• 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.

Microsoft and Sony should go back to charging developers $40,000 to patch games.

There are really good "indie games" that ship completed games from the start. But the problem is that they are not considered "games". I am trying my best to ship my first game completed on steam. At least I won't be part of the problem, I loved when I purchase a game and it is completed and does not need a day 1 patch to be functional. Also, I fucking despise loot boxes.
What's your game called, so we can check it out once it's up. Already know it doesn't have loot boxes :p Indies and AA games ususally have less bugs as reputation is on the line and no money to not care.

More jank but less bugs, but that is fine, that adds to the charm.

As a roguelike lover those only get made by indie devs and the occasional AA jp dev (shiren).
 

oldergamer

Member
This is some serious zoomer trash. I'll prove you wrong right now:

I know this is going to be difficult for your little zoomie brain to comprehend but there was a time when games never could connect to the internet to download patches at all. Games had to be the very best they could be before release because of this. Development studios had actual QA teams who did bug testing and games weren't sent to print until they were in an outstanding state.

TLDR - yes things were better back in the day
Games are 100 times more complicated now then they were in the past. We're not talking about a small 2d game with 10 levels. drop the zoomer shit. its fucking stupid
 

Omali

Member
I wish the games industry way back when was actually as perfect as delusional people want to remember it being.
 

Kagoshima_Luke

Gold Member
 

GreatnessRD

Member
Before on the Xbox 360 and PS3, they used to charge developers $40,000 per patch, and then they stopped.

Now developers release the broken games and titles on launch. There is no point of releasing games in a stable state when they can simply patch it later for free and as many times for free.
There isn't a sense of thoroughness in the industry anymore, for example, Avengers just released an update for Spider-man and people in-game currency depleted. All the units and credits simply vanished.
Gaming of the past has a sense of weight, so they had to cram and make sure the patch was stable and tested, now quality control went to absolute shit.

If developers went back to being charged per patch maybe we might get some quality back in the gaming industry.
Modern games suck.
Everything is whored out like a casino or store filled with microtransactions.
I compare Halo Reach and Halo 4 customization compared to Halo Infinite and now I hate modern gaming. Things that were once free are now paid for, I do not want to ever go back to a Halo multiplayer because it turned to shit compared to its predecessors.
Destiny 1 was great, Destiny 2 got fucked.

I really hate free-to-play.
I want to go back to the simple days of buying a game, it has a single-player and multiplayer component and everything worked out of the box with so much feature set.
Now things are the minimum viable products. Things are released like a fucking skeleton and each component is paid for.
Gaming will never be an art form the way it's doing. At least movies and tv shows aren't whored out like video games, there aren't exclusive theatre endings for movies or some stupid shady business shit.
Gaming needs to go back to what it was.

I hate modern gaming.
Before we had rich large fulfilling expansions.
Now we have recolors, pay $20 to change your character's armor into purple. Fucking hell.

/rant

Modern Gaming sucks now.
Now we have an entire generation of kids swiping their parent's credit cards to buy skins and shit. FOMO. And when you least expect it that service shuts down and all that money spent goes down the drain.
I totally get where you're coming from and agree. But, the buck starts with the consumers. People gotta stop pre-ordering and apologizing for this bullshit the Publishers push out. Gotta hit 'em where it hurts, that bottom line.
 
This is some serious zoomer trash. I'll prove you wrong right now:

I know this is going to be difficult for your little zoomie brain to comprehend but there was a time when games never could connect to the internet to download patches at all. Games had to be the very best they could be before release because of this. Development studios had actual QA teams who did bug testing and games weren't sent to print until they were in an outstanding state.

TLDR - yes things were better back in the day

No. I'm playing some older games right now and they have issues that could be significantly better with a simple patch. Patches aren't just for game breaking bugs.

Plus, game breaking bugs still DID happen in the past and required a complete reprint of the game.
 

ParaSeoul

Member
This is some serious zoomer trash. I'll prove you wrong right now:

I know this is going to be difficult for your little zoomie brain to comprehend but there was a time when games never could connect to the internet to download patches at all. Games had to be the very best they could be before release because of this. Development studios had actual QA teams who did bug testing and games weren't sent to print until they were in an outstanding state.

TLDR - yes things were better back in the day
 
No all it did was make sure certain games that came out stayed broken forever or the version that came out was better on one platform "360" or the other there are tons of early ps3 and mid ps3 games that run terrible and never got patched there are tons of vita games that run terrible as well. The amount of old games that have problems is way higher then the current games that have came out that are broken go play the Ninja gaiden collection on the Vita or go play skyrim or any bethesda game on the ps3 terrible and those games never got fixed. And for indie or AA devs all it does it make them go else where I guess if you want sony to get less games go ahead half of the Reason the wii,3ds,ds,360 and pc got tons of indie games or very obscured and unique games was because of the stupid 40k patch stipulation sony put out there and thats before we talk about how sony bailed on paying up front for dev cost for certain games Cough Cough "Shenmue 3, Sf5" cough cough.
 
There's more content in my post, you could've discussed that instead of cutting and replying with a one-liner. Anyway, it was just a tongue in cheek comment on devs hypothetically going back to making Pong games to make sure they live up to the new rules in OP's rant.

Fair enough. I'll admit it was in short length, but it wasn't intended to be in bad faith.

But, yeah, your analogy struck a cord. It just seemed inapplicable. You seem to insinuate that the possibility of going back to some kind of strict patching policies would be "antiquated" (hand-crank black and white movie) by modern 2021 standards. No game will ever be perfect, but the industry itself should have some stronger preventive measures to hinder massive oversights pre-release like the recent string of events. I don't think placing all the responsibility in the lap of the consumer would prevent this from continuing to happen.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there should be a fee. I do think both Microsoft and Sony should be more strict on their certification process. Casual gamers blame the console manufacturers for a bad game, not the publisher.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Patches are a good thing but there needs to be some balance. San Andreas Definitive Edition just released it's 3rd patch at a whopping 18.5GB for a game that is 21.8GB. The three patches have totaled more than the original download.
To be fair that's primarily the fault of poor/broken delivery & distribution systems offered by platform service providers. None of those patches are even remotely changing that much data.
So - still very much a Sony & Microsoft (and Nintendo, and Steam) fault - but a bit differently from the OP.
 

Three

Member
User reviews from bought copies determine the cut Sony and MS gets. The higher the user review the lower the cut. It would be hard to plan for but it will set an upper limit and anything else is reward for releasing a good game.
 

synce

Member
I don't think the problem is the companies not getting charged, it's all the people out there preordering or buying day one, especially from companies known for broken games. As a company, why should I care about your experience if you keep giving me money anyway?
 

01011001

Member
Before on the Xbox 360 and PS3, they used to charge developers $40,000 per patch, and then they stopped.

not only that! for the longest time, Patch sizes were SEVERELY LIMITED on Xbox 360. people that had a 360 back then might remember that a "big Patch" on 360 was maybe 20MB... yes MEGABYTE, at worst you'd get a 40MB patch. and that was already the period where downloading big games and DLCs was common practice, so it had nothing to do with that, it was just something Microsoft felt was beneficial to their console and the usability of it

I WANT THAT BACK AS WELL! the way the patches worked on 360 made sure that developers knew they could not just release a halfassed shitshow of a game and then just drop a 30GB day 1 patch.

both companies bend over and let publishers fuck them in the ass, and it hurts game quality, because as soon as you give those greedy pieces of shit the opportunity to get away with that shit, they will do it in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:

Hugare

Member
Big names like EA, Ubi, Take2 and many others wouldnt care a shit about 40k

This would only hurt small indie developers
 
What's your game called, so we can check it out once it's up. Already know it doesn't have loot boxes :p Indies and AA games ususally have less bugs as reputation is on the line and no money to not care.

More jank but less bugs, but that is fine, that adds to the charm.

As a roguelike lover those only get made by indie devs and the occasional AA jp dev (shiren).
The name is Dungeon's Fall. Do not expect to break anything regarding roguelike games, but I am happy about it.
 

Abriael_GN

Member
This is some serious zoomer trash. I'll prove you wrong right now:

I know this is going to be difficult for your little zoomie brain to comprehend but there was a time when games never could connect to the internet to download patches at all. Games had to be the very best they could be before release because of this. Development studios had actual QA teams who did bug testing and games weren't sent to print until they were in an outstanding state.

TLDR - yes things were better back in the day

I don't know what a "zoomer is" as I'm not too familiar with the slang you kids use nowadays, but it's not unlikely that I'm older than you and I've been playing video games on my Spectrum 48k before you even noticed that entertainment could be more interactive than Barbies.

On the other hand, those who aren't blinded by those silly-looking "old timer" rose-tinted glasses and by their misplaced veteran pride know very well that games from the time you describe weren't at all free from issues. They had plenty, but in most cases, they just stayed broken. 🤔

TLDR: the big pink glasses may be good for Halloween, but it's December now.
 

DavidGzz

Member
Only PC versions get patched? Would be a feather in the cap for the master race. Patches AND mods. Dasitmayne
 

b0bbyJ03

Member
all this shit comes down to perspective, and yes, i know some of you will not like what i have to say at all, but fuck it, i'm 42 years old and have been gaming since the Commodore days so I've seen a lot. Gaming is by far the best its ever been as long as you're a patient person. The amount of games that release right now is staggering and the variety is incredible. You're focused on the fact that you're stuck in a pattern of buying new games. Stop this, and you will feel better. Sure, they shouldn't release them in this state, BUT WE SHOULDN"T BUY THEM. If you wait a year or so after the game releases you'll always get a fantastic experience. You literally have millions of beta testers (again, perspective) that give feedback online (mainly through complaints) and get the game to a great state. on top of that you'll get most games at a third of the price, or less. Just looking back on the last few years, some of my favorite games, including the battelfield ones, launched in a shit state. I waited on BF4 and once I picked it up it worked really well and i loved it. I picked up BF5 last year for $16 and really enjoyed it. I remember Rainbow six siege releasing in a bad state, but i picked it up about a year after and holy shit was that game awesome. I won't keep providing examples, you get my point.
 

negator2vc

Neo Member
How about instead of fixed amount
use an amount based on amount sales (either initial sales or even pre-orders) and amount of game price (and hit hard there - in the millions range)
Could also limit this to a minimum amount of sales and/or game price (for example only above 50000 sales and/or 20 euro/dollars for price).
After all the most damage is done by the current situation when a game has many sales and high price.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom