This Year In Gaming...

Scot

This Year In Gaming...you will be paying more for a less polished game. You may well be paying for a game that has not actually launched. But don't worry they will say they are sorry and that it will get fixed, that's all the matters right?!

Just how long is this piece of string going to be stretched out, are gamers that gullible that we will accept less and less polish? Will Early Access get replaced by pre-Early Access? We are like diners that eat anything put in front of us even if it is too raw, it is time to go on a healthy diet and only eat properly cooked and prepared food.

Where do you draw the line? I won't play an early access, never pre-order, and these days I nearly never buy a game until after the reviews and a couple of months after what passes for "launch". That's my minimum now, gaming has been turned into a fashion experience where you need to play the latest big thing and that has helped allow games to launch in a woeful state.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

delete5230

Its a fact people will pay for dog shit. Vote with your wallet ?....ha

Its been like that for 10 years now, people seem to not care if it's garbage or not you want prof people are still paying for ESO.

olepi

Scot said:

Where do you draw the line? I won't play an early access, never pre-order, and these days I nearly never buy a game until after the reviews and a couple of months after what passes for "launch". That's my minimum now, gaming has been turned into a fashion experience where you need to play the latest big thing and that has helped allow games to launch in a woeful state.

That has been my position for years now. Never pay for alpha or beta, never pre-order, never buy loot boxes, never buy P2W items, never buy an MMO until it's been out for a year with good reviews, never pay for kickstarters.

It's getting so bad now that people will pay for concept art, and then be mad if there is no game behind it.

Iselin

You spelled decade wrong.

Quizzical

olepi said:

Scot said:

Where do you draw the line? I won't play an early access, never pre-order, and these days I nearly never buy a game until after the reviews and a couple of months after what passes for "launch". That's my minimum now, gaming has been turned into a fashion experience where you need to play the latest big thing and that has helped allow games to launch in a woeful state.

That has been my position for years now. Never pay for alpha or beta, never pre-order, never buy loot boxes, never buy P2W items, never buy an MMO until it's been out for a year with good reviews, never pay for kickstarters.

It's getting so bad now that people will pay for concept art, and then be mad if there is no game behind it.

Never pay for a game unless:

1)  it's in such a state that you want to play it now, and
2)  you can play it promptly after paying for it.

Whether that state is called alpha, beta, or release is irrelevant.  There's nothing wrong with paying for a beta or early access if the above conditions are satisfied.  There's plenty wrong with paying for an official launch where they aren't.

Scot

olepi said:

Scot said:

Where do you draw the line? I won't play an early access, never pre-order, and these days I nearly never buy a game until after the reviews and a couple of months after what passes for "launch". That's my minimum now, gaming has been turned into a fashion experience where you need to play the latest big thing and that has helped allow games to launch in a woeful state.

That has been my position for years now. Never pay for alpha or beta, never pre-order, never buy loot boxes, never buy P2W items, never buy an MMO until it's been out for a year with good reviews, never pay for kickstarters.

It's getting so bad now that people will pay for concept art, and then be mad if there is no game behind it.

I am far more likely to buy at the one year after launch than the one month after point myself. That's not even down to purchase disappointment, just what I see players complaining about and the patch cycle in so many games a few months after launch.

Quizzical said:

olepi said:

That has been my position for years now. Never pay for alpha or beta, never pre-order, never buy loot boxes, never buy P2W items, never buy an MMO until it's been out for a year with good reviews, never pay for kickstarters.

It's getting so bad now that people will pay for concept art, and then be mad if there is no game behind it.

Never pay for a game unless:

1)  it's in such a state that you want to play it now, and
2)  you can play it promptly after paying for it.

Whether that state is called alpha, beta, or release is irrelevant.  There's nothing wrong with paying for a beta or early access if the above conditions are satisfied.  There's plenty wrong with paying for an official launch where they aren't.

The problem with this position is that the industry is trying to blur what a launch is, that is not why early access came in, but that is what it very soon became used for. If they pay for early access, they will pay for a "launch" that is really an early access.

What you are saying would work if we had an infallible method of being sure a game is "in such a state that you want to play it now". We don't and the studios an indies are relying on that. I don't want to make this sound like some industry wide conspiracy, it is simply that if you have enough bad actors that new bad practice becomes the norm.

mekhere

Never pay for beta. These days it is harder and harder to make a good game tester resume. you used to be able to get hired to beta and acquire actual experience and get paid to be an alpha tester or pursue gaming as a career. now you have to pay for beta and the only way to get paid is to make YouTube videos playing games and that experience cannot be put on a resume anymore. The pay is terrible to because there is too much competition.

finefluff

The good thing about steam is that you can refund within 2 hours of play time.

