Gamers, meet patch cycle. Patch cycle, gamers!

The biggest problem with having the ability to patch games: developer's feel they can afford to rush them out to market. "Afterall, we can just patch the bugs later, right?"

My opinion: A delayed game is ALWAYS better than a crappy or screwed-up one (props to Zelda).

I think a contributing factors to this may be the publishers. Games are such big business now that the publishers put lots of stress on the devs to get a product out as fast as possible. It dosen't cost much to put a patch on the internet, and it's alot easier to let gamers find bugs for them It always comes down to the bottom line. And in this case gamers are getting screwed.

They used to say that PC games had so many bugs because of compatibility issues, and it being hard to program for a wide variety of hardware. So what's their excuse now?

holding off on a game until it's patched, not knowing if it will be patched, seems a little silly. the game is still perfectly playable as all of my friends list has the game open and are thoroughly enjoying it.

Morrowind was also as buggy as hell, and even the release was still buggy. when you get software of such a complexity, bugs become inescapable. it doesn't matter if they have the worlds best QA, they're never going to get them all.

patches don't bother me that much, and i'm just happy that they're actually patching them. as the software becomes more complex it's inevitable. they can test for years in a QA department, but they're never going to find most of the bugs. every patch that's gone out thus far are to fix network related issues or the networking portion of the games. which makes it seem unlikely that bugs or cheats like that in Oblivion will get patched, unless it gets GOTY ;) i think that until developers and QA departments get even more experience, we will continue to see a lot of patches.

some of the online modifications though appear to just balance things out a bit better, which isn't really a bug, but tweaks to make the game more enjoyable, and often made at the request of gamers.

in short, i don't have a problem with them. they've become a necessity of sorts, and no matter how much we complain, and how much they throw at QA, they're never going to find all of the bugs. in some cases, it's probably better that way as it allows for some interesting cheats that become rather infamous like that of Relm's sketch or the Pac-man split screen level.

famous video game bugs trivia:
http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz87325a01aa0.html

one word: Market-Pressure

@1

We haven't seen a Zelda with an online connection available to it yet though have we?

I think patches on consoles are always good. I would have liked a patch for some of the games on Xbox (Morrowind, DXIW) but unfortunatly that wasn't possible because they only patched XBL compatible ones back in the day.

The excuse is the same with every single piece of complex software. The bigger the program the more bugs it will contain.

As games get bigger the more bugs it will contain. This is software enginering 101 people.

Yeah, patches are good, if you have a bug to fix. But the problem shouldn't exist - they shouldn't release something if it doesn't work properly.

Not picking up oblivion because of an infinite gold cheat loophole is pretty dumb to me. If you don't to do it, just don't. It's a single player game.

There is no need for an infinite gold cheat if you want ot play that way, just turn down the difficulty slider all the way and you'll be able to kill anyone anywhere. It all depends on how you want to play the game. You don't get any extra credit (achievements) for beating the game on hard AFAIK.

There are a fair few bugs on the PC version, afterall with the wide combinations of hardware and software configurations it could be played on for the pc, the testing is needed to be much more extensive than any console version which all runs on pretty much the same hardware etc.

I hardly see the infinite money glitch reason not to buy this evolutionary game though, it's just like a cheat, if you don't want to use it, don't.

My copy of Ob for PC has a few bugs, not so much in game, but in the form of crashing.
Occasionally the Oblivion.exe causes an error and the game exits.
Thankfully due to the very frequent autosaves i have never missed more than a few seconds of gametime because of these crashes.
This is more of an annoyance than a problem.

I agree that the bug testing is not perfect yet, but so far i havent found anything that detracts from the experience; i have had nothing but fun.

Everyone should own this game. It is game of the year, no question.

Simple Games are easy to test. Like Final Fantasy or similar games with fix boundaries. Games as Oblivion are so complex that you bever can test all conditions in it. It's impossible to check everything in such a game. That has nothing to do with consoles, it has something to to with human errors and the space where they are working in.

"The real question is whether developers are skimping on QA because they know they can patch the game after release."

The real answer is yes. I've owned about every console ever made, and I have never seen as many glitches as the games on the 360. It's constant. I think the whole thing was rushed because of the "we can always release a patch later" PC philosophy. Patches aren't good things. They're just better than a broken game that remains broken. But games were never broken to the point GRAW (the glitchiest game ever made, and the only game I have literally not been able to compete due to glitches) or Dead or Alive 4 are. I know you're all for this "digital distribution" crap, but in this console gamer's opinion, it's garbage and it's leading to quicky games.

