Did not know this. Thanks.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tim Schafer: Indies Moving Away From XBLA, Console Patches Cost $40,000
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Autofokus
Member
Actually, something similar happened. The Day 1 Patch destroyed your vanilla savegames completely and even reseted your trophies/achievements which you earned pre-patch. Two days after launch, the patch got taken down. Certification FTW, eh?
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
I was under the impression that bandwidth charges were universal, even on "free" downloads? I know for sure they apply on free DLC and demos.
edit: Actually, free patching doesn't make sense, otherwise we wouldn't have had the issue with PSN SF4/SSF4 dlc costumes not being present in online unless you bought them. On XBL you still see them via patch if the competitor's using them, but Capcom didn't do it on PSN because they would've charged for the download.
I think the point is that its not a flat $40,000 fee all the time as some think. It depends on what you are actually patching (patching bugs, or patching in significant content).
On XBLA you can patch and fix as many bugs as you want for free in the first patch. On PSN, if your bug fix patch is a few MB, you may end up paying a few dollars, not tens of thousands.
Both those approaches though encourage you to charge for DLC rather than giving it for free, as you need to recover those costs, as on XBLA you would have to pay, and on PSN you pay for the bandwidth and DLC is not small like a bug fix patch.
AtomicShroom
Member
See Tim, there's one tiny big huge massive enormous point you seem to be missing:
For all intents and purposes, the game you're releasing should be 100% FINAL. You're not supposed to release an incomplete, buggy mess just to patch it later. I guess that would be too much work for you? You don't like working hard? Do you enjoy playing incomplete games? I don't.
You should take a clue from games on Nintendo consoles. Games on there don't need a gazillion patches. When they're released, they're final. Sure there's the occasionnal oddball with a game-breaking bug that doesn't get patched, and that's a shame, but even then that should require ONE patch to fix. ONE. And AFAIK the first patch is free. So don't go complaining.
I don't want consoles turning into a free-for-all wild west like it's the case on iOS for example. Games on there are almost purposely broken or incomplete on release because they know they can just patch away at will.
If you aren't 100% sure that your game is bullet-proof and won't be needing a patch, then DON'T RELEASE IT. Simple, no? Just keep polishing and fixing until it's 100% done and solid. Like Nintendo does.
If you're making your game with the assumption that it can be patched later on, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. Patches should not be the norm. They should be the ultimate last resort.
For all intents and purposes, the game you're releasing should be 100% FINAL. You're not supposed to release an incomplete, buggy mess just to patch it later. I guess that would be too much work for you? You don't like working hard? Do you enjoy playing incomplete games? I don't.
You should take a clue from games on Nintendo consoles. Games on there don't need a gazillion patches. When they're released, they're final. Sure there's the occasionnal oddball with a game-breaking bug that doesn't get patched, and that's a shame, but even then that should require ONE patch to fix. ONE. And AFAIK the first patch is free. So don't go complaining.
I don't want consoles turning into a free-for-all wild west like it's the case on iOS for example. Games on there are almost purposely broken or incomplete on release because they know they can just patch away at will.
If you aren't 100% sure that your game is bullet-proof and won't be needing a patch, then DON'T RELEASE IT. Simple, no? Just keep polishing and fixing until it's 100% done and solid. Like Nintendo does.
If you're making your game with the assumption that it can be patched later on, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. Patches should not be the norm. They should be the ultimate last resort.
Yep, cause creating an open world game like skyrim would be cheaper if pc only...
joeygreco1985
Member
I don't think its that easy when you're co-ordinating multi platform releases, especially on a service like XBLA where missing your release date could push your game back months.
fabricated backlash
Member
It's not the service in itself, but the experience in dealing with them. So far most of the comments on working with Nintendo have been positive-ish, now when it comes to the actual DD service itself... yeah that chart would look different for sure.
Yes, because retail AAA games are spotless. Every game has bugs, game-breaking or otherwise. Can't escape that. Good to know you don't care about improving game experience and getting additional content.
So many words to completly miss the point lol
^indeed.
LOL. I love how it is either a perfect 100% completed game, or a buggy mess. Like, there's nothing in between or other reasons for it, for example: constant and repeated free support like Valve does to their games (every couple of days there is a patch for their online games) and the reason why Team fortress 2 or L4D console versions sre not up to par content-wise with the PC version.