But it’s interesting comparing the proportion of broken games that get released vs proportion of broken physical goods that get put up for sale at a retailer. Seems like the former is much higher. Something about software makes it so, or at least make it more acceptable than broken goods.

I wonder if there was a fewer proportion of broken pc games releasing in the past than today. I remember buying Fallout 3 at release for PC. I bought the physical disc but there was an issue with the DRM making it unplayable and I had to download a patch for my brand new game.

One thing I can say though is that console games always release in a better state than PC. At least they did in the past.

finefluff

Now that I think about it, Bethesda, an industry leader, as always been releasing buggy games. They're the first to do microtransactions too.

"The first microtransaction sold by a major publisher was in 2006 when Bethesda sold horse armor in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for $2.50." 

What other bad practices will Bethesda initiate?

Quizzical

Scot said:

What you are saying would work if we had an infallible method of being sure a game is "in such a state that you want to play it now". We don't and the studios an indies are relying on that. I don't want to make this sound like some industry wide conspiracy, it is simply that if you have enough bad actors that new bad practice becomes the norm.

That has nothing to do with early access.  Even 30 years ago when games could not be updated, there were plenty of games that launched in a terrible state.

cameltosis

Quizzical said:

olepi said:

Scot said:

Where do you draw the line? I won't play an early access, never pre-order, and these days I nearly never buy a game until after the reviews and a couple of months after what passes for "launch". That's my minimum now, gaming has been turned into a fashion experience where you need to play the latest big thing and that has helped allow games to launch in a woeful state.

That has been my position for years now. Never pay for alpha or beta, never pre-order, never buy loot boxes, never buy P2W items, never buy an MMO until it's been out for a year with good reviews, never pay for kickstarters.

It's getting so bad now that people will pay for concept art, and then be mad if there is no game behind it.

Never pay for a game unless:

1)  it's in such a state that you want to play it now, and
2)  you can play it promptly after paying for it.

Whether that state is called alpha, beta, or release is irrelevant.  There's nothing wrong with paying for a beta or early access if the above conditions are satisfied.  There's plenty wrong with paying for an official launch where they aren't.

This is pretty much the rules I live by.

I am still against the early access / alpha / beta labeling (especially as the games industry has corrupted the meaning of these words compared to the rest of the software world), but I've been buying more and more of these games.

but, regardless of label, I always do a lot of research to make sure the game is worth playing. For early access / beta games, I often rely on word-of-mouth recommendations from friends. If someone else has already taken that risk, I may as well benefit from it too!

For the world of MMORPGs, the situation is very different.

Not only do you need to consider the game itself, you need to consider the community. Every game has a critical mass of players it needs to achieve in order to be viable. This used to be guaranteed on launch day.

Launch day no longer exists.

Instead, that day has been spread out over months or years of alphas, betas and early access. The players who most want to play that game.....have already played it to death, got bored and quit before launch day.

So, if an MMORPG has any sort of early access, alpha / beta access, lasting more than 2 weeks before official launch....then it's going to suck. The development process will have already destroyed the chances at a good community.

OG_Solareus

hehe, I drew my line already and people gave me gripe ; F2P or DIE !

Brainy

Its not so simple to just tell people to wait.

The problem with waiting is the game becomes stale for most people.

Get in early has benefits like:

Discovery

Exploration

Lots of people

Groups dont already know everything

Game is more difficult
Easier to create a top guild
Server Firsts
More competitive

When you wait, every group you are in already knows the entire encounter. Also games make the game EZ mode 1-2 years after release.  The game is completely a different newbiefied game.

If you get in late to a game all you get is spoilers.  Even if you ignore the internet, groups will spoil it because they all know everything, and people in chat spoiling everything.  All the alts have been there done that.  Game is just more boring.

Getting in Late is not the answer for most people.

Gorwe

Scot said:

This Year In Gaming...you will be paying more for a less polished game. You may well be paying for a game that has not actually launched. But don't worry they will say they are sorry and that it will get fixed, that's all the matters right?!

Just how long is this piece of string going to be stretched out, are gamers that gullible that we will accept less and less polish? Will Early Access get replaced by pre-Early Access? We are like diners that eat anything put in front of us even if it is too raw, it is time to go on a healthy diet and only eat properly cooked and prepared food.

