darkmorgado wrote:Oh yeah, I totally agree - it's piss poor when a bug that serious slips through the net before release. It's the same with something like the PS3 version of Skyrim; these games just shouldn't be released when they contain such game destroying bugs or faults especially considering, however unlikely in this day and age, not everyone will have access to or can afford the internet. Without any access to update their games some people would be left with a completely broken product which is disgraceful.
Good to hear, but I accept your point about the patching process whilst also feeling the need to point out that in an ideal world something this common and this serious really, really should have been picked up and fixed during the QA testing process, especially considering that the game wasn't exactly rushed through development.
On the flip side, for the majority that can update their games, the patching process should be much faster and be completely free no matter how many updates are needed. Funnily enough it's a point that was made just the other day by a former Xbox creator who said the situation with Fez not being updated on 360, because it wasn't cost effective for the dev to do so (after the first 'free' patch that Microsoft allow), was ludicrous and damaging to the home console market especially in the face of competition from companies like Apple and their approach to patching/updates. I think it's fair to say that the monetisation of game patches/essential updates is something that is a real low point for the 'console' industry. Obviously you don't want to encourage devs to release even more broken products, knowing they can patch it as much as they like later on, but it would certainly be more preferable to allow console patches and updates to be quick and free for the benefit of both devs and gamers, especially with the likes of Steam and the mobile app markets doing it as standard.