Unfinished Games - the rationale

[Methpoodle]

I have to respectfully disagree Etheras.

Your first argument is that there is no point of a developer adding a feature or mechanic if they're unsure if it will be well received or successful. And that this is a common practice among developers.
First, this simply isn't true. While yes there has been a trend of late for AAA titles to come out the oven half baked, if you look at the overwhelming trend of game releases, both as of now and historically the majority will fall into the completed category (Steam early acess excluded.)
This practice of releasing titles unfinished, just doesn't fly. The gaming industry seems to be the only one to use this tactic. To use some poorly thought out metaphor. Imagine watching the sixth sense, only to have the movie stop short because the director wasn't sure if he wanted Bruce Willis to be dead at the end or not (If you haven't seen it by now and I just spoiled it. It's your own fault.) Or if you bought a brand new Tesla and were informed after purchase it had no suspension because they hadn't worked the mechanics out yet.
To do this to consumers shows a lack of confidence in their product and a lack of understanding of their own fan base. Trawl the forums, Look at user reviews. It's not that hard to see what people want.

Your second point is games are more complex and expensive to build. Yes this is true, Games have longer envelopment cycles, more staff and vastly higher budget. However Developers and publishers are making more money than ever. The gaming industry is estimated to be worth nearly $138 Billion by the end of the year. I just don't buy into the "oh poor little old us. We need to cut corners so we don't go bankrupt" That's just bullshit. Developers have more money, more man power and a market that's growing at a never before seen rate. There is simply just no excuse for releasing an unfinished AAA title in 2018.

I believe publishers like EA, Activision, Ubi etc have grown fat and complacent and this is dangerous. We are already seeing the results with crashing stock prices.
Complacency is dangerous. Its a cancer that has torn down many an industry. I'm afraid that this cancer is metastasizing its way though an industry I love so dearly.

Anywho, I appreciate your side of the argument and it's nice to have a place we can have these debates.

[Aidy]

Anybody who has no self-doubt is delusional … its a reflection of human nature.

Again you're talking about individuals, I'm talking about the output from a team as a whole.

There have been plenty of mega-hyped flops.

It's probably more likely that a mega-hyped game is a flop, because they need to hype it as they know the product isn't good enough to carry itself. Because people know when they have a good product, and when they don't

a lot of content in [GTA V] is a known quantity … I'm talking about new-new features

I wouldn't say having the three playable characters in GTA V was known quantity at all. Not only are GTA fans used to a single protagonist, the psychological difference in playing different characters with different personalities is probably quite vast, and most certainly a big risk. Not only was that mechanic a big risk, it wasn't a trivial bolt-on, the entire game hinged on it. I refused to believe your suggestion that at no point did anyone at Rockstar not think "this is a brilliant idea", and upon playing it before completion thought "you know what, this mechanic works, people are going to like this".

[etheras]

Aidy - Also, in an aside. My lead modeler worked on Max Payne 1-3 . Who is your avatar, no?

[aileron]

Here's a simple suggestion: For the most part, stick to tried and true for the AAA titles at $60+. But also release more experimental games, in terms of mechanics and story, at lower prices, using the money you make on AAAs. You may lose money on 9 out of 10 of the more experimental games, but 1 might go on to be the next big thing. It's a strategy akin to how other companies do R&D. They know most of that R&D won't turn out, but the thing that does goes on to give them an edge over the competition.

[etheras]

Here's a simple suggestion: For the most part, stick to tried and true for the AAA titles at $60+. You may lose money on 9 out of 10 of the more experimental games, but 1 might go on to be the next big thing. It's a strategy akin to how other companies do R&D. They know most of that R&D won't turn out, but the thing that does goes on to give them an edge over the competition.

There was a discussion earlier with another poster who, frankly, I think was a troll because he was fairly ridiculous. In-general, I think that people are being irrational here. Clearly people want to have their cake and eat it too, and it doesn't work that way.

AAA games means developers are crafting higher-quality models, 4K textures, renting time in mocap studios and soundstages, more voice actors, more programmers. These cost money, and the technology is always getting better, so gamers are demanding that games always get better, but there's a limit. With some caveats regarding better tools, it still takes about 50% longer to make a model with 150M tris as it does to make one with 100M tris. So if you want better graphics you HAVE TO pay more because the studio either needs to hire more artists, or the development time needs to be longer to allow the existing artists to do 50% more work. And if the userbaser isn't going to grow by 50%, you need to get that money by charging more. Its simple math. But from some of the discussion earlier (not you) it sounds like they want underpaid artists to work literal starvation wages and then die for their craft.

But also release more experimental games, in terms of mechanics and story, at lower prices, using the money you make on AAAs.

