Patching For Console Games.

[kaa]

So I've been using valve's ultra-contraversial steam for a while now and I personally reckon the logic behind the system is great (although they did a pretty crap job getting it to run smoothly mind).

With consoles shifting ever closer into online gaming, does it mean that we are going to see steam-like systems running on the next-gen consoles? Granted, I think everybody was concerned about the evils of patching turning up in the console market, but the fact is, updates to code need to made to multiplayer games simply because online modes are the hardest to test. Could a steam system which works quietly in the background be the futre of consoles?

One last point, with patching we may actually see the need to install games on consoles. What do you lot make of that?

[Sprite Machine]

With consoles shifting ever closer into online gaming, does it mean that we are going to see steam-like systems running on the next-gen consoles? Granted, I think everybody was concerned about the evils of patching turning up in the console market, but the fact is, updates to code need to made to multiplayer games simply because online modes are the hardest to test. Could a steam system which works quietly in the background be the futre of consoles?

I'd rather not see patching become standard fare, really. If it's to add extra stuff to games then fair enough, but when it's to 'fix' problems that shouldn't have been there in the first place then no. (Like Unreal Championship's framerate problems)

However, like you say with online gaming, it may always need updating, as it could well prove to be untestable (at least, fully) until it's up and running on actual home systems. Better to be improved upon than just left as it is, eh?

One last point, with patching we may actually see the need to install games on consoles. What do you lot make of that?

As long as it's instantaneous and invisible, I don't mind. I don't want to have to wait around or pick 'options', etc.

[___]

One last point, with patching we may actually see the need to install games on consoles. What do you lot make of that?

It's a really good argument against patching.

[Mitchell]

I'd rather not see patching become standard fare, really. If it's to add extra stuff to games then fair enough..

But not when 'adding' means 'additional cost'. One of the last Live downloads was a Maui course for Links 2004. Yours for the princely sum of $5.99.

[PaB]

One last point, with patching we may actually see the need to install games on consoles. What do you lot make of that?

Not next generation we won't given the HD-lessXbox 2 rumours(?)

[Sprite Machine]

But not when 'adding' means 'additional cost'. One of the last Live downloads was a Maui course for Links 2004. Yours for the princely sum of $5.99.

Hmmm... I dunno though. I mean, people pay, like, £15 - £20 for add-on packs and 'half-sequels'. 6 dolars for a new course could be worse. (It could be paying for it to be unlocked from the disc! )

[Sng]

Most patches would just be game-breaking bugfixes that I guess would be small enough to put on whatever storage media that comes with the Xbox, I guess?

What size was that UT patch?

Patches are good and bad really. Patches on certain console games would have helped immensely, like they do on PC.

But then again you could say that if you weren't able to patch PC games then they'd be sold to a better standard.

Then again there is less reason to patch a console game cos you don't have so many variables to worry about like you do with a PC game.

[Sng]

But not when 'adding' means 'additional cost'.  One of the last Live downloads was a Maui course for Links 2004.  Yours for the princely sum of $5.99.

£3 for a whole new 18 hole course.

As much as I hate the idea of paying for DLC on top of the Live subscription, I can't complain about it.

[Kryptonian]

What's this Steam system?

[Mitchell]

£3 for a whole new 18 hole course.

As much as I hate the idea of paying for DLC on top of the Live subscription, I can't complain about it.

So you hate it, but won't complain about it? Hurrah!

[Sng]

What's this Steam system?

From Valve, for Half Life, CS, etc.

Digital distribution and multiplayer management, I guess.

[Sng]

So you hate it, but won't complain about it? Hurrah!

Yep, cos the idea of paying on top of a payment is kinda annoying.

Yet this is for DLC, nothing required and it's a paltry £3 for a whole new course. Most golf games come new for £40 and only have about 3 courses. With Links 2004 you got one course free and that for £3.

Why should I complain?

[Alshie]

But not when 'adding' means 'additional cost'. One of the last Live downloads was a Maui course for Links 2004. Yours for the princely sum of $5.99.

