Why are Broken Games Accepted?

[Zen Bard]

I think the question isn't so much why are broken games accepted so much as:

1) Why does the practice of releasing broken games continue and 2) what can We The Consumer do about it?

First, there's this:

I think it is mainly due to the current mentality of "ship it now, patch it later" that the game industry has towards game releases.

This has been an accepted practice in the software industry as a whole since the 80's. And while a certain Seattle-based software mega-giant may not have pioneered the practice, they definitely helped make it an industry standard.

Since then, "Honor Thy Release Date" has become the most important tenet in the Tech.

Because only when a product is released can it start making money. And there are a lot of parties involved in the development, publication and distribution of a game who want to get paid.

"Quality? Fuck THAT guy. We can fix that later. And by then, we already have their money."

So what can we do? Just what we're doing right now. Raise the alarm and raise awareness. Tell your friends to avoid crap games. Write reviews. Post blogs. Most importantly, do anything that causes the company to lose money on that title.

It may not completely eradicate this practice, but it'll damn sure make them think twice before releasing some of the dreck they've been shoveling our way lately.

 

[shintakie10]

I'd really like to know how did pirates supposedly played Diablo 3. I don't see it happening, at that time emulators were barely even working, with majority of stuff still missing / not working.

Key word there being 'barely' working.

Still a fuckton better than 'doesn't work at all because we're the idiots who like to actually support developers'.

It wasn't actually barely workin though. The only things pirates could play of D3 when the game was actually released was the emulated beta server and even that was a massive piece of shit.

Even now, nearly 8 months after the release of the game the pirated versions still aren't close to the full experience of simply buyin the game and playin it. Mobs still don't always react correctly. Vendors can lose their inventories constantly. Mob AI can just stop sometimes, other times mobs don't spawn at all.

You know what happened the day D3 was released? I didn't play it because of error 37. You know what I did the second day of release? I played the game with minimal issues. Since then? Not a single problem at all.

Do you know what pirates did the day D3 was released? Nothin. Do you know what they did day 2? Nothin still. Do you know what they play now? A buggy, not remotely complete mess of a game.

On topic.

Most broken games don't actually get accepted, but aside from that the term broken game is entirely subjective. About the only game I ever felt actually was accepted despite bein a broken pile of fail was the S.T.A.L.K.E.R series. I like the game, but even now its still a fairly buggy pile of mess.

The biggest example of somethin that I personally think was broken but was still widely accepted was ToR. Between shit framrates, terrible optimization, really really broken mechanics, and more bugs than you can shake a stick at I was half tempted to ask for a refund and I bought the game 5 months after release. It wasn't 100% supported as the massive drop off in subs proves, but there were enough people willin to defend it in the broken state it was that I'd consider it somethin accepted.

Other than that though? Seems most people call devs out for bullshit broken games when it happens.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

The biggest example of somethin that I personally think was broken but was still widely accepted was ToR. Between shit framrates, terrible optimization, really really broken mechanics, and more bugs than you can shake a stick at I was half tempted to ask for a refund and I bought the game 5 months after release. It wasn't 100% supported as the massive drop off in subs proves, but there were enough people willin to defend it in the broken state it was that I'd consider it somethin accepted.

I think I seriously have to disagree with you there. I played SWTOR from early access to a couple months ago and I never encountered anything that would make me think the game was broken. Quests worked fine, the graphics were fine, the gameplay and PVP was fine. I'm talking ten months of regular play without encountering more than ten bugs, and absolutely zero game-breaking ones.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms you can make about SWTOR and some of them it thoroughly deserves, but the only thing broken about that game was the crafting system, and only in the sense that it was vestigial and purposeless; it still functioned. If that's your definition of "broken," you have incredibly sensitive standards.

 

[shintakie10]

The biggest example of somethin that I personally think was broken but was still widely accepted was ToR. Between shit framrates, terrible optimization, really really broken mechanics, and more bugs than you can shake a stick at I was half tempted to ask for a refund and I bought the game 5 months after release. It wasn't 100% supported as the massive drop off in subs proves, but there were enough people willin to defend it in the broken state it was that I'd consider it somethin accepted.

