I ask again: show me any game which was created by people who do not play games themselves, with the intention of having a bad game in the end. (Besides Zynga.)
"Get as much customers as possible with the least amount of investment" is synonymous with "make the highest quality game possible with the finite amount of man-hours you have available." Better game = more sales. Don't tell me you honestly believe that anyone out there deliberately includes bugs and diminishes quality in the interest of getting more money.
Duuh, you never heard about an mmorpg that was released too early? Do I really need to give you an example? Maybe you know vanguard? It was unfinished and the management at soe just pushed it out the door, buggy like hell, just to get a few bucks. In the game list there is a whole section with dead games that have been released way too early, just for financial reasons. None, nobody at the management cares about bugs or players - they care about return on investment. Wake up, my friend, this is a business for "the other side".
It was unfinished. Why? When the project started, did the publisher say "Hey, whenever you guys get around to finishing, that's cool"? Of course not. From the very first day that work on the game begins, everyone there knows that there are deadlines to meet. Missing a milestone on the schedule is a failure on the part of the project lead; he or she should have understood that the team was not capable of completing that task and should have either a.) reserved more time on the schedule for it in the first place, or b.) cut out some of the complexity as soon as it was clear that there was not enough time to develop it all. There's really no excuse for not understanding this facet of game development; it's not as though there is a shortage of game development blogs, and every one of them will tell you that the quickest and surest route to a failed game is to have a poor sense of scope and bite off more than you can chew. Why not read what Scott Jennings wrote about it on this very site? He's been working in and writing about the industry forever and he knows what he's talking about.
Saying that an unfinished release is the result of greed is narrow-minded and unfair to the publishers. If someone demonstrated time and time again that they were unable to give you a realistic estimate of when each milestone would be met, and that they were equally incapable of cutting back on scope creep to force those deadlines to become realistic, how long would you continue cutting them slack? How many times would you believe them when they repeatedly said "this game will be wildly successful if you could just give us one more month"?
I voted "no" because the question is insipid. What games do you know of that are being created by non-gamers who want to make bad games that nobody likes, with intentionally unfixed bugs and inactive uncommunicative developers? It is frankly insulting to imply that all MMOs are disappointing because the developers aren't trying.
It is their job not to try: Get as much customers as possible with the least amount of investment. This is the way capitalism works. It sucks, but that's our world we are supposed to live in.
I ask again: show me any game which was created by people who do not play games themselves, with the intention of having a bad game in the end. (Besides Zynga.)
"Get as much customers as possible with the least amount of investment" is synonymous with "make the highest quality game possible with the finite amount of man-hours you have available." Better game = more sales. Don't tell me you honestly believe that anyone out there deliberately includes bugs and diminishes quality in the interest of getting more money.
Duuh, you never heard about an mmorpg that was released too early? Do I really need to give you an example? Maybe you know vanguard? It was unfinished and the management at soe just pushed it out the door, buggy like hell, just to get a few bucks. In the game list there is a whole section with dead games that have been released way too early, just for financial reasons. None, nobody at the management cares about bugs or players - they care about return on investment. Wake up, my friend, this is a business for "the other side".
Like most of life, capitalism is a cutthroat process of natural selection.
Your own example is a prime example of a weak product earning weak revenue. Companies are not rushing out to create another Vanguard, I assure you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The reason why recent games are crap is simple: the gamers have been replaced by the businessmen.
The only reaction you can do to this is: just dont buy these crap games.
Instead I hear many people state things like "well, times are changing". What the heck ? If the companies dont want to offer me games I like, well guess what, I wont buy their crap ! Its not like gaming is the only possible way to spend time.
The reason why recent games are crap is simple: the gamers have been replaced by the businessmen.
The only reaction you can do to this is: just dont buy these crap games.
Instead I hear many people state things like "well, times are changing". What the heck ? If the companies dont want to offer me games I like, well guess what, I wont buy their crap ! Its not like gaming is the only possible way to spend time.
Well if you and so many other people feel that way, then why is it that these so-called "gamers" aren't going out of their way to become game designers and make games that these "businessmen" cannot make?
Well I'm not sure if people realize that but all games are created by those who play games, which is why it's somewhat annoying to find threads like these, where people just assume that playing a couple games means they are qualified to be a game designer. Well being a game designer is not that easy. Sure you can create a thread about some awesome game idea and have a couple fellow gamers agree with it, how about going out of your way to create a game. Form a team of programmers, designers, artist; all of which play games. Then try to get the investors to fund the project and give your newly formed team the time, resources and creative freedom to make this game you've envisioned.