Where do you draw the line? I won't play an early access, never pre-order, and these days I nearly never buy a game until after the reviews and a couple of months after what passes for "launch". That's my minimum now, gaming has been turned into a fashion experience where you need to play the latest big thing and that has helped allow games to launch in a woeful state.

But I am not going to eat just about anything. The general populace will and that is the problem. I am not going to pre-order, am not going to play day 1 or bother with inflated price games that do not justify that inflation(Redfall?). Because it's really not that dramatic.

I do not have to be a glutton and consume everything in my path.

Scot

finefluff said:

The good thing about steam is that you can refund within 2 hours of play time.

But it’s interesting comparing the proportion of broken games that get released vs proportion of broken physical goods that get put up for sale at a retailer. Seems like the former is much higher. Something about software makes it so, or at least make it more acceptable than broken goods.

I wonder if there was a fewer proportion of broken pc games releasing in the past than today. I remember buying Fallout 3 at release for PC. I bought the physical disc but there was an issue with the DRM making it unplayable and I had to download a patch for my brand new game.

One thing I can say though is that console games always release in a better state than PC. At least they did in the past.

It has been a long journey to an unpolished normality for gaming, it started with the internet and studios realising the game did not have to be near perfect at launch and has most recently been pushed further by the introduction of early access and the movement of such titles onto game passes. Most games are still launched in a decent (used to be near perfect, then good, now just decent) state; but it won't end here, gaming is still moving in the wrong direction.

Quizzical said:

That has nothing to do with early access.  Even 30 years ago when games could not be updated, there were plenty of games that launched in a terrible state.

In what proportion to all releases? I really did not see that at all and I started gaming in the early 80's much like yourself I am sure.

Gorwe said:

But I am not going to eat just about anything. The general populace will and that is the problem. I am not going to pre-order, am not going to play day 1 or bother with inflated price games that do not justify that inflation(Redfall?). Because it's really not that dramatic.

I do not have to be a glutton and consume everything in my path.

That's the right attitude to take, but the problem is not enough players will do that, increasingly we are going to see less games launching in a polished state. We will find it harder and harder to work out when it is right to buy a game. I am just extrapolating out from what has happened so far, what you and I are doing is already getting harder and harder to do.

Brainy

Scot said:

Quizzical said:

That has nothing to do with early access.  Even 30 years ago when games could not be updated, there were plenty of games that launched in a terrible state.

In what proportion to all releases? I really did not see that at all and I started gaming in the early 80's much like yourself I am sure.

Yeah I agree, games used to be better than the previous genre of games.  Now the games are actually worse than the ones before it.  Games are going backwards.  Its a race to the bottom.

Kyleran

Brainy said:

Its not so simple to just tell people to wait.

The problem with waiting is the game becomes stale for most people.

Get in early has benefits like:

Discovery

Exploration

Lots of people

Groups dont already know everything

Game is more difficult
Easier to create a top guild
Server Firsts
More competitive

When you wait, every group you are in already knows the entire encounter. Also games make the game EZ mode 1-2 years after release.  The game is completely a different newbiefied game.

If you get in late to a game all you get is spoilers.  Even if you ignore the internet, groups will spoil it because they all know everything, and people in chat spoiling everything.  All the alts have been there done that.  Game is just more boring.

Getting in Late is not the answer for most people.

I would put forth that while your points are valid for some (most?) games they aren't true for all games.

I stated EVE Online 3 years post release and played for 10 yrs.  QOL improvements were added, but the gameplay never got any easier.

I imagine were I to go back today, over 6 years later it would still be the same situation.

But for the typical theme park, absolutely true, so maybe the solution is to stop supporting such since they're really pretty crap experiences right?

olepi

Brainy said:

Its not so simple to just tell people to wait.

The problem with waiting is the game becomes stale for most people.

Get in early has benefits like:

Discovery

Exploration

Lots of people

Groups dont already know everything

Game is more difficult
Easier to create a top guild
Server Firsts
More competitive

When you wait, every group you are in already knows the entire encounter. Also games make the game EZ mode 1-2 years after release.  The game is completely a different newbiefied game.

If you get in late to a game all you get is spoilers.  Even if you ignore the internet, groups will spoil it because they all know everything, and people in chat spoiling everything.  All the alts have been there done that.  Game is just more boring.

