The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The PC gamers and the hardcore gamers among you will know exactly what a patch is in terms of a game. For those who have no idea I will try explain it for you as best I can. A patch is a small piece of software which is released after the game it is intended for is released, the patch is used alongside the game to correct any bugs in the game and improve it slightly.
Now there are a lot of views on this subject, some good, some bad so let's run through some. If you think I have missed any or have your own views then please post them.
So what are the bad points of patches for games?
Well the biggest problem seems to be that they have to release patches at all, why can't the game be ready and complete I.E bug free when it is released? Also to get hold of the patch usually requires internet connection (which not everybody has) to download it to your computer and add it to the appropriate folder. Another bad point seems to be the fact that you have to go to the hassle of spending time obtaining the patch and downloading it (sometimes they can be large files). There are also a few games that need patches as the amount of problems are so high. Some developers may release a game they know to be incomplete just so they can get public feedback to things that could be made better which they make better with the use of a patch. If a patch isn't official (a lot of them aren't) then there could be viruses contained in them which could damage your system, so you could be at risk using them.
So are there any good points?
Well once you have the patch in use the game should have improved and have less bugs in it. Also the patch is usually free so you aren't paying for it. Also with some patches you are also given little extras like extra levels, characters or cheats which a lot of people like. The fact is that no game can ever be perfect when it is released, to be able to go through every individual line of code and check it would take a long long time. Patches allow developers to make the changes that would have been made if they had been found before the release.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (Remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
But in the future it may not only be the PC and desktop computers that allow patches for games. It is possible that in the future games may no longer be disk based, instead the user would pay and download the game they wish straight from the net, meaning a possibility of patches being used with our console games. So is this good or bad for the console gamers?
Well the good and bad points are similar to before with a few extras. There seem to be a lot of console gamers who don't like the idea of patches being used, if it needs a patch then the developer shouldn't have been allowed to release it in the first place. If people don't like the idea they may well stop buying games from that developer which may make them think twice about doing it again.
So if we wanted to could we prevent such a thing? Well It is unlikely that such a thing (the downloading games) will happen for quite some time and if we complain when it does happen the chances are most developers will not do it. Instead of patches I think it should be the gamers right to return the "faulty" copy and in return be sent a "fixed" version of the game and also maybe something to say sorry for not doing their job the way they should.
One thing I would like to see happen though is the choice of gaming updates, similar to patches but not used to fix bugs, The game should be released at a high standard and the update would just be a choice to those who want it. The update would allow extras like characters, levels, weapons. Also would get rid of games that get sequels with little changes (Fifa anyone?). I could probably write a whole topic on this but I wont as most will already have made their minds up or know a bit about it already.
But as I write this I can also see why patches could be needed. I don't like the idea of the game being "incomplete" in the first place but when I think on how hard it must be to make a game and make it as bug free as can be. Today's technology is very advanced, there is a very high demand on the programmers (not just game programmers but any in the computer industry). Every piece of software will have bugs in it, I don't think you will find a totally complete piece of software or it would be very rare if you did.
I wrote a post the other day about one day maybe a standard should be introduced into the industry where all games (and any other software) should be tested thoroughly and rated before it is released, just to give the customer an insight to what the product is like and how high of a standard it reaches. I think this kind of ties in with that (so read it please) Could maybe get rid of patches as the developers may concentrate more on trying to release a more complete game.
I find it hard that the console game developers seem to be able to release games and nobody ever mentions patches, but with most PC developers they can't release a game that doesn't need a patch. It must be the hardware aspect that makes it so hard to get what they want in terms of games playing from the likes of a PC.
This last bit is a plea to all those who want to get into games development. Don't allow patches, if the game is poor at the time of release then don't release it, you can see just how much people hate them so do us a favour and make it better before you release it.
Ok so say patches were banned, then what would happen?
