Why can you win awards for games that are still under development? Doesn’t that indicate the game isn’t finished and you’re rewarding something that people might not necessarily see?
You sure?? This Embracer Group seems like some smart young men, and they make a compelling offer. Can I at least sell them a beloved fantasy classic?? As a treat?
embracer group doesn’t buy IPs as much as they devour studios. the EA method. selling IP is really rare. think about all the games you want but never got made because the IP owner has been hoarding it for decades even though they clearly want nothing to do with it.
You do realize that after a game ships, they’re still working on fixing bugs, adding new content post-release, right? That’s still development time. They don’t just send out a game and move on.
Well, some developers seem to, but not most, and definitely not the good ones.
IDK, Nintendo essentially does that. They build a game, properly test it, and then ship it. There’s very few fixes post release because the game was solid at launch.
This constant stream of updates post release isn’t something to be praised, most games should ship in a good state and the devs should start work on the next one.
As a kid, I had no such issues. Games couldn’t be updated post launch, so they had to be good or they’d fail. I miss those launches…
Idk… As a gaming kid in the 90s, I always wished companies could fix the bugs in their games or rebalance stuff. I was so happy when computer gaming started having patches available.
To an extent, sure, but that was when the bugs were small because they were operating on the assumption that games wouldn’t be patched (e.g. for consoles, many people didn’t have reliable Internet, etc).
Now that updating post launch is a thing, they don’t bother with as much pre-launch testing, so you only get to the quality we should’ve had after 6 months or so of patches. I’d much rather they delay games by 3-6 months and have a solid launch instead of releasing crap and patching their way to success.
I’m not against post-launch patches, I just think they should be much smaller and way more rare than they are. The launch version should look substantially similar to the patched version some 6 months later.
Case in point, I just bought Cities: Skylines 2 after 6-ish months post launch, because it’s finally at the point where I feel like it should’ve been at launch. Performance seems okay, features work mostly as advertised, etc. I’d still like some performance tuning, but reviewers gave the recent patches a thumbs up, so I’m finally getting into it. That’s a bit of an extreme example, but it’s indicative of the state of gaming these days.
Whereas for Nintendo, I have no qualms about buying a game at launch. I know it’ll be a solid experience, and by the time I notice bugs, there will probably already have been patches. I wish more devs were like Nintendo…
Two of the most popular indie games, Stardew Valley, and Terraria have had free updates for years. Minecraft too even before it was sold to a MAGMA companie.
But that’s not at all what I’m talking about, I’m talking about games where, to feel worth the money, need patches post launch. Games where players can point to specific features that are incomplete or way too buggy to consider “done” based on how the game was advertised. So games like Cyberpunk 2077, Ark: Survival Evolved (console), and No Man’s Sky never should have shipped in the state they did. There are plenty more that really heavily on day 1 patches, and yet still fail to meet the developers’ own expectations.
I didn’t play Stardew Valley or Terraria at launch, but I bought Minecraft and Factorio at launch and was more than happy with what I received as both completely met my expectations. Adding content to increase appeal is different from adding content that was advertised during the development phase.
The original argument was that most good developers tend to support their games post launch. My point is that post launch support should rarely be necessary for good developers, with Nintendo and many indie and AA devs as examples of that.
Post launch support is a crutch that far too many devs rely on to ship games before they’re actually finished. If you have a list of bugs and features that need to be completed before the game is “done,” you’re not ready for launch. If you have a list of features that you’d like to add to increase appeal of the same, that’s a different story entirely.
Most official AAA launches should be considered “early access,” and most “early access” launches shouldn’t be released yet. Change my mind.
The Manor Lords dev came out recently saying the opposite of this, basically there shouldn’t be an endless grind after the release of the game. He seems not to be bound to the “ultra-popular game gotta get content done ASAP” grindset previous games got sucked into.
I’ve never played Manor Lords, and barely played Palworld, but there are so many games out now why sink 100 to 200 hours into a popular new release, only to complain about the lack of content a week later?
There shouldn’t be an endless grind, and from what I’ve seen in other interviews, Larian understands that too. They have a couple things they still want(ed) to work on and then move on to their next project(s).
They definitely shipped a complete product last August. So complete that a lot of the industry, or at least a loud minority, was getting upset at the raised standards (lol). I don’t see how any consumer could complain.
The Manor Lords situation confuses me since the game is still in early access. Games can be done, and that’s fine, but you have to complete a game first.
The guy was arguing that users can’t expect live service updates but have to wait for longer cycles for updates i
n their game, so the devs don’t get grinded to death.
Why can you win awards for games that are still under development? Doesn’t that indicate the game isn’t finished and you’re rewarding something that people might not necessarily see?
Balders Gate 3 was released awhile ago. What are you talking about?
Do you think companies release a game and then send everyone home and shut the company down lol
No, any business major could tell you they release the game, then lay everyone off and sell the IP for parts!
almost there but you never sell IP. you sit on it even if you never do anything with it ever again.
