Xbox 360 Game Patching Costs $40,000 256
hypnosec writes "It costs developers a total of $40,000 to release a single patch on Xbox Live, making it a difficult platform for smaller developers to grow on. This revelation was made by Tim Schafer of Double Fine Studios — which recently drew a lot of charitable donations as part of a campaign to create a contemporary point and click game. He went on to say that this is just too high a fee for smaller developers to pay, making it hard for them to do well on the platform. This makes sense, since requiring just one patch could massively cut into the profits for a company."
Re:Double Fine? (Score:4, Informative)
No, but you're not far off [doublefine.com]. Go to their FAQ [doublefine.com] and scroll down to Where does the name “Double Fine” come from? - apparently Tim thought that the "double fine zone" sign would make great free advertising.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
That said, they're shooting themselves in the foot making it hard for people to develop for their platform. Indie developers need access. And the whole expensive and drawn out certification process means that PC gamers get patches for games weeks or even MONTHS before console gamers see them, even if they're for the same game. Its not that they do PC first, they do both simultaneously (or console first) but PC goes out as soon as PC is ready.
If they embraced the 360 as more of a general purpose computer that can do gaming well for cheap, then they could skip the certification process and be more like PC. But right now they're shooting for a perfect, controlled console environment.
Quality Control (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has a pretty stringent testing requirement for patches. It's not as simple as slapping up a new binary to download. It costs them money to test patches against technical requirements. There is bandwidth involved for downloading patches as well. The developers have to pay for the bandwidth and testing costs. Charging for patches also discourages sloppy software with lots of patching after the fact. Not all XBOX 360's even have hard drives so patches have to be relatively minor and fit on memory cards if necessary.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
That said, they're shooting themselves in the foot making it hard for people to develop for their platform. Indie developers need access.
That's exactly what Xbox Live Indie Games [wikipedia.org] is for. Now this has its own associated problems, but it's not as expensive to develop for due to a less stringent review process.
Re:Get it right the first time (Score:5, Informative)
about 25% of 360's and PS3's don't have internet. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28058/Study_PS3_Has_Highest_Percentage_Of_Connected_Consoles.php
But Xbox and PS3 still require updates to play new games, so you're getting system software via disks one way or another. Game updates, well, your game might just not work as well. But, a lot of the updates pushed are specifically about multiplayer or DLC anyway, and if you don't have internet you don't care about multiplayer or DLC.
The big thing is that the console makers have testing guidelines you have to meet for your game, and design requirements (non interactive loading screens can only be so long that kind of thing). They force you to do a lot first, or you don't get to sell your game with them. With the PC if you run out of money release what you have, use the money you make to patch in fixes and start the next one. That's a sad commentary on the business but these things happen.
Re:I worked for Odyssey software back in the day.. (Score:4, Informative)
The thing is, yes, gaming used to be cheaper. Uh... so? It used to be you could make a video game with 2 programmers and 4 artists, Doom and Mortal Kombat both had barely more than that. But these days? 50+ developers for some projects? And you're targeting a gaming console that is sold at a loss? You have to understand the business model involved. Consoles are consoles, not PCs. (as much as I might wish otherwise).
Re:Get it right the first time (Score:5, Informative)
What about for games that are downloadable games in the first place... like, I don't know... EVERY SINGLE GAME ON XBOX LIVE ARCADE, WHICH IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
I'd like an apology from MS for all the updates I didn't get to Live Arcade games because Microsoft wants to charge the developer for the update, in addition to charging the gamer for the game (MS takes 30% off the top) and charging the gamer for the Live subscription (pure MS profit).
Yes the massive data centers, the tens of thousands of servers, and the multitude of very fast internet backhauls were all discovered lying out back of the MS headquarters late one night; ever since then, it's been all profit! sigh. This is just one data point so for all we know, it was one figure quoted to an individual who had no particular bargaining skills and was interested in publishing a patch to a game with an install base of 50 million copies.
You could say that the cost of the update should be baked into the cut that MS takes for distributing, but you can't really say that the expense is, or the cost should ever be, negligible.
Re:Get it right the first time (Score:5, Informative)
Minor inconvenience for him, slightly annoying to me, and an absolutely shitty thing to do to a kid who wants to play his legally-purchased game on his console but isn't fortunate enough to have a wifi connection to update.
If a Wii game requires a certain version of software, it is on the disc of the game. So while it is true you need to update to play, it's not true that you need the Internet to do so.
Re:Get it right the first time (Score:5, Informative)