Well, I very rarely buy games at launch, so I dont really mind. I just started Far Cry 5 and it was released almost year ago. But from my experience, gaming companies doesnt care if their games are rushed.
Most of what I know about the modern game industry is from random headlines, news articles, and YouTube videos -- so most likely I'm only seeing the worst news (because they get the most clicks/views) with an occasional positive piece here and there.
Rushed games has always been part of game industry, and sadly I cant see them going away, if you have a staff of 100 guys, it takes easily 3-6 month to polish the game, it can cost you 1+ mill to polish a game. Recoup that you need to sell 50-100k games more at launch.
Yeah, it's quite scary for CP2077 as well.As most people here, I assume that most are interested in games and depending on age, have been for a long time. So I regular check out what upcoming games are in the workings, games released the last few years and so forth. And I find my self being less and less interested in them, because my expectations have changed based on so many of the lastest releases there have been, which have been disappointing beyond believe. I only have a PC, so games for consoles doesn't interest me, never going to figure out the controller So this is only based on that. But I think I have narrowed it down to three main things.
1. Half finished games
It seems that it is considered perfectly acceptable today to release half finished buggy games, where some of the bugs are so obvious, that there is no way that these weren't noticed during testing, but were simply ignored. To me this really ruins my excitement, because buying a game, which you think looks fun, only to get slapped in the faced by an incomplete product that hardly works really ruins everything.
2. Games seems the same
This is probably a lack of understanding regarding game development, but it some how seems strange, when some AAA games are released, how they can take such a long time to make. Most of the time, they seem to use the same structure that have been used in the last 50 games of that genre. I haven't tried Anthem, so this is not to have a go at it, but have seen some game play videos of it and heard that it have been in development for 6 years, which seems like a fairly long time when you look at it. The AI seems pretty standard like you see in most other games, then you can fly around, which I wouldn't assume is that difficult to program, but besides that, the way of steering seems a lot like that of any other 3rd person game? Again this is not to have a go at Anthem, simply use it as an example, could just as well take Far cry or any other game for that matter. But according to those that have played Anthem, there is not really a complex story either with a lot of options as is common for these types of multiplayer shoot and loot games, which I assume would take a lot of time to program, which characters, quests and so forth. So most of the mechanics you see in games today, have they really changed that much? I would assume that most developers would be able to program these common things in their sleep by now or pretty much copy/paste it from one games to the other
Also it seems that a lot of games are being dumb down and a lot of publishers are afraid of trying something new or expand on a genre, but instead play it save or maybe they just misunderstand what makes a certain game good in the first place. Thinking of Mass effect, which to me at least is one of the best games of all times and then seeing it ending up in something like Andromeda, which I could see, how could have been an amazing game, but they screwed that one up, as they seem to forget what made the first one good or they simply rushed it. And personally for me, the characters, story and simplification of choices ruined it for me. All the things that made me like the first one. My impression is that most people share this view on it, so how it could end up as Andromeda, with poor story, characters and choices is a mystery to me.
3. Micro transactions
Weren't sure whether I should add it or not, as I personally don't have a huge problem ignoring them. But decided to add them anyway, due to the subconscious effect they have. Whenever I see a game, which is not free to play and it have MA in it, I can't help thinking that something is intentionally missing from the game, so it can be sold later on. The feeling that the companies adding these, have a meeting about how little content they can add to the game and still get away with it or how the game can be designed so people feel an urge to buy this extra content, intentionally removing or making the game worse due to this.
Because I have found my self being much more interested in indie games for quite a long time. Simply because they seem to be more willing to do their own stuff and take chances and try something new and none "mainstream". Some how there seem to be more passion behind their games than the big studios.
I think the lastest "big" game release that have really excited me were Divinity 2, which also lived up to being very good, one of the best RPG games I have played. And it didn't hide it self behind cool/deceiving trailers and so forth, but showed actual game play. (And obviously Cyberpunk 2077, otherwise I wouldn't be here in the first place )
So just wondering if this lack of excitement is shared by others or what your view is?
(Try not to have a go at certain games to much, obviously it difficult not to use examples. but its meant more as a view on the industry as a whole)
1. Half finished games
2. Games seems the same
3. Micro transactions
Wait, they have GOG which brings money on daily basis. But I agree with you, CEO should learn how to convince investors that rockstar's and CDP's visions are a win win for investors and gamers. You make 1 excellent game and it gets sold by its quality, no need for microtransactions and shit like that.Oh, right -- and they did it independently.
What was that about "It's not possible to fund it..."?
