| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I been watching this, and it makes good points.
Completely agree with him. Pre-order content and day one DLC are horrible trash and the practice needs to end.
I pre-order things under a few specific circumstances.
1.) When I want to get it for the Xbox and it's one of those games I know I'll play (like the Halo franchise games). Why? Because as TB pointed out, you can cancel that pre-order if the reviews say it sucks, and take your money elsewhere.
2.) When it's a game I'm 90% certain will be great (due to a large amount of pre-release coverage and actual hands-on play sessions, like Dishonored got) AND it comes with TF2 items. Why? Because I can turn around and sell the Genuine Whatchamacallit for around $20-$30 in a couple of weeks and recoup the majority of what I spent.
3.) The game both comes with TF2 Genuines AND is a fairly cheap game, like Trine 2. $15 game. Sold the Genuines a few months later for almost $50 (well more accurately I traded those for a low-mid tier Unusual Hat and then traded the hat for cash).
Other than that, yeah, it's a pretty bad deal all around for the most part.
Though it's interesting, Jesse Schell has been making that speech since 2007 or so (and dedicated a good chunk of the textbook he wrote to the subject) and gamers still haven't caught on that they're being herded, essentially.
Though I guess the fact that I just admitted I walk into it anyway knowing full well what's going on doesn't look very good.
If I think I might preorder a game I am going to use GameStop. That way I can wait till the actual reviews get out and see if I want it.
Top of my wait list right now:
Final Fantasy XIV
While I loved FF XI I am a little worried about this one.
Well, I do sometimes preorder games.
Occasionally, a game will show up on amazon.uk for pre-ordering, for the english version of the game (which I prefer to the translations), at a price that is considerably lower than what to expect for the german version.
In these cases, if I am sure I'd buy the game anyway, I see no reason not to pre-order.
I pre-order all the time, and I'm not really convinced that it's The Devil. Mostly I pre-order games I've really been looking forward to, or games I know I'd snatch up as soon as they are out anyway.
For me it's really more like a reminder, because I'm pretty absent minded and just might miss the release date, otherwise. And I hate when that happens. Besides, if you know you'll get it on release anyway, why would you not pre-order?
I've learned the hard way that pre-purchases are horrible, horrible ideas. Impulse buying coupled with pre-order options are recipes for disaster.
I haven't pre-ordered a game since SW:TOR.
I haven't gotten a Collector's Edition since Age of Conan.
It just won't happen anymore. I've learned my lesson.
PFO doesn't count of course. I hope I don't regret that one as well.
I try not to. Sometimes, I'll buy a game a couple of days before release (I'm hoping I will get Bioshock Infinite on my birthday about 3 or 4 days before release.)
But yeah, I don't like it. I thought of the crazy idea of if I were to ever make a video game and advertise it, I would allow for pre-orders, but charge more for it than the game will be at release (so hopefully people will just wait until release to buy it.) I'd probably also have an option on the website allowing them to subscribe to developer blogs as well as when the game comes out. (It probably wouldn't work...)
The last time I pre-ordered a game was Pokemon Gold, because Nintendo Power distributed coupons for a discount if you reserved a copy in advance. I wasn't aware until now that it had become a common practice, but I do have to admit I'm not surprised.
I hate when preorder\collector's edition content is in game, but I see no problem with things like Guild Wars 2, where you got a gargantuan humanoid char mini. I do wonder if it will ever see use at my gaming table, but I look forward to that day. Also, I like art books and sound tracks, which are common features of collector's editions.
Day 1 DLC is a vile thing that needs to go away. If it is DLC day 1, why is it not in the game? I have less of a problem with preorder only DLC and incentives, but it is still bad.
I never buy AAA games preorder.
I made a rant about this recently, I think in the Fallout: New Vegas thread.
I don't pre-order games as a rule, nor do I buy them immediately upon release, precisely because I know, especially in the case of PC games, there ARE going to be bugs and it WILL be worth waiting for patches (not to mention mods, walkthroughs, etc.). Even if the bugs aren't game breaking, it's often worth it to get the kinks ironed out and make sure all the game content is properly implemented and working ((small and silly example: when I got Skyrim, I talked joyfully about my marrying Lydia. I got barraged with "But you can't do that, she's unmarriageable!" When in fact she was supposed to be, but a bug kept it from working properly until the 5th patch. I got the game several months after release which that patch already installed so I never hit the "problem" and actually played it the way it was intended. While again this is a very small example, this can happen with much larger content as well)).
The problem with pre-ordering is that if pre-order sales are good, the financial gurus of the game's publisher will assume the game is "good" because it earned them money, and will only allow the same development and QA testing time for the next game--sometimes in both cases meaning "not enough."
