This is something I've been dreading since 97' when Quake 2 first came out. I remember it very well, being shocked at having to download an update for a computer game that had just come out a few months ago. It was my first experience in the "pump and patch" mentality that would soon come to shadow all computer video gaming.
Now it is common, if not expected, for all new video games to have patches applied shortly after initial sales. We have become a generation of consumer testers, digital guinea pigs, who have been trained to not expect functionality and compatibility from the gate. When was the last time you bought a Nintendo/Xbox/Playstation game and had to apply a patch to it? Would any of us suffer such an outrageous situation without massive outcry and poor sales?
You might say "But Dennis, consoles have dedicated hardware, where as computer's don't. It's not reasonable to expect the same level of expertise because of all the variables." And I would agree with you 100%, but the problem is once you let the genie out of the bottle, it's impossible to get it back in. The simple truth is, the industry learned years ago that thanks to the growth of the Internet they can rush products to the market without them being fully tested for quality control in house. This places you and I both in the frustrating position of being their Q&A department, except for the obvious difference that we pay them for such a privilege.
Up until now this de facto standard had extended only to the PC/MAC market. Systems with developed communication infrastructure that can be utilized for information distribution (ie. patches). However, as we move to the next level of integration and development we are seeing video game consoles (the last bastion of hardware stability) created with a more Internet central focus. We should be able to use these consoles for everything from reading news, chatting w/ friends, and surfing the Internet. All tasks which are incidental to the primary task of said unit, not to mention sadistic when performed on anything less than an 42" HD television.
Multiplayer functionality and ranking systems could be considered major additions, but make no mistake that in some meeting room a bunch of people sat around (who make more money than we'll ever see) discussing the ability of these systems to download and implement patches. Not just on a firmware level, but also on a software level. I can just imagine the head honchos over at EA salivating at the idea of pumping out products quicker and faster, while shortening the testing time needed in house. It's a veritable army of zombie beta testers, who desire to play the next installment of what ever blockbuster franchise you can imagine drives them to do anything to satiate their need.
Internet access on consoles has become all but a necessity. Taking a look at the Nintendo Wii's proposed model of PPD (pay per download) for it's NES, SNES, and N64 back catalog it's safe to assume that people will demand this feature now and in the future. It's a brilliant marketing scheme, derived from overinflated prices and childhood nostalgia that has been tainted with time (NES games looked great compared to the Atari 2600...but not so much on a TV capable of HD). The simple truth is that if Nintendo wanted to release every game ever made for the NES (a dead system, with no sales) they could do so on a single CD (source assuming max 300kb rom size) and still have 2/3's of the space free.
My point is that companies aren't adding all these features for our benefit, but rather to drive content sales (old games) and increase metrics on use. How often do these devices phone home, how do they monitor DRM and the content you add to them, how secure are they, do they have internal firewalls/ACL's, and most importantly how will broadband access be utilized for patching games? There are all questions I think we should keep in the back of our mind as we add these possible Trojan horses to our home networks.
