The Worrying Increase of Unfinished Games.

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.

Exactly, AAA games charge more than indy games, and why shouldn't they? So lets just call destiny a AAAA game and the logic follows.

So, this is a retro gaming website so no one will agree with this, but pretend for a minute that you care about graphics. Pick your favorite AAA game, and now someone says, well, you can have that game with a much more vibrant and rich world for an extra 30 bucks. You might not pay the premium but many would.

1 Depends. Is the house for 1,000,000$ of the same quality like the 100,000$ house? 2 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. 3 Well, then don't buy it! For christs sake, will gamers die if they for once don't buy the biggest hype they encounter? 4 I am pretty 100% sure that this is NOT the case with Destiny. 5. 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?
1. Quality is pretty subjective, but the AAA games are more expensive than indy games model is standard, so why not AAAA games cost more than AAA?
2. That would be pretty generous, and might actually get me to play the game.
3. I won't buy destiny. I always check reviews before I buy a game (and only ahve a pc so).
4. I'm pretty sure no one is 100% sure what happened with destiny, outside of the suits and the developers.
5. I'm sure nobody intentionally delivers a subpar game. Ask obsidian why they constantly release unfinished games -- time, money, corporate pressures.

Y'all are talking smack about companies being motivated by profit, but hey man, that's where most games come from. Even a majority of indy games wouldn't get made without the profit motive. Releasing unfinished or otherwise subpar games is just an unfortunate side effect of that.

So if you want to combat the side effects you have to do so with profit motive itself, i.e. not buying the games. Unfortunately that means missing out on some pretty sweet games, like obsidian.
 
Last edited:
AAAA games? What about AAAAA, no wait! AAAAAAAAAAAA games.

You keep constantly missing the point. Either you don't want to acknowledge it, or you simply can't

Y'all are talking smack about companies being motivated by profit, but hey man, that's where most games come from.
Curse me, I will try it again. This time with a very extreme hyperbole. Maybe you will understand where I am coming from.

See, I will sell you from now on everything like Destiny. I will tell you it's the most expensive shit out there, just in case.

Ok! Your car. Wait a min? No engine? It will come later! You have to pay extra for it, but it will be the most expensive compact car you can get! Even if it doesn't offer you more than other cars.

Your flat? No toilet! You will get the toilet DLC in 6 months! Most expensive toilet ever even! Even if it doesn't work better than other toilets.

Your surgery. Kidney failure? We will replace them in 6-10 moths, eventually, we just have to find a donor. Wait! That one is pretty realistic.

Seriously wait a min. You haven't bought Destiny, then why do you actually defend Bungie? Or at least that is the feeling that I have.

See thing is no one here would be really complaining if you would get 200% of game/content for 90$ or something. But the feeling I have is that you simply do not get this from Destiny. You get 80% of the game for 60$. The game was not ONLY sold on gameplay alone ... But also on the idea of playing a massively story driven game. And not just some MMO-shooter with the main purpose of hunting randomized loot by killing bullet sponges and masses of trash mobs.

Or the the question, what happend with the story that only gets hinted in the game?
Destiny's Lost Story Reveals A Very Different Game Prior To Launch

(...)
Or will this lost storyline still come to pass?

That’s the question. Not necessarily how the story was changed, but why. I doubt it’s as if Bungie or Activision simply wanted their game to have a more straightforward, less interesting story by every measure. Rather, the idea is that perhaps the reveal of the Traveler’s true intentions and history has just been stretched out. Rather than players finding out about the twist early in the game, they’ll wait until either DLC or a full sequel for it to be revealed.
(...)

Heh, maybe the game costs 500m because they got Peter dinklage as voice actor. You know think about it, it might be even really a big factor. If the game runs for 10 years. Then you probably will hear Dinklage in the DLCs and future Destiny games.


5. I'm sure nobody intentionally delivers a subpar game. Ask obsidian why they constantly release unfinished games -- time, money, corporate pressures.

Probably not, no, not intentionally. Most of the time I guess. But what happens very often is that they exaggerate with the quality of their games and the content and not just with photoshoped ingame screenshots - The idea of Hype and falling for it has to come from somewhere. And it has become pretty much a standard in the industry these days.

Fallout 3 - pretty much the whole game, but 10 trillion different endings!
Mass Effect - in particular Mass Effect 3, "No A, B or C ending"
Call of Duty Advanced Warefare. Gameplayfootage and actuall finished game.
Watch Dogs
Spore
Destiny - Compare the trailers and dev quotes with the finished game.
Alies Colonial Marines - It is simply a mess. This one clearly was a rip off.
Rage


And the list goes on and on. I am not saying those games are "shit", no! They can be still a lot of fun, but that is not the point. It's about marketing, promises, expectations, and how game companies and developers constantly overpromise and underdeliver.

