Why SI has a stubbornness about releasing a new patch ( 11.4 ) ?

[milnerpoint]

Valve, Blizzard, Dice, EA, Crytek, Bioware, GSC Gameworld, THQ, Malfador, Activision, IW, Bungie etc.

none of those companies sell a yearly release of the same game, its a different kettle of fish altogether.

Bungie dont release any updates for Halo 2 or Halo 3 anymore, they stopped long before the release of Halo Reach. Activation only release updates for the current COD not for older versions.

[Nik_Dut]

I believe the quoted post is for game developers that provide more than 3 patches trying to better their release.....

[milnerpoint]

I believe the quoted post is for game developers that provide more than 3 patches trying to better their release.....

the comparison is pointless, none of those companies release new versions of their game every year, and those that do release new versions let their old versions die off.

I played Halo games from the day they came out, there definately was not 3 updates at all for either game within a year, and any "patch" they released you had to pay for.

[r0x0r]

I believe the quoted post is for game developers that provide more than 3 patches trying to better their release.....

3 patches a year, while maintaining development on the next game.

If there wasn't going to be an FM12, SI would be using the work done between 11.3 and now to release 11.4, and so forth. However the fact that they have a new game to make means they can only really spend so much time on creating and testing patches, rather than just fixing bugs, adding features and getting ready for a new release.

[gullo]

the comparison is pointless, none of those companies release new versions of their game every year, and those that do release new versions let their old versions die off.

I played Halo games from the day they came out, there definately was not 3 updates at all for either game within a year, and any "patch" they released you had to pay for.

Why you care " new version " so much I can't undestand that. On the box , I didn't see anything about FM 2012... Will they sell it with discount for who buy FM 2011 ? No. So This is ridiculous. We don't need to care about new version just like how behaving to other games...

[milnerpoint]

Why you care " new version " so much I can't undestand that. On the box , I didn't see anything about FM 2012... Will they sell it with discount for who buy FM 2011 ? No. So This is ridiculous. We don't need to care about new version just like how behaving to other games...

i dont get your point, do you get a discount when buying a new release of any game?

[x42bn6]

That SI needs a "patching strategy" is scary in itself - patches should be avoided! I've only seen these patching strategies for software that is supposed to last years, or for software that is critical (i.e. enterprise database software).

[Themer]

That SI needs a "patching strategy" is scary in itself - patches should be avoided! I've only seen these patching strategies for software that is supposed to last years, or for software that is critical (i.e. enterprise database software).

Literally cannot think of a game that isn't patched, so your point is moot.

[milnerpoint]

That SI needs a "patching strategy" is scary in itself - patches should be avoided! I've only seen these patching strategies for software that is supposed to last years, or for software that is critical (i.e. enterprise database software).

almost every single game released now a days gets patched, are other companies better because they dont tell us about their strategy from the start?

[gullo]

i dont get your point, do you get a discount when buying a new release of any game?

So why every time you are talking about new version ? Patching a game and releasing a new game are diffrent things ! Put your mind this. I do not have to buy FM 2012 to play without bugs ! I'm talking in circles that's sure... Read this again so :

It shouldn't be matter what the bug's importance , minor or major. It will be exist forever and I am not able to play without this bug unless buy FM 2012. The most important shi* is this in this case i think.

The bug that I have been reporting is exist since game released ( 5 November ) and It is still in there... How can you explain it ? I don't care number patches. I would write here if there was 15 patch even. And look at the Bug Pages. There is a lot of reporting. That is not only my issue...

[x42bn6]

Literally cannot think of a game that isn't patched, so your point is moot.

There is a huge difference between "we plan X patches for game Y" and "Y will inevitably be patched".

By planning patches, SI are explicitly saying that the first release is imperfect. In fact, they are saying that the first 3 releases are imperfect. In return, consumers are led to believe they are being used as guinea-pigs.

Patches should not be planned miles in advance, although they should be expected to be required. This is in the sense that developers are expected to support the game. By explicitly planning 3 patches, SI are basically in a situation where they know they will be patching the game.

As a consumer, I do find it insulting that SI are explictly saying that the first 3 releases are imperfect and it begs the question why this is the case. If they anticipate issues with the release several months in advance, why release software they know to be broken?

Patches should be a last-resort as code that is written as a patch cannot be tested as well as the full release - which is why we have really silly bugs like friendly international withdrawals withdrawing a player permanently and statistics not appearing.

almost every single game released now a days gets patched, are other companies better because they dont tell us about their strategy from the start?

