3 ms·

I think there's something to be said for the inability to issue patches. It's created a culture in the software industry, especially in games, of rushing to get

I think there's something to be said for the inability to issue patches. It's created a culture in the software industry, especially in games, of rushing to get the first version out in basic working form and then have a "day one patch" followed by many subsequent fixes. Quality suffers because there's an attitude that problems can always be fixed later, so it's not a disaster if the initial release is below standard. 30 years ago this wasn't an option. Whatever the development team designated as the golden master would be written to physical cartridges, floppy disks, or CDs. Any bugs that were there would stay there, so you had to get it as close to perfect as possible because there were no second chances. This pressure meant that people were, by necessity, more careful. How many times have you installed a patch for a Super NES or Playstation 2 game? Compare that to today's releases. For developers and other creators, the idea of being able to repeatedly update things is attractive. It's also necessary in certain spheres, particularly in fixing security vulnerabilities. But I know the sense of finality and relief can be immense once you publish something that can't be changed (as was the case with my thesis) and that something is finally "done" and I know I'll never have to worry about it again. The requirement to get something right the first time has a significant impact on quality.

tialaramex 5y ago
While "Day One Patch" is basically a curse (and a reminder that pre-ordering games is a sucker bet since even people who buy it when it's released aren't sure yet what they'll actually get) it's worth remembering that even when things were "written to physical cartridges, floppy disks or CDs" there actually were version changes. If you get into speed running you'll find that on some of these very old games it's specified the exact version you must run, e.g. the Japanese original CD release with no version on the title screen, not the English or German versions, and not a later Japanese version showing 1.0 on the title screen. Because even if a casual player doesn't care that there was a glitch where you can phase through walls by pressing PAUSE once per frame ten times in a row on the other versions, the speed runners absolutely do care. There are musicians who clearly don't see the recording as the primary outlet, and so aren't bothered if the CD goes out with a mediocre attempt at a song because for them the live performance is what matters. That's not something that really exists for video games.
kmeisthax 5y ago
Believe it or not, games regularly did get updated even back in the NES era. There's many games out there that had a long enough shelf life to get a PRG1/CHR1 revision and reprint. Furthermore, almost no games were sim-ship[0] back then, so even if games didn't get a re-release in the same territory you still had the opportunity to patch a game for the next country's release. e.g. US v1.0 might be equivalent to JP v1.2 even if Japan never got that version. This is also why a lot of Europeans get really confused at old AVGN videos: some of the games he trashes were dramatically improved for Europe and only sucked in the US. (e.g. Fester's Quest) Furthermore, developers back then were very much not "more careful"; in fact, there's plenty of examples of games that were shipped back then with little or no playtesting or QA work done. And likewise, being able to patch a game later doesn't really fix the reputational harm from shipping broken software. If the game is not playable day-one[1], nobody will care when it's playable on day 255. [0] Industry jargon for SIMultaneous SHIP - as in, release in all territories [1] Day-one patch inclusive. I know people hate them, but they let developers eke out an extra month of QA and bug-fixing time because of how cert works.
_moof 5y ago
I've noticed this too. Combine the constant patching with auto-updates and my whole system starts to feel like it's made of sand, constantly shifting under my feet. It almost feels disrespectful. Like, I use my computers to work. The most important thing is that it work for me, reliably and predictably, not that it serve as a showcase for whatever the product manager du jour needs in their promotion packet. There's just a total failure to prioritize the needs of the user. Needless to say I keep auto-updates off. What a world we've made where updating your software has become something to be avoided.
kingcharles 5y ago
The first time I came across patched video games was the late 80s. You'd regularly get updates to PC games on magazine cover disks.

tialaramex 5y ago

While "Day One Patch" is basically a curse (and a reminder that pre-ordering games is a sucker bet since even people who buy it when it's released aren't sure yet what they'll actually get) it's worth remembering that even when things were "written to physical cartridges, floppy disks or CDs" there actually were version changes. If you get into speed running you'll find that on some of these very old games it's specified the exact version you must run, e.g. the Japanese original CD release with no version on the title screen, not the English or German versions, and not a later Japanese version showing 1.0 on the title screen. Because even if a casual player doesn't care that there was a glitch where you can phase through walls by pressing PAUSE once per frame ten times in a row on the other versions, the speed runners absolutely do care. There are musicians who clearly don't see the recording as the primary outlet, and so aren't bothered if the CD goes out with a mediocre attempt at a song because for them the live performance is what matters. That's not something that really exists for video games.

kmeisthax 5y ago

Believe it or not, games regularly did get updated even back in the NES era. There's many games out there that had a long enough shelf life to get a PRG1/CHR1 revision and reprint. Furthermore, almost no games were sim-ship[0] back then, so even if games didn't get a re-release in the same territory you still had the opportunity to patch a game for the next country's release. e.g. US v1.0 might be equivalent to JP v1.2 even if Japan never got that version. This is also why a lot of Europeans get really confused at old AVGN videos: some of the games he trashes were dramatically improved for Europe and only sucked in the US. (e.g. Fester's Quest) Furthermore, developers back then were very much not "more careful"; in fact, there's plenty of examples of games that were shipped back then with little or no playtesting or QA work done. And likewise, being able to patch a game later doesn't really fix the reputational harm from shipping broken software. If the game is not playable day-one[1], nobody will care when it's playable on day 255. [0] Industry jargon for SIMultaneous SHIP - as in, release in all territories [1] Day-one patch inclusive. I know people hate them, but they let developers eke out an extra month of QA and bug-fixing time because of how cert works.

_moof 5y ago

I've noticed this too. Combine the constant patching with auto-updates and my whole system starts to feel like it's made of sand, constantly shifting under my feet. It almost feels disrespectful. Like, I use my computers to work. The most important thing is that it work for me, reliably and predictably, not that it serve as a showcase for whatever the product manager du jour needs in their promotion packet. There's just a total failure to prioritize the needs of the user. Needless to say I keep auto-updates off. What a world we've made where updating your software has become something to be avoided.

kingcharles 5y ago

The first time I came across patched video games was the late 80s. You'd regularly get updates to PC games on magazine cover disks.