What is your take on the gaming industry?

+
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.

Surely, one could argue that a lot of people "like" to focus on the bad things, either to get views or whatever reason they might have. But the opposite can be said as well, when a game does good, people will rush to praise it as being a good. But the industry and especially a lot the AAA studios just give so many reasons for all this bashing.

I feel sort of sad for the actually game developers in those studios, because I think by far the majority of them decided to get into the gaming industry because they love games. But I would imagine this passion and ideas of how to make good games, simply gets ruined by people who constantly force varies cuts and MA into them, which probably look very good on economic papers of how much money they can milk the customers for. But which simply ruins the games, and its funny how these shops in games, always seems to be working perfectly at launch. :D

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.

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.

What makes it even more absurd is that, this game was something new for the Fallout universe, they must have been able to figure out, that if it should ever have a chance, they would have to convince people why it was a cool and interesting idea in the first place and release it as polished as possible, it was there only way to do that. So to me its a complete mystery, why they released it like that, but guess we will never know for sure.
 
Last edited:
Old fart gamer here. I play PC/console games since mid-90s.

1. I think the only significant change since that time is majority of the industry is making addicting and endless services. It's aimed at hordes of game addicts around the planet. Addicts bring insane money and nearly everyone wants a piece of that pie.

2. The industry is populated by old farts, who don't care about self-expression anymore. Their heyday was in 90s and 00s, but since then they exhausted their creativity, became old and lazy. They're either milking their past achievements or just blindly following trends and create one soulless product after another. It's mostly about high-profile studios who have big budgets at their disposal.

3. Annoying tendency: growing list of various digital shop clients. Every publisher tries to start his own service and sell their products on their own platform. Understandable, because they don't want to pay to Steam or whatever, but players suffer.

4. We still get great single player games now and then (which is the only stuff I play), but services, mobile games TOWER over them in terms of budgets and quantity.
 
Last edited:
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 :D 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 :D

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 :D)

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)
Yeah, it's quite scary for CP2077 as well.

1. Half finished games
TW3 was bugged as hell until september. CDPR said they have learned and want to deliver a game as polished as RDR2. Let's see if they manage. I prefer a delayed polished game to an early launched bugged one.

2. Games seems the same
My main concern for CP2077. All games now are shooters with levels and junk-looting. All you do is matching enemies' levels, looting their epic/legendary gear and become more potent so that you can defeat other enemies, all of them with the same stupid AI. Demo looked exactly like this but with dialogues, exactly as TW3 (which was a masterpiece back in 2015, but 4-5 years later you can't make a game which has the same flaws). This "RPG"-mania is destroying any possible variety in gaming industry and it's quite annoying. We recently had TW3, destiny, destiny 2, the division, the division 2 (coming soon), anthem, warframe, monster hunter world, far cry new dawn, AC odyssey and origins... You can make good action RPG without using this system as it was shown several time in history (i.e. mass effect or deus ex HR even if it's an immersive-sim).

3. Micro transactions
Marcin momot has confirmed no microtransaction will be in the single player game, which to me is enough. But what about the multiplayer? CDPR's CEO confirmed he wants the company to enter in the game as a service business, so it's quite risky. I'm personally not that scared since I most likely won't play the multiplayer at all (never found it interesting so far in any game, I don't think CP2077 will change my tastes), but I'd prefer to see something like GTA online or RDO (for free but with microtransactions) than a multiplayer DLC that would take the place of real narrative expansions such as blood and wine and hearts of stone.
 
Last edited:
1. Half finished games

Well, it's undeniable that certain games are released in an unfinished state. I really feel there should be legal repercussions for this, as it is intentional in certain cases, but to be fair, those cases are very rare.

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.

The thing I think is the real problem is the lack of transparency and accountability in many cases. If I run a company that releases a product, and I'm made aware that issues exist, it's my responsibility to directly and openly address and account for those issues to my customers and clients. However, doing so may impact my profits...and that's where things start getting ugly.


