-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft and Sony should go back to charging developers $40,000 to patch games.
- Thread starter levyjl1988
- Start date
CuteFaceJay
Member
Would be better if QA was at a better level than it is right now. Games are being released in a total shit state.
It isn't QA. It is leadership forcing releases regardless of bugs found. Unless it is some quirky bug or edge case it'll be in a bug list somewhere.
'Quick wins', 'minimum viable product', all these buzz words that management like reinforcing the idea that you should be making returns as early as you possibly can - and that's not just a video game thing either.
FeldMonster
Member
I disagree with you OP on aspect. TV shows are also more barebones these days. When network TV was the dominant form, shows would commonly be 23 episodes per season (with 13 and 26 also being possibilities). Now with streaming they are 10 episodes long max, and in some cases 6!
Barely enough episodes for the show's concept to be realized, let alone for the audience to connect with the characters.
And then they get cancelled after 1 "season".
Barely enough episodes for the show's concept to be realized, let alone for the audience to connect with the characters.
And then they get cancelled after 1 "season".
alabtrosMyster
Banned
I'd say bug fixes should be forbidden.... Only feature patches or DLC.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
This wouldn’t just affect poorly launched games needing patches, it would affect every game that ever gets a patch or update. It would kill smaller studios and games.
I mean I remember Turtle Rock last gen being unable to release smaller patches for Evolve because 2k didn’t want to pay the patch fees. So instead of being able to provide quick updates for known issues they had to wait months and months until they had a big enough patch that 2k decided it was worth the money. In the meantime, fuck the player base.
A better solution is for you to just be smarter with your money. Don’t give these publishers anything. Support the developers who release good stuff.
I mean I remember Turtle Rock last gen being unable to release smaller patches for Evolve because 2k didn’t want to pay the patch fees. So instead of being able to provide quick updates for known issues they had to wait months and months until they had a big enough patch that 2k decided it was worth the money. In the meantime, fuck the player base.
A better solution is for you to just be smarter with your money. Don’t give these publishers anything. Support the developers who release good stuff.
Holammer
Member
It's true, it really cost that much to cert your games. Famously Fez was left with a game breaking bug (for certain users) because of this policy. As others already mentioned, Valve left the console versions of TF2 and CS:GO untouched because the cert would eat up any profit.
Fez patch won't be fixed because it costs too much
www.destructoid.com
The platform that reinstates such a policy today would die a screaming death.
nemiroff
Gold Member
There's more content in my post, you could've discussed that instead of cutting and replying with a one-liner. Anyway, it was just a tongue in cheek comment on devs hypothetically going back to making Pong games to make sure they live up to the new rules in OP's rant.
Last edited:
Kilau
Gold Member
The responsibility is on the end user to show some actual discernment when supporting games and publishers. MS and Sony have shown that as long as the game doesn't allow a back end for exploits they will allow pretty much anything on their systems.
If broken games don't sell then broken games won't be released as often.
If broken games don't sell then broken games won't be released as often.
I'd say $100k for any patches released in the first 3 months of release. Single player games have a standing $40k per patch thereafter, multiplayer modes no fee.
A multiplayer should be able to stand on its own for 3 months before it needs to be freshened up regularly.
Unfortunately this will never happen. The internet was a mistake.
A multiplayer should be able to stand on its own for 3 months before it needs to be freshened up regularly.
Unfortunately this will never happen. The internet was a mistake.
Shifty1897
Member
A $40,000 patch is not the answer to the problem, it just makes it hard for small developers to patch their games.
The solution is for Sony and Microsoft to not be such pussies during the QA process every game goes through before getting the green light to release to market. If the game is a buggy mess, it should not only get denied access to release, but there should be a two month waiting period before you can reapply. Problem solved.
The solution is for Sony and Microsoft to not be such pussies during the QA process every game goes through before getting the green light to release to market. If the game is a buggy mess, it should not only get denied access to release, but there should be a two month waiting period before you can reapply. Problem solved.
metareferential
Member
It would only impact small devs that don't have resources.
We should stop preordering games, stop buying overpriced shitty DLC, stop subscribing to useless services and stop giving publishers money for every worthless shit they throw at us.
We should stop preordering games, stop buying overpriced shitty DLC, stop subscribing to useless services and stop giving publishers money for every worthless shit they throw at us.
Last edited:
Impotaku
Member
Because they do a stellar job now of making sure games release in a decent state so how is that and different from now?, it's quite obvious a lot of devs don't give a fuck they just slap it out and maybe fix it later if you're lucky while laughing & saying thanks for the money suckers. This is the reason modern gaming is so shit because gamers no standards devs can get away with anything and all the dumb fucks out there just lap it up and ask for more.Yeah, totally a great idea so that developers will just start ignoring issues and let customers deal with them.
This is the reason we had shit like cyberjunk and the equally shit gta remaster shitfest, time gamers got some damn standards i say charge them a shitload more for patching. Can't afford that patch money, tough shit. Delay your game and make sure it's properly finished.
ReBurn
Gold Member
If that didn't happen the first time companies had to pay for patches what makes you think it will happen this time? Morons preordering games without ever seeing if they're even good should tell you that people are willing to buy games that aren't finished.
