Xbox, you've gotta be ****tin' me.

DiscoStu · 14-01-2003 1:04pm #1

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2908636,00.html

ha patches for xbox games

Matt Simis · 14-01-2003 1:51pm

Hmm.... your title implies that you think that the ability to improve a game after release is a bad thing??

Matt

ozpass · 14-01-2003 1:56pm

It's a fair point. Crap gets released on all three console platforms, with Xbox being the only one to provide a remedy following release. As long as developers don't take this as a precedent to release bug-riddled garbage early, it's no bad thing.

14-01-2003 1:57pm

I think it more implies that software should be properly tested and not filled with bugs.

Some PC games look like they're still released in beta, and the developers/publishers have the sfaety net of releasing a patch which doesn't help.

- Kevin

super_furry · 14-01-2003 5:57pm

I think the issue is, that these things should have been done before the game was released. All too often, PC developers release software that they know is not ready to be released, safe in the knowledge that they can bring out a patch to adress these issues after the game has been sold.

theciscokid · 14-01-2003 7:29pm

i agree with Discostu on this matter,, although it is good to be able to improve a game,

you know some developers will become dependent when it compromises a time schedule..

i mean dl new levels is great, but console gaming was never really lacking unfinished games etc..

now i know some have their minor bugs , but none can compare with some of the pc games out there, which unfortunately is the road some xbox games might head down if we're not to careful.

Thorbar · 14-01-2003 7:33pm

I can see microsoft encouraging this as being able to download patches over Xbox live! could improve sales. But if they've any hidesight they'd see that allowing developers a parachute for releasing buggy software will only piss off the majority of xbox owners who can't get access to the broadband service. Then again microsoft and buggy software seem to go hand in hand.

Shinji · 14-01-2003 8:20pm

Downloadable content = good.

Patches = very, very bad.

The whole point of console software is that you DON'T release it with crashbugs because a bad bug means you have to withdraw the discs from retail and reprint them, and offer new copies to everyone who bought them - at MASSIVE expense. So now Xbox Live titles will be shipped out the door with big blasted bugs because they can be fixed later.... Great, just wonderful. The anti-MS brigade bleated about this months ago and were told to stop scaremongering, it'd never happen... Looks like they were right, then

segadreamcast · 14-01-2003 8:25pm

Unbelievable.

Shoot me Shinji :P.

Shinji · 14-01-2003 8:39pm

Got a bullet here with your name on it....

spooky donkey · 14-01-2003 8:43pm

Well this new is bad for X box then as its putting me off the idea of gettin one now. That was the whole bueaty of console games they get them right before releasing them. They dident get rushed and the quality uasually is good. Now M$ and software companies can ship any kinda rubbish and go ah sure we can fix it after its released. X box only has broad band as far as i know meaning a lot if irish players couldent get the patches then.

This is very bad for M$!

Matt Simis · 14-01-2003 10:43pm

OK... but this all sounds like "ifs" and "buts" at this point.

The fact of the matter is UT2003 is getting a minor patch which it could have done without and getting the game improved after purchase.

My understanding of the XB is that magazine covers will also carry some patches\addons.

I would not imagine MS would allow companies to release SW with known bugs as it would hurt the XB imagine. MS can really crack down on sub par 3rd party software when they want to and, from dealing with their WHQL people, I speak from experience.

Another angle.... what about the waves of multiplatform games; XB is the only platform that has a chance of future patches to sort out any niggling problems\expand game and that again, is a good thing.

matt

segadreamcast · 14-01-2003 10:57pm

Another angle.... what about the waves of multiplatform games; XB is the only platform that has a chance of future patches to sort out any niggling problems\expand game and that again, is a good thing.

Yes but in some of these multiplatform games we already see some minor glitches that are XBox exclusive.

Timesplitters 2 for instance suffers in multiplayer mode when you can only view two awards for each player and then see about one or two pixels of the next line. This flaw doesn't appear on the GameCube or (to my knowledge) PS2 variant... laziness on XBox development perhaps? It gets even worse when at times the game claims the hard drive has been removed during play... um, yes.

Patches aren't good - free ad-ons with magazine covers as was originally planned are good. But patches? No thank you. This brings XBox worryingly close to PC gaming - which is not really the right direction. XBox has to be kept as consumer friendly as possible - how will Mr. Joe soap 56k react when he finds out he has to start connecting to the internet, spending minutes (maybe even hours) downloading bits and pieces that should've been in the game in the first place?...

This is a cloud on the otherwise near flawless XBox horizon.

*Taps feet and chants* This is not another Dreamcast, this is not another Dreamca...

Blitzkrieger · 15-01-2003 12:57am

No matter how hard you try to debug a piece of sw as complex as today's games, odds are one or two will slip through. I remember having GTA on the PS1. It ran fine 99.9% of the time, but it crashed every now and again, which was really annoying as it's not like it had an autosave. It would have been good to have been able to fix it.

I'm not naive enough to think that developers won't ship a product they know has bugs in it and patch it later, but if this happens too much, people just won't buy it.