Well the standard of games could drop as the bugs and problems never get solved which in turn could slow down he way that the standard of games improve. Or maybe the developers who produce the games with bugs may lose out and the industry is left with those who can develop the games well, but make the choice and variety of games become reduced. We as gamers may have to wait a lot longer for games to be released as it will take longer to program the game and then thoroughly check through it for any large errors in the code.
So I guess it all depends on what us "the gamers" want, so please put your views here. Does game patches bother you? Are you not bothered? Should they be allowed? Will they be used even more in the future or will gamers refuse to let them be allowed?
Just as a slight aside, I guess the word patch gets used as you can patch repair things (kind of a fix it term) but it's a bit weird that we have patches, pirate copies? So what's next in the theme of pirates?
Walking the plank? Grog? Shiver me timbers? Pieces of eight? Swash-buckling? Why are words like these used??
Now there are a lot of views on this subject, some good, some bad so let's run through some. If you think I have missed any or have your own views then please post them.
So what are the bad points of patches for games?
Well the biggest problem seems to be that they have to release patches at all, why can't the game be ready and complete I.E bug free when it is released? Also to get hold of the patch usually requires internet connection (which not everybody has) to download it to your computer and add it to the appropriate folder. Another bad point seems to be the fact that you have to go to the hassle of spending time obtaining the patch and downloading it (sometimes they can be large files). There are also a few games that need patches as the amount of problems are so high. Some developers may release a game they know to be incomplete just so they can get public feedback to things that could be made better which they make better with the use of a patch. If a patch isn't official (a lot of them aren't) then there could be viruses contained in them which could damage your system, so you could be at risk using them.
So are there any good points?
Well once you have the patch in use the game should have improved and have less bugs in it. Also the patch is usually free so you aren't paying for it. Also with some patches you are also given little extras like extra levels, characters or cheats which a lot of people like. The fact is that no game can ever be perfect when it is released, to be able to go through every individual line of code and check it would take a long long time. Patches allow developers to make the changes that would have been made if they had been found before the release.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (Remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
But in the future it may not only be the PC and desktop computers that allow patches for games. It is possible that in the future games may no longer be disk based, instead the user would pay and download the game they wish straight from the net, meaning a possibility of patches being used with our console games. So is this good or bad for the console gamers?
Well the good and bad points are similar to before with a few extras. There seem to be a lot of console gamers who don't like the idea of patches being used, if it needs a patch then the developer shouldn't have been allowed to release it in the first place. If people don't like the idea they may well stop buying games from that developer which may make them think twice about doing it again.
So if we wanted to could we prevent such a thing? Well It is unlikely that such a thing (the downloading games) will happen for quite some time and if we complain when it does happen the chances are most developers will not do it. Instead of patches I think it should be the gamers right to return the "faulty" copy and in return be sent a "fixed" version of the game and also maybe something to say sorry for not doing their job the way they should.
One thing I would like to see happen though is the choice of gaming updates, similar to patches but not used to fix bugs, The game should be released at a high standard and the update would just be a choice to those who want it. The update would allow extras like characters, levels, weapons. Also would get rid of games that get sequels with little changes (Fifa anyone?). I could probably write a whole topic on this but I wont as most will already have made their minds up or know a bit about it already.
But as I write this I can also see why patches could be needed. I don't like the idea of the game being "incomplete" in the first place but when I think on how hard it must be to make a game and make it as bug free as can be. Today's technology is very advanced, there is a very high demand on the programmers (not just game programmers but any in the computer industry). Every piece of software will have bugs in it, I don't think you will find a totally complete piece of software or it would be very rare if you did.
I wrote a post the other day about one day maybe a standard should be introduced into the industry where all games (and any other software) should be tested thoroughly and rated before it is released, just to give the customer an insight to what the product is like and how high of a standard it reaches. I think this kind of ties in with that (so read it please) Could maybe get rid of patches as the developers may concentrate more on trying to release a more complete game.