2. Games seems the same

Yep. From my experience, producers are very often not gamers, or they have no vested interest in the particular title they're producing. If someone is really good at handling money...that's what they do. They're not spending their time mastering arts, development, or communication -- they're off managing finances and making tons of money. These are very often the people that have the ability to invest in a game's development, and very often, even the most personable and qualified of them are going to play it safe. The worst of them will interfere with development based upon their whimsy, not based on any actual understanding of how such interference will impact the development. Most producers land somewhere in the middle. And it's the same for theatre, film, published media -- you name it.

As such, most producers are only willing to invest in something that is based on something else that's already successful. It's not until people stop paying for it that they're willing to take a risk. As usual, first there needs to be a problem, then people are willing to listen to the experts. (Sometimes, not even then! o_O)

At least we've got a super-strong indie scene! The major threat there is that big producers will readily bully successful indie companies into sellouts, build directly competitive titles to steal away their market base, or destroy them through litigation. (I think what indie devs should do is create a sort of guild based on sustainability, not maximizing profits. You know, actual, responsible management of economy, instead of legally justifying smash-and-grab tactics. [This part gets under my skin a little. Does it show? :p])


3. Micro transactions

Hate the things with a bloody passion. I'm fine with cosmetics being available, but nowadays, even those purchases are abhorrently greedy. The entire system is predatory by nature, and I feel the psychological damage they cause (especially to young people) will eventually result in the contention finding its way to supreme courts and international boards, resulting in stiff regulations.

It's the same type of thing as cartoony ads that were put out by cigarette companies during the '70s and '80s -- obviously targeting children. Now, we have games (many of which carry a sticker price upfront!) that continuously try to encourage people (a huge percentage of which are children) to continuously impulse-buy things of no material value. It's a recipe for financial irresponsibility on a massive, societal scale.

_______________

TL; DR
In the end, I'd say these are all big issues that the industry is facing. And, it's truly something that customers have total control over...but it requires sacrifice. Do not play the games. Go without. It's the only way to ensure that such practices are not successful. If people continuously pour money and attention into stuff they dislike, they're fueling their own upset. It's literally shoveling coal into the boiler and making the machine work faster.

Also, as this was a lot more negative than I normally like to get, I want to once again praise CDPR for avoiding these things. While other companies were claiming, "Our practices are necessary to fund such extremely expensive projects..."

CDPR released The Witcher 3, 16 FREE DLC, two paid expansions with nearly as much content as most full releases, and they wound up with the most awarded video game of all time. It managed to grow their company, so that they could begin developing the next, wildly ambitious title. Oh, right -- and they did it independently.

What was that about, "It's not possible to fund it..."?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Would that not be an ideal world? :)

The counter-argument here is that, "Revenue could be significantly increased by charging for all DLC and introducing some form of microtransaction model. We could hire more staff and release more products more quickly. Why would we intentionally restrict growth and profits?"

Increased...more-more-more...quickly...growth...profits!

It's like trying to convince me to better manage my diet. It might be better for my health; it might make me feel better; it might actually cut down on expenses...but...I want -- I want -- I want. Bad news.

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.
 
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.

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.

XCOM - enemy unknown original released in 1994 and compare that to XCOM 2.

You have basically the same tactical navigation, you move units around and shoot aliens. You could build several bases in the original, each with their own soldiers, scientists and engineers, each base could be attacked by aliens and you would fight inside your base the way you designed it, fighter planes to shoot down UFOs, you had lot better control of how you wanted to equip your soldiers, crafting of items, different stances for soldiers, Jet packs and so forth. Not that all these things were perfect, but this were the original one, so you would expect that things could be improved over time.

So a lot of these things you can't do in the new one and the new one have some things you couldn't do in the original. But when you cut into the bone, I don't think that, at least a game like XCOM 2 is more complex than the first one.