And on top of it you have many situations where quests, story parts and gameplay elements get butchered to sell it as DLC or the add-on latter. Many of us felt that this would come sooner or later when companies started with their always-online stuff and online distributions. Turns out, it's here now and Destiny is trying to take it to the next level.

You know if you still want to play those games, you still can, I do, sometimes. The way how I get them? I simply buy used games. Or when the price has dropped to 9 Euros. Or even less. Does it mean I cannot play those games on release day? Sure! But who' saying I have to?

You will be probably missing on the multiplayer, granted. But You can buy games strictly for the multiplayer, that is alright! If you want Destiny for nothing else than blowing stuff up, I get it. Fine. - I am talking in general here. But it still isn't alright to sell your game like Bungie did, with this huge epic story in the background, where the NPC LITERALY tells you "I could explain this important part of the story to you ... but yeah I won't" but it might sell to you via DLCs later or even with the Sequel. Mark my words. A lot of it will be somewhere in Destiny 2 or what ever. ...

1. Quality is pretty subjective, but the AAA games are more expensive than indy games model is standard, so why not AAAA games cost more than AAA?
Because it is not just about quality, its about content. The way how this content is sold to you. You can butcher content no matter if its great quality or bad quality. If I sell you a script in pieces, does it matter if its good or bad writting?

To go with Destiny it still has to show if the content is actually great or bad, because honestly, most of the time it is only "hints" you see in the game. At least as far as the story goes.
 
Last edited:
apparently there is because we both are pretty much talking past each other and I have no clue how to reach you.
 
Maybe you are both in total agreement, and confused at the nature of your counter arguments. It happens to me and a friend of mine quite often
 
I'm really boggled by how Gnarles Bronson is defending increasing the prices of games based on how much they cost to produce, like we're supposed to feel sorry for the devs or something.

I think he may work for a certain AAA Developer....
 
Game prices are rather cheap when compared to the prices around the SNES era. Considering the increasing cost of making AAA games, yes, the price could be increased, but instead of doing that they chose to go the DLC/Season pass route...basically cutting content out that would be left in otherwise. I'm sure there have been plenty of times that a deadline has forced them to cut a segment of the game off and use it for DLC instead. Considering we now have Steam sales and Playstation +, I don't see the problem with price. Unfinished games and numerous DLC/micro-transactions? Definitely an issue.

They figure if they rush it out they can just patch it later. People like to pre-order now, so that plays a role as well. I almost never buy a game at launch anymore. Unless it is a Nintendo game I suppose. Their games are usually pretty stable. I usually make a note of companies that rush out shitty products. I stray from Ubisoft, EA, Bioware, and Activision if I can. Obsidian is hit or miss. Capcom is on my shit list, but I like their games.
 
I'm really boggled by how Gnarles Bronson is defending increasing the prices of games based on how much they cost to produce, like we're supposed to feel sorry for the devs or something.

I mean, I'm not really. I'm only advocating doing so in a specific instance where the novelty of it what act as an increase in advertising and might have resulted in a finished game.

To me it seems as though you guys are acting as if developers or the system behind them are the problem, when they are responsible for virtually every game that we all love. I suppose we could devise some sort of communist system which would solve all our problems, but probably not.

I think he may work for a certain AAA Developer....

Holy crap that would be sweet. Like I would waste my time hanging out with you nerds if that were the case.
 
We're not saying Developers are the problem, we're saying greedy,lazy developers who push out unfinished games and try to squeeze as much money as possible out of the consumer, they're the problem.
 
I guess I just don't look at one set of developers as altruistic saints, and one group as bernie madoff or whatever. To me, they are all trying to accomplish the same goal business people everywhere are, to produce the highest quality good for the lowest possible cost. Sometimes developers fail and produce expensive junk, and sometimes dev win and produce minecraft or whatever. They are all aiming for the same end though.
 
Not really, no. Its like saying that bad people and good people all aim at the same target in the end. Developers are normal humans and game development is not above other industries. That means different companies have different work ethics and their COEs different goals. Take Bobby Kottick as example - Why is Bobby Kotick, the CEO of Activision, disliked by some in the gaming industry?