I think I seriously have to disagree with you there. I played SWTOR from early access to a couple months ago and I never encountered anything that would make me think the game was broken. Quests worked fine, the graphics were fine, the gameplay and PVP was fine. I'm talking ten months of regular play without encountering more than ten bugs, and absolutely zero game-breaking ones.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms you can make about SWTOR and some of them it thoroughly deserves, but the only thing broken about that game was the crafting system, and only in the sense that it was vestigial and purposeless; it still functioned. If that's your definition of "broken," you have incredibly sensitive standards.

There were numerous issues with high end systems when it came to SWTOR. My rig can run basically any game on the planet at max settins at 60 fps (metro 2033 drops it down to about 40 when it gets super duper busy). In SWTOR I got a lovely 30 fps generally and it dropped all the way down to 5 fps on Illium. That kind of thing was fairly standard for a lot of people. The exact reason was pointed out to be that Bioware took an incomplete engine and made their game around it instead of waitin for the engine to be finished. This was acknowledged by them at one point. Perhaps you were one of the lucky ones that didn't have issues. There were a lot of unlucky ones that did have issues, lots of them.

On top of that you had the bug/feature of the wonderful ability lag that was either built into the game or was a bug, dependin on what time of day you asked customer support. I'm still not sure if they ever got around to fixin it or callin it a feature as I haven't loaded up SWTOR for a long while now.

As for game breakin bugs I really only had 1. My Jedi Knight had a massive bug that caused him to be unable to progress on Coruscant because I was completely unable to use my communicator due to it bein stuck in an infinite loop. I needed to use the communicator to talk to someone to progress the quest lines, but it would not work at all. I contacted customer support about it, twice, and both times I was told it was a known bug and I'd have to shelve my jedi knight until the next patch rolled out to fix the bug.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Because there are very rarely fixed copies of the same game available at the time. That simple. You want to buy a table, there are thousands to choose from, you don't have to buy the first one you see and you can still put your food on it. But games are all different, and if you want to play a game, you play it in the condition it is presented.

 

[Thoff09]

Can't say much about Diablo, but steel battalion should never have been released. I've never played such a frustrating game in my life.

 

[Rienimportant]

So Fallout anyone?
I don't really know. I don't play games until usually a couple of months after they come out, mostly because I don't always have time etc etc. But from what I hear, games like Fallout, which apparently set the standard for broken before the latest few fuck ups have come around, were still really really fun.

And that's why people game. (Right? I think so...) So, glitchy but fun? Sure thing I'll play that game. Completely broken and terrible? There's a reason I never bought Diablo or War Z or any other game that just panned for bad technical issues.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Diablo III wasn't broken, OP. That's just your perspective of the product. Or if it was broken, it wasn't in the same way that The War Z was. Blizzard didn't sleaze out and hand us an unfinished and incomplete game. The Error 37 fiasco is a server-side issue; it has nothing to do with the code that's on the CD you purchased.

The War Z, however, is a case of desperate and unscrupulous devs hedging their bets by slapping microtransactions and a pay-to-win bundle on a product that wasn't functional at all to begin with. The problems weren't just server-side; The War Z wasn't fit to be delivered to consumers on the client side, period. Everything from the art assets to the animations screamed "Shady Developer". It even became apparent that Hammerpoint intended to abandon support for War Z ONE MONTH into its retail existence.

Why? Most likely because Sergey Titov's boatload of LLCs within other LLCs were part of a laundering scheme. Limited liability companies cannot be held accountable if their product tanks. You can prosecute them, but their status gives them more legal leeway than your standard incorporated company. In essence, Hammerpoint is legally allowed to simply take off with its subscribers' money.

Actiblizzion isn't an LLC. It's registered on the stock market. It has a shareholder base to report to. It has obligations. If Blizzard had pulled one fifth of what Hammerpoint did, you'd have a media blowout like nothing the gaming press has ever seen.