No, but I find it weird that some consumers suddenly think that a patching strategy that explicilty ensures the game is only fully complete by the third patch is acceptable.

Has nobody thought that by having a safety-net of a third and final patch, bias could be introduced where there is less of a need to fix things immediately, given the final patch is a catch-all?

The issue is that SI planned a patching schedule similar to previous years, almost as if they haven't learnt a thing. Surely one of the objectives within SI towers is to reduce the number of patches and hotfixes released? If anything, it's gone up - 2007 had two major patches, 2008 had two major patches, 2009 had three major patches, 2010 had three major patches and 2011 had three major patches. Surely someone has said, "Whoa, hold on a second... This doesn't look good..."

I as a developer personally don't find the "all software has bugs" as an excuse. We should make allowances for bugs but we don't use them as an excuse to have patches. Otherwise it is an excuse to release broken code - which some people are oddly defending.

[milnerpoint]

the point still stands tho, SI tell us they are going to release 3 patches, everyone complains, Bungie release Halo and dont mention anything about any future updates, then they announce a map pack release, which was basically a few more maps and a patch for things that didnt work properly and for exploits they had missed, which you have to pay for, otherwise you wont have most of the options in the multiplayer avaliable to you, people say fair enough.

Half Life 2 is still being "patched" but they dont make huge announcements about when they are coming, should they be frowned at because after 5/6 years they still have not got rid of all the bugs?

[x42bn6]

the point still stands tho, SI tell us they are going to release 3 patches, everyone complains, Bungie release Halo and dont mention anything about any future updates, then they announce a map pack release, which was basically a few more maps and a patch for things that didnt work properly and for exploits they had missed, which you have to pay for, otherwise you wont have most of the options in the multiplayer avaliable to you, people say fair enough.

The issue is not the fact it is announced, but the fact that SI have planned patches because they know they will have issues, and that they know they will be releasing an imperfect game.

It would be like a car company telling you they will only put seatbelts in the car a few months down the line, but they are happy to take your money now for an imperfect solution.

You can't plan the number of patches without knowing how much support you will be needing. To me, knowing beforehand how many patches you will release is like saying that there are so many issues, we may as well release X patches and then stop.

Giving them credit for saying it explicitly is like damning with faint praise - it's still not acceptable.

Half Life 2 is still being "patched" but they dont make huge announcements about when they are coming, should they be frowned at because after 5/6 years they still have not got rid of all the bugs?

Yes, I find it unacceptable Half-Life 2 is being patched several years down the line.

[milnerpoint]

christ not another car analogy, FM is nothing like a car, your example is a stupid one to be honest, your comparing endangering someones life, to releasing an imperfect computer game.

Your smart enough to know all companies will knowingly release imperfect software/games with the intention of updating and "patching" them as and when they can. Bungie would have been aware of issues with their game after it had gone to press, just like Valve did with Half Life, and Microsoft have done for years. They will all have plans on what they will do to sort these problems even if we are not aware of them.

I would imagine they give us the number of patches, because they know how long they have before they have to stop, so they can plan the total number of updates they can do before saying enough is enough.

Whereas i understand your want for perfect games and software, i think your expectations are unrealistic in todays world.

[B4L]

The issue is not the fact it is announced, but the fact that SI have planned patches because they know they will have issues, and that they know they will be releasing an imperfect game.

It would be like a car company telling you they will only put seatbelts in the car a few months down the line, but they are happy to take your money now for an imperfect solution.

You can't plan the number of patches without knowing how much support you will be needing. To me, knowing beforehand how many patches you will release is like saying that there are so many issues, we may as well release X patches and then stop.

Giving them credit for saying it explicitly is like damning with faint praise - it's still not acceptable.

I can see a point to your stance on the issue, but you are taking it too far and are just being silly. Comparing patching games with life saving parts of a car? Really!?

Personally I think that by patch 3 they usually deliver a pretty fine product. The problem with this game however, as with many/most others, is that on the day of release it just doesn't cut it. Buying this game (well any game really) on release day becomes less and less attractive every year.

