I totally agree, a very considered response.
I personally hope that a lot of lessons have been learnt by the whole episode.
- Developers will not over promise
- Consumers will not be less inclined to pre-order
- Publishers will be more up front with the game prior to release
- Store-fronts will offer reasonable return policies
I think in general Steam is the leading light in this, their early access program is the route a game like this if left alone would have probably naturally taken. It would have set audience expectations and allowed funds to come in to the developer so they can flesh out features over a longer period of time.
From the outside looking in. It looks like the problem came when Sony saw the project and saw the buzz it had around it and turned it (in many peoples minds) into something it never was or was going to be, and Hello Games didn't (or couldn't) put the breaks on.
I have a few other things that Devs have learned:
- Developers should not actively engage with the community and should only relate information through an authorized legal channel
- Companies need an official media liason/PR company that deals with the public with the costs piped back to the customer
- E3 Conferences should be limited to buying partners (Best Buy, Gamestop, etc) and no longer available for press or individuals to manage game expectations and allow PR firms to directly manage expectations
- Model game hype after Nintendo that delivers information near to launch, or just as the product launches
- PR companies should release a media sheet of what a game is and isn't to manage expectations (NMS could have easily related it wasn't a shooter, space combat simulator, or simcity like base creator)
- Games should be free to play with pay gated sections of content (if you like the first 5 hours, pay for another 5). This would keep customers from paying $60 for a game, play 40 hours, then request a refund. You would pay for the portion you actually played. Some games already do this.
Someone posted something earlier that I tried to quote but I lost but it was spot on. We expect developers to have integrity but we don't hold ourselves to the same standard. I would estimate that a large percentage of internet bound gamers are an emotional wreck.
The problem is that games are not just a product they are an artistic expression. Some are of rage and fear (Doom), some are of control (Civs, 4x games, and RTSs) while others are of wonder (open world). This creates an emotional attachment. No one ever made a wise decision based on emotion alone and it shows in the gamer community now days. When things go south we get emotional. Some go fanboy, some SJW, and some spew flames. The wisest of us move on and learn.
So what do we do now? We obviously aren't calming down. What we need to do is take the emotion out of it and base it on economics. Don't pre-order on hype. Purchase based on a fact sheet of what the game represents. Don't listen to anyone else's opinion (including reviewers) before purchasing. If it doesn't represent the pure facts then ask for a refund. Move on with life and play the next game. Don't expect the developers to change for you. Allow them to change based on lack of sales.
If any of this sounds absurd then take a step back and see if you are a part of the problem. I started to use this standard for both games and movies and I find myself enjoying more and more of life. I enjoy No Man's Sky for what it is as well as other ill received games.
Well that's my 2c. Gamer community has come a long way. Some good (modders, FAQ makers, lets plays, speed runs and charity events) and some bad (hate trains, metacritic, review bombing, sjw, gamersgate, review site corporate influencing). I just hope it survives itself because we have so much more potential in games.
_/¯