I don't think you realize how small the margins are for game companies. People keep pointing to like... Modern Warfare 3 and World of Warcraft like that money still exists. It doesn't. They spent it. It was whittled down over time. Bonuses to staff, real-estate costs and expansions, and equipment improvements, projects that lost money or had to be canceled. There is no mountain of cash at these studios, except perhaps EA, and their's is rapidly dwindling. (VALVe probably has one too).

Money is the lifeblood of any company. Big companies are getting risk-averse because the cost is going up faster than the userbase is growing, and when your job is on the chopping-block if a game fails, people play it very safe, and you can't blame them. You wind-up with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type scenario. Look at Fallout4. They innovated in ways that fans largely disliked (streamlined RPG system, controls geared toward console, base building mechanics...) and they were yelled-at for it. And if they don't innovate, they'd be yelled-at for that. You can't have it both ways. Changing the game will negatively affect nostalgia. New things that are tried are not guaranteed to succeed.

[etheras]

Again you're talking about individuals, I'm talking about the output from a team as a whole.

A team is a group of individuals. The fact remains: if it were objective, nobody would ever ship a bad game. The fact that bad games ship proves that its impossible to know with certainty whether a game is good or not. You might suspect one way or the other, but nobody knowingly ships a flop. And there have been a lot of high-profile flops this year.

I wouldn't say having the three playable characters in GTA V was known quantity at all. Not only are GTA fans used to a single protagonist, the psychological difference in playing different characters with different personalities is probably quite vast, and most certainly a big risk. Not only was that mechanic a big risk, it wasn't a trivial bolt-on, the entire game hinged on it. I refused to believe your suggestion that at no point did anyone at Rockstar not think "this is a brilliant idea", and upon playing it before completion thought "you know what, this mechanic works, people are going to like this".

I'm sure that whoever came up with it suspected that it would work-out well, but nobody knew. I'm sure there were people at the company who thought it would flop and were vetoed by those who wanted to try it. Game companies suffer from office politics just like any other software company.

I think that some people DO have an intuitive sense of good game mechanics. The obvious one is Sid Meier, and yet Sid Meier's Starships sucked. One of the greatest game designers in the history of video games made a boring, silly flop. Just because something sounds good in your head doesn't mean it will translate to good gameplay.

[aileron]

You seem to know a lot more about the industry than I do. I was thinking about them like movie studios, going for the blockbuster sequel or remake or known IP, and spending millions but making more than double that back. Do that a few times and you should be able to take a chance and make a few duds, no?

[Aidy]

if it were objective, nobody would ever ship a bad game. The fact that bad games ship proves that its impossible to know with certainty whether a game is good or not.

You're saying that every company that releases every game thinks that game is good or else they wouldn't release it?

Maybe they were bound to release by people higher up the chain who simply care about profits and as they spent money on the game it has to be released anyway? Do you think the manager of the team that writes a game that the company owners have spent probably a lot of money on are going to accept "we've finished it and we don't think it's any good" as a reason to write that money off, and any chance of any profit or return no matter how small?

For sure your bigger companies can't afford to release dross as they also have reputation (aka shareholders and investors) to think about, and they also have more money to write-off in the pursuit of that one GTA V that's going to keep them in Ferraris for a decade. But many medium and smaller companies don't have that luxury, and that one bad game can see the company fold.

Video games is still a business at the end of the day. Sure the people on the ground care about the art and the product, but the further up the chain you get the less people care about the art and the product and the more they care only about profit.

[etheras]

You seem to know a lot more about the industry than I do. I was thinking about them like movie studios, going for the blockbuster sequel or remake or known IP, and spending millions but making more than double that back. Do that a few times and you should be able to take a chance and make a few duds, no?

Its more of a function of how companies operate. In capitalism, you're always supposed to be trying to make more money. Some of those things will fail, and some will succeed, and your company will grow or shrink accordingly. There's a fiduciary responsibility for every company with shareholders to maximize shareholder value. That's means investing profits into things that you think will make MORE profits, or return profits to shareholders in the form of dividends. (This is like Business 101) In-general companies do not keep large sums of cash in Money Bins. Here's a hilarious video of Peter Thiel making the case that Google is not a tech company anymore because they are NOT spending their money to (former) Google CEO Eric Schmidt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snMWgvMgWr4 (he can explain it better than I can).

This is why, in my own game company, I've accepted no external investment except for a small business loan. Since I'm the only shareholder, I have no legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value, because the only person who can sue me is myself. VAVLe is also private. (funny, that! And who is taking their sweet-sweet time making HL3? No angry investors can push GabeN around! )

[etheras]

You're saying that every company that releases every game thinks that game is good or else they wouldn't release it?

Maybe they were bound to release by people higher up the chain who simply care about profits and as they spent money on the game it has to be released anyway?

You need to define what you mean by "company", then. So managers and CEOs and investors aren't part of the company? Just the coders and artist? And yes - I legitimately believe that Todd Howard thought Fallout76 would do well. He might have had more confidence in Fallout4 - it was more of a known quantity. F4 was less risky because it was more-similar to projects they've done before, but do I think they knew 76 would get a poor reception (pre-beta)? I think they were uncertain but optimistic - which is what I was saying. You can't really know how people will react to a game until they play it. If you grab 100 random people off the street to playtest, is that an accurate representation of the customer base? Maybe. Maybe not. Everybody is still trying to make a good game.

You keep bringing up GTA-V like its some kind of case-in-point. But it isn't - You're conflating the specific with the general. GTA-V is one game where the hype was real. Battlefield V didn't live up. Fallout76 probably won't. Black Ops 4. No Man's Sky (probably a case of promising too much and it being *impossible* to satisfy). C&C4. ME: Andromeda. Battlefront 2. Hyped and flopped.

So because GTA-V did well isn't proving any kind of rule. I'd actually argue that hyped games tend to converge on mediocrity, not success or failure. One good game, followed by a line of sequels that try to catch lightning in that same bottle again, and seldom succeed. Instead they do well enough to keep the franchise going and not much more.

[Aidy]

You need to define what you mean by "company", then.

A legal entity made up of an association of people for carrying on a commercial enterprise.

So managers and CEOs and investors aren't part of the company?

I thought it was obvious from my point that I'm including the managers etc too (not necessarily investors though). They're the ones more likely to want to push out a bad game.

You keep bringing up GTA-V like its some kind of data point.

I wanted an example of an incredibly well selling game that brought in big profits and continues to sell and continues to bring in profits. I wanted an example of The Holy Grail of games, and as I'd already mentioned GTA V in the thread it was in my mind so I used it as the example. I don't see anything wrong with that.

So because GTA-V did well isn't proving any kind of rule.

I'm not claiming it proves any rule on its own; I was using it as an example to counter your point that big-budget games have to be full of "known quantity" game elements that lack innovation because it's impossible to know if something new is "good" until it has been released.

[The Chosen One]

IMO I believe the largest game companies are over promising and under performing and then patch or dlc their way to forgiveness later. I think this ultimately comes down to the budget set aside for the content, deadlines, and what takes priority in the development process i.e. level design, asset creation, animation, music, in game currency system, marketing, game art, coding/debugging/optimization, marketing, testing etc.

For example, when I see that the in game currency or loot box system working and the game mechanics and bugs are rampant, it tells me they prioritized the monetization over the quality of the game. It also signals to me that they couldn’t thoroughly complete the game to a satisfactory level within the deadlines and still shipped it. Which could mean the deadlines are too short, the budget is too small, and/or the company bit off more than it could chew regarding content within their budget and time constraints. (Note: If shipping substandard games only to be patched later is what they intended, then I don’t think this is a long term sustainable model)

I think people focus a lot on sales and revenue “Above the Line” income and not “Net Income” which is sometimes called the “Bottom Line” on the income statement, for those of you who aren’t accountants, the major difference is that Net Income takes into consideration all of the Cost, Expenses, and Taxes (in some cases) and applies them to the total sales for the period being reviewed I.e. monthly, quarterly, annually. A company could have 600 million in sales, but a Net Income of 1 million. That’s why they will brag about their “sales” but if they’re inefficient and their expenses are eating them alive, all that revenue is eaten away by the time you get down to the Net Income. In some cases they may show a loss with all those sales.

All in all I think these tactics indicate variables that may be related to inefficiency and underperformance within deadlines combined with early on attempts to get cash on the front end I.e. pre-orders in order to meet bonus and company performance thresholds while ensuring recurring revenue streams such as loot boxes are in place to generate more cash flow for future content.

I don’t mind companies making tons of money, I only mind it when they produce a substandard product and even more substandard experience, criticize fans for calling them out on it, and then ask fans to pay more money because “its gonna get fixed” or “we’ll take that into consideration for the new DLCs” etc. If I buy a new car that turns out to be broken or underperforms, then asked to pay more money to get it fixed and optimized, I’ll just return the car and won’t purchase a car from there again and find a new place to shop. I think that’s why indie and old school games are going to get hot. My two cents.

Note: A lot of this is just speculation or deduction, I’m now curious. I’m going to go back and review their 10-K’s such as EA to see what the auditors wrote.