How The Internet Ruined Game Consoles

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Yes folks, this article is about the dreaded "day one patch" and shipping crap before it is actually finished.

The anticipation while waiting for holidays or birthdays or while saving enough allowance has turned into anticipation during firmware updates or software patches or mandatory installs, and all manner of nonsense. Even for those of us who grew up with PCs, the state of modern game consoles is a sad one when it comes to what's inside the packaging representing what the outside says.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Let's not pretend NES games weren't buggy. But, I can see why the constant slew of day 1 patches for console games and hardware make a toxic environment for those with either spotty internet or no internet at all.
 

DarkStryke

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
1,391
Let's not pretend NES games weren't buggy. But, I can see why the constant slew of day 1 patches for console games and hardware make a toxic environment for those with either spotty internet or no internet at all.

It's not a matter of no internet or not, it's allowed them to heavily cut QA resources because they can 'just fix it later'.

Just another form of publisher greed, and people keep buying buggy shit so they'll keep releasing buggy shit.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
It's not a matter of no internet or not, it's allowed them to heavily cut QA resources because they can 'just fix it later'.

Just another form of publisher greed, and people keep buying buggy shit so they'll keep releasing buggy shit.

That's not what it means as a rule. Almost every game post 1996 on PC has had patches. It didn't mean the devs were lazy. It just meant they could finally fix the buggy games they put out. Games have been buggy since games were mass marketed. Console games were no different in how buggy they were/are, but they didn't start getting patches since 2006 or so.

Now, it does leave an easy route open for those devs and publishers(usually the ones in charge of QA) that are actually shitty and lazy. As consumers, we just need to stop buying games from shitty publishers, day one patches or no.
 

Danny Dawg

Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
811
It is a crying shame this happens with PC games and now consoles. With anything else we buy, if the item does not work as stated right of the box, we take it back where we got it. Here, with these items, it is perfectly acceptable to sell it "broken" and make the consumer wait. I almost thinking these game companies and consoles border on false advertising given the items do not work out of the box. They might have to start puttng disclaimers on the box like "may be broken until we can fix it later."
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,454
I have to agree with the article. It's a travesty that current consoles are released as paper weights or barely functional till you go download a patch. Honestly if what's written on the box is not possible by just plugging it into a TV and a wall outlet, I don't think the makers (Nintendo, Sony or MS) should be able to list it on the box without clearly marking it that the functionality listed is not present till a patch is downloaded from the internet. And I don't mean a little * next to the feature then some fine print on some part of the box, I mean in big bold letters or in a box of it's own that clearly states all functionality listed there is unavailable without the patch. Otherwise I really feel they are falsely advertising what is in box.

Yeah the old games occasionally had bugs, but the consoles always did work as stated on the box as soon as you took it out of the box and plugged it in. Even the buggy games worked with out any major issues as soon as you put them in the console. That's the whole point of the article, purchased product experience was significantly better since they actually shipped functional products out the door. The internet did help the buggy games problem, but ever since the internet connection was built into consoles, they are no longer using the patch system to just fix bugs, but ship unfinished products and fix it later which IMHO is the wrong way to do things.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,346
The "patch" thing is too obvious. You are not seeing the more important problems.

Before the internet, all games had an emphasis on Single player. Many even had coop play. That's fading fast.

All those games, despite being 20 years old, as long as the hardware is physically intact are still playable because none of them required an Internet connection to "authenticate" your right to use your product.

The patches are no big deal, annoying yes, but workable. The other 2 are turning games into throw away products. How useful will these games be in 20 years when no servers exist and no-one else is online to play? The patches do play into this to some extent, because it 20 years you will not be able to download a patch for a game. Which is unfortunate if the developer sells the game with the intentions of making it workable with a day one patch.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,346
It is a crying shame this happens with PC games and now consoles. With anything else we buy, if the item does not work as stated right of the box, we take it back where we got it. Here, with these items, it is perfectly acceptable to sell it "broken" and make the consumer wait. I almost thinking these game companies and consoles border on false advertising given the items do not work out of the box. They might have to start puttng disclaimers on the box like "may be broken until we can fix it later."

It's because the concept of virtual distribution is very very new. Physical distribution has been around for 1000's of years. We know all the technics sellers can do to get out of delivering a sound product, and we know what rights ownership should entail. So we have laws like Lemon laws and The First Sale Doctorine.

However with virtual distribution, it's not clear what should be done. The developers/sellers were very smart (or lucky) to use the copyright angle. As it is right now the seller has the majority of the rights and buyer has only the very very most basic of rights.

