Jaffe Feels Games Should Not Need Updates On Week One

While speaking at a panel at GDC, David Jaffe talked about his affinity for handhelds on the can, but he also brought up the point that games receive too many updates — including week one patches. He said that games should only receive 3-4 updates a year.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
2839d ago Replies(3)
xDSJxPyro2839d ago

I would love for this to become true, but the way games are made these days, seems as though developers see this as a leisure. They think, well why spend time on making it more polished, if we can just release a day one patch.

I want games to work right when I buy them, not put them in and immediately prompted to download an update.

-Alpha2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

You are right, but there are some issues you have to remember:

sometimes games have deadlines publishers require to meet. Devs resort to patches to make up for this. Other times the game is just rushed and other times the community demands changes that the devs listen to.

I expect patches whenever they are necessary. I don't think it's fair to screw early consumers, pre-order buyers, etc. by withholding patches of games that need them. If I pay day one full cash I expect the best treatment from devs, and a majority of time most devs continue to monitor games past release before taking a break.

I want games to work right too, but if they don't, I want devs to be persistent and not stop caring after the product releases.

Patches are a good thing, but admittedly exploited, like DLC. I can't imagine some developers like releasing broken games. I think publishers are usually to blame, if some devs had more freedom maybe they would release products properly.

Just look at Activision-- I don't think it's devs decisions to withhold betas or choose routine release dates.

In fact, Robert Bowling himself said IW had a major patch that was canceled due to Activision's will.

xDSJxPyro2839d ago

I understand that, I get that they have a release date, but if they need to get more people in to play test it, or find bugs, then I say do it.

I am happy that they have the ability to patch day one, but the trend is just getting out of hand. It seems that every game has a day one patch, and it's getting old.

But I would rather have a working game, then a bug ridden mess on day one.

-Alpha2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

Well, I can't argue with that.

AAACE52839d ago

Hell, some of these games get updates on release day!

2fk2839d ago

yup that's true...COD is still patching how sad

NeloAnjelo2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

I appreciate your anti-CODness.

-Alpha2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

So, patching a game is a bad thing now? MW2 has a hacker issue. I find nothing sad about getting it patched :/

outwar60102839d ago

mw2 is still being patched due to lack of qa and beta testing so is black ops funny how first party games like halo, killzone etc have these problems

mushroomwig2839d ago

I think it's both good and bad.

Good because obviously updates are supposed to improve the functionality of the game and fix any errors that are present.

Bad because devolopers should find and fix errors before release, not everyone has their console connected to the internet which means some people are stuck with version 1.00 and whatever problems it might have.

-Alpha2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

Killzone 3 has had two patches already and a third one on the way, one of them which came out day one. Some of the tweaks involved polishing the Single Player.

MW2's latest patch revolves around the hacking outbreak. OP is pointlessly trolling on COD.

HeavenlySnipes2839d ago

anything wrong with week one patches. For Halo and KZ3 I think the patches were for multiplayer tweaks made after feedback from their betas.

Dlacy13g2839d ago

Its not that patching is bad... After all, patching has really been one of the biggest innovations for console games. Patches are needed and server a purpose when needed.

The true problem is too many companies are cutting corners or not truly giving 100% to making the game bug free at shipping time due to the ability to patch. Its become a crutch for developers / publishers to rely on rather than be something to use in only extreme situations.

NeloAnjelo2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

I think there are two sides to the argument really. Patching is good because it fixes alot of things and in doing so improving the quality of the offering.

However, some games are patched as a result of lazy development, or lack of beta testing, or the Devs not having enough time. There are significant issues with KZ3 crashing and locking up. But GG is also adding a large number of needed features and some that the community is demanding.

I really can't comment on COD's patching. I feel since MW the games have diminished somewhat.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2839d ago
2fk2839d ago

u guys got me wrong sorry about that....patching is fine but countless patching is wrong.

NeloAnjelo2839d ago

Careful 2fk. You dont want to be accused of being a troll now, and have your bubbles taken away. I find your comments quite funny. Some may misconstrue though.

omgpoppanda2839d ago

I agree with this. But also,sometimes there might be issues that developers won't see without alot of people playing them.

SexCells2839d ago

Fully in agreement here, we need less unfinished games being released.

Show all comments (43)
The story is too old to be commented.