Yeah, if it's just a graphics patch maybe. If it's a DLC that offers new areas, that can be dealt with (although it partially segregates users as mentioned above). But if gameplay/physics/network/ai are involved, it's generally not plausible for a player with version x.0 to play with a player who has version x.1.

I think in a single player game, establishing an archive for at least the previous version patch would be sensible. As an example Skyrim under Steam ran into a number of issues with at least two different patch implementations requiring a large amount of players to rollback their game to previous versions in order to be able to continue game play while waiting for the patches to be fixed.

This almost sounds like phasing patches (or expanded DLC's) i.e. You play the game in it's original format complete whatever goals etc the game is set to then download the next patch which then alters the world at which point you play the new version to the goals set and so on. If you are talking literal content change like that then how do you co-op with someone for example when you have reached a point in the game where the city you are in has been devastated and the other player is still in the early stages of an alien invasion. If on the otherhand you did matchmaking based on version installed - How would you deal with diminishing player levels at the front end of the game i.e. new gamers would struggle to find others for co-ops. If you are talking more on the scale of the introduction of advanced weaponry or similar gear aspects then why wouldn't I want the best immediately.

From a games development point of view i.e. learning how to make games it might carry a certain amount of cachet but I struggle to understand your concept fully I think. More specifics on what is in a patch implementation would be appreciated.


I must admit though your last post compared to your original post has kind of thrown me for a loop. Now I am not sure whether you were initally addressing a technical issue or a content issue.