The Catastrophe of Game Patches
August 23rd, 2008 . by Roo
It was several years ago when I came across the website of a bitter, former player of Asheron’s Call 2. He was condemning a patch which he swore ruined its solid PvP system and any further reason to play. Betrayed by the game that he’d invested so much effort in, but still devoted to the genre and potential of MMORPGS, he had no choice but to migrate to any number of other games, one of which was a promising title on the horizon called World of Warcraft.
Searching Google now, I can’t find that old site, but there are still vestigial diaries about Asheron’s Call 2, written by scorned ex-players who clearly felt cheated out of something. And shouldn’t they?
In retrospect, Asheron’s Call probably did do something wrong, something big: The game was shut down only three years after being released, while it’s prequel (Asheron’s Call), still survives despite being three years older.
But let’s assume that the players mentioned here are the minority. They loved the game as much as anyone else, but the changes that were patched in killed its fun-factor for only a fraction of the total users. Being that a game like Asheron’s Call 2 is commercial, its goal is – as unfortunate a reminder it may be – to garner as many subscribers as its features can. It’s the business relationship between publisher and player which enforces the motto, “If a patch amounts to more revenue, who cares whose heart it breaks?”
DID I BUY THIS GAME?
All patches are either feature patches or bug patches. MMO’s need to be patched; a game ecology of significant size needs attention, and it needs to be 1.) grown with new content to keep seasoned players interested and 2.) adjusted to correct unanticipated bugs and activities overlooked in testing. World of Warcraft patch notes show that a major patch is released every few months, and an overwhelming number of changes are related to balance issues. No doubt these upset somebody every time, until eventually the game feels altogether different from the one they signed on to.
And who decides the changes, anyway? If patches for balance are too often done to please competitive existing subscribers, how inviting will the game be to new subscribers? While this is the nature of any public server MMO, the source code still exists for reverting back to previous feature sets. It’s not usually available if the game is commercial, but it is there.
Team Fortress 2 has received some dramatic additions in the past few months. Unlockable weapons may affect the game’s strategy. A much different case than any MMORPG, a simpler first-person-shooter like Team Fortress 2 will be more drastically impacted by any changes. Thankfully, as is tradition, most features should be optional in server flags. (If a server doesn’t have the rules you like, try another one.)
Still, the problem remains in that there are unwritten standards, and realistically most servers will be running the latest version with all the newest features enabled. If many appended features are predicted for a game post-release, would those features be better saved for a sequel? The point at which new content could stunt a game’s growth is a vital consideration not just for the game’s balance, but for its accessibility, longevity, and player loyalty.
THE QUIXOTIC SOLUTION
All games are released under an open-source license and everyone is able to run their own editions of games with whatever options they want. There are no server standards for features or options and no shortage of players, so all servers are populated. The only universal patches are to correct previously-unknown bugs, and these of course are optional too.
Although the above scenario will never happen, it’s an idealistic environment that games can veer toward. More practical solutions include the following:
- If a game is expected to receive many changes over its lifespan, make patches modular whenever possible. The ability to revert to old versions or standards should be easy.
- Support “regulations” patches, which are modular, that can be loaded like feature sets. This offers less customization as not every option is able to be changed and regulations must be approved by the developer, but still allows players some degree of control. This is more sensible for console games [Armored Core 4].
- Include editing toolsets for mods [Starcraft].
SO…
Feature patches, or any patch that adjusts gameplay and not solely the errors of the game, may be unwelcome to players who already enjoy the game. Patches to fix obvious bugs and cheating are necessary, but feature patches have become liberal. A greater effort should be made to include these features as options rather than permanent changes.
Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed! Hate this post and want to write a better one? Join us!
Years and years ago I used to play a MUD called Act of War. There were different “chapters” of the game, basically sequels where almost everything was rewritten: Different classes, different spells and attacks, different teams, different maps.
The server only ran one chapter at a time, and they’d switch it every year or so. Everybody had their preferred chapter, but it was nice to play different ones that you heard other people talk about. The great thing was that none was superior to any other, they just worked differently; you didn’t have to suffer dated graphics to play a better codebase.
The easy drawback was that there weren’t enough people playing to run even two chapters at once…
An interesting example of a game that receives both feature patches and bug patches is Doom. Some people have branched off to only update certain parts of the game, like renderers, while keeping many other bugs intact, some have gone to great lengths to ensure every bug is properly EMULATED! Still others work on just bug fixes, and a few go the route of both feature additions and bug fixes. This real life example we have can allow us to take a stab at whether the solution posted here would actually work or not…
Far as I can tell, there are people loyal to one or two source ports because of what they do and don’t do with the original code. And ironically, as small as the community is, there are large drama wars over just what people actually want from their engine. ZDoom has a closed feature suggestion thread not just to keep the accpeted/rejected threads separate, but also to control the drama over features which cannot be implemented without significant investments of time or simply don’t make sense.
One thing I would suggest for the community is some sort of poll to help sort through what exactly they’re looking for in a Doom source port. ZDoom has little interest in making old demos run properly, for example, while many other source ports attempt to ensure Doom 2 demos run appropriately! Meanwhile, EDGE used to hold a lot of weapon modder’s interests due to its flexible DDF format, but once DECORATE showed it was superior to DDF in all the most important ways, hardly anyone makes EDGE weapon mods anymore.
The reason I didn’t mention voting is just because the majority would rule, and if some people didn’t vote, again, it’s the most vocal members who are making the decision. But it’s gotta be a better choice than behind-the-scenes decisions that just appear in the next patch.
Doom is a great example, what with the source ports. If such a small group of players can be divided by a disagreement of features, I think it’s safe to say that a huge MMO would do the same. Imagine the outcome if the source code for a game like World of Warcraft were available.
I’m really a straight up console gamer - outside of a few exceptions, I only game on my PC with emulators - but it’s interesting to me to wonder how far this type of thing is going to go with the console world.
One of the main selling points that consoles have always had over PC’s is their plug and play nature. No drivers, no compatibility issues, no folder and files and zips and unzips and installs, just put the game in and play it. However, look at the progression we’re seeing here - with each new console comes a more open architecture, more opportunities for gamers to tinker with things, and overall a more PC-like experience. Console gamers are starting to learn about installs, patches, and mods.
So how far is this going to go, and how will this alter the typical PC vs console paradigm? Thanks to downloadable content, we’re already starting to see a fraction of what you were talking about. And just think about how patches have effected games like Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion!
The unfortunate thing is that consoles are so far behind PCs in regards to all these things that it’ll be that much longer before we get to a good middle ground, where we can pick and choose what version of the game we want to play.
That was all a bit off topic, but your post spurred me into thinking about all of that so I thought I’d share ^^
Oh no way, not off topic at all — anything it gets you thinking about is good enough for a reply. Thanks for stopping by again, too!
For a while I loved PC over consoles because of all that freedom for patches, mods, peripherals, whatever. But who wants to keep up with hardware upgrades? Even though PCs are a great platform for games in theory, most people don’t see the point in bothering with all the stuff you mentioned like compatibility, zips, and installs when they can buy a Playstation and have that stuff handled automatically.
Consoles definitely are developing traits of PCs, and hopefully you’re right when you talk about a middle ground where we have the convenience and consistency of consoles plus all the extras found on PCs. It’s so much more enjoyable to be able to just pick up a controller and start playing a game, and for me, to be able to separate the machine I use for games from the one I use for work and everything else.