Fact or Fiction: Are Huge Bugs at Launches Hurting Games the Rest of the Year?

[Scribe1980]

A game should ALWAYS work competently out of the box. Always. Otherwise you are ripping off the consumer's 60 bucks. No excuses.

Now, I predate the* Net and there was nothing more frustrating than a broken game in the day, before patches were a remedy, But this "forget it, we'll patch it later" attitude is turning many older gamers like myself off to the entire pursuit. Have done more retro gaming last couple of years than ever, with many of my PS4 titles gathering dust. The worst patches are the ones that fundamentally alter the gameplay of what you purchased out of the box, in subservience to the UT/DD crowd. I'd like to see SDS go to gameplay tuners next year, somewhat like NHL has now, so I can avoid franchise-altering bad patches in the future. I'm not techy enough to know why games play differently online v. offline, but the* status quo is unacceptable.

[Scribe1980]

Also, inserted asterisks after the word "the" are rather strange. Not me.

[BA2929]

Can we stop acting like $60 for a video game is a lot of money? Because it isn't and hasn't been for 20+ years.

[Scribe1980]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

Can we stop acting like $60 for a video game is a lot of money? Because it isn't and hasn't been for 20+ years.

Presumptuous. Glad $$ is no issue for you.

[tril]

I think these games just need to be released later rather than sooner.

there is no reason to release NBA2k this early. the preseason doesn't even start till the beginning of October.

and the early releases via EA access I think also hurts their product.

Also theses companies need to invest more in SQA/ game testing. or rethink the way they test games.

In addition, the issue with a number of bugs on release isnt just relegated to the gaming industry..
The ease and the amount of time it takes to update a title has afforded these companies the ability to rethink in what conditions they release titles. it no longer takes alot of time to download and install patches.

I think all of this is just part of the new norm in the software development cycle.

[Bullit]

I kind of feel this whole trend towards the day one patch and pushing out "broken" (I hate that term) games will eventually hurt the industry as a whole.

There is a group of people out there, myself included, that are just done spending full price on games. I mean for me it is a question of why? Why should I buy a game at launch that may or may not work? Why should I by a game at launch that will need so many patches to be playable or will have so many patches that game play will change several times over a release. Why should I buy a game at launch that is just an updated roster or version of last years game? Why should I pay full price at launch for a game that will be anywhere from $10 to $20 cheaper in 3 to 4 months? Or even better yet lets wait for the Game of the Year addition that will have all of the DLC and Patches and be $40 dollars cheaper.

I have not played Madden or NHL this generation. I have not played NBA since '17. I, personally, have seen no reason to spend $60 on any of them. I am a big MLB fan. But again next year I am not buying on launch. I really like '19 and by the All Star break it is $40 and it will have been patched 10 times.

I understand folks and the need to have the newest, best and brightest. But there will come a breaking point where the market will not sustain itself and it will happen slowly and quietly. Because the majority of the market doesn't complain.

They just stop buying.

[ToughJuice]

Fiction.* * **

Quote:

forgotten by gamers within a couple of weeks

Whats forgotten is the game itself. Whats remembered is the disastrous launch and the lowered reputation of the developers. NBA 2k used to be a day one purchase, then every other year, to now, where itll be ignored until the next gen console releases can possibly redeem them.* * *

[kenchun24]

Fact. This is a comment from me from another Madden 20 thread



"And it just isn't Triple A sports titles like the increasingly underwhelming EA Tiburon Madden series, it's many many Triple A games across all genres that have become really bad products NOT worth anything near their price points at all due to poor release day quality - Mass Effect Andromeda, Star War Battlefront 1 & 2, Fallout '76, Anthem and many more...



My three main issues of the modern day frustrating Triple A gaming business model:


1 - Microtransactions, loot crate & loot box for all genres: The pay to play (cosmetic or not) gaming "surprise mechanics" features (aka gambling when it comes to the Ultimate modes for sports titles). No need to expound on this issue, if you are a gamer you know what's been going on with this for years now and how sports titles influenced this controversial topic ( I think UEFA Soccer was the first to try this back in 2005 under current EA CEO Andrew Wilson).


2 - Exclusive License: Yeah, the WWNFL and EA have been in bed with their Madden football franchise for years with no end in sight, and the football gaming community has suffered for it. Pretty simple issue here, lack of competition breeds complacency from developers that have a product which is more ingrained pop culture hype and advertising than actual innovation. This has been the norm for EA's Madden series since 2006.

*Basically there has been a whole generation that has only known ONE football videogame, but I loved the halcyon days of reading Electronic Gaming Monthly around August for all the upcoming seasons football gaming offerings, pouring over reviews of Madden, 2K, 989 Sports' Gameday series, NFL Fever and Tecmo, figuring out which ones to rent from Blockbuster to try out before purchasing 1 or 2 for the season to play.



3 - The Internet & "Patch Development": At first being able to play online for any game genre was super fun if only annoying when little brats were screaming in your headset during Halo matches, but then the dreaded "Patch Development" model for games has become en vouge the past several years. It was sold as a positive, "always online to improve the gamers experience", but the reality is the purchasing public are now the game testers. As Triple A titles constantly release half baked, underdeveloped products, with far more gltiches, bugs, and in some cases far less actual good content (with promises to release the good stuff later on but please still drop $60 to $100 now!).



I recall just 10 years ago Triple A games released under big publishers had very few issues, and lots of bang for your buck for the well made titles. Now that is getting increasingly rare (for console games especially), with only Rockstars Red Dead Redemption 2 main single player story being an actual great, day one release product that I can, and have, poured hours and hours into it's original $60.00 price point for the past year."


My utopia scenario if this is now the norm for gaming is they should be free to play "ala carte" style options on release day. Example: the base game should have two (base being $20 and under maybe) options and branch off from there, if I wanna play an Ultimate Team style online 24/7 mode for any sport title I pay "x" amount of dollars and that's that. If I'm a franchise mode single player sports gamer I pay "x" amount for that option. If I wanna play an online/multiplayer mode only for Red Dead 2 I only pay "x" amount and don't get any single player story options at all. Then continue to improve said versions for these genres during the games 1 or 2 year lifecycles with the specific gamer supporting the CHOICE of how he CHOOSES to play and support said game.



But yeah, in short, I hate modern day game "patch development" business model, been way more disappointed than satisfied no matter what genre of game.