Wait, they have GOG which brings money on daily basis. But I agree with you, CEO should learn how to convince investors that rockstar's and CDP's visions are a win win for investors and gamers. You make 1 excellent game and it gets sold by its quality, no need for microtransactions and shit like that.
Rockstar added microtransaction in a free online mode and those are bringing even more money, but are absolutely not needed, GTA V, RDR2 and TW3 managed to sell A LOT without any GAAS mechanic.
On the larger scale, games are becoming far more massive and complex. It's literally a "too many moving parts" situation. Human error will always be a factor in a huge creative endeavor, and it's 99.9% impossible to pull something off with no errors. Expecting such is unreasonable. There will always be a few bugs and glitches that just can't be fixed.
well, if you have the right exemples... rockstar? good exemple, copied by CDPR (as claimed by the CEO). EA? Bad exemple, 44% loss in stock market in 5 months, and anthem will bring another loss (that game is another EA mess). The good thing of capitalism is that you win if you do things right, you lose if you don't. With all these continuous fails, maybe EA will learn or maybe not and bankrupt. Honestly not my problem, they're not making good games anymore due to their GAAS obsession.The whole business mentality would need to change, and that is highly -- extremely -- unlikely to happen. The only hope is to create something better and hold onto it for as long as possible.
AC odyssey and origns do that as well even though they're single-player games. "It's ubisoft, baby".It seems to me most online games follow the same banal formula of grind, level up and then pay if you want to speed up the process.
Im not really sure, I agree. Are games that more complex? they are in some case getting bigger I agree and is one thing I like a lot is massive game worlds, even to the point where a bit of repetition is fine, as long as there is something interesting to do.
But when looking at complexity, Im not really sure I agree. If we look at different games and ignore all the makeup like graphics, sounds etc. and look pass the age of these products.
well, if you have the right exemples... rockstar? good exemple, copied by CDPR (as claimed by the CEO). EA? Bad exemple, 44% loss in stock market in 5 months, and anthem will bring another loss (that game is another EA mess). The good thing of capitalism is that you win if you do things right, you lose if you don't. With all these continuous fails, maybe EA will learn or maybe not and bankrupt. Honestly not my problem, they're not making good games anymore due to their GAAS obsession.
Yeah I'm kinda in this boat too. When I make a list of my favorite games, more than half of them are from the last decade (the Last of Us, the Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, RDR2, God of War 4, Mass Effect Trilogy, Crusader Kings II). There are definitely some good games out there if you're willing to try them.Honestly, situation for me is anything but bleak, I have way more games that I'd like to play than spare time.
I've yet to play the new Hitman, Ace Combat, Dirt Rally 2, DLC for Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Metro Exodus... TW: Three Kingdoms and Imperator: Rome will be coming out soon, and I'm very close to finally caving and picking up Civ6. So yeah, I don't think I ever had as many options as now.
Ooooo that was a good one! Haven't played it in awhile. We actually have a (long since quiet) thread on it - Stellaris .I'm really enjoying Stellaris.
The examples you make are good ones, but that wasn't what I was referring to. What I mean are things like the amount of coding that goes into, say:
Go back in time to the '80s, and a single person working in their garage could single-handedly write an entire series of video games, and those games would be cutting edge, able to bring a PC to its knees. (Yes, I'm eyeing Richard Garriott here as a prime example.)
- a character's model or the animation packages that are attached to it.
- the level of interactivity or destructability of various game elements.
- ever-increasing reliance on procedural techniques to render environments.
- very complex procedures involved with modern physics engines, lighting, AI algorithms, etc.
It really sucks that Bethesda and Bioware think they can release half-assed games and get away with it. I've been playing games all of my life and a lot of games nowadays come out with very little content. Andromeda, Fallout 76, Sea of Thieves... to name a few.
I'm convinced that a lot of buggy releases are an intentional strategy to curtail game pirating. A goofy strategy, but intentional none the less.
2. Games seems the same
1+ mill to polish a game, must be nothing compared to how much Fallout 76 poor release have costed and is going to cost Bethesda and same goes for Anthem. How much is company reputation and loyal customers worth? In regards to Fallout 76 for instant, Bethesda still have to spend a lot of resources now fixing things and honestly, I don't think that game will ever recover before that happens. My guess is that the only reason they are trying to fix it, is to salvage, at least some of the reputation they have lost. But imagine if they had spend 6-9 month and X number of millions to polish it. It might not have been the best game ever, but at least they would probably have sold a lot more copies and their reputation would be almost unchanged. The combined cost of this single game must be crazy and can't imagine that anyone at Bethesda truly believing that it was in anyway beneficial for the company to release it in such state.