Why are Broken Games Accepted?

[Vausch]

War Z was broken in its terrible glitches, bully tactics by the developers, and was so poor it was taken off Steam.

How is a game that caused such a fuss that it was removed from sale being used as a example of people accepting a broken game?

Same goes for Steel Battalion. It's known above all else for being non-functional.

Don't know about Diablo 3. I barely played it and, seriously, fuck having that debate again.

Well partially I mean "released to begin with".

Though there are some games I've seen like Sonic Riders receiving reviews in the 7/10 or higher despite that game being rather broken both in control AND in some cases I've seen people get physically ill playing it. I'm not exaggerating.

 

[veloper]

Bugs and glitches are accepted because most gamers don't demand quality.

If eveyone waited for bug fixes before buying, then the games wouldn't be released unfinished so often. Our impatience for something new works against us.

Diablo 3 is a very poor example here. Blizzard had always had a sterling reputation for releasing functional (if maybe cookie-cutter) games out of the box (and years of support), so here the fans may actually be excused for expecting D3 to run at launch.
Blizzard were the rare exception though. Most of the time we gamers get what we deserve for not being critical.

 

[Guffe]

Because nothing is perfect
If we'd want total perfection we might have one game per 5 years on each console
If something is at fault but people still think the overall thing is worthy of their time even if it has its faults, it's worth playing

 

[Windcaler]

War Z was broken in its terrible glitches, bully tactics by the developers, and was so poor it was taken off Steam.

Diablo III was broken at its time of launch due to the terrible always-online DRM that causes so many to be unable to play something they paid for, yet pirates could play no problem. People defended it because "it's Diablo".

Steel Battalion for the Kinect was a defective product. No getting around that, it just didn't work, it was defective and if it were any other sort of product it would be recalled and probably couldn't legally be sold.

Now I'm not talking about games with glitches, in this day and age that's something that's bound to happen. Heck it's been happening since gaming started, but most of them aren't so bad they completely ruin the game. So why do we accept broken games?

Much of what I hear for WarZ is "its fun". As if thats supposed to excuse a broken game that was in Alpha being sold as a complete and full version. Quite frankly I dont understand how anyone could make an argument that the game was anything other then an unfinished and broken alpha. STEAM did the right thing by pulling the game and giving refunds but really WarZ should have never been on STEAM in the first place. Its yet another case where STEAM puts up buggy or broken games without any quality assurance while good games that are finished havnt even made it onto their service yet.

In Diablo 3's case, well yeah it was broken when it came out. Error 37 was a huge controversy and gamers called it by saying it would be a problem unless blizzard had their servers running like clockwork. How people defended that game I have no idea but I didnt buy it myself (I got bored with diablo when Diablo 2 was still new)

Finally theres steel battalion and you're right again, its a broken game. Why gamers in mass have not filed complaints with the federal trade commission is beyond me.

What I think all this comes down to is people dont want to take the necessary steps to protect their consumer rights. If people dont file complaints with the FTC or BBB (Better Business bureau) is IMO out of lazyness. In all three cases the games were literally released as broken titles and while Diablo got fixed later thats still no excuse for gamers not filing complaints. Its like gamers dont know what their rights as consumers are or they just chalk it up to another crappy game

Thing is when you get a defective product that is not just a crappy game and you shouldnt let it slip. Thats actually a violation of your consumer rights but we dont have large ammounts of people doing anything about it. So game companies arent held accountable. We saw some complaints filed for ME3 but theres no legal case there for consumer rights, just for false advertising. It's a shame were in this position because of peoples inaction but I kind of wonder if people arent reporting these defective games because they dont know they should or they dont know who to report it to and how (to be fair the FTC's reporting fuction is pretty crap)

 

[DoPo]

Well partially I mean "released to begin with".

Well in that case

War Z was broken in its terrible glitches, bully tactics by the developers, and was so poor it was taken off Steam.

Because the devs "forgot" to mention it wasn't finished yet. They fully knew and, as far as I know, did intend to finish it as it goes, they just released it for sale with misleading information listed.

Diablo III was broken at its time of launch due to the terrible always-online DRM that causes so many to be unable to play something they paid for, yet pirates could play no problem. People defended it because "it's Diablo".

It was not "broken at the time of launch" that is a lie. The game was working fine, the authentication servers were overloaded. And pirates couldn't play it with no problem - they couldn't play it at all. A quick check suggests that they still can't play it with no problem.

Steel Battalion for the Kinect was a defective product. No getting around that, it just didn't work, it was defective and if it were any other sort of product it would be recalled and probably couldn't legally be sold.

Somebody fucked up for a cash grab.

Now I'm not talking about games with glitches, in this day and age that's something that's bound to happen. Heck it's been happening since gaming started, but most of them aren't so bad they completely ruin the game. So why do we accept broken games?

And by "we" you seem to mean "the developers and possibly publishers" because it seems that they are the one doing the accepting here.

 

[Vhite]

Because they can be fixed.

Gothic 3 is a good example of game that was completely broken when it came out but few patches + community patch made the game so much better. Not that the developers deserve much credit for that (community patch was about 1 GB large) but IMO nor do the developers that make game that are only fun with mods (Im looking at you, Bethesda).

 

[Something Amyss]

Because something that is broken for someone, doesn't have to be broken for everyone. Like D3, I never had really a issue with it being online the whole time, because I would always play D2 online, so Diablo was just a online game for me. I understand that some people why some people hate and I don't disagree that it is a issue, but for me it just wasn't a problem.

