- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
This really does not sound healthy. The game is released, for a certain amount of money. If people don’t like what they get for their money, they simply should not buy it.
But by now gamers have been so trained to expect to endless content treadmills and all their ilk like mtx and battle passes that publishers/developers get egged on if they don’t work on their game 24/7 and forever.
You must log in or # to comment.
Until they ditch the “live service” model, this will continues. How many big title games today are really sold in a complete no BS state where DLC actually means extra contents? No much I guess.
That stems from the revenue model, and not by gamers.
I feel like Paradox games falls into this category, problem is everyone is so used to playing the okder title with all of the dlc that people feel the new title is barebones and unfinished.
Definitely. Age of Wonders 4 was awesome to play at launch, but it definitely feels more “complete” now that all 4 DLCs are out. It feels like it was clearly hacked to pieces to be sold separate.
That is because DLCs add a lot of value to Paradox games (excluding recent controversies) so people wait then grab all DLC in a bundle discount.
Yeah but if you wanna buy say, Stellaris, with all its DLCs, you’re looking at at least $100-$200 depending on the sales. You pay for that bigger game.
I’d almost love if games were released and getting no updates after that. But only if the games are released in a complete state.
I hate the fact that you shouldn’t play some games as soon as they are released, because you’d be playing the inferior version.
That needs to change.
Eh, EA can certainly be a problem, but it’s also an incredibly useful resource for devs operating in good faith, opening up the field for talent that would otherwise be priced out of making a game at all. Personally, I’m ok ignoring money grabs if it means the barrier of entry for resource starved talent is lowered.
Manor Lords is early access. At least one patch is to be expected. And of course the publisher is absolutely right. If my memory serves me well one dev developed the game all on his own so far and the challenge of meeting expectations after being a massive success is huge. Hiring more people to get developments going is likely necessary but expanding takes time. Some players have unrealistic expectations in general but even more so when it comes to small indie productions.
I just had flashbacks to Dead State. It was a AA title written by one of the guys from Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines so I was watching it closely during development.
Suddenly, it went from EA to full release. I was surprised, but picked it up without reading many reviews.
I enjoyed the game and put maybe 15 hours into it, but then I had to move and had to pack up my PC for a few weeks. By the time I got settled and booted it up, it had gotten a massive patch which fixed a ton of bugs, filled in missing content like item descriptions and a bunch of other polish that would typically be done during pre-launch.
Meanwhile, one of the devs had gotten into a high profile pissing match with the community over accusations they had rushed it out the door. I normally try to sympathize with devs over a reactive community, but I couldn’t help feel like I got punished for buying the game at launch and experiencing those relatively non-replayable opening hours in a non-optimal (Dead) state.
There used to be an unspoken contract with game developers and gamers:
- “I’ll release a finished game that you will never need to talk to me again if you don’t want to, and you can play it on any offline computer that meets the minimum specs. You will pay $X one-time for this and expect $0 spent on this game ever again”
- “I may release an expansion pack for this game at some point in the future. It will usually cost 10% to 30% of what you paid for the original game. You are NOT required to buy this. If you like the original game the way it is, keep playing it that way. If you are a new player, you will have to buy the base game and then the expansion pack to play expansion pack content”
- “I may, in the future, release a stand-alone sequel to the game. This game will have the same themes as the original, but I will increase the quality of the graphics/length of story/sound. You will NOT be required to buy the original game or the expansion packs to play this game. You will pay full price for this finished game”
Somewhere that evolved into shipping unfinished games, subscription based games, battlepasses, endless DLC, loot boxes, and forced online connections for single player games.
The game studios broke the contract. If they want endless money, that comes with endless work.
Because it is a much safer investment to send out a 50% costed demo to see if you can break into the market then trickle out updates to make up the rest of the cost
If your demo doesn’t land then you’ve saved half the cost of a full project that would fail anyway
Good luck trying to win market share with a half baked game.
That’s why I’m really glad to see Hooded Horse and Greg Styczeń have this mindset, and that they’re actually speaking out against the GaaS mentality. They’re going back to the unspoken contract and saying the current status quo is stupid.
The headline is poorly chosen. They aren’t saying that studios should be earning endless money without work. They’re saying the GaaS model to try and earn endless money is putting devs on a treadmill, and that this shouldn’t be the case.
