In the PC gaming market of today, developers and publishers
are under more and more pressure to not only deliver great games, but deliver
them as quickly as they can. But when speed of development comes at the price
of quality and polish, is it fair to charge players for the game initially with
the promise that the game will be completed (through post-release updates) down
the road?
One of the really nice things about today’s internet-driven
world is that, even after a game is released to the public, it still isn’t
technically “finished.” New innovations such as post-release patches, updates,
expansion packs, and DLC help add longevity to many games long after their
respective release dates. Post-release support can also help solve technical
issues such as bugs and glitches that weren’t found during the game’s testing
phase. However, this same innovation can also lead developers to sometimes cut
corners or delay promised features under the justification that they’ll just
add them after the game goes live.
Now, this isn’t to say game developers have gotten lazy or
sloppy, there’s a whole myriad of reasons why a game could be released in the
less-than-complete manner that was originally promised. But is paying
full-price for an incomplete product something that game publishers can
continue asking gamers to do? In essence, players are paying for the promise
that the game they’re buying will one day in the near future be the complete
product the developer advertised; a promise the developer has no obligation to
keep since they already have the player’s money.
Again I don’t mean to paint game developers and publishers
as money-swindling crooks, many developers who were forced to release
unfinished games often fulfill their promises to support the game with
post-release updates and sometimes even go above and beyond their promises.
When Spiral Games Studios’ Orion: Dino Beatdown was released to the public last year, it was
far from the amazing co-op action/adventure that the studio promised it would
be. Rather than chock it up to a loss, Spiral Games took all the criticism
garnered from Orion’s disastrous
launch to heart, completely retooled and revamped the game’s format and
features, and re-released it as Orion:
Dino Horde. The game’s rebirth has been met with near universal positive
reception and also includes features that weren’t even in the original design
concept of Dino Beatdown. Even
better, as a gesture of good faith, Spiral Games gave everyone who purchased Dino Beatdown free upgrades to Dino Horde.
Despite the redemption story of Orion: Dino Horde, I’m hoping the trend of charging gamers
full-price for half-baked games and flimsy promises doesn’t become more
prevalent than it already has. Take, for example, Dark Vale Games’ recent
release Forge; a fun yet flawed
PvP-focused medieval/fantasy brawler. Despite being advertised as a game that
contains “the best aspects of MMO and FPS class-based combat”, as of this
writing Forge has roughly five
different playable classes, a handful of different maps and game modes, and, as
always, the ever-present promise of “more to come.”
Other examples such as EA’s disastrous SimCity reboot, the spectacular train wreck that was Gearbox’s Aliens: Colonial Marines, even the
promised PvP features of Blizzard’s Diablo
III prove that even major developers and publishers aren’t above using the “promise
now, deliver later” formula. If game companies expect gamers to keep shelling
out $40, $50, even $60 for their products, they have to start doing a better
job of making sure what we’re paying for is a complete product; not just an
unfinished game and a string of promises.
Follow me on Twitter at @NateHohl and be sure to check out my other work here at "Inner Thoughts of a Quiet Gamer" and over at VGU.TV.
No comments:
Post a Comment