Like Nintendo releases don't have bugs. Seriously.
LOL. I love how it is either a perfect 100% completed game, or a buggy mess. Like, there's nothing in between or other reasons for it, for example: constant and repeated free support like Valve does to their games (every couple of days there is a patch for their online games) and the reason why Team fortress 2 or L4D console versions sre not up to par content-wise with the PC version.
Like Nintendo releases don't have bugs. Seriously.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
The biggest issues for Nintendo were the insane royalty structure (devs get paid only after certain sales threshholds) and the broken store interface. Nintendo themselves are usually pretty painless to work with by most accounts, though certification can be a bitch since they run it final product and not in progress for digital.
Both their biggest issues seem to be fixed for the eShop, but there's definitely still a ton of room for improvement.
Lasthope106
Member
Where to even begin. I'm not even going to try.
Felix Lighter
Member
How anyone would think zero post launch support is a good thing is beyond me.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Hilarious. Just because Nintendo barely has the infrastructure to patch games doesn't mean their games are perfect and require no patches.
This post wins for worst of the year so far. Wow.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I just love how some people think game creation works.
The store for Steam was always part of the plan. It just (obviously) took longer to get up and running and get more companies on board.
AtomicShroom
Member
Nintendo games typically don't have any obvious bugs or defects (occassional oddball notwidthstanding (aka Skyward Sword)) and don't need patches.
You have the exact same mentality as Tim: that games when they are released should not be the a completely whole, final and fully polished product.
I'm sorry but I've been a console gamer my whole life and I've come to expect that games I purchase are 100% definitive and complete. Mario Galaxy didn't need a patch to make it better: It was perfect on release.
And additionnal content? I hate that shit. Any game that gets DLC subsequently makes me feel like I'm playing an incomplete product, and that I'm forced to pay even more to get the complete package. Back in the day, everybody had the same complete experience. If they wanted to release "additionnal content", they made a fully-fledged sequel. I never felt like I was missing out on anything, because I was getting a whole, 100% final product.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
name a company, in history, that meets your standards.
BZZT, wrong. Do I need to name 10 first party games in the current generation that required recalls, replacements, or had magic game-breaking bugs or bugs that exposed massive security holes in the consoles?
Can't tell if this post is serious.
You think developers intentionally release broken games? Even the '100% polished Nintendo games' you mention have game-breaking bugs - see Skyward Sword as a very recent example. Twilight Princess and Metroid: Other M also had game-breaking bugs. Shit happens. It's better for everyone involved if developers were able to release quick patches to prevent that stuff.
NOT having the ability to patch or charging a huge fee for patching a game is ridiculous.
AtomicShroom
Member
Oh I don't mind patches that fix totally unforeseen defects that were unfortunately missed. But when you look at game releases these days, that's not what they're doing. Instead, they use patches to put in the stuff they didn't have time to fix before they hit their self-imposed release date. A game should need ONE patch to fix game-breakers. These days games that get upwards of 5 patches are common.
AtomicShroom
Member
See, you're missing the point. I'm not talking about fixing bugs that unfortunately slipped through QA. I'm talking about companies that don't even try to polish their titles or that release willingly incomplete games because they know they can just patch it later on.
Those 10 first party games... How much do you bet that ONE single patch would've been required to fix those issues?
You know that there are certification processes? Developers can't go easy and just release a non-working game.
Clay Davis
Member
i'd like to know which first party nintendo games had game breaking bugs, etc. i'm not sure if exposing security holes should enter the discussion as that wasn't really part of his point.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Again, complete ignorance to how the game industry functions.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Only two I can think of this gen are Other M and Skyward Sword. Twilight Princess had one too, but it was pretty obscure and easy to avoid.
Skyward Sword had such a bug if I remember correctly.
Neuromancer
Member
As as a small aside, patches aren't just for fixing games; they can also be used to add features.
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
Knew people would turn this around and blame the developers.
The Phantomnaut
Neo Member
Single player aspects in games don't usually have obvious bugs. It seems you are applying the issues more prevalent in multiplayer where a majority of activity is dynamic causing bugs to sprout more commonly, spontaneously, and unusually. Once you fix something, problems can arise.
