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.

#1xenosaga123Posted 11/28/2012 10:48:42 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/
#2backguard222Posted 11/28/2012 10:49:31 AM
Isn't the first one free?
#3Video_Game_CzarPosted 11/28/2012 10:50:22 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
#4Large_TonberryPosted 11/28/2012 10:50:38 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.
#5yankee6903Posted 11/28/2012 10:51:38 AM
Good, it thins the herd.
---
PSN: nightshade6903 GT:nightshade6903
I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I am a conservative
#6Nmilek1Posted 11/28/2012 10:53:27 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!
#7JerichoDarkstarPosted 11/28/2012 10:55:02 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
#8toastedmuffin89Posted 11/28/2012 10:55:10 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#9yankee6903Posted 11/28/2012 10:55:19 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
#10regsantotomasPosted 11/28/2012 10:58:10 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