Granted.
However EA is most guilty of such a trend. Of all the games on my wall, the EA ones are the most sub-par across a range of platforms and genre's and unfortunately for me I buy them.
Why? Because 50% of them are still okay, they could just be a hell of alot better. Then again look at games like Dawn of War, while not the most perfect game, it still ranks far and away one of the best all-time especially considering THQ & Relic (Relic mostly) tend to follow through on their word.
BTW Beast, It's not exclusive to EA, but it is still their fault for releasing a sub-par game? They are the publisher, they made the choice. While it isn't their exclusive fault (and I didn't make that assertion in the first place) they are still quite guilty of a lack thereof any quality at the moment.
I mean, look at all the new bugs and strats of stupidity that have arisen from 1.05. This after it spent 4? (I believe 4) weeks in Quality Assurance, which for EA apparnetly doesn't exist. The only worse case of non-existant QA is probably the RotWK patch which took almost 8 months. That thing was a joke and most of these patches are.
I'm sorry, but high-speed internet and "console revolutions" don't justify a bullshit product. I mean, imagine if patches actually had a dollar bill attached to it. Reminds me of the old medical saying, "treating a disease is far more profitable than curing it".
Call me old fashioned, but I still play games which haven't ever had a balance patch. The days of actual game programming. Now everything is just... rorted.
|