In time as more products move to this method and more generations get burned and sick of it, the laws will change.
 

-Axiom-

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
2,216
I bought Supreme Commander 2 retail on release day so that I could play the game immediately.
I pop in my disc and it turns out it needs a 4 1/2 gig patch from Steam, it took something like 6 hrs to get the game installed.
Because ya know on release day the servers are just getting pounded, hence the reason to get a physical disc instead.

4 1/2 gig is the whole damn game.
Even then it took another patch a month or 2 later to actually get all the units and to get the interface to work correctly.
That wasn't even fixing bugs that was just finishing the stupid game.
 

XamediX

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
3,082
I bought Supreme Commander 2 retail on release day so that I could play the game immediately.
I pop in my disc and it turns out it needs a 4 1/2 gig patch from Steam, it took something like 6 hrs to get the game installed.
Because ya know on release day the servers are just getting pounded, hence the reason to get a physical disc instead.

4 1/2 gig is the whole damn game.
Even then it took another patch a month or 2 later to actually get all the units and to get the interface to work correctly.
That wasn't even fixing bugs that was just finishing the stupid game.

You shouldve known better than to buy that game on release day. Any person that has gamed in the last 10 years would know about getting software/hardware the first day it's available.

This type of shit that the author is whining about rarely affects me and barely affects anyone else that would be worth enough to call themselves a gamer.
  1. You don't buy the first iteration of anything.
  2. You have to at least give somewhat of a fuck to keep up with the game's development via all the media they shove down our throats.
  3. You take advantage of pre-loading whenever possible
  4. You don't buy shitty games.

I mean seriously how many games did you anticipate and keep up with. Then you buy it and it's absolute shit? I never have. The closest I ever got to that was DNF and I still had a pretty good idea coming into it.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
You shouldve known better than to buy that game on release day. Any person that has gamed in the last 10 years would know about getting software/hardware the first day it's available.

This type of shit that the author is whining about rarely affects me and barely affects anyone else that would be worth enough to call themselves a gamer.
  1. You don't buy the first iteration of anything.
  2. You have to at least give somewhat of a fuck to keep up with the game's development via all the media they shove down our throats.
  3. You take advantage of pre-loading whenever possible
  4. You don't buy shitty games.

I mean seriously how many games did you anticipate and keep up with. Then you buy it and it's absolute shit? I never have. The closest I ever got to that was DNF and I still had a pretty good idea coming into it.


That's nice, dear.
 

uOpt

Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
795
Yes, yes yes.

It's not cutting QA. It's ignoring issues already found and releasing anyway.

And yes, it is so bad that the old state with unfixable bugs was actually better.
 

yelsewshane

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
420
Ya all this bs cloud and digital distribution is a joke. Give me a cd/dvd/blue-ray whatever that I can install and keep for re-sale. I assure you all if there is a program/game/etc that I want and it's only digital and or cloud based I will acquire it thru other means.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
You shouldve known better than to buy that game on release day. Any person that has gamed in the last 10 years would know about getting software/hardware the first day it's available.

This type of shit that the author is whining about rarely affects me and barely affects anyone else that would be worth enough to call themselves a gamer.
  1. You don't buy the first iteration of anything.
  2. You have to at least give somewhat of a fuck to keep up with the game's development via all the media they shove down our throats.
  3. You take advantage of pre-loading whenever possible
  4. You don't buy shitty games.

I mean seriously how many games did you anticipate and keep up with. Then you buy it and it's absolute shit? I never have. The closest I ever got to that was DNF and I still had a pretty good idea coming into it.

I have to agree with this, especially with 2. The only time I got tricked was with BRINK. I even pre-ordered DNF Balls of Steel and had fun with the MP for months and months.

But 1 is a load of crap imo
 

XamediX

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
3,082
That's nice, dear.
I thought those guidelines were common sense. My apologies if it wasn't. :D

Ya all this bs cloud and digital distribution is a joke. Give me a cd/dvd/blue-ray whatever that I can install and keep for re-sale. I assure you all if there is a program/game/etc that I want and it's only digital and or cloud based I will acquire it thru other means.

Heh, so you are going to steal the game because you don't like how it's packaged? Now riddle me this. If you find out a game is digital only and you "acquire" it by other means... what other way can you "acquire" it without it still being digital? SMH...
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
I thought those guidelines were common sense. My apologies if it wasn't. :D

I don't disagree with your methods, I just don't think that should need to be the norm. The responsibility needs to be laid back at the feet of shitty publishers.
 

