On the poor state PC games are in on release

[Pjotr84]

Lately there have been several PC releases that were in quite the shoddy state (Rage, Deus Ex: HR, etc) at release. According to many reviews' comments and forum posts this is due to the nigh infinite number of combinations of components in computers.

Although this sort of reasoning is generally accepted, I beg to differ.. for two reasons:

1. Back in the day games were more stable. Sure, they may not have been as complex, but the diversity in systems was likely equal to the present situation.

2. The variety in parts from one PC to the next is not that great. Since the hard drive, ram and motherboard don't really matter in this respect, the diversity would be amoung the CPU, graphics card and sound cards. Nowadays everyone has either an AMD or Intel processor and an AMD or Nvidia graphics card. Although there are a lot of different processors, the base architecture all boils down to the same. The fact that Nvidia and AMD release just one driver for all their current cards must mean the same goes for graphics cards. How the situation is for sound cards nowadays, I don't really know, so I'm leaving that as a possible cause for our problem.

What's your take on this? Is it just an excuse or is it a valid argument?

 

[Lilani]

I think you're forgetting one, HUGE difference between the PC games of the past and the PC games of today: Today, games can be patched and updated long after release. And I mean LOOONG after release. Before digital distribution and downloadable updates PC games were the same as consoles in that whatever product was produced was the final thing.

But now that developers can patch and update after release, I imagine there is less pressure to have a PERFECT product at the shipping date. Sure they need to have something pretty good to get good reviews and to get people playing, but any minor issues or complaints that come up after release can quickly be quelled with just a couple of patches. Developers have that wiggle room now, and it's no surprise they would take advantage of that. Now instead of spending the last few weeks before release desperately trying to make it run perfectly in every conceivable scenario, they can ignore those little bugs and spend their time tweaking the content. Errors are a lot easier to fix post-release than actual game content or mechanics.

 

[Pjotr84]

I think we can blame them for it. Just because they have the possibility of patching their games, doesn't mean they don't have to try to deliver their best come release day.

Judging from your post, can I take it you agree with me it's more of an excuse?

 

[KapnKerfuffle]

I ran DE:HR on my computer and it ran fantastic with maybe one crash that I remember, but I do have a new rig. I agree that the components are not quite as wildly diverse as they used to be so that has got to help. I remember when you had to look carefully at the chipset requirements for the video card before you bought a game and only certain sound cards were compatible with certain games.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Now instead of spending the last few weeks before release desperately trying to make it run perfectly in every conceivable scenario, they can ignore those little bugs and spend their time tweaking the content. Errors are a lot easier to fix post-release than actual game content or mechanics.

I'd agree with you if the bugs really were "little" but many times they're ridiculously large game-breaking bugs.

Just take a look at some of the bugs in Rage and try to tell me they're little, or easily overlooked.

Also, they shouldn't be tweaking "core mechanics" just weeks before the game is coming out. The core mechanics should be first, since everything else builds on them. The ONLY things that they should be doing in the last few weeks before release is squashing as many bugs as they can. If they're desperately rushing to finish core gameplay mechanics then the game is obviously not ready for release and needs to be pushed back another month or 2.

Better they get out a good and playable product a couple of months late then a broken one on time which people can't play. It'll still take them the same amount of time to fix the game, but they won't get any good will from consumers when they buy games that are unplayable because of the bugs, and they'll lose sales on that just by word of mouth that the game is broken.

 

[Lilani]

I think we can blame them for it. Just because they have the possibility of patching their games, doesn't mean they don't have to try to deliver their best come release day.

Judging from your post, can I take it you agree with me it's more of an excuse?

I guess I should clarify, I think I worded that poorly. By "you can't really blame them" I actually more meant "we really shouldn't be surprised." Of course we should expect and demand the best product out of them, given how much we're paying for it.