I find it hard that the console game developers seem to be able to release games and nobody ever mentions patches, but with most PC developers they can't release a game that doesn't need a patch. It must be the hardware aspect that makes it so hard to get what they want in terms of games playing from the likes of a PC.
This last bit is a plea to all those who want to get into games development. Don't allow patches, if the game is poor at the time of release then don't release it, you can see just how much people hate them so do us a favour and make it better before you release it.
Ok so say patches were banned, then what would happen?
Well the standard of games could drop as the bugs and problems never get solved which in turn could slow down he way that the standard of games improve. Or maybe the developers who produce the games with bugs may lose out and the industry is left with those who can develop the games well, but make the choice and variety of games become reduced. We as gamers may have to wait a lot longer for games to be released as it will take longer to program the game and then thoroughly check through it for any large errors in the code.
So I guess it all depends on what us "the gamers" want, so please put your views here. Does game patches bother you? Are you not bothered? Should they be allowed? Will they be used even more in the future or will gamers refuse to let them be allowed?
Just as a slight aside, I guess the word patch gets used as you can patch repair things (kind of a fix it term) but it's a bit weird that we have patches, pirate copies? So what's next in the theme of pirates?
Walking the plank? Grog? Shiver me timbers? Pieces of eight? Swash-buckling? Why are words like these used??
Alrighty mate, will do.
What a fantastic game, I really really didnt want to play it but I am pleasently surprised.
Fantastic fun
What a fantastic game, I really really didnt want to play it but I am pleasently surprised.
Fantastic fun
Goatboy wrote:
(Oh, and buy Commandos 2 because it rocks)
I am now on the last level of that on medium. I was surprised how easy it was and the level 'Saving Private Smith', original eh? Well that was exceptionally easy, took me 1:03. But then I've got to do it on Hard and Very Hard before I'm a pro. I went to play it online the other day, it asks for your server address, so I type in www.freeserve.com
Then I waited and waited and waited and yet still after a whole hour no one was on there. Goatboy if you ever wanna play then give me a shout on MSN
[email protected]
(Oh, and buy Commandos 2 because it rocks)
I am now on the last level of that on medium. I was surprised how easy it was and the level 'Saving Private Smith', original eh? Well that was exceptionally easy, took me 1:03. But then I've got to do it on Hard and Very Hard before I'm a pro. I went to play it online the other day, it asks for your server address, so I type in www.freeserve.com
Then I waited and waited and waited and yet still after a whole hour no one was on there. Goatboy if you ever wanna play then give me a shout on MSN
[email protected]
AliBoy wrote:
should the
> developers have to impove their standard for these people? I.e. make the game
> better before release or allow these people to send the original back and in
> return be sent an updated version through the post?
In a perfect world, yes the games would be released without any problems at all.
But the number of different systems of set-ups for PCs mean that, invariably, some people are going to have problems.
But personally, given the choice between a game being released 3 months earlier and then needing to download a patch to fix minor stability problems or other issues is worth it.
Although when you get something like Black and White that had major, playstopping faults, it should have been worked on more.
There are companies that do it right though, Pop-Top are a prime example.
Tropico was released with an overly zelous copy protection programme, which prevented most of the European copies from being used legitamately - so within 2 days they had a patch on their website to fix it (SR have the patch address on the info box in case anyone buys it and thinks it's a faulty game)
Patches do fix minor things that annoy, yes.
But patches also allow you to extend the life of a game with add-ons and mods.
Max Payne has all number of mods out there that allow you to play entire new stories using the same game engine, and the downloads are a bit of a pain when they go above 2-3meg.
But PC Gamer usually includes these on disks, and I download them at work via broadband and burn them onto CDs so it takes a minute to download 80meg.
Half-Life is a pain though.
Constantly improving and updating, but you cant play online without the latest patch, usually 15-30 megs and I can't be bothered to continually update it so I leave it alone.