Neverwinter night was also fairly complex with an editor to design and create own quests and so forth, lots of different unique abilities. Elder scrolls series, you used to be able to craft custom spells, something that got removed in Skyrim if I recall correct.

Looking at these games, its seems that it went from optimizing all these features into reducing or simplifying them, not saying that all changes are bad. But it does sort of make sense that by simplifying features you can also reduce complexity, at the same time, but lately it just seems that this reduction in complexity seems to be crazy, to the point where its considered fine for some companies to not even finish the game before releasing it. :D

In XCOM 2, which is a very good game, they added a lot of really good game mechanics that enhances the game play, and if combined with or expanded on a lot of the features from the original one as well, like stances, itemization and really improved on the missions, then they would have a more complex and much better game in my opinion.
 
My concern is CDPR bringing multiplayer into Cyberpunk and how they muster resources and monetize the online experience. 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. It's actively degrading the kind of game-play loops we see.
 
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.
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.
Post automatically merged:

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.
AC odyssey and origns do that as well even though they're single-player games. "It's ubisoft, baby". ;)
 
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.

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:
  • 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.
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.)

Nowadays, the amount of code that went into the entire, RPG gameplay experience of Ultima I-III is less than a single character model in a modern shooter. Such a level of complexity means that more people need to be involved to bring the game to release...often hundreds upon hundreds of people working on various parts of the development in completely different regions of the world. Granted, if something goes wrong, sometimes, it's fast and simple. Just figure out the source of the problem, fix it, or write in a workaround. Done. Easy.

Other times, it's not so simple. Code is a lot like creative writing. Every dev has their own style and idiom that they bring to the project. It's perfectly possible for one really great programmer to hand their code over to another really great programmer...and neither of them can be 100% sure what the other person was doing or how. Add some simple, honest mistakes into the mix, and even though it's obvious that the problem must be right there...they can't tell where it is because they have no idea exactly how the other dev built that part of the code. If that dev is no longer around to ask...they're sunk. Nothing that can be done except rebuild the entire block from the ground up.

Well, why not? Just do the work then! Sure...except blocks of code are often involved with lots of other blocks of code. This causes a chain reaction: if I edit this part...then I also need to re-write that part...and if that changes...then these other three parts need to change...o_O Now, it's simply a matter of being unrealistic. It's not feasible to potentially damage that much of the working code, nor is it feasible to spend the thousands and thousands of man hours needed to rebuild all of that stuff simply to fix one bug.

Human error will always present itself in a big endeavor. Like everything else in life, nothing is perfect. (If it seems to be perfect, I'm missing something.) And note, I'm talking about little things that happen randomly or can be avoided -- not like a game crashing multiple times every hour on a range of different systems or having obviously dysfunctional mechanics.
 
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.

Then big publishers add the greediest microtransactions they can think of. Like CoD with their laser sights and the Black Market tiers. It's literally disgusting and it pisses me off. You're paying 60 dollars for a game that doesn't have enough content to warrant that price. If companies advertise their games with "We're adding content for years to come!" Then don't buy it until it costs 20 dollars.

There are exceptions though, like Siege for example. Like why would I ever want to buy a game like Anthem when a new Metro just came out? That game has been great so far. So much content and a unique atmosphere. Compare Borderlands 2 to Anthem. Borderlands' base game probably has much more content than ALL of Anthem. Big developers are just wasting their time making bad games.

Gwent is one of my favorite games because it gives the player so much content and you only need to spend around 5 - 25 dollars to get started. I am so looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077, Sekiro and Outer Worlds. Those studios always deliver great games. Sorry for the rant lol.
 
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.

Sure! There is evidence across the board that people want quality, and they're strongly against many of the existing practices. The problem is that the market is willing to be extorted, anyway. And extortion is exactly what it is. "Oh, you want a fair game? Pay up! No??? Then you lose -- over and over and over again! Oh, you wanted the basic mechanics and functionality that this game was obviously built for? We've put that in a separate DLC! Pay up! No??? Then use get the limited, half-baked experience that we charged you full price for! Oh, you want a certain look? Pay up! No??? Then you use the intentionally boring stuff we created to make the premium stuff look so much more amazing! Look at everyone else running around with the cool stuff and full access while you lose! Come on, loser!!! PAY UP!"

