hazy33 wrote:They should think of it as a fine for not fully testing whether their game is up to the job. HOWEVER that money shouldn’t be kept by the consoles makers, it should be distributed to the people who bought the game in the first place.
There isn't a single good, logical reason for that to be the case. What are you likely to suggest, that because we paid for the game we should get a fully working one? Yes, we should get a working, playable game when we buy it, but to expect a perfectly clean game is unrealistic in many cases. As for the money being distributed to the gamers who bought the game, that's just ridiculous. First off, a patch costs 40,000, Bethesda sold about 10 million copies of Skyrim, so for everyone to get some of that money they would each have 0.004 pence/cents. Wow, I'm glad I'll get that back, it'll make all the difference
Seriously, but your money grabbing wishes aside and engage the logic functions of your brain.
Also, whilst some games should, indeed, arrive pretty much perfect, others just can't, too many variables to account for. A classic example, but a game like Skyrim for example has so many variables that it is impossible to do stringent testing, and would cost excessive amounts of time and money to get enough people together to actually test the game pre-release, tests that could very well not cover every variable, the only way to truly do it is to put the game out there for people to buy and play then patch afterwards when people start listing issues. They start with the most common ones and work through the list.
OK, on topic, I've spoken before of the necessity for some sort of governance of the games industry, and whilst it's not truly going to happen, I think Microsoft and Sony can go some ways to doing this themselves. Whilst my money grabbing little friend up there dreams of hidden wealth, he actually make a half decent point, about the patch cost being considered a fine. Unfortunately, as things stand, the only real rule the MS have is 'if you patch, you pay', which is crippling smaller developers. A far better system would be for Microsoft to have their own internal testing machine (not a literal machine) for games to simply see if they reach a specific criteria. If they do, they can be released and any future patches come with a minimal cost. If, however they don't meet the criteria, they're either sent back to development, or, they can be released, but patches will cost the full 40,000 as a fine for having to do so. Releasing a working game that you want to tidy up or add features to is one thing, patching a broken game is another entirely. One should cost money, one shouldn't. This would greatly benefit smaller developers who are just trying to create good games people want to play, whereas someone like Bethesda can shrug off a 40,000 'Fine' as it's pocket change compared to the money they make.
It's always an imperfect system when you want to 'persuade' major developers to test and build their games better and instead all you do is hurt the little guy who is genuinely trying his best.