Broken Games

RasTa

First we had Driveclub this year.

BF4 last year.

Now on the same day both AC Unity and online Halo MCC don't work.

Is this the new norm for games, are they just being rushed out because people are idiots and still continue to buy them?

Generic Dreadhead

Yes, and it's sickening.

Don't forget Rome 2 Total War

GTA Online (i don't care if it was last year, they should never be allowed forget) :mad:

And I guess you could say Destiny for some people that had persistent issues with online connectivity (personally i had little of no issues, but some players got a raw ****ing deal there)

tok9

RasTa wrote: »

First we had Driveclub this year.

BF4 last year.

Now on the same day both AC Unity and online Halo MCC don't work.

Is this the new norm for games, are they just being rushed out because people are idiots and still continue to buy them?

That's pretty much it.

Captain Chaos

Console games are becoming like PC games because they know they can be patched up later so rush them out to get quarterly profits up for the shareholders.

I have been a PC gamer since 1998 and tons of broken games have been released for it since then and till now. I have bought games that basically wouldn't run without a patch installed.

Randall Floyd

You forgot the evil within, Call of duty Advanced Warfare and Alien Isolation where a patch has led to save bugs and game to crashes for some people.
Consumers the new beta testers.

ZiabR

It is the same for EVERY game this year. Give me a game that has not required a day one patch of 3+ GB.

Any game that requires a day one patch was not ready for release.

Publishers push the developers very hard in today gaming world. The only care about their bottom line and not the people that buy it.

Stone Deaf 4evr

For all the flak that microsoft got about having your console always connected to the internet - I really wouldnt want to have any console offline at this stage. every game release seems to have some day 1 patch or other. its a bit bizarre, and then you still have a situation like this month where you have about 10 games coming out at once. - surely thats more damaging to day 1 sales than unfinished product.

Stone Deaf 4evr

logik wrote: »

It is the same for EVERY game this year. Give me a game that has not required a day one patch of 3+ GB.

Any game that requires a day one patch was not ready for release.

Publishers push the developers very hard in today gaming world. The only care about their bottom line and not the people that buy it.

true, but this is true for any business, Mc Donalds dont give a hoot about your health, the only reason they add salads and health options is to improve their appearance and ultimately get more people through the doors.

the only people in this for the love of it are the 1 -2 man indie teams.

johnny_ultimate

Part of the problem, to be semi-fair, is that games have grown more complicated. There are a lot more variables, in terms of both when a heavily online game is released into the wild and the sheer complexity of the games' code. That's far from the only issue, naturally - everything from aggressive release schedules to sheer incompetence factor in in individual cases.

As good a reminder as any, though, that pre-ordering is a big gamble with almost any new release. Given it's never been easier to get one's hands on a game, waiting 'til the feedback filters through is a damn good idea.

It is the same for EVERY game this year. Give me a game that has not required a day one patch of 3+ GB.

Bayonetta 2, Mario Kart 8, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze... can we see a trend there

rizzla

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

the only people in this for the love of it are the 1 -2 man indie teams.

Don't know about that Sunset Overdrive feels like a product of love from the devs. It wasn't made by some focus group.

Vote with your wallets, don't pre order.

Stone Deaf 4evr

rizzla wrote: »

Don't know about that Sunset Overdrive feels like a product of love from the devs. It wasn't made by some focus group.

Vote with your wallets, don't pre order.

Its easy to feel like a product of love though when a game ships (i assume) on deadline with relatively few bugs or issues. I dont think there are many people just punching time at the office when it comes to game development. i'm sure the people at DICE love their game, but at the same time are disappointed with the amount of issues it has, coupled with the negative backlash it got, which defintely tainted the franchise as a whole. No one sets out to make a mediocre game. (i hope)

ZiabR

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

true, but this is true for any business, Mc Donalds dont give a hoot about your health, the only reason they add salads and health options is to improve their appearance and ultimately get more people through the doors.

Agreed but I don't buy a burger and chips in McDonalds only to get my burger with no bun or sauce and missing my chips :pac:

At least when I hand over my money I am going to get what I paid for.

With the big releases this year, you pay 60+ euro and you don't get what you paid for, you get games that were not ready for release.

