Xbox 360 Game Patching Costs $40,000 [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/UG8bdge9cESFvYD5B31RtxzOaA0/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/UG8bdge9cESFvYD5B31RtxzOaA0/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/UG8bdge9cESFvYD5B31RtxzOaA0/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/UG8bdge9cESFvYD5B31RtxzOaA0/1/da)
hypnosec writes "It costs developers a total of $40,000 to release a single patch on Xbox Live, making it a difficult platform for smaller developers to grow on. This revelation was made by Tim Shafer of Double Fine Studios — which recently drew a lot of charitable donations as part of a campaign to create a contemporary point and click game. He went on to say that this is just too high a fee for smaller developers to pay, making it hard for them to do well on the platform. This makes sense, since requiring just one patch could massively cut into the profits for a company."http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Xbox+360+Game+Patching+Costs+%2440%2C0 00%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FzUgN8S)http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F12%2F02%2F14%2F203247%2Fxbox-360-game-patching-costs-40000%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfaceb ook)http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/02/14/203247/xbox-360-game-patching-costs-40000?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=googleplus)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/02/14/203247/xbox-360-game-patching-costs-40000?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/s-HdpL27JlU

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/s-HdpL27JlU/xbox-360-game-patching-costs-40000)

[buzz_n64]

How about this. Test the game before you release it. Problem solved.

[Kitsune Sniper]

They do. But anyone who's actually done any game testing knows that people will do something completely unexpected that causes something to break.

The real point is, THEY SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING CHARGING 40 GRAND TO LET THEM FIX A GAME.

[Leo_A]

This is why sometimes PS3 games get a patch while the 360 version doesn't. IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey comes to mind. Got a patch that addressed a lot of issues and added a lot of nice content. But only PS3 owners got their hands on it since Sony doesn't charge you to release a patch while Microsoft does and they couldn't justify the cost.

[Gameguy]

There were no patches on consoles in the cartridge days, if there were any major bugs in the final release you'd fail and go out of business. There really shouldn't need to be any patches if they test the games enough, I know there's plenty of bugs in older games that got removed in later prints but those bugs shouldn't be bad enough to ruin a game.

I can see why Microsoft has this policy with charging for patches, it's supposed to encourage companies to get it right the first time rather than rush a game to market and just fix it later the way PC games have been released for decades.

[The 1 2 P]

I can see why Microsoft has this policy with charging for patches, it's supposed to encourage companies to get it right the first time rather than rush a game to market and just fix it later the way PC games have been released for decades.

Thats a good point but I think what Tim Shafer is mostly referring to is Indie studios. They are the ones that can't afford that $40,000. But the big publishers would have no problems spending it.

[Gamevet]

There were no patches on consoles in the cartridge days, if there were any major bugs in the final release you'd fail and go out of business. There really shouldn't need to be any patches if they test the games enough, I know there's plenty of bugs in older games that got removed in later prints but those bugs shouldn't be bad enough to ruin a game.

I can see why Microsoft has this policy with charging for patches, it's supposed to encourage companies to get it right the first time rather than rush a game to market and just fix it later the way PC games have been released for decades.

A cartridge game is nowhere near the size of a game released on DVD. All of the data involved with a game like Skyrim is probably larger than the entire Genesis library.


Now we know why Gabe was pushing the PS3 as the console to play Portal 2 on.

[sheath]

I read in a developer interview recently, can't remember which one, that game testing these days is spent almost entirely on loading the game and working on preventing errors caused by people powering off randomly or switching memory devices out, and other such non-gameplay related necessities created by today's set-top boxes.

I can't remember the comment exactly, but it was essentially that gameplay testing, tweaking and polishing plays third fiddle to all of the ways users can make the game crash with the hardware alone.

[kupomogli]

Seems like Sony needs a douchebag tactic like this. Instead of losing two billion they probably would have been in the black instead.

[Leo_A]

A cartridge game is nowhere near the size of a game released on DVD. All of the data involved with a game like Skyrim is probably larger than the entire Genesis library.

It's several times larger than the entire Genesis library.

Not hard to understand why, even with the best of intentions and effort, that a modern game on such a scale might need some massaging even after release when they suddenly get thousands of people playing such a huge game.

[Kitsune Sniper]

You guys saying that cart games were debugged better than these new ones need to get real about it. You've played broken assed games, lots of them, over the years. Those games were very rarely fixed.

Microsoft should not be charging such a ludicrous amount of money JUST TO FIX GAMES.

[Gamevet]

It's several times larger than the entire Genesis library.

Not hard to understand why, even with the best of intentions and effort, that a modern game on such a scale might need some massaging even after release when they suddenly get thousands of people playing such a huge game.

Yeah, you could probably fit most of the Sega CD library on there as well.

Back when game testers were looking for bugs in 16-bit cartridge games, it involved doing the same moves over and over again in a small area. Now you have games that take years to develop, and the idea of testing each and every scenario would take years as well, especially in a game with a world larger than a small town.

[Gameguy]

Forget cartridge games then, there were no patches for PS1 or PS2 games(I never heard of PS1 or PS2 games needing patches, besides translation or region patching). Why weren't tons of game breaking glitches left in those? The crappy games seem to have more glitches than the good ones, it's more about the quality of the developers than the medium they're being produced on. PC games pretty much always needed patches even when they came on a few floppy discs and were less than 10MB total in size, the better games only needed patches to correct problems with hardware compatibility rather than problems with the gameplay.

It's really about the quality of the testing, I'm not expecting games to be totally error free but there shouldn't be game breaking glitches left in them. I got stuck in a wall once in The Suffering, I wasn't able to duplicate it though so it wasn't that bad. I went back to the last save and just went past that part. Then there's the port for Broken Sword on the GBA, it was a port and there were multiple game breaking glitches in it. If you saved the game while in certain locations you couldn't continue and you'd have to start the game over from the beginning. It's not like it was a complex game that they made from scratch, it was just poorly ported.

[kedawa]

For $40,000 they'd better let me patch any game I choose!
I'd save up the money just so I could patch Seinfeld characters into Mortal Kombat.

[Ryudo]

How about this. Test the game before you release it. Problem solved.

Pretty much this. My friend at R* says these days many use less Q&A as big budgets and must release soon and these are so expensive they can't afford to keep em longer in development for more polish. Another thing why we have so many glitches is very simple. Graphics. Graphics are so damn expensive.

You have a game like Skyrim huge world wonderful graphics glitchy as hell. Xenoblade huge world low rez graphics yet almost glitch free.

[Tokimemofan]

Forget cartridge games then, there were no patches for PS1 or PS2 games(I never heard of PS1 or PS2 games needing patches, besides translation or region patching). Why weren't tons of game breaking glitches left in those? The crappy games seem to have more glitches than the good ones, it's more about the quality of the developers than the medium they're being produced on. PC games pretty much always needed patches even when they came on a few floppy discs and were less than 10MB total in size, the better games only needed patches to correct problems with hardware compatibility rather than problems with the gameplay.

It's really about the quality of the testing, I'm not expecting games to be totally error free but there shouldn't be game breaking glitches left in them. I got stuck in a wall once in The Suffering, I wasn't able to duplicate it though so it wasn't that bad. I went back to the last save and just went past that part. Then there's the port for Broken Sword on the GBA, it was a port and there were multiple game breaking glitches in it. If you saved the game while in certain locations you couldn't continue and you'd have to start the game over from the beginning. It's not like it was a complex game that they made from scratch, it was just poorly ported.

Final Fantasy XI on PS2, that said it was rare and done only for special games.

[Gamevet]

Final Fantasy XI on PS2, that said it was rare and done only for special games.

Gran Turismo 2 as well. You couldn't 100% the black label version of the game, and It wasn't until the Greatest Hits edition was released, that the game could be played to 100% completion.

[Nature Boy]

You guys saying that cart games were debugged better than these new ones need to get real about it. You've played broken assed games, lots of them, over the years. Those games were very rarely fixed.

Microsoft should not be charging such a ludicrous amount of money JUST TO FIX GAMES.

Seriously, why get bent out of shape about it? If you want to play indie games and expenses keep them away from the console, move on to PC or wherever it is the indies settle.

BTW: We know nothing about the details of the $40,000, including whether or not PSN updates cost the same. Read the quote from the actual article where the $40,000 is brought up:


But the indie community is now moving elsewhere; we’re figuring out how to fund and distribute games ourselves, and we’re getting more control over them. Those systems as great as they are, they’re still closed. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game. Those are things we really want to do, but we can’t do it on these systems. I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch – we can’t afford that! Open systems like Steam, that allow us to set our own prices, that’s where it’s at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That’s where people are going.

Personally, I can't believe we (the gamers) would argue for allowing more patching over forcing companies to release only finished, polished product. We're letting them off the hook, aren't we? Do we really want bigger and more complicated games at the expense of being bug free? I don't. Games getting released before they're finished doesn't help me - it helps devs pay for their product. If the model is so broken that they can't afford to finish what they've started then I argue the model needs to be blown up and re-started.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Seriously, why get bent out of shape about it? If you want to play indie games and expenses keep them away from the console, move on to PC or wherever it is the indies settle.... are you serious?

Why bother opening up the market to allow independent developers to release their games on your system IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE THEM MORE MONEY THAN THEY'LL EVER MAKE FROM SELLING THE GAME JUST TO FIX A BUG?

This is like Walmart selling a small company's products and then telling them they have to pay 40 grand before they can do anything about it, because their merchandise had a typo or something. It's ridiculous.

Shit happens, no game is ever perfectly coded, but many companies won't even bother fixing their mistakes. And those who want to, never do because of this price tag.

[Emperor Megas]

... are you serious?

Why bother opening up the market to allow independent developers to release their games on your system IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE THEM MORE MONEY THAN THEY'LL EVER MAKE FROM SELLING THE GAME JUST TO FIX A BUG?

This is like Walmart selling a small company's products and then telling them they have to pay 40 grand before they can do anything about it, because their merchandise had a typo or something. It's ridiculous.

