Decline [GQ was right] I am a proud member of the Patch Hater Club

[Maxwell's Demon]

It's clear that he's retarded and he's not getting any better so why do you gays keep obsessing over him like you hate him because he won't give you his cum?

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

 

[lightbane]

I can't believe one of the things Bioware pioneered too is the game devs insulting the customers and getting away with it, at most having to write a fake letter of apology that doesn't actually say anything. Nowadays they insult the customers before the game/movie/whatver is out and then again after it fails.

Regarding patches, seeing that modern games nowadays take dozens of GBs of installation due being unoptimized AND uncompressed messes, requiring multiple day 1 patches is to be expected, sadly. What's both funny and sad is consoles getting the same treatment, thus rendering themselves pointless compared to PCs.

 

[Roguey]

Well we've been complaining about this for a long time. But it certainly had nothing to do with the Xbawx and definitely not the 360 - by that time Patch Culture was already in full swing.

It started with Blizzard and specifically Diablo 2, the first game to have a major patch on launch day. From there on it was a slippery slope until the horror show of today, with always online patching and DLC.

The first time I had to download a patch to play a game was 1997 because Quake II shipped in a janky obviously-rushed state in time for the holiday season. From that same year there was also Fallout, and of course Fallout 2 from a year later was infamous for needing patches. Once it becomes standard for a machine that can run games to connect to the internet, it's over. Consoles were spared the internet until the 360/ps3 generation.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

I am a proud member of the Patch Hater Club​

welcome to 2005.
dude, second message in a row. did you really slip into a coma 20 years ago?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I see someone reads the codex, and we have a new Patch Haters Club member

 

[Zenithsan]

I think patches are good

Movies have them, books have them, music have them. Just on different forms.
Nobody is perfect, and if you can fix some mistake you did, it's better that way than to let it pass because you already made "a finished product"

A different thing is that you purposely depend on the patches to make your game playable, but that's on the devs, not the patches itself.

Like everything good in life: Guns, drugs, and whores; it's about how you use them.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Movies have them,

name some movies where they were made better instead of worse, because I guarantee you the list is fucking tiny

 

[Tweed]

 

[Zombra]

Movies have them,

name some movies where they were made better instead of worse, because I guarantee you the list is fucking tiny

Don't be edgy. There are many examples.

 

[†††]

Don't be edgy. There are many examples.

Post the list and don't link to goolag.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Movies have them,

name some movies where they were made better instead of worse, because I guarantee you the list is fucking tiny

Don't be edgy. There are many examples.

made better

han shot first

 

[Alienman]

So I bought this thing with the expectation it works like the consoles I had when I was younger, put the game in start playing.

That's one big reason consoles have been steadily losing ground over the last two generations. They're not plug and play anymore, console releases now require to be installed and patched, on top of the firmware updates you mentioned (which are oftentimes just pushed through to prevent people from jailbreaking the system and bring no benefit to the end user).

Once you're sitting on the couch waiting for the console to download the latest 100 GB day 1 patch you might as well start asking yourself why not just buy a PC and be done with it.

Another thing is that you need an account to play. Suffering through the whole e-mail process, keeping tab on logins and passwords.

 

[Zombra]

han shot first

Yes, good job citing the most childishly obvious example of a "patch" making a movie worse (which can also often be the case with games). That doesn't change the fact that many film rereleases (and rereleases of other media) are indeed better, and Zenithsan's point is perfectly valid.

Post the list and don't link to goolag.

Not a performing monkey. I've given sufficient evidence to show there are many good rereleases out there, now it's your job to disprove it.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

are indeed better,

proof?

 

[Roguey]

The dvd release of The Fellowship of the Ring "patched" the movie by removing a car that had accidentally been left in.

The extended editions can also be thought of as "restored content" patches.

 

[Alex]

Patching is not something that bothers me that much. I don't mind having to wait a bit. But Maggot's point:

games are typically shipped in working condition

Is that even true at this point? Also the GTA games getting patched to remove music from games over a decade old or major balance changes mid-playthrough with no way to revert to a patch of your choice in Underrail are more examples of patch-happy cancer.

is pretty good. Losing access to how a game was because the company decided to change it is silly. Especially since so many of those changes are for the worse. You should at the very least be able to choose the specific version of a game you want to play.

 

[Wunderbar]

Regarding movies - more often than not the "removed content" was removed for a reason.

Extended edition of Aliens is worse than theatrical version because it ruins tension by showing aliens before marines arrive on the planet. Extended edition of Terminator 2 is worse than theatrical verions because it ruins Schwarzenegger's arc of becoming more humane with a chip scene. Extended editions of LotR trilogy are ridiculously bloated, no one would've sat on their ass in a theater for 4 hours. Etc etc

 

[Urthor]

"No patches" development is absolutely terrible.

People simply don't realize how much time and effort it takes to "polish" to the point something doesn't need patches.

A 4 month feature freeze on a game actually changes what you get so much. Granted, most corporate game studios waste that time and effort in other ways. Mostly looking for things they can add NFTs to and not focusing on the fun.

But for small teams doing a *great* job, patching saves you *months* of time and energy. Which translates directly into gameplay.

 

[Urthor]

The biggest, and saddest, change in gaming was the demise of "proper betas" and *short* demos before release.

Unfortunately, marketers realized that if you let consumers play a game before release they'll realize it's a piece of shit and cancel their preorders.

Genuine betas and demos before "full 1.0 release" are the "Silver Bullet" of game dev.

Game devs often don't play the release build while fucking around in Unity, so running everything by actual fans helps a ton.

 

[Zombra]

are indeed better,

proof?

There are many examples.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Consumers are stupid. They are not only willing to pay for bugged products. They buy also products that are still in alpha.

 

[†††]

There are many examples.

So I archived the url since you keep shilling for google (for those interested https://archive.ph/ntK06). So, you're equating Director's Cut versions to post-patched video games. The difference here is that gamers want a polished product right out of the bat while moviegoers don't go to the cinemas if a movie is too long, which is why alternative cuts exist and are catered only to a niche part of the viewership (how many people do you think have watched Apocalypse Now Redux/Final Cut compared to the original cut? and from those who did, how many prefer the theatrical cut?), not to mention these are just made to please the directors who got promised more control over the project (the nobodies aren't afforded the chance of releasing alternative cuts). Your whole argument is dishonest because it's equating two different issues in two different industries. It's not the enthusiast gaming market the one asking for buggy games, and equating alternative film cuts with a day 1 patches aiming to fix buggy content that could've fixed pre-release if lazyness wasn't accepted throughout the industry, is stupid nonetheless. Now, the discussion whether these cuts are better than the theatrical ones is another thing (many aren't). But this is on par for a guy whose whole shtick is to be contrarian to whatever the Codex thinks.

 

[Roguey]

Extended editions of LotR trilogy are ridiculously bloated, no one would've sat on their ass in a theater for 4 hours. Etc etc

Jackson made it clear that the movies were cut they way they were for pacing reasons and that the extended editions aren't meant to replace them or be "director's cuts", they're there for people viewing at home who want more of the story (though he also admits he fucked up with Saruman's fate in the theatrical cuts). I prefer them.

It's true that a lot of deleted scenes deserved to be deleted.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

We are mixing apples with oranges. We cannot equate movie DC and extended versions with patches in games. If there are "patches" in movies, these are called censorship.
However, probably this will be a problem soon, since now movies don't persist, they are streamed, and the perception of what should be censored or not is continuosly shifting.

 

[Zombra]

News flash! Analogy on the internet surprisingly found not to be 1:1. Stay tuned for more on this one of a kind story as it breaks.