That's dramatizing it, obviously, but it's exactly the psychological bullying tactic used by companies to squeeze more and more money out of people. An adult will simply roll their eyes at such nonsense and walk away...but a child is likely to feel continuously pressured with the inadequacies and failures the game is constantly subjecting them to. Add in peer pressure and competitiveness with friends their own age that do have all the cool stuff...and we've seen this type of abusive manipulation by businesses a thousand times. Smash and grab. Get as much money as possible up-front, and when it stops flowing in, cut and run. The customers that will be upset or damaged by this...the employees that will lose their livelihoods even though they did great work for us...the fact that we could easily continue to fund the company and produce great content simply for more modest profits? Tough luck. That's business! (And, very sadly, it is. It doesn't have to be. But it is.)

Great example with Rockstar! Some of their microtransactions make me roll my eyes, but the gameplay you get with any of their titles is easily worth the asking price. 6 of one...half-a-dozen of another.

The key to any successful transaction (micro- or otherwise) is value. If companies provide customers with value, the customers are both willing to pay and are likely to return for future business. If a company tries to take advantage of a customer, they're likely to be unhappy, even if they're silly enough to still pay. Sustainability becomes an immediate issue.
 
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.
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.
 
I like your post. Here are some of my own thoughts.

1. Unfinished / Buggy games.

This definitely has become more prevalent in recent years, with the assumed ubiquity of high speed internet access. To me, the issue of bugs only partially overlaps with games being unfinished. With some publishers, the buggy-ness has long been part of their business model, for better or worse. For instance, the "Unofficial Patch" mod has been standard practice for Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games for as long as I've been playing them. And Bethesda's failure to patch many clear, easily corrected problems that the unofficial patch corrects, even when they do issue their own general patches, suggests that they have chosen to anticipate the creation and widespread distribution of the unofficial patch as part of their development strategy. I think that most of us long standing TES players have come to accept it as well. Going back even farther, I remember many clearly incomplete and/or improperly tested and debugged games in the past (the poster child for me will always be old game Outpost, from the mid 1990s). A lot of those games just disappeared because it was so difficult to patch games over slow old phone modems, and many (most?) people didn't even have those. On the other hand, some of the better publishers did seem to spend a lot more time debugging games before releasing them than we typically see these days (anybody remember SSI, or Microprose?). Of course, those publishers also had some of the most rootkit-ish DRM.

But the whole notion of releasing what's little more than the framework of a game, and then filling it in over the course of numerous paid or unpaid DLC? Yeah, that's relatively new, and I don't like it at all. It's a dishonest version of the "games as service" model, which a few publishers are at least starting to implement more directly. I guess we'll see how that goes. Before I move on to your second point, I will make one last comment about the buggy release model, to explain why I said that I view bugs and incompleteness as only partially overlapping. 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. Lack of originality.

Yep. In my opinion, you nailed it on this one. For folks who've been around video games for a while, let me list a few titles for you: Populus; UFO Enemy Unknown (a.k.a. "XCom"); Fallout, Baldur's Gate; Civilization; Shogun Total War; Black and White; Wing Commander; The Sims; Might and Magic; Panzar General / Fantasy General; Daggerfall; MS Flight Simulator; Doom; Half-Life; GTA; Halo.

I know that I'm missing a lot of great games in that list, but the point is that there was a time when we had a reasonable expectation of something genuinely new coming around the corner. A lot of the most popular games in recent years have been remakes or re-skins of those games. What have we had that's really tried to be new? Maybe some of the Telltale games? For whatever reason that ended up not working out so well. Borderlands? Yeah, maybe Borderlands. I'm struggling to come up with many. And on the flip side, billions of dollars have been piled into new games that are basically re-skins of existing popular games. This week adds Anthem to that list. Please, please don't let CP2077 be Anthem in cyberpunk.