Shit happens, no game is ever perfectly coded, but many companies won't even bother fixing their mistakes. And those who want to, never do because of this price tag.I think that the motivation for developers to release bug light, finished products (a $40,000 fee to patch them) is more of a benefit to the industry than allowing them all to do it for free later is.

It's not unlike SONY's fabled '3D only' policy for the original PlayStation. I thought it was lame as hell then that virtually everyone's games on the platform were 3D, but it really pushed the industry to evolve, and I think console games are better because of it.

Honestly, they probably should just develop for the PC (or keep it simpler and/or tighter on the XBOX360) if the 40 grand patch fee is that much of a problem. The reason I play on consoles is because I want avoid all of that sort of thing which is far more prevalent on the PC than on consoles. 'Release now, path later' is something I want to see less of on consoles, honestly.

[Kitsune Sniper]

I think that the motivation for developers to release bug light, finished products (a $40,000 fee to patch them) is more of a benefit to the industry than allowing them all to do it for free later is.

It's not unlike SONY's fabled '3D only' policy for the original PlayStation. I thought it was lame as hell then that virtually everyone's games on the platform were 3D, but it really pushed the industry to evolve, and I think console games are better because of it.

Honestly, they probably should just develop for the PC (or keep it simpler and/or tighter on the XBOX360) if the 40 grand patch fee is that much of a problem. The reason I play on consoles is because I want avoid all of that sort of thing which is far more prevalent on the PC than on consoles. 'Release now, path later' is something I want to see less of on consoles, honestly.You mean that 3D only policy that kept a lot of good games from Japan from ever showing up Stateside?

The reactions to the fee that I'm seeing here are exactly what I'd expect to hear from people who hate consoles. I'm very disappointed at seeing people here, who are primarily console players, think like that.

[Bojay1997]

You mean that 3D only policy that kept a lot of good games from Japan from ever showing up Stateside?

The reactions to the fee that I'm seeing here are exactly what I'd expect to hear from people who hate consoles. I'm very disappointed at seeing people here, who are primarily console players, think like that.

Really? Which specific PS3 titles were not released here because of the 3D policy?

I think you misunderstand why a lot of people became console players to begin with. For most of the 90s, I was a PC gamer but after getting tired of all the incompatibilities, rapid changes in graphics cards and numerous patches that started to come out, I pretty much moved exclusively to consoles again. Like others have pointed out, I really hate downloading patches and other data to my console. A console game should be finished and polished, not some buggy piece of software that has to be constantly patched. Indie games are generally smaller in scope, so sending out something broken is completely inexcusable. The $40K fee is meant to be a deterrent to developers who try to sell unfinished or broken games. Frankly, it looks like it's working because I rarely, which is to say never, have problems with anything I download from XBL or PSN.

[Emperor Megas]

You mean that 3D only policy that kept a lot of good games from Japan from ever showing up Stateside?The one that ushered in an industry defining standard in graphic and game play in the West which more than made up for those good games that didn't make it over. Yes, that one.


The reactions to the fee that I'm seeing here are exactly what I'd expect to hear from people who hate consoles. I'm very disappointed at seeing people here, who are primarily console players, think like that.Perhaps it's cue to reevaluate your position? Isn't it possible that it could just be you who's not seeing how this is more of a benefit than a hindrance? I can't speak for the majority here, but personally, one of the main reasons I prefer to game on a console is to avoid shit like patches and bug fixes required by software that shipped out before it was complete. The fact that I love the console medium and don't want to see it become what the PC standard as been for years is the reason I don't mind that there's a fee for patching games on the console market place.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Really? Which specific PS3 titles were not released here because of the 3D policy?Er, PS3? Megas said PS1. These days the only things that can prevent a game from being released overseas are lack of funding for localization costs, licenses for stuff like characters / music / settings, or the publisher's lack of confidence on a game actually selling. All fair points which don't depend solely on how the game looks.

The only games I can think of that didn't make it over here because of the 3D rule are several of SNK's 2D fighters. (I originally mentioned a Goemon game, but that was for the PS2. My apologies.)


I think you misunderstand why a lot of people became console players to begin with. For most of the 90s, I was a PC gamer but after getting tired of all the incompatibilities, rapid changes in graphics cards and numerous patches that started to come out, I pretty much moved exclusively to consoles again. Like others have pointed out, I really hate downloading patches and other data to my console. A console game should be finished and polished, not some buggy piece of software that has to be constantly patched. Indie games are generally smaller in scope, so sending out something broken is completely inexcusable. The $40K fee is meant to be a deterrent to developers who try to sell unfinished or broken games. Frankly, it looks like it's working because I rarely, which is to say never, have problems with anything I download from XBL or PSN.And on the other hand, I got tired of playing shittacular games that were released in utterly broken condition to consoles. I would've loved to see a way to have these glitches fixed back during my console days. So now that we can fix either critical or minor bugs, we aren't expected do so? That's completely backwards. Big companies refuse to fix stuff because they think it's not worth doing. These companies can afford it and choose not to. And the indie devs want to but can't.

