The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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, usually offering something like extra map levels, multiplayer extras etc.
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've been playing soldier of fortune II a lot lately and a new patch for that is out soon, these days the patches have extra multiplayer maps, weapons etc and polish up any minor faults. To me this is fine and I also am looking forward to get it and see what other extras it has.
I guess in a way these patches also pro-long how long we play these games for too. With extra maps and skins etc that can keep you entertained that little bit extra.
Maybe there should be a way of grading every game and ensuring that eachis 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. Could maybe get rid of patches that are just released to fix problems that should not be in the final copy of the 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. So is this the next big danger for the console gaming side of the industry or could it improve it?
Consoles will go on-line, it is only a matter of time before this happens, after that the possibilities are there to download "patches" and extras for the games, this like has been said before could be good and could also be bad for the industry just depending on how you look at it.
Which ever way you look at it I think it is very likely that patches will always be somewhere close when PC and soon Console games are mentioned, sometimes for the right but no doubt also for the wrong reasons.
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?
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've been playing soldier of fortune II a lot lately and a new patch for that is out soon, these days the patches have extra multiplayer maps, weapons etc and polish up any minor faults. To me this is fine and I also am looking forward to get it and see what other extras it has.
I guess in a way these patches also pro-long how long we play these games for too. With extra maps and skins etc that can keep you entertained that little bit extra.
Maybe there should be a way of grading every game and ensuring that eachis 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. Could maybe get rid of patches that are just released to fix problems that should not be in the final copy of the 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. So is this the next big danger for the console gaming side of the industry or could it improve it?
Consoles will go on-line, it is only a matter of time before this happens, after that the possibilities are there to download "patches" and extras for the games, this like has been said before could be good and could also be bad for the industry just depending on how you look at it.
Which ever way you look at it I think it is very likely that patches will always be somewhere close when PC and soon Console games are mentioned, sometimes for the right but no doubt also for the wrong reasons.
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?
Around 20 hours + for those on a 56k modem.
OK, so I may be way off, but that's a good idea on the scale of the time when compared to 5 minutes.
OK, so I may be way off, but that's a good idea on the scale of the time when compared to 5 minutes.
cookie monster wrote:
> Some patches can be as large as 100Mb, do you know how long that takes
> to download?
About 5 minutes...
> Some patches can be as large as 100Mb, do you know how long that takes
> to download?
About 5 minutes...
As PCs are so versatile and different I think that patches are the best course of action. Software issues should be resolved in-house, but the way the software responds to every combination of hardware is not possible to test. Furthermore a game could be totally perfect as far as single player modes are concerned, but due to annoying cheats developing multiplayer mods to gain an advantage whilst playing online sometimes patches are necessary to seal security holes.
I recently got Return to castle wolfenstein and started playing through single player, after getting a feel for the controls I thought I would give the multiplayer a whirl. To my disappointment I couldn’t play, I was then informed by goatboy that I would need to download the latest patch. I did that, but it corrupted my single player save file.
I was annoyed, but I got back to where I was surprisingly quickly after knowing where I was going, I also found a few more secret areas than I did the first time, and found I could tackle zombies without weeing my pants. Now had this not happened I would have been surprised if I played through the levels again.
I’m not saying this sort of thing should be encouraged, but I’m saying it should be accepted. If you bought a bicycle and the wheel fell off, would you not expect the manufacturer to fix the problem?
Some patches can be as large as 100Mb, do you know how long that takes to download? It takes hours, but we do it anyway, and why? Because we know it was made for our benefit, either to introduce a new mode of play, or to stop the glitch that makes you stick to a medic after he has revived you on the battlefield.
I recently got Return to castle wolfenstein and started playing through single player, after getting a feel for the controls I thought I would give the multiplayer a whirl. To my disappointment I couldn’t play, I was then informed by goatboy that I would need to download the latest patch. I did that, but it corrupted my single player save file.
I was annoyed, but I got back to where I was surprisingly quickly after knowing where I was going, I also found a few more secret areas than I did the first time, and found I could tackle zombies without weeing my pants. Now had this not happened I would have been surprised if I played through the levels again.
I’m not saying this sort of thing should be encouraged, but I’m saying it should be accepted. If you bought a bicycle and the wheel fell off, would you not expect the manufacturer to fix the problem?
Some patches can be as large as 100Mb, do you know how long that takes to download? It takes hours, but we do it anyway, and why? Because we know it was made for our benefit, either to introduce a new mode of play, or to stop the glitch that makes you stick to a medic after he has revived you on the battlefield.
Well, with the appearance of Hard Drives for pretty much every console, it's not hard to envisage the use of patches. However, the games would have to be designed to accomodate them in the first place (ie. know to look on the HDD for them).
However, console games generally come out in much less of a "bug-ridden" state as PC software does, and the development of patches will more than likely change this, as game producers thankfully have more of a chance of hitting their release schedules, and can just finish the job off a few months later with a free patch on every website, magazine or cup of tea related to the game.
This has both good and bad sides. The high quality of programming seen in console games will decline, but more afterthought will be available.
The other aspect of course is "mods". The other side of the patching coin. These are more often than not completely unofficial, but are excellent at adding extras to a game. For those who don't know what a "mod" is, it's basically the equivalent of your winamp skin. For example, in a game like Max Payne, you could add the "Kung-fu" mod, which allowed a number of kung-fu moves, and jumping off walls and stuff. Diablo mods included the infamous "boba-fett" mod, which allowed you to walk around looking like the bounty hunter of legend. Things like that, altering the gameplay sideways as opposed to bug fixing and adding maps and stuff.
However mods would have to be controlled to keep the console market "clean". It's well known that many a mod can kill off the game to the point where it requires a re-install.