As for whether or not it's an "excuse," I really don't think that matters. Whether or not it's an "excuse" doesn't change the fact that it's a problem, one which likely manifests itself differently for different developers. Some developers are more guilty of this than others (for example, no one in their right mind could ever even THINK of saying Valve doesn't playtest their games enough).

Of course nothing is perfect, and if an unexpected issue does arise they would be stupid not to patch it post-release. We just need to start letting them know right NOW that using patches as a planned strategy for launching a game is not acceptable. And I think the fact that we as a community at least RECOGNIZE it at this point is a good step towards that. But if that doesn't stop them, once they release one or two games that get VERY poor reviews due to their conditions at release the developers will reign things in again, lest they risk losing sales and the interest of their customers.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It's funny how publishers complain there's no money in the PC gaming business whilst continuing to release piece of shit ports for the platform.

 

[GarysTrousers]

Releasing a dodgy game early, that gets patched later, is better than waiting longer for more testing by the developers in my opinion.

 

[Lilani]

Also, they shouldn't be tweaking "core mechanics" just weeks before the game is coming out. The core mechanics should be first, since everything else builds on them. The ONLY things that they should be doing in the last few weeks before release is squashing as many bugs as they can. If they're desperately rushing to finish core gameplay mechanics then the game is obviously not ready for release and needs to be pushed back another month or 2.

Ech, so much criticism over a little bit of wording. Regardless of the "proper" logistics of it, you at least understand the point I was making, right? My point was it is a lot easier for them to focus their efforts into putting extra polish on the things that work rather than "wasting" time on things that don't work. Sort of like polishing a vase in hopes no one will turn it around to see the crack on the back. Pointless, yes, but that's not how they see it.

Better they get out a good and playable product a couple of months late then a broken one on time which people can't play. It'll still take them the same amount of time to fix the game, but they won't get any good will from consumers when they buy games that are unplayable because of the bugs, and they'll lose sales on that just by word of mouth that the game is broken.

I never disagreed with you there. If ever it seemed like I did, I was simply pointing out that the developers tend disagree (or at least seem to, from our end).

As for the rest of my opinion, just see the post of mine that showed up right below yours. I am way too tired to write all of that out again.

 

[Wuggy]

To be honest, I don't see we can't generalize this as much as you do. In the recent past I can only remember RAGE and Dead Island being on bad state on the PC release, every other game (that I've bought at least) have ran just fine on release. I'm not sure why you brought up Deus Ex: Human Revolution as an example: I got that on release and it ran just fine with no problems.

But yes, when it DOES happen, it's quite inexcusable.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Releasing a dodgy game early, that gets patched later, is better than waiting longer for more testing by the developers in my opinion.

That attitude is also held by Obsidian, creators of Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas and Neverwinter Nights 2. Need I remind you those games were unplayable on release and still suffer from game breaking bugs?

 

[Pjotr84]

Releasing a dodgy game early, that gets patched later, is better than waiting longer for more testing by the developers in my opinion.

I wouldn't say it were better, rather cheaper for the developing and publishing party. The fact that games are more buggy than they used to is partly to blame on the simple fact that patching is now an option, as Lilani stated, and on the pressure being applied by the publisher.

@Lilani

No, we shouldn't be surprised that being able to patch leads to more bugs, but I wonder how much less money is brings in in the end. Waiting for a game to be playable or (nearly) bugless - whichever applies - also means the producer makes less of a profit on it due to the fact the game is bought some time later by a certain number of people, so has likely seen a price reduction already.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I think you're forgetting one, HUGE difference between the PC games of the past and the PC games of today: Today, games can be patched and updated long after release. And I mean LOOONG after release. Before digital distribution and downloadable updates PC games were the same as consoles in that whatever product was produced was the final thing.

But now that developers can patch and update after release, I imagine there is less pressure to have a PERFECT product at the shipping date. Sure they need to have something pretty good to get good reviews and to get people playing, but any minor issues or complaints that come up after release can quickly be quelled with just a couple of patches. Developers have that wiggle room now, and it's no surprise they would take advantage of that. Now instead of spending the last few weeks before release desperately trying to make it run perfectly in every conceivable scenario, they can ignore those little bugs and spend their time tweaking the content. Errors are a lot easier to fix post-release than actual game content or mechanics.