I hope to see more like this going forward. I don’t think gamers nor developers are a fan of GaaS trying to stay constantly relevant.
While I agree with this for bigger game companies the problem is people apply the attitude of deserving infinite content to smaller games as well even if they don’t participate in all the things you talked about. For example with Manor Lord the only thing from what was listed that might apply is it being unfinished since it’s in early access. And while that does come with an expectation of more content the speed people expect it at is wrong especially since this game is basically being made by one person.
And while that does come with an expectation of more content the speed people expect it at is wrong especially since this game is basically being made by one person.
I appreciate the solo developer, and that they are doing most everything else right, but he opened this can of worms because he sold early access. He could have chosen to wait until the game was finished to release it, but I imagine wanted the money up front from early access to help finance the development.
If you release unfinished, you open yourself up to your customers wanting it finished, and also wanting a say in how it gets developed. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a right to sell via early access, but he brought this on himself.
Exactly and now they found that doesn’t work, they’re blaming the consumer, again, for things that are their own fault.
Agreed.
The contract was broken as soon as devs and publishers started pushing the digital download lies, because if you buy the game digitally they wont have to pay for shipping, boxes, manuals, cds, storage, etc etc etc, so the games will cost less and the devs/pubs will still manage to make more money on it than they ever would have otherwise!
and now we have 70-80 dollar charges for the standard, base version of games, with triple digits for the super mega special elite deluxe ultra edition. And you don’t even get to own the fucking game, cause sony and ubisoft have both shown zero issue with going into your account and removing things you’ve bought.
You highlight another point in the unspoken contract:
- “After you buy the game, you can play it for as long as you own it with $0 additional dollars spent. At any point in the future you’re welcome to sell your copy of the game for whatever someone will pay you for it. That new buyer will be able to play the game forever paying $0 additional dollars.”
That’s gone too.
Which is what digital downloads was actually all about.
Killing the second hand market in the belief and hope that those people buying the used copy for 5 bucks, will come to the dev/pub directly and spend the 60 bucks on it brand new.
Which is why some degree of chaotic lawlessness (as in pirate disks being sold near subway entrances) is good for humanity and good for the market.
And there’s no inherent moral value in intellectual property or copyright, so only whether it’s ultimately better or worse to have it is important.
and now we have 70-80 dollar charges for the standard, base version of games
Keep in mind that games have cost $60 for fucking ages, regardless of inflation.
Games Are Cheaper* Than They’ve Ever Been | Extra Credits Gaming
Games Should Not Cost $60 Anymore - Inflation, Microtransactions, and Publishing - Extra Credits (6 years old)
The game is released, for a certain amount of money. If people don’t like what they get for their money, they simply should not buy it.
The problem does not lie with gamers. It lies with ‘AAA’ developers who publish unplayable cashgrabs that need years of bugfixing before reaching a playable state, thus leading to expectations of ongoing development. Not that Early Access has helped in that regard.
Oh I meant that, that’s why I worded it that way.
If someone complains about buying a finished game and not getting more of it later, they’re idiots and there’s nothing you can do but ignore them.
Publishers that do ultra-early access/roadmaps/live services with promises of content/bug fixes/trust me we’re making the rest of the game later, are clearly to blame for the mess too. They’re the ones poisoning the well.
But plenty of games release in a final state and that’s okay. They have to be firm about it though.
It’s a tough line to walk. You want to create reasonable hype and you have an idea where you want to go, but as you correctly point out, it’s really easy to over promise and under deliver.
I think part of the problem is down to how a lot of games come out as “Early Access” which implies it’s more bare bones and will get fleshed out over time.
If a game releases as EA then the expectation is you will get more content until release, if a game just comes out without EA then it’s assumed it has all content and anything new is dlc/mtx/expansions.
I’m not gonna bother addressing Live Service games, wish they would go in the bin with most other MTX.
Absolutely. I will never buy another Early Access game - it’s buying something that is clearly unfinished, and you the player never get a second chance at the first impression. There’s too many other games to expect us to come back and try it again once there’s more content and the bugs are ironed out.
Early access definitely has its place. I’ve bought several EA games I really enjoy, and it’s kind of rewarding seeing something go from basic and threadbare to a more complete picture, and knowing I was a part of that is satisfying. I’ve also been burned by EA too, so it’s a double sided coin.
