Ben-DutkaLet's examine the facts.
Firstly, it seems clear to everyone that we've seen an inordinate number of unstable, glitchy, buggy, and ultimately unreliable new games on store shelves this generation so far.
Secondly, the number of announced delays has been downright comical. I don't think I went a week without announcing another delay between January and March.
Thirdly, publishers continue to say that it becomes harder and harder to turn profits on big-budget AAA titles, and the longer a game is in development (and not on store shelves), the more losses it incurs.
When you combine all these factors, it seems plain to me that developers and publishers are absolutely rushing games to market. In order to keep interest high for the new generation, a number of high-profile games – perhaps even the majority of them – were shown off well before they should've been. Watch Dogs and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt are only two extra prominent examples; there are many others.
Games have been riddled with issues and these issues really run the gamut. Driveclub had major server problems, for instance, while Assassin's Creed Unity had several significant glitches when it first launched. I will say I've never played any AC that was anywhere near as bad off as The Witcher 3 in terms of glaring and comical screw-ups (leave it to PC devs untrained in console development), but I also can't remember playing a game this generation where I marveled at its consistency and stability.
In fact, I find I only do that with exclusive software. So, maybe it's the multiplatform development that's really throwing a wrench into the works. But at the same time, I'm almost certain that the drive to get these products on store shelves ASAP is having a profoundly negative impact. This is precisely why I wasn't upset about Uncharted 4: A Thief's End being delayed. Because if that releases with a bunch of bugs – an exclusive IP that has always been almost technically perfect – then we're in big trouble.
If they released the game and the game has some bugs people complain if they delayed the game to fix the bugs people will complain It's a no win situation for them!
I was thinking about this around the time AC Unity came out.
It seems to me that it's just that much more difficult to create that extra layer of effects, and it's taking devs longer than they thought to make games even with the more familiar tech. At the same time, as you said, publishers are trying to push the game to market to turn a profit, and or showing off the game way too early so the hype either gets out of control or starts to die. So what we get is half-baked games or a series of delays.
Personally, I'll take all the delays and wait for something good. I'm a fisherman and a surfer, and in both, know patience is a virtue.
They're rushing because they know they can patch it later, every buggy broken game these day have day one patch. Publishers know they can get away with that. Back in the ps1/ps2 day if you bought buggy unplayable game you're f**k.
Are you rushing or are you dragging? Slap publisher face…
The problem lies with investors being so goddamn CoD greedy. If they were to be more patient, developers wouldn't be pressured to announce a game before it's even conceived. Then, we wouldn't be filling up our precious HDD space with uneeded multi-gig d1 patches fixin' problems that wouldn't exist in the first place, had developers properly finished the game.
I would like to note, possibly one of the most improperly reviewed titles in gaming history, The Order 1886, ran smoother then any game ever has.
I've played through it well over 4 times, and ran into only a single glitch where Galahad would jump onto an ledge, disappear and then reappear and that happen one time.
My greatest concern is when these rushed games start crashing the actual consoles, permanently.
Last edited by Squirreleatsman on 5/25/2015 9:44:11 AM
Very true about The Order, and it speaks to my point about exclusive software.
As a consumer, very conscious about throwing off 60 bucks on full budget game. I blame the publishers for wanting to make that extra quick bucks. Dammit, let the devs take the extra time to polish their game up.
See I don't know if it's always like that. I think they make a plan, and in their judgement determine the time it SHOULD take and resolve to work long hours to get it done on time. It may very well be part of contractual agreement with a money lender. This stuff isn't always cut and dry. Sometimes the biggest problem happens right at the start when they don't accurately assess the project up front.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 5/25/2015 2:28:05 PM
i think devs are coming to grips with the possibility that if you want to do AAA multi platform you need 3 years to do it right.
I'm pretty sure I read Witcher 3 had only a 2 year dev cycle, or something just over that.
Thankfully games like CoD AW clearly benefited from 3 years of dev time. I'm expecting Rocksteady will also deliver something better than the norm in terms of stability too with Batman.
Edit: and yes I think when devs have only one platform to worry about things are easier when it comes to quality control. Drive Clubs problems were from unforeseen network issues. The game itself was rock solid in terms of performance with very little bugs to speak of.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 5/25/2015 2:13:39 PM
Yep same idea with the phone/mobile applications landscape.
To have the most beautiful Android, iOS or Windows app product – they need to be created native.
The app WILL (should) be released for all platforms, but they will (should) be built 'natively' for each platform. Not by the smart libraries or services that streamline the multi-plat, concurrent dev ops.
The similarity ends here because games dev is on another world. Written for PC then porting is the realistic way to go.