• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What about a working game instead? They could just delay the launch until they’ve finished what would’ve gone into a day 1 patch before going gold.

    If they did that, they could:

    • start working on an expansion
    • give the dev team vacation time as a celebration for going gold
    • start work on the next game
    • do a bunch of play testing to reduce the need for patches a year after launch (i.e. catch more bugs)

    In other words, a studio shouldn’t go gold until their TODO list for launch day is done. That should be the standard, and it seems to be what BG3 did.

    • Pifpafpouf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      BG3 had a day-one patch, and is at its 6th hotfix now. Does it make it a broken game?

      With the scale of modern AAA games it is inevitable, if a studio had to wait until every bug in a game the size of Starfield was fixed to release it, it would simply never release. You have to decide at some point that the game is in a releasable state, and at this moment you start printing discs, then you keep working on it and fixing bugs and that constitues the day-one patch. And don’t worry about the expansion, they started working on it long before the release.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Having a day one patch doesn’t make a game broken, but it is a symptom of a bad internal process. Here are the patch notes for BG3 Day 1 (not sure if 100% accurate, but this is the best source I could find). To me, that doesn’t sound like anything game breaking.

        I’m not saying BG3 is the gold standard for AAA game releases, I’m merely saying it’s what we should expect for an average AAA release with some being a little better and some being a little worse.

        I’m not saying every bug needs to be fixed. Even older games before SW patches were a thing had a ton of bugs. I’m just saying, the game should play well even if users never patch the game. This is really important for game preservation, so you should always be able to take the game disk and install it offline and play through the whole game and have a great experience. That’s not the standard many AAA studios hold themselves to.

    • Chailles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look at this way, you’ve got everything you needed to fix complete. The game is uploaded the the storefront database. It’s now a week before release. There will always be bugs to fix and no game will ever be completely bugfree (especially not games at this scale). At some point you have to release the game, so why not just release what you’ve been working on since when the game launches?

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying the game needs to be perfect, but it should be a great experience beginning to end without applying any patches. As in, I should be able to take the game disk and install it without any Internet connection and play through the game with only minor bugs here and there.

        This is really important for game preservation (the patch servers will eventually go offline), yet many AAA games are almost unplayable without day one patches.

        I’m a huge fan of software updates for games, but those updates should merely improve an already great experience, not be the method to fix a broken game. A broken game should never leave QA.