Current Events > Patches ruined gaming.

(+) Yeah! (+)

remember when games came complete in the ps2 and early ps3 days?

---

I remember when games were shipped completely broken and couldn't be fixed, yes.
---

Remember having to download patches on PC games back in the 80's and 90's?

---

fanboys ruined gaming

patching is fine. what isn't fine was all the vocal fanboys making excuses and jumping to defend devs every single time.

fanboys are the ones that ruined gaming for the rest of us.

---

I remember when he kicked me off the cliff when I was peeping a shiny

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I remember when games were shipped completely broken and couldn't be fixed, yes.

How often did that happen and when wasn't it usually met with an outcry and/or people not buying the game?
---

R1masher posted...

I remember when he kicked me off the cliff when I was peeping a shiny

My first thought when I read the topic lol

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

How often did that happen and when wasn't it usually met with an outcry and/or people not buying the game?

Often enough. Especially in the N64 and PS1 era when it was a lot harder to know when a game you're buying was a dud.
---

Gaming is still intact

---

I agree.

---

What a terrible take
---

Patches are fine. Devs releasing incomplete games isn't though. Also consumers need to be more responsible.

---

stoltenberg11 posted...

Patches are fine. Devs releasing incomplete games isn't though.

While technically you could, I don't think you can have one without the other in practice.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

While technically you could, I don't think you can have one without the other in practice.

That's not true. You can have a complete game but still have some glitches if you trigger something a way the beta testers didn't think of and bugs to be fixed after release but the game itself is actually fine.

---

The thing is if you removed patches you'd still get incomplete games. They just wouldn't get fixed lol even completed games get some benefit from patches through balancing or major/minor bug fixes. It's not like games were completely perfect before patches were a thing. The opposite if anything.

We dealt with and accepted a ton more bullshit in the past when it came to stability, bugs, etc when it comes to games because we didn't have much of a choice not to. Even the best games back then had a ton of shit that would be lambasted today.
---

stoltenberg11 posted...

Patches are fine. Devs releasing incomplete games isn't though. Also consumers need to be more responsible.

Exactly this. Expecting complex software to be completely bug-free is unrealistic so it's nice that devs have the opportunity to fix things after release (even though they have no legal obligation to do so).
At the same time both gamers and game related media should be more critical of publishers who release unfinished products and just outsource the beta testing to their actual costumers.

---

A lot of ignorance in this topic of what goes into software development in general.

There's no such thing as a perfectly complete game. There will always be problems here and there. Saying patches ruined gaming is incredibly dense and shows your ignorance of what goes into it.

It's also worth recognizing the nuance that often causes games to be released in a broken state - oftentimes it's due to deadlines and requirements from the publisher, not the developers.
---

Ocarina of Time, back on the N64, saw two software revisions.

1.0 - Initial release (10/21/98)
1.1 - Typos and bug fixes (10/26/98)
1.2 - Alteration of Ganandorf's blood and cultural changes. Additional text box changes. (11/21/98)

Differerence is, you had to buy a new copy of the game to get the latest patch. Additional revisions were made for releases on future platforms (resolution change, etc)

Software revisions have always existed. Bugs and glitches will always exist, no matter how much testing or how careful.

---

The ability for publishers to release half baked games knowing they can patch it later, because gamers take zero responsibility and buy any and every game on release, is what got us here.

Corrupt_Power posted...

A lot of ignorance in this topic of what goes into software development in general.

There's no such thing as a perfectly complete game. There will always be problems here and there. Saying patches ruined gaming is incredibly dense and shows your ignorance of what goes into it.

It's also worth recognizing the nuance that often causes games to be released in a broken state - oftentimes it's due to deadlines and requirements from the publisher, not the developers.

This is true, but the ease of distribution patch fixes to modern games will naturally have an effect on how much money is spent on QA

---

Darker Cheshire posted...

Ocarina of Time, back on the N64, saw two software revisions.