We must face facts here, this is an industry that demands games be out to a certain schedule. Only when a game is a guaranteed hit when it arrives is allowed to be delayed for a while eg Godfather(license), Oblivion or Zelda(Both well respected,existing franchises). The ability to patch a game in consoles will ease the blow now. In the current business known as the games industry, it is a necessary evil.
It's the suits' fault, not the devs.(KOTOR 2 is a perfect example of when deadlines go wrong)

On the oblivion thing, the collector's DVD has an interview with the lead QA guy. His job was immense. Didn't envy him.
At least we can now expect and demand fixes to these games, we won't have to put up with them for ever.

Mind you, the poster was a bit harsh on a bug that is entirely optional on the part of the player and hardly game breaking.

Ref. #1:
Drunken chimps could've gotten Zelda up and running without a glitch by this point. I can't believe that the delay is due to bugs, at this point. Nintendo is waiting for release until the Big Stuff comes out. Bastards.

I remember news about PC games being released that were completely unplayable and the patch being necessary to run the game. It was only a handful of years ago, I think Penny Arcade mentioned it even.

It's not quite so bad yet since there are so many people that aren't online on consoles. Companies can't count on everyone being able to get the patches... but then again, (*dons conspiracy theorist cap*) maybe that's MS's plan to get people on x-blah. (*removes tin-foil*)

Just wait 'till everyone's console is on broadband and see how many games have patches before they've hit store shelves. QA is always woefully neglected, because product managers are pushing deadlines, the coders keep moving them back, and everyone squeezes out QA.

Companies feel they have to budget on a deadline because while you're making a product, you aren't making money. Large corporations gotta push that damned profit per quarter tho. *disgusted sigh*

I don't get all the hate DOA4 is getting for its glitches. I've had it since launch and its played perfectly so far. As for Oblivion, the infinite gold glitch is an optional glitch where you have to go out of your way to exploit, not something that will somehow automatically impose itself on a player. Holding off on the best 360 game just because of that is beyond retarded.

I have never seen - and this is indisputable - as much need for patches for console games as the Xbox 360 has. Dead or Alive 4, COD 2, Oblivion (not just for the gold thingy, have read there are many small glitches). In fact, patches for console games haven't really existed until now. The Xbox had addons, but not patches. This is a bad thing. I cannot for the life me see why anyone would defend this practice, even logically understanding the complexity of code these days. If a movie breaks down during a screening due to a faulty or misthreaded projector, do most of you just say "oh well, a projector has hundreds of moving parts, and film is stored in an analog, non uniform medium that is prone to heat expansion and organic shedding?" No - you rightly get pissed and dissapointed. Do I expect a game like Oblivion to be 100% bug free? No. But do I expect software companies to do their damndest to Q&A their products, properly? Yes. And the release of COD 2 and DOA 4 proves this did not occur, especially COD 2. It's great they patched it, but let's not split hairs. That games' multiplayer was shortchanged to release with the console. PERIOD. It's good they finally got around to fixing it some (creating more bugs). This is not about the convenience of patching. This is about the lack of some software companies releasing things when they're finished, and releasing things when they're unfinished in order to justify quarterly returns. Microsoft are instituting the problem they have with their OS towards their game developers. Why someone who pays $50 for that would be happy with it is beyond me.

You know, I partly blame reviewers for all this, and I'm including myself in that number.

See, we're supposed to let people know these things. We're supposed to be up front with people and tell them a game does something particularly poorly. And that includes bugs that are so bad that they interfere with gameplay.

And yet, I read Joystiq's previous post about Oblivion and note that the coverage is universally fawning. Reading those reviews, I'm under the impression that the game does everything perfectly - literally in the case of the three outlets that gave it a perfect score.

The problem is that reviewers often get advanced betas for review, and those tend to be buggy. I myself am currently playing through a game due out next month (not telling which) and it has dozens of display and translation errors. Many reviewers just take it on faith that these bugs will be corrected. But it's quite apparent that we can't afford to do that anymore.

What I'm going to do is simple. Sure, I'll rate the game as I think it would be without bugs. However, I'm going to include a paragraph or two describing the bugs I've dealt with and how I'd lower the score (I'm guessing by about 1.5 points on a ten-point scale) if they don't correct them. And should they not correct them? I'll edit it to subtract those points and explain why.

Let me get this straight...

The whiners on the Elderscrolls forums are begging and demanding that a fix be made for an exploit they found in a single player game? An exploit that you have to go out of the way in order to perform. And the only reason more than one person knows about this exploit is because the person who found it not only posted it on the forums, but submitted it to Digg and Slashdot and now Joystiq?

