, everyone's is the same, so it's very easy to reduce the number of bugs.

[alva]

The reason console games are less buggy than PC games is because it's static hardware. The vast majority of PC bugs come from the fact that everyone's hardware is slightly different and behaves in different ways. In a console, everyone's is the same, so it's very easy to reduce the number of bugs.

Yep, and it lets coders get to know the hardware so they get more out of it.

[Sava]

btw, for all intents and purposes, we do pay for patches... just look at Civ3 with the X-packs.

[alva]

* sigh *

[Asher]

Originally posted by alva

Quote:

The reason console games are less buggy than PC games is because it's static hardware. The vast majority of PC bugs come from the fact that everyone's hardware is slightly different and behaves in different ways. In a console, everyone's is the same, so it's very easy to reduce the number of bugs.

Yep, and it lets coders get to know the hardware so they get more out of it.

Absolutely. Carmack himself has said it's trivial to get twice the performance out of a fixed platform, if not more.

That's why Xbox graphics, in games like Ninja Gaiden and Halo 2, look as good if not better than most PC games out there. They can push way more polygons per second on average, sustained 25MPolys/sec on the Xbox's essentially GF4, while a Radeon 9800 Pro gets about 15 MPolys/sec.

The Xbox is usually limited in resolution to 720x480 (not including the high-res HDTV games coming out now), but thanks to how NTSC & PAL works it doesn't look nearly as jagged and awful as 640x480 on the PC. Hell, you don't even notice it being low-res most of the time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
The reason console games are less buggy than PC games is because it's static hardware. The vast majority of PC bugs come from the fact that everyone's hardware is slightly different and behaves in different ways.

No. The reason why console games are less buggy than PC games because you can't patch console games. This forces developers to put in good programming practices and do a lot more testing before putting games out.

[DrSpike]

Now now, they don't have to be mutually exclusive do they?

[Skanky Burns]

Based on experience...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No. The reason why console games are less buggy than PC games because you can't patch console games. This forces developers to put in good programming practices and do a lot more testing before putting games out.

That's a very small part of it, if any, and I'm fairly sure you know it.

Look at the list of bugfixes for PC games, the vast majority of them are caused by hardware configurations, not logic errors.

Xbox games have been able to be "patched' for a long time now, yet there's no quality issues...

[alva]

Calling it a very small part might be a slight exageration though.

-
Aren't on the other hand console games simpler by nature. IE less that can go wrong?

[DrSpike]

Is that a subtle troll?

[flipside]

Depends on your definition of subtle, I s'pose.

[alva]

Héhé
Nope wasn't a troll, I hardly ever play console games but if I do they do seem less elaborate.

Was just asking a question.