The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As most of us know, there are many technical differences between PC gaming and console gaming. I say technical because, when it comes down to it, playing a videogame on any platform, whether it be handheld, PC or whatever.
Anyway, one of these ‘technical’ differences is the popular, some may even say excessive, use of patches for PC games. Developers release patches mainly to iron out bugs that weren’t sorted out pre-release. Some see this as unacceptable (developers don’t release patches for console games), others aren’t bothered at all by it.
Releasing a patch for a PC game has many advantages. Firstly, it improves a game which, sometimes, makes it more enjoyable to play. If your favourite console game suddenly appears to have a glitch of some kind in it, you’re stuck with it. This is not an issue for PC games, who have the reassurance that it won’t be too long before the error is dealt with, by simply installing a file.
Also, developers often include little extras ,such as new characters, vehicles, maps etc, as a way of apologising to the customer for the hassle of downloading the patch. In turn, this means a patch can add to the longetivity factor of a game. What’s even better is that fact that this extra gameplay comes free of charge.
Although, those are the only advantages that spring to mind, I feel they’re not just little bonuses, but major plus points! Now, onto the disadvantages…
PC games developers have greater flexibility over console developers in one respect. The finished product doesn’t HAVE to be up to the standard of a finished console game. The publisher could come along and say ‘right, you’re getting no more money out of us, let’s get whatever you’ve come up with on the shelves, make ourselves a bit of money and then deal with the problems afterwards.
For console games however, if a game contains technical flaws, there’s no way of fixing them post-release and the game will probably sell poorly as a result.
The bottom line of this point is this – PC games developers can become sloppy and start to rely on patches to make their game a success. Obviously, this IS unacceptable.
Then there’s the matter of the customer actually getting hold of the patch. Publishers release patches on their website, forcing the user to, depending on their internet connection, spend hours downloading the thing, only to be informed the file has become corrupt and has to be downloaded again!
But hang on a sec, what if the gamer hasn’t even got an internet connection? Well, they could always take a stroll down their local news agent and grab a PC gaming mag and get it off the cover CD, assuming the magazine has decided to put it on the CD! And don’t forget the gamer is now having to fork out up to £5 just to fix a problem with their favourite game.
Well, having read through what I’ve just wrote, it makes it seem as though patches are actually bad, which is not what I believe! Maybe this is because I don’t have a problem downloading patches, due to my flat-rate internet connection. Or maybe, I am pushing the idea of developers becoming lazy a bit too far. After all, the last time I’d heard of a 90%+ game with serious technical flaws was Hidden&Dangerous, which is to say quite a long time ago!
Basically, what I really believe is that the advantages of game patches outweighs the disadvantages and that the whole patch issue is a trump card PC gamers have that console gamers don’t. But, hey, that’s just my opinion! What about you lot?
Thanks for reading, if you bothered. Oh, and if it's a load of rubbish, I blame the heat!
Uncle Albert
Anyway, one of these ‘technical’ differences is the popular, some may even say excessive, use of patches for PC games. Developers release patches mainly to iron out bugs that weren’t sorted out pre-release. Some see this as unacceptable (developers don’t release patches for console games), others aren’t bothered at all by it.
Releasing a patch for a PC game has many advantages. Firstly, it improves a game which, sometimes, makes it more enjoyable to play. If your favourite console game suddenly appears to have a glitch of some kind in it, you’re stuck with it. This is not an issue for PC games, who have the reassurance that it won’t be too long before the error is dealt with, by simply installing a file.
Also, developers often include little extras ,such as new characters, vehicles, maps etc, as a way of apologising to the customer for the hassle of downloading the patch. In turn, this means a patch can add to the longetivity factor of a game. What’s even better is that fact that this extra gameplay comes free of charge.
Although, those are the only advantages that spring to mind, I feel they’re not just little bonuses, but major plus points! Now, onto the disadvantages…
PC games developers have greater flexibility over console developers in one respect. The finished product doesn’t HAVE to be up to the standard of a finished console game. The publisher could come along and say ‘right, you’re getting no more money out of us, let’s get whatever you’ve come up with on the shelves, make ourselves a bit of money and then deal with the problems afterwards.
For console games however, if a game contains technical flaws, there’s no way of fixing them post-release and the game will probably sell poorly as a result.
The bottom line of this point is this – PC games developers can become sloppy and start to rely on patches to make their game a success. Obviously, this IS unacceptable.
