Game Quality - Should publishers be held more accountable?

[Skiver Veteran]

Let me firstly say, I don't think there is an easy or quick fix to this - if its even classed as a problem in the first place.

 

However we seem to be seeing a lot more games that are being released and just clearly not working as intended

 

• Sim City
• Battlefield 4
• Drive Club
• GTA V (Online)

Just a few big titles that jump right out at me as games, on release being so riddled with issues the game or at least major elements of it not being at an acceptable quality. Additionally it seems to becoming the norm to release a game and then have a day one patch. Halo MCC being an example, a 20GB patch because the game couldn't fit on one disk? Stick it on two then? It wouldn't be the first time we had seen content split across two disks so why is this one any different? I suspect we all think because the game patch is more then just content, its hiding system crippling bugs imo.

 

I don't have internet caps and I have a fairly decent speed, so in reality this isn't going to bother me too much. However if a game is being released with a patch, it (IMO) calls into question the quality of the testing that this game has gone through given that what is shipped on disk, effectively isn't a true release.

 

So this brings me round to the actual question, whilst people may be annoyed by this sort of thing, until a games publisher can be held more accountable for these sorts of dodgy dealings it isn't going to stop. Should a be held more accountable for releasing an "unfinished product" and the better question of, how should they be held accountable?

 

Should it be in game rewards (GTA give $500K I believe for online), Free DLC, money back on the game or if you are truly unhappy, maybe you should have a greater time frame on returning the game itself?

[Vandalsquad]

Patches are fine for bugs as long as they don't become incredible sized, how large games are now and the amount of code it's to be expected. Some games like BF4 etc shouldn't of been released I'll agree with. 

 

I find the biggest issue this gen to be the servers...

 

GTAO the bugs it does have, are to be expected in such a big game and are mostly glitches not game breakers. It's main issue I find with the game is rockstar being to cheap to add more dam servers, Rockstar cleaned $1billion + off GTA5, who knows what it's at now. But they can't spend any of that money on dam servers? 

 

And Sony needs to be held accountable for PSN+ lately to, its complete garbage. Last month alone my online service was down at least 3 times. One of those stretching for considerable amount of time over a weekend. People will hit back go outside do something else with your time. That's not the dam point, for those who pay bills will understand if your phone or internet was dropping out multiple times a month with considerable down time you would switch providers in an instant and be on the phone within 20 minutes of the service not being restored. 

 

They are more then happy to take the money, but not reinvest it back into what the F we are paying for in the first place. Any other industry this wouldn't fly. But because we have no choice, no option, we seem destined to deal with it.

 

 

 

 

[compl3x]

I think when a company makes a claim that is later demonstrated to be totally false then they can expect criticism.

 

Wasn't there an issue with Sim City where the devs/pubs said it had to be always online because there was some server side calculations/rendering/whatever that could only be done on their servers? Fast-forward a few months after launch it that claim was exposed as total BS?

 

I'm not really upset about patching. I suppose as games become larger and more complex testing is more difficult and costly. Small bugs can be forgiven, but if they are absolute disasters I think the companies should consider some way to compensate gamers. Maybe give away that first round of DLC they have already well and truly developed and have just waiting in the pipeline.

 

The problem with financial compensation, it might be hard to differentiate between someone who is truly unsatisfied with the game because it is defective or broken and someone who just games the system by buying games, complaining it is broken, and then returning it.

 

IDK, it's hard to say.

[+virtorio MVC]

People need to stop pre-ordering and buying broken games. If a lot more users waited a week or so to see what a game is like before they buy (and holding off until the game is finished and working) then maybe we'd start getting some finished games at the time of release, until then, publishers and developers have no incentive.

 

Personally, I don't really mind downloading a patch (even a big one) before being able to play, just so long as the damn thing actually works properly afterwards. I see discs mostly as a means of bulk delivery of game assets I don't have to download.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I think when a company makes a claim that is later demonstrated to be totally false then they can expect criticism.

 

Wasn't there an issue with Sim City where the devs/pubs said it had to be always online because there was some server side calculations/rendering/whatever that could only be done on their servers? Fast-forward a few months after launch it that claim was exposed as total BS?

 

I'm not really upset about patching. I suppose as games become larger and more complex testing is more difficult and costly. Small bugs can be forgiven, but if they are absolute disasters I think the companies should consider some way to compensate gamers. Maybe give away that first round of DLC they have already well and truly developed and have just waiting in the pipeline.

 

The problem with financial compensation, it might be hard to differentiate between someone who is truly unsatisfied with the game because it is defective or broken and someone who just games the system by buying games, complaining it is broken, and then returning it.

 

IDK, it's hard to say.

 

It was proven BS a few days later when modders achieved it (re:SimCity offline).

 

Day one patches need to be regulated also. Totally unacceptable for GBs of data to download, necessary to finish a product.

 

Bait & switch is another common theme for publisher's being held accountable. I hope SEGA wins their case against Gearbox over Aliens.

[compl3x]

People need to stop pre-ordering and buying broken games. If a lot more users waited a week or so to see what a game is like before they buy (and holding off until the game is finished and working) then maybe we'd start getting some finished games at the time of release, until then, publishers and developers have no incentive.

 

 

 

Very important point. Pubs/devs must sit back sometimes and think "why the hell does anyone need to pre-order our games? How did we convince the community this was a good idea!?

 

 

It was proven BS a few days later when modders achieved it (re:SimCity offline).

 

 

Well, there ya go. I know it was demonstrated to be BS. I just didn't realise it was that quickly.  :|

 

 

Gamers come in for a lot of criticism, but one thing I would say is that gamers are loyal. Almost to fanatical religious levels. If someone loves a system or a series or a developer they will promote and become an unpaid advertiser for them. Pissing off people like that seems like a really bad idea. It's like calling people who canvas for your political party idiots. Lying to your audience which is made up of people like that, especially when many are probably tech-savvy is just nuts.

[Skiver Veteran]

Pre-orders are slightly different for me, It tends to be more about shopping around for the best deal. If there is a deal to be had I will pre-order for that reason only. However, when it came to Destiny, I refused to pay the ?45-50 some retailers were asking for, waiting only 2 days after release I managed to get a copy for ?35. 

 

I agree though, financial compensation would end up being abused so I don't think its necessarily the best way forward, but would be the biggest thing to hit the publishers and maybe make them change their approach.

[MightyJordan]

People need to stop pre-ordering and buying broken games. If a lot more users waited a week or so to see what a game is like before they buy (and holding off until the game is finished and working) then maybe we'd start getting some finished games at the time of release, until then, publishers and developers have no incentive.

This. (Y) I already do this, although I did initially do it to save money - usually waited a month or so and got the game for half price - it has now extended further due to more and more games being released unfinished, either through the need for day-one patches or locking on-disc content and selling it as DLC.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

People need to stop pre-ordering and buying broken games. If a lot more users waited a week or so to see what a game is like before they buy (and holding off until the game is finished and working) then maybe we'd start getting some finished games at the time of release, until then, publishers and developers have no incentive.

This. (Y) I already do this, although I did initially do it to save money - usually waited a month or so and got the game for half price - it has now extended further due to more and more games being released unfinished, either through the need for day-one patches or locking on-disc content and selling it as DLC.

 

Agreed. I used to pre-order games, but now I find it's better to wait until the game is actually finished. In some cases, that means a few days, and in other cases (a l? Battlefield 4), it means never buying the game. I don't have enough free time to be dealing with half finished games, so the companies that roll out polished games are the one's that get my money.

 

Truth be told, I swore off pre-orders after Spore. Pre-ordering games is basically putting blind faith in the publishers/developers that they're going to put out a great game. It's these assumptions that are the core of the problem. If people stopped pre-ordering games, and waited until the games are out and reviewed to determine whether or not they're worth buying, this problem would go away very quickly.

 

I'd also love to see game demos make a comeback. Give me a demo disk of a game and let me try it before I commit to it.

[Emn1ty]

Pre-orders are slightly different for me, It tends to be more about shopping around for the best deal. If there is a deal to be had I will pre-order for that reason only. However, when it came to Destiny, I refused to pay the ?45-50 some retailers were asking for, waiting only 2 days after release I managed to get a copy for ?35. 

 

I agree though, financial compensation would end up being abused so I don't think its necessarily the best way forward, but would be the biggest thing to hit the publishers and maybe make them change their approach.

 

None of the reviews or anything covered the Civ Beyond Earth crashing issues (my friends and I have at least 2-3 crashes per attempt to play multiplayer games). It's not a silver bullet to just say, "Wait to buy a game." The real issue is developers/publishers themselves have gotten lazy. Publishers in pushing deadlines and assuming they can just rely on the patch crutch when problems arise. And developers because they're too squeamish to fight back against such requests by their publishers (or perhaps they reassured the publisher they could just patch problems later). This isn't only happening in AAA titles with big-name publishers. Steam Early-Access has been a prime suspect with this type of situation as well, releasing perpetually Beta-phase games which never seem to get any more refined or fixed. Games like Planetary Annihilation with its buggy as hell structure placement.

 

There are only a very small number of studios which seem to really try for a refined product for launch. And really I think the above isn't a problem, but the industry needs to start pricing accordingly, or being up-front about it. Dial down marketing and hire some more devs/artists to get ###### done in the right timeline. Whatever it takes. I'm just tired of incomplete and in many respects, throwaway titles where the dev releases it then abandons it in whatever state it's in (see R.U.S.E. as an example).

[spaceelf]

It was proven BS a few days later when modders achieved it (re:SimCity offline).

A single city might've processed fine, but it had none of the regional processing allowing cities to affect other cities in the region, none of the global marketplace for resources, etc.

 

So, sure, they got part of it working fine.  The rest Maxis had to do a lot of work on to get it offline.

[Aergan]

Questionable quality PC ports:

• Darksiders 2 (Performance is pretty terrible for visual demand)
• Assassin's Creed (Shadow implementation has a horrendous performance hit, game potentially unfinishable until Directors Cut version released).
• Assassins Creed IV Black Flag (Stability and perforomance consistency is pretty bad overall)
• NFS Rivals (Locked @ 30FPS, game engine bases it's run speed on this value e.g. 30FPS = 1 sec, 60FPS = 1/2 sec)
• Fable III (Possibly the worst port I've had the misfortune to play)
• Devil May Cry 3 "Special Edition" (Yeah, it's special and I don't mean as in uniquely different).
• Final Fantasy VIII (1999 and 2013 versions - you would think that after 12 years some things might get fixed?)
• Final Fantasy XIII (Locked at 720p in 2014)
• Metal Gear Solid Integral (Very, very unstable game that pretty much only reliably ran with the version of direct X runtime it shipped with)

 

The "QA means quasars anonymous" list:

• Flatout 3 (DIfferent publisher, different developer, not a lot in common with the 3 titles before it either except that it has cars)

[Nagisan]

 

Questionable quality PC ports:

How did GTA IV not make that list? Even today after all the patches GTA IV is still horribly unoptimized and full of many (at least graphical) bugs.

[Aergan]

How did GTA IV not make that list? Even today after all the patches GTA IV is still horribly unoptimized and full of many (at least graphical) bugs.

 

Because it's already been discussed well enough in this thread and I have nothing more to add about it?

[HawkMan]

I voted no for a very good reason.

 

they already are responsible as it is. the consumer has far more rights then them if you are unhappy with the quality of a release.

 

but more importantly. people today are complaining because publishers don't dare risk on new and innovative games any more. guess what this, in spirit, idea would accomplish. it would absolutely demolish any hope for new and innovative games, all games for all future would be CoD. 

[Nagisan]

Because it's already been discussed well enough in this thread and I have nothing more to add about it?

Lots of GTA V and Online discussion, but none about GTA IV from what I can tell, though I just skimmed through most of the thread.

[Praetor]

You forgot Diablo 3 and DNF in that list.

