gaming industry today

[demind]

i started this thread in hope that more people would read Mujahid's excellent post:

There is a big problem in the PC gaming industry today. That problem? People are willing to buy incomplete software packages and even pay a monthly fee for the privilege.

One of the posts above asked for us to name one game that has come out recently that didn't require a patch soon after release. Obviously hyperbole, but point well taken nevertheless. We, as consumers, are allowing companies to get away with too much lately. I won't conjure up an analogy to another industry (like book publishing....I was tempted....) because in the final analysis, focus gets placed on the analogy and its imperfections, rather than the true point of the post. Suffice it to say that there is almost NO other industry in which we, as consumers, would accept an incomplete product with the promise that it would be completed at some indefinite point in the future. [in fact, after several minutes of literally sitting here and thinking about it....slow day at work today....I can honestly say that I can't think of one instance where we would knowingly purchase an incomplete version of the product we actually want.]

PC Games seem to be the exception to that very basic rule in consumer/producer relationships.

I develop software for the U.S. Government. I can tell you, with a certainty, that it is ENTIRELY possible to develop bug-free software! We do it all the time! We HAVE to! Lives are at stake here! Bugs, here, are the exception, not the rule. Somewhere along the line, game producers have managed to convince the consumer population that it is simply impossible to release a bug-free game. Nonsense. They have fed laypeople that line as an excuse for shoddy internal QA practices, or because they have hired incompetent program managers who do not know how to set realistic milestones in the software development lifecycle, or perhaps because they have a Technical Lead who doesn't know the Software Architecture Specification from the Software Requirements Specification. ("They" does not necessarily mean "Sony". I'm using it to refer in general to game publishing houses and/or development houses.)

Will this trend continue? Absolutely. Why? Because people not only keep opening up their bank accounts for an incomplete product, but also because the marketing gurus have made them feel *grateful* for the privilege!

Will this hurt or enhance the market? In my opinion it will hurt the market. After all, you'll only buy so many shoddy cars from <insert name of car company you love to hate here> before you move on to the next company. Yeah, you'll always need a car, but you won't always need a <insert manufacturer name here>.

One thing, and one thing ONLY will turn this trend around: consumers becoming unwilling to spend their hard-earned money on unfinished work. I'm NOT talking about waiting until all expansions are added in, etc. I'm talking about straightforward, old-fashioned, honest-to-goodness BUGS.

If enough consumers start attempting to turn this boat around, then maybe someday we'll reach a point where game developers NO LONGER have two bug lists: "Issues", and "Issues we can live with now and fix later".

I've led many development projects, and I can say from my own experience that as SOON as you create that second list ("issues we can live with..."), it takes on a life of its own. In many ways, it's like putting a big fish into a tank with little fish: it starts to consume the little ones, one by one, until it is satisfied. ...And it's never satisfied.

Software released with bugs belies a management and technical leadership problem. Always has, always will. If the publisher is pushing for release of a buggy product, it's either because management hasn't successfully set expectations at the executive level, or because the technical leadership was incompetent and couldn't make the milestones in time (or they were incompetent while SETTING the milestones, thereby CAUSING management to not be able to set expectations at the executive level properly. ....or because management didn't LISTEN to the technical leadership, or vice versa, yadda yadda yadda, ad nauseum).

Either way it's a problem. And like any other problem in a "free-enterprise" based society, the only thing that will make the problem go away is people closing their pocketbooks to problematic software.

Me? I'm going to wait. I LOVED SWG during beta (as you can see from my posts from back during the beta period). I love it now. But I refuse to be part of the problem.

Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Don't pay until what you're getting is worth paying for. If you think it already is, then vote with your money. If you think it *isn't*, then do the same thing: Vote with your money.

Eventually, we'll turn this train-wreck-waiting-to-happen-industry around.

