Does Patching a Game Decrease it's value?

[Shadowstar38]

Back in the NES up to the Ps2 when I don't think being online was all that big, the game you bought in the store was what you get. The game was complete you had to deal with it bugs and all.

Now we have patches. It's kind of a good thing, because it lets them fix mistakes they didn't catch in production. The bad thing is the hard, vanilla game you get at the store is inferior to what everyone else is playing. A kid can pick up a PS3 version of Skyrim 15 years from now on Ebay and it will be such shit to play through he's going to wonder why it got 10s everywhere.

Similarly, it can't be considered a work of art. Artists in any other medium can't go back and fix their mistakes on the finished product and have to just live with their mistakes, hopefully learning from it next time they do something.

So more or less, should company start taking the price off game by 5 or $10 in store if they have to release a patch later?

 

[Occams_Razor]

I don't think patching necessarily devalues a game, especially in the gaming generation that we're in. With the level of detail we're beginning to expect from our games, its almost impossible for them to be tested thoroughly. If we look at an open world game like Skyrim, there are millions, if not more, ways to interact with the world. Its almost impossible to know what is going to break the game, and testing every permutation would take years of QA. So patching is an adequate solution once the game is out, to fix issues that arise.

I think if there was an expectation that having to patch would reduce the value of the game, I think developers would simply not patch instead of investing more time into QA.

Also, its not like those cartridge days were bug free. The difference was, you were stuck with it.

 

[Squilookle]

Patches were never that much of a problem- it's when DLC came to consoles that everything went south, because finishing a game on time was suddenly not that big a priority for those lazy gits- they knew they could always fix it up later. Or not, to punish the userbase for not buying it enough (??)

 

[TehCookie]

Taking the price down after a patch doesn't make much sense to be, you're paying less for a copy that works better. Also if a kid is playing Skyrim 15 years from now I'm pretty sure it would be dirt cheap from age so there would be no need to drop it further.

Games aren't classic art, devs should be able to go back and fix things so everyone has a better experience.

 

[TrevHead]

I will take patching over getting stuck with bugs, I don't want to go back to the bad old days of a decade ago when I was a offline PC gamer, many games from back then I never beat because the game bugged out and corrupted all my saves with it, Baulders Gate 1 been the worst I completed 90% of the game and the exp pack)

Besides patching is vital for MP games, both for balancing issues, to tighten up the netcode or just to make ajustments on the meta game to keep players interested. Thats why MS and Sony charging $40k per patch is BS.

As for releasing buggy boxed games, it depends on how big the bugs are, if it's flat out unplayable for most ppl then it shouldn't be on sale for any price. X3 (PC) was one such game, the devs had to release a patched boxed version of it called X3 Gold.

Although releasing buggy boxed games on PC isn't as bad as doing it on console, nowadays 99.9% of PC owners are online while there are still quite a few offline console gamers

 

[DoPo]

Similarly, it can't be considered a work of art. Artists in any other medium can't go back and fix their mistakes on the finished product and have to just live with their mistakes, hopefully learning from it next time they do something.

It can also be considered software. Software devs go back and fix mistakes all the time. And this is the really big distinction - software has some properties inherent to it, that aren't really measurable with other works. A book can be good even though it has some spelling mistakes but unlike software, they won't make you (literally) unable to turn the page. Neither will the slightly wrong hue on a painting make it look different (and wrong) if you bring it to another room. In a sense it's art that really has its beauty in the eye of the beholder. And changes related to that eye or that beholder can also change the beauty of games. Namely, to make them unpleasant.

 

[The Wykydtron]

What about gameplay patches? Some of the joy (or despair) in online games comes from what characters/weapons are going to get nerfs or buffs. Especially in long term games like LoL or WoW or whatever

Seriously, there's quite a bit of excited speculation when it comes to gameplay changes in most games.


