Support NeoGAF

[PeakPointMatrix]

Who talks about fun?

We are talking about technical broken and unfinished games.



I can't change the gaming industry. I can only buy the games I like.

If companies are exploiting high skilled people who could find jobs everywhere else and they are okay with it because making games is their life dream then I don't really care anymore.

Why are you saying this like it's the easiest thing in the world? Sure, people with highly specialized skill sets can just quit and find work at McDonalds I guess? Do you think it's so easy that these veterans in specific fields can just jump ship to find equivalent paying jobs in another industry with their specific skill set? Where on earth have you gotten this impression? Which industry exactly is a Character TD supposed jump to with his skills? A Gameplay Scriptor? A matte painter? Gaming and animation(which btw, suffers from the exact same issues outside of union shops) are the only places to go. And even the jump from one to the other is difficult, that's not to mention the culture shock between TV and film alone.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Developers and publisher are a team, so if that teams fails to provide a technical playable game then they get both shit for it. It's not that publishers with history of providing shitty games like EA or Ubisoft don't get shit here but at the same time there are games where developers fucked it up - see MGS5 and Kojima.

Devs can fuck up. But it's not an equal partnership by any means, and devs usually don't have much room to negotiate if the publisher isn't flexible. And weren't most of the things people hated about MGS likely stuff from Konami's side? Konami is hardly considered a quality publisher nowadays.

 

[Faenix1]

I stopped reading at the part where it tried to justify day 1 DLC.

If I'm paying $74.99 CAD for a game I expect all the content. Microtransaction DLC doesn't bug me, but when you get story crap - like that ashes DLC for Mass Effect 3 - the day you get the game? yeah, screw that.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

They aren't missed. And they aren't saying finding bugs is hard. They're saying FIXING them is. Debugging can be incredibly difficult, and even if you fix the bug, you might create another, or even several others. And if you have to ship a product by the deadline, and you know you don't have enough time to fix every bug, you prioritize. And developers aren't choosing their own deadlines

Except the article IS arguing that things like those somehow slip by, not that they couldn't fix them in time. I'd have accepted the latter explanation, but the former in a number of high profile blunders just screams of myopia. Case in point, the PC release of Arkham Knight was so bad they PULLED IT from digital storefronts entirely. If that's not a clear indication of how obviously half-baked the development was (or was allowed by the publisher) then I don't know what is.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I get your point but repairing a car is not a lineal straightforward process , not always you easily find wath causes a problem and can take days or even never solve them.

All works need skills and time even a guy working at McDonalds can have a hell of a work regularly. Developer o coders can have slave conditions and difficult works , but guess what : that is on most works or industries. So when I buy a game I ask for a good finished product the same way I ask for a good coffee when a go to a coffee house and I do not care if the developer or the guy that makes the coffee have a slavery job.

I knew someone was going to point out that it's not always easy to find the problem on a car, but in general a lot of car problems are straight forward to identify and fix. I do admit some problems might be harder to track down than others, but once you've identified the source of the problem, it's usually straight forward to fix. I don't want to make light of their job because they have a skill that I don't have and can appreciate what they do, but there is a pretty dramatic difference between work that involves a straight forward process to creative work that's highly subjective. A working car is not subjective; it works. A fun game is completely subjective.

Who talks about fun?

We are talking about technical broken and unfinished games.

Developing a game involves the process of making a game. A game that's fun. That takes time, time that eats away from the allotted time to finish the game. Finishing the game is where you fix the broken shit.

 

[wildfire]

By nobody I mean nobody I've noticed. Since I'm a non-omniscient human being, that was implied.

A better implication would be to not make broad assertions trying to contradict what the people you are reading about say otherwise. It just shows a lack of trust on your part on their experiences.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Oh god yes. Wtf. Like, now I'm just goddamn concerned. Do people really think like that? Oh hey, it's ok that I just got rancid coffee for my money. Shouldn't blame the guy that handed it to me, knowing full well that it's crap. I shouldn't blame him for doing an objectively terrible job just because the order came from up top.

Is that an American thing? I'm genuinely asking here, cause around here that shit doesn't fly.

I always thought "Don't blame me, I just work here" was a joke.

That's probably too extreme an example. Should've been more like just bad quality beans, rathert than rotting. And maybe the guy has never tried their coffee personally. Maybe he doesn't even drink it. Maybe he really needed the money, and this was the best job he could find.

 

[Daingurse]

The lazy devs misconception is probably the most annoying one. Constantly pops up, and almost always from a place of pure ignorance.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Except the article IS arguing that things like those somehow slip by, not that they couldn't fix them in time. I'd have accepted the latter explanation, but the former in a number of high profile blunders just screams of myopia.