Stone Deaf 4evr

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Part of the problem, to be semi-fair, is that games have grown more complicated.

Absolutely,

look at battlefield 4 for example, its a first person shooter / flight sim / tank sim / boat sim with destructible environments, 64 players, levolution, and has second screen support for commander mode and is also integrated into online stat tracking. lauching across 4 different console and PC.

the scale of that alone is mind boggling. - which begs the question - should management have told them to scale back their ambition a bit and get the fundamentals working properly. - much like how Rod Fergusson had to come in to manage the finishing of Bioshock infinite.

rizzla

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Its easy to feel like a product of love though when a game ships (i assume) on deadline with relatively few bugs or issues. I dont think there are many people just punching time at the office when it comes to game development. i'm sure the people at DICE love their game, but at the same time are disappointed with the amount of issues it has, coupled with the negative backlash it got, which defintely tainted the franchise as a whole. No one sets out to make a mediocre game. (i hope)

So everyone is in it for the love of game development? Sorry, I got confused when you said it was only the 1-2 man indie teams.

Stone Deaf 4evr

logik wrote: »

Agreed but I don't buy a burger and chips in McDonalds only to get my burger with no bun or sauce and missing my chips :pac:

At least when I hand over my money I am going to get what I paid for.

With the big releases this year, you pay 60+ euro and you don't get what you paid for, you get games that were not ready for release.

Agreed, Its a combination of a few factors - game devs with unrealistic ambitions / poor time management who have to report to the publishers who control the cash.
Kickstarter funds are a prime example of this. the general public buy into an idea, in the hope that the person getting the money has the ability to deliver the product. I cringe when I see these stretch goals to add new features. Continually moving the goalposts is not how to make a great product.


As bad and all as annual franchises can be, the one complaint that is levelled at them is lack of innovation - but what people often don't appreciate is that they have the basics right for the most part. Its an evolutionary process rather than an overnight revolution.

Stone Deaf 4evr

rizzla wrote: »

So everyone is in it for the love of game development? Sorry, I got confused when you said it was only the 1-2 man indie teams.

If you go back and read my posts again, you'll see that I'm referring to the publishers being interested in money. not the devs.

Randall Floyd

Review outlets should be scoring games on how well they work at release not how they function several weeks and several patches later.

calex71

rizzla wrote: »

Don't know about that Sunset Overdrive feels like a product of love from the devs. It wasn't made by some focus group.

Vote with your wallets, don't pre order.

Ha check my video on live of the invisible walls in Sunset Overdrive :pac:


As for day one patches they can be necessary given the time it takes to master print and distribute physical media , devs will continue fine tuning after it's gone out the door for printing, I take issue when a day one patch doesn't result in a near perfect running game.

sending something like BF4 or AC:U out the door and for it still to be a mess after a day one patch is inexcusable, they would have known the state of the game and as experienced professionals known how much work was needed to put things right, pressure from publishers like Ubi and EA would be a massive factor in all of this but the developers have their reputations to think of aswell as their obligations to a contracted deadline, unfortunately the only thing that will stop this practice is a poor sales because of it, and we all know when it comes to games like BF and AC it wont happen , they could sell empty boxes and many would still give them more chances

Generic Dreadhead

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Bayonetta 2, Mario Kart 8, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze... can we see a trend there

Don't think I've ever needed to download anything for a nintendo console ever until this year.... No DLC (which only hit me like a ton of bricks two months back), no Day 1 Patches.... In fact, the only Patch/Update I came across was Hyrule Warriors.... and guess what, that was free additional in game content :pac:

Zero-Cool

NBA 2K15 had a bad start as well, lot's of issues and took a few weeks to release the patch to fix them. Same thing happened with 2k14 and said I wouldn't get 2k15 on launch but sucker me. I definitely won't be getting 2k16 on launch*

I know it's a new gen an all but what kind of game testing is going on when so many big games are being released with day 1 patches (the absolute norm now) but still a lot of issues that the devs are scrambling to fix weeks after release. I love getting games on launch but I got 2 games this year that I had traded by the time the devs got the fix sorted, leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

*reminder to look up this thread and delete this post when I buy 2k16 on launch

Grumpypants

The problem is games are really really hard to make, and it is even harder to integrate online features into. Getting a character to run around a massive 3D world and interact with objects and NPCs is bloody hard. Getting millions of people to be able to play at the same time is not ****ing easy.

