PlayStation 3 » Hardware » Console

PlayStation 3

This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

reality check, PS3 gamers. it takes about $40,000 to patch PS3 games.

Back To: Board List | Topic List | Topic Archived
Page 1 of 2 | Last
xenosaga123
Posted 11/28/2012 11:48:42 AM
Yea, it's not cheap, so I think people should be thankful everytime a PS3 game is patched, since none of that money is coming out of your wallet and $60 is nothing compared to $40,000 http://mp1st.com/2012/02/14/a-patch-costs-40000-on-xbox-360-and-ps3/
backguard222
Posted 11/28/2012 11:49:31 AM
Isn't the first one free?
Video_Game_Czar
Posted 11/28/2012 11:50:22 AM
FUN FACT: If they weren't lazy jag offs and play tested their games, They won't need to patch them post-launch.
---
PSN: VideoGameCzar l XBL: VideoGameCzar l Steam: TheVideoGameCzar
Large_Tonberry
Posted 11/28/2012 11:50:38 AM
$40,000 is nothing to a publisher. It's the smaller developers and indie studios that are most affected by it. That's why Steam is such an enticing platform for developers.
yankee6903
Posted 11/28/2012 11:51:38 AM
Good, it thins the herd.
---
PSN: nightshade6903 GT:nightshade6903
I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I am a conservative
Nmilek1
Posted 11/28/2012 11:53:27 AM
yankee6903 posted...
Good, it thins the herd.


If you thinned the herd all you would have to pick between is EA, Ubisoft and Activision ENJOY!
JerichoDarkstar
Posted 11/28/2012 11:55:02 AM
Nmilek1 posted...
yankee6903 posted...
Good, it thins the herd.


If you thinned the herd all you would have to pick between is EA, Ubisoft and Activision ENJOY!


Ubisoft is good. But EA and Activision. . . gawd you gave me an awful nightmare about them being the only developers on the planet!
---
I'll make a big enough ruckus for everyone.
PSN: DarkSilverCloud
toastedmuffin89
Posted 11/28/2012 11:55:10 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
yankee6903
Posted 11/28/2012 11:55:19 AM
Nmilek1 posted...
yankee6903 posted...
Good, it thins the herd.


If you thinned the herd all you would have to pick between is EA, Ubisoft and Activision ENJOY!


By thinning the herd I mean the number of patches. IE if it was free or cheap there would be hundreds of patches. We would spend all day DL patches. With this they only do critical ones, or at least bundle them into one update.

Look at it this way. You really want something and its only $1. But the line is two miles long. If they charged $20 then I guarantee that line will be short.
---
PSN: nightshade6903 GT:nightshade6903
I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I am a conservative
regsantotomas
Posted 11/28/2012 11:58:10 AM

(edited)
Video_Game_Czar posted...
FUN FACT: If they weren't lazy jag offs and play tested their games, They won't need to patch them post-launch.


That was neither fun nor a fact; mostly conjecture actually.

Software (not just games) ship with bugs all the time.

The issue is that there are project constraints including meeting budget and schedules that often result in deferral of said bugs. Certainly, there are teams that can and do a better job identifying more serious issues earlier and addressing them.

This has little to do with a lack of testing or laziness.
---
the bitter truth is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. ~ Anton Ego
Jump to Page: 1  2  
Page 1 of 2 | Last