XamediX

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
3,082
I have to agree with this, especially with 2. The only time I got tricked was with BRINK. I even pre-ordered DNF Balls of Steel and had fun with the MP for months and months.

But 1 is a load of crap imo

Yea I forgot about BRINK. That game would have fooled some people. I thought it was going to be pretty darn cool as well, but I never got around to messing with it. Also, I think Point # 1 is a load of crap but it is reality. I have been around long enough to know that shit failing on the first iteration of anything tech has a high probability compared to it's 2nd or 3rd iteration. It has happened soooooo many times. I have seen/read soooooo many rants due to it. I have read/participated in sooooo many threads about it. It is amazing to me that people still get surprised when their piece of bleeding edge tech doesn't work right. ESPECIALLY people who regularly visit this website.
 

tesfaye

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
3,421
Let's not pretend NES games weren't buggy. But, I can see why the constant slew of day 1 patches for console games and hardware make a toxic environment for those with either spotty internet or no internet at all.
Yeah, let's go a little further back...

As a child I would have gone ballistic if I lost my ability to take advantage of the reset bug in Space Invaders on the Atari 2600 (OG model, not that slim shit). Dual missles FTW! So glad there were no patches back then. lol
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,588
Yea I forgot about BRINK. That game would have fooled some people. I thought it was going to be pretty darn cool as well, but I never got around to messing with it..

My son bought that game for $30 and hated it. :(
 

WaltC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,129
I have to agree with the article. It's a travesty that current consoles are released as paper weights or barely functional till you go download a patch. Honestly if what's written on the box is not possible by just plugging it into a TV and a wall outlet, I don't think the makers (Nintendo, Sony or MS) should be able to list it on the box without clearly marking it that the functionality listed is not present till a patch is downloaded from the internet. And I don't mean a little * next to the feature then some fine print on some part of the box, I mean in big bold letters or in a box of it's own that clearly states all functionality listed there is unavailable without the patch. Otherwise I really feel they are falsely advertising what is in box.

Yeah the old games occasionally had bugs, but the consoles always did work as stated on the box as soon as you took it out of the box and plugged it in. Even the buggy games worked with out any major issues as soon as you put them in the console. That's the whole point of the article, purchased product experience was significantly better since they actually shipped functional products out the door. The internet did help the buggy games problem, but ever since the internet connection was built into consoles, they are no longer using the patch system to just fix bugs, but ship unfinished products and fix it later which IMHO is the wrong way to do things.

I understand the point but I don't agree because there's another way of looking at it. If you don't mind waiting for three additional months or so to pick up a console in which everything works as advertised roob, then you can certainly do that. Order one for a January-February '14 delivery, and I guarantee you'll receive a fully functioning unit right out of the box. The in-a-hurry, pre-order crowd is going to be the *only* crowd that will receive the non-functioning, needs-an-Internet-patch console.

People who opt to wait another 3-6 months to order, and after reading some in-depth reviews by non-biased parties and when some far better games have been released, will simply not have this "worry" at all. The fact is when you order complex products never made or shipped before, when you pre-order them sight-unseen without the benefit of a single end-user review, you are cuckoo-for-more-than-cocoa-puffs if you expect to get a *perfect* product. It's just not going to happen and you should not expect it to.

Indeed, if not for the Internet serving as a marvelous direct update line from the manufacturer of your product to you, it's fairly obvious that no one would have received either console from either company until early in 2014, when they'd all come fully functional right out of the box. IMO, the early adopters see downloading a day-one update patch as a small price to pay for getting the console they want three months earlier--I'd guarantee it, really. Don't kid yourself, in the old days, before Internet ubiquity, neither of these consoles would have shipped and been delivered this year. In the good ole' days, things moved at a snail-mail pace.

The error in the idea that the Internet is "making things sloppy" is pretty easy to see. Internet patch delivery has enabled these early consoles to ship 3-6 months earlier than would have been the case, otherwise, and the Internet *also* means the manufacturers can *continue* to offer regular routine bug fixes and feature improvement and even new feature support altogether, on a continuing basis. In the old, pre-Internet days, they could not do that and so often they never bothered. Don't in any way make the mistake of confusing "the old days" with "perfect" software and hardware performance.

OK, so let's suppose you are a person who either doesn't have a good Internet connection or simply doesn't want to mess with Internet updating. For you, the answer is to simply *wait.* Wait six months or a year and *then* order your new console, and when games ship, wait 3-6 months on them while they get patched up and then order them. And whatever you do--never, ever pre-order a new hardware product!....;)
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,906
Devs/Pubs putting out half finished games and the "gamers" accepting it, damages gaming period. Not just on the consoles. Today's consoles certainly seem to have lost some of the "just pop the disc in and play", as well as the "no need to look for/download patches", and "no need to be plugged into the net", advantages that they used to have.
 