The other problem is the consumer base has grown so large that a huge % know nothing about technology or game development and think a game is like any other product you buy.

ERG89

logik wrote: »

It is the same for EVERY game this year. Give me a game that has not required a day one patch of 3+ GB.

Any game that requires a day one patch was not ready for release.

Publishers push the developers very hard in today gaming world. The only care about their bottom line and not the people that buy it.

Do they still have to download that BIG ass patch when you first to play the WiiU?
Not hating Nintendo (nave an N64, GCN, and every handheld from GB-3DS).

BeerWolf

This has become the norm ever since game publishers have opted the add-ons method... no more having games polished for release, just churn out ****... have the community complain of found bugs, and then they fix it in patches.

The drawbacks of always online gaming...

ZiabR

BeerWolf wrote: »

This has become the norm ever since game publishers have opted the add-ons method... no more having games polished for release, just churn out ****... have the community complain of found bugs, and then they fix it in patches.

The drawbacks of always online gaming...

So it seems that Microsoft's always online (with the exception of checking in once a day) approach was right in the end...

The amount of abuse Microsoft took for taking this approach was insane, I am connected 24/7 so it didn't bother me at all. There was method to their madness.

Essentially if you have a PS4 or XO and don't have access to the Internet you cant play the games as they are supposed to be... disgraceful

Shiminay

I posted this back in June, nothing has changed.

When pre-order, over-hyped rubes stop falling for the snake-oil, the snake-oil salesmen will finally die and we can get back to having an industry run by people who understand it.

Stone Deaf 4evr

logik wrote: »

So it seems that Microsoft's always online (with the exception of checking in once a day) approach was right in the end...

The amount of abuse Microsoft took for taking this approach was insane, I am connected 24/7 so it didn't bother me at all. There was method to their madness.

Essentially if you have a PS4 or XO and don't have access to the Internet you cant play the games as they are supposed to be... disgraceful

Its terrible, I was listening to a podcast recently where they said that a retail copy of the evil within ran completely differently to a patched version.

ZiabR

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Its terrible, I was listening to a podcast recently where they said that a retail copy of the evil within ran completely differently to a patched version.

Yeah that's correct. Eurogamer did a before and after with the game and the difference was night and day. The framerate on the unpatched version was so bad, unplayable really.

Corholio

When people complain that Nintendo delay their quality titles, I shall direct them to this thread :pac:

They do have weaknesses and shortcomings, but when you buy a game, you are getting it properly.

mooonpie

logik wrote: »

With the big releases this year, you pay 60+ euro and you don't get what you paid for, you get games that were not ready for release.

And yet people continue to pay the €60+

Many, if not most, publishers are out to make as much money as quick as possible. If they can get €60+ for shipping half a game, they'll damn sure do it.

And if people are willing to spend €30 for "additional content" that would have been shipped on the disc for older gen consoles, they'll damn sure continue to do that too.

If people are willing and continue to pay, why would a publisher do any different?

*EDIT: +1 to everything Shiminay said back in June

richymcdermott

Seen a article on ign that alien isolation is blue screening peoples pc and heavy crashes with the latest patches , games with bugs is not anything new , its one of the reasons why i stopped slowly buying games day one and wait till bugs have been ironed out.

mewso

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Part of the problem, to be semi-fair, is that games have grown more complicated. There are a lot more variables, in terms of both when a heavily online game is released into the wild and the sheer complexity of the games' code. That's far from the only issue, naturally - everything from aggressive release schedules to sheer incompetence factor in in individual cases.

What I find interesting is that for many years now AAA houses seem to have been developing systems that can be re-used over and over again which I can only assume is being done so games like Ass Creed can be farmed out on an annual basis without too much work on the actual mechanics. I have a general distaste for AAA games these days so I could be way of the mark but I see several games being Assassin Creedified if that is a term. Not that this makes them bad games but it does seem to suggest that games could be iterated each year with less chance of buggering it up but somehow they manage it.