 

The big problem i see with today's game industry is that, a decade ago, games took more time to develop because the human resources were more scarce (not so many game devs like today), the technology was more difficult to master and the money need to be invested was huge and only a few could do it. Because of that, games had to be more thoughtful, more dedicated and better invested. Sure, some horrible ports were made (PC port of Daytona USA, for example) and some incredible bad game were released, along with games that had a huge quantity of bugs (Fallout, GTA3, etc.). But now more and more games are having day 1 huge downloads, patches released every week (and even those are the best one, since there is an amplitude of games left unpatched) and more issues.

 

I think it all sums up to this:  rapid release cycle and fast publishing means more quick money. I saw a documentary a couple of months ago regarding the developing process of the newest FIFA game: the developer had less then 12 months to deliver a game that had to be better in every aspect than the previous successor, including the rendering of the players faces, the iconic movements of a allot football players, the new rules, the hundreds of new teams, new game engine and much, much more. It had to be all crammed into a rapid cycle of development and when the game was finally done (not release, but done; they did all that on schedule and with time left for marketing) they started working on the next FIFA game.

 

That game was a success of course but all the problems regarding the rapid release cycle had a tool: untested stuff means that it's the gamers that are going to test the end product, by playing it, leaving a small team of developers to release patches for those found bugs; of course, gliches that should not had passed QC take more time to fix because the main dev team is allocated in producing the next game, leaving gamers with a lame game that will take time to fix.

 

Promised stuff that never gets delivered (fraudulent publicity), tons of game patches, huge downloads of patches just to play the game and game stuff that can only be added later it's all consequences of rapid release cycle, meaning the product is NOT in a final state; it's very close to a end product, but not quite there. And it's the gamers that pay for this, getting a broken, lame game.

 

The solution?

- for the consumers: don't pre-order games. Pre-order is done lots of hurt in the game industry, leaving bad developers earning money from crappy games that should be released at all.

- for the developers: if the game needs a delay to be properly released, then so be it. It's much more enjoyable to play a finished product then to get frustrated by paying 100% for something that is half made. It kills the trust between the consumer and the developer, hurts the business and marks the developers as distrust (check Gearbox reputation right now). Also: test, test, test, test! Granted those consume enormous amounts of money, but if done right, the IP of the game gets massive, the game industry will praise you and the gamers will get a good product.

[Praetor]

Also: if i buy a software, that claims that will do this and that and if you pay for it, once you executed it will say "oh well here's a 20GB patch for you because of security...and those features that you like it so much? only in a couple of months they will be integrated with the product. Oh and that feature that you saw in the description of the product? only in the next, payed release it will have that" - tell me, should the software developer be accountable for that?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Of course, sometimes you just know it's the suits putting unrealistic targets on the devs  (Y)

[compl3x]

I voted no for a very good reason.

 

they already are responsible as it is. the consumer has far more rights then them if you are unhappy with the quality of a release.

 

 

But can customers realistically use their consumer rights to seek refunds for a game they feel is "unfinished"? If you go to a retailer and tell them you're unsatisfied with a game I hope you've set aside a considerable amount of time to argue your point before you can even think about getting a refund. It may be different in Norway, but in Aus you have pretty much zero hope.

 

Even Google play only offers you, I think, a 30 minute window to ask for a refund for apps/games. What if you find an app breaking bug a week after purchase?

[Emn1ty]

But can customers realistically use their consumer rights to seek refunds for a game they feel is "unfinished"? If you go to a retailer and tell them you're unsatisfied with a game I hope you've set aside a considerable amount of time to argue your point before you can even think about getting a refund. It may be different in Norway, but in Aus you have pretty much zero hope.

 

Even Google play only offers you, I think, a 30 minute window to ask for a refund for apps/games. What if you find an app breaking bug a week after purchase?

 

You don't need a refund. I think people are too willy-nilly with their purchases. If they're really that wishy-washy on whether the game will be good or not then don't buy it till either a) it gets cheaper or b) it's established itself and you can see how the community reacts to it. I've never understood why people are so ready to go out and buy something without thinking. I've bought many games, and several of them have been lackluster at best but not once did I feel owed a refund for my purchase. I made the decision to buy it, I'm content with my decision.

