Unfinished Games - the rationale

[ORCA1911]

We're in a place where they would find a way to mess up demos, or any other types of promotional showcasing. As customers we are done for, we will never see any improvements until the day EA and the likes of them go bankrupt due to stupid ideas, bad press and creative disability to make something worth while. It's a money milking business now, devoid of any soul and need to make something good, it's a contest how much one can make per line of code.

[bytejunkie64]

I don't like it. The most exciting thing to me about Octopath Traveler was that I was buying a full game in 2018 with no game-breaking bugs and no DLC.

[etheras]

I believe that we've lost the point of demos. This was a reason for releasing demos back then. Not only to give people a chance at the game, but also to get feedback on any issues found. What was the reason for betas so long ago. If we can pick this practice back up and see companies actually listening and undertanding people that play it, you would see a rise in dev/customer relastions.

Do you remember shareware? Its like demos, except you had to pay money for it. Kinda like an episodic game, allowing players to try the first "season" with no obligation to buy more if they aren't into it. Would players be into this, do you think?

[Tons_0_phun]

I believe that we've lost the point of demos. This was a reason for releasing demos back then. Not only to give people a chance at the game, but also to get feedback on any issues found. What was the reason for betas so long ago. If we can pick this practice back up and see companies actually listening and undertanding people that play it, you would see a rise in dev/customer relastions.

[Dick]

Unfortunately this uncertainty leads developers to short-change games. Why put effort into a mechanic if you don't know that players will enjoy it? You might end up throwing away all that work. So the incentive is to apply JUST ENOUGH effort that gamers get a taste, and use their reaction as a gauge... or perhaps a compass... to understand the direction that the playerbase wants developer effort applied.

Perhaps mechanic A never catches on, so you revise or remove it, but players really love mechanic B. You wouldn't know that until after the game is in the hands of players, and many companies don't have the resources to do extensive playtesting that companies like Blizzard and VALVe can-do, to have an extremely polished end-product at launch. The result is that, some companies use early-adopters as guinea pigs, and still-others (EA) use player-guinea-pigs as a crutch.


But that does beg the question: As games get more complex to build, how can companies afford to put effort into new systems that are uncertain to be successful? You need to test to make sure players like what you are doing, and the sooner you test (ie: when there is less content provided) the better, because if you need to throw it away or do massive revisions, it is less wasteful. To some degree this feels like gamers want to have their cake and eat it too.

Take your old engine, hack some buggy half-ass mechanic into the game and then release it for $60 in early access. I mean, uhh...
Take your old engine, hack some buggy half-ass mechanic into the game and then internally playtest (or contract out) it until its polished.
Companies shouldn't really be having "beta tests" weeks before launch. If the game is in beta 2 weeks before launch, something's seriously wrong. Server stress-tests, sure. Beta-tests, no. Those are something that should be done way earlier.
If developers don't have the resources to pay people for beta-testing, they are likely a smaller studio, and will be playtesting it themselves. After launch, if the developers who can't afford to externally playtest the game are active in responding to bug reports and fix the issues, that's not something anyone has a problem with. People take issue with things like Bethesda knowing about bugs in their engine for years, and doing absolutely nothing about it before releasing an empty game with nothing but bugs.

I think that gamers are kinda spoiled. Each release is expected to be as-good-as the previous one, but with updated graphics and features, and yet should still be priced about the same. That can't go on forever. Better graphics means more artists and animators, which means you need more revenue to pay them. More game systems means more programmers and once-again: you need to pay them.

Are you serious?

Each release is expected to be as-good-as the previous one

Yeah, if you go backwards in quality, people won't like it, and if that continues.. they'll stop buying games from half-ass developers.

But with updated graphics and features

You're damn right. If there's nothing new, why would I give you more money?

should still be priced about the same.

I would say people will want it to be fairly priced for what you're getting. A new NBA 2K game that gives you updated rosters and more chances to buy microtransactions for $60? Uhh, no thanks.
However, if a game adds groundbreaking new features, or uses a new engine, etc. I'd be fine with paying a bit more. If the game is fun and has value, then it's no problem.

That can't go on forever. Better graphics means more artists and animators, which means you need more revenue to pay them. More game systems means more programmers and once-again: you need to pay them.

You pay them by making a good game to sell to customers.

[etheras]

MrVulture

Your comment is valuable to me. I think you're onto something, and I'll consider something similar for my own company. But there may be another problem. There's a well-deserved stigma around "Early Access". Too many games, particularly Indie games (but some pros too... -insert salty glare at Double Fine here-), have abandoned Early Access games and run off with the cash, leaving gamers with an incomplete or barely-complete mess.