But indeed, why some retails allow it to sell.

The problem here is that D3 shouldn't be considered broken, period.

Broken's fairly objective. If a game is actually unplayable, it's broken. The problem here is gamers tend to get overdramatic and call things broken when they're not.

Thing is, we still tend to justify broken games. Actual broken games. We, the consumer, have helped determine we have no reasonable expectation of a finished product.

 

[Feylynn]

Because broken games that still make money are a commercial success is part of it.

The other part is broken is not a single dimensional measure of what is wrong with software.

For example Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines was released entirely unfinishable with many frequent glitches and an unavoidable crash in the main story. This game however is tolerated because it was god damned amazing. Fans fixed the core issues, then they added to the game, and what the game does do outside of being buggy is one of the best things I've ever played.

You'll find that this defense comes up a lot for Bethesda's games.

The trouble with Video Games is that they are in most cases an experience that is very difficult to get anywhere else. Yes everyone is unhappy that Vampires, Skyrim, Fallout, and whatever else have so many issues, but sometimes it's worth dealing with those issues because no matter how hard you try you just can't buy those experiences anywhere else. Short of publishing your own game and burning miracle dust on it turning out right you just can't snap your fingers and say "Well since Skyrim is so broken I'll just play the non broken version of Skyrim from this other guy since Bethesda's Skyrim isn't up to par".

Software is never perfect, it's impossibly hard to iron out every bug in the more complex and large scale games coming out. You just have to draw a line and solve your own equation for how much fun you are having outside of the issues and for how likely you are to get that experience elsewhere. You can argue this is bad practice because you are supporting people that are getting away with faulty production, but in my mind it's criminal that the guys that did Bloodlines aren't demi-god billionaires and I'll play games more broken than Bloodlines if they can be that good underneath.

 

[DoPo]

in my mind it's criminal that the guys that did Bloodlines aren't demi-god billionaires and I'll play games more broken than Bloodlines if they can be that good underneath.

True dat. And they aren't rich (also why the game is so unfinished) because it was Activision that pulled the release date back a lot. Troika games did their best shipping two patches shortly after the release date and some actually still collaborate...well, rather loosely (I'm sure they have a reason) with wesp5 who is developing the Unofficial Patch. OK, chances are they wouldn't have made a flawless game (heck, they have a track record - all their games need an unofficial patch) but it would have been definitely better stability-wise.

 

[Mhora]

Well partially I mean "released to begin with".

well, to this particular point, basically because the publisher has paid for the game to be developed, they put their money into this and if they dev doesn't release they get penalized (see 3D realms and DNF), not saying its the publishers fault as the developer will of agreed they can release a game in this time frame for the budget they're given.

So the game gets released, even if it is broken in an attempt to get cash back from development, or simply to avoid lawsuit from them not completing their contractual obligation to release the game, but a broken and clearly not finished game tends not to be 'accepted' as they get panned by critics and fans alike and people don't buy them, Providing reviewers are given a review copy prior to release.

 

[alrekr]

I

DayZ: While people certainly bought the game, I think the fact that it was pulled from Steam and refunded suggests that a significant portion of the playerbase didn't accept it. Also, a playthrough I was watching on Youtube the other day suggests that some enjoy it for having an "it's so bad it's good" quality.

D

I think you mean WarZ might want to edit that incase you get flamed by some fanboys. I assume you mean WarZ as DayZ hasn't gone standalone yet.

OT: People don't really accept broken stuff but won't stop people selling you broken stuff.

 

[Bad Jim]

Diablo 3 is a very poor example here. Blizzard had always had a sterling reputation for releasing functional (if maybe cookie-cutter) games out of the box (and years of support)

The software itself is generally functional, but the online servers for virtually every game Blizzard has released have been inadequate upon launch. Which is a problem if you can only play online.

That said, Blizzard do have a good reputation for fixing these problems, patching their games and supporting them for a long time.

I think it's more of a soup nazi thing with Blizzard. People put up with the high prices and excessive DRM because the games are just that good.

 

[MysticToast]

Sorry, I couldn't take you seriously after you said D3 was broken like WarZ.

 

[Karoshi]

I grew up with broken PC games. My dad was annoyed with the bugs, but he was perfectly capable of finding a solution on the internet and fixing it. That's what I used to do when I was older and I just felt that it's part of the gaming experience. So to say, another "quest" which you have to do.

Sometimes it's annoying, but bugs aren't game-breaking issue for me. Granted, I don't buy games on the release day much either.

 

[lacktheknack]

The War Z and Steel Battalion are poor examples, because NO ONE ACCEPTS THEM.

Now, find a broken game that was "accepted" beyond Diablo 3 (and that's a stretch... did you SEE the backlash?) and we'll have a thread to talk about.

 

[madster11]

I'd really like to know how did pirates supposedly played Diablo 3. I don't see it happening, at that time emulators were barely even working, with majority of stuff still missing / not working.

Key word there being 'barely' working.

Still a fuckton better than 'doesn't work at all because we're the idiots who like to actually support developers'.

 

[EvilMaggot]

War Z was broken in its terrible glitches, bully tactics by the developers, and was so poor it was taken off Steam.

It was taken off steam because they had released it way ahead of its actual release time(a mistake on Steams part).. also its still in "Beta".. please do get your facts straight before accusing.. im possibly one of the few people on the escapist that actually enjoys War Z.. because it just isnt "herp derp survival zombie game" you dont get anything handed to you in it.