Nerfed Rengar down to slightly less bullshit status? Awesome. Removed Ezreal's Attack Speed debuff on his W in the same patch? Ok. Time to ignore the shit out of that ability then :/

[sub]Reconsider Riot! His W is so worthless now! RIOT PLS![/sub]

And Syndra got nothing but buffs after her release. So good. She was extremely underpowered both on a crap damage standpoint (her base damage per level and AP scaling were shockingly bad on release) and her stun was random the hitbox was so, so fucked. You could clearly lamp someone around the face with it and it would bounce off them harmlessly.

She got like 3 patches worth of consecutive buffs with no small counter balance nerfs to compensate. She was that bad

I have to think about UMVC3 and how Capcom has offically stopped thinking about any extra balance patches and how much it could hurt the game. That's right folks, Wesker is forever broken. Dark Wesker shall never stop rising. And the never gave Phoenix Wright back his invincible assists when in Turnabout Mode. Those were the days...


Still some games are more hilarious without patches. MW2 anyone? The most broken online game I can think of. Pretty sure they patched one thing and broke like three others. So much fun.

On a bug fixing patch... Well why would you not take a bug fix? Why would they have to lower the price just because there are a few bugs?

If the bugs are really game-breaking (Fallout 3/New Vegas style) I guarentee you can get a full refund if it's really, really that bad. In the UK anyway, you might be fucked in the US I don't know.

 

[Tanakh]

Similarly, it can't be considered a work of art. Artists in any other medium can't go back and fix their mistakes on the finished product and have to just live with their mistakes, hopefully learning from it next time they do something.

Ahhh... I am not sure where you got that idea from but its utter BS. Puccini and Shakespeare off the top of my head rewrote several of his key masterworks after the inaguration; I would go as far as to say that in orchestra music the usual is for the autor to do rewrites after it's released to the public, and it's not at all uncommon for writers.

The rest of the post, disagree with it, but I can see your point.

 

[hannes2]

Patches themselves don´t decrease a game´s value. Developers being sloppy on a game´s initial release because they can patch it might, but I think that´s a different issue. A game that´s polished enough right out of the box doesn´t retroactively become worse because there´s patch to make it better.

As for the art thing, does something have to be unchangeable to be considered art or is that something that just happens to apply to paintings and sculptures. Some books and plays have been revised, did they stop being art? What if a painter offered to make a correction to one of his works, would it stop being art because of that (after all, you can choose not to patch a lot of games unless you want to play online)?

 

[skywolfblue]

Patching only increases a games value.

(Unless it's like Starcraft 2 for the Mac. Where they basically dropped support for everything that was more then a year old (The box lists 10.5.8 but they completely screwed those users over, 10.6 is up next for the chopping block and me along with it), each patch getting slower and slower... I'm seriously considering trying to go back to 1.0 and forcibly stay offline to play it, but I do enjoy the online stuff)

 

[unstabLized]

Not at all. Maybe sometimes, games come out with some problems and bugs. What's wrong with the developer trying to fix these problems and make your money's worth? If anything, it's a good thing. Don't see why people don't like patches. DLC is a different story.

 

[Piorn]

I'm looking forward to re-installing all my old games in ~30 years, only to find that:

a) I can't install them legally anymore and have to crack them
b) have to play the release version which is buggy as hell
c) will miss most of the story and gameplay features because of DLC

 

[Terrible Opinions]

Well.

That was an OP that made zero damn sense.

Yes, it certainly was.

 

[gigastar]

Yes, some kid buying the PS3 version of Skyrim in 15 years time... thats totally a realistic example...

Anyway a patch or DLC only devalues the version of the game that it doesnt arrive for. The console versions of Skyrim arent worth the ammonia in a weeks worth of my piss compared to the PC version, simply because the PC version recieves better support and is fully capable of running the game in the first place.

 

[hazabaza1]

Similarly, it can't be considered a work of art.

Well alright then. Patch away.

Not really understanding what you're getting at, especially since most reviews are based on the unpatched, release date game.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Patching doesn't devalue a game, it makes it better. It improves the game. Yes, later in life you won't be able to patch your store bought copy, but by the same token later in life you won't be able to play an MMO, that doesn't mean you get a refund since you can't play it anymore.

Also, artists do redo their work and alter it. Ever heard of a director's cut? That has nothing to do with if something is art.