Rogue Legacy 2 was a standout example for me. I was happy to support the developer while they worked on the game, and all progress carried over to the finished product. Granted, roguelikes in particular are really well suited for EA because they’re meant to be played over and over with no real end.
Ground Branch for me. Love the old Rainbow Six games, and I find that newer tactical shooters in general just don’t hit the mark for me. GB still has a long way to go but actually has some original R6 devs at the helm and has an excellent core experience so far, and it’s only getting better.
I’m not against early access as a whole, if devs want to get player feedback earlier on in the life cycle and players are happy to be pseudo testers then it’s fine.
I get some people would rather wait and buy when it’s finished, and some studiosd/devs would rather bypass EA and just release the game outright, but I feel both paradigms can exist as long as both parties (devs/consumers) continue to benefit.
I just want to buy a game that’s actually finished. Early Access has ruined that first play experience.
Depends. Like Satisfactory, I’m extremely satisfied by their pace of development.
So, you could say you find their pacing Satisfactory?
Pun police: Stop right there, criminal scum! You have violated the law. Pay the court a fine or serve your sentence!
I swore off early access after Phoenix Point. It sucks to already be bored with a game before it has the major kinks worked out.
Dead Cells is kind of a counterpoint, though. I’m not sure if I got it as “early access” per se, but since I bought it, they made some major balance changes that completely changed the meta, and those changes got me playing way more enthusiastically than I was before.
Few games do it well, and I suspect we are getting those games because of early access. Other games exploit it, they can get fucked
Spend years releasing unfinished and incomplete work.
Gamers expect work to be unfinished and incomplete.
🫵
Thank you for all the free updates ConcernedApe. I hope you’re enjoying your time with your millions and if/when you release the Haunted Chocolatier I’ll get that too. You’re great and your game is great.
The article says that comment came from a CEO of another game company, not players. Tim Bender, the CEO of the publisher for The Manor Lord, said “Players are happy, the developer is happy, and we as publisher are thrilled beyond belief.” I don’t understand where the post title that says he cited gamer expectations came from.
Game Publishers: complains about how users expect endless content
Also Game Publishers: Mostly pushes for live service games and Free-to-Play
surprisedpikachu.gif
Alternatively
Game Publishers: Release unfinished game that gets horrid backlash until they work overtime to patch it to a slightly more playable hell, get caught in an update loop, game inadvertantly becomes live service.
Sometimes, it works out (No Man’s Sky)
Most of the time it ends up shovelware, though.
is Manor Lords live service? seems like they’re arguing against the notion that every game must be live service.
No, but it is still Early Access.
I was speaking of the gaming industry as a whole. I know very little about this developer. Perhaps they’re one of the good ones swept up in unfortunate-ness.
see elsewhere: doubt about whether all game publishers are the same
Not saying they are. Just the ones that are the biggest and make the most money
Sorry, but I for one am not going to accept these companies blaming everything on gamers. I’m not into bootlicking. Gamers are annoying af for sure, but I’m not blaming systemic industry problems on gamers. That’s complete horseshit.
Who are “these companies”? Game publishers and developers certainly aren’t a monolith. To me, this publisher’s complaint seems like an implicit critique of how big publishers have trained gamers to have expectations that are unrealistic for all but the most high-profile games.
There are a lot of articles like this one lately saying Gamers don’t appreciate the products we’re given and that we complain too much. Those companies. All of them. Manor Lords is still Early Access on steam. If the developer can’t be bothered to develop his unfinished game while taking our money then that’s on him, not us.
We’re living in a “either 1 star or 5 stars” world. There’s no in between, and I fully understand that it can be frustrating and put immense pressure onto developers.
I don’t know the company behind this game, but I’m not giving them the 1 star review just because I assume every tiny company is bad as well as all the big companies.
What if there’s a boss that tries to protect his employees and sees the issue in extreme expectations?
Not saying it definitely is that way, but why assume the worst first?
Early access games are marketed as such, and it shouldn’t come with a suprise that it’s an unfinished game. Some do it better, some worse, but an early access title shouldn’t be treated with expectations that reflect a finished product.
I’m not a fan of most early access titles myself though, at least not early in development. I don’t want to help develop it, so I wait for an almost finished product.