1) Bobby Kotick openly expresses his disdain for games.
Unlike many CEOs, Kotick is quite happy to insult his customers at every possible chance. He does not like gamers, or games, or game designers. He likes money, and lots of it. While this doesn't upset a gamer (making boatload of money off games is usually their life goal), it does upset them to hear comment such as:
"The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."​
or
"The best of all margins – the 25 per cent operating margin business –​
has the potential as we can see with World of Warcraft to be a 50 per​
cent operating margin business."​
2) Bobby Kotick admits he wants to exploit gamers.
Any customer who is told that they are just meat is likely to dislike you for that.
"With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of over time becoming $100 million plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us."​
and
"there will continue to be opportunities for us to exploit the PC platform in ways that we haven’t yet."​
3) Bobby Kotick is insensitive to the current economic atmosphere.
Kotick has said many times that he wants to charge users monthly, or per day, to play his games even after having been purchased at industry-standard prices. He has an interest in raising the prices of his games, and would do so if not for certain standards imposed by outside forces.
"And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further."​
and
"If you think about the success that we've had in other product categories on subscription, you can get a sense of the direction that we want to take that franchise" (Concerning Call of Duty franchise)​
and
He pointed to changes he implemented in the past as being particularly beneficial, such as designing the employee incentive program so it "really rewards profit and nothing else."​
and
"You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly,"​
4) Bobby Kotick purposefully stifles innovative games, and creates a uncomfortable work environment.
Rather than produce anything new or innovative, and 'risk' not making at least $100M profit on it, he kills anything that shows up, already existed, or is acquired in another company. Also, as shown in the next quote, his idea making the most profitable third party publisher depended on creating "a company culture infused with skepticism, pessimism, and fear."

Considering Activision's recent habit of pumping out yearly sequels regardless of quality and bundling as many games with overpriced peripherals as possible, it's not really surprising to find out he has this sort of management style. What's really shocking to me is what obvious contempt he has for the creative process of making video games, to the point where he would actually say things like this
on the record.
"I think we definitely have been able to instill the culture, the skepticism and pessimism and fear that you should have in an economy like we are in today. And so, while generally people talk about the recession, we are pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."​
and
"Why don’t we start with the Vivendi Games businesses -- there were a lot of different projects and businesses that we identified as not likely to achieve the profit margin potential that we look for."​
and
"With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of over time becoming $100 million plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us."​
and
"It’s harder to attract development talent to projects that are more speculative in the long run, and so what we found is that if you have a [need] for innovation in existing franchises, that’s a recipe for margin expansion and you still need to have production of new original intellectual property, but you need to do it very, very selectively"​
and
"And again, our strategy, narrow and deep, focus on properties that will sell to a very broad consumer base on the console -- those are strategies that seem to work well."
But if you're a Fallout fan then probably all I have to do is to give you one name. Herve Cain.

Sure gaming is a buisness. No one ever denied that. But for some its simply more of a buisness then others. Gaming is changing a lot these days, its becoming more of an industry. That has good effects, more quality, more epic games, in general its better for the so called casual gamer. But it has also a lot of negative effects. Take Blizzard for example, compare their first products like Diablo 1, Diablo 2, Warcraft, Star Craft and the first World of Warcraft before all the expansions with their games today that often enough contain shops where you can buy mounts and pets for 15 or 20$ each. Yet the release of some of their titles is a mess. Like Diablo 3 and its real money auction house. And this is true for many big game companies out there. But I guess you simply have to, if you are looking at projects that cost you several 100 milion dollar.

I mean its not ALL just bad, EA made games like Mirrors Edge a possibility. But often enough monetizing on the big franchises is not made with the players in mind.
 
Early Access sounds like a good quick money scheme, you make some shitty zombie game on unity, call it a beta, promise crafting and survival skills, let the people flock in, take the money and just run.
 
Even if you have disdain for your customers you still want to make a good product, because good products sell more.

It does get a little tricky in terms of franchises, they can make a bad COD game and people will still buy it, just like movie studios can make a bad Spiderman movie and people will still go to see it. But really even then there's a limit, I think, before people stop going and they start losing money.

Disagree with you about Blizzard. I mean, for all the earlier diablo games they just had third party "auction houses," so somebody was making money, just not blizzard. I see no problem with directing all revenue to the game developer instead of whatever website. I dunno, I think Blizzard is a model video game company, they make really good really profitable games. Only company I would put higher is Rockstar.
 
There is a difference between a game that people use as a vehicle to make money, like Diablo 2, or if a game is clearly being monetized by its Developers, like Diablo 3 with the Real Money Auction House, which was not liked by many of its players. I mean hell, if one game really got close to pay2win, then it was D3 really. Either buy gold from Blizzard and get the best items, or buy them directly from the RMAH. In Diablo 2 you COULD spend money on third party websites, but not only was it risky, as you could be scammed or simply banned by Blizzard if they ever caught you, it was also not required to play the game. D3 was from the beginning kind made with the intention to get people hooked into the Gold and real money auction house.

