The Worrying Increase of Unfinished Games.

[Atomic Postman]

There's been a very worrying trend in the video game industry of late.

That trend would be developers releasing games that are unfinished to the public, expecting people to pay full price for them and be totally okay with the onslaught of bugs and locked away content.

Two good examples recently would be Halo's Master Chief Collection and Assassin's Creed:Unity

The Master Chief collection was a very anticipated game indeed, it was a Halo fan's dream (HD remakes of all four games, with the multiplayer of each intact.).

It should have been perfect, right? A player could hop from the campaign of Halo 3, to the multiplayer of Halo 2 and then only minutes later switching to Halo:CE, all with the touch of a button.

Wrong.

http://www.geek.com/games/the-list-...-master-chief-collection-is-enormous-1609190/

The game was writhing with bugs on release, and the game was very clearly unfinished. The multiplayer on launch was very literally unplayable and even now, nearly a month after release, it still isn't totally corrected.

It's so very clear that the game was rushed for release and was at the very least months away from actual completion by the time it was pushed out.

My next example is Assassin's Creed:Unity

The game was chock full of bugs and nearly unplayable by everyone.

In fact it was so bad, the developers had to put out an official apology and scrap all their DLC to fix the game.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30226586

And now, just months later, they are already releasing a new game.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/12/02/assassins-creed-victory-has-been-leaked

To me, one of the main culprits and inspirations for this kind of behaviour is Steam Early Access, encouraging developers to push out unreleased games and make their primary customers their alpha testers.

Although I've got no proof,I genuinely believe that Early Access greatly slows down game development and causes some serious laziness in terms of quality and design.

So, NMA, I ask you this:

Do you agree that this is a present problem?

Who do you place the blame on? The Developers? The Publishers?The Consumers?

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the topic.

 

[mobucks]

I'm actually surprised that you name two games from the big publishers on this topic. When I think of unfinished games and the shit system that is early access, I think of indie gAmes first. Jim sterling has an entire youtube channel dedicated to showcasing the latest shovelware available on that service. It really is an abhorrent practice at any level.

The big publishes have been doing it to PC gamers since the internet connected the first PC I'm sure, but now that every console is online... You know. I don't have to explain this further.

I blame the consumers. I know I'm never falling for another Dead Island again but that's just me.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

I don't see how this is SEA's fault... it's not any different than releasing a beta version, ala Wasteland 2, is it?

 

[Ilosar]

I'm actually surprised that you name two games from the big publishers on this topic. When I think of unfinished games and the shit system that is early access, I think of indie gAmes first. Jim sterling has an entire youtube channel dedicated to showcasing the latest shovelware available on that service. It really is an abhorrent practice at any level.

The big publishes have been doing it to PC gamers since the internet connected the first PC I'm sure, but now that every console is online... You know. I don't have to explain this further.

I blame the consumers. I know I'm never falling for another Dead Island again but that's just me.

Yeah, big publishers can be bad, but lately it seems that indie games often fall in the exact same trap. You hear lots of horror stories about Early Access games, or controversies like Double-Fine cutting content from their Kickstarter title, and I heard Elite: Dangerous was outright shutting down a game mode. That's not getting into the ridiculous amount of crappy shovelware Steam is throwing around.

At least most faulty AAA titles are patched relatively swiftly. The AC:U situation seemed rather comical however, but at this point Ubisoft is the new Activision anyway, shovel the exact same game year after year. Hell we are now graced by two Assassin's Creed games per year! Even Call of Duty never became that stupid.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Don't forget Destiny. I have no experience with the game so I cannot say anything about its quality, but I think even if you don't play the game and just follow some of the news it is painfully clear that it feels butchered. I think there was also a slight misunderstanding between its fans and the developers, they have been talking about a 10 year contract or something, where people thought they would see several games and a coherent story over those 10 years, similar to HALO and all that, but I would not be surprised if the Destiny-Team just want to stretch ONE game over the time span of 10 years ... or maybe they had to do it because of the contract, no clue.

Anyway, whatever is now true, I really don't want to buy games in small pieces. Not full price games anyway, where you buy half of the story now, some of the multiplayer later and the rest of the story with some DLC.

I don't like bugs and unfinished games either, but let's be honest, PC gaming had always, seriously, always to deal with that. I can not remember a time where we had not to worry about bugs, crashes or other issues. Sometimes even game breaking.