From where I sit, good and critically acclaimed games are plentiful and if you can make a game then it’s easy to make a good one: just don’t be a greedy idiot and make the game you want to play.
If the developer doesn’t want to be badgered about finishing his game then he shouldn’t be selling it unfinished, it comes with the territory. The problem is they went and complained.
Neither are gamers. They aren’t a monolith either. This article smacks of the "millennials kill billion dollar industry " nonsense. There’s definitely mitigating factors on both sides as far as the expectations during such transactions. When I pay for something that is promised to be complete I have an expectation in my mind that it will be completed. If it’s an early access beta, I spent the money to support that product and developer.
However a lot of developers big and small have engendered this reaction because they fall victim to the hype train. They market the game. People are interested. People’s interest begins to wain because the game is taking too long (cyber punk), or the company doesn’t want to lose the hype wave so they release even though the game isn’t finished (no mans sky, and cyber punk honestly), and this is what we get. On the other hand, we see the backlash that happens when games get canceled by larger studios. And we see smaller studios constantly miss their launch windows or expected release dates with little to no contact with the fan base or the public (Team Cherry/silksong).
It doesn’t matter if you’re an indie developer or a triple A studio, what most gamers want is a complete game at launch, or (in the case of an alpha/beta release) updates.
A vocal minority is being shitty here and the article is acting as if gamers are just getting together to hold developers big and small’s feet to the coals or something.
A good game will stand on its own merits. It will be complete and self-contained at launch. And any DLC released later will have been planned from the very start.
Endless updates is just another word for cosmetic micro-transactions and an excuse to make you keep the game online all the time.
Meanwhile Terraria: “So we are releasing this last final update, but you can expect bugfixes for the next two years, and a last last final, followed by finally last last final updates in the following two quarters”
Meanwhile Stardew: “here’s a sequel’s worth of new stuff. Oh, and here’s another sequel’s worth of new stuff. Enjoy!”
“And at some point we’ll open source it” I think Redigit said that, and then he gave a small fortune to Godot and MonoGame.
Holy shit, he said that? What a legend.
I’ve seen people say 'I played forza for 150 hours and now it’s boring"
Like dude, wtf
and they get offended if you tell them to go play a different game, then.
Cause some of these idiots out there, I swear to god, act like the game they are currently playing is the only game in the world, until the next new hotness that catches their attention comes out, then that will be the only game in the world.
I probably spent 150 hours just driving around the Top Gear track in reasonably priced cars.
Well how else are you supposed to figure out which celebrities you can beat over a lap?
That’s fine, because you don’t seem like you find it boring yet
Users find the weirdest bugs. Figuring out what happened makes me feel like Sherlock Holmes.
No wonder this shit isn’t sustainable. I play standalone indie boomer shooters and 100 hours would mean high praise from me.
meanwhile I got like 1000 hours into new vegas and i’m still all like “wtf is this? omg I never saw this before!”
I just started my first play through two weeks ago! I played F3 like crazy when it came out but never got around to Vegas
Vegas is still a fantastic game 14 years later. Not many games have that kind of holding power.
I hope you have a fantastic journey through it :D wish I could play it for the first time again.
Haha yeah, I feel the same way about many great games I’ve played over the years
Sounds like a management issue, how is the guy paying for the services gets shitted on here
I also don’t understand why I am being scolded by a guy I paid 30 bucks too for alpha testimg…
I never complained.
I don’t think it is targeted at you or me. Ofc there are some gamers out there that would be whipping the dev given the chance.
But the main issue seems to be unrealistic and poorly managed expectations. From management, devs themselves and gamers.
I think the silent majority knows what they are getting into and understand sometimes you buy a melon, but mostly devs just take longer than people want.
the silent majority knows what they are getting into
You are correct here but the headlines like these make me wonder if I am an idiot for spending money on the alpha game. I don’t like the one as paying silent majority. They need to work on their PR IMHO
I don’t think we are idiots for buying certain early access games. I personally judge games based on the state they are in at the moment they are offered and take some of the promises into account. But also so far I have had relatively little issues beyond game balancing etc with many games. And usually crash issues get fixed quick.
The satisfactory devs have a good interaction with their community and manage expectations properly.
So in this case the dev could take an hour every other week and write a blog post or something. That was also a good way the dev of banished used to do it.