Then there’s the matter of the customer actually getting hold of the patch. Publishers release patches on their website, forcing the user to, depending on their internet connection, spend hours downloading the thing, only to be informed the file has become corrupt and has to be downloaded again!
But hang on a sec, what if the gamer hasn’t even got an internet connection? Well, they could always take a stroll down their local news agent and grab a PC gaming mag and get it off the cover CD, assuming the magazine has decided to put it on the CD! And don’t forget the gamer is now having to fork out up to £5 just to fix a problem with their favourite game.
Well, having read through what I’ve just wrote, it makes it seem as though patches are actually bad, which is not what I believe! Maybe this is because I don’t have a problem downloading patches, due to my flat-rate internet connection. Or maybe, I am pushing the idea of developers becoming lazy a bit too far. After all, the last time I’d heard of a 90%+ game with serious technical flaws was Hidden&Dangerous, which is to say quite a long time ago!
Basically, what I really believe is that the advantages of game patches outweighs the disadvantages and that the whole patch issue is a trump card PC gamers have that console gamers don’t. But, hey, that’s just my opinion! What about you lot?
Thanks for reading, if you bothered. Oh, and if it's a load of rubbish, I blame the heat!
Uncle Albert
Well, I still think the current method of game distribution will be around for some time yet due to two factors:
1) The slow up-take of broadband internet access (and I'm not just on about in the UK).
2) A lot of potential customers are wary of giving their card details over the internet (normally those who don't know too much about it).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply though.
1) The slow up-take of broadband internet access (and I'm not just on about in the UK).
2) A lot of potential customers are wary of giving their card details over the internet (normally those who don't know too much about it).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply though.
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.
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 think we need to ask ourselfs, what would you rather have, a game with a good idea but too many bugs that spoil it, or the same game that with a patch could be as good as you hoped? I know what I would prefer.
I think we will see patches being used when the on-line gaming takes off, not big ones like the PC games market which always get slated for games requiring patches to make them playable, surely anything which makes a good game better is worthwhile is a good thing, as long as they are free of course.
Looking more towards the console market and the future of the whole on-line gaming network that consoles should have I can see patches being used, problems appear as you said when people aren't part of this network, hopefully an alternative would be available such as mailing the publisher to get a CD with a patch on it. Or maybe take your copy to where you bought it from and trade it with an updated version. All possible.
No matter if you think they are good or bad we will see them being used. Most of the patches I see these days I wouldn't consider as being like most of the ones from the past, they aren't fixing major problems with the game, just solving minor ones and giving some extras to make up for the hassle.
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.
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 think we need to ask ourselfs, what would you rather have, a game with a good idea but too many bugs that spoil it, or the same game that with a patch could be as good as you hoped? I know what I would prefer.
I think we will see patches being used when the on-line gaming takes off, not big ones like the PC games market which always get slated for games requiring patches to make them playable, surely anything which makes a good game better is worthwhile is a good thing, as long as they are free of course.
Looking more towards the console market and the future of the whole on-line gaming network that consoles should have I can see patches being used, problems appear as you said when people aren't part of this network, hopefully an alternative would be available such as mailing the publisher to get a CD with a patch on it. Or maybe take your copy to where you bought it from and trade it with an updated version. All possible.
No matter if you think they are good or bad we will see them being used. Most of the patches I see these days I wouldn't consider as being like most of the ones from the past, they aren't fixing major problems with the game, just solving minor ones and giving some extras to make up for the hassle.
As most of us know, there are many technical differences between PC gaming and console gaming. I say technical because, when it comes down to it, playing a videogame on any platform, whether it be handheld, PC or whatever.
Anyway, one of these ‘technical’ differences is the popular, some may even say excessive, use of patches for PC games. Developers release patches mainly to iron out bugs that weren’t sorted out pre-release. Some see this as unacceptable (developers don’t release patches for console games), others aren’t bothered at all by it.
Releasing a patch for a PC game has many advantages. Firstly, it improves a game which, sometimes, makes it more enjoyable to play. If your favourite console game suddenly appears to have a glitch of some kind in it, you’re stuck with it. This is not an issue for PC games, who have the reassurance that it won’t be too long before the error is dealt with, by simply installing a file.
Also, developers often include little extras ,such as new characters, vehicles, maps etc, as a way of apologising to the customer for the hassle of downloading the patch. In turn, this means a patch can add to the longetivity factor of a game. What’s even better is that fact that this extra gameplay comes free of charge.