3. Microtransactions: Yeah, not a fan. They won't kill gaming for me though. Neither will point #1. But point #2 is quickly closing in on killing any interest in new games for me.


Thanks for posting the topic. Thinking about it has been fun. And a bit discouraging.
 
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:
  • 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.
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.)

Sure you have a point, but also the tools for making these things must have improved a lot over the years from when they started programming. With all the games within a genre that is being made, lets say Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 2, there must be some code or technique from the first one that they can bring to the next one, they might have to fix some things and adjust others. But its not like they are trying to invent a completely new way of doing things. Ways to handle animations for character etc. there must be some sort of reuse when they do things or common techniques that applies for each game.

I agree that you have all these extra effects that also need to be made as you mention destructible environments and so on. But a lot of these things ain't they build into the engine so it can handle it? What im trying to say is that a lot of these base things that exist in games must already be there to some degree.

And depending on how they program their games, they must have documentation for how things are made. Like how to use the game engine and so forth, some sort of structure so they can fix each others things.

It would be interesting to see a spreadsheet of how much time is spend on varies elements during a games development.

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 do actually think that Andromeda released with a lot of content or at least the potential for it, for me it was primarily the characters, the animations and the dialog was so weak, that I just couldn't connect to them, which were then ruined by an uninteresting story and bad guys. But I liked a lot of ideas they had and wanted to try, like colonizing planets and all that, but they simply forgot or didn't seem to prioritize those key elements that made the game so good in the first place, which dragged you into the story, the character and that made you care about what to do. I really wanted it to do well and I had no problem with some of the odd bugs and stuff like that, it didn't ruin the experience for me. But in a RPG like Mass Effect, if you don't care about the characters or the story the game just wont work, I think. As i mentioned earlier, just like Star wars, especially the new ones, the characters are so boring... and uninteresting that you just don't care. And all the weird stories and time periods that doesn't make sense. That they completely ignore all the lore, it just doesn't work :D
Post automatically merged:

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.

I hope your wrong :D Because that would probably be the worse tactic ever, for a very simple reason as the argument for releasing buggy games, would be to intentionally punish paying customers and intentionally ruin your own company reputation to fight pirates.

I think you could make a valid argument that it cost a company more money in lack of sales from releasing a bad game, than the cost of lack in sales from people that pirate them.

If you look at some of the games like, RDR2 and GTA 5, which I think sold for 1 billion dollars or something crazy? Sure some might download them for free and it cost them a bit of money, but imagine that GTA 5 had been released in the same state as Fallout 76?

I think there is a misconception in how huge an effect illegal downloads have on games. The assumption that people downloading these would have bought the game in the first place, is not really valid I think. And honestly for the most part, I think its a bad excuse. I won't say that it no effect at all, but I do think that a lot of people downloading these, are pretty much like me when I look at Steam. I click a game and think it looks kind of fun, but not really sure I want to buy it, so I move on. If you understand what I mean, its not like a click in Steam on a game equals one sale. If the game is good, it will sell, lots of games have proofed that.... 1 BILLION DOLLARS!! :D

Double check the GTA 5 sales, I was off by 5 Billions, minor mistake, it have sold for 6 billions to date, it seems :D
 
Last edited:
2. Games seems the same

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Maybe it's because of my own taste. Style whise, I prefer much more the japanese games: Bayonetta, DMC. I want more weird settings like final fantasy that mix advanced technology with real magic.

But it seems that things are starting to progress a bit more. There's Horizon Zero Dawn, Beyond Good and Evil 2 with anthropomorphic animals (I'm not into furry).
 
Last edited:
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.

Fallout 76 was paid-beta, game industry has done that for ages. Its just another form of rushing games out what I mentioned earlier.
 
Top Bottom