I am just wondering what are your thoughts on bringing out an update for a game!

I know that some people think that your game should be perfect when releazed but what if the people who have bought it come up with some very good ideas?

Your thoughts apricated! thx

Then make a sequel. Microsoft's official stance (as I understand it) is that updates should only be done to fix crippling bugs

FortisVenaliter Productions:

Then make a sequel. Microsoft's official stance (as I understand it) is that updates should only be done to fix crippling bugs

Hmmm, interesting.  In a way, it seems like someone might just do this to stay at the top of the "recently released/new arrivals" list.  Just my opinion - I typically do not look at games that have already been approved.  It seems like a "bug/exploit" that should be looked into.  A game that has already been approved and released should not appear at the top of the list when an "update" is released.  What do you guys think?

I have been thinking of upgrading my game's graphics and game play, so this is helpful information as updating graphics/game play would not constitute a crippling bug.  So, you are saying I should just release a sequel then?  Is this the consensus or just some guy's opinion? 

Where did you get that info FortisVenaliter?  I would like to "understand it" for myself. :)

Thanks!

Well, if you have time for some reading, here's a TON of threads talking about this subject. Should give you all the information you need. Hope that helps!

Why should updates be limited to bug fixes? If we can release new content and expand on a game over time, we can build a stronger userbase. At the same time, devs will keep their CC subscriptions active to release the content. It's not an excuse to release a half-finished game, but it would be a great way to add those "extra features" that you couldn't squeeze in before release, or decided to cut early on. I'd love to see some "director's cut" patches.

George Clingerman:

Well, if you have time for some reading, here's a TON of threads talking about this subject. Should give you all the information you need. Hope that helps!

Wow!  That "is" a TON of threads.  Thanks, I am looking through it now.  I, also, hope it helps!

The main reason to avoid updates is because there is no notification. The vast, vast majority of your users will have no idea an update is available because it is not automatic and the system doesn't notify them. So regardless of whether you're fixing bugs or adding features, most people won't notice anyway. So in my opinion that's why it's not worth adding a lot to existing games or banking on bug fix updates.

Perhaps such a notification should be a new feature we request for Community Games. I think it would be very benificial to have. I'm in agreement that without it, most people probably won't update, if simply for the fact that they don't know there are available updates.

Duffman:

Perhaps such a notification should be a new feature we request for Community Games. I think it would be very benificial to have. I'm in agreement that without it, most people probably won't update, if simply for the fact that they don't know there are available updates.

It's been requested since we first found out the feature didn't exist. You can search Connect for it and I'm sure you'll find at least one request that you can vote on. I'm sure the team is aware of the benefit of such a system, but at this time the recommendation is to not rely on updates and to not use updates as a replacement for DLC.

It's a bit more complex than just requiring notifications and here are a few reasons

1. The most basic reason not to do updates is because for every addition you make the more bugs you bring in which leads to a poor custom experience.
2. Even if we did have a notification system how annoying would it be if almost everytime a user started a game they were forced to download an update? They'd think it was glitched.
3. As Nick says you're better off spending the time on a sequel. At some point there's no additional return on investment
4. If you keep forcing non-bug updates through the pipeline then at some point Peer Reviewers are just going to switch off

I totally agree that games should not be released before they're complete but players appreciate new content such as maps, new weapons, skins, etc.. and these can help prolong a games popularity and sales. With these being new data instead of new coding, the chance of additional bugs is much less. 

As far as notification goes, I would put a notice on the splash screen that indicates future content updates are planned and to check the game's forum/website for information on when or even provide a mailing list.  If they want the new content, they will look for it and if not, they never have to bother with it.

If there was no inconvenience to the players and you could find reviewers willing to review it, would there be an official objection to content only updates?

Reggie S:

I totally agree that games should not be released before they're complete but players appreciate new content such as maps, new weapons, skins, etc.. and these can help prolong a games popularity and sales. With these being new data instead of new coding, the chance of additional bugs is much less.

The problem then is that you will have to code more for this content and this can introduce bugs. The chance is smaller, but it's there. I still very much debate the perceived positive return in sales with these updates. Some people swear by them, and I will always agree that you'll see an initial jump in sales, but I simply don't believe it will do much to increase your long term sales. 

As far as notification goes, I would put a notice on the splash screen that indicates future content updates are planned and to check the game's forum/website for information on when or even provide a mailing list.  If they want the new content, they will look for it and if not, they never have to bother with it.

That works great for content updates, sure, because the people who want it might check (or you might just alienate users who want updates but don't want to check a website or forum), but doesn't help the plan with bug fixes.

If there was no inconvenience to the players and you could find reviewers willing to review it, would there be an official objection to content only updates?

There is no official rule against them, no. You can feel free to put them in review and you will simply have to see if the reviewers are willing to help you out. You can help yourself here by making sure to really use playtesting (I'm talking weeks in playtesting; not days) and making sure you are as appreciative and responsive of feedback given. The better relationship you share with reviewers, the better the whole process will be.

Nick Gravelyn:

The problem then is that you will have to code more for this content and this can introduce bugs. The chance is smaller, but it's there. I still very much debate the perceived positive return in sales with these updates. Some people swear by them, and I will always agree that you'll see an initial jump in sales, but I simply don't believe it will do much to increase your long term sales.

I suppose if you code your game data directly into your game that would be the case but I always keep game data in external files and just assumed most people do the same.  I'm just about to try and make my first game package so I may be wrong in thinking the framework supports config files and such so if that's not the case, I could see your point.  In my case I can add weapons, objects, ai oppoents, geometry, etc.. all from external files without modifying the actual game so that's what I was referring to.

As far as the return on the investment goes, I agree that is certainly a debatable area as there are many factors such as game type, popularity, and timing (ie releasing the same week as GOW2) that will affect the return.  My view though is it's not just about what it does for you.  I view it as a "thank you" to your customers who bought your game and supported you.  It will hopefully generate more money for all involved but there's nothing wrong with putting minimal time into something that will make your customers happy.

Consider this, you and your competitor both release a similar game.  You begin work on the sequel while your competitor does the same but they release several content updates throughout the development period.  When you both release your sequel, which one do you think people would pick if the quality and other factors were somewhat equal and they had to choose?  It might not affect your current game sales tremendously but I think it has a great chance to improve sales of your sequel.

Nick Gravelyn:

That works great for content updates, sure, because the people who want it might check (or you might just alienate users who want updates but don't want to check a website or forum), but doesn't help the plan with bug fixes.

Well alienating users who want updates but don't want to check a website seems a bit of a stretch to me.  Sure it's not as ideal as in game updates but putting a note in the same area informing users that CG games currently can't do automatic updates will at least let them know you're not being lazy.

As far as the bug fixes go, I was only talking about content updates so I really wasn't suggesting that would be a fix for that.  Thinking about your comment, I do think that a notice letting people know we can't do automatic updates might help though. Otherwise I suppose they will probably assume that CG games can do automatic updates like retail games and might not know to check manually.  I haven't gotten to the point of uploading a game so I don't know if that's already covered when they buy a CG or such.

Nick Gravelyn:

There is no official rule against them, no. You can feel free to put them in review and you will simply have to see if the reviewers are willing to help you out. You can help yourself here by making sure to really use playtesting (I'm talking weeks in playtesting; not days) and making sure you are as appreciative and responsive of feedback given. The better relationship you share with reviewers, the better the whole process will be.

That's pretty much my plan.  I'm a professional developer and in it for the long haul. I've been working on my game for over a year now and hope to be in playtest by the end of the month (don't even have an Xbox yet).