Clay Davis
Member
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Word on the street is, with the very poor backend performance of the new XBL dashboard, some major publishers are also scaling back and/or cancelling XBLA titles now as well. Sales have dwindled and MS hasn't revised their marketing/ad costs on XBL to match.
There's a program available that fixes broken save files, but the system doesn't support patching so the only way to fix it is a re-issue.
Yes. You have to add a channel to patch it.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
This is total goalpost moving.
It also ignores the fact that not all game types are equal (Online games require constant rebalancing to stay competitive--and Nintendo's online games desperately need patches for this reason; Open world games are vastly more complex and thus have always had more bugs in them, no matter the developer or the platform) as well as the use of patching to add content, update mechanics, rebalance or remake games.
The iOS patching you're complaining about makes it so that many games get 20+ content updates for free. Team Fortress 2 has had, what, 400 patches so far? How many has WoW had?
Show stoppers:
1. Metroid Other M: Save bug that makes game impossible to complete
2. Zelda Skyward Sword: Save bug that makes game impossible to complete
3. Endless Ocean: Recalled in Japan due to crashing bugs
4. Fatal Frame 4: Seriously bugged across the board to the point that this is the suggested reason it didn't get an EU release.
5. Super Paper Mario: Recalled in EU due to crash bug
6. Mario Party 8: Recalled in EU due to offensive language
7. Wii Sports Resort: Massive bug in Motion+ video required firmware update to fix.
Unplayable online due to endemic cheating which could have been patched out:
8. Tetris DS
9. Mario Kart Wii
(there are others but I named one per system to show that it affected both systems)
Security holes:
10. Zelda Twilight Princess: compromised the Wii top to bottom
11. Super Smash Bros Brawl: compromised the Wii top to bottom
You don't get exempt security holes from the point. When you release a game that is so broken that it allows people to break the system, there's a vested interest in the platform holder to fix them. Even the best developers are subject to these problems, it's not about laziness or effort or talent, it's just a side effect of making games. To fix it, you need to be able to patch.
Nonsense. Some games have this thing called free post-release support.
http://www.teamfortress.com/119/
AND THAT WAS ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO. They just keep adding things.
Also, before the Internet, additional content was called an "expansion pack", which usually cost less than a game but more than today's DLC.
What I'm saying is, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Neuromancer
Member
I knew from some of my developer friends title updates cost money but I seem to remember it was like $10K (which is still ridiculous of course). That was years ago I heard that though. Seems really dumb on MS/Sony's part, like you would think you'd want to encourage developers to update their games as needed to provide the best experience possible to consumers. I can see charging some nominal fee for processing, certification and hosting but that's about it.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
Surely Skyrim for PS3 is a significant example of this?
Countless other games released on PS3 as well.
Countless other games released on PS3 as well.
Right and in multiplayer it may not even due to glitches but simply due to balance issues. Some guns will be inherently over powered and some completely underpowered
A single patch won't be able to fix this because when the most powerful gun gets nerfed and the least gets more powerful then another gun will take the position of the original super gun.
I would rather a constant stream of patches rather than having to run around with the same loadout as everyone else does in order to compete
What about multiplayer games that require additional gameplay balancing? Certain weapons/vehicles in a first-person shooter being overpowered or whatever. That stuff requires patches.
Then maybe a month or two into release, players discover some obscure exploit to get outside/under the map and become invincible. Maybe after that people start hacking (aimbot/wallhack) with modded versions of the games or whatever and the game becomes unplayable.
This stuff is not necessarily the developers fault and requires additional patches.
Hellsing321
Member
In a perfect world every game would be released on Steam, and Gabe would be the richest man on earth and own the most extensive collection of knives, swords, and cutlery the world has ever seen.
It feels like that's what I go through now anyway.
Krauser Kat
Member
Sounds like someone has never worked in a job where you have to ship a product, stuff that is not 100% come out all the time regardless of how much QA you have.
And we would be playing Half Life 3 already and wondering about Half Life 4
It's not too late, though! Thanks to the wonders of the "Edit" function, he can go back and patch his post into something more agreeable to the consumers of his text!
But we might charge him for it...
Counting minor patches, and not counting pre-release (0.6 to 0.12) patches, roughly 101 patches for WoW. Yes I counted them all. =p
Given the Wuhu Island levels and their exploits, you may as well add Mario Kart 7 and account for all recent Nintendo platforms.