If enough gamers say, with their wallets as well as with their voices, "I am not buying this game until I am absolutely certain that it works," --and say there's a huge sales boost of a game after a patch is released--then maybe more proper development and QA testing time would be allotted to the game. And THEN it would become actually worth it to pre order or buy a game on release.
The problem beyond what is discussed in the video--people getting sucked in by pre-order bonuses which are often in the end fairly lame--is that there's some weird gamer peer pressure to be "first" -- to have it first, to be able to talk about it first, to beat the game first. Look at the message board threads that explode on a game's release, but then die out a few months later because it's no longer "new" (even though a lot of games can be played and replayed with great value for years and years and years, and may always be worth discussing). There's a sense that you'll be "left out" of the discussion, of the gamer community as a whole, if you wait too long to get a game--even if it ultimately it means your gameplay experience of said game will actually be much better than the idiots who bought it on release.
The only game I think I ever pre-ordered was Torchlight II, and it was indeed in part because of the "swag"--a free copy of Torchlight I got on the moment of pre-order, which I'd never had a chance to finish playing on another friend's machine. But I also knew it was a small developer/publisher and they would patch quickly and frequently (which they did) so it was worth the risk. I can't think of a triple A game I'd pre-order. And very very few I'd buy on release day--maybe close to release, but still after the first patch or so came out.
I've also backed a few Kickstarters, which is sort of a form of pre-ordering, but it's one that comes with backer input and the point that developers are using Kickstarters to bypass publishers, meaning they (hopefully) will QA test thoroughly before release, which is the whole thing I'd think gamers would want to aim for.
Here's the problem I have with that Quaker: If nobody buys it on day 1, how will they find the bugs?
Review sites and the like are a good resource, but their job is to generally hit the major bits (In the case of Skyrim, the main quest and Faction quests, along with a few sidequests) and tell if the game is FUN TO PLAY and up to par with recent tech advancements. They're not QA testers. They don't go around checking to see if every NPC is marry-able, or to find bugs like "The Oghma Infinium can give infinite level-ups if you do a specific series of actions", or anything like that. It's the PLAYERS that find these things a lot of the time, even when QA scoured the world looking for things. It doesn't help that some of these bugs only affect about half of players at best, or the bugs are not consistently reproducable (does anyone KNOW what caused the backwards-dragons?).
Open-world games are notoriously difficult to work the kinks out of. For all the good-natured ribbing Bethesda gets for their games being buggy (from myself included), every other open-world game from every other company I've seen either A.) Has bugs just the same or B.) Is a different sort of game (like Prototype) where the mechanics/graphics are simpler and less refined to make more room for more bug testing (not that Prototype is bad mind you, it's just a drastically different experience). And even THEN that game had some minor issues with it.
But all of that is getting off of the original point of, if nobody buys it...how will people know it's buggy?
I have only pre ordered twice in my life, and both times for my wife - assassins Creed 3 and grand theft auto 5.
Here's the problem I have with that Quaker: If nobody buys it on day 1, how will they find the bugs?
Review sites and the like are a good resource, but their job is to generally hit the major bits (In the case of Skyrim, the main quest and Faction quests, along with a few sidequests) and tell if the game is FUN TO PLAY and up to par with recent tech advancements. They're not QA testers. They don't go around checking to see if every NPC is marry-able, or to find bugs like "The Oghma Infinium can give infinite level-ups if you do a specific series of actions", or anything like that. It's the PLAYERS that find these things a lot of the time, even when QA scoured the world looking for things. It doesn't help that some of these bugs only affect about half of players at best, or the bugs are not consistently reproducable (does anyone KNOW what caused the backwards-dragons?).
Open-world games are notoriously difficult to work the kinks out of. For all the good-natured ribbing Bethesda gets for their games being buggy (from myself included), every other open-world game from every other company I've seen either A.) Has bugs just the same or B.) Is a different sort of game (like Prototype) where the mechanics/graphics are simpler and less refined to make more room for more bug testing (not that Prototype is bad mind you, it's just a drastically different experience). And even THEN that game had some minor issues with it.
But all of that is getting off of the original point of, if nobody buys it...how will people know it's buggy?
I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm guessing most games don't use more than a thousand testers. I'd be very surprised if it's even that high. While they're very good, they learn how to break games better than most and find common issues, with that small of a pool, you're going to find fewer bugs.
The AAA titles usually sell over a million these days. At even a couple hundred thousand copies, the number of hours being played is exponential compared to the testers. That gives a pretty good chance of finding most of the major bugs pretty quickly, even with just 100,000 sales. You've probably at least cubed your testing pool.
No one is suggesting that 0 people buy the game. We're suggesting that 80% of people just wait at least a week or two after release.
Completely agree with him. Pre-order content and day one DLC are horrible trash and the practice needs to end.