I will never understand how ANYONE thinks this is the right thing to do.

[Emperor Megas]

Big companies refuse to fix stuff because they think it's not worth doing. These companies can afford it and choose not to. And the indie devs want to but can't.That's a pretty sweeping generalization. There are several big companies that patch their games and add free content to boot, and several that don't bother at all. I'm sure that there are several small companies that can afford to patch their games and don't, as well as those who can afford to and do.

Moreover, there' nothing stopping these indie companies from developing for the PC. Problem solved.


I will never understand how ANYONE thinks this is the right thing to do.I believe you.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Moreover, there' nothing stopping these indie companies from developing for the PC. Problem solved.I remember when people wanted to make games for consoles but they couldn't because they were filled with restrictions about licenses and whatnot. And now that all of that is mostly gone... you want them to go back to PCs. Really?

[Griking]

I remember when people wanted to make games for consoles but they couldn't because they were filled with restrictions about licenses and whatnot. And now that all of that is mostly gone... you want them to go back to PCs. Really?

Many of them are already flocking to Steam

[Gameguy]

These days the only things that can prevent a game from being released overseas are lack of funding for localization costs, licenses for stuff like characters / music / settings, or the publisher's lack of confidence on a game actually selling.
Hasn't that always been the case since games started getting released in multiple markets? If they feel a game can make money, they'll find a way to release it. If not, they won't risk their money.



And on the other hand, I got tired of playing shittacular games that were released in utterly broken condition to consoles. I would've loved to see a way to have these glitches fixed back during my console days.
Which games specifically? The only games I can think of with terrible glitches are games like Action 52 or other horrible games that aren't worth playing at all. No patches could have made Action 52 enjoyable, if they cared about quality it would have been released better than it was. Maybe I'm missing some games that had potential, I honestly can't think of any like that.

[jb143]

Many of them are already flocking to Steam

Flocking to Steam? Steam is incredibly picky about who they allow on...almost randomly so. If you're a game developer, especially an indie developer you certainly can't count on Steam. If anything, indie developers have been "flocking" to iOS platforms.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Hasn't that always been the case since games started getting released in multiple markets? If they feel a game can make money, they'll find a way to release it. If not, they won't risk their money.I was referring to the Sony "3D" policy during the PS1 era. All the elements I mentioned have always been a factor, but it gets worse when you can't even get your license because the game isn't up to someone's outrageous standards.

Which games specifically? The only games I can think of with terrible glitches are games like Action 52 or other horrible games that aren't worth playing at all. No patches could have made Action 52 enjoyable, if they cared about quality it would have been released better than it was. Maybe I'm missing some games that had potential, I honestly can't think of any like that.Well mostly I meant stuff published by Acclaim / LJN... but then again they had no interest in quality in any way, shape or form, so I guess the point isn't worth debating. :P

[Leo_A]

Forget cartridge games then, there were no patches for PS1 or PS2 games(I never heard of PS1 or PS2 games needing patches, besides translation or region patching). Why weren't tons of game breaking glitches left in those?

I saw plenty of things that could've used patching back then.

And not every patch is for game breaking issues. The vast majority are minor things. Like I said earlier, massaging. And like someone said earlier, many add substantial content to a game (Especially on the Xbox, now they've gotten to selling you such stuff most of the time rather than giving it away free along with some bug fixes and improvements.

[Emperor Megas]

I remember when people wanted to make games for consoles but they couldn't because they were filled with restrictions about licenses and whatnot. And now that all of that is mostly gone... you want them to go back to PCs. Really?No. I want them to put out a finished product rather than relying on patches to fix things that should have been done before someone purchased it.

[Kitsune Sniper]

No. I want them to put out a finished product rather than relying on patches to fix things that should have been done before someone purchased it.Answer this for me.

Have you ever programmed something? Do you have any idea of just how much testing has to be done on any and all software? And did you know that even the most polished games still have bugs that may need to be fixed later on? You CAN'T expect everyone to achieve completely bug free games. Big companies with big budgets rarely do this (o hai there Rockstar), let alone a small dev that may just be just one guy in a computer doing all the work. I'm not a programmer, but I know enough about testing (having bugtested ALL of my game translations on my own, and a few for others) to understand that anything and anyone may be able to find a bug that nobody, not the programmers, or the testers, ever considered would happen.

These games aren't unfinished. Why do you keep repeating that?

[Emperor Megas]

Answer this for me.

Have you ever programmed something? Do you have any idea of just how much testing has to be done on any and all software? And did you know that even the most polished games still have bugs that may need to be fixed later on? You CAN'T expect everyone to achieve completely bug free games. Big companies with big budgets rarely do this (o hai there Rockstar), let alone a small dev that may just be just one guy in a computer doing all the work. I'm not a programmer, but I know enough about testing (having bugtested ALL of my game translations on my own, and a few for others) to understand that anything and anyone may be able to find a bug that nobody, not the programmers, or the testers, ever considered would happen.

These games aren't unfinished. Why do you keep repeating that?Because that's what I'm talking about, UNFINISHED games. I don't expect there to not be any bugs in games; I expect the bugs that are in games to be minor enough that I don't need to patch them though. Games have always had bugs, but console developers have always been better about releasing a more 'finished' product than PC games, which have to contend with a number of hardware/software configurations, and operating system. I don't want game crashing/ending bugs in my consoles games which is the natural progression of the 'pay, play, and patch later' mentality.

I've played thousands of games that didn't need to be patched on consoles. I want to continue to do that without worrying that developers are going to rush products out the virtual door and use me as a (paying) beta tester for an unfinished product. Relaxed rules about patching leads to half-assed games on a platform I choice because I don't want to deal with that sort of shit.

I say scale down your games if you have limited resources, and test them more thoroughly before they're released, or pay the patch fee or move to the PC, iOS platform.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Because that's what I'm talking about, UNFINISHED games. I don't expect there to not be any bugs in games; I expect the bugs that are in games to be minor enough that I don't need to patch them though. Games have always had bugs, but console developers have always been better about releasing a more 'finished' product than PC games, which have to contend with a number of hardware/software configurations, and operating system. I don't want game crashing/ending bugs in my consoles games which is the natural progression of the 'pay, play, and patch later' mentality.

I've played thousands of games that didn't need to be patche on consoles. I want to continue to do that without worrying that developers are going to rush products out the virtual door and use me as a (paying) beta tester for an unfinished product. Relaxed rules about patching leads to half-assed games on a platform I choice because I don't want to deal with that sort of shit.

I say scale down your games if you have limited resources, an d test them more thoroughly before they're released, or pay the patch fee or move to the PC, iOS platform.See, here's the flaw with this.

You can't expect someone who probably built his entire game with two grand from start to finish to pony up twenty times that amount to fix a bug that might've gone unnoticed for some reason.

Besides, a bunch of disc games already have day one patches. I'm just arguing that indie devs should not be forced to pay so much to fix or add content which, oh my, may bring renewed interest in the game and possibly some extra sales.

[Bojay1997]

See, here's the flaw with this.

You can't expect someone who probably built his entire game with two grand from start to finish to pony up twenty times that amount to fix a bug that might've gone unnoticed for some reason.

Besides, a bunch of disc games already have day one patches. I'm just arguing that indie devs should not be forced to pay so much to fix or add content which, oh my, may bring renewed interest in the game and possibly some extra sales.

I understand your perspective, but I take a completely opposite and equally valid view. The $40K is a deterrent to sloppy coding, a lack of bug checking and generally unfinished games. If you can't afford the patch fee, either release on iOS or Android or PC or some other format where there are no fees involved or assume the risk that you may release something that will destroy your reputation with gamers and cause them to not buy your future products. I mean, how low would the fee have to be to even work in your scenario if they only spent $2K to develop the game? At some point there is a real cost to Microsoft or Sony to re-seed the content, store the content, send an update message to users, etc...It may not be $40K, but it's not free either.

[jb143]

Testing isn't free either by any means either. I'd image that the AAA studios even use a 'release now patch later' mentality as a form of cheap crowdsource testing...mainly to meet deadlines, not necessarily save money.

But as far as testing goes, you can never test everything. Some things can only be found after a thousand more people play through it. The same could be said for things like the auto market. They spend a lot of money testing new cars but you won't always find out that if the car crashes a certain way then the seat belt buckle pops open. Once it's discovered the hard way, then they issue a recall and rightfully foot the bill. And that's something that could be life or death.

[Leo_A]

I understand your perspective, but I take a completely opposite and equally valid view. The $40K is a deterrent to sloppy coding, a lack of bug checking and generally unfinished games.

No, it's done by Microsoft for the money rather than underwriting the cost to release a patch themselves (Hosting fees, QA ceritfication, etc.). It's a deterrent to developers fixing issues, which is hardly a good thing.

Plus, you all have to remember the size limitation for a patch on the 360. There's only so much they're able to do in a patch on the system. They're not shipping unfinished software with the expectation of finishing it through the patching process since that simply isn't even possible.

Again, I use the word massaging. That's exactly what the vast majority of patches on the 360 have done. Most of what is done is invisible to you and issues you likely would've never even noticed.


Because that's what I'm talking about, UNFINISHED games. I don't expect there to not be any bugs in games; I expect the bugs that are in games to be minor enough that I don't need to patch them though.

I've never played Oblivion without a patch so it might be an exception (Since I know the Fallout games and Skyrim are known to have some issues), but I'm unaware of any other 360 game in my library that isn't fully enjoyable without a software update.

They're by and large fixing minor bugs. They're not finishing unfinished software through the patching process. Where are all these unfinished and broken games with major bugs that require a patch in order for you to enjoy them?

[The 1 2 P]

I was referring to the Sony "3D" policy during the PS1 era.

That policy from Sony is still alive and well today with a few noticable exceptions. It's the reason why the 360 gets all those Japanese 2D bullet hell shooters exclusively here in the US such as Death Smiles and Radiant Silvergun.

[Emperor Megas]

They're by and large fixing minor bugs. They're not finishing unfinished software through the patching process.I'm not sure that's true, honestly. I'm convinced that a lot of games are released 'as is' without clearing the full development process. I believe that deadlines are the greatest factor in this dilemma.


Where are all these unfinished and broken games with major bugs that require a patch in order for you to enjoy them?'Enjoying' is subjective. I can enjoy a game some games by just listening to the music from the title screen. I'm not suggesting that people can't or don't enjoy bug ridden games. I'm saying that there are more games being released now with game crashing bugs and glitches on consoles than ever before -- or at least more than I use to hear about in past generations.

In any event, just do a search on 'game breaking bugs' for 360 and/or PS3 (or Wii, which doesn't get patched) and see what turns up.

[Leo_A]

I'm not sure that's true, honestly. I'm convinced that a lot of games are released 'as is' without clearing the full development process.

Give us some specific examples. And explain how they're able to finish their software with a patch that is limited to a grand total of 8 MB's. There isn't much you can do except for some minor adjustments with the size limitation of a patch on the Xbox 360.

[Gameguy]

I was referring to the Sony "3D" policy during the PS1 era.
I had to look this up because I never heard of this before but you're right, there was a brief policy put in place by Bernard Stolar when he was president of SCEA where he wouldn't allow any 2D games or RPGs to be released on the Playstation. Thankfully that policy didn't last long as he soon left for a job at Sega, unfortunately he apparently helped kill the Sega Saturn with his stupid policies there instead.


Some bugs are kind of fun though, like the minus world in Super Mario Bros. You don't really need to fix something like that as it's hard to trigger it unless it's intentional. I just don't like games being released with stupid bugs that ruin the game and should have been caught before release.

I'm thinking of Scratches for PC, I couldn't open the front door to enter the house and thought that it was a type of puzzle, instead it turned out that the hotspot for the doorknob was put on the opposite side of the door by mistake. This is within the first 5 minutes of gameplay and you need to enter the door just to access the house, it's not some weird action that nobody would think of trying. There was a patch released to fix it, but instead of moving the hotspot it just moved the graphic of the doorknob to the other side of the door. Unfortunately they didn't change the animation of the door opening so now it looks like the hinges are on the same side as the knob. I'm not surprised that this developer went out of business shortly after. Console games shouldn't be released like this either.

[Emperor Megas]

Give us some specific examples. And explain how they're able to finish their software with a patch that is limited to a grand total of 8 MB's. There isn't much you can do except for some minor adjustments with the size limitation of a patch on the Xbox 360.Minor adjustments are all something needs sometimes. It doesn't matter how small (or large) the fix is to a problem that makes a game crash, or a save file to corrupt, or an event to not register, etc.. Moreover, I'm not saying that patches 'finish' a game either. I'm saying that many console games aren't 'finished' anymore when they ship to the same extent they once were in that you didn't have to worry (as much) about a bug or glitch breaking your game.

I don't play enough modern games to run into many glitches; I mainly hear people's gripes on different forums. But again, if you just Google search:

game breaking bugs PS3 (https://www.google.com/search?q=game+breaking+360&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=game+breaking+bug+ps3&pbx=1&oq=game+breaking+bug+ps3&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=17359l17863l1l18099l4l4l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b458525cf4bca4f5&biw=1280&bih=639)
game breaking bugs XBOX360 (https://www.google.com/search?q=game+breaking+360&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=game+breaking+bug+xbox360&pbx=1&oq=game+breaking+bug+xbox360&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=148952l152168l3l152662l12l9l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l 0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b458525cf4bca4f5&biw=1280&bih=639)

...you should come across a few examples.

[Trumpman]

Who cares? It takes approximately five seconds to patch your game on the 360.

[Emperor Megas]

Who cares? It takes approximately five seconds to patch your game on the 360.
Developers who have to pay $40,000.
Gamers without Highspeed Internet.
Players who find out about a patch too late and had to restart a game because they ran into a game breaking glitch their first playthrough.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Players who find out about a patch too late and had to restart a game because they ran into a game breaking glitch their first playthrough.
Is this even a problem anymore? I mean, if you have your system hooked up online, you'll get a patch notification the minute you put the disk in the system. In theory.

Of course, it really sucks when a forced update is released and you're near the end...

[Shulamana]

This is one of the major reasons I don't collect for "current gen" consoles other than the PSP, I don't want to find myself in a situation years down the road where I want to play a game but can't because I don't have a patch for some gamebreaking bug and the patch servers were taken down 10 years ago (it will happen). Obviously this means nothing to the game developers/publishers and their bottom line, but they're not getting any of my money because of it.

[Nature Boy]

... are you serious?

Why bother opening up the market to allow independent developers to release their games on your system IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE THEM MORE MONEY THAN THEY'LL EVER MAKE FROM SELLING THE GAME JUST TO FIX A BUG?

If you release a game that doesn't make you more than $40,000 (and never will) why would you spend the time to fix a bug in it in the first place?