 

The key here is not to get your money back because a game is unfinished. We need to be given a clear description of what we are paying for before we buy it. And if you aren't given a clear description (or clear enough for you) then don't pay for it.

[Praetor]

The key here is not to get your money back because a game is unfinished. We need to be given a clear description of what we are paying for before we buy it. And if you aren't given a clear description (or clear enough for you) then don't pay for it.

 

And what happens when the game is presented in a demo in such a way to create hype and then the released game is:

1) much poorer (bad AI, lacking effects and visuals, bad design, completely rushed release) - see Sega vs Gearbox over Aliens: Colonial Marines.

2) dumbed down graphics and other issues - see Watchdogs.

3) crippled, to the point it's unplayable - see BF4.

 

The point here is the fact that the consumer, sometimes, is being duped into pre-ordering gold but getting brass instead.

[compl3x]

You don't need a refund. I think people are too willy-nilly with their purchases. If they're really that wishy-washy on whether the game will be good or not then don't buy it till either a) it gets cheaper or b) it's established itself and you can see how the community reacts to it. I've never understood why people are so ready to go out and buy something without thinking. I've bought many games, and several of them have been lackluster at best but not once did I feel owed a refund for my purchase. I made the decision to buy it, I'm content with my decision.

 

 

The problem with this is not everyone has an infinite amount of time to research everything. Sometimes I've impulsed bought games which I later found to be technically broken.  I don't think you deserve a refund because something isn't to your taste. Taste is too subjective. But companies can't shirk their responsibility to the consumer by saying "sorry, you should have Googled our product to make sure it works".

 

Plus, game makers market and advertise their games in a way which encourages you to go out and buy it day one. They want you to buy it day one. If that is their desire they should make sure it actually works day one.

[Emn1ty]

The problem with this is not everyone has an infinite amount of time to research everything. Sometimes I've impulsed bought games which I later found to be technically broken.  I don't think you deserve a refund because something isn't to your taste. Taste is too subjective. But companies can't shirk their responsibility to the consumer by saying "sorry, you should have Googled our product to make sure it works".

 

Plus, game makers market and advertise their games in a way which encourages you to go out and buy it day one. They want you to buy it day one. If that is their desire they should make sure it actually works day one.

 

Agreed, but I rarely think there's been games that are entirely unplayable. Broken in some aspects, sure, but not unplayable. All I'm saying is there's some onus on the buyer. Impulse buying is no excuse. I'm not saying that it justifies a broken product, but you can't entirely point fingers at them. They can't force you to buy anything. And I think an "infinite amount of time to research" is an unnecessary exaggeration.

 

 

And what happens when the game is presented in a demo in such a way to create hype and then the released game is:

1) much poorer (bad AI, lacking effects and visuals, bad design, completely rushed release) - see Sega vs Gearbox over Aliens: Colonial Marines.

2) dumbed down graphics and other issues - see Watchdogs.

3) crippled, to the point it's unplayable - see BF4.

 

The point here is the fact that the consumer, sometimes, is being duped into pre-ordering gold but getting brass instead.

 

False advertising is a separate issue. If the game changes significantly from a demo to release, there's something odd going on (but mostly, afaik, beyond playable demos everything in a game is subject to change until it is shipped). Again, I don't agree with the practice but there's no black/white there. There's good and bad examples of those events.

 

1) This was outsourced at some point, and iirc that's what resulted in the huge flop that it was.

2) Watchdogs had a visual target, that doesn't directly reflect on the final game. This happened with Halo 2 back in the day and many other games. People need to stop taking such 'demonstrations' at face value. This is a lesson I learned a long time ago.

3) I can't comment on BF4, and I've not heard of it being unplayable. But that's my ignorance.

[compl3x]

Sorry, to be clear, by "infinite amount of time" I was talking about researching every product we buy, not just games. I consider myself reasonably tech savvy, but sometimes, even comparing simple items, is a hassle. Throw in marketing drivel and it becomes impossible to actually determine a fair comparison between products.

 

The onus is on the buyer as far as making the decision to buy. But the onus is on the seller to accurately and honestly represent the product.