Unfinished Game Releases

[Lycanking]

I am annoyed. The state of the gaming industry with regard to the 'big fish' (EA, Activision, Bethesda, etc) is shocking in one particular way. There is a distinct culture of deadlines over finished product. How can you release a game that is cripplingly sub-par that will require a patch within a few days of release and already has DLC available within a week of its release. How would you like it if I sold you a car with the seats missing? You could still drive it but it's gonna be a rough ride. This must be one of the only industries where unfinished products are sold and it makes me pissed. But what can you do? Say 'No! I won't go and buy the new COD!' Like that's gona happen. I feel helpless in the face of bad service. What do we do? Throw in the towel and find a new hobby, or only buy games from certain developers? The reliable ones at least.

[Lupus]

The main problem is the expansion of Broadband and the ability for developers to do this, in the old days they built a game, ran it through tests etc... As it was difficult to get patches to consumers, also back then it was easier to develop games from your garage and it took a couple of months. Nowadays with the big budgets and the massive amounts of consumerism going on games need to ship faster, be better and just be there, developers know they can meet their deadlines and fix any bugs with a patch later as there is a wider range of ways for them to get these patches to people. I prefer it this way as in the old days if there was a massive bug in a game you lived with it and sometimes it was game breaking.

[OmegaFenix]

There is only one way to deal with this... to not buy the titles.
Some developers are more prone to releaseing unfinished products, Obsidian come to mind, and while for the msot part titles released on the PS3 and Xbox need to pass Sony & MS's quality control. PC does not have anything like this, which is why a console title may often need a single update while PC titles require massive patches.

Unfortunatly this is part of the industry growing up, it is no longer about 4 guyz in a basement designing something. This is a multibillion dollar industry and missing a deadline could cause a publisher to drop the project resulting in devs having no money to finish the titles.

There are however studio's out there who go out of their way to polish a title before release, Bungie, Rocksteady, Naughty Dog, Santa Monica ect are all know for releasing extremly polished and bug free games.

Like i said in the beginning. If a game is buggy dont buy it, that is the only way to show the industry quality still matters to us.

[symbolofmylife]

You make a good point but the interweb has made it easier for Devs to just patch whatever problems occur after release. But I agree: it does appear that deadline overshadows quality and proper testing in some cases. But not everyone can be kept happy. Ie: GT5 has been delayed and delayed and delayed. Why? Probably 'cos something is not working (or 100%) and they want to get is as good as it can be before release. Now, people are complaining 'cos of all the delays.

What is even more off-putting is where titles show minor flaws (think the Audio static problems on Orange Box PS3), and the devs make no attempt to rectify the issue with a patch. Then it is more a case of "Thanx for giving us your money, now leave sucker". My response is to just not buy games from developers I know had issues in the past without some research.

There are certain Dev's whose games I wont buy, regardless of what reviews say. One being THQ (save SVR). Except for SVR, imho, their titles blow in the quality dept. Need proof? Check out Bulletwitch and Bloodrayne. Eish!!

[OmegaFenix]

You make a good point but the interweb has made it easier for Devs to just patch whatever problems occur after release. But I agree: it does appear that deadline overshadows quality and proper testing in some cases. But not everyone can be kept happy. Ie: GT5 has been delayed and delayed and delayed. Why? Probably 'cos something is not working (or 100%) and they want to get is as good as it can be before release. Now, people are complaining 'cos of all the delays.

What is even more off-putting is where titles show minor flaws (think the Audio static problems on Orange Box PS3), and the devs make no attempt to rectify the issue with a patch. Then it is more a case of "Thanx for giving us your money, now leave sucker". My response is to just not buy games from developers I know had issues in the past without some research.

There are certain Dev's whose games I wont buy, regardless of what reviews say. One being THQ (save SVR). Except for SVR, imho, their titles blow in the quality dept. Need proof? Check out Bulletwitch and Bloodrayne. Eish!!

Remember THQ is a publisher, not a dev.

Do you know what Halo Reach's first update did? It rebalanced the MP, you know how they did that? Server side, we did not even have to download anything on our side. Thats how you release a game, but Reach had a 3 year dev cycle and not all devs have the capital to only release titles once every 3 years.

[Lycanking]

I understand the money issue from the dev side but I still feel that quality is a critical part of any product and it is being sacrificed in favour of lead times. Take less of a profit and invest more into QC and I think that the gaming world would be a much happier place.

[Terak]

I agree with all the point above. They are valid. But also take into consideration how much more goes into video games nowadays than 5-10 years ago. Sure, back in the day if a developer released a buggy game they got in huge kak for it, but at the same time there wasnt so much of a variety of PC specs etc. Developers are in it for the cash, and if they can make the same game run "averagely" across three platforms then they make money. Hence why games that are exclusives are so polished.

[Lycanking]

I agree with all the point above. They are valid. But also take into consideration how much more goes into video games nowadays than 5-10 years ago. Sure, back in the day if a developer released a buggy game they got in huge kak for it, but at the same time there wasnt so much of a variety of PC specs etc. Developers are in it for the cash, and if they can make the same game run "averagely" across three platforms then they make money. Hence why games that are exclusives are so polished.

There you have a good point. Cross-platform I would imagine is a major bugger for devs. Hmmmm, so exclusive only or wait a few weeks before getting a game so the patches are out seem like the two best options to me.

[OmegaFenix]

There you have a good point. Cross-platform I would imagine is a major bugger for devs. Hmmmm, so exclusive only or wait a few weeks before getting a game so the patches are out seem like the two best options to me.

Thats how I do it. I own a ps3 and an Xbox, i get exclusives for both and then check out multiplats to see on which system it runs best then get it for that.

[Lycanking]

Well thanks a lot peeps, my anger and consternation is gone and now I have a credible solution to my dilemma.