Most things I've heard from the QA side suggest that most huge bugs are found, they just don't have time to deal with them

And some bugs do slip by for that reason. Also keep in mind this developer in particular is an indie so they probably don't have a large QA department or anything like a triple A dev would (And your comments are more relative to triple A as well)

 

[Evilisk]

To all the people that think these are pretty obvious, you'd be surprised by how much some of these get brought up, even here on GAF.

As for thr article, the point about "players not knowing what they want" could have picked a way better example. The DLC argument is interesting though I don't have an opinion on it

 

[Marty Chinn]

I don't buy the "bug fixing is hard" explanation when there are high profile releases that have literally game-breaking bugs or ones that are FAR too common to have possibly been missed in any decent QA testing. Granted, this isn't the case with plenty of games, but you can't look me in the eye and say with a straight face that farces like last year's Assassin's Creed or MCC or Batman Arkham Knight were properly playtested prior to release.

They don't miss them in QA usually, especially obvious one. You've never seen a software development bug list. There are a ton of bugs that get reported that go unfixed for numerous reasons. Fixing hard to find bugs is definitely hard and unpredictable. Some bugs take seconds to fix, other bugs can take weeks once they even figure out what the problem is. Intermittent bugs are the worse, and so far soak bugs. In the end, it comes down to what's priority with the time they have left given based on the publisher. It's not the developer, or the QA, it's the publisher.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Most things I've heard from the QA side suggest that most huge bugs are found, they just don't have time to deal with them

Hence why I was saying that the article arguing that they don't get found is BS. For the record I agree with you, but the article's stance on it was super weak.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Hence why I was saying that the article arguing that they don't get found is BS. For the record I agree with you, but the article's stance on it was super weak.

As I edited in, keep in mind the guy they got for that one was an indie dev, so the issues he faces with debugging are very different from that of a triple A dev.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Hence why I was saying that the article arguing that they don't get found is BS. For the record I agree with you, but the article's stance on it was super weak.

I think there are plenty of bugs that do slip by because QA can only do so much too. It really depends on the bug. It's hard to generalize about bugs because they come in all different forms and flavors.

 

[Alebrije]

But here's the thing: What if the dev signed a contract going into the job, but then a problem arises in the middle and the publisher won't allow any flexibility. This happens a lot. And because they've signed a contract, they can't just quit. They could do shitty work or otherwise try to get fired, but this would almost certainly be incredibly detrimental to getting another job

As I said , he keeps doing the job and producing shitty "coffee" , this happens on alot of industries ( processors , medical, etc). My point I shat developers know the final product is broken and they do not say anything so they can keep their jobs (slavery or not ) . When this happens developers are not martirs are part of the problem and people start calling them lazy or incompetents but are more like unprofessional.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Developers and publisher are a team.

I don't think there are enough laughing reaction gifs

 

[Metroidvania]

The DLC argument seems...overly 'optimistic', given what policies and the like we've already seen in the previous generation in regards to DLC.

Especially when a lot of the Day 1 DLC is often 'smaller' stuff that doesn't _seem_ like it took a lot of time/effort to make, relative to the rest of the game...but is often doesn't seem like its priced that way.

The money thing also seems silly, insofar as IMO it's kind of obvious that hopefully, you're doing what you do because you like/love it, but there's always going to be a bottom line that some suit considers.

Also, the 'don't care about bugs' comment isn't even specifically addressed, it's the dev essentially saying 'players give us a hard time for finding bugs we've missed, even if it turns out they're kind of common'. Though that's sometimes the Publisher being an asshole and forcing the devs to ship it, to be fair.

Not the best actual perception into the arguments against the generalities, in any case, even if I agree with most of the generalities being 'wrong'.

 

[PdotMichael]

Devs can fuck up. But it's not an equal partnership by any means, and devs usually don't have much room to negotiate if the publisher isn't flexible. And weren't most of the things people hated about MGS likely stuff from Konami's side? Konami is hardly considered a quality publisher nowadays.

Yes, business is hard.

Do you think that other industries are moving dead lines because the engineers think they need 2 weeks more time for it? If General Motors want something and there is a deal do you think that little subcontractor which is supposed to provide the sensors for the motor compartment can do anything?

 

[Alebrije]

I knew someone was going to point out that it's not always easy to find the problem on a car, but in general a lot of car problems are straight forward to identify and fix. I do admit some problems might be harder to track down than others, but once you've identified the source of the problem, it's usually straight forward to fix. I don't want to make light of their job because they have a skill that I don't have and can appreciate what they do, but there is a pretty dramatic difference between work that involves a straight forward process to creative work that's highly subjective. A working car is not subjective; it works. A fun game is completely subjective.