(Oh, and buy Commandos 2 because it rocks)
should the
> developers have to impove their standard for these people? I.e. make the game
> better before release or allow these people to send the original back and in
> return be sent an updated version through the post?
In a perfect world, yes the games would be released without any problems at all.
But the number of different systems of set-ups for PCs mean that, invariably, some people are going to have problems.
But personally, given the choice between a game being released 3 months earlier and then needing to download a patch to fix minor stability problems or other issues is worth it.
Although when you get something like Black and White that had major, playstopping faults, it should have been worked on more.
There are companies that do it right though, Pop-Top are a prime example.
Tropico was released with an overly zelous copy protection programme, which prevented most of the European copies from being used legitamately - so within 2 days they had a patch on their website to fix it (SR have the patch address on the info box in case anyone buys it and thinks it's a faulty game)
Patches do fix minor things that annoy, yes.
But patches also allow you to extend the life of a game with add-ons and mods.
Max Payne has all number of mods out there that allow you to play entire new stories using the same game engine, and the downloads are a bit of a pain when they go above 2-3meg.
But PC Gamer usually includes these on disks, and I download them at work via broadband and burn them onto CDs so it takes a minute to download 80meg.
Half-Life is a pain though.
Constantly improving and updating, but you cant play online without the latest patch, usually 15-30 megs and I can't be bothered to continually update it so I leave it alone.
(Oh, and buy Commandos 2 because it rocks)
It's true. You pay £20 for the Half-Life and Counter-Strike box sets, but then you have to download over a 100mb just to play the bloody thing. What's the point?
GasMask wrote:
> N-not that word-dd N-oo Its... P..atch... URGH!!!!!
well, some are good, but
> these ones for half life were like 80megs! They took the pith out of big.
80 megs? That definately should not be allowed. I think a good bit of complaining should have been done to the developers about that one.
> N-not that word-dd N-oo Its... P..atch... URGH!!!!!
well, some are good, but
> these ones for half life were like 80megs! They took the pith out of big.
80 megs? That definately should not be allowed. I think a good bit of complaining should have been done to the developers about that one.
N-not that word-dd N-oo Its... P..atch... URGH!!!!!
well, some are good, but these ones for half life were like 80megs! They took the pith out of big.
I don't have money for a magazine :-D
So, patches, SMALL patches are excellent. The big ones.. Or my.. Don't even say it.
well, some are good, but these ones for half life were like 80megs! They took the pith out of big.
I don't have money for a magazine :-D
So, patches, SMALL patches are excellent. The big ones.. Or my.. Don't even say it.
Goatboy wrote:
So hurrah for patches in 99% of the case, but damn Lionhead for their
> shoddy treatment of customers.
I will not buy "Creature Isles", the
> add-on, and I know a lot of other people on the forums at their website will not
> either.
Which is fair enough, don't yank our pants down and treat us mean and
> then expect to kiss us and make it all better.
Damn Dirty Lionhead
LOL, I can see what you wrote in the rest of your post and I do agree, anything that is free that improves a game is good but what about those who don't have access to obtain the patches, should the developers have to impove their standard for these people? I.e. make the game better before release or allow these people to send the original back and in return be sent an updated version through the post?
So hurrah for patches in 99% of the case, but damn Lionhead for their
> shoddy treatment of customers.
I will not buy "Creature Isles", the
> add-on, and I know a lot of other people on the forums at their website will not
> either.
Which is fair enough, don't yank our pants down and treat us mean and
> then expect to kiss us and make it all better.
Damn Dirty Lionhead
LOL, I can see what you wrote in the rest of your post and I do agree, anything that is free that improves a game is good but what about those who don't have access to obtain the patches, should the developers have to impove their standard for these people? I.e. make the game better before release or allow these people to send the original back and in return be sent an updated version through the post?
I personally think patches are a godsend.
Some fix bugs that will always be present.
Some are mods of games, Counterstrike started life as a patch and look where it is now.