As unfortunately for you, comparing War Z to D3 can't possibly hold water. The auction house system works as intended, whereas the cash shop in The War Z is more or less designed for repeat visits - seeing as dying robs you of everything you've scavenged, including your purchased items.

One is a company that tends to overshoot just a tad but that nonetheless manages to operate within the boundaries of the law. The other is a scam shell constructed so a lucky few would have the opportunity to line their pockets and cut their losses before it's too late.

 

[CyberAkuma]

I am not one to defend the steaming pile of shit that is the War Z, but considering the very limited library of Zombie survival games in existence - namely Day Z and War Z I can see why people stick to it. Specially considering the fact that the entire survival horror genre is as good as fucking dead.

Also, for the record - The War Z is clearly in the Alpha stage. The game isn't *BROKEN* - it's just not FINISHED. The game has been in development for only a few couple of months and even then it's clearly stretching the definition of "in development" - the only thing they did was take an old engine from The War Inc. and re-skinned it with a Zombie theme. It's made by an independant indie crew with very few developers and they're trying to make a MMO FPS with +100 players which just isn't doable in the few months they've had.

The game is clearly an ALPHA - hence it isn't broken - it's just far FAR from being FINISHED.
Anyone claiming that it isn't an alpha is outright lying to you.

As much as I enjoy Day Z - that game is horribly broken, unfinished and riddled with insane limitations by the engine and hackers.

While that doesn't excuse the condition that The War Z is in - it is at least an understandable reasoning which responds to your question.


As for Diablo III - it is not broken. The game isn't broken. The *DRM* is broken and Blizzard had to withstand a shitstorm of critique for that. Please try to see the difference between the game itself and the DRM which is an entirely separate entity.

 

[Windcaler]

I am not one to defend the steaming pile of shit that is the War Z, but considering the very limited library of Zombie survival games in existence - namely Day Z and War Z I can see why people stick to it. Specially considering the fact that the entire survival horror genre is as good as fucking dead.

Also, for the record - The War Z is clearly in the Alpha stage. The game isn't *BROKEN* - it's just not FINISHED. The game has been in development for only a few couple of months and even then it's clearly stretching the definition of "in development" - the only thing they did was take an old engine from The War Inc. and re-skinned it with a Zombie theme. It's made by an independant indie crew with very few developers and they're trying to make a MMO FPS with +100 players which just isn't doable in the few months they've had.

The game is clearly an ALPHA - hence it isn't broken - it's just far FAR from being FINISHED.
Anyone claiming that it isn't an alpha is outright lying to you.

As much as I enjoy Day Z - that game is horribly broken, unfinished and riddled with insane limitations by the engine and hackers.

While that doesn't excuse the condition that The War Z is in - it is at least an understandable reasoning which responds to your question.


As for Diablo III - it is not broken. The game isn't broken. The *DRM* is broken and Blizzard had to withstand a shitstorm of critique for that. Please try to see the difference between the game itself and the DRM which is an entirely separate entity.

The difference between DayZ and WarZ is DayZ is a mod, everyone knows its a mod, everyone knows that its an unfinished mod, and everyone knows that the mod (not arma2) is free. WarZ advertised itself and sold itself as a finished product and as you state, its not. Its an alpha. This is a case where gamers really need to report Hammerpoint to the BBB or this kind of thing will happen again because Hammerpoint got away with it

As for Diablo 3 the situation was resolved awhile ago but error 37 still showed a broken system as gamers bought a product that quit literally didnt work. Blizzard was again not punished by reports to the FTC and BBB

Gamers have to start holding these companies accountable and report them to the various consumer protection agencies if they want to stop getting these kinds of broken games.

 

[Jfswift]

Fallout: New Vegas is a good example here. It's badly broken to almost being unplayable but I put up with it because it's really fun with a solid story and setting imho.

I guess I could have just not bought it or protested until the company fixed it but honestly I wanted to play it then and there, despite it's problems.

 

[Cassidy Hill]

Diablo III wasn't broken, OP. That's just your perspective of the product. Or if