Surely it's not unreasonable to charge a small fee for extra content? You don't need to have the extra course or say an extra city in Gotham but if you've enjoyed the game and want more it's available at a reasonable price.

[kaa]

I'd rather not see patching become standard fare, really. If it's to add extra stuff to games then fair enough, but when it's to 'fix' problems that shouldn't have been there in the first place then no.

But if it works in the background like steam does then players probably won't even know that the game has been patched because it pretty much delivers the fixes as they come, as opposed to in one lump (leading to a 150mb patch, nice).

It's a really good argument against patching.

It could all depend on how difficult installing would be, if they manage to make it no different to creating a save file on a memory card then I guess it could be acceptable. But personally, PC-like intalling is the the only thing I have against patching.

[Sprite Machine]

But if it works in the background like steam does then players probably won't even know that the game has been patched because it pretty much delivers the fixes as they come, as opposed to in one lump (leading to a 150mb patch, nice).

Eh?

So, if you've got a game that was rushed out without proper optimisation resulting in a shoddy framerate (something that should have been fixed before shipping), how would you not notice it? You'd be well aware that the game is running a bit 'off', until a few weeks (or so) later when it seems to automatically fix itself. But it'd still be noticeable in the first place.

[Alex W.]

Games consoles aren't PCs- they're a fixed bit of hardware. Developers should have no problems getting their games effectively bug-free from the outset.

[Mitchell]

Surely it's not unreasonable to charge a small fee for extra content? You don't need to have the extra course or say an extra city in Gotham but if you've enjoyed the game and want more it's available at a reasonable price. 

I do think it's unreasonable when other titles don't charge for additional content. And I've already splashed out on the game, pay for Broadband, the Live kit and the renewal of my subscription.

And then they use it as a fucking selling tool. "Oh! We'll have downloadable content in the future too! We'll dribble out extra bits ages down the line when your bored of the game anyway! This content will be stuff we weren't able to put in the original game as our publishers quarterlies were due! AND THEN WE'LL CHARGE FOR THEM! Everyone's a winner! (Apart from you.)"

[Haribokart]

But not when 'adding' means 'additional cost'. One of the last Live downloads was a Maui course for Links 2004. Yours for the princely sum of $5.99.

That is not a patch though. It is not needed, all patches are free, and take a few seconds to download. And everybody online has no choice but to download them (to keep all games running identically). I see no problem with patching, infact I applaud it (especially when it is as simple as it currently is over Live).

[___]

But if it works in the background like steam does then players probably won't even know that the game has been patched because it pretty much delivers the fixes as they come, as opposed to in one lump (leading to a 150mb patch, nice).

What AlexW said.

And that would also be assuming that every console owner has broadband.

Niche

[Sprite Machine]

I see no problem with patching

You don't see it as a problem that some games need it?

infact

[Haribokart]

You don't see it as a problem that some games need it?

At least it can be sorted out. Those games would probably have been released in that state anyway, at least something can be done about it.

HA-HA! B)

[Sprite Machine]

At least it can be sorted out. Those games would probably have been released in that state anyway, at least something can be done about it.

You think that if the option to 'fix it later' didn't exist, that the problems would still be there? Really?

[Alex W.]

Patching a console game is as ridiculous as having to patch, say, your car's engine control ROMs to get decent petrol mileage. The more freely available it is, the more patching will take place. Look at Unreal Tourney 2003 on the XBox - first console game patch ever, am I right?. With this in mind I'm somewhat glad that the XBox 2 won't have a HDD.

[kaa]

Eh?

So, if you've got a game that was rushed out without proper optimisation resulting in a shoddy framerate (something that should have been fixed before shipping), how would you not notice it? You'd be well aware that the game is running a bit 'off', until a few weeks (or so) later when it seems to automatically fix itself. But it'd still be noticeable in the first place.