At this time, I would love to release games as "Early Access" in the hopes that people won't flip out when they find bugs. But why should anyone trust my new company, which has no reputation (since it is new)? And how many gamers will pass-over my new game if they see "Early Access"? Once again, its a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't type scenario. You can't spread the word if nobody plays the game, and they are less likely to purchase it if they see that dreaded "Early Access". But on the flip-side, if you go straight to consumers without telling them "Hey this is new and we don't have a QA department, please be nice" - that's also not-so-good.

[MrVulture]

I see what you mean. I agree that there will always be users that complain. But I think backlash can be reduced (not eliminated) with good communication. Companies like Bethesda and EA (and Bungie) have such monumental backlash because they are awful at communication. Look at what CD Projekt or Digital Extremes do when their customers rise up in arms. They communicate honestly and address the real issues, and the majority of people understand and accept.

I think If they would laid it very clear that its an early access game and its cheaper because of that, backlash would be a vocal minority, instead of a raging multitude. And if they prove to evolve the game based on the players' feedback, increasing the price at release will not receive a huge backlash either.

That being said, I also believe it depends on which company does it. Companies like Bioware, Bethesda, Bungie, and others need to walk a loooong road of redemption before being able to pull this idea off.

[etheras]

That's just a bad company and bad staff.

No it isn't. You don't know what you're talking about.

Anybody who has no self-doubt is delusional, narcissistic and probably sociopathic. And everybody has hang-ups, biases, and personal lives. And in terms of speaking to your superiors, there exists something called Impostor syndrome. Look it up. Its normal. You might be an extremely successful doctor or programmer or whatever, working at some of the biggest most prestigious companies and you believe that you got there by luck and any day you might be "found out" and booted. Stanford studied this and found that about 1/3 of their graduating class felt like impostors.

If you're a new hire at a company, particularly one with a "royalty", and you feel like an impostor, are you really going to tell industry veterans than you think they are wrong? Of course not. Its not a reflection of the company, its a reflection of human nature.

I guess it's just a coincidence when mega-hyped games with mega-budgets turn out to be incredible games.

There have been plenty of mega-hyped flops. And I never said that they don't suspect whether their game will be successful. Few people will willingly release something that they believe is trash. Big companies have the luxury of resources to playtest extensively, gather metrics, and work out issues. Those companies also have high prestige, which brings-in exceptional talent, and a lot of content in those games (that you mentioned) is a known quantity. Having tight 3rd person RPG controls is a solved problem. Having an inventory layout that players understand is just a matter of using one that you like as a reference. I'm talking about new-new features like Fortnite's rapid base-building in a twitchy ninja-like battle royale. Did Epic know Fortnite was going to be the next big thing? Nope. I know people who worked on that project and they are as surprised as everybody else. They had internal debates over how long base components should be made and how much you should be able to carry and all that.

In the end, the formula worked, but they didn't know beforehand. It was a best-guess based on their own preferences, then playtesting, and the "final exam" so-to-speak, is public release.

[Aidy]

Everybody is too close because everybody is invested. If objectivity were easy, nobody would make a bad game. Teams would always see the flaws before shipping. We know that isn't the case. People are too close to the project, too invested, OR too afraid to raise concerns to their boss. Too mired in self-doubt.

That's just a bad company and bad staff.

The people who worked on it can't be objective.

I guess it's just a coincidence when mega-hyped games with mega-budgets turn out to be incredible games. I mean...no-one knows if what they've done is good, right? Everyone thinks their product might be good, might be crap, because they're too close to it? People probably spent all that time on RDR2, GTAV, Witcher 3 etc thinking the whole time; "Is this game any good? I can't tell and I don't think anyone is being honest."

What you're saying may be true on a micro level with individual people, but it shouldn't be true on the macro level; the company and team as a whole should ensure a level of quality (or internal honesty at least if the quality isn't there).

[etheras]

Bad ideas are supposed to be stopped from reaching the final game because these days games are not done by a single person but by a team of people.

Everybody is too close because everybody is invested. If objectivity were easy, nobody would make a bad game. Teams would always see the flaws before shipping. We know that isn't the case. People are too close to the project, too invested, OR too afraid to raise concerns to their boss. Too mired in self-doubt.

You start to ask yourself "Do I really know what is good?" I got this feeling a lot as lead developer. I would get concepts and after awhile I found it difficult to tell whether or not designs were worthwhile. I knew in my head what I wanted, but then you think about the audience and the critics and wonder if people are going to think this is stupid.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Like the beauty of babies. What you think is cool, 99% of people might think is awful. You're in with your team, asking, trying to get objective answers. The people who worked on it can't be objective. Some of the others might say its cool because they're friends with the artists. Some folks might be yes-men. Others might just be tired of redesigning the same prop for the 10th time and so they say its cool because they want to move on. Or maybe they're thinking of quitting, or had a fight with their husband or wife and their brains just aren't in the meeting. Or maybe everybody in the room is like-minded. They love Star Trek or Tolkien and the prop has the right flavor. And when you show it to the world people say you're just a ripoff.