But i don't see any reason why console games can't be made to accomodate patches, I just hope the option is used to enhance gameplay and not just to fix problems.
However, console games generally come out in much less of a "bug-ridden" state as PC software does, and the development of patches will more than likely change this, as game producers thankfully have more of a chance of hitting their release schedules, and can just finish the job off a few months later with a free patch on every website, magazine or cup of tea related to the game.
This has both good and bad sides. The high quality of programming seen in console games will decline, but more afterthought will be available.
The other aspect of course is "mods". The other side of the patching coin. These are more often than not completely unofficial, but are excellent at adding extras to a game. For those who don't know what a "mod" is, it's basically the equivalent of your winamp skin. For example, in a game like Max Payne, you could add the "Kung-fu" mod, which allowed a number of kung-fu moves, and jumping off walls and stuff. Diablo mods included the infamous "boba-fett" mod, which allowed you to walk around looking like the bounty hunter of legend. Things like that, altering the gameplay sideways as opposed to bug fixing and adding maps and stuff.
However mods would have to be controlled to keep the console market "clean". It's well known that many a mod can kill off the game to the point where it requires a re-install.
But i don't see any reason why console games can't be made to accomodate patches, I just hope the option is used to enhance gameplay and not just to fix problems.
The only time I find installing patches annoying, is when some of them erase my saved games. This is compulsory in some cases. These kind of patches don't come out often though, so it's not a 'big' problem.
As for bug fixing, well yes it does help fix problems the developers left in favour of an earlier release, but they usually get fixed after the first couple of patches. The patches that are released after these do small, but helpful and welcome things like touching up graphics, adding more to the multiplayer side of the game, adding more units or weapons ect.. so aren't really that much of a burden. If anything they help make the game last a bit longer.
As for this console patch thing, well I don't think anyone needs to worry. For one thing, I doubt console gamers will take kindly to having to install patches to keep up to date with their games, and this could affect the sales of certain titles. I doubt the developers would want to that risk it.
Another thing is, how would these patches be installed? Patches for the PC require the games to be installed onto the hard drive, and not just be patched up onto the games CD. I can't see how console games 'could' be patched, but then again I also can't see how developers are planning to get the extra levels and all that stuff they've been talking about, onto console games. Either way, I don't think patches will make an appearance on console just yet.
All in all, I think patches are a good thing. Console gamers may find that constantly installing updates is a time consuming waste of time, but then that would be missing the point of why they are made in the first place. Think of all the console games with bugs in them, they have to be left like that, while PC games these bugs can be fixed with a simple install of a small patch. Patches fix problems and add new things, I can't find anything wrong with that, so no, I'm not against them.
As for bug fixing, well yes it does help fix problems the developers left in favour of an earlier release, but they usually get fixed after the first couple of patches. The patches that are released after these do small, but helpful and welcome things like touching up graphics, adding more to the multiplayer side of the game, adding more units or weapons ect.. so aren't really that much of a burden. If anything they help make the game last a bit longer.
As for this console patch thing, well I don't think anyone needs to worry. For one thing, I doubt console gamers will take kindly to having to install patches to keep up to date with their games, and this could affect the sales of certain titles. I doubt the developers would want to that risk it.
Another thing is, how would these patches be installed? Patches for the PC require the games to be installed onto the hard drive, and not just be patched up onto the games CD. I can't see how console games 'could' be patched, but then again I also can't see how developers are planning to get the extra levels and all that stuff they've been talking about, onto console games. Either way, I don't think patches will make an appearance on console just yet.
All in all, I think patches are a good thing. Console gamers may find that constantly installing updates is a time consuming waste of time, but then that would be missing the point of why they are made in the first place. Think of all the console games with bugs in them, they have to be left like that, while PC games these bugs can be fixed with a simple install of a small patch. Patches fix problems and add new things, I can't find anything wrong with that, so no, I'm not against them.
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, usually offering something like extra map levels, multiplayer extras etc.
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've been playing soldier of fortune II a lot lately and a new patch for that is out soon, these days the patches have extra multiplayer maps, weapons etc and polish up any minor faults. To me this is fine and I also am looking forward to get it and see what other extras it has.
I guess in a way these patches also pro-long how long we play these games for too. With extra maps and skins etc that can keep you entertained that little bit extra.
Maybe there should be a way of grading every game and ensuring that eachis 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. Could maybe get rid of patches that are just released to fix problems that should not be in the final copy of the 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. So is this the next big danger for the console gaming side of the industry or could it improve it?
Consoles will go on-line, it is only a matter of time before this happens, after that the possibilities are there to download "patches" and extras for the games, this like has been said before could be good and could also be bad for the industry just depending on how you look at it.
Which ever way you look at it I think it is very likely that patches will always be somewhere close when PC and soon Console games are mentioned, sometimes for the right but no doubt also for the wrong reasons.
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?
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've been playing soldier of fortune II a lot lately and a new patch for that is out soon, these days the patches have extra multiplayer maps, weapons etc and polish up any minor faults. To me this is fine and I also am looking forward to get it and see what other extras it has.
I guess in a way these patches also pro-long how long we play these games for too. With extra maps and skins etc that can keep you entertained that little bit extra.
Maybe there should be a way of grading every game and ensuring that eachis 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. Could maybe get rid of patches that are just released to fix problems that should not be in the final copy of the 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. So is this the next big danger for the console gaming side of the industry or could it improve it?
Consoles will go on-line, it is only a matter of time before this happens, after that the possibilities are there to download "patches" and extras for the games, this like has been said before could be good and could also be bad for the industry just depending on how you look at it.
Which ever way you look at it I think it is very likely that patches will always be somewhere close when PC and soon Console games are mentioned, sometimes for the right but no doubt also for the wrong reasons.
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?