(The answer, if you're a business person of any intelligence, is that you don't - your time is much better spent working on a game that will make you many, many times more than $40,000).


This is like Walmart selling a small company's products and then telling them they have to pay 40 grand before they can do anything about it, because their merchandise had a typo or something. It's ridiculous.

That's a terrible example: Walmart doesn't have to re-certify product to make sure that it doesn't allow someone to break into their store and steal their merchandise. MS and Sony certainly charge *some* of that $40,000 for the time they have to spend ensuring there are no exploitable vulnerabilities in the patch.

Many won't fix their mistakes because of the soft costs too. Their has to be a benefit to the company financially, either directly (through bigger sales say) or indirectly (through goodwill for example).


Shit happens, no game is ever perfectly coded, but many companies won't even bother fixing their mistakes. And those who want to, never do because of this price tag.

You're speaking in hyperbole my friend - "those that want to never do because of the price tag?" Never? Really? You know this for a fact? Poppycock says I.

[Leo_A]

I entered https://www.google.com/search?q=game+breaking+bugs+Super+Nintendo&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=3656l4825l0l4924l8l8l0l6l0l0l244l425l0.1.1l 2l0&hl=en&oq=game+breaking+bugs+Super+Nintendo&aq=f&aqi=&aql= and recieved a page full of issues. Granted, just the first one was for a SuperNes game. But it reminds me that Skyward Sword has a game breaking bug (As did Twilight Princess before it).

I'd rather they had the ability to patch these things rather than the situation that exists on the Nintendo Wii.

All I know is the extent of the bugs I've found on the 360 of any significance were related to achievements not unlocking when they should've. Hardly a game breaking issue.

[Emperor Megas]

Is this even a problem anymore? I mean, if you have your system hooked up online, you'll get a patch notification the minute you put the disk in the system. In theory.Again, it's a problem for people who don't have high speed Internet to hook their 360 up with. There are actually still gamers with dial up, or no Internet access at home all, or just on their mobile device(s). I'm pretty sure they're in the minority, and I'm not saying that the demographic is even worth console and game developers consideration, as cold as that sounds (hell, I'm one of them). I'm just answering Trumpman's question of "who cares?"


Of course, it really sucks when a forced update is released and you're near the end...They always seem to come at the worst time, in my experience. The Wii seems to update when the system in off/idol. I wonder why the 360 doesn't do that, or give you the option to?

[Leo_A]

I believe Xbox Live mandates a broadband connection (As did the original Xbox), although maybe there's some workaround I never heard of. Even if they don't, the patch limit is small enough to not be a huge issue for someone on dialup.

Offline gamers, beyond missing out on things like multiplayer and digitally distributed software like XBLA games, aren't too badly off. Game breaking issues are still few and far between.

[JSoup]

They always seem to come at the worst time, in my experience. The Wii seems to update when the system in off/idol. I wonder why the 360 doesn't do that, or give you the option to?

One of the reasons I don't mind not having a dedicated connection for my systems. I actually have to get up and move the internet wire whenever I want to get the PS3/360 online. Helps deter interruptions.

[Kitsune Sniper]

If you release a game that doesn't make you more than $40,000 (and never will) why would you spend the time to fix a bug in it in the first place?

(The answer, if you're a business person of any intelligence, is that you don't - your time is much better spent working on a game that will make you many, many times more than $40,000).

(...)

Many won't fix their mistakes because of the soft costs too. Their has to be a benefit to the company financially, either directly (through bigger sales say) or indirectly (through goodwill for example).
Wow, spoken like a guy that has never bothered to keep up with small devs. Again. I'm not talking about big companies, but small devs. They're the kind of people who still care about the players and (usually) listen to them. Of course they're not going to fix the game if it costs forty grand to do so. Because IT WOULD EAT UP ALL THE PROFITS THEY MADE FROM SALES. It's like Microsoft is punishing devs for wanting to correct their mistakes, and again, HOW IS THIS A GOOD THING?


You're speaking in hyperbole my friend - "those that want to never do because of the price tag?" Never? Really? You know this for a fact? Poppycock says I.Really, and you would know any better.

Maybe I just expect better of small devs, since they seem to be much more willing to fix problems than other companies.

[Emperor Megas]

Maybe I just expect better of small devs...So does Microsoft. :)

[Rob2600]

THEY SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING CHARGING 40 GRAND TO LET THEM FIX A GAME.

Microsoft lost billions of dollars with the whole red ring of death fiasco. It has to make some of that money back somehow.

[Gameguy]

Wow, spoken like a guy that has never bothered to keep up with small devs. Again. I'm not talking about big companies, but small devs. They're the kind of people who still care about the players and (usually) listen to them. Of course they're not going to fix the game if it costs forty grand to do so. Because IT WOULD EAT UP ALL THE PROFITS THEY MADE FROM SALES. It's like Microsoft is punishing devs for wanting to correct their mistakes, and again, HOW IS THIS A GOOD THING?
Some indie companies know how to make a profit, this one turned a profit within 6 hours of the game being released. I haven't heard of any bugs with this game either.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/15/dear-esther-turned-a-profit-in-just-5-hours-30-minutes

[JSoup]

Microsoft lost billions of dollars with the whole red ring of death fiasco. It has to make some of that money back somehow.

