I wasn't 100% sure where to post this but I figured here would be best since it is not about programming for consoles or anything like that.

Lately their is this game forum that I visit every now and then (mostly just to get some quick updates about the game). When I read some posts I of course read from fans that aren't educated about the game development industry and all that. Though one thing about this developer seems to be very common. Missed deadlines on patches. I mean it takes MONTHS upon MONTHS to get a patch out with them missing multiple deadlines. Most of the time their "excuse" was that Sony or Microsoft kicked the patched back. Then for us to only receive the patch and most of the same bugs are still there (like their shotty online gameplay that every fanboy still says "it's your connection")! Then for them to reply back "we are working on another patch. Then we rinse and repeat.

So I wanted to ask some developers, if y'all are allowed to answer fully, what developing a patch for Sony or Microsoft is like. How often do patches tend to get kicked back for? Since I do not have any development experience on those consoles I can't say but after playing games on them it seems it would really be if the patch was causing a system crash, freeze or something of that nature. Is that mostly what they are doing? Is it hard to get patches approved by Sony or Microsoft? This developer seems to make it like it is very hard and it seems to be what they are telling people and people are believing and blame everything on Sony and Microsoft for being too strict. So how hard is it?

Also, does it cost anything to submit patches to either Sony or Microsoft? Do they charge a fee? Only ask as I read something on that forum that I have never heard of (more than likely some internet person who thinks he knows everything) saying that the console manufacturers charge like $0.16 per gigabyte on a patch. That part I didn't fully believe as most patches aren't even gigabytes in size!

Finally is their a file size limit that a patch can't be bigger than? Though I know from development that file size doesn't mean how "great" the actual patch is (though the general public doesn't know that really).

If anyone could answer some of these questions that have been on my mind I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

As a customer, I'm happy that Sony or Microsoft would kick back a patch. They have strict technical requirements that all products have to meet. That means when I run a game I purchased, it works out of the box. Not only does it work, it works like I expect it to, and it works in the standardized way that all other products work.

Bathesda has said that it cost them $40,000 every time they patch Skyrim.

The Skullgirls devs claim the TRC on their next update will be $30,000.

IMO, this is a good thing. It's an incentive to get the product right the first time.

Console manufacturers definitely charge for patches (I'm not privy to actual details but it's not cheap).

It's pretty easy to fail certification on patches or especially the full game. If you're failing certification on a patch you're likely trying to rush it out. Patching a completed game isn't easy. Each change made to a game can easily break other things (think of all the problems Skyrim had with some of their patches) especially as games become more complex to test (think of how long it would take to test that a change didn't break anything in a game like Skyrim).

Patch size has very little to do with how much is changing, it's a better reflection of WHAT is changing (i.e. you can change every line of code in the game and still have a small patch, VS you could add 20 minutes of videos and the patch is several gigs)

Games have gotten very complex even compared to only 10 years ago. Not only at a technical level, but at a design level. It's very easy to run into problems, especially with the size of teams AAA games have these days.

As a customer, I'm happy that Sony or Microsoft would kick back a patch. They have strict technical requirements that all products have to meet. That means when I run a game I purchased, it works out of the box. Not only does it work, it works like I expect it to, and it works in the standardized way that all other products work.

Bathesda has said that it cost them $40,000 every time they patch Skyrim.

The Skullgirls devs claim the TRC on their next update will be $30,000.

IMO, this is a good thing. It's an incentive to get the product right the first time.

While I agree it costs a lot to get patches done. Though I wonder if it is from the console manufactures charging or if it is just the normal business of that you have to pay your employers.

Console manufacturers definitely charge for patches (I'm not privy to actual details but it's not cheap).

It's pretty easy to fail certification on patches or especially the full game. If you're failing certification on a patch you're likely trying to rush it out. Patching a completed game isn't easy. Each change made to a game can easily break other things (think of all the problems Skyrim had with some of their patches) especially as games become more complex to test (think of how long it would take to test that a change didn't break anything in a game like Skyrim).