 

He is absolutely right! As consomers we are fooled into thinking that it is a privilige to consume their unfinished product!!!!! I heard people saying bull$hit like "if you don't like the game don't play it and stop crying" - I PAID for an unfinished product and i'm pissed! i didn't know about all those bugs! (i didn't pay but just making a point). or other people going "the devs are doing their best cut them some slack" - SHUT IT! there is no charity involved here people!!! the devs are paid MONEY! it is their job, in fact it WAS their job to complete the product. at least warn me on the main page about the known issues before i buy. we CAN see there "IMMERSE INTO THE STAR WARS GALAXY" but i don't see "hey, you can get stuck in the tutorial". to sum up i would like t say that SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT is not feeding the poor (including me) and doesn't seek world peace and all the managers and directors are not sitting on a squeaking chairs as you are and are NOT driving a <insert a medium-confort car here>

 

I heard about the game, it sounded great, visited the official page and found out the good things, read the forums and foud out the bad things and posted some questions. now i will wait and visit the forums every other day until i see that the game is what the official site said it would be. then take out my hard eraned money and pay for it. that way you won't see me bitching "it's not worth the money" or "i wasted __$ "

 

the game is great, it needs some time!

[Urge]

Done or not, I think it's the most fun I can have playing on the computer so I choose to spend my money on it. Does this perpetuate the cycle of software companies releasing half-ass products? I'm sure it does, but I don't care cause it's fun for me.

[Mujahid]

15 years ago I would have done exactly the same thing, Urge. I can understand where you're coming from.

 

Eventually, we all get to a point where our expendable income grows smaller and smaller with each raise/promotion we get. Sounds strange, but it's true. The more we make, the less we have (there's a point of critical mass where things turn around, but most of us never reach it). I have far less expendable income now, as a professional software developer, than I did when I was a college student living on student loans, part time work, and financial aid. Yes, I *make* substantially more money per year (more than I ever thought I would be able to). But when all expenses are taken care of, I have far *less* at the end of the month than I did back then.

 

Once you reach that point, you start to seriously evaluate and reevaluate all of your purchases. At that point, you shake your fists and scream "dammit! I'm not gonna take it anymore!". Usually because you realize the $40-50 could have gone to something more "essential" in your life. This is particularly true when you have children, and they have things that they want/need as well. Typically, as a parent, you feel a slight twinge of guilt if you get what you want *before* your children get what they want/need. And the fact that you just dropped that $50 on something that isn't even all it's cracked up to be just aggravates it.

 

If you stop and think about it for a moment: We routinely bring lower-priced items back to the store when they don't work the way they claim to work. Even when things are 99% functional, they would still be unnacceptable in some instances (e.g. "Here's your new cable box, sir. You'll be able to tune in to every channel except 12." My response would be "uhh, no. That's unnacceptable. Give me one that brings in channel 12 too.") Or, "Here's your new remote control, sir. Everything works except for the number 2." Would you accept that remote control as a consumer? I wouldn't.

 

So, if we routinely bring lower-priced items back to the store for not functioning properly, why do we routinely accept buggy software that costs much more than a replacement remote control?

 

We've been led to expect less-than-perfect software. Why have we followed the marketing gurus down that primrose path? We *never* accept less-than-perfect items from other industries, so why should the PC gaming industry be held to a lower standard?

 

The reason why the software companies continue down this path is because of the fact that their primary audience has *most* of the purchasing power (the most expendable income), with a much less mature approach to consumer philosophy (the philosophy that dictates "I should get a value equal to what I pay for.")

[Urge]

I would compare software more to a service/entertainment than a product. Like a movie. After going to the theater and sitting through an utterly horrible movie do you get your money back cause it wasn't what the previews lead you to believe? I've never seen it happen.

[demind]

i really don't think you can compare a movie with a MMORPG. Since the first one should entertain you for a couple of hours the second one is supposed to be enjoyable even after 12 months. Moreover, would you subsribe to watch a sit com if the first couple of episodes would be unfinished and you would have to watch the actors rehersing? and if a movie wasn't what i'd expect it to be i could confort with the thought that it was finished.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'll just post this: I'd rather wait for a finished game than play a rushed unfinished game.

 

I've been disappointed before, like with X-Wing Alliance (don't get me wrong, it was a great game, but the plot wasn't finished! Argh!), Heroes 4 (which was good, but could definetly have been better:mad:), and some other titles which were all rushed.

 

Then there are classics that have been released late, and proven -again- to the masses that it pays to wait for a title.

 

I'm still browsing these boards, and I consider simply being as blunt as posting a post asking "how good/finished/bug-free is it?".

 

Have anyone heard of "Stars! Supernova Genesis" (sequel to a game known simply as Stars!?). Great game, but delayed like hell. I know a lot of people who hate it for being so late, but personally, I think it's for the better as the dev team will have all the time they need to solve bugs and finish the game (it's in beta phase).