No, of course patching is not something that developers should use as a fallback when their game needs to meet deadlines (but we all know they will anyway). There's no excuse for major bugs like framerate or crashes, but gameplay tweaks are something that should happen imo. Look at half life, that's still being patched to this day, but the updates aren't to do with massive flaws in the game, they're usually just gameplay tweaks like weapons balancing, changes like that come about when the game has built up a community. When the community for the game matures then they eventually decide on what features of the game are deemed unfair or unbalanced... it makes a lot more sense fixing little problems like that in the same version of the game rather than in the sequel (and making us pay a good 30 quid for the privalige of features which could have easily been added in to the previous version of the game).

[Pistol]

I was completely cut off from the PC gaming scene from around 1995 onwards. Never got back into it, but became aware of it again a couple of years ago - and I was incredulous at the whole patching phenomenon. I've grown to understand the need for it now, but there is still a big part of me that thinks 'why the hell are games being released before they are finished?'

I still expect to be able to go into a shop, buy a game (that comes in a box, with a manual, on CD or DVD), and have it work properly as soon as it's installed. I don't think I should require an internet connection at all just for playing offline games FFS!

Of course, I'm just a luddite in this respect, but it does worry me that games are being released when they are still buggy, but everyone's like 'don't worry, the patch will be along soon'. Surely there are still people out there who don't understand the whole patching deal, and are being sold down the river? Or am I just so far out of touch it's not even funny?

Anyway, that's PCs. I think a similar logic holds for consoles though - I'd hate to think we'd get to the point where consoles have the support for patching games to the same extent. For me, a console game should be finished when it's released.

[Alex W.]

No, of course patching is not something that developers should use as a fallback when their game needs to meet deadlines (but we all know they will anyway). There's no excuse for major bugs like framerate or crashes, but gameplay tweaks are something that should happen imo. Look at half life, that's still being patched to this day, but the updates aren't to do with massive flaws in the game, they're usually just gameplay tweaks like weapons balancing, changes like that come about when the game has built up a community. When the community for the game matures then they eventually decide on what features of the game are deemed unfair or unbalanced... it makes a lot more sense fixing little problems like that in the same version of the game rather than in the sequel (and making us pay a good 30 quid for the privalige of features which could have easily been added in to the previous version of the game).

I've got to disagree- most of HL's patches have throw in mods and fixed technical issues with a variety of systems, at least according to the Readmes. System Shock 2's only gameplay changes were to fix a desk and pull savegames out of unwinnable states. By and large, game patches don't tweak gameplay, except where that gameplay is ludicrously flawed to begin with (see: DX2's pistol headshots, patched from Spector's "I don't want players running around doing headshots all the time" to "a nominally freeform game which doesn't order you not to play in certain ways").

[Kryptonian]

Shame they can't patch Crazy Taxi 3.

[Spacehost]

I've got to disagree- most of HL's patches have throw in mods and fixed technical issues with a variety of systems, at least according to the Readmes.

Few (if any) of HL's patches ever fixed any of the gameplay. None released in the past three years at any rate. And all of HL's recent patches have been bundled with big (>50MB) mods for no apparent reason, forcing those that want to play the game online to DL DMC or some other unwanted tat at the same time...

And patching gameplay after release is even shoddier than patching the techincal bugs. At least those might not be discovered until several hundred game-hours; if developers won't even bother getting the gameplay right from the off, then where will we be? And who's to say gameplay patching is a good thing? Maybe I like, say, running about doing pistol headshots...

[Brats]

In an ideal world, there would be no need for patches. But we don't live in that world and occasionally things go wrong. With Unreal Championship, the game was accidentally released with a Beta engine that run sluggishly. This was then updated via Live.

This isn't an isolated case of things going wrong. MSR is the obvious one, but recently the Japanese release of PSO on the GC and GT prologue had problems.

So, ideally there would be no need for patches, but if the need arises, I for one am glad they exist.

[Spacehost]

the game was accidentally released with a Beta engine that run sluggishly

How in *the hell* do you accidentally release a btea version of the engine for mastering? Unless the producers "accidentally" wanted to get the game out quicker and didn't care...