It might even have a positive effect, by reducing the need for a huge testing budget.

Shinji · 15-01-2003 8:20am

It might even have a positive effect, by reducing the need for a huge testing budget.

On which planet, exactly, would that be a positive effect?

Have you any concept of how many people are put off PC games entirely, not by the stupidly expensive hardware, but by the utterly shoddy quality of most of the games themselves at release? How could it possibly be a good idea for console games to follow down that path?

Yes, the odd bug or two does slip through on some console games, but they're VERY rarely crash bugs. Note that you had to go to GTA1 on the PSX to find an example, and that you could remember it clearly... When's the last time a PC game crashed on you? Yesterday? Last week maybe? Can you remember which PC games were crashing "occasionally" five years ago?

When someone here thought their copy of Eternal Darkness had crashed, we had a huge thread on the forum about it... You wouldn't get that response for the latest PC game crashing, would you? Says it all really....

Doodee · 15-01-2003 8:55am

FFS Rob, Do u honestly believe that the developers themselves want to release a game thats full of bugs (unless they are under EA

) I mean ffs, the likes of peter molyneux, John Carmac, American McGee all want to make games that will win awards, same with Rockstar and such, I know sure as hell the guys in my Course intend to produce a mind blowing game (consider they had the cheek to plagurise my ****ing idea's). The advantage to it is there but I doubt that the developers will just get lazy and start shooting out games full of glitches.

Regardless it shouldnt put ppl off buying X-Boxes.
Now, where sells Pie at 8:53am in Temple bar?

P.S Any news your end on Shade Rob?
P.P.S Soz bout the 19th BTW, I tried to contact you but couldnt and had to leave for the states

Shinji · 15-01-2003 10:19am

Glitches are rarely down to the developer; given half a chance, most developers would hold back their game until they were happy that it was perfect. The problem is and always has been the publishers who are prepared to rush out buggy heaps of crap in order to meet financial deadlines. Previously they were afraid to do this on console games because of the huge financial impact of having to order a recall of the product; however, that doesn't happen on the PC (because of patching) so there's simply no incentive to hold back a product until it's actually ready for release.

Allowing bug patches on Xbox will create exactly the same environment there.

It's interesting that of the three developers you name, two of them (Carmack and Molyneux) are utterly infamous for releasing games which were bugged to bits and basically didn't work for most people until they were patched....

super_furry · 15-01-2003 10:24am

The reason I gave up on PC gaming, along with the price of new hardware, was the constant patching and repatching of software. It came to a head with Ultima IX, which was released in a pre-beta state and despite dozens of patches, was never playable.

While the Xbox will probably not go down that road, the fact that patches are already appearing does not inspire confidence. What about those who chose not to sign up to Xbox live? Microsoft may put the patch on a magazine covermount, but that's an extra €8 or €9 you have to spend to rectify problems with the game that should never have been there in the first place.

Thorbar · 15-01-2003 12:25pm

If its a crash bug and you aren't connected to xbox live then I'd say either the publishers will mail you out a patch disk or refund your purchase. That's how they used to handle it with bugs in PC games in the days before the interweb.

Hobbes · 15-01-2003 5:41pm

I'm with Shinji on this.

The biggest whine from most game developers is most bugs are caused due to multiple hardware configurations. MS were touting this as a reason to buy an XBox because it would only be one kind of hardware.

"Rushing out buggy pieces of crap"

I heard this mentioned as "Mind Share". The new buzzword for the day (thankfully not with anyone in work).

Basically the feeling is that if it takes 2 years to release a good program and 6 months to release a buggy piece of crap that can be patched up, then it is better to release a piece of crap as your first out in the market and you create a "Mind Share". Personally I think this is a bad way to go.

The releasing of patches is bad. It's one of the worst things about PC games. I recall when I was in the US I bought a game (I forget the name) and when I brought it home I found out I couldn't play it for another 3 weeks when the developers actually finished the game. When I said that wasn't acceptable all the fanboi's on the forums said things like "If you really liked this game you'd wait three weeks". The game went back to the shop.

Krusty_Clown · 15-01-2003 6:23pm

I absolutely agree - Game patches in a console environment is a terrible idea...

What about those people (e.g. Irish folks) who do not have access to XBox-live? Should they suffer these UT bugs? No, they should return the software.

The strength of Console games over those for the PC, is that the development teams have to get them right prior to shipping them. They (previously) have not had an option to ship a bug-ridden product, as based on negative reviews, the product would not sell.

I have read many reviews of PC games over the years, which include comments like:
'Hopefully they'll get the multi-player fixed in a forthcoming patch' etc.. Would you pay for a holiday, if the hotel was only half finished?

Greenbean · 15-01-2003 8:31pm

I continue the general agreement that this is a bad thing. Consoles benefit from being highly tested and well polished. Microsoft has opened a release valve for those publishers to push the games out earlier. While I don't think it will get anywhere near as bad as pc's, it will most likely result in xbox having the more buggy games.

Xbox, you've gotta be ****tin' me.

Comments