This is not an online game where an exploit like this would unbalance the entire economy of the game. I don't know about most people, but if I see a forum post detailing how you can exploit a minor bug in the game and remove any challenge and/or enjoyment out of the total experience... I'm not going to do it.

I'm not saying the game does not need patching; but I'd rather have the developers fix some of the buggy NPC pathfinding and wonky Radiant AI than spend precious developer hours fixing a stupid exploit just to make a few overzealous whiners happy.

"I have never seen - and this is indisputable - as much need for patches for console games as the Xbox 360 has."

that is entirely disputable. the FF3(6) sketch but was much worse than any of the 360 bugs alone (in terms of frequency and severity), and did anyone get a fixed copy that wouldn't erase all of their saved games or any of the other possible issues it could've caused?

the issue here isn't really whether or not the games are buggy, and there's no doubt that they could've been better tested, but there comes a point when it reaches a point that QA aren't turning any critical bugs. the issue is that we live in a much more connected world and people are going to find them, throw it on a blog, and it gets sensationalized.

Ask yourself, Should Nintendo not have released SMB because the negative world existed? what about small&firey mario? what about the block climbing bug? what about dying and still clearing the castles? would a years worth of QA testing have found these bug? many people still don't even know that exists.

here you can find just a submitted list of glitches (they're not all glitches though):

http://kontek.net/davidwonn/ for the NES and SNES. SMB alone has quite a lot of them as does SMB64, both good and bad. you probably never encountered any of them while playing through.

people want to blame this on MS, but the truth is, the 3 games people are mentioning the most have nothing to do with MS. DOA4 alone was delayed quite a lot just to try and fix some of the issues, so no one can really say that QA there wasn't doing something. MS isn't bringing anything new into gaming except the ability to patch some of these.

Soco - glitches have been around forever. I accept that. I can remember the actual piece of paper that came with Ghostsbusters on the C64. I can remember the floppy disc they had to mail me for Ultima VI. The SMB glitches are not the same whatsoever as, say, COD 2's multiplayer being so featureless as to inspire disbelief, and the idea that developers are going to bring to the Xbox 360 and please god not the PS3 and Revo, that you can release a game in shitty state to justify your quarter, and just try and fix it later knowing full well you shipped an incomplete product. If you think that doesn't happen, you're naive. In the past console developers had the uniform hardware and lack of a way of patching to force them to be rigorous. No longer, and for us consumers, that sucks. I used to be a PC gamer and that's the experience I'm trying to escape.

Props to zelda... they should have never put a release date on that damn game in the first place.

Do not for a moment believe the Rev and PS3 will be free of this. The era in which most consoles will be connected to the internet is also one of growing complexity in games and accompanying difficulty in finding every issue in testing. With an item as complex as Oblivion the tester team must focus on things that outright prevent proper gameplay, such as crashes or failure of normal mechanisms like the allocation points for player actions under the experience system. Looking out for potential cheats must take a low priority.

Ever wonder why it took so long for another game from the Morrowind crew and why such a game is so rare in the console world? It's a painfully difficult project. They could hold up the console release and see how many bugs turn up on the PC that would also need correcting on the console side but that would also mean people whining about their version taking too long.

Thus far the patching of 360 games is quite minor compared to what is the common experience for PC gamers. It will hopefully remain that way. If I were in the publisher's position my focus (for games where it applies) would be on the single-player game, both in terms of bugs and feature completeness. Most of the bugs would likely also affect multiplayer. While there should be a sufficient amount of multiplayer content on release, it is less of a burden on those players to download more content over the months following the release. (That additional content would eventually find its way into the retail package if it achieves Greatest Hits status.) In addition, it becomes a major marketing tool to keep the online players interested and bring in new buyers as the multiplayer gains in interest. This helps relieve some of the burden of high dev costs to smaller publishers.

This will only grow as more games are sold primarily online. Publishers will seek to keep the size of the initial package to a minimum both to reduce bandwidth costs and to get the player going soon as possible. Players anxious to see if they like the game will prefer to start playing sooner rather than later, so having additional content trickling in later isn't a problem if they've already got enough to know if they want to see more or make the purchase if they're in time constrained demo mode.

Online sales will also drive episodic content to become commonplace. Eventually it will take a really severe bug to catch gamers' attention since so much of the patch process will become invisible to them. This won't make thorough testing any easier but it will improve the bug correction process.

@every-idiot-who-can't-figure-out-why-Zelda's-delayed

It's taking so long because, duh, Revolution support, which has been confirmed. It's obviously gonna be a launch title...

Heaven-forbid a game designer actually tried to make his game GOOD and not just worry about the instant-cash he could rake in by just releasing it.