Topic: Updated Score/Reviews for updated Games?

@consolfreak1982: Personally I never had any issues with BO3 MP and connection issues at launch. I have been playing it consistently over the 4months its been out and apart from a few balancing tweaks and glitch fixes, its still pretty much the game I bought. Star Wars: Battlefront, I believe, was 'rushed' out to meet the films release and has had additional content added to it.

I am sure the majority of developers though don't 'intentionally' release a 'broken' game. The problem arises when you put a game out to 'millions' of people and many of these go looking for glitches. Take CoD for example, the 8-12 play-testers on a map play it as intended, to see if it flows well, to see if its unbalanced and works as a CoD map. They may encounter the odd 'glitch', like getting stuck on something or invisible walls that get fixed. However after it gets released to millions of people, the majority find no problems but a few will go looking for 'glitches' - ways to get to areas that weren't intended, using certain combinations of movement that you wouldn't even consider if you were playing the 'match'. Some glitches though, I really don't know how people find them. I know that in Destiny in the Sabre strike for example, you could 'glitch' under the Warsat by going up to one of the rocks nearby and using a sparrow get under the map - it had to be in 1 specific little point and it wasn't that close to the actual warsat. How someone even found that spot is beyond me - its patched now but I can easily see how that 'slipped' through. It wasn't a 'glitch' in the game-play and certainly not obvious. The play-testers checked that if you play it as intended, there isn't any bugs, glitches, frame drops etc...

What I am trying to say though is that some people go out of their way to find glitches and often its not that many. Considering the sheer number of people playing compared to the size of the studios and their play-testers, I bet the number of people looking for these are far higher than the size of the studios. Sometimes these glitches aren't found that quickly either.

I don't know any studio that intentionally release a broken game - sometimes its because they are too close to it. They see a corridor and run through it with no issue - once its released someone jump-slides at a specific angle at the wall and glitches through it. You can't expect the developer/play tester to test every mm of every wall and at various angles - just in case. 99% of gamers would just run down that corridor too. However these don't affect the average gamer. Bugs at launch may often get fixed within a month or two and not every bug affects everyone. Some people are far more sensitive to frame rate drops than others as well - what 1 person classifies as unacceptable, another may class as simply annoying but hardly game breaking.

In the case of games being light on content at release, I am sure that a lot of developers aren't thinking they are trying to rip gamers off specifically but hoping that the 'steady drip' of content would keep gamers 'happy' for longer. Take the upcoming Hitman game - that is certainly how they see it. By the time 'all' the content is released, we could end up with a bigger game. However from a lot of peoples perspective, they want their moneys worth on release. Who's to say that the subsequent missions will deliver on the same quality as the initial one? It could be a year or so before we get the final content and therefore can make an accurate assessment of that game but if no-one buys it until then, that could also affect the overall content.

When it comes to reviews though - ALL of these fixes, extra content etc are 'digital' and the review is based on what you actually get. I know some people will buy digital and some games are only available this way. For some though, they may not have their console connected to the internet, maybe have download content restrictions etc. If they buy the game because its been updated from a 6/10 to a 9/10, they will feel mislead.

I think its fair to update a review periodically if a developer has made significant improvements to a game and its content for free but I do think the initial score should stand. By updating the score you are giving developers free licence to release games in a poor state and light on content knowing that they could over the course of time 'boost' that score. I think though that its unfair not to recognise these improvements as many, if they buy the game later, won't be getting the same experience. I think that still encourages developers to improve their games and gives people a true reflection of the games current state.

I don't play Driveclub myself so can't comment on that, but I understand the game is better now than it was. In my opinion, I think a paragraph to give an update on the current state is more than sufficient to recognise what the developers have done to improve that game and would give people a more accurate impression of what to expect if they buy it today.

There is of course a good argument for not buying games at or close to launch. Personally though, I think in some cases, its the fact that so many people are playing, that these bugs, glitches etc get found and fixed. It seems to me that almost every game these days is getting a delay. That to me says the developer isn't necessarily rushing the game out of the door. Its telling me that the developers are trying to release a 'finished' product but like I said, when you only have a handful of people play-testing, its not easy to find every bug/glitch. In a studio, even a big studio, you are talking of maybe up to 500 potential people that could play that game (although I bet its less than 100) which represents less than 0.1% of the numbers of gamers that play a game in the first month. No developer wants to put their name to a 'bad' or 'broken' product but its nearly impossible to find every bug and predict how the general public will 'play' their game. Even after a game has gone gold, developers are still play-testing - not because they know they released a 'broken' game but because they know that its impossible to find 'every' bug - you have to draw the line somewhere or else it will never get released - especially with only a handful of people looking for these.

I personally don't think it's a huge issue. If your game is lacklustre at launch or missing things, that's the score you get.

On the other side of it, I think perhaps a small note, or a disclaimer stating how the game has improved would probably help it, rather than having to score the game all over again.

@Churchy: well yeah youre right, it sure is no big issue. BUT, there are people like me that wait for certain games to become cheaper or are just not interested in a certain game at launch and are at some point in the future interested in the game - the best examples are DriveClub and Ultra Street Fighter 4 - someone thats not familiar with game news on patches, updates and so on and looks just for a score will get a wrong impression - I know its nothing that important to be honest, but its a room for improvement of the overall quality of the medium in general, and its standard nowadays that there are day one patches for like almost every game that releases, Im not talkin about DLC or AddOns which is completely optional, but really patches and fixes for bugs/flaws that really held the game back at release. Its no big deal but it somehow has to be mentioned in my opinion