Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The problem with monthly updates
PioneerStew
Member Posts: 874
The issues I write about below are and/or. I am not implying that they relate to all games with monthly updates, but they are problems I generally see arising: -
Bug's/ Exploits
Developer's always seem to underestimate the number of bugs and exploits that will plague their game at release and the number of resources and length of time that will be required to fix them. This is an issue exacerbated by the shortening and selling of Beta access.
Invariably a developer will offer monthly updates and then apparently be blind-sided with the sheer quantity of game fixing patches required after release which results in the reallocation of resources away from the promised monthly updates which then never materialise.
Given that this happens time and again in the mmo industry I am slightly confused as to how developer's still seem to be caught by surprise when they have to fix bugs/ exploits after release. The cynic in me suggests that they might be fully aware that the monthly updates are unlikely to be achievable and they are simply miss-selling.
- Firstly, if the core game is lacking it will hemorrhage players in the first one or two months and no one will be left to see the monthly updates. Surely it would be better to incorporate some/ all of this content into the core game and retain players during those key few months after release?
- Secondly, if the content has already been developed or trimmed from the core game then people have already paid for its development in the box price. If a developer wishes to charge a subscription to cover ongoing costs then be upfront about it, but don't start drip-feeding content that should have been included in the game at release as some false pay-off for our subscription money.
Comments
Developer's should be aware that bug-fixing will prevent them releasing monthly updates immediately after release, to state otherwise is clearly wildly optimistic. It also irritates me that there seems to be a move towards releasing half-baked game that justify their subscription via regular updates that never materialise.
Turbine did monthly updates for Asheron's Call for about 15 years. Due to engine limitations and being a very old game it wasn't supported by the masses, but the fan base that was there enjoyed it.
I will say that even though the living story seems to be lacking in content, ANet has laid out a decent groundwork for themselves with their living story seasons though. Episodes every two weeks for a few months per year with downtime during seasons as well as in between gives them a decent enough dev cycle for things to be not completely bug ridden. Of course, hotfixing will have to occur for the things that break once handed to the masses.
Blizzard also has a decent content cycle while they are actively supporting an expansion. New raid and tertiary content every 4-6 months. Where Blizzard has sucked is getting the next xpack out in a decent amount of time after the final raid tier of the current xpack. Again, there is a good groundwork that they have laid out for themselves to keep things moving during the expansion active cycle.
The Blizzard and ANet examples show that you can release content throughout the year without strictly adhering to a specific amount of time (aka monthly updates). It's a hard balancing act for any dev team. Release too soon and not tested enough and you wind up with bugs. Not soon enough and you lose people for periods of time with no promise of return.
Yes, I agree that some games do continually update, and Blizzard in particular prove a lot of 'behind the scenes' improvements.
My point is more aimed at the recent trends of games offering regular content updates and then failing to deliver.
Almost all new games withhold content at the start and release it a month later, in hopes of enticing subscribers to re-up after their free month. I remember LOTRO adding in an entirely new zone shortly after release (Evendim) that was undoubtedly ready or close to ready at launch. The problem is that this type of content schedule, once the "ready-to-go" content has been released, is very tough to maintain. In fact, it's impossible. Where many games struggle is in the attempt to make it happen anyway instead of scaling back content releases. As a result, you get a lot of content patches that are hastily thrown together and end up breaking more things than fixing.
Personally, I'd just like to see a new game come along and work on ironing out post-launch issues/bugs before promising any new content. Release the game with enough content to keep players interested while fixing any issues that arrive after launch. Once those have been ironed out to the players' satisfaction, then begin releasing content at a reasonable pace. Ideally, every 3-4 months seems to be the sweet spot.
Monthly updates are a marketing ploy, nothing more, nothing less.
Simply put, it takes time to create content, test it, and deploy it... the lead time alone makes the concept unsustainable.
You buy into monthly updates, you'll buy into anything.
I would be far more wary of monthly updates than F2P... at least F2P is realistically doable.
This was basically my issue in a nutshell.
I would disagree that monthly updates are impossible. They are entirely possible, but it means having a road map and executing far enough ahead of release to hit those targets. People get ultra pissed off when they are expecting X amount of content at release and then it's not there. Or they discover that there is "hidden" content, when in reality that content isn't done.
In order to perform just testing on a minor new feature would be a daunting task to undertake in a single months time. If the framework isn't there and well tested before it's implemented, this will never happen. The physical content (not than any game content is physical) needs to be done development like months in advance, so it wouldn't surprise me at all that they have completed a couple years worth of content, minus bug fixes and polish, at release.
It's not necessarily a marketing ploy, but a way to deliver your product on the date you promised it without compromising quality. It means you don't need to have everything done for release (development, animation, etc. wise). It means that your release timeline can be flexible.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Yeah, maybe after the game's issues are all worked out and there are no more bugs still lingering around and the game has it's polish, development could THEN consider a SHIFT towards monthly updates. But early on post release? That's just a ridiculous goal.