King Icewind

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
5,444
I don't know if it is always developers being lazy. I think publishers are just demanding faster time schedules for game development and releases.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,906
I understand the point but I don't agree because there's another way of looking at it. If you don't mind waiting for three additional months or so to pick up a console in which everything works as advertised roob, then you can certainly do that. Order one for a January-February '14 delivery, and I guarantee you'll receive a fully functioning unit right out of the box. The in-a-hurry, pre-order crowd is going to be the *only* crowd that will receive the non-functioning, needs-an-Internet-patch console.

People who opt to wait another 3-6 months to order, and after reading some in-depth reviews by non-biased parties and when some far better games have been released, will simply not have this "worry" at all. The fact is when you order complex products never made or shipped before, when you pre-order them sight-unseen without the benefit of a single end-user review, you are cuckoo-for-more-than-cocoa-puffs if you expect to get a *perfect* product. It's just not going to happen and you should not expect it to.

Indeed, if not for the Internet serving as a marvelous direct update line from the manufacturer of your product to you, it's fairly obvious that no one would have received either console from either company until early in 2014, when they'd all come fully functional right out of the box. IMO, the early adopters see downloading a day-one update patch as a small price to pay for getting the console they want three months earlier--I'd guarantee it, really. Don't kid yourself, in the old days, before Internet ubiquity, neither of these consoles would have shipped and been delivered this year. In the good ole' days, things moved at a snail-mail pace.

The error in the idea that the Internet is "making things sloppy" is pretty easy to see. Internet patch delivery has enabled these early consoles to ship 3-6 months earlier than would have been the case, otherwise, and the Internet *also* means the manufacturers can *continue* to offer regular routine bug fixes and feature improvement and even new feature support altogether, on a continuing basis. In the old, pre-Internet days, they could not do that and so often they never bothered. Don't in any way make the mistake of confusing "the old days" with "perfect" software and hardware performance.

OK, so let's suppose you are a person who either doesn't have a good Internet connection or simply doesn't want to mess with Internet updating. For you, the answer is to simply *wait.* Wait six months or a year and *then* order your new console, and when games ship, wait 3-6 months on them while they get patched up and then order them. And whatever you do--never, ever pre-order a new hardware product!....;)

Shut up and wait is your answer? Really???

The PS2 and Xbox launched fully functional day one, so did pretty much every console b4 that.
Games, as a rule did not ship with game breaking bugs on day one or else they ended up getting recalled and released when fixed.
Game discs themselves are not always updated, the dev/pub relies on the patch process rather than bother with that until the presser's contract is up.
The old days were not perfect, no they were not, but game breakers were the exception and not the rule.
Yes you can wait and shut up, but my god, whatever happened to putting out a finished working product that does what it says? Whatever happened to consumers that would take their money elsewhere if you did not give that to them?
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
I thought those guidelines were common sense. My apologies if it wasn't. :D
It's common sense to anyone who has been playing games for a while... which is to say it's not common sense, it's acquired knowledge after having been burnt or spending too much time online reading about how other people have been burnt.

I agree, seasoned gamers should know these things... but the fact knowing these things is required knowledge is sad fact of a shitty system.
 

wabbitseason

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,511
You shouldve known better than to buy that game on release day. Any person that has gamed in the last 10 years would know about getting software/hardware the first day it's available.

This type of shit that the author is whining about rarely affects me and barely affects anyone else that would be worth enough to call themselves a gamer.
  1. You don't buy the first iteration of anything.
  2. You have to at least give somewhat of a fuck to keep up with the game's development via all the media they shove down our throats.
  3. You take advantage of pre-loading whenever possible
  4. You don't buy shitty games.

I mean seriously how many games did you anticipate and keep up with. Then you buy it and it's absolute shit? I never have. The closest I ever got to that was DNF and I still had a pretty good idea coming into it.

What is wrong with you? When you purchase a product you expect it to work. You don't expect to wait 6 months while the kinks are ironed out, and then buy it. You and your ilk are the reason that companies can shaft us.
 

8du8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
298
Oh its the internets fault right? Or its lazy devs right? Its the publishers isnt it? OR its all the fucking retards who keep buying shit right when it comes out, full hooked into all the mass marketing and cant fucking wait to get their grubby little hands on shit. Then lets piss and moan about it, and the next time lets just do it all over again.