Operation Flashpoint has nothing but good patches, they include whole new vehicles, weapons, soldier skins, server capabilities etc etc.
Most of the large patches come with PC Gamer each month to save you the downloads, so no worries about the time and with something like Download Accelerator it's not that much of a pain without the cover-disks anyway.
Black and White.
The word that leaves many a foul taste in PC gamers mouths.
Lionhead released a beta version of the game to buy.
Beta basically means incomplete and not-fully tested.
The amount of people that had difficulties with even trying to run that game is not funny.
And we had to wait 4 months for a patch that fixed all the problems before they started to give us the extras that patches usually entail.
So I would say, personally, that patches are fantastic.
Imagine your favourite game on a console right now.
Done it?
Tough, you can always do it again, maybe try to better times etc.
But with PC patches, you can get new levels, new vehicles, new characters etc, constantly expand the life of a game without having to pay out anymore money.
So hurrah for patches in 99% of the case, but damn Lionhead for their shoddy treatment of customers.
I will not buy "Creature Isles", the add-on, and I know a lot of other people on the forums at their website will not either.
Which is fair enough, don't yank our pants down and treat us mean and then expect to kiss us and make it all better.
Damn Dirty Lionhead
Some fix bugs that will always be present.
Some are mods of games, Counterstrike started life as a patch and look where it is now.
Operation Flashpoint has nothing but good patches, they include whole new vehicles, weapons, soldier skins, server capabilities etc etc.
Most of the large patches come with PC Gamer each month to save you the downloads, so no worries about the time and with something like Download Accelerator it's not that much of a pain without the cover-disks anyway.
Black and White.
The word that leaves many a foul taste in PC gamers mouths.
Lionhead released a beta version of the game to buy.
Beta basically means incomplete and not-fully tested.
The amount of people that had difficulties with even trying to run that game is not funny.
And we had to wait 4 months for a patch that fixed all the problems before they started to give us the extras that patches usually entail.
So I would say, personally, that patches are fantastic.
Imagine your favourite game on a console right now.
Done it?
Tough, you can always do it again, maybe try to better times etc.
But with PC patches, you can get new levels, new vehicles, new characters etc, constantly expand the life of a game without having to pay out anymore money.
So hurrah for patches in 99% of the case, but damn Lionhead for their shoddy treatment of customers.
I will not buy "Creature Isles", the add-on, and I know a lot of other people on the forums at their website will not either.
Which is fair enough, don't yank our pants down and treat us mean and then expect to kiss us and make it all better.
Damn Dirty Lionhead
I really, really hate patches. They are the devil's spawn and are probably killing the PC industry.
The PC gamers and the hardcore gamers among you will know exactly what a patch is in terms of a game. For those who have no idea I will try explain it for you as best I can. A patch is a small piece of software which is released after the game it is intended for is released, the patch is used alongside the game to correct any bugs in the game and improve it slightly.
Now there are a lot of views on this subject, some good, some bad so let's run through some. If you think I have missed any or have your own views then please post them.
So what are the bad points of patches for games?
Well the biggest problem seems to be that they have to release patches at all, why can't the game be ready and complete I.E bug free when it is released? Also to get hold of the patch usually requires internet connection (which not everybody has) to download it to your computer and add it to the appropriate folder. Another bad point seems to be the fact that you have to go to the hassle of spending time obtaining the patch and downloading it (sometimes they can be large files). There are also a few games that need patches as the amount of problems are so high. Some developers may release a game they know to be incomplete just so they can get public feedback to things that could be made better which they make better with the use of a patch. If a patch isn't official (a lot of them aren't) then there could be viruses contained in them which could damage your system, so you could be at risk using them.
So are there any good points?