[gullo]

SI tell us they are going to release 3 patches

I have just looked the box. There is nothing about how many patches will be released

[milnerpoint]

I never said it was on the box, read the link below.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/football-manager-2010/Exclusive-Football-Manager-2011-blog-with-Miles-Jacobson-day-18-Upcoming-patches-revealed-and-check-out-our-anti-racism-podcast-article610699.html?utm_source=footballURLs&utm_medium=twitter

[gullo]

I never said it was on the box, read the link below.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/football-manager-2010/Exclusive-Football-Manager-2011-blog-with-Miles-Jacobson-day-18-Upcoming-patches-revealed-and-check-out-our-anti-racism-podcast-article610699.html?utm_source=footballURLs&utm_medium=twitter

Anybody do not have to read blog or somewhere before buy the game

And there is this in the link : " For those who don’t know what a “patch” is, it’s a free update that is provided after a game is released that can add things to the game, or fix things too. "

Where is fix ?

[milnerpoint]

it was made public knowlage, that was my point, most people playing this game will have internet access and access to that article, its even linked on the forums if you look.

Neil has already answered your second part, we dont need to go round in circles with this.

[BiggusD]

Ok, I understand why you do it. some may consider that cheating but Like I said I am not here to criticise the way people play the game but your statement said that people have to reload 5, 10 maybe a hundred times to have any success in the game which is clearly untrue.

Not to "have any success in the game" per se, but to create a tactic that gives you an advantage over the AI.

[gullo]

it was made public knowlage, that was my point, most people playing this game will have internet access and access to that article, its even linked on the forums if you look.

Neil has already answered your second part, we dont need to go round in circles with this.

I think you are an employee at SI

According to you , they have said there will be 3 patches and they did. But at the same time , they have said there will be fixes but they didn't. So why you ignore their promise ? I know your answer : " concentrating on FM 2012 " ahahahah

Suppose that I accept all of excuses and I don't expect any patch anymore , why I have to buy FM 2012 to play without bugs ? So we are going samewhere , FM 2012 and all of new versions will be paid patch or DLC , not a new game. They have been earning enough money , but they don't recruit more employee for patching team... WHY ? FM is a miracle from 66 people

[stoned_assasin]

Has anyone actually sat back and thought to themselves that the more patches we have the worse the game can get? If Si spend most of their time on patching then the obvious knock on effect will be that fm 2012 will end up alot more unfinished than fm 11. And then what do you think people will want? yea you guessed it more patches ... and the cycle goes on and by 2020 people will stop complaining that they will want patches because the game will be far too unplayable even when patched ...

1 thing that i have seemed to have noticed though is that since CM changed too FM the passion for playing the game seems to be lessening maybe something went wrong there or maybe im just aging out of the game, but if this was the case why do i keep coming back hoping things get better each year if im losing interest with age?

[Viggo Vickers]

While the game is very playable, I am disappointed that they won't be fixing the issue with multiple custom League databases, as I was working on making some detailed European Leagues (with in-depth research) so far making 2 of them then finding out this bug that persists in 11.3 and that it will not be corrected. Kinda doused my ambition to work on user content for the game (and future FM releases) when it's obvious they are not willing to support the Editor community when there is such a huge issue blocking our creations.

[Jibby123]

Anyone who buys FM12 in Oct/Nov this year and does not expect a 3 patch policy to polish it off is a mug. End of. It's not like anyone here does not know how these things pan out.

If you don't like the SI strategy release year upon year then do not buy your game until Feb/Mar of each year. Simple as. You make your choice, and nobody here can say it's not 'informed choice'.

So don't be a mug. Like I will be when I rush down to buy FM12 on release day, bugs and all.

An annual release is never going to be groundbreaking new. Fine with me; my money....my choice.

You have your own choice to make, but why whine when it's as it is every year?? Just wait until March next year. Patience is a virtue.

[davidbowie]

none of those companies sell a yearly release of the same game, its a different kettle of fish altogether.

Bungie dont release any updates for Halo 2 or Halo 3 anymore, they stopped long before the release of Halo Reach. Activation only release updates for the current COD not for older versions.

Don't change the goalposts. The guy couldn't think of companies who released more than 3 patches.

[Nik_Dut]

I think the discussion here is because even after the promised 3 patches there still are bugs (some called it minor) and SI refuse to give more patches because :

1. They already delivered the promised patch 3 times (even the first come in the release day)

2. They are working on the next FM12.

I really hope someday later SI can change the patching strategy and provided patch when there are reported bugs asap, and perhaps in january we only given Data Updates because the game is very much playable then.

[The-Perfect-Fm'er!]