[Urge]

Originally posted by demind

i really don't think you can compare a movie with a MMORPG. Since the first one should entertain you for a couple of hours the second one is supposed to be enjoyable even after 12 months. Moreover, would you subsribe to watch a sit com if the first couple of episodes would be unfinished and you would have to watch the actors rehersing? and if a movie wasn't what i'd expect it to be i could confort with the thought that it was finished.

 

For one, I've never heard of anybody subscribing to watch a sit com. For two, movies come out unfinished all the time. Why do you think there are special director's cuts? Movie studios force directors/editors to put out unfinished movies just like software companies put out unfinished games.

[Mujahid]

Originally posted by Urge

For one, I've never heard of anybody subscribing to watch a sit com. For two, movies come out unfinished all the time. Why do you think there are special director's cuts? Movie studios force directors/editors to put out unfinished movies just like software companies put out unfinished games.

 

Well, there are economies of scale at play too. I would never pay $50 (US) to watch a movie, plus have to subscribe for $15 per month. If I did, then I most definitely WOULD complain to the theater manager if I felt like I had gotten less value than what I paid for. As it is now, I never go to a show at night because I can get a ticket for half price if I go during the afternoon. And at that price, complaining simply isn't worth my time. (i.e. since I paid little, I expect little). But a new piece of software can take me as much as an hour's worth of work to earn the cash for. And that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. An hour away from my child. An hour away from my wife and home. An hour putting up with unbearable stress for people who don't appreciate it. And, to put it in perspective, it's also a good percentage of a trip to the grocery store. It's 25% of my car payment. It's my phone bill. It's 50% of my cable bill, etc. etc. My point with these examples is that when you put it into perspective, against the tapestry of your life, you find that $50 is a WHOLE LOT of money. And for that kind of money, you expect a LOT.

 

(As an aside, you actually can get a refund for a movie you don't like. You just have to do it early into the show. My mom actually used to manage a movie theater in Arizona years ago and would have to give out those types of refunds on occasion. You couldn't watch the WHOLE movie and expect a refund, but she would give one within the first 30 minutes or so if you genuinely didn't care for it.)

[Zendjir]

I totally agree, I refuse to play in beta 4. I think I'll wait for another 6 months or so before I will considder to buy the game again.

 

IMO the main problem with MMO games is that they are such huuuge projects that cost alot more money to create than a "standard" game. Therefore the sponsors (Sony) will urge the developers to release the game as soon as possible so they can get their money back. Same goes for SWG: sony saw the huge fanbase and saw money; they urged the devs to complete the game without some of the features that were announced earlier. If they would understand that a better game would actually generate more money, we would be getting anywhere.

[Deft Aklin]

Okay, this thread was originally closed due to some rather negative comments. I am reopenning it on a temporary basis, I will be watching closely, so please keep your commentary intellectual as opposed to emotional.

 

In any event, I realize that some of you feel that SWG is not a playable game or sub-standard. I myself absolutely love SWG, and for those of you that haven't tried it, be glad, I miss my family. lol

 

Seriously though, with all of the things everyone wants added or changed, there are going to be bugs created, Its the same with any programming system. Some things never came up in beta, like the Yavin exploit where people were running back and forth with /maskscent up gaining 80,000 Scout XP an hour. They fixed it, but now the people that use /maskscent properly are furious with the new 60 second delay. The devs will come up with a viable solution that will resolve the issue, they always do. Here's an example:

 

Stim packs used to have 6 charges. The medics weren't able to do much other than craft. The developers went through the entire med line of schematics and added charges across the board. Happy medics everywhere.

 

So, if you watch closely, you will see, you are playing a rather enjoyable game, and the issues you have, if you pose them properly, will be addressed by the devs.

 

Flaming is useless and unconstructive. Ditch the attitude and people might actually listen to your views and theories.

[Mujahid]

While I agree that money is most likely one of the issues that led to the decision, I think that the real problem lies deeper than that: Somewhere along the line, expectations were not set properly, causing an unrealistic timeline to be developed. And this problem, in my opinion, falls firmly into the laps of management and technical leadership.

 

In the grand scheme of things, I really don't think SWG is in bad shape. (I wouldn't go so far as to designate it as "Beta 4" like someone above did.) My focus isn't so much on SWG as it is on the current consumer mentality surrounding software in-general. This mentality, I believe, is the direct cause of software companies believing that they can deliver partially non-functional software to market.

