Dear game devs... the BS has to stop... ok?

A few other posts have touched on this but software is very complex these days. The original post talks about "remember when", but I also remember the days when games could be created by a few developers, such was their simplicity. It's very easy to test much of the game then, but today's games are so complex, as is most software, it's virtually impossible to test all cases without taking years to do so.
Nobody wants a broken game for sure, but companies need to try to reach the ever increasing expectation of games (complexity) while not taking forever to get it to market which leads to the approach of hopefully fixing the most severe issues before release, and then releasing it to the public to await their feedback.
IMO there's nothing wrong with the above approach unless we want much more expensive games (to pay for massive testing) or a return to the days of very basic games (no thanks) :).

No doubt many of those complaining would stand against having diagnostic/debug information being automatically sent to the companies about our usage statistics . THat actually would probably help, as would a customer feedback form for us to feed back any issues we find.

If you look at many software development projects, a very large amount of £ is spent on testing but bugs are still unavoidable even in very expensive products - some will always get through and many will never actually be found.

Testers who work for gaming companies are actually low paid. Often they hired because of their passion for gaming and do it for low rates. Paying more may or may not help (better quality testers) but that would also increase costs.
 
Last edited:
I saw the thread title and thought "This will be funny with someone moaning about pointless things". I came into the thread and found I agreed with everything the OP says. I don't game much these days but my kids do and the state f some games is shocking.

I do appreciate that games are far more complex now. But if we compare the ganes industry to the film industry (qhich is also incresingly comples and films expensive to make), we see that the film industry doesn't make just half a film and charge for the rest. It doesn't release a second verson of the fim because the first was poor (admittedly we do et a few directors cuts years later) and it doesn't charge for watching an eraly release version of the film which is only a quarter finished.
 
Some companies extract the urine from their fan base

Price of individual products: £221.27
15%
Bundle discount:
£187.99
Your cost:
£33.28
Here's what you save by buying this bundle
Buy Crusader Kings II: Collection BUNDLE (?)
-15%
Your Price:
£187.99

bargain!!!
theres a train one thats even worse but I guess that a niche with a hardcore small following
 
I think Video Games with Microtransactions should no longer come under the term "video game" because it is no longer a game and more of a mind****, if you were to find a cheat to get some of this gear they want you to pay for they would patch it and take you to court.
 
I only buy games in steam sales, mostly 1-2 behind the curve or indie games. Unlocks, drop boxes etc no thank you.
I still think pinnacle of gaming for me was quake 3, bf2. The last good game I paid full price for was xcom but only because I got civ v free!
 
I feel sorry for kids today who don't know how it used to be, I tell my son he's a fool to be spending his money on FIFA, cod points or skins.

But he just doesn't get it
 
IDEA: I think free games with micro-transactions should separate their player-bases into free-only gamers and pay-gamers, so those that want to take the route of pay-to-the-top will only ever play against like minded players and that should keep the experience fair all round. Sound good?
 
I think around the PS2/XBOX/GC era was the last point at which gaming was still fair to the consumer.

One example is I used to love football games(PES was a great couch multiplayer experience), but I can't stand games like FIFA now which is more of a card collecting game than it is a football game these days. The single player modes barely even work properly (AI was so basic all it did was play keep ball in the last one I actually bought).
 
I feel sorry for kids today who don't know how it used to be, I tell my son he's a fool to be spending his money on FIFA, cod points or skins.

But he just doesn't get it

Things change over time and people often have a hard time adapting to that change. I'm sure there was a generation before you that couldn't understand playing video games for fun. People often under estimate how powerful nostalgia is, especially with activities done as a child. You often find going back to these games not as enjoyable as they were when you were a child/teen.
 
Microtransactions are fine when the game is free to play (to a point), as the companies involved have to make back their money from somewhere. However, no game which is a full-priced triple A game should have microtransactions, or if they do they should not affect gameplay or give any one any advantages.

DLC and Expansions are okay in my eyes, but not if their content is just held off content from the original release.
 
It’s never enough, it will never be enough. They don’t just want to make more money, or tons of money, they want to make all the money. They are willing to do whatever it takes and if fact, they are legally obligated to do whatever it takes to increase shareholder profits.

Why do you think these companies do everything they can do avoid disclosing their revenue, sales figures, odds of their loot crates etc? Think about it. Sure, every once in a while they’ll “leak” their supposed development or marketing costs. These companies will literally go to court or go to war to keep all of that data hidden from customers. Like what Blizzard did when China tried to force them to disclose the odds on their loot crates. There’s a reason they are so secretive, if all of that information came out, gamers would lose their ******* minds.

The whole “games are too expensive to make these days” is propaganda, that people eat up. They hear these astronomical numbers like $100 Million and $265 Million, they can’t even comprehend that these companies gross more than 5x, 10x, even 18x (GTA5) what they spent to develop and market the game on game sales alone at $60..

Of course we know that games don’t only cost $60, with deluxe, silver, gold, collectors editions, DLC, expansions, in game currency, loot crates, skins, etc.. These companies are making insane, small-medium sized country GDP levels of money.

