Medal Of Honor: Warfighter Comes With A Day One Patch That Fixes Everything Ever

[drop2]You’ve got to wonder, when the day one patch list is this massive, how a game like Medal Of Honor: Warfighter managed to pass certification at the normally super stringent offices of Sony Europe.

But it did, and it’s out this week, along with one hell of an update when you connect up online.


The answer to that, courtesy of Eurogamer, suggests that it’s normally much easier to pass cert if you’ve got a launch patch ready to fix everything that’s broken. Fortunate that EA have got this one in the bag, then, right?

We’ve no intention of listing the entire patch pile, as it’s about 200 lines, but it’s worth pointing out some of the better ‘fixes’. For starters, it looks like the patch will let you “add friends and join parties while in-game” and “invite others”, which is nice, and there’s a fix for the difficulty level which appears to default to Easy.

Some others? A fix for “players can no longer join an invitation only party without being invited,” is a belter, but we really, really like one: “Made the start button responsive as soon as the player enters the first menu screen.”

We’ve not had a review copy through and aren’t really expecting one, but we’ll have a look as soon as we can get hold of a copy…




  1. ha ha ha, this says it all to me. Definitely not buying this game now. I said all along that I wouldn’t. Saw some good reviews of the beta, without the fixes, thought the fixes would make it alright, but after reading this I definitely aren’t touching this.

    The MP for MOH2010 was shocking, so you can expect the same from this, especially with a massive list of fixes for day one. That means on day 1, MP that has fixes no one has tested.

    I feel sorry for those who buy this expecting the MP to be any good.

    • Hey? Rather damning! I really enjoyed the MP of MoH2010. Thought it was excellent.

      • Really? Did you? I just thought it was very badly done, spawn trapping, constant kill streaks, bad lag. It was bad for me anyway.

      • I agree, it was the most fun I’ve had with online shooters to be hones, awesome maps and great leveling, I loved it. It’s just a patch, and it seems like most of the important fixes are for online so it won’t affect those without internet. They had a deadline to hold so that the discs could be pressed, and yes to make the publishers happy, and had to take some extra time to fix things after that deadline. Don’t really think there’s a lot of problem with that as long as the patch is available day one.

      • morbo, did you play bf3? Just wondered what you thought about the constant fixing of the MP with patches. It totally changed gameplay and ruined the game for me. It showed they pushed a game out, half finished.

        For me, a half finished game is a rubbish game and I wont buy it. Because there is no promise that game will be finished properly, even with patches.

      • I enjoyed the MP in the first one too. I also tried the beta on xbox last weekend too and it was pretty fluid and fun apart from the terrible control pad. It’s like something made by tommy

    • The single player game was way better then cod and bf 3 for me.

      • Absolutely, and Tier 1 was fantastic – I still recall anxiously waiting for the end of mission in belly of the beast, desperately avoiding incoming fire whilst the countdown timer edged ever closer to the time limit!

        I enjoyed the MP too. Okay it had it’s issues but name one MP game that doesn’t…

    • It looks like when you buy the game they are just giving you a blank blu-ray disc and then the patch is actually the game.

  2. Good lord – Sounds like the version that was pressed onto disc pretty much played itself! :D

    Nice that they are doing these fixes of course (i do like my start button to be responsive as soon as i enter the first menu screen), but as pointed out above, some are just laughable.

    The question is: Are patches being relied upon too much these days?

    • definitely, its a joke. It means the testers are becoming lazy, they send out a beta/demo to get peoples response and fix it from there. Meaning you get a full release with a patch that no one has tested at all except for possibly the idiotic testers that missed all the problems in the first place.

      Crazy. I for one will now NOT be buying this. I was tempted too. Shame.

      • You’re really laying the blame at the feet of the testers? Hitting GM is always about compromises. Yes, sometimes a bug will slip through the net, but quite often for a game this large there are bugs left on the board which testers have identified but aren’t critical enough to warrant delaying the game by a month.

        To me this feels more like an executive decision to hit the targeted release date regardless, and push the crunch a few weeks longer in order to catch bugs that were left in or raised by the beta for a day 1 patch. Note that quite a few bugs are PC and PS3 specific. Neither of those had a beta.

    • In answer to your question Mr Forrest, yes!! This doesn’t seem like the sort of fix list that creeps in over a few weeks of play, its more like the glaringly obviously not working stuff that gets fixed during the beta, without meetings or too many man hours involved. The poor codies are probably going to get most of the stick for this, but I’ll blindly blame poor management.

    • Yes. Why bother to make the game work when you can get it throw the door as soon as possible and fix it via patches? They may as well release the game and put a note on the menu saying “we’ll finish coding the game via patches over the next 13 months”

      Plus certain publishers don’t give a damn if the thing is completed or not as long as it’s out as soon as possible.

    • Did you see the patch list for Dead Island? That was release weeks before it got patched and was unplayable. at least this patch is ready on release day.

      • That was unacceptable but day one patches are becoming more and more common. I don’t want to pay £40 for a game that is half finished and will have massive patches. That and i hate getting a game, waiting for the patch to download and install, then being able to play it. Tis just annoying.

  3. EA, stop rushing games out as Medal Of Honour:generic shooter version shouldn’t have to be patched on day 1. You did that with BF3 last year and we all know how big the patches are for it.

    Does explain why they refused to send out review code. That or they don’t have faith in it.

  4. Unfinished, rush job.

    Following MoH 2010 & Bf3 the lack of promotion surrounding MoH Warface is a bit baffling, sure there’s been some trailer & gameplay but none of the tactics that EA have used before to gain share from CoD.

    Coupled with no review copies until after the game has released, which is rarely a good sign & extremely indifferent user feedback from trade shows I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for this… It’s obvious the best guys are working on next year’s Bf4 and this is nothing but a fishing exercise for some pocket money along the way.

    Still, if people buy into it it will reward these kind of activities and they’ll just become common place.

    • Thank you cc_star, this is exactly what I am trying to say. The more people buy into this shoddy workmanship, the more EA and other people will do it.
      It’s poor and those who have played MOH2010 and BF3 should be aware of what EA are doing, but still people fool for it.

      Once bitten twice shy for me.

    • lol and I take by the way your slaging it of you’ve put several hours into the game, have you?? didn’t think so!

    • I just hope you wont be reviewing the game if you do get your hands on it.

      • @_ccstar

      • Or prehaps he has seen enough footage to form an opinion.

        From what i seen, it looks like a generic shooter. Hell, i saw the ad for it and thought it was a COD ad. :O

      • The Lone Steven to cc_stars rescue lol.

      • I demand that i get a pack of PG tips for my services or i’ll start putting people in danger.

      • Firstly, not slagging it off – just passing comment on stuff happened to date, so to recap…

        – Bizarre lack of promotion by MoH 2010 & Bf3’s standards.
        – Non-existent/late review copies
        – Indifferent feedback from everyone who’s played it at multiple trade events.

        And then this… Sony & MS QA signing off an incomplete project if the the big guy (EA in this case) essentially pays them off.

        If you’d sooner align yourself to MoH:W with some kind of fanboy allegiance and overlook this obviously rushed development process that, if, rewarded by sales could have worrying implications for future releases if it becomes the norm – that’s your choice, but it doesn’t mean other can’t comment on it as worrying.

        As for reviewing it, of course not – Firstly, no one is thanks to EA’s worrying tactics and secondarily if it does happen then the reviews team will review it.

    • Completely agree cc-stars comment. Its just a cash cow between BF releases.

      Look at the first one. The MP was a mess, constant spawn raping and overpowered snipers. How many patches did they release for it – One.

      As soon as it was shipped they forgot about it and moved on the Battlefield, the MP was woefully supported. It will be the same with warfighter wait and see.

  5. Love the fact you could hear the enemy team over voice chat, and with the PC version, being able to use the scroll wheel is having to be patched in! Seems very rushed to say the least!

  6. I think that a development time of 2 year between each release is a bit short. I think 36 months is a minimum for a big AAA- title.

  7. Good ol EA – who cares about a game’s quality so long as you get it out the door as early as possible, right guys? Feel sorry for those without an internet connection who end up buying this broken mess.

  8. Good job this is on my Xmas list, should be all nicely patched up by then. Shame their deadline forced them into an embarrassing Day 1 patch. Should’ve just held off until Feb/March instead.

  9. while it’s good that patches exist now because it means that problems that couldn’t have been discovered in even the most thorough in house testing can get fixed, but the downside seems to be that far too many devs are starting to view post launch as part of the development period.
    by which i mean they put the games out on a certain date knowing they’re not finished, because they’ll just finish it and patch it.

    in this case they wanted it out before COD.

    it explains why they haven’t sent out review copies, the game on the disc simply isn’t finished.

    i’m gonna make a prediction here, it probably won’t happen this gen, but next gen, i have no doubt we’re going to have to start paying for patches at some point.
    that’s just the way i see this industry going.
    and i can see ea being the pioneers.

    sure they’ll stick a little bit of content in it to justify the price, but it’ll be clear what they’re doing.
    and they’ll justify it by claiming the continued support costs money, when they’re just finishing the game the way they should have before they sold it.

    god knows they’re looking to charge for just about everything else these days.

Comments are now closed for this post.