True. You need the IP so a bigger company will eat you. Then you leave with the bonus.
You sure?? This Embracer Group seems like some smart young men, and they make a compelling offer. Can I at least sell them a beloved fantasy classic?? As a treat?
embracer group doesn’t buy IPs as much as they devour studios. the EA method. selling IP is really rare. think about all the games you want but never got made because the IP owner has been hoarding it for decades even though they clearly want nothing to do with it.
Is a piece of software ever truly finished?
You do realize that after a game ships, they’re still working on fixing bugs, adding new content post-release, right? That’s still development time. They don’t just send out a game and move on.
Well, some developers seem to, but not most, and definitely not the good ones.
IDK, Nintendo essentially does that. They build a game, properly test it, and then ship it. There’s very few fixes post release because the game was solid at launch.
This constant stream of updates post release isn’t something to be praised, most games should ship in a good state and the devs should start work on the next one.
Yup. Seems much more common in indie games and way less common in AAA games. So I mostly buy indies and don’t buy AAAs anywhere near launch.
As a kid, I had no such issues. Games couldn’t be updated post launch, so they had to be good or they’d fail. I miss those launches…
Idk… As a gaming kid in the 90s, I always wished companies could fix the bugs in their games or rebalance stuff. I was so happy when computer gaming started having patches available.
To an extent, sure, but that was when the bugs were small because they were operating on the assumption that games wouldn’t be patched (e.g. for consoles, many people didn’t have reliable Internet, etc).
Now that updating post launch is a thing, they don’t bother with as much pre-launch testing, so you only get to the quality we should’ve had after 6 months or so of patches. I’d much rather they delay games by 3-6 months and have a solid launch instead of releasing crap and patching their way to success.
I’m not against post-launch patches, I just think they should be much smaller and way more rare than they are. The launch version should look substantially similar to the patched version some 6 months later.
Case in point, I just bought Cities: Skylines 2 after 6-ish months post launch, because it’s finally at the point where I feel like it should’ve been at launch. Performance seems okay, features work mostly as advertised, etc. I’d still like some performance tuning, but reviewers gave the recent patches a thumbs up, so I’m finally getting into it. That’s a bit of an extreme example, but it’s indicative of the state of gaming these days.
Whereas for Nintendo, I have no qualms about buying a game at launch. I know it’ll be a solid experience, and by the time I notice bugs, there will probably already have been patches. I wish more devs were like Nintendo…
Two of the most popular indie games, Stardew Valley, and Terraria have had free updates for years. Minecraft too even before it was sold to a MAGMA companie.
Yes, and there will certainly always be outliers.
But that’s not at all what I’m talking about, I’m talking about games where, to feel worth the money, need patches post launch. Games where players can point to specific features that are incomplete or way too buggy to consider “done” based on how the game was advertised. So games like Cyberpunk 2077, Ark: Survival Evolved (console), and No Man’s Sky never should have shipped in the state they did. There are plenty more that really heavily on day 1 patches, and yet still fail to meet the developers’ own expectations.
I didn’t play Stardew Valley or Terraria at launch, but I bought Minecraft and Factorio at launch and was more than happy with what I received as both completely met my expectations. Adding content to increase appeal is different from adding content that was advertised during the development phase.
Did you not read the whole comment you originally replied to? Lol
The original argument was that most good developers tend to support their games post launch. My point is that post launch support should rarely be necessary for good developers, with Nintendo and many indie and AA devs as examples of that.
Post launch support is a crutch that far too many devs rely on to ship games before they’re actually finished. If you have a list of bugs and features that need to be completed before the game is “done,” you’re not ready for launch. If you have a list of features that you’d like to add to increase appeal of the same, that’s a different story entirely.
Most official AAA launches should be considered “early access,” and most “early access” launches shouldn’t be released yet. Change my mind.
The Manor Lords dev came out recently saying the opposite of this, basically there shouldn’t be an endless grind after the release of the game. He seems not to be bound to the “ultra-popular game gotta get content done ASAP” grindset previous games got sucked into.
I’ve never played Manor Lords, and barely played Palworld, but there are so many games out now why sink 100 to 200 hours into a popular new release, only to complain about the lack of content a week later?
There shouldn’t be an endless grind, and from what I’ve seen in other interviews, Larian understands that too. They have a couple things they still want(ed) to work on and then move on to their next project(s).
They definitely shipped a complete product last August. So complete that a lot of the industry, or at least a loud minority, was getting upset at the raised standards (lol). I don’t see how any consumer could complain.
The Manor Lords situation confuses me since the game is still in early access. Games can be done, and that’s fine, but you have to complete a game first.
They seem to like putting multiple games into early access at the same time. Not the best example of how to do things, imo.
The guy was arguing that users can’t expect live service updates but have to wait for longer cycles for updates i n their game, so the devs don’t get grinded to death.
They were working on it for patches and such. Plus they are probably starting the “next big thing” and having your dev team leave kinda hurts that xp
BG3 had an amazing early access period.
Is the rock you live under really comfy? Can I try it?