Impotaku
Member
As for smaller devs, i buy a lot of indie games and more often than not they are released fully working and not some crippled AAA bugfest. Indies at least give a shit about the stuff they put out. The sign of a really well made game is one where when you put it in the console and it doesn't immediately say there's a patch available. This is why i buy more indie games than anything else, because it's the last place where there's still some attempt at imaginative & fun games ones that the devs had a genuine passion to create.
I doubt many smaller companies would be hit with a huge patch fee as they are not the ones releasing a broken shell of a game. Sure there will be examples of shit indie releases but not in my library i do my homework before buying.
I doubt many smaller companies would be hit with a huge patch fee as they are not the ones releasing a broken shell of a game. Sure there will be examples of shit indie releases but not in my library i do my homework before buying.
MrFunSocks
Banned
A few of the worst hot takes I’ve read in years lol.
LaughingStock
Member
Yeah, let's make it harder for devs to fix their games. Great idea.
T8SC
Member
You do realise that there were generations beyond 3 & 4 that didn't connect to the Internet? I'm sure
KuraiShidosha
also referred to the 5th generation.Lets recap some of all those "2d platformer clones" which filled those generations that were a couple of hours long over Gen 3-5:
- Final Fantasy I-IX
- Breath of Fire series
- Dragon Quest series
- Parasite Eve 1 & 2
- Tomb Raider 1-5
- Zelda - Link to the Past
- Ocarina Of Time
- Majora's Mask
- Grand Theft Auto
- G-Police
- Ultima series
- Xenogears
- Phantasy Star
They had to be released in a good state, no game crippling bugs etc. No patches available unless they had to reissue the whole game and pull the original from sale.
Also; most modern movies do suck. Don't even try to compare older movie's to the garbage that is sent to the cinema these days.
Operations66
Member
I'm not sure that OP has the right solution to the problem, but he's right in that current gaming culture is rotten. This is because big greedy corporations took over the industry. Like every cultural industry they take over like the controlling parasites they are (rock music, movies, etc.), gaming is now getting covered in more and more shit. Games are now products instead of works of art. There's still enjoyment to be found, but the stench grows stronger every year.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
$40,000 seems like a lot, but it's hard for me to have a ton of sympathy for companies releasing broken games.
It wasn't that long ago that you couldn't patch anything. If they wanted to release it finished, they could. Raising the price wont change that now though as that genie can't be put back in the bottle. The damage is done.
It wasn't that long ago that you couldn't patch anything. If they wanted to release it finished, they could. Raising the price wont change that now though as that genie can't be put back in the bottle. The damage is done.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
That seal never left honestly, for their 1st party stuff.
NoLootBoxDev
Member
There are really good "indie games" that ship completed games from the start. But the problem is that they are not considered "games". I am trying my best to ship my first game completed on steam. At least I won't be part of the problem, I loved when I purchase a game and it is completed and does not need a day 1 patch to be functional. Also, I fucking despise loot boxes.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Someone should charge OP 40k dollars for making this thread.
oldergamer
Member
This is it exactly. Its extremely rare that a major issue that wasn't seen before a game goes gold is a surprise to developers/publishers.
The people making the call to go live are doing so with all the bug information at hand, and launching a product where "working is better then perfect". However some cases the "working" part ends up not working, which is an annoyance to gamers.
For console makers, games have gotten too large for them to be able to force publishers to fix every issue like they once did in certification. You can't record a full playthrough of the game like we were forced to back in the SNES / Genesis days.
Belthazar
Member
This has to be one of the worst takes I've ever seen here. Do you really think charging a fortune to allow a patch would make devs release the game finished and polished? It never occured to you there developers wouldn't bother to patch the game in the first place? And the ones who would pay to patch would just wait months to do everything in one go?
It's like you people don't think before posting, damn.
It's like you people don't think before posting, damn.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Nintendo's seal of quality didn't ensure that games were actually high quality. It only meant that games would boot on a Nintendo console because Nintendo manufactured the cart and included what was necessary to work with the lockout chip.
Fbh
Member
Expectation: Devs will make sure their game is ready and fully polished before releasing
Reality: Games will continue to release broken but you'll get less updates, less frequently and only for critical issues.
Sony and MS would have to work together to set equal terms for this to work.
Neither will want to be the only console that doesn't get "insert hyped up AAA game with a lot of marketing"
Reality: Games will continue to release broken but you'll get less updates, less frequently and only for critical issues.
Huh? Sony/MS needs a more strict quality control before letting any game into their ecosystems. No pub or studio small or big should’ve any special treatment. That’s the only way to solve this shit. But money speaks so it will never happen.
Sony and MS would have to work together to set equal terms for this to work.
Neither will want to be the only console that doesn't get "insert hyped up AAA game with a lot of marketing"
AJUMP23
Gold Member
I know.
Shadowstar39
Member
True but there is something to be said that f2p is not a bad model for gaming and more akin to gambling.
Need less f2p and more traditional games. Look what f2p did for mobile gaming. There has been shit on phones the last 5 years except for a few overpriced ports of old games. Everything else is f2p garbage designed to take your time and money. Remember when ipad first came out and there was legit good original titles coming out. It didn't last long.
The console industry follows the money and sadly young kids and teens are more into free 2 play than even Nintendo games because friends don't have to pay and peer pressure.
YeulEmeralda
Member
It is what it is, games launch incomplete and or broken. Clearly the gaming community at large doesn't give a shit.
Instead of fighting windmills adapt. Become a patient gamer: do not buy at release. Wait a year or more.
Instead of fighting windmills adapt. Become a patient gamer: do not buy at release. Wait a year or more.
Shadowstar39
Member
How about using our heads and have a solution to the issue not just go back to the 40k rule but maybe a happy medium. There has to be some deterrant to releasing a broken mess.
It doesn't help when so many "gamers" scream like babies when something is delayed. Waaaa I want it now....waaa developer is lazy , they no release game. I know how long it takes to make a multi millon dollar open world game it should take as long as it did waaaaa...
Honey Bunny
Member
Yep, based
Shadowstar39
Member
You also can save money doing this. Unless its a game in a franchise i love or been waiting for , i wait until a game of the year or the price drops (outside of nintendo and their 1st party bs or rimworld/factorio never having sales).
Some games like Soulsborne games and Rpgs are instant buys from me (dark souls, ys, elder scrolls, kingdom come, gothics, etc..) Others like farcry , wait for a sale.
I'll take large, complex and questionably stable games to games limited by their tech any day of the week. Or more simply: a bike has less chance of braking down than a car; I'd still rather use the car as a conveyance.
DaGwaphics
Member
Wow, never knew they charged a fee like that.
Still think the best way to get devs to complete games is to not purchase them until the bugs are fixed. Losing some of those nice day one sales should certainly be good motivation.
Still think the best way to get devs to complete games is to not purchase them until the bugs are fixed. Losing some of those nice day one sales should certainly be good motivation.
kingwingin
Member
Don't charge for patches but instead are forced to re issue a game physically with all patches included for free
Last edited:
Spaceman292
Banned
Before on the Xbox 360 and PS3, they used to charge developers $40,000 per patch, and then they stopped.
Microsoft no longer charges developers to patch their Xbox 360 games
UPDATE #3: Microsoft has provided Eurogamer with a full statement regarding its decision to drop charges for Xbox 360 g…www.eurogamer.net
Now developers release the broken games and titles on launch. There is no point of releasing games in a stable state when they can simply patch it later for free and as many times for free.
There isn't a sense of thoroughness in the industry anymore, for example, Avengers just released an update for Spider-man and people in-game currency depleted. All the units and credits simply vanished.
Gaming of the past has a sense of weight, so they had to cram and make sure the patch was stable and tested, now quality control went to absolute shit.
If developers went back to being charged per patch maybe we might get some quality back in the gaming industry.
Modern games suck.
Everything is whored out like a casino or store filled with microtransactions.
I compare Halo Reach and Halo 4 customization compared to Halo Infinite and now I hate modern gaming. Things that were once free are now paid for, I do not want to ever go back to a Halo multiplayer because it turned to shit compared to its predecessors.
Destiny 1 was great, Destiny 2 got fucked.
I really hate free-to-play.
I want to go back to the simple days of buying a game, it has a single-player and multiplayer component and everything worked out of the box with so much feature set.
Now things are the minimum viable products. Things are released like a fucking skeleton and each component is paid for.
Gaming will never be an art form the way it's doing. At least movies and tv shows aren't whored out like video games, there aren't exclusive theatre endings for movies or some stupid shady business shit.
Gaming needs to go back to what it was.
I hate modern gaming.
Before we had rich large fulfilling expansions.
Now we have recolors, pay $20 to change your character's armor into purple. Fucking hell.
/rant
Modern Gaming sucks now.
Now we have an entire generation of kids swiping their parent's credit cards to buy skins and shit. FOMO. And when you least expect it that service shuts down and all that money spent goes down the drain.
thats dumb
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
NO.
Let the market regulate itself.
Gamers should complain and ask for refunds for broken games.
Platform holders should delist games that have too many refund requests and/or bug reports/complaints submitted within too short a timeframe --- they could possibly look at fining devs in this scenario.
The gaming media also need to do a better job of getting out from the ass of the publishers and better inform players when games are a buggy mess prior to launch.
In fact, Cyberpunk was a great example of this market-self moderation in effect. Sony also delisted them from the store because the dev admitted their game was broken.
Let the market regulate itself.
Gamers should complain and ask for refunds for broken games.
Platform holders should delist games that have too many refund requests and/or bug reports/complaints submitted within too short a timeframe --- they could possibly look at fining devs in this scenario.
The gaming media also need to do a better job of getting out from the ass of the publishers and better inform players when games are a buggy mess prior to launch.
In fact, Cyberpunk was a great example of this market-self moderation in effect. Sony also delisted them from the store because the dev admitted their game was broken.
Kokoloko85
Member
In some ways it will make developers finish there game before it releases which is a good ide.a
but in some ways it will leave broken games not to be fixed.
There must be a middleground etc
but in some ways it will leave broken games not to be fixed.
There must be a middleground etc