Developing a game involves the process of making a game. A game that's fun. That takes time, time that eats away from the allotted time to finish the game. Finishing the game is where you fix the broken shit.

Yep a car is solid fixed object , working with subjective stuff like saddeness, joy , action is completely different. I get your point since I am an amateur writer and the creative process on every style is different.

 

[EloquentM]

This thread is a big case of "I haven't said it myself so it's must not exist". Plenty of these misconceptions are posted right here on gaf itself.

 

[SeppOCE]

I stopped reading at the part where it tried to justify day 1 DLC.

If I'm paying $74.99 CAD for a game I expect all the content. Microtransaction DLC doesn't bug me, but when you get story crap - like that ashes DLC for Mass Effect 3 - the day you get the game? yeah, screw that.

The day one DLC for Mass Effect 3 also gave me the shits. I played through the vanilla game while my friend got the DLC and when he told me about the very crucial character you unlock that isn't in the vanilla experience I felt extremely disappointed.

A lot of day one DLC feels like it has that importance and you can tell it was rearranged to be developed during the 3-4 months between a game being finished and then the same game having it's release date.

I don't mind day one DLC if it isn't important to the game but when it is a crucial part of the story that adds to the narrative and answers questions which aren't answered in the vanilla game then that's bullshit.

 

[Clear]

They did partially increase. That's why DLC is the preferred method to offer game content piecemeal. The much larger expansion packs that came out a year or 2 later of a game's release 2 decades ago has largely been abandoned since it doesn't keep large dev teams employed like DLC does and doesn't squeeze more money out of the percentage willing to burden the higher overall cost.

What I was getting at is that these days it takes more, and more-talented, folks working longer and harder to make games for what seems like less appreciation than ever from the "fans".

In terms of labour-costs, consumers are getting a better deal now than ever, and that should matter, but apparently it doesn't.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Yes, business is hard.

Do you think that other industries are moving dead lines because the engineers think they need 2 weeks more time for it? If General Motors want something and there is a deal do you think that little subcontractor which is supposed to provide the sensors for the motor compartment can do anything?

It depends. Why do they need 2 weeks? Other industries also have different standards due to more rigorous regulations (usually due to the fact that mistakes and rushjobs can cause actual harm, not just disappointment)

 

[Alebrije]

Developers and publisher are a team.

Expectation

Reality

 

[PdotMichael]

It depends. Why do they need 2 weeks? Other industries also have different standards due to more rigorous regulations (usually due to the fact that mistakes and rushjobs can cause actual harm, not just disappointment)

We are talking about industries where subcontractors don't make money with the first deals and hoping to get that money back with the follow-up of contracts. Causing delays can be pretty expensive.
But only game devs have a hard job.

 

[Aaronrules380]

We are talking about industries where subcontractors don't make money with the first deals and hoping to get that money back with the follow-up of contracts. Causing delays can be pretty expensive.
But only game devs have a hard job.

nobody said that though

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yes, business is hard.

Do you think that other industries are moving dead lines because the engineers think they need 2 weeks more time for it? If General Motors want something and there is a deal do you think that little subcontractor which is supposed to provide the sensors for the motor compartment can do anything?

If a subcontractor needs more time to provide properly functioning sensors, while they may not get the contract again, they're going to get the time because the end result if those sensors don't work properly is at a minimum a recall which is costly, to someone or multiple people dying which will involve lawsuits and even bigger damage to their reputation which will affect future sales. Do you see how that's not even on the same level of a game being bug free?

 

[Aaronrules380]

If a subcontractor needs more time to provide properly functioning sensors, while they may not get the contract again, they're going to get the time because the end result if those sensors don't work properly is at a minimum a recall which is costly, to someone or multiple people dying which will involve lawsuits and even bigger damage to their reputation which will affect future sales. Do you see how that's not even on the same level of a game being bug free?

exactly

 

[PdotMichael]

If a subcontractor needs more time to provide properly functioning sensors, while they may not get the contract again, they're going to get the time because the end result if those sensors don't work properly is at a minimum a recall which is costly, to someone or multiple people dying which will involve lawsuits and even bigger damage to their reputation which will affect future sales. Do you see how that's not even on the same level of a game being bug free?

Yes, in the none gaming business is way more money involved, while the other business can deliever flawed products and the customers arent allowed to complain.

 

[ElTorro]

Whenever there is a project with a hard deadline, there is also crunch time. Doesn't really matter in which industry you're working.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yes, in the none gaming business is way more money involved.