I'm flattered that you think so highly of gamedevs, but it is an art not a science.

[Aidy]

Somebody who cries (literally cries) as a rubbish line is taken out of the dialog because they think its so-important. A designer protesting that their spaceship gets scrapped for looking like genitalia. (they just don't see it!) A programmer who thinks their game-breaking feature is the next revolution in gaming if-only they could have the time to tweak around the edges and make it work (while everybody else is skeptical if it will ever work).

That actually proves my point. Bad ideas are supposed to be stopped from reaching the final game because these days games are not done by a single person but by a team of people, not all of who are going to be "close" enough to not say when something doesn't work.

Google does this too. They will roll out a feature in Gmail or Google Docs to a segment of the userbase, gauge reaction, decide whether to scrap it or roll-it-out globally. (etc) Facebook does it too. Apple too. Maybe its a crutch for any system that can receive updates after shipping.

Those are free, living services that have to adapt to a changing market, and have to try and keep a lot of people happy. Games are single-shot products that you've paid £50 for (or whatever) that serve incredibly small markets, so there is an far greater onus on them to be "good". Especially as you've paid a lot for it. Again you don't give a mechanic money and expect him to fix your car when he has finally learned how. If you're buying a product that product has to be good there and then.

[etheras]

People who write games are normal human beings able to play what they're involved in an think "hey, this is pretty good" or "this is rubbish".

Look at all the parents who have ugly babies. They all think their baby is beautiful. It is possible to be too close to something and lose objectivity. (I'd say its "the rule", rather than the exception)

I work in the gaming industry, I've seen this first-hand. Somebody who cries (literally cries) as a rubbish line is taken out of the dialog because they think its so-important. A designer protesting that their spaceship gets scrapped for looking like genitalia. (they just don't see it!) A programmer who thinks their game-breaking feature is the next revolution in gaming if-only they could have the time to tweak around the edges and make it work (while everybody else is skeptical if it will ever work).

It's why they get paid to make games and you don't.

Actually, I do.

But in all seriousness - this isn't even a practice of the gaming industry - it is a practice of the software industry. Google does this too. They will roll out a feature in Gmail or Google Docs to a segment of the userbase, gauge reaction, decide whether to scrap it or roll-it-out globally. (etc) Facebook does it too. Apple too. Maybe its a crutch for any system that can receive updates after shipping.

[etheras]

For me, part of the issue comes from the $60 USD price tag (even more outside of the US) that used to mean complete, tested packages. I think some companies should embrace an early access mode where they charge maybe $30 to early adopters (maybe limit to a max of 500K - 1M early access keys) , and building the game together with the feedback they receive. I am assuming this would lessen a bit the pressure from the investors on how soon they must release the game. By the time the game has been polished and tailored, It would be fair to charge the $60+ tag, or keep the lower price tag + micro-transactions. I'm no expert in economics and wouldn't know if this is viable though.

I'm curious if you think that untested but discounted to $30 would avoid fan backlash? I think that a lot of gamers would say "$30 for this unfinished mess?? Make it $15!" and then $10, and $5.
I think that gamers are kinda spoiled. Each release is expected to be as-good-as the previous one, but with updated graphics and features, and yet should still be priced about the same. That can't go on forever. Better graphics means more artists and animators, which means you need more revenue to pay them. More game systems means more programmers and once-again: you need to pay them.

[Aidy]

As games get more complex to build, how can companies afford to put effort into new systems that are uncertain to be successful?

That's what testing, play testing, focus groups etc are for. Also common sense. People who write games are normal human beings able to play what they're involved in an think "hey, this is pretty good" or "this is rubbish". Also the people who design these games are professionals you expect coming up with good games as something they just do. It's why they get paid to make games and you don't. I wouldn't expect a musician to sell an unfinished album and change the tracks based on feedback, I wouldn't expect a mechanic to half finish fixing my car then ask me to take it for a spin and let them know. You expect someone who is a professional in that industry to perform their duties and produce a good game. The public are not your testers.

[ORCA1911]

I call that the NMS effect, while NMS had its reasons to lie they somewhat redeemed themselves after but it wont ever be forgotten and forgiven to a level. Basically say the game is revolutionary, slap 2 things together and release it and wait for the consumers to say what they want and make exclusively that and make them pay for their ideas. It's horrid.

The other part of the NMS effect joke is that even if we see that practice happen over and over the end result is never some form of redemption and it's always late, most tend to dig a deeper hole in their get woke or go broke ideology. I poorly gamesplained this because i suck at it and i love macaroni and NMS fyi, not a hater just sayan.