I hate to break it to you, but this hasn't been a "new" thing in PC gaming since the mid-90's. Ever play Daggerfall? That was a game that after the final patch still put these newer games to shame in terms of being a broken, buggy mess, to say nothing of the initial release. It's a new phenomenon for console games (although not entirely; different print runs of discs and cartridges have had different code revisions for pretty much as long as gaming was big enough to justify multiple runs of console games), but aside from the 80's and the very, very early 90's, PC games have pretty much always been released with major bugs that were later worked out over a series of patches.

There is one thing I'd like to call BS on, though; the excuse that it's the thousands upon thousands of different hardware configurations that are causing all the bugs. That was true back in the DOS days, when developers had to code specifically for individual hardware sets, occasionally even writing their own hardware drivers. Not so much in the post-Windows 95 era, where software libraries like Direct X and Open GL handle all of the actual hardware calls for the devs. Granted, the occasional hardware-based hiccup is unavoidable even today, but it's no excuse for a game being a buggy mess.

 

[Pjotr84]

To be honest, I don't see we can't generalize this as much as you do. In the recent past I can only remember RAGE and Dead Island being on bad state on the PC release, every other game (that I've bought at least) have ran just fine on release. I'm not sure why you brought up Deus Ex: Human Revolution as an example: I got that on release and it ran just fine with no problems.

But yes, when it DOES happen, it's quite inexcusable.

Well, HR was quite unstable at launch for a lot of folks, just check the forums, but that's not what I was going for. It's a trend we've been seeing for years now (Fallout 3, New Vegas, GTA 4 and the list goes on), I just mentioned some recent examples for convenience's sake.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

It's another reason why some developers, as well as publishers, support always-on DRM. The Willits guy from id said so himself http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112187-id-Software-Praises-Always-On-in-Diablo-3

His quote: "In the end, it's better for everybody. Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated." Basically saying, it's now even easier to make the public your beta testers, and to release buggy and incomplete software. And force that update, even if it happens to wreck your installation, with no way to revert back if you wish to play the game at all.

It does seem that the diversity in hardware is much the same, if not even less than earlier days, with more universal drivers. The exponential curve in hardware advances seems to have tapered off somewhat, for whatever reason (slow console generation, less budget for R&D in tech, etc).

 

[Pjotr84]

It's another reason why some developers, as well as publishers, support always-on DRM. The Willits guy from id said so himself http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112187-id-Software-Praises-Always-On-in-Diablo-3

You think so? The piracy angle is much more important in these draconian measures, I reckon. Non-forced patching through a launcher is something we can all - not just the selling parties - benefit from.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's another reason why some developers, as well as publishers, support always-on DRM. The Willits guy from id said so himself http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112187-id-Software-Praises-Always-On-in-Diablo-3

You think so? The piracy angle is much more important in these draconian measures, I reckon. Non-forced patching through a launcher is something we can all - not just the selling parties - benefit from.

It's never really been about piracy; it's about maintaining control of the product, and pushing the idea that software is a service, not a product. If you'll notice, piracy is alive and well on the PC, but the used market, on the other hand...

 

[Pjotr84]

It's another reason why some developers, as well as publishers, support always-on DRM. The Willits guy from id said so himself http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112187-id-Software-Praises-Always-On-in-Diablo-3

You think so? The piracy angle is much more important in these draconian measures, I reckon. Non-forced patching through a launcher is something we can all - not just the selling parties - benefit from.

It's never really been about piracy; it's about maintaining control of the product, and pushing the idea that software is a service, not a product. If you'll notice, piracy is alive and well on the PC, but the used market, on the other hand...

The whole licensing idea behind games is something I hadn't thought of, but piracy prevention is very much a part of keeping control of your product.