But this idea of "butchering" content is relatively new I think. Offering less for the same money. And I really hate it.

 

[naossano]

I am seeing it from the other side.

I don't expect games to be bug free on release, but i am really pissed if they NEVER correct those bugs, or if they cease support at some point, if the game that worked great in 1988 can't launch or crash in 2018. When you get them, you should be able to play them anytime, not during the ammount of time they are kindly willing to make it work, or when their server is online (for online solo games).

Also, i am pissed when a review isn't corrected after the bugs they mentioned on the released version weren't corrected afterward. Obsidian would have gotten their 85 on Metacritics long ago if people were fair with that.

It is ok to have bugs on release, if you intend to correct them soon or later. If you don't, then you get the blame.

If you buy a game in year x, but don't have time to play it before year y, the game should still work. You bought it, they shouldn't tell you it is too late to play it.


-----

About the unfinished games, i would give an unfinished pass to the indies.
On one hand, if they don't have the money to devellop the game further, they should release as it is. On the other hand, it is their job, they should be aware of the amount of work/time each feature will cost. They should have reduced they ambitions as soon as they understood they didn't get enough money from kickstarter/early access. Jagged Alliance: Flashback come to my mind. IMO, they got the formula right and felt genuine in their intents, but they clearly released an unfinished product.

For the others, no pass given. They should at least finish what they start, or cut off fillers and unecessary areas, instead of leaving glaring holes.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

I think an interesting strategy for destiny would have been to just charge more for the initial game, and not butcher it -- maybe 90$ or so. It's the most expensive game ever made, why charge the same price for it as every other slag out there? Plus if it cost more then that would have generated its own word of mouth advertisement/interest.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think an interesting strategy for destiny would have been to just charge more for the initial game, and not butcher it -- maybe 90$ or so. It's the most expensive game ever made, why charge the same price for it as every other slag out there? Plus if it cost more then that would have generated its own word of mouth advertisement/interest.

as far as I know, but I could be wrong here! This is the general missunderstanding. People see, several 100 of millions throwin in to the game! WOHA! MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT! But I believe they are actually thinking about a much longer time span here, like the said 10 years of support or something. The sad thing is, they will sell all that crap as DLC. I am not the biggest fan of Angry Joe, but It does seem like he nailed it, somewhat. So maybe it is not the most expensive game made, just the most butchered game ever made. *shrugs* No clue. Thinking about it 500 million over 10 years doesnt sound THAT much when you consider what a typical CoD game costs these days. Seems Modern Warefare 2 was about 50 milion for example. With some 200 milion in to marketing. Or so they say!

I just would absolutely hate to see that happen with more games, butchering content and story.

 

[Ilosar]

I think an interesting strategy for destiny would have been to just charge more for the initial game, and not butcher it -- maybe 90$ or so. It's the most expensive game ever made, why charge the same price for it as every other slag out there? Plus if it cost more then that would have generated its own word of mouth advertisement/interest.

as far as I know, but I could be wrong here! This is the general missunderstanding. People see, several 100 of millions throwin in to the game! WOHA! MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT! But I believe they are actually thinking about a much longer time span here, like the said 10 years of support or something. The sad thing is, they will sell all that crap as DLC. I am not the biggest fan of Angry Joe, but It does seem like he nailed it, somewhat. So maybe it is not the most expensive game made, just the most butchered game ever made. *shrugs* No clue. Thinking about it 500 million over 10 years doesnt sound THAT much when you consider what a typical CoD game costs these days. Seems Modern Warefare 2 was about 50 milion for example. With some 200 milion in to marketing. Or so they say!

I just would absolutely hate to see that happen with more games, butchering content and story.

Ridiculously bloated marketing budgets are a major problem in the industry, yeah.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

as far as I know, but I could be wrong here! This is the general missunderstanding. People see, several 100 of millions throwin in to the game! WOHA! MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT! But I believe they are actually thinking about a much longer time span here, like the said 10 years of support or something. The sad thing is, they will sell all that crap as DLC. I am not the biggest fan of Angry Joe, but It does seem like he nailed it, somewhat. So maybe it is not the most expensive game made, just the most butchered game ever made. *shrugs* No clue. Thinking about it 500 million over 10 years doesnt sound THAT much when you consider what a typical CoD game costs these days. Seems Modern Warefare 2 was about 50 milion for example. With some 200 milion in to marketing. Or so they say!

