Topic: what's your opinion about game patches?

You think devs are getting very lazy developing fine quality games by just putting patches all the time or could it be something left unnoticed?

Granted Nintendo has been doing this but then again, its soo rare for them to even put these patches up. I get why Nintendo decided to do this now so it can help devs out there, but it may also make third party games even more mediocre than great if you know what I mean? I mean why wait for a patch just to enjoy the game you bought?

they're great to stop hackers and glitches. games like, for example, pokémon main series didn't get a single game without hackers and glitches so now with patching what was a common problem can be eliminated making things better for the players, but some games that are known to not have many bugs and glitches might get lazy releases filled with patches from now on. in the end I sure hope the patches aren't too convenient for the developers and publishers or every full release game will be a beta testing debug ground with players as guinea pigs and maybe even have some console breaking problems...

It's easy for the developer if they have to meet a deadline by the publisher. However, the publisher could be like EA and ruin the whole thing

I think they are great when not abused, but when you get games like Battlefiled 4 and Skyrim, they release games that aren't ready to release and use patches to fix things later. It should be to fix stuff that slips through the cracks, not early releases and betas they call finished games.

When its small and is used to optimize a games performance I'm okay with it but when you ship broken games like Bethesda and EA do that take multiple patches to just be playable then we have a problem.

They're extremely useful if the players discover something that was missed during the development stage; now the developers have a way to fix things even after the game is out - as a prospective game developer myself, I love that idea!

When it's like a patch to fix small bugs or to counter hackers, It's cool like Pokemon XY. I just draw the line when they release a game where it seems like they would of been better off delaying a few months later due to the many problems. There's no shame in releasing a complete game later then expected.

Depends. All patches are helpful, but the big ones that actually add something as apposed to fix someting, those are good.

I have nothing against them, especially with crappy developers/programers like Bethesda. They never made a game that worked right from the start - that's why they are rightfully called Bugthesda - and they are lazy with fixing too. I hate it when the game shipped is broken, but when I had a choice of a chance for a game to be fixed/complete/working vs broken garbage, I would go with the former