I do think their is some sort of FM snobbery at times. "why don't they just fix the game first before adding new features, it isn't a game for FM purists" blah, blah, blah. We all have the right to play the game. I have around 10 mates who all play FM, pretty much all buy the game within the first couple weeks. None of them ever complain about any sort of bugs. They'd probably complain more if they heard advertising FM12...."no new features, just fixed problems" because in reality, for a lot of people, we don't get problems or at least don't care about minor issues. I never move out the English leagues nor do my mates really, I've never had any sort of close to game breaking issues. Sometimes you got little minor bugs but within seconds, I've moved on and forgot about it and enjoying playing FM. I could have played FM without any patches, I did so already. There are just many people in this position than people who nit pick minor bugs and want fixing. To run FM, they need sales and although maybe some of you would enjoy no new FM12, just a cleaned up version of 11, it's not the same for all of us and personally, although I'd still buy it....I'd be pretty disappointed to buy a new FM game without anything new to look forward to.

[Ackter]

I don't trust companies that don't plan for patches.

Every game I've ever worked on has a patch in the works before the game hits the streets - and I've worked at 4 different companies on over two dozen games.

[Ackter]

I think the discussion here is because even after the promised 3 patches there still are bugs (some called it minor) and SI refuse to give more patches because :

1. They already delivered the promised patch 3 times (even the first come in the release day)

2. They are working on the next FM12.

I really hope someday later SI can change the patching strategy and provided patch when there are reported bugs asap, and perhaps in january we only given Data Updates because the game is very much playable then.

There's comes a time where a line has to be drawn, and all work on patches must stop (unless something major appears). That's how the business model for a games company usually works. Of course, some companies don't bother at all, or just push out the bare minimum required - SI are very much not that kind of company.

[Nik_Dut]

we don't get problems or at least don't care about minor issues. I never move out the English leagues nor do my mates really' date=' I've never had any sort of close to game breaking issues. Sometimes you got little minor bugs but within seconds, I've moved on and forgot about it and enjoying playing FM. I could have played FM without any patches, I did so already.[/quote']

Yup. tbh, English league is always free of bugs, and if any minor bugs found (such as one defender listed as competent goalkeeper) usually get a fix right away. They are the main concern of SI as thir main target customer.

There's comes a time where a line has to be drawn, and all work on patches must stop (unless something major appears). That's how the business model for a games company usually works.

I agree.

What i meant is, we shouldn't have to wait till january to have the "final" fix as now scheduled. If the papatching isn't time scheduled minded, maybe and just maybe when it reached january the game will be much less buggy and SI didn't break the "support up to January" company policy.

January data update can be released as data updates, doesn't necessarily bundled with patch. If they can release patch xx.1 immediately, why wait for xx.2 and xx.3 especially there is a time limit ?

Civilization release fixes regularly based on customer review (so i heard)

[wally13]

Yup. tbh, English league is always free of bugs, and if any minor bugs found (such as one defender listed as competent goalkeeper) usually get a fix right away. They are the main concern of SI as their main target customer.

I agree.

What i meant is, we shouldn't have to wait till january to have the "final" fix as now scheduled. If the papatching isn't time scheduled minded, maybe and just maybe when it reached january the game will be much less buggy and SI didn't break the "support up to January" company policy.

January data update can be released as data updates, doesn't necessarily bundled with patch. If they can release patch xx.1 immediately, why wait for xx.2 and xx.3 especially there is a time limit ?

Civilization release fixes regularly based on customer review (so i heard)

Doesn't work like that though mate the 3rd and final patch which come feb march not jan:p is probably the biggest of them all to test, with all the new data that gets added plus all the existing bugs that Si try get fixed its a lengthy process

[vlobben]

There's comes a time where a line has to be drawn, and all work on patches must stop (unless something major appears). That's how the business model for a games company usually works. Of course, some companies don't bother at all, or just push out the bare minimum required - SI are very much not that kind of company.

I think what people react to is not the fact that they have to draw a line, but the fact that they decide the line is drawn at the 3rd patch, no matter what state the game is in at that point (ok, that is an over exaggeration since they will still fix gamebreaking flaws, but you get the point). Ignoring human resources for a moment, the line should be drawn when the game reaches the minimum quality SIgames can stand for, not at an arbitrary number of patches.

[Themer]

I think what people react to is not the fact that they have to draw a line, but the fact that they decide the line is drawn at the 3rd patch, no matter what state the game is in at that point (ok, that is an over exaggeration since they will still fix gamebreaking flaws, but you get the point). Ignoring human resources for a moment, the line should be drawn when the game reaches the minimum quality SIgames can stand for, not at an arbitrary number of patches.