Patch size has very little to do with how much is changing, it's a better reflection of WHAT is changing (i.e. you can change every line of code in the game and still have a small patch, VS you could add 20 minutes of videos and the patch is several gigs)

Games have gotten very complex even compared to only 10 years ago. Not only at a technical level, but at a design level. It's very easy to run into problems, especially with the size of teams AAA games have these days.

I agree with all of this and I of course do understand it. I do especially understand about file sizes and I would never judge patches on a file size.

Also thanks for saying that the manufacturers do charge.

With the game I am talking about it seems to be a normal thing for their patches to be kicked backed plus it is normal thing for them to say their patches fix a LONG list of things and then the patch comes out and it seems like they caused even more bugs (this last patch...they really did cause even more bugs).

I get that games are getting increasingly hard to develop and I lots of times do "take sides" with the developer as I understand this as a programmer myself, though for it to be an excuse? I see lots of other developers that don't seem to have a problem or saying how Sony and Microsoft (And yes I love that they will check this stuff out) kicked their patch back (when we hear this we know that it means at least another month before they do send it to them again, then add the normal time it takes for them to approve it).

Keep them coming! Thanks!

Whenever you create any professional software, between the programmers doing the work, and the customer getting their hands on it, is the QA department.

When you're doing this on a games console, the console-maker (MS/Sony/Nintendo) all have very strict technical requirements that you have to comply with (usually known as TCR or TRC).

This isn't just "don't crash", or "don't have obvious gameplay bugs", they also include things like how long a loading screen take, what your minimum frame-rate is, if the game survives if you go in and out of the menus 1000 times in a row, if your game degrades after being left on for 24 hours, if there's any issue with save-games, if the right button icons are displayed next to menu items, if text is clear enough, if HUD elements are far away enough from the edge of the screen, if other language options work, if the system menu button interrupts the game immediately without delay, if an icon is displayed while saving so the user knows not to power off, if online player names are displayed next to characters correctly, if online profanity is filtered, and so on and so on... they're practically endless!

Before you submit to Sony/MS/etc, you should first pay your own QA department to try and find any of these issues. If they find any issues, then the programmers go back to work on bug fixing (and in a complicated project, fixing bugs may create more bugs elsewhere), before going back to QA again.

When your own QA people are happy with it, you send your product off to Sony/MS/etc for them to verify that it meets their requirements. This is the part that costs a fortune; it's mandatory to pay them to perform final QA on your product. If they find a bug, then back to square 1 (programmers back to work), rinse and repeat. Also, if they find a bug, they keep the money and you've got to pay them a 2nd (and 3rd, and 4th) time, or as many times as it takes for them to go through their checklist without finding any issues. These tests can take weeks to complete. So you can go weeks waiting for your game to be ok'ed for publishing, only to find that you've got new work to do! That can cause huge delays if you ever fail the final QA.

Whenever you create any professional software, between the programmers doing the work, and the customer getting their hands on it, is the QA department.

When you're doing this on a games console, the console-maker (MS/Sony/Nintendo) all have very strict technical requirements that you have to comply with (usually known as TCR or TRC).
This isn't just "don't crash", or "don't have obvious gameplay bugs", they also include things like how long a loading screen take, what your minimum frame-rate is, if the game survives if you go in and out of the menus 1000 times in a row, if your game degrades after being left on for 24 hours, if there's any issue with save-games, if the right button icons are displayed next to menu items, if text is clear enough, if HUD elements are far away enough from the edge of the screen, if other language options work, if the system menu button interrupts the game immediately without delay, if an icon is displayed while saving so the user knows not to power off, if online player names are displayed next to characters correctly, if online profanity is filtered, and so on and so on... they're practically endless!

Thanks for this! I had a feeling they were checking for a lot more issues they would check for. Could you tell me if it seems to be a common thing for patches to get kicked back? I can see how it depends on the game, company and QA Team though of course.

Do Sony or Microsoft pose a filesize limit on patches though that get uploaded to their servers? Just wondering as I know Battlefield 3 tends to their patches in game using their servers it seems and their patches are gigabytes in size most of the time.