1.0 - Initial release (10/21/98)
1.1 - Typos and bug fixes (10/26/98)
1.2 - Alteration of Ganandorf's blood and cultural changes. Additional text box changes. (11/21/98)

Differerence is, you had to buy a new copy of the game to get the latest patch. Additional revisions were made for releases on future platforms (resolution change, etc)

Software revisions have always existed. Bugs and glitches will always exist, no matter how much testing or how careful.

That reminds me, street fighter 2, street fighter championship edition, street fighter 2 turbo, etc.

---

scar the 1 posted...

This is true, but the ease of distribution patch fixes to modern games will naturally have an effect on how much money is spent on QA

Well when those companies lose stock and have mass refunds they will think twice about QA. Hopefully this cyberpunk fiasco gets other devs inline.

---

yutterh posted...

Well when those companies lose stock and have mass refunds they will think twice about QA. Hopefully this cyberpunk fiasco gets other devs inline.

It won't

---

I least there's Dragon Quest XI.

Didn't/Doesn't require any patches or anything when it initially released. It ran perfectly fine and showed that with competent developers you don't need patches.

Sadly it's more or less a dead art these days.

---

scar the 1 posted...

It won't

I know but one can dream! One can dream......

---

R1masher posted...

I remember when he kicked me off the cliff when I was peeping a shiny

VerisimiIitude posted...

My first thought when I read the topic lol

Please enlighten me

---

yutterh posted...

I know but one can dream! One can dream......

Also like the post I quoted alluded to: it's not really about "getting the devs in line". I realize you might be using the devs as a portmanteau for all the people involved with producing the game, but there's an important distinction.
In all of software development, there's generally a pretty big disconnect between publisher (the party who sells the product) and developer (the party who makes the product). It's extremely common that the sales people promise too much, for a cost that is too little. Then the devs end up trying their best to resolve the whole clusterfuck, and their objections tend to be ignored. In the end, it's the devs that get shit on, and the sales people who set the impossible conditions walk away with the money.

The point here is that this dynamic won't change just because the products are bad. This is what happens when you have a publisher who is only in it to make a profit. This is politics.

---

Grogu posted...

The ability for publishers to release half baked games knowing they can patch it later, because gamers take zero responsibility and buy any and every game on release, is what got us here.

There is also whining and bitching about delays.

Like some people with final fantasy XV kill me. Will admit while still not their favorite entry that after a year the game was a ton better but will turn around and still whine it wasnt good considering how long it took to make. Not taking into account a lot of stuff got scrapped and the game put on the back burner for while but thats another story.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Also like the post I quoted alluded to: it's not really about "getting the devs in line". I realize you might be using the devs as a portmanteau for all the people involved with producing the game, but there's an important distinction.
In all of software development, there's generally a pretty big disconnect between publisher (the party who sells the product) and developer (the party who makes the product). It's extremely common that the sales people promise too much, for a cost that is too little. Then the devs end up trying their best to resolve the whole clusterfuck, and their objections tend to be ignored. In the end, it's the devs that get shit on, and the sales people who set the impossible conditions walk away with the money.

The point here is that this dynamic won't change just because the products are bad. This is what happens when you have a publisher who is only in it to make a profit. This is politics.

Your right I didn't mean the dev's themselves, I just use it as the company as a whole. It is usually not the dev's faults. But yes I do mean the publishers who force shit out. Though in cyberpunk case they thought they could get it done in time and pushed for a release too soon, which is unfortunate.

---

Remember when magic resistance did nothing in Final Fantasy 7 originally?

---

sauceje posted...

Remember when magic resistance did nothing in Final Fantasy 7 originally?

No, because I didn't know until decades later.
---

remember when you could softlock your game by saving and quitting at a certain point in twilight princess

16-BITTER posted...

*synecdoche was the word you were looking for

Thank you, I've never heard that word before

---

Before dlc and patches were a thing I used to think how great it would be for the games I enjoy to be able to add additional content and fix bugs or glitches

something went wrong

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I remember when games were shipped completely broken and couldn't be fixed, yes.

