• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    To an extent, sure, but that was when the bugs were small because they were operating on the assumption that games wouldn’t be patched (e.g. for consoles, many people didn’t have reliable Internet, etc).

    Now that updating post launch is a thing, they don’t bother with as much pre-launch testing, so you only get to the quality we should’ve had after 6 months or so of patches. I’d much rather they delay games by 3-6 months and have a solid launch instead of releasing crap and patching their way to success.

    I’m not against post-launch patches, I just think they should be much smaller and way more rare than they are. The launch version should look substantially similar to the patched version some 6 months later.

    Case in point, I just bought Cities: Skylines 2 after 6-ish months post launch, because it’s finally at the point where I feel like it should’ve been at launch. Performance seems okay, features work mostly as advertised, etc. I’d still like some performance tuning, but reviewers gave the recent patches a thumbs up, so I’m finally getting into it. That’s a bit of an extreme example, but it’s indicative of the state of gaming these days.

    Whereas for Nintendo, I have no qualms about buying a game at launch. I know it’ll be a solid experience, and by the time I notice bugs, there will probably already have been patches. I wish more devs were like Nintendo…