I always wondered how much Sony and Microsoft are charging publishers and developers for a single patch. Now I know: too much.
"He revealed that it costs $40,000 to put up a patch on XBL or PSN." WOW! That is some incentive to get it right the first time. That's actually quite ridiculous. I paid $25 to Google and I can put as much content on the Android market as I like FOREVER. $40k per patch is insane.
Yes, the cost is really ridiculous. Sony and Microsoft should change their strategy regarding this matter.
I don't think it should change. If it was cheap and easy, we would see slot of lazy developers releasing un finished games, with the "I'll patch it later" attitude. More so than we see now
^ I agree, Angrymorgan. It's exactly that way on Android. It's flooded with crap because it's so easy to publish anything.
It's outrageous, and all it does it prevent people who have real issues from patching shit. There should be a charge after, say, the 2nd or 3rd patch, but bear in mind that "patch" also applies to free DLC. If a developer wants to add features, and not just fix things, they're looking out forking out $40K just to give you extra stuff for free...which precisely nobody is going to do.
@Angrymorgan & Estranged: Surely the stupid long quality tests that Microsoft and Sony do on games should ensure 'it's right first time' and to an acceptable level of quality. Your naive if you think a decent game can survive without patches (especially multiplayer games where patches are needed to maintain balance).
@ljh217 So you would be happy to pay £40-£50 fir a broken game? Because that would happen alot.
Wow.. And I thought paying for xbl (depending where you get the cards from but that is what researching is for :D), internet, games etc were bad...
It wouldn't be a problem if they made the game from the start the best it can be, that is first fix your game and then release it. I really don't know why they have people in their Q&A team... :/
But all these patches are FREE so they take a load on the servers. Imagine those millions of COD owners downloading a patch at the same time. I'm sure the money Sony/MS ask for these patches are spent on upgrading and maintaining their servers.
If you've ever used steam and you've got a large library you'll have multiple games updating every few hours.... Valve host all the bandwidth. Bandwidth is actually incredibly cheap that is not at all why they charge for it.
So are Sony and MS charging that much alone as in that's a flat fee everyone pays. Or was he saying that it costs his company that much total, including his own overhead i.e. labor and the time it took to produce said patch.
Sounds bad, I'd like this explained in more detail.
on one hand that price is insane but on the other hand if patches were dirt cheap then imagine how bad these indie devs would release their games and just go patch crazy fixing them.
That's pretty insulting to indie devs if I must say. On the PC game market, where they can either release the games on their own or sell through Steam, which puts a lot of trust into developers after the games themselves get approved, the only example of indie devs excessively patching games is while they're in public beta/alpha. Every patch after that usually adds a lot of free content. Other than that, indie devs are for the most part responsible enough to release a game when it's finished and thoroughly tested. Don't base your opinion off of a dev like Notch, who releases a still buggy and unfinished game as the final retail version at full price.
Good lord that is quite a bit now I kind of feel a bit bad about crying about how many patches [x] game was getting at the time...Then again corporations themselves would have some funds whereas indie ones wouldn't have as much, but damn 40,000...
At first I thought "good" , keeps them from releasing buggy games somewhat, but I think I would rather a slightly buggy game rather than waiting an extra 2-3 months. Besides you just can't get all the bugs out without stress testing it with gamers. Maybe they just need to re tool their pricing for indie devs. It is not like the makers of CoD and Bf can't afford 40k.
Maybe they need to stop trying to push out games so quick and go back to having real beta's instead of glorified demo's. Then they wouldn't have to worry so much about a $40,000.00 bill to fix something that could have been fixed before hand.
The lengths to which people go to make more money off of something is absurd. If I were a console manufacturer, I would charge for royalties that existed prior to online taking off, and nothing else. That model worked for years and most aspects I know of seemed relatively fair. I never understood why the patch certification process takes so damn long either. In the years console games have been receiving patches, I have never once heard of one that was actually rejected by certification, which tells me that developers are responsible enough at least to test their patches to the point where they will not muck up your hardware. That'll be 40K and a 3 week walk of shame for gamers to yell at you, Sir.
But see, its their fault for releasing a broken game and therefore the game should remain broken. /the-general-consensus-in-thi s-thread
lol do it right the first time :D
I wonder do first party studios have to pay this fee? KZ3 had 10 patches I think, that'd be $400k if that's the case.
Guerrilla Games is a first party studio. I don't think Sony is going to charge itself to patch a game. Although I have heard that in the past different divisions of Sony have acted very antagonistic toward one another. It's not relevant here because SCE and GG are part of the same division.
While you shouldnt be reliant on patches, I dont believe any developer/studio wants to release a buggy product. Patches improve, not on fix, they're shouldnt be penalised for that, it's extortionate.