Getting in Late is not the answer for most people.

This kind of highlights what is wrong with gaming, at least MMORPG's, these days. People want to rush to do everything, get it done, and then move to the next game. Any new players after the first rush will be left behind.

So the game developers want to cash in on that first rush, and push their game out long before it is ready. They know that if they take too long, the rush will be over.

For MMORPG's, I usually wait a year or more after release, to let the game finish baking and get some of the bugs fixed. That doesn't work as well when everybody is a content locust and they rush through the game as soon as possible. After a year has gone by, the game is boring.

Now with the "soft" releases that are happening, the initial rush is over long before the game is actually finished. Alpha, beta, and release mean nothing anymore; developers try to cash in on that initial rush as soon as something "wiggles".

Groqstrong

I cant say that statement has been true for me. Ive been really lucky at dodging games that have been shit this year so far each game purchase has been a complete package. 

In no particular order:

Hogwarts Legacy - Contender for GOTY for me $59.99

EverSpace 2:  Great game if you want that Wing Commander/Privateer vibe.
$49.99

Witcher 3 Next Gen Update  -  Free if you own the original

Games im planning on purchasing this year.

Diablo 4 - from what i played in the beta, it appears to be a complete package.
$69.99

Throne and Liberty  - Wait and see
Dont care what it will cost this game is a trip down memory lane.

All these games have and probably will provide me with more value/entertainment then what I paid for them.

Gorwe

Scot said:

finefluff said:

The good thing about steam is that you can refund within 2 hours of play time.

But it’s interesting comparing the proportion of broken games that get released vs proportion of broken physical goods that get put up for sale at a retailer. Seems like the former is much higher. Something about software makes it so, or at least make it more acceptable than broken goods.

I wonder if there was a fewer proportion of broken pc games releasing in the past than today. I remember buying Fallout 3 at release for PC. I bought the physical disc but there was an issue with the DRM making it unplayable and I had to download a patch for my brand new game.

One thing I can say though is that console games always release in a better state than PC. At least they did in the past.

It has been a long journey to an unpolished normality for gaming, it started with the internet and studios realising the game did not have to be near perfect at launch and has most recently been pushed further by the introduction of early access and the movement of such titles onto game passes. Most games are still launched in a decent (used to be near perfect, then good, now just decent) state; but it won't end here, gaming is still moving in the wrong direction.

Quizzical said:

That has nothing to do with early access.  Even 30 years ago when games could not be updated, there were plenty of games that launched in a terrible state.

In what proportion to all releases? I really did not see that at all and I started gaming in the early 80's much like yourself I am sure.

Gorwe said:

But I am not going to eat just about anything. The general populace will and that is the problem. I am not going to pre-order, am not going to play day 1 or bother with inflated price games that do not justify that inflation(Redfall?). Because it's really not that dramatic.

I do not have to be a glutton and consume everything in my path.

That's the right attitude to take, but the problem is not enough players will do that, increasingly we are going to see less games launching in a polished state. We will find it harder and harder to work out when it is right to buy a game. I am just extrapolating out from what has happened so far, what you and I are doing is already getting harder and harder to do.

I gave up on trying to influence the greater whole a long time ago. Even if I could, why should I? I'll rather maximize my happiness and that of my close ones. Everything else is a complete bonus.

No point in being cruel, but self-centered? I don't see anything bad in that. And if I purchase an inferior product at a higher price, who am I helping anyhow? CEOs lol. I don't want to give them even a cent. And at what cost? Personal enjoyment? YIKES! No.

Not on my watch, you won't.

nate1980

I wait until a game goes on sale for under $20 on Steam and then I buy it. I've never bought an early access game and never plan to. I also pay attention to the reviews before I finally purchase the game. I read the non-spoilery reviews to see if there's any game breaking features and or bugs that'll have me quitting before the day is out. 

Since my game time is limited these days, I only buy high quality games and since my Steam library is long, I only buy them cheap.

Scot

nate1980 said:

I wait until a game goes on sale for under $20 on Steam and then I buy it. I've never bought an early access game and never plan to. I also pay attention to the reviews before I finally purchase the game. I read the non-spoilery reviews to see if there's any game breaking features and or bugs that'll have me quitting before the day is out. 

Since my game time is limited these days, I only buy high quality games and since my Steam library is long, I only buy them cheap.