Probably from selling a crapload of replacement 360's. I know a guy who's on his fifth 360.

[Berserker]

To me the issue isn't with the concept, but the scale. Charging $40,000 per patch for a big budget, AAA disc-based title seems like encouragement, but charging that for an Xbox Live Arcade title like Schafer's just seems like insanity. A lot of times these are just two or three person teams putting these things together, so the margins needed to make a profit are much lower, and that's going to be a huge chunk of it. It'd be like charging a major developer millions or possibly tens of millions per patch.

Releasing a game on XBLA isn't like releasing on Steam, either - you actually have to send the code itself to Microsoft and they scrutinize over it prior to release, so the initial code quality required just to get out of the gate is pretty high. But these guys simply don't have the resources to account for every possible test case, and some bugs are inevitably going to get through. And charging these small teams that much to fix them seems like it'd only be encouraging what they're trying to prevent.

[Genesaturn]

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about game development here. I think $40,000 is an extreme amount to pay to patch a game. If Sony can go without charging, why can't Microsoft? I don't find it fair at all. Things happen. How many times have you done something and checked it over and over only to have someone be like..."uhh dude...you forgot this..or did that." I find this if anything, a great way to alienate indie developers from Microsoft platforms.

[Kitsune Sniper]

To me the issue isn't with the concept, but the scale. Charging $40,000 per patch for a big budget, AAA disc-based title seems like encouragement, but charging that for an Xbox Live Arcade title like Schafer's just seems like insanity. A lot of times these are just two or three person teams putting these things together, so the margins needed to make a profit are much lower, and that's going to be a huge chunk of it. It'd be like charging a major developer millions or possibly tens of millions per patch.

Releasing a game on XBLA isn't like releasing on Steam, either - you actually have to send the code itself to Microsoft and they scrutinize over it prior to release, so the initial code quality required just to get out of the gate is pretty high. But these guys simply don't have the resources to account for every possible test case, and some bugs are inevitably going to get through. And charging these small teams that much to fix them seems like it'd only be encouraging what they're trying to prevent.That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Bojay1997]

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about game development here. I think $40,000 is an extreme amount to pay to patch a game. If Sony can go without charging, why can't Microsoft? I don't find it fair at all. Things happen. How many times have you done something and checked it over and over only to have someone be like..."uhh dude...you forgot this..or did that." I find this if anything, a great way to alienate indie developers from Microsoft platforms.

Well, Sony is going to report a $2 billion loss for last year, so I wouldn't put much faith in any of their business decisions at this point. The reality is that Microsoft and Sony for that matter make little or no money on truly indie developers publishing on PSN and XBL. It's essentially an entirely subsidized process to the point that both MS and Sony make development kits available to indie developers for a really low price and subsidize the testing and approval process. If consoles were the only viable platform, I might be persuaded that the $40K is an issue, but there are so many other platforms out there that can be financially lucrative for indie developers that I could really care less if a dude in his basement can't get his work published on XBL. If you can't put together a business plan and raise a little money and do things professionally, you should be looking elsewhere. If you do things well, Sony and Microsoft will come your way after you have a successful PC or iOS release and pay you to bring your product to them just like they have done with Minecraft and other popular indie games.

[Hep038]

Microsoft lost billions of dollars with the whole red ring of death fiasco. It has to make some of that money back somehow.

Funny how people say Xbox made money off the red ring by selling so many extra consoles and now they are said to have lost money on them. I guess people twist the story to fit their agenda....

[Leo_A]

Never seen a single person that claimed MS made money off the 360's early troubles with common RROD failures.

[Emperor Megas]

Never seen a single person that claimed MS made money off the 360's early troubles with common RROD failures.I've NEVER seen ANYONE EVER say that either. And I really doubt the person he/she quoted ever did.

[JSoup]

Funny how people say Xbox made money off the red ring by selling so many extra consoles and now they are said to have lost money on them. I guess people twist the story to fit their agenda....

I'm confused, the post you quoted claimed they lost money over the incident and were using the patch costs to make it up, where are you getting this 'they made money off the thing' bit?

[Collector_Gaming]

blah blah blah microsoft blah blah blah.... want your answers?

i highly doubt they are hurting that bad.

http://mrbadak.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/how-bill-gates-saving-up.jpg

[Leo_A]

where are you getting this 'they made money off the thing' bit?

It was widely viewed during the first few years the 360 was on the market when the RROD issue was at its height that the 360 was being sold at a loss. Which makes his statement all the more puzzling since no one believed at the time that they were even making money off the sale of a console. So what good he thinks was coming from people buying replacement consoles is even more puzzling.

And I suspect the vast majority of affected customers back then were taking advantage of MS's free repair service for these common issues rather than going out and buying a new console. Not sure how he thinks people thought that was a source of profit for them when Microsoft was footing the shipping and repair bill.