Well once you have the patch in use the game should have improved and have less bugs in it. Also the patch is usually free so you aren't paying for it. Also with some patches you are also given little extras like extra levels, characters or cheats which a lot of people like. The fact is that no game can ever be perfect when it is released, to be able to go through every individual line of code and check it would take a long long time. Patches allow developers to make the changes that would have been made if they had been found before the release.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (Remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
But in the future it may not only be the PC and desktop computers that allow patches for games. It is possible that in the future games may no longer be disk based, instead the user would pay and download the game they wish straight from the net, meaning a possibility of patches being used with our console games. So is this good or bad for the console gamers?
Well the good and bad points are similar to before with a few extras. There seem to be a lot of console gamers who don't like the idea of patches being used, if it needs a patch then the developer shouldn't have been allowed to release it in the first place. If people don't like the idea they may well stop buying games from that developer which may make them think twice about doing it again.
So if we wanted to could we prevent such a thing? Well It is unlikely that such a thing (the downloading games) will happen for quite some time and if we complain when it does happen the chances are most developers will not do it. Instead of patches I think it should be the gamers right to return the "faulty" copy and in return be sent a "fixed" version of the game and also maybe something to say sorry for not doing their job the way they should.
One thing I would like to see happen though is the choice of gaming updates, similar to patches but not used to fix bugs, The game should be released at a high standard and the update would just be a choice to those who want it. The update would allow extras like characters, levels, weapons. Also would get rid of games that get sequels with little changes (Fifa anyone?). I could probably write a whole topic on this but I wont as most will already have made their minds up or know a bit about it already.
But as I write this I can also see why patches could be needed. I don't like the idea of the game being "incomplete" in the first place but when I think on how hard it must be to make a game and make it as bug free as can be. Today's technology is very advanced, there is a very high demand on the programmers (not just game programmers but any in the computer industry). Every piece of software will have bugs in it, I don't think you will find a totally complete piece of software or it would be very rare if you did.
I wrote a post the other day about one day maybe a standard should be introduced into the industry where all games (and any other software) should be tested thoroughly and rated before it is released, just to give the customer an insight to what the product is like and how high of a standard it reaches. I think this kind of ties in with that (so read it please) Could maybe get rid of patches as the developers may concentrate more on trying to release a more complete game.
I find it hard that the console game developers seem to be able to release games and nobody ever mentions patches, but with most PC developers they can't release a game that doesn't need a patch. It must be the hardware aspect that makes it so hard to get what they want in terms of games playing from the likes of a PC.
This last bit is a plea to all those who want to get into games development. Don't allow patches, if the game is poor at the time of release then don't release it, you can see just how much people hate them so do us a favour and make it better before you release it.
Ok so say patches were banned, then what would happen?
Well the standard of games could drop as the bugs and problems never get solved which in turn could slow down he way that the standard of games improve. Or maybe the developers who produce the games with bugs may lose out and the industry is left with those who can develop the games well, but make the choice and variety of games become reduced. We as gamers may have to wait a lot longer for games to be released as it will take longer to program the game and then thoroughly check through it for any large errors in the code.
So I guess it all depends on what us "the gamers" want, so please put your views here. Does game patches bother you? Are you not bothered? Should they be allowed? Will they be used even more in the future or will gamers refuse to let them be allowed?
Just as a slight aside, I guess the word patch gets used as you can patch repair things (kind of a fix it term) but it's a bit weird that we have patches, pirate copies? So what's next in the theme of pirates?
Walking the plank? Grog? Shiver me timbers? Pieces of eight? Swash-buckling? Why are words like these used??
Now there are a lot of views on this subject, some good, some bad so let's run through some. If you think I have missed any or have your own views then please post them.
So what are the bad points of patches for games?
Well the biggest problem seems to be that they have to release patches at all, why can't the game be ready and complete I.E bug free when it is released? Also to get hold of the patch usually requires internet connection (which not everybody has) to download it to your computer and add it to the appropriate folder. Another bad point seems to be the fact that you have to go to the hassle of spending time obtaining the patch and downloading it (sometimes they can be large files). There are also a few games that need patches as the amount of problems are so high. Some developers may release a game they know to be incomplete just so they can get public feedback to things that could be made better which they make better with the use of a patch. If a patch isn't official (a lot of them aren't) then there could be viruses contained in them which could damage your system, so you could be at risk using them.