There are some AAA games I am interested in but I genuinely have no problem waiting for Far Cry 4 Deluxe or Dragon Age Inquisition Game of the Year edition some time next year for 20 quid or so. Plenty of games to catch up with between now and then.

tok9

Just thinking. Sony and Microsoft should be taking a bit of sh*t for this too right?

I can forgive them for the likes of Halo and Driveclub which have online issues.

But all games have to go through QA from Sony and Microsoft before going gold. Clearly the standards they have aren't good enough if games with really choppy framerates and bugs are going through this process.

I've noticed a few indie games being delayed but never a triple A game.

Stone Deaf 4evr

tok9 wrote: »

Just thinking. Sony and Microsoft should be taking a bit of sh*t for this too right?

I can forgive them for the likes of Halo and Driveclub which have online issues.

But all games have to go through QA from Sony and Microsoft before going gold. Clearly the standards they have aren't good enough if games with really choppy framerates and bugs are going through this process.

I've noticed a few indie games being delayed but never a triple A game.

Definitely - I'd say you're back to the issue of getting popular games on shelves in time for christmas / thanksgiving with the intention that they'll sell consoles as well.

CastorTroy

When Sony made the big deal that you didn't have to be connected to play games, they should've let the third parties know that. Seems if you don't have a decent connection, then there's not much point upgrading.

And I know the bigger games make things more complicated to test every possible scenario, but when you have games like Arkham Origins where everyone encountered the bug for not being able to get into the vent that had to be done to progress in the main story, then there's something wrong.

People laugh when Nintendo use the "Please Understand" line when they announce a delay to carry out further QA, but if more companies went with that approach, consumers would have more confidence.

I also agree about reviews. I saw some AC Unity reviews yet they didn't seem to mention the issues encountered by people playing it

Retr0gamer

tok9 wrote: »

But all games have to go through QA from Sony and Microsoft before going gold. Clearly the standards they have aren't good enough if games with really choppy framerates and bugs are going through this process.

Their QA isn't the same as the developers. All they care about is if it doesn't expose security loopholes in their system or break the OS. They usually just run diagnostics to see if there's no major memory leaks and usually fast track big games.

ZiabR

It is odd though, the reviewing websites are clearly under some kind of embargo or being paid off so they give good reviews. Everywhere I read it is getting 8/10, 8.5/10 and in some cases 9/10. That is complete bull****. In its launch state and current state, the game should be a 5/10.

Ubisoft are clearly stopping "real" reviews from being published.

EDIT - I would have ten times the respect for Ubisoft if they came out and admitted it. Companies are to quick to bury their heads in the sand.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Their QA isn't the same as the developers. All they care about is if it doesn't expose security loopholes in their system or break the OS. They usually just run diagnostics to see if there's no major memory leaks and usually fast track big games.

The platform holders each have their own set of Technical Requirements which need to be passed before the game can be certified. Some deal with those security loopholes while others deal with minimum performance levels over their network and general platform specific functionality. Game performance does play a role in these tests however, as you correctly point out, developer side QA is different and far more game-content centric when it comes to testing. An older TCR doc from the 360 leaked awhile back and may prove to be an interesting read for some folk.

logik wrote: »

It is odd though, the reviewing websites are clearly under some kind of embargo or being paid off so they give good reviews. Everywhere I read it is getting 8/10, 8.5/10 and in some cases 9/10. That is complete bull****. In its launch state and current state, the game should be a 5/10.

Ubisoft are clearly stopping "real" reviews from being published.

It's clearly not the case though. Some sites are giving it good reviews with some reviewers saying that despite seeing some bugs during their playthrough they didn't encounter issues as severe as others are reporting. Giant Bomb, on the other hand, gave it 40, Joystick 50, Polygon 65 and Destructoid 70. Kotaku have also given it a fairly scathing NO as part of their non-score based review too. It currently has one of the lowest Metacritic scores of any mainline Assassins Creed title to date with 73 and 76 for the XBox One and PS4 versions respectively.

ZiabR

I stand corrected then. Seems the sites I have read reviews on were higher than the ones you have listed. E.G. Eurogamer, Gamespot, IGN etc.