The negative Steam reviews and under 75 Metacritic reviews are very helpful. This is where you find the port for PC is awkward or you can't change keyboard input or the voice acting is irritating. We all have pet hates and those are three of mine that make me think twice before buying.

Brainy

Kyleran said:

Brainy said:

Its not so simple to just tell people to wait.

The problem with waiting is the game becomes stale for most people.

Get in early has benefits like:

Discovery

Exploration

Lots of people

Groups dont already know everything

Game is more difficult
Easier to create a top guild
Server Firsts
More competitive

When you wait, every group you are in already knows the entire encounter. Also games make the game EZ mode 1-2 years after release.  The game is completely a different newbiefied game.

If you get in late to a game all you get is spoilers.  Even if you ignore the internet, groups will spoil it because they all know everything, and people in chat spoiling everything.  All the alts have been there done that.  Game is just more boring.

Getting in Late is not the answer for most people.

I would put forth that while your points are valid for some (most?) games they aren't true for all games.

I stated EVE Online 3 years post release and played for 10 yrs.  QOL improvements were added, but the gameplay never got any easier.

I imagine were I to go back today, over 6 years later it would still be the same situation.

But for the typical theme park, absolutely true, so maybe the solution is to stop supporting such since they're really pretty crap experiences right?

Yeah you are right about difficulty in PVP games, I was coming from a PVE angle in my post.

However PVP also has problems with needing to get in early.
Its hard to be high end competitive in PVP if you are late to the game.  In some PVP games like Wurm it could take you a decade to catch up unless you purchase a character.

I never played EVE but doesnt it also have a time reward mechanic?  Where a new person is essentially always behind a person that started 15 years ago, without the ability to fully catch up?  One reason I never got into EVE is I remember a friend telling me you basically had to train for a year or something to be high end competitive.  It could have even been worse, like train for a year before you can actually spec the way you want.

I am not going to wait a year, or a decade to be end game competitive.  So getting in early is the only way for PVP, at least in MMO's.  Sometimes games will announce a fresh start server, but even in that case people with 10 years of knowledge and tricks just catapult to the top.

This is a big reason PVPers jump really early into games.

Brainy

olepi said:

Brainy said:

Its not so simple to just tell people to wait.

The problem with waiting is the game becomes stale for most people.

Get in early has benefits like:

Discovery

Exploration

Lots of people

Groups dont already know everything

Game is more difficult
Easier to create a top guild
Server Firsts
More competitive

When you wait, every group you are in already knows the entire encounter. Also games make the game EZ mode 1-2 years after release.  The game is completely a different newbiefied game.

If you get in late to a game all you get is spoilers.  Even if you ignore the internet, groups will spoil it because they all know everything, and people in chat spoiling everything.  All the alts have been there done that.  Game is just more boring.

Getting in Late is not the answer for most people.

This kind of highlights what is wrong with gaming, at least MMORPG's, these days. People want to rush to do everything, get it done, and then move to the next game. Any new players after the first rush will be left behind.

So the game developers want to cash in on that first rush, and push their game out long before it is ready. They know that if they take too long, the rush will be over.

For MMORPG's, I usually wait a year or more after release, to let the game finish baking and get some of the bugs fixed. That doesn't work as well when everybody is a content locust and they rush through the game as soon as possible. After a year has gone by, the game is boring.

Now with the "soft" releases that are happening, the initial rush is over long before the game is actually finished. Alpha, beta, and release mean nothing anymore; developers try to cash in on that initial rush as soon as something "wiggles".

I am not disagreeing with you about the merits.  I was just explaining why many people rush into games.  

I personally wish devs would go back to paid testers, and wait until release before opening the game to the public.  I also wish they would put out a quality product on the release date versus releasing the game in alpha.

However I dont see that happening, just like I dont see people stopping to rush into a game they think they will like for all the reasons I stated.

For me, waiting a year or 2 to play, is essentially saying I am going to skip the game.  I can sometimes get into a solo game years after a release, but definitely not an MMORPG.

nate1980

The last MMO I played was WOW at Dragonflight release. I was behind the leveling curve by 2-3 days and when I grouped for the dungeons as I got their quests, I found that we were all clueless to the dungeon and mechanics. As always, it was fun figuring it all out. 

I avoid YouTube spoilers, reviews, and all internet guides until I've had a crack at solving the dungeons and character builds myself. 

I know that some players jump into Beta's and etc, but I've always found that there's plenty of other clueless players to play with at expansion or game releases. Don't feel pressured to play a game before it's ready due to FOMO.