So are there any good points?
Well once you have the patch in use the game should have improved and have less bugs in it. Also the patch is usually free so you aren't paying for it. Also with some patches you are also given little extras like extra levels, characters or cheats which a lot of people like. The fact is that no game can ever be perfect when it is released, to be able to go through every individual line of code and check it would take a long long time. Patches allow developers to make the changes that would have been made if they had been found before the release.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (Remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
But in the future it may not only be the PC and desktop computers that allow patches for games. It is possible that in the future games may no longer be disk based, instead the user would pay and download the game they wish straight from the net, meaning a possibility of patches being used with our console games. So is this good or bad for the console gamers?
Well the good and bad points are similar to before with a few extras. There seem to be a lot of console gamers who don't like the idea of patches being used, if it needs a patch then the developer shouldn't have been allowed to release it in the first place. If people don't like the idea they may well stop buying games from that developer which may make them think twice about doing it again.
So if we wanted to could we prevent such a thing? Well It is unlikely that such a thing (the downloading games) will happen for quite some time and if we complain when it does happen the chances are most developers will not do it. Instead of patches I think it should be the gamers right to return the "faulty" copy and in return be sent a "fixed" version of the game and also maybe something to say sorry for not doing their job the way they should.
One thing I would like to see happen though is the choice of gaming updates, similar to patches but not used to fix bugs, The game should be released at a high standard and the update would just be a choice to those who want it. The update would allow extras like characters, levels, weapons. Also would get rid of games that get sequels with little changes (Fifa anyone?). I could probably write a whole topic on this but I wont as most will already have made their minds up or know a bit about it already.
But as I write this I can also see why patches could be needed. I don't like the idea of the game being "incomplete" in the first place but when I think on how hard it must be to make a game and make it as bug free as can be. Today's technology is very advanced, there is a very high demand on the programmers (not just game programmers but any in the computer industry). Every piece of software will have bugs in it, I don't think you will find a totally complete piece of software or it would be very rare if you did.
I wrote a post the other day about one day maybe a standard should be introduced into the industry where all games (and any other software) should be tested thoroughly and rated before it is released, just to give the customer an insight to what the product is like and how high of a standard it reaches. I think this kind of ties in with that (so read it please) Could maybe get rid of patches as the developers may concentrate more on trying to release a more complete game.
I find it hard that the console game developers seem to be able to release games and nobody ever mentions patches, but with most PC developers they can't release a game that doesn't need a patch. It must be the hardware aspect that makes it so hard to get what they want in terms of games playing from the likes of a PC.
This last bit is a plea to all those who want to get into games development. Don't allow patches, if the game is poor at the time of release then don't release it, you can see just how much people hate them so do us a favour and make it better before you release it.
Ok so say patches were banned, then what would happen?
Well the standard of games could drop as the bugs and problems never get solved which in turn could slow down he way that the standard of games improve. Or maybe the developers who produce the games with bugs may lose out and the industry is left with those who can develop the games well, but make the choice and variety of games become reduced. We as gamers may have to wait a lot longer for games to be released as it will take longer to program the game and then thoroughly check through it for any large errors in the code.
So I guess it all depends on what us "the gamers" want, so please put your views here. Does game patches bother you? Are you not bothered? Should they be allowed? Will they be used even more in the future or will gamers refuse to let them be allowed?
Just as a slight aside, I guess the word patch gets used as you can patch repair things (kind of a fix it term) but it's a bit weird that we have patches, pirate copies? So what's next in the theme of pirates?
Walking the plank? Grog? Shiver me timbers? Pieces of eight? Swash-buckling? Why are words like these used??