100% agreed here. Now if only more people would listen...
I pre-ordered Aliens Colonial Marines. I've learned a very valuable lesson.
...yeah, that's exactly what we don't want happening EVER AGAIN.
Explain?
Here's the problem I have with that Quaker: If nobody buys it on day 1, how will they find the bugs?
Review sites and the like are a good resource, but their job is to generally hit the major bits (In the case of Skyrim, the main quest and Faction quests, along with a few sidequests) and tell if the game is FUN TO PLAY and up to par with recent tech advancements. They're not QA testers. They don't go around checking to see if every NPC is marry-able, or to find bugs like "The Oghma Infinium can give infinite level-ups if you do a specific series of actions", or anything like that. It's the PLAYERS that find these things a lot of the time, even when QA scoured the world looking for things. It doesn't help that some of these bugs only affect about half of players at best, or the bugs are not consistently reproducable (does anyone KNOW what caused the backwards-dragons?).
Open-world games are notoriously difficult to work the kinks out of. For all the good-natured ribbing Bethesda gets for their games being buggy (from myself included), every other open-world game from every other company I've seen either A.) Has bugs just the same or B.) Is a different sort of game (like Prototype) where the mechanics/graphics are simpler and less refined to make more room for more bug testing (not that Prototype is bad mind you, it's just a drastically different experience). And even THEN that game had some minor issues with it.
But all of that is getting off of the original point of, if nobody buys it...how will people know it's buggy?
I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm guessing most games don't use more than a thousand testers. I'd be very surprised if it's even that high. While they're very good, they learn how to break games better than most and find common issues, with that small of a pool, you're going to find fewer bugs.
The AAA titles usually sell over a million these days. At even a couple hundred thousand copies, the number of hours being played is exponential compared...
Well said, Irontruth.
Not to mention, I find the idea that it is the consumer's job to find bugs absolutely hilarious. As if we pay $60 a pop for a game for the "opportunity" to find bugs, as if it's our duty to pay the publisher to do a job that they should have done in the first place, before the game comes out. It's this very attitude that needs to stop. We are NOT the publisher's bug testers, we are customers, and we deserve to be given the finished product we paid for.
When you go to a movie, Rynjin, do you expect to be asked to edit the film yourself, or fix the projector if it gets broken? When you go to a restaurant, do you expect to season your meal yourself that you paid someone else to cook for you? When you buy a book, do you copy edit the book and send it back to the publisher because they didn't bother to proofread it? All for free--and actually less the money you paid for the product? Why should games work differently?
Finding bugs is the publisher's responsibility and the publisher's problem, and I am damn tired of them making it ours because they are too cheap and too lazy to put proper effort into QA testing. Especially AAA games. If a game earns a few million dollars, they can afford to spend more money to hire a larger testing pool and an extra month on proper testing.
Yes, because of technological complexity (unlike say with some of the other examples above), there IS inevitably going to be stuff that isn't going to be found by the QA pool, but it should be largely small stuff. It should be "I can't marry Lydia," not "Every time I enter this plot-important area, the game crashes to desktop." And yes, for PCs, there are going to be unforeseen hardware/software conflicts, but those should be the only truly major issues, and they should be resolvable quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pre-ordered Aliens Colonial Marines. I've learned a very valuable lesson.
That is what happened to me, and what brought me to this video and same conclusions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Explain?
We were fed incredible videos with dynamic lighting, rain effects, and other special effects, as well as very realistic textures and appearance, as well as visuals of what appeared as VERY intelligent AIs. What we got in the end was something nothing like that, even in PC form. So.. we got burned, betrayed, and maybe even some false advertising. The practice of no reviews till the game is actually out is the culprit here too.
I do pre-order, but very rarely. Only when I'm quite certain I'll really like the game, and after I've done a fair amount of research.
Recent pre-orders:
- Ni No Kuni (Wizard's Edition) - to get the nifty book and other doodads... and I'm desperate for "real" JRPGs this generation...
- Mass Effect 3 (Special Edition) - to finish the trilogy and get the SE along with my SEs of ME1 and ME2.
And... uh... that's it.
Not to mention, I find the idea that it is the consumer's job to find bugs absolutely hilarious. As if we pay $60 a pop for a game for the "opportunity" to find bugs, as if it's our duty to pay the publisher to do a job that they should have done in the first place, before the game comes out. It's this very attitude that needs to stop. We are NOT the publisher's bug testers, we are customers, and we deserve to be given the finished product we paid for.
...Which is not what I said.
What I said is: If nobody buys the game, how will anyone know it's buggy? Period. If nobody's played it but the reviewers (who essentially just run from point A to point B to point C), who is going to find these minor bugs? Sure, if you give the QA testers an extra year or so after the game is completed (and the company doesn't go under in the process) they could find most things, but other than that you NEED that multitude of people to find these little things in open world games like that.