If that were the case they'd be within their rights to not have patched the game after the first patch, let alone give us a January update.

[BiggusD]

If that were the case they'd be within their rights to not have patched the game after the first patch, let alone give us a January update.

So it's the number of patches that counts, not what they fix?

[Themer]

So it's the number of patches that counts, not what they fix?

Completely missed my point. The game was playable after the first patch regardless of the minor bugs. vlobben was suggesting that they shouldn't set out the number of patches they're going to release rather they should keep going till the game is good enough, had they done that they could quite easily have only made one patch let alone give us a free transfer update.

Sounds silly mentioning the transfer update but alot of other game releases wouldn't even think about doing that due to the cost and time required.

[BiggusD]

Completely missed my point. The game was playable after the first patch regardless of the minor bugs. vlobben was suggesting that they shouldn't set out the number of patches they're going to release rather they should keep going till the game is good enough, had they done that they could quite easily have only made one patch let alone give us a free transfer update.

Sounds silly mentioning the transfer update but alot of other game releases wouldn't even think about doing that due to the cost and time required.

Well the positive side of having pre-set a number of patches is that they actually go ahead and do them, as you say. My and vlobben's point is that the negative side is that this year's third patch, for example, was focused on fixing bugs rather than gameplay issues. There is no doubt there is a need for another patch, as the ME is highly unbalanced, but it won't come precisely because they have a pre-set number of patches instead of a policy of tweaking and polishing the game until they are happy with its quality.

Edit: In other words, you are arguing that the 3-patch policy is to preffer because it guarantees patches, while a take-them-as-they-come patch policy would run the risk of no patching. Imo a risk analysis is useless in the case of a computer game release policy. I would rather have SI risk bankruptcy and we customers risk never see an FM game again than FM2012 be as bad as 11.3 ended up being - as long as the potential gains would be a FM2013 being a major step forward in every regard. Do like me and do a benefit analysis instead

[Themer]

There is no doubt there is a need for another patch, as the ME is highly unbalanced, but it won't come precisely because they have a pre-set number of patches instead of a policy of tweaking and polishing the game until they are happy with its quality.

The ME isn't highly unbalanced.

Could improvements be made? Obviously. Does the ME hinder the game drastically? No. Would it be logistically possible for SI to keep polishing the game and then continue the series for 2012? No. There has to be a cut off point for minor tweaking to allow them to continue to make the next instalment and while they haven't got rid of all the bugs they have, to my satisfaction, released what they set out to, a bloody good game.

[stoned_assasin]

Well the positive side of having pre-set a number of patches is that they actually go ahead and do them, as you say. My and vlobben's point is that the negative side is that this year's third patch, for example, was focused on fixing bugs rather than gameplay issues. There is no doubt there is a need for another patch, as the ME is highly unbalanced, but it won't come precisely because they have a pre-set number of patches instead of a policy of tweaking and polishing the game until they are happy with its quality.

Edit: In other words, you are arguing that the 3-patch policy is to preffer because it guarantees patches, while a take-them-as-they-come patch policy would run the risk of no patching. Imo a risk analysis is useless in the case of a computer game release policy. I would rather have SI risk bankruptcy and we customers risk never see an FM game again than FM2012 be as bad as 11.3 ended up being - as long as the potential gains would be a FM2013 being a major step forward in every regard. Do like me and do a benefit analysis instead

Kinda selfish point dont you think? I mean its ok that Si risk many jobs and millions of peoples fun because a select few want it this way?