In gaming, a publisher's reputation isn't going to take a hit as much especially if they hold huge franchises that are sure fire hits such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. They can get away with some random game that gets released buggy because it's not going to damage their rep to sell other games. At worst, a single IP may get called in to question but given the history of games, that shit gets forgotten quick if you show them something that looks amazing and fun.

That's way different than your reputation of having a safe car being taken a hit WHEN SOMEONE DIES. Nobody dies from playing a buggy game. People take death way more fucking seriously than a game having a bug in it. It's not even close to being the same level.

 

[PdotMichael]

In gaming, a publisher's reputation isn't going to take a hit as much especially if they hold huge franchises that are sure fire hits such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. They can get away with some random game that gets released buggy because it's not going to damage their rep to sell other games. At worst, a single IP may get called in to question but given the history of games, that shit gets forgotten quick if you show them something that looks amazing and fun.

That's way different than your reputation of having a safe car being taken a hit WHEN SOMEONE DIES. Nobody dies from playing a buggy game. People take death way more fucking seriously than a game having a bug in it. It's not even close to being the same level.

Potential dangerous are only a small part of engineering jobs. Rather you have something like (to stay video games related) the Xbox 360 and the early high failure rate which was the result of someone picked the wrong solder if I'm remember it correctly. No one died but it hit the Xbox Division hard.

edit: Wait, I think it was the thermal grease not the solder.

 

[Afrodium]

I don't buy the "bug fixing is hard" explanation when there are high profile releases that have literally game-breaking bugs or ones that are FAR too common to have possibly been missed in any decent QA testing. Granted, this isn't the case with plenty of games, but you can't look me in the eye and say with a straight face that farces like last year's Assassin's Creed or MCC or Batman Arkham Knight were properly playtested prior to release.

Oh, they were certainly playtested and these issues were likely known. Releasing these products was likely a decision not left up to the developers.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Well, it's not a lot. A lot of the time developers are constrained by a number of things that unfortunately have a negative effect on the game. Nothing to do with laziness, but a lot of gamers can't appreciate that.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

There isn't, but that seems to be a function of making the release date, and I've never really understood who is ultimately to blame for that. Did the devs overpromise and mismanage the project? Did the publisher put the squeeze to them, adding new features or unrealistic or unaccounted for demands?

Ultimately I guess its the publisher's call whether a game is delayed or not, but I can see how it could really depend in terms of who dropped the ball in the first place.

In general, the game industry is still terrible at project management. Especially from the publisher side.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I don't buy the "bug fixing is hard" explanation when there are high profile releases that have literally game-breaking bugs or ones that are FAR too common to have possibly been missed in any decent QA testing. Granted, this isn't the case with plenty of games, but you can't look me in the eye and say with a straight face that farces like last year's Assassin's Creed or MCC or Batman Arkham Knight were properly playtested prior to release.

Those games likely were. QA's job is to find the issues, it's up to the dev team to fix them and up to management/publishers to give them scheduled time to fix them.

That's how ls were 14 years ago when I started my career in QA and how things are now.

So to amend too my previous post, proper quality assurance is another major weakpoint of the gaming industry. QA is a viable career path in other software industries. It's an afterthought in games.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Potential dangerous are only a small part of engineering jobs. Rather you have something like (to stay video games related) the Xbox 360 and the early high failure rate which was the result of someone picked the wrong solder if I'm remember it correctly. No one died but it hit the Xbox Division hard.

edit: Wait, I think it was the thermal grease not the solder.

You're the one who picked out a subcontractor of a car manufacturer creating sensors. Just admit your example was not good. That subcontractor is going to get extra time because it's a safety issue. A publisher isn't going to give more time because they don't have the same risks, and they've calculated the risk to loss ratio on releasing it now versus waiting. You have no clue about how these things work obviously.

Now you're trying to find some other example with the Xbox 360 and that has nothing to do with not having enough time. They made a design mistake that they didn't foresee being a problem. You really just went from bugs they saw before being released and should have delayed to fix, to unforeseen problems. You keep trying and failing to make a comparison that is even close.

 

[Skux]

“I see a lot of disparaging of Day 1 DLC especially, but I wish the gaming public understood that in many cases this is in no way taking away from the core title,” Elizabeth Zelle, a games user researcher at Deep Silver Volition, told me in an email.

Once you've soiled the waters with BS like the Catwoman DLC from Akham City or the Mass Effect 3 DLC, no one is going to believe that day 1 DLC isn't cut from the full game.

 

[Fhtagn]

This thread is a big case of "I haven't said it myself so it's must not exist". Plenty of these misconceptions are posted right here on gaf itself.

Yeah, I see the lazy devs and "how did QA not find this?!?" ones on here all the time.

I don't work in games, but I do work in QA (the last 9 years now!) and there are a lot of bugs that:

1. Don't get fixed by X date, because something else takes priority and there are only so many hours in the day. Things that have a work around and don't cause lost data are less important than crash bugs, for example.

2. Didn't get found because they only happen under a bizarre set of steps that are very much not obvious, or interactions of features, hardware, user configs, browser versions and OS that no one foresaw...

And it's always management that decides what ships. QA can say "this bug is a disaster!" but if management has to ship by X date because of contracts, they don't necessarily care.

(Thankfully the company I work for DOES care and has doubled the size of our QA team this year.)

 

[dgrdsv]

Misconception: Game Developers Are Lazy

I don't know if "game developers" (this is obviously not something which is said universally about all game developers) are "lazy" but I'm pretty sure that laziness is not about how much time you work, it's about the approach you have to your job. Their debunking of this seems to miss the point.

 

[NullPointer]

... but I'm pretty sure that laziness is not about how much time you work, it's about the approach you have to your job.

What do you mean, specifically? What would be a good example of a lazy approach to the job?

 

[Marty Chinn]

I don't know if "game developers" (this is obviously not something which is said universally about all game developers) are "lazy" but I'm pretty sure that laziness is not about how much time you work, it's about the approach you have to your job. Their debunking of this seems to miss the point.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Woorloog]

About that DLC part:

"Day One" DLC has two major issues.
The first is retailer-exclusive DLC. It is usually utter crap and not really worth anything but people feel like they're not getting a complete experience without having them in the game. Most likely it is a matter of principle, they like to have an option to get everything, even if they won't.

The second problem is that people may think the content was cut from the game so that i can be sold (or access is limited without "DLC"). And people are rightfully mistrustful about things like this, there have been enough cases where the DLC is either cut from the game for selling (eg Javik from Mass Effect 3), or is actually included on the disc people buy but cannot be used without "DLC".

Ultimately it is a transparency issue, i guess. Where developers clear about that it wasn't cut from the game, that it has its own budget and didn't take from the main game's budget, isn't on disc, etc., i think people wouldn't have so many issues with "day one" DLC.

(A third issue with DLC is that many probably feel they're poor value. Like the Horse Armor. No doubt it would be OK if it were like 50 cents or so. But when something simple like alternate clothing set costs 5€... yeah, of course people are annoying and dislike it. Old-style expansion packs may or may have been good value, but compared to many DLCs, they certainly feel like having good value.)

I don't think people feel DLC is evil overall, just that they think some practices about it are shady.

 

[Plinko]

Then you didn't read it very carefully. Try to not skim it next time.

I actually did read it. It is basically an article defending the job that could probably be written about any line of work in the country. It still comes off mostly as a "Defend most of the problems in the industry as something you should be happy about" article. Not all of it, but much of it.

 

[Eidan]

They "lazy dev" shit always aggravates me.

 

[RPGam3r]

I don't know if "game developers" (this is obviously not something which is said universally about all game developers) are "lazy" but I'm pretty sure that laziness is not about how much time you work, it's about the approach you have to your job. Their debunking of this seems to miss the point.

What does this even mean? No developer on any team of mine ever wants to on a regular basis put in 60+ hour weeks. If changing their approach, whatever vague concept that is, could shave 20hrs+ they would do it!

 

[Htown]

In Sanctum 1, we had a server browser where you’d manually have to find a map you like, but in Sanctum 2, we’d just let people pick a map and then we’d use matchmaking to fill up the map with other players who wanted to play that same map. Much better and easier, right?

No. That is the opposite of what is good.

 

[thelastword]

You know what gives developers love and homage/adoration? Good Games......Games that look good and perform good and games that play good, these are the reasons we buy them. I'm not interested in the plight of a developer that worked hard and his game is a 20fps affair with tearing and average visuals and gameplay. The last I checked video games are not a charity, enthusiasts/gamers pay for their games and so they require quality in what they consume (non-literal).

I can never get the people trying to make cases for hardpaying gamers staving off sub-par quality products. If a movie is bad and IQ on bluray is horrid, I'm not purchasing it. The same is true for games for different reasons and any other product for that matter. I could not be bothered how hard some guy worked on it. Like any other product, get your product out in good form and you will get the love you deserve.

 

[texore]

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty great

Why won't they listen?!!

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Lazy devs is the most oft repeated catch phrase in online gaming forums. And over shit like "I can't believe this beautiful 60fps game occasionally drops frames" or "I can't believe this AAA game runs at sub HD."