When you go to a movie, Rynjin, do you expect to be asked to edit the film yourself, or fix the projector if it gets broken? When you go to a restaurant, do you expect to season your meal yourself that you paid someone else to cook for you? When you buy a book, do you copy edit the book and send it back to the publisher because they didn't bother to proofread it? All for free--and actually less the money you paid for the product? Why should games work differently?
Which is again not nearly the same thing.
First off, you're not fixing these bugs (usually), you're FINDING them so the developer can fix them.
Secondly, you may notice the difference between a movie, a meal, and a book. With those things, everyone has the same experience. They see/taste everything there is to see/taste in that one viewing/tasting. When you do a preview screening of a movie, that's it. They've seen the whole movie, the finished product in its entirety, and can make a judgement based off that.
A game (especially an open world game) is not the same. You get a few hundred to a thousand people (not all at once) in there for about 4-6 hours and they play the game. Not one of them is going to see everything, even if you start each "batch" in another part of the game to try and get an overview of every area of the game. And that usually means COLLECTIVELY they won't see everything. If Player #345-376's games work perfectly and they tries to marry Lydia and succeed, that indicates that bit's working properly, even if Player #377-394's games don't work perfectly but they DON'T try to marry Lydia.
Finding bugs is the publisher's responsibility and the publisher's problem, and I am damn tired of them making it ours because they are too cheap and too lazy to put proper effort into QA testing. Especially AAA games. If a game earns a few million dollars, they can afford to spend more money to hire a larger testing pool and an extra month on proper testing.
But the game won't have earned a few million dollars until the game comes out unless people pre-order (which you want to stop, yes?). After the game is released, why should they pay money when there's a sea of unpaid playtesters that will have done the job more thoroughly than any amount of playtesters they could have hired in the meantime.
Yes, because of technological complexity (unlike say with some of the other examples above), there IS inevitably going to be stuff that isn't going to be found by the QA pool, but it should be largely small stuff. It should be "I can't marry Lydia," not "Every time I enter this plot-important area, the game crashes to desktop." And yes, for PCs, there are going to be unforeseen hardware/software conflicts, but those should be the only truly major issues, and they should be resolvable quickly.
And many of them ARE resolved quickly. I've never had an issue with "Every time I enter this plot-important area, the game crashes to desktop." and neither has anyone I know, or anyone I've spoken to on the Steam forums for Skyrim. Almost all of the bugs fell/fall into three camps: Minor quest bugs (10% of people can't complete X quest on 1% of their saves because something loaded wrong on that save), Exploits (Infinite leveling from the Oghma Infinium because of the way bookshelves work, unlimited money from a skeleton that always has a copy of a conjuration spellbook no matter how many times you loot him, etc.), and Minor Wonky S&%+ (Backwards dragons, Giants tossing you into the stratosphere, torches not lighting up properly, and so on). Which, frankly, you're ALWAYS gonna get in a game.
On the PS3, Skyrim becomes unplayable if you play it too long. After a few hours the game starts chugging as the file size for the session becomes bigger and bigger, causing the game to lag to unplayability. It's been 'fixed'. The problem hasn't gone away, the file size increase just reduces game performance at a lower rate.
Hm. I bought the 360 so I wouldn't know about that. I've played it on 360 and PC and never had that issue, so it must be something weird with the PS3 only.
About the Valve part...that's an insincere apology. Gaben's gone on record saying the reason he didn't update the PS3 version (the Xbox version of TF2 at least was updated a few times, notably to drop the Demoman's Grenade Launcher clip size from 6 to 4 and fix some known issues with crashes unique to consoles) was because he hated Sony, full stop.
He's since made up with them and transferred that enmity over to Microsoft, but still hasn't updated the PS3 version of the Orange Box.
BurtonJ has, on more than one occasion laughed and confirmed this as truth over on the TF2 forums as well.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if Bethesda has some kind of beef with them too, since PS3's been getting the shaft from them for Skyrim since day one, with the DLC being released LOOOONG after everyone else gets it and them taking forever to do patches for PS3 too.
|
I've never preordered for game content, but I do preorder for cool accessories, like Fallout lunch boxes and bobble heads, or the Spartan team display from Halo Reach, and I'm awaiting the Colonial Marines set (it hasn't arrived yet at my APO); and I'm anxious for the Bioshock goodies--the accesorized games are usually 30-40% off at Amazon. Other games are usually bought at least a couple months after release, because my PX puts them on sale. I just picked up Halo 4 for $35 yesterday. But if I really want a game, like MoH or Crysis 3 (which I bought last week), I pick it up at my local PX.