I just would absolutely hate to see that happen with more games, butchering content and story.

That's what I'm saying, 500 million includes the DLC; so instead of releasing a 60 dollar game and 30 dollar dlc, just don't butcher the game and release a 90$ game and include the part that would otherwise be dlc.

I don't see how this is SEA's fault... it's not any different than releasing a beta version, ala Wasteland 2, is it?

I read this post and suddenly was very confused for a few minutes...

Am I dumb?

 

[Crni Vuk]

That's what I'm saying, 500 million includes the DLC; so instead of releasing a 60 dollar game and 30 dollar dlc, just don't butcher the game and release a 90$ game and include the part that would otherwise be dlc.

So you would be supporting their behaviour that way. The thing is they would offer you a 60 dollar game for 90$ now.

How is that good?

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

It's good if they don't release a butchered game...

 

[Atomic Postman]

You're missing the point, the DLC is content cut from the game, it should have been in the game originally and consumers shouldn't have to pay extra for it since it should really be part of the original $60 experience people bought on release.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

consumers shouldn't have to pay extra for it

paying extra for the most expensive game of all time seems pretty justifiable to me.

This is a pretty specific argument I'm making anyway, I'm not suggesting this as a future strategy; the novelty of "omg, dude, this game cost so much to make they're charging 90$ for it" would wear off after the first attempt.

 

[Crni Vuk]

paying extra for the most expensive game of all time seems pretty justifiable to me.

But compare it to that little bits of content you got for this so called most expensive game of all time. That is the point which you keep missing over and over again. See, no one knows really how they spend those 500m.

Was it thrown at the destiny game you see now? If yes, then it begs the question, where is the rest of the content, it sure can't be that the current game required 500m as it offers not even more content then any other game out there. Or is it a 500m CONTRACT between Activision and Bungie for 10 years of support/development maybe? Then 500m seem not so much anymore, considering the fact what your typical blockbuster game costs, easily half of those 500m - See Call of Duty, Skyrim, Diablo 3 etc. And each of those games takes between 2-4 years to make. So lets say 50m for 3 years of development, which would make it 9, with one year for delays, issues or what ever and the rest of the money for Marketing. 500m for 10 years suddenly seems rather small then.

You might believe that all of those 500m are thrown into the quality and content of THIS ONE game. But who's saying that? That is one of the big problems with Destiny and the idea of selling "pieces" of the content. It's hard to know what is removed and what isn't, what is additional content and what is butchered content that was removed to sell it later as "DLC" or "Sequel" of some sorts.

And here you don't even know if Bungie did it or if Activision gave them the order to so, or they would be breaching the contract. Maybe Bungie wanted to do more, a lot more with the first Destiny game, but someone told them "no no, DLCs guys! DLCS!"

Happens sadly all the time. Mass Effect 3, Diablo 3, Destiny and many more games where it becomes painfully obvious that whole features and even story parts have been cut out just to throw in later in some DLC or add-on.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

See, no one knows really how they spend those 500m.

Was it thrown at the destiny game you see now? If yes, then it begs the question, where is the rest of the content.

As I understand it, no, it wasn't spent on the game we see now. According to the rumor mill, the original game is much larger, but has been "butchered" in order to create DLC. This was done for economic reasons, i.e. some suit was getting scared at the enormous pricetag attached to the project, and so made steps in order to create a larger ROI. My only argument is that there is a potential strategy that could have made almost everyone happy (except for the poors); the game could have gotten better reviews, potentially sold more copies at higher cost, and the fanbase would be happier with a fuller game.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Why should consumers have to spend extra cash for the original complete game?

It's irrelevant what the budget was, that's the developer and publisher's problem, not anyone else's.

Saying that someone should have to pay extra just because the game had a big budget is a very silly and anti-consumer idea.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

Why should consumers have to spend extra cash for the original complete game?

It's irrelevant what the budget was, that's the developer and publisher's problem, not anyone else's.

Saying that someone should have to pay extra just because the game had a big budget is a very silly and anti-consumer idea.

1. Well, consumers don't have much say in the matter, other than not buying the game. Videogame purchasing isn't a bartering or auction type event, prices are set by the manufacturer.

2. Don't you think that's odd? If I spent $1,000,000 to build a house, wouldn't I sell it for more than if I built a house for 100,000? It's not a perfect metaphor because it's a mass market good, but still.

3. Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion man.

So we have a game which the manufacturer decided would be unprofitable. In order to maximize profits they decided to break up the game. I suggest rather than break up the game increase the price. I disagree that that's anti-consumer.

 

[Ilosar]

Why should consumers have to spend extra cash for the original complete game?

It's irrelevant what the budget was, that's the developer and publisher's problem, not anyone else's.

Saying that someone should have to pay extra just because the game had a big budget is a very silly and anti-consumer idea.

Yeah, I don't get the logic. I pay 12$ at the cinema whenever I go to see a film d'auteur from a local artist or The Avengers. There's no difference in price because far, far more people will go see The Avengers and recoup their higher costs that way. I sure as hell won't shed a tear for Joss Whedon's wallet and won't accept to pay my movie ticket 20 times more because the Hollywood blockbuster cost 20 times more (at least!) to make.

Games already break that ''rule'' to an extent, indies are always cheaper than big AAA games to help their sales, but even for the GTAs and Destinys of this world there is an acceptable roof to the price of games, currently it's 70$ here. But if Destiny asked for 90-100$ at release it wouldn't have sold very well I think, that's too much of an asking price for a game for many people.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Why should consumers have to spend extra cash for the original complete game?

It's irrelevant what the budget was, that's the developer and publisher's problem, not anyone else's.

Saying that someone should have to pay extra just because the game had a big budget is a very silly and anti-consumer idea.

1. Well, consumers don't have much say in the matter, other than not buying the game. Videogame purchasing isn't a bartering or auction type event, prices are set by the manufacturer.

2. Don't you think that's odd? If I spent $1,000,000 to build a house, wouldn't I sell it for more than if I built a house for 100,000? It's not a perfect metaphor because it's a mass market good, but still.

3. Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion man.

So we have a game which the manufacturer decided would be unprofitable. In order to maximize profits they decided to break up the game. I suggest rather than break up the game increase the price. I disagree that that's anti-consumer.

Depends. Is the house for 1,000,000$ of the same quality like the 100,000$ house? Would you still demand the same high price? Would you be surprised if no ones buying it?

That is the point with Destiny, because I don't believe that you are getting the full content for the price tag you have on that game, doesn't matter if it's 60$ or 90$+DLCs. If all people see is this 500 million $ signs over the game and believe they will get extra quality here ... then Destinys marketing campaign has already achieved a big victory over the consumers I guess. That is what I believe at least.

They could change my opinion however if their next DLC would be free content. For everyone. No strings. No extra pass. No internet points. Just a small kind of "appology" to their fans.

Sad is only one thing. You can do almost everything with gamers. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not. Just throw enough money at the marketing and it's almost impossible to fail. Bombard people with clever trailers, magazine adds, demos, TV adds and all that crap. As long you don't deliver a clear Rip-Off like Aliens Colonial Marines, you will be fine. You can literally sell people crap in a jar if you do it right. The streams of fan-boys will protect it.

Hell, gamers don't ever even get the idea to "return" a game. Or to sue a company. Yet, this happens very often with other products.

1. Well, consumers don't have much say in the matter, other than not buying the game. Videogame purchasing isn't a bartering or auction type event, prices are set by the manufacturer.

Well, then don't buy it! For christs sake, will gamers die if they for once don't buy the biggest hype they encounter?

Also, don't understimate what power a so called shit-storm has. See Mass Effect 3, or Dragon Age 2 as best examples. I am pretty sure that Bioware took SOME notes of it. There is only so much you can do before you stress your fanbase to much.

So we have a game which the manufacturer decided would be unprofitable. In order to maximize profits they decided to break up the game. I suggest rather than break up the game increase the price. I disagree that that's anti-consumer.

I am pretty 100% sure that this is NOT the case with Destiny. It's a new IP, yes, they probably have the plan to build a whole new Franchise. But Bungie is not a new company out there. They have made one of the most successful franchises, Halo. This is like money in a bank. And Activision was very clever to get a contract with Bungie.

I just have the feeling that Bungie allowed them self to get in a situation where they have very little to say about the game, thx to a shitty contract. But that is just what I guess.

But if you ask me, they should neither break up the game, nor should they increase the price tag. I mean the best solution would be to yeah ... correctly estimate your budged and just deliver good games with said budged. I mean other game companies definitely can do it. Why not Bungie/Activision?