Although, those are the only advantages that spring to mind, I feel they’re not just little bonuses, but major plus points! Now, onto the disadvantages…
PC games developers have greater flexibility over console developers in one respect. The finished product doesn’t HAVE to be up to the standard of a finished console game. The publisher could come along and say ‘right, you’re getting no more money out of us, let’s get whatever you’ve come up with on the shelves, make ourselves a bit of money and then deal with the problems afterwards.
For console games however, if a game contains technical flaws, there’s no way of fixing them post-release and the game will probably sell poorly as a result.
The bottom line of this point is this – PC games developers can become sloppy and start to rely on patches to make their game a success. Obviously, this IS unacceptable.
Then there’s the matter of the customer actually getting hold of the patch. Publishers release patches on their website, forcing the user to, depending on their internet connection, spend hours downloading the thing, only to be informed the file has become corrupt and has to be downloaded again!
But hang on a sec, what if the gamer hasn’t even got an internet connection? Well, they could always take a stroll down their local news agent and grab a PC gaming mag and get it off the cover CD, assuming the magazine has decided to put it on the CD! And don’t forget the gamer is now having to fork out up to £5 just to fix a problem with their favourite game.
Well, having read through what I’ve just wrote, it makes it seem as though patches are actually bad, which is not what I believe! Maybe this is because I don’t have a problem downloading patches, due to my flat-rate internet connection. Or maybe, I am pushing the idea of developers becoming lazy a bit too far. After all, the last time I’d heard of a 90%+ game with serious technical flaws was Hidden&Dangerous, which is to say quite a long time ago!
Basically, what I really believe is that the advantages of game patches outweighs the disadvantages and that the whole patch issue is a trump card PC gamers have that console gamers don’t. But, hey, that’s just my opinion! What about you lot?
Thanks for reading, if you bothered. Oh, and if it's a load of rubbish, I blame the heat!
Uncle Albert
Anyway, one of these ‘technical’ differences is the popular, some may even say excessive, use of patches for PC games. Developers release patches mainly to iron out bugs that weren’t sorted out pre-release. Some see this as unacceptable (developers don’t release patches for console games), others aren’t bothered at all by it.
Releasing a patch for a PC game has many advantages. Firstly, it improves a game which, sometimes, makes it more enjoyable to play. If your favourite console game suddenly appears to have a glitch of some kind in it, you’re stuck with it. This is not an issue for PC games, who have the reassurance that it won’t be too long before the error is dealt with, by simply installing a file.
Also, developers often include little extras ,such as new characters, vehicles, maps etc, as a way of apologising to the customer for the hassle of downloading the patch. In turn, this means a patch can add to the longetivity factor of a game. What’s even better is that fact that this extra gameplay comes free of charge.
Although, those are the only advantages that spring to mind, I feel they’re not just little bonuses, but major plus points! Now, onto the disadvantages…
PC games developers have greater flexibility over console developers in one respect. The finished product doesn’t HAVE to be up to the standard of a finished console game. The publisher could come along and say ‘right, you’re getting no more money out of us, let’s get whatever you’ve come up with on the shelves, make ourselves a bit of money and then deal with the problems afterwards.
For console games however, if a game contains technical flaws, there’s no way of fixing them post-release and the game will probably sell poorly as a result.
The bottom line of this point is this – PC games developers can become sloppy and start to rely on patches to make their game a success. Obviously, this IS unacceptable.
Then there’s the matter of the customer actually getting hold of the patch. Publishers release patches on their website, forcing the user to, depending on their internet connection, spend hours downloading the thing, only to be informed the file has become corrupt and has to be downloaded again!
But hang on a sec, what if the gamer hasn’t even got an internet connection? Well, they could always take a stroll down their local news agent and grab a PC gaming mag and get it off the cover CD, assuming the magazine has decided to put it on the CD! And don’t forget the gamer is now having to fork out up to £5 just to fix a problem with their favourite game.
Well, having read through what I’ve just wrote, it makes it seem as though patches are actually bad, which is not what I believe! Maybe this is because I don’t have a problem downloading patches, due to my flat-rate internet connection. Or maybe, I am pushing the idea of developers becoming lazy a bit too far. After all, the last time I’d heard of a 90%+ game with serious technical flaws was Hidden&Dangerous, which is to say quite a long time ago!
Basically, what I really believe is that the advantages of game patches outweighs the disadvantages and that the whole patch issue is a trump card PC gamers have that console gamers don’t. But, hey, that’s just my opinion! What about you lot?
Thanks for reading, if you bothered. Oh, and if it's a load of rubbish, I blame the heat!
Uncle Albert