I agree. I think patches can be a good thing, because they improve the game. I think a lot of people around here are short-sighted and don't realize this. Sometimes, even if a game isn't really broken, it's still good to have frequent patches, because they might improve the game performance or graphics or gameplay balance. For example, MW3 worked fine for the most part, but many gamers were still complaining about how overpowered the dual SMGs, the Type-95, and the Striker shotgun were. So they released a patch to balance these weapons out. The patch wasn't necessary, because the game worked well enough, but it improved the game. Another example is BF3. BF3 currently works fine as it is, but a patch is coming in February that will significantly improve upon the balancing of the weapon attachments in the game. Again, not necessary, but it will make the game ultimately more enjoyable. Uncharted 3 was perfectly playable and functional when it first came out. However, some players took issue with the feel of the controls and the presence of input lag. Thus, Naughty Dog listened to fan feedback and released a patch that added a new control option to appease those who wanted to use it. Again, this is an example of how patches improve games for the better. Patches are a good thing, especially for multiplayer games or deep open-world games that warrant constant tuning and rebalancing that can significantly improve the game. Lumping a $40,000 tax on each patch simply delays patches or deters developers from releasing too many of them. And that's a shame, in my opinion.
Thats why he hates them so much. Now we know why it took such a long time for the Skyrim patch, they wanted it to be perfect
The fact that they have the gall to charge devs to patch their games in the first place is absurd, but to charge $40,000 for each patch is unforgivable. All this on top of subscription-based online, day-one DLC and the ever-rising price of indie games. Microsoft just does not know when to stop taking everyone's money and their customers don't know when to stop buying into it unquestioningly.
ohhhhhhhhh now i see ur agenda...u mention online based subscription then u mention microsoft...hmm im pretty sure that sony and ms charges indie devs for patches not just ms. keep ur biased opinions to urself...
I'm not biased for PS3, just for PC, were we get mountains of free or extremely low-priced content from developers because they're either totally independant or are channeling sales through distributors that trust them. PS3 certainly isn't exempt from these practices but at least their business strategies offer more alternatives instead of vying for an all-encompassing money train.
Just finish your products before release and you won't have that problem...
Doesn't always work like that... Not every patch is because the game is unfinished. Balance patches for instance
i agree with the indie dev's that this is bull shit. what if the "patch" adds more content? not just a bad release? one of the biggest thing's for an indie is to satisfy customers and free content is one of them. proprietary systems FTL again.
I actually get this point. I'm in the "they should get it right the first time" crowd, but I get the indie dev issue. IMO Patches that improve the game should be less and patches that fix QA issues should be more. We also have to realize that Sony and MS have to distribute these patches to hundreds of thousands and even million of people. That doesn't come cheep.
That's alot of money no wonder they never want to patch there games, making think about cod and alot of there patches.
I don't think $40,000 for the patch is unreasonable, not really. It's definitely going to hit smaller developers more so maybe some sort of allowances could be made. Patches aren't necessarily evil, maybe if the patch adds new or substantial content they reduce or remove the cost.
Well they need to pay the programmer(s) whose working on it. Those guys aren't cheap either.
For big developers it's probably not a lot of money. The lesson here though is get it right first time! Remember last gen where games released and just worked..
Wow Schafer what an irony!!!!
Simple fix don't release broken games to begin with and the problem is solved.
Good, more incentive to get it right. First patch should be free only if it comes out in 2 weeks after launch, 2nd should be 40k, 3rd should add 40k and so on.
"patches should be free!" that the jest i get from most of you. one thing sony and MS do not own is a cable infrastructure that spans the entire globe , offering you internet. they get charged for it just like you and i. do you know how much bandwidth they suck up a month? are they supposed to let people using their closed systems to have a free tab to run up this cost of theirs? of course not. (admittedly i imagine 40k is an inflated figure.) for example: COD blops has 10million monthly active users(quick number grabbed from google search). say they release a paltry 36mb patch. that comes out to 351562.5 gigs of info when all active users download the patch. wonder what comcast would say about that? "lazy devs should do it right the first time!"
this is another summary of many of your posts. most of you have no idea what you are talking about. you just stick a disc in a machine and press play. well that disc you take for granted contains million(hundreds of millions? perhaps billions at this point) lines of code. consider a 10 gig game contains 10737418240 bytes(characters). the average english word is 5 characters(bytes). the average person reads 225 words per minute, 13,500 words per hour. it would take you 795364 hours to read the contents of a 10 gig games disk. why cannot these idiot lazy devs make MY games flawless the first time? lawl.
$40k... remember that they also charge like $0.02 per GB too. 1 million players @ 1GB each is another $20k.
Well now it makes sense why MGS4 never got trophies patched in :(
Maybe they could have a much lower price for the 1st patch and then a 40kish price for any patch after that, it would punish repeat offenders, ok I just made them sound like sexual predators...
All you people defending this, you deregu
okay but could they not do something like The first 10 patches are like 40 000 each and the next are free?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.