How about have some fucking will power and dont buy shit the instant it comes out without doing some research and waiting to see what happens. If more people actually did this, do you think they'd keep putting out garbage? They only do it because nobody does anything about it or changes their purchasing habits.
 

Aluisious

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,189
Reeeeeal easy solution to day 1 patches: don't fucking buy it.

You lived your whole life without <amazing thing>, a few weeks or months more will be fine. Go for a walk.
 

Aluisious

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,189
What is wrong with you? When you purchase a product you expect it to work. You don't expect to wait 6 months while the kinks are ironed out, and then buy it. You and your ilk are the reason that companies can shaft us.

You should try basic logic. HE DIDN'T PURCHASE THE PRODUCT AND EXPECT IT TO WORK. He waits to see if it's working, and then buys it.

You should try thinking instead of twitching, might solve a lot of your frustrations.
 

Qinsp

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,154
Fuck dudes...

Programmers often work 20 hrs a day, 7 days a week before release.

There is no such thing as "perfect" software. It does not exist.

You fix all the bugs reported, and you scream "DON'T RELEASE IT YET!!!" and it goes out the door.

Do you wonder why all software today gets constant updates? It didn't originally ...
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,906
You should try basic logic. HE DIDN'T PURCHASE THE PRODUCT AND EXPECT IT TO WORK. He waits to see if it's working, and then buys it.

You should try thinking instead of twitching, might solve a lot of your frustrations.

You are talking about the current unfortunate reality, he is talking about the way it was and should still be. This sort of "progress", is not to the gamers benefit.

Because of the BS, I generally wait to buy til it hits the bargain bin myself. Since I have to wait a a few months for them to fix it, I can wait a few more til it hits the under $10 bin. If others did the same, they would stop with the day one patch required BS and ship games that have had a bit more QC. Then we could start buying sooner, at higher still a new game price leading to higher profits for the dev/pub.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
You are talking about the current unfortunate reality, he is talking about the way it was and should still be. This sort of "progress", is not to the gamers benefit.

Because of the BS, I generally wait to buy til it hits the bargain bin myself. Since I have to wait a a few months for them to fix it, I can wait a few more til it hits the under $10 bin. If others did the same, they would stop with the day one patch required BS and ship games that have had a bit more QC. Then we could start buying sooner, at higher still a new game price leading to higher profits for the dev/pub.

Yeah, unfortunately games still make most their sales (not just profits, but actual sales) when the game first comes out... so you are going to have to convince a loooooot of people do not buy at launch. And even then, are publishers really smart enough to figure out the reason for it is day 1 patches? These are the same publishers that think DRM is an awesome idea.
 

uOpt

Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
795
Let's face it:

the real problem is that the games now never reach a state of acceptable number of obvious bugs.

Because the pressure to spend the post-release patching time on features instead of bugfixes increases in the face of the competition in the market and the need to have something to brag about for continued sales of the product.
 

dyzophoria

Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
946
I don't know if it is always developers being lazy. I think publishers are just demanding faster time schedules for game development and releases.

I think I'd agree with this, but I don't think the internet ruined consoles, it is both a blessing and a curse IMHO, though its annoying about the trend requiring internet connections first before you can actually use the thing, it is also good that atleast at the software side there is a faster way and sure way to update/upgrade/fix stuff on the units.
 

rsaotome

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
174
Wow, after hearing about all this, am I glad I decided to save my money for a custom aftermarket Radeon R9 290x card (when it finally comes out), not to mention a new monitor. :)
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
Devil's advocate here:

Games today are exponentially more complex than they were even 10 years ago. Don't you guys remember the times when you actually had to hunt down patches from dev websites to fix game breaking bugs?
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
You are talking about the current unfortunate reality, he is talking about the way it was and should still be. This sort of "progress", is not to the gamers benefit.

Because of the BS, I generally wait to buy til it hits the bargain bin myself. Since I have to wait a a few months for them to fix it, I can wait a few more til it hits the under $10 bin. If others did the same, they would stop with the day one patch required BS and ship games that have had a bit more QC. Then we could start buying sooner, at higher still a new game price leading to higher profits for the dev/pub.


Depends on developer. Some developers just churn out garbage buggy code hence why I refused to buy Skyrim at full price. Some games I won't wait because I trust the devs ability to deliver. Gearbox is one. While I question some of their business practices, their code is solid and runs great on my rig. Anything made by Rocksteady gets my money day one. Bethesda could not pay me to take their games.
 
Top