 

My problem isn't that SWG is "in bad shape", because like I said above, I don't believe it IS in bad shape. (I've seen MUCH worse launches in my day). My problem is that it has ANY bugs at ALL. It's essentially a product that was released with "known defects". And again, I want to re-emphasize, I'm not specifically talking about SWG here. I'm talking about most PC games that are on the market today.

 

If you look at the "bigger picture", you'll see that the PC Game industry has gotten to a point where it is acceptable to release a game with bugs. I think it has gotten this way because of the inherent consumer naivete of the people who represent the single largest PC game purchasing demographic (who, not coincidentally, have the large expendable income of ANY other demographic). Namely, the 15-22 year old demographic.

 

This is because it is hard to make a "value" judgement of a product when you don't have enough perspective to place a more accurate dollar value on that product. And to accurately judge the dollar-value of something, you really need to know the *true* value of that dollar. (Remember, our parents used to tell us "You don't know the value of a dollar!". I didn't find out until I was 27 years old, married, a father, and working to make ends meet, that they were absolutely right )

 

This *definitely* is not a slam against people who fall into that age bracket! I want to make that clear, hehe It really is just a truism given their "state" in life. When you have a lot of expendable income (relative to other people) with no true accountability (family responsibilities, bills, etc.), you tend to make some unwise purchasing decisions that you probably won't make farther on down the road.

 

You only reach "true accountability" when the "safety net" is removed. For some of us, this happens *very* early in life (perhaps even while we are within that age bracket). But for most of us, that doesn't happen until later in life. The "safety net" that I speak of is the knowledge that at the end of the day, you can turn to "someone else" to bail you out of a bad decision when the need arises. Most people that are within that demographic are still living with a "safety net".

 

So, because of the fact that at the end of the day that $50 held no intrinsic value for them (other than to be exchanged for a certain amount of merchandise), it really doesn't matter to them, for the most part, when they wind up buying something that turns out to be not all it's cracked up to be.

 

The PC game industry is relying on the fact that their largest customer base isn't going to *really* question what they are delivered. Like I mentioned in another post, there's only one way to turn this around: vote with your money (or, more to the point, vote by *witholding* your money).

 

[Edit: Whoa! Deft beat me to it! You made a couple of points I'd like to address, Deft. Rather than make a new post, I'll just add them here.]

 

Seriously though, with all of the things everyone wants added or changed, there are going to be bugs created, Its the same with any programming system.

 

I'm right with you most of the way, Deft, but I have to disagree with this statement. As an example, I've been involved in software projects that have developed code modules responsible for launching/guiding RPGs (not Role Playing Games, hehe. I'm referring to Rocket Propelled Grenades), as well as handling the ECM modules on the FA-18 Hornet (ECM = Electronic Counter Measures....the system that "kicks in" whenever the Hornet detects an enemy missle launch closing). The military wants things changed *all the time*. The US Government is one of the most fickle customers a software developer could ever have. When developing software for the above systems, the product was delivered in a flawless state. We had to do that, because lives were *literally* at stake and placed in the hands of the quality of our product.

 

It is *more* than possible to develop bug-free software. In my opinion, it should be *expected* by the consumer. True, we're not saving lives by playing SWG. But neither should we accept the philosophy of "well, it's software development. There will be bugs.".

 

Some things never came up in beta, like the Yavin exploit where people were running back and forth with /maskscent up gaining 80,000 Scout XP an hour.

 

And the reason for this, unfortunately, is poor internal QA practices. (Actually, I think that particular exploit did come up in beta. We used to put /maskscent up and walk continuously in and out of the range of an aggro mob, and we'd get xp each time. Is this a different issue than the one you are talking about?) The problem is that the people responsible for the official Test Plan didn't do a good enough job, frankly. This is the management/technical leadership issue I was alluding to above. It is possible to put processes in place that allow an organization to deliver 100% bug-free code. SWG may *seem* like a truly open-ended piece of software, but such a thing really doesn't exist yet. It's all "smoke and mirrors", as they say. SWG has a finite number of "use cases", just like any other software out there. True, the number might be large, but it is finite and testable. They just chose to lay more in the laps of the beta testing community than they should have (a trend that continues with each new game release, unfortunately).