I am not saying that Diablo 3 was a bad game, I had my fun with it, and I got my money's worth from it as well. I am just saying that Both D2 and D3 have been made with clearly different principles in mind. D2 was made as a quality product with a big longevity in mind. D3 was made more as a short-lived game to please casuals which was built around the auction house.

If you are interested in it, then I suggest to watch this

Diablo 3 - Why the Auction House got Removed


Diablo 3 in Retrospective

Granted, those are all Moldrans thoughts about the game, but he was or well still is one of Blizzards biggest fan-boys. So when HE is saying those things, then it should tell you something. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Blizzard. They are not worse then any other company out there. But they are cleary not the same kind of game developer anymore as they have been no clue 10 years ago. I mean seriously, I really petty everyone who went to Blizzcon JUST for Diablo 3, the tickets are fucking expensive. I mean the attention D3 got on this Blizzcon was pathetic. For a franchise that helped to make Blizzard what it is today. That is really not what I expect from them. But, they have other priorities right now. Which you can clearly see on Blizzcon. And that is to concentrate on cash cows and games that can be monetized, like Heartstone or that new shooter-FPS-thing they will release soon.
 
Last edited:
  • I dunno man, try winning at some pvp in D2 without spending money on good equipment. You didn't need to for the vanilla campaign (like d3), but if you wanted to beat your average other player you did. And yeah, the whole getting scammed thing is just another reason why its a good thing diablo 3 created the marketplace.
 
I dont know, there have been many legitimate D2 PvP players out there which got their items without spending money, while progress on the old Inferno without using the auction house was comparable to banging your head on a wall. Unless you exploited bugged Wizard and Demonhunter skills ... and made a fortune by selling the act 3 items you found to people that have been stuck in Act 1, because you needed act 3 items to beat act 2, and act 2 items to beat act 1.
 
Even if you have disdain for your customers you still want to make a good product, because good products sell more.

It does get a little tricky in terms of franchises, they can make a bad COD game and people will still buy it, just like movie studios can make a bad Spiderman movie and people will still go to see it. But really even then there's a limit, I think, before people stop going and they start losing money.

I think why companies continuously release bad products is that although good products do generally sell more, they’re also more expensive to produce.

When a game gets enough hype, as you said, it’ll always have better sales, but far more people are likely to ignore these flaws because they’re too dull to distinguish the present from their preconceptions regardless of how much the evidence stacks up against it. Usually, these notions probably won’t be very easy to debunk in their minds.

With a big enough name, any company can continuously produce bad products and get away with it, assuming what makes them bad is how horribly rushed they are (which is often the case, especially in the AAA market nowadays). Making bad games is far easy and quicker to do than a quality product, thus more efficient when you wield a big name like Assassin’s Creed, Mass Effect, or whatever else. Although there will inevitably be backlash, most people lack the ability to distinguish crud from not-crud.
 
I think a lot of that is true, but two things: I think COD, or whatever, has a valuable name now because the original product was good. So now people buy bad games based on reputation. However,I think in the long run that same reputation model will produce good results, in that people figure out that good games are no longer being produced, and stop purchasing based on a new bad reputation.

I think you see this with movies: Summer blockbuster; sequel cash in of poorer quality sells pretty well; direct to dvd third sequel; ... at some point they stop making money and stop being produced (if the quality continues to suffer).

But then again this thread is about unfinished games. I hear Battlefield 4 was bad at release, and now is good, so I don't know how to factor that in. I would imagine that vid businesses factor in the loss of reputation into their cost benefit analysis as to whether to release a premature game... I mean, New Vegas was unplayable for me when it first came out, but now I'd recommend it to anyone. So they probably figure it's a small hit.
 
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.
Jim Sterling also FREQUENTLY bashes triple-A publishers for similar practices (at least on principle) of submitting "unfinished" games, commonly EA and Ubisoft, on his Jimquisitions and Podquisitions. He hammers on those indie devs that are shysters, sure, but that's the murky realm of the shoddily-patrolled Steam Greenlight games, where "buyer beware" is somewhat implied. By contrast, triple-A titles imply that, while more mainstream, streamlined, and pretty much copy-paste-year-after-year, they come out "polished". Yet many publishers push out their works doing anything but that. The latest AC games stands as testament to that, given how little playtesting Ubisoft committed to the titles, leaving the SAME bugs across 2 successive games. Very infamous, well-known bugs. Maybe these don't quite compare to the level of "I'm still programming this piece of shit, but pay me $30 for it anyway on FAITH that I'll get around to completing it", but they are serious problems that currently stain the mainstream market.

They're the first offenders *I* think of when I think of "unfinished games". <_<
 
But why was Wasteland 2 so buggy? It must have been laziness. Tell Fargo to quit buying all those sports cars! :grin:

I kid. I loved it.
 
Back
Top