To put it into prospective, the global film box office revenue was $38 Billion in 2016. The overall revenue of the US Motion Picture/TV Production & Distribution Industry reached $64.43 Billion in 2015. The Global Video Game Industry revenues increased from $83.6 Billion in 2015, to $99.6 Billion in 2016 and are expected to jump to $107 Billion for 2017. A lot of the recent increase is due to mobile games, no doubt. The video game industry still dwarfs the motion picture industry.

Let me clarify that I'm aware that there are more costs than development & marketing, like the publishers cut but those two have the most affect on profit margin. If you believe that these companies have to do these things because “games still only cost $60”, you're falling for or promoting propaganda talking points thought up by the MBAs and Marketing executives of these multi Million/Billion dollar companies.

THESE COMPANIES ARE PLAYING US FOR FOOLS. We’re not even customers anymore we’re more like cattle, dairy cows or hosts for the tapeworm that AAA devs/publishers have become.

It’s not about how can they make a great game that everyone will want to buy and enjoy. It’s what can we do to extract every available dollar/Euro out of these marks with the least amount of effort.

That’s why a game like GTA 5, the devs broke their promise of single player DLC in favor of shark card ********. A game that has sold 80 million copies, grossing at minimum $4.5 Billion dollars from sales alone (if everyone just bought the $60 base game), decided that wasn’t enough.

It’s not even that they wouldn’t have made a ton of money on single player GTA 5 DLC, they would have made mountains of money on launch day alone. These companies aren’t satisfied with tons of money or even mountains of money, they want all the money.

Horizon Zero Dawn was substantially more ethical than the rest of these games, it had a production budget of $47 Million. A conservative estimation of its sales is around 3.51. Million Copies on just PS4. If everyone bought the $60 base game (I didn't, I bought the $70 Digital Limited Edition), that works out to $210,600,000. Subtract $47 Million, that is $163,600,000.

Fallout 4, generated $750Million in the first 24 hours following its release. A generous estimation of Fallout 4's production/marketing costs would be around $120M to $150M. Within 24 hours, Bethesda had already made 5x-6x that, in 24 hours.. Fallout 4 has sold an estimated 13.8M copies, again if every single person only bought the base $60 game, that's over $829Million.

That doesn't include the $120 Pip Boy Edition, $90 Digital Deluxe Edition, $80 Gold Edition, the $30 Season Pass, or the individual DLC. All this reusing an engine they already had.

Battlefield 1 cost roughly $100M to develop. Sales figures (Which companies so everything to hide) were anywhere from 7.19 million to 16.5 million the first year. That doesn't include DLC or micro transactions, just units sold. Conservatively, at $60 for the base game, that's $431.4 Million to $954Million Dollars.

Rockstar reportedly spent $265 Million to develop and market GTA 5. As of today, they have sold over 80 Million copies of the game. Once again, at $60 (that the game still costs in 2017), that is $4.8 BILLION. ($4,800,000,000).

That's excluding the $76 "Great White Shark Card Bundle" and the $135 "Meglodon Shark Card Bundle". Or the $3, $5, $10, $20, $50 and $100 Shark Cash Card packs.

Batman Arkham Knight sold an estimated 5.95Million copies globally. Again, if every one of these people bought just the $60 base game, no DLC, Season Passes or Upgraded Editions, that comes out to a grand total of $354.6Million. Do you really expect anyone to believe that most of that wasn’t profit?

These are conservative sales estimates, again excluding all massive amount of extra money these companies received from DLC, Editions, Season Passes and various micro transactions.

Please ******* spare me the "Well games still cost $60" ********. Especially since they don't, every single game has a stripped $60 base edition and at least a $80 and $100 "special editions" (aka, the real game).

We all know why companies are axing single player games in favour of multiplayer. Because multiplayer shooters take exponentially less effort/time to develop, are infinitely easier to monetize, players are willing to accept a lot more of these anti consumer practices in multiplayer games, therefore they make more money. I’m not telling anyone anything they don’t already know. There have been how many CODs, COD knock offs and the like?

Stop buying into this ****, these defenses that you parrot were created by MBA's and Marketing snakes sitting in a board room. None of these companies need to do these things, they do them because they can and they exist to suck as much money as possible out of our wallets.
 
Last edited:
Don't like something, don't buy it simple. However there is nothing you can do when there is a large chuck of people who are ok with it and spending their money.
I do find the gaming community one of the most annoying. They whine and cry about things ruining gaming etc then 2 days later have caved in and bought the latest game as they must have it now. There is the classic image of the boycott MW2 steam group where a few days after release 75% of them are playing it. I did see that Battlefront 2 sales were down on the original so perhaps people have finally woke up about what they actually have to do.
 

And what about the games that don't perform well commercially, like Wolfenstein 2, or Prey, or Spec Ops: The Line, or any number of other single-player focused games that get positive reviews but don't meet sales expectations? The additional revenue received from the games you're making examples out of above are the ones that make projects like the ones I've mentioned viable, because the costs can be offset against the profit-makers.

I'm also not sure why you're quoting the prices you're paying in $ if you're in the UK. Is this a copy-paste from somewhere else?
 
CTRL-Ving a wall of text from the cesspit of the internet isn't really how discussion forums work.

It was a reply from a guy on Mack's from Worth A Buy video regarding the same subject. I just agreed with most of what was said so I posted it here because it seemed relevant for the same situation. If you have an issue with that then It's not my problem.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom