Respawn Entertainment recently released a patch for Titanfall that introduced several changes but as is usually the case with a rabid fan base, there will always be demands for more changes.

Some of the changes that appear to actually be incoming include the option to showcase your Origin friends in-game. Respawn stated on its official forums that it was “looking into” implementing this feature. It would certainly help players who are familiar with each other’s tactics to better coordinate with each other.

As for upcoming performance patches, Respawn clarified that the recent patch “was a server patch. Most performance stuff will be coming in client patches.”

Thoughts on the current version of Titanfall, especially with the Smart Pistol’s damage and accuracy debuffs, reduced risk from Deadman’s Trigger explosives, etc? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below – and yes, that includes complaints about reduced points for holding points in Hardpoint Domination.

Sega also revealed that it had made a profit of ¥1.11 billion ($11.24 million) in the consumer sector and Total War: Rome 2 will be the biggest title in the series thus far.

You can check out our review of Total War: Rome 2 where we praised it for the combat, animation and attention to detail. Of course, the game has its flaws in terms of AI, some of the systems paling before just plain murdering your enemies and the lackluster story. But it’s still a compelling game and made all the better with the updates. Stay tuned for more details.

“Without that help we wouldn’t be able to turn around the patches as fast as we have been doing. We’re achieving in weeks what, on previous projects, took months. It’ll still be weeks rather than months between patches though, and we’re going to continue to patch the game regularly for the foreseeable future.”

These patches will address overall stability, and the time between patches will increase as changes in balance are tested. Though the fifth patch has already gone live, the developer is currently working on a seventh patch.

“I’m not going make any detailed claims about what we’re going to do in the short term. The best way – the only really credible way – we can let you know what we’re doing is by delivering it in the game. But rest assured that we’re constantly reading the TW forums and a variety of others, and the feedback you’re giving helps us to prioritise the issues we deal with, as well as getting a sense of which features work well, which are not liked, and which features from previous Total War games which weren’t designed into Rome 2 are missed.”

According to Eurogamer, several sources are reporting that Microsoft has stopped charging for updating and patching developers for updating and patching their games. Even more interestingly, this change happened with no official announcement from Microsoft.

It wouldn’t even have been confirmed as true or not if various developers hadn’t cited that there are no more charges happening for patching. Normally, a developer is afforded one free update for their games after certification is paid for. It doesn’t mean developers can patch the hell out of their games without having to pay any fees. But for those who do so only once in a while, it’s a major step forward.

This is especially so for indie developers who would rather leave their games as they are rather than paying thousands to update their games.

Of course some indie developers, such as Polytron which developed Fez, found patching to be especially hazardous since a bug occurred that corrupted save files and was a result of the very same patch. Fixing this would’ve required re-certification, which would require extra money to be paid – something Polytron wasn’t in the best mood to do.

This was confirmed in the original description of the game on Steam (which has since changed), and when Gamespy interviewed Sergey Titov of Hammerpoint on the same issue, he stated that “online games are [a] living breathing GAME SERVICE. This is not a boxed product that you buy one time. It’s evolving product that will have more and more features and content coming it”. While this isn’t all that wrong, it wasn’t really the issue at hand, which was that Hammerpoint had effectively gamed – and exposed – Steam’s under-administration in accepting such titles for its benefit.

Such a scenario reminds me of Ben Affleck’s film Argo to be honest. It’s a movie about making a movie, as Tony Mendez and his team readied a script, storyboards, actors, a public reading, a registered production company, even office space and set off to Iran for location scouting.

The catch? “Argo” was fake, its existence simply created to evacuate 5 United States Embassy employees who had been caught in the crossfire of a rather violent revolution that was occurring. But it served its purpose, and all 5 hostages were returned safely to the United States. It’s hard to blame the Iranians – the farce was that deftly crafted.

However, it affords a lesson that not only The War Z but the entire gaming industry exemplifies. It reminds us about the severe lack of a quality assurance and administration authority within the industry.

Titles, be they indie games or AAA blockbusters, are left to the scrutiny of the developers and publishers when it comes to releasing them to the public. Do you delay the game and polish it further (read: fix all the unfixed bugs) or release it and follow it up with patches? Do you take a temporary hit in credibility by having the hype of the game’s release overshadow any game-breaking bugs? Do you issue public apologies when gamers are unsatisfied?

Did Ubisoft apologise for the numerous issues plaguing the release of Assassin’s Creed 3? Did Activision apologise for Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 failing to run properly on the Playstation 3 and PC – something which the original Black Ops suffered from as well? Did we get any apologies from Vigil Games or United Front Games for the little bugs and frame rate issues in Darksiders 2 and Sleeping Dogs respectively?

We sure as hell didn’t get any apology from Square Enix when Final Fantasy XIII showed up sans any open world, compelling story or actual fun gameplay (it’s rather doubtful they respond to any kind of feedback other than sales figures, truth be told. Hence FFXIII-2 and Lightning Returns).

One could make a case that none of these games promised features and then ended up not delivering them. But isn’t one of the prerequisites of a game to function normally? Aren’t we buying games with the knowledge that they won’t glitch out on us, or suddenly crash, or just fail to play at all?

Alas, these are the current curses of the current gaming industry. Wherever you are, it’s important to either be there first or be there on time. Overtake a similar property and cash in before it does, or meet the deadline being hyped by the enormous PR campaign surrounding title.

After three months of patching, who’ll be complaining in a year when the next sequel comes along? When Gamespy’s interview was published, Hammerpoint had confirmed that 100 players per server was now possible in The War Z. Would anyone who hadn’t heard of the controversy and decided to pick the game up in the next few months have cared if it were missing a few features at launch? Are they really wrong for claiming one thing, and then delivering slightly less when the entire industry is making money hand over fist with the same practice?

It’s an elaborate ruse, a risk that consumers take with each game, and really, it’s tough for systems like Steam to pick up on them immediately (it’s not even like they were looking for this particular group of Embassy hostages or droids or hobbits or what have you). Any system will have cracks for miscreants to slip through – it’s just that the size and scope of some screenplays makes them harder to catch. And when The War Z is committing the same crime as many developers have been for years – many which still do today – then should the zombie equivalent of “Argo f**k yourself” really make us seek reparations?