It is easy to criticize and ridicule these development houses for making games you don't like, cause not everyone will like every game, no matter well-made the game is. But why not try looking at it from their perspective... gamers who went into the industry to help create the games they want to make but are locked down by a number of constraints (time, money, manpower, talent, etc.)
I ask again: show me any game which was created by people who do not play games themselves, with the intention of having a bad game in the end. (Besides Zynga.)
"Get as much customers as possible with the least amount of investment" is synonymous with "make the highest quality game possible with the finite amount of man-hours you have available." Better game = more sales. Don't tell me you honestly believe that anyone out there deliberately includes bugs and diminishes quality in the interest of getting more money.
Duuh, you never heard about an mmorpg that was released too early? Do I really need to give you an example? Maybe you know vanguard? It was unfinished and the management at soe just pushed it out the door, buggy like hell, just to get a few bucks. In the game list there is a whole section with dead games that have been released way too early, just for financial reasons. None, nobody at the management cares about bugs or players - they care about return on investment. Wake up, my friend, this is a business for "the other side".
It was unfinished. Why? When the project started, did the publisher say "Hey, whenever you guys get around to finishing, that's cool"? Of course not. From the very first day that work on the game begins, everyone there knows that there are deadlines to meet. Missing a milestone on the schedule is a failure on the part of the project lead; he or she should have understood that the team was not capable of completing that task and should have either a.) reserved more time on the schedule for it in the first place, or b.) cut out some of the complexity as soon as it was clear that there was not enough time to develop it all. There's really no excuse for not understanding this facet of game development; it's not as though there is a shortage of game development blogs, and every one of them will tell you that the quickest and surest route to a failed game is to have a poor sense of scope and bite off more than you can chew. Why not read what Scott Jennings wrote about it on this very site? He's been working in and writing about the industry forever and he knows what he's talking about.
Saying that an unfinished release is the result of greed is narrow-minded and unfair to the publishers. If someone demonstrated time and time again that they were unable to give you a realistic estimate of when each milestone would be met, and that they were equally incapable of cutting back on scope creep to force those deadlines to become realistic, how long would you continue cutting them slack? How many times would you believe them when they repeatedly said "this game will be wildly successful if you could just give us one more month"?
When all you know about the gaming industry is what you read on blogs, this is the kind of post you get
The reason why recent games are crap is simple: the gamers have been replaced by the businessmen.
The only reaction you can do to this is: just dont buy these crap games.
Instead I hear many people state things like "well, times are changing". What the heck ? If the companies dont want to offer me games I like, well guess what, I wont buy their crap ! Its not like gaming is the only possible way to spend time.
Well if you and so many other people feel that way, then why is it that these so-called "gamers" aren't going out of their way to become game designers and make games that these "businessmen" cannot make?
Well I'm not sure if people realize that but all games are created by those who play games, which is why it's somewhat annoying to find threads like these, where people just assume that playing a couple games means they are qualified to be a game designer. Well being a game designer is not that easy. Sure you can create a thread about some awesome game idea and have a couple fellow gamers agree with it, how about going out of your way to create a game. Form a team of programmers, designers, artist; all of which play games. Then try to get the investors to fund the project and give your newly formed team the time, resources and creative freedom to make this game you've envisioned.
It is easy to criticize and ridicule these development houses for making games you don't like, cause not everyone will like every game, no matter well-made the game is. But why not try looking at it from their perspective... gamers who went into the industry to help create the games they want to make but are locked down by a number of constraints (time, money, manpower, talent, etc.)
I see so many of these posts, i dont really see the point tbh...
I would love "xyz" but this thread wont make it happen, juts make me more sad that
i don't have the game (& never likely to see the game) your talking about... whats the point?
I'm not trying to make it happen, I'm trying to check if there's an interest in it. Alot of people talk a good game, but feel entirely different once they're actually asked to consider it a real possibility because their fear gets the best of them.
I see so many of these posts, i dont really see the point tbh...
I would love "xyz" but this thread wont make it happen, juts make me more sad that
i don't have the game (& never likely to see the game) your talking about... whats the point?
I'm not trying to make it happen, I'm trying to check if there's an interest in it. Alot of people talk a good game, but feel entirely different once they're actually asked to consider it a real possibility because their fear gets the best of them.
Of course there will be interest in it. It's almost as if you were asking if people would be interested in 'free money' or 'no taxes' or 'world peace'. It costs us nothing to say that we are interested. When the time comes to actually spend any monay on this, we can always say that we are no longer interested and walk away.
I see so many of these posts, i dont really see the point tbh...
I would love "xyz" but this thread wont make it happen, juts make me more sad that
i don't have the game (& never likely to see the game) your talking about... whats the point?
I'm not trying to make it happen, I'm trying to check if there's an interest in it. Alot of people talk a good game, but feel entirely different once they're actually asked to consider it a real possibility because their fear gets the best of them.
Of course there will be interest in it. It's almost as if you were asking if people would be interested in 'free money' or 'no taxes' or 'world peace'. It costs us nothing to say that we are interested. When the time comes to actually spend any monay on this, we can always say that we are no longer interested and walk away.
I'm trying to think about the viability of such a thing. Look at all the doomsayers on the thread. You might like to rethink what you posted.
Comments
It was unfinished. Why? When the project started, did the publisher say "Hey, whenever you guys get around to finishing, that's cool"? Of course not. From the very first day that work on the game begins, everyone there knows that there are deadlines to meet. Missing a milestone on the schedule is a failure on the part of the project lead; he or she should have understood that the team was not capable of completing that task and should have either a.) reserved more time on the schedule for it in the first place, or b.) cut out some of the complexity as soon as it was clear that there was not enough time to develop it all. There's really no excuse for not understanding this facet of game development; it's not as though there is a shortage of game development blogs, and every one of them will tell you that the quickest and surest route to a failed game is to have a poor sense of scope and bite off more than you can chew. Why not read what Scott Jennings wrote about it on this very site? He's been working in and writing about the industry forever and he knows what he's talking about.
Saying that an unfinished release is the result of greed is narrow-minded and unfair to the publishers. If someone demonstrated time and time again that they were unable to give you a realistic estimate of when each milestone would be met, and that they were equally incapable of cutting back on scope creep to force those deadlines to become realistic, how long would you continue cutting them slack? How many times would you believe them when they repeatedly said "this game will be wildly successful if you could just give us one more month"?
Like most of life, capitalism is a cutthroat process of natural selection.
Your own example is a prime example of a weak product earning weak revenue. Companies are not rushing out to create another Vanguard, I assure you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
All the good games are gamers games.
The reason why recent games are crap is simple: the gamers have been replaced by the businessmen.
The only reaction you can do to this is: just dont buy these crap games.
Instead I hear many people state things like "well, times are changing". What the heck ? If the companies dont want to offer me games I like, well guess what, I wont buy their crap ! Its not like gaming is the only possible way to spend time.
Well if you and so many other people feel that way, then why is it that these so-called "gamers" aren't going out of their way to become game designers and make games that these "businessmen" cannot make?
Well I'm not sure if people realize that but all games are created by those who play games, which is why it's somewhat annoying to find threads like these, where people just assume that playing a couple games means they are qualified to be a game designer. Well being a game designer is not that easy. Sure you can create a thread about some awesome game idea and have a couple fellow gamers agree with it, how about going out of your way to create a game. Form a team of programmers, designers, artist; all of which play games. Then try to get the investors to fund the project and give your newly formed team the time, resources and creative freedom to make this game you've envisioned.
It is easy to criticize and ridicule these development houses for making games you don't like, cause not everyone will like every game, no matter well-made the game is. But why not try looking at it from their perspective... gamers who went into the industry to help create the games they want to make but are locked down by a number of constraints (time, money, manpower, talent, etc.)
When all you know about the gaming industry is what you read on blogs, this is the kind of post you get
This.... So, very this.
I'm not trying to make it happen, I'm trying to check if there's an interest in it. Alot of people talk a good game, but feel entirely different once they're actually asked to consider it a real possibility because their fear gets the best of them.
Of course there will be interest in it. It's almost as if you were asking if people would be interested in 'free money' or 'no taxes' or 'world peace'. It costs us nothing to say that we are interested. When the time comes to actually spend any monay on this, we can always say that we are no longer interested and walk away.
I'm trying to think about the viability of such a thing. Look at all the doomsayers on the thread. You might like to rethink what you posted.