But on the other hand i feel that Si is heading down the same route as konami did with pro evo, but Si have a much bigger head start than them. people where buying pro Evo for a few years just out of loyalty and hope that the game would capture the imagination like previous years but that only lasted so long and lost faith nowwe see fifa is nr 1. As i said in my earlier post it seems to me that things have stalled a bit since CM became FM maybe there is too much pressure from Sega for results which has held back some of the passion from the Si boys which we have seen from them in older CM series. it seems like no coincidence to me that since CM became FM we seem to be having a "brand new feature" each release which if you scratch under the suface is literally only a selling point (pressure from sega) and which seem to be the cause of most peoples problem till later down the line after the game was patched. But the game just dont seem to be as smooth and pure anymore. Now we have all these new features all it seems to mean to me is that for the 1st month's all you are doing is having to guess your way through the new feature's and play the game how the game itself wants to be played and not how you want to play the game. one thing for me i would love alot more than a patch is a PROPER manual to explain the new features %100 and for Si not to leave it to the general public on these forums to explain to there customers how someone elses game works. i mean things like team talks, press confrences, player interaction etc for me is not making the game more sim like (as they currentl stand). All these new features is pure and simple guess work for us customers and where as the idea itself is very realistic the way these NEW FEATURES have been implemented just seem RUSHED. For instance over the years now how many times have we seen that team talks have been "tweaked", because soo many customers where unhappy with the way it worked (as they didnt work as they had IMAGINED). The more we see these new features in the way they are implemented atm (rushed) the more for me the game becomes less of a sim, because the game is becoming more and more like you have to crack the game 1st instead of seeing your own imagination unfold how you had planned it. Now the problem after years of complaining on how team talks works Si have come up with the bright idea to add something similar (players interaction). Again this makes the game alot less of a sim as some of the reactions you get are just not REALISTIC and again you will find your self telling the players what the game wants you to say and not what YOU the customer feels he should say.

I love/'d the game but i just dont want too see it slowly but surley heading down the same road as pro evo did.

[Themer]

Edit: In other words, you are arguing that the 3-patch policy is to preffer because it guarantees patches, while a take-them-as-they-come patch policy would run the risk of no patching. Imo a risk analysis is useless in the case of a computer game release policy. I would rather have SI risk bankruptcy and we customers risk never see an FM game again than FM2012 be as bad as 11.3 ended up being - as long as the potential gains would be a FM2013 being a major step forward in every regard. Do like me and do a benefit analysis instead

In what way would SI going bankrupt be of benefit to anyone? 11.3 isn't bad, its pretty darn good.

[BlueSqFCB]

all this dissent without me? Remember the poll i ran, 30% said they were unhappy...thats enough to bring down a governament!

[Themer]

all this dissent without me? Remember the poll i ran, 30% said they were unhappy...thats enough to bring down a governament!

Not if they have 70% backing it isn't.

[x42bn6]

christ not another car analogy, FM is nothing like a car, your example is a stupid one to be honest, your comparing endangering someones life, to releasing an imperfect computer game.

Fine, how about something different, like no air-conditioning or heater, no radio or no cushions on seats.

Your smart enough to know all companies will knowingly release imperfect software/games with the intention of updating and "patching" them as and when they can. Bungie would have been aware of issues with their game after it had gone to press, just like Valve did with Half Life, and Microsoft have done for years. They will all have plans on what they will do to sort these problems even if we are not aware of them.

Software companies know their software will be imperfect. But they will aim to release it as perfect as possible on release, because patching is a last-resort. However, when SI start planning explicitly a number of patches, they are explicitly not aiming for perfection, because they've decided beforehand to make it perfect later-on.

Patching is dependent on the level of support required - you cannot know the number of patches required until the game is actually released. Unless, of course, you don't plan on doing it properly in the first place.

I would imagine they give us the number of patches, because they know how long they have before they have to stop, so they can plan the total number of updates they can do before saying enough is enough.

Whereas i understand your want for perfect games and software, i think your expectations are unrealistic in todays world.

They aren't - I would expect a company to patch as they deem fit as support issues come in. Explicitly saying X patches gives them room to perfect the game, when it should be aimed for perfection upon release.

I can see a point to your stance on the issue, but you are taking it too far and are just being silly. Comparing patching games with life saving parts of a car? Really!?

l2analogy

Personally I think that by patch 3 they usually deliver a pretty fine product. The problem with this game however, as with many/most others, is that on the day of release it just doesn't cut it. Buying this game (well any game really) on release day becomes less and less attractive every year.

This is the true elephant in the room. Patching becomes an acceptable mechanism for consumers, rather than an annoyance and waste of money ($100 today is worth more than $100 tomorrow). Customers and SI aim-low (it's OK they've released bad software because they'll patch it and they've said so) rather than aiming for excellence. Inadequate testing results in weird bugs on the "final" patch, which were not seen previously.

Whatever happened to questions like "Why do you need so many patches?" or "Why do you still use fancy DRM when it has cost you two hotfixes in FM11 alone?" And so on. These are the questions we need to ask, rather than giving SI kudos for admitting they aren't perfect. Newsflash - we know that already, and that is damning with faint praise.

[Ackter]

SI have a 3 patch strategy - but they always hope it won't be needed.

However, they're realistic enough to know that it will be needed.

They could just choose to release one patch after the January window has closed - would you prefer that?