True but I feel like a lot of the time, games are never "truly" fixed. When truly buggy games are released now, they never seem to get patched to the type of level you'd hope all that patching would accomplish.

---

I am half and half on this. I reckon patching and in particular the start up (day one) patch and install process really does negatively impact the experience, but I think that is compounding with other stuff like limited time content in single player games. The flip side is of course a lot of these games kinda need patches to be even functional which probably has something to do with game development being harder now.

So while I don't really like that aspect of modern gaming it is more a symptom than an issue, regardless of how I feel about it

---

devs have no reason to get the game as polished as they can before release anymore. they can always play the patch card and count on their loyal fanboys to damage control online.

---

ModLogic posted...

devs have no reason to get the game as polished as they can before release anymore. they can always play the patch card and count on their loyal fanboys to damage control online.

Mind you, this is not endemic exclusively to the video game industry. The "patch in production" mentality has spread to the entire software development industry as a whole. Look at the way Windows rolls out new feature updates and IMMEDIATELY Microsoft turns around and tells people to stop installing it because when applied to a production environment they suddenly start seeing massive issues.

Or the infamous "Something happened" error that plagued the first round of Windows 10 installations back in 2015. Windows has never been the most stable platform but there has been a significant downturn in the commitment to releasing stable products since Windows 10's arrival. At least they TRIED with other Windows platforms, they just had a tendency to overstep the expectations (like Vista being rife with performance issues by being overspecced and launching with poor driver support). Windows 10 seems like a crapshoot when it comes to hoping that they release something that is fine the way it is even though they're not even releasing a new OS, just adding in new features every half year.

Even Apple isn't safe, even though their entire approach to the synergy between hardware and software is to develop hardware that ONLY runs their own software. iOS 13 was notorious for a rapid patch cycle because it was full of holes whenever they released a major rollup.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I remember when games were shipped completely broken and couldn't be fixed, yes.

this was not common at all.

releasing unfinished s*** and patching it later, however, is a standard practice now

---

16-BITTER posted...

console players were just spoiled until last gen

No. Console gamers demand convenience over cutting-edge. It includes ensuring that a game is released only after it has been thouroughly tested and fixed for functionality.

PC gamers demand customizability, accepting that any game released can be updated or modified later and will perform better with newer-better hardware and middleware.
.

The real issue: a release good enough for PCs is not necessarily good enough for consoles and vice-versa. Merging console with PC release strategies have eroded both.

---

Curtains313 posted...

remember when games came complete in the ps2 and early ps3 days?

Ar-Tonelico 2 NTSC version

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Ar-Tonelico 2 NTSC version

The final boss crashing the game is a feature.

---

Patches the Spider?

---

While I think they rely too much on releasing broken stuff and just having us beta test it then fix it later. there is things like silicon valley on N64 which couldnt be completed 100% properly without cheating because of a bug

---

monday nitro posted...

While I think they rely too much on releasing broken stuff and just having us beta test it then fix it later. there is things like silicon valley on N64 which couldnt be completed 100% properly without cheating because of a bug

the thing about patches is that they usually take away the fun stuff (for example, a glitch that allows you to play OOT without a sword or that allows you to leave Kokiri forest early) while leaving some game breaking stuff or shitty graphics and FPS there

---

ITT people who don't understand that the scale of games has increased drastically

no shit the next gta will have more bugs than f-zero who would have fucking thought

---

Choco posted...

ITT people who don't understand that the scale of games has increased drastically

no shit the next gta will have more bugs than f-zero who would have fucking thought

so perhaps the scale of testing and quality control should have increased just as dramatically?

who am I kidding, lets just release the things and wait for players to test it themselves


---

SPE posted...

so perhaps the scale of testing and quality control should have increased just as dramatically?

Yeah but again, this assumes that publishers are interested in publishing games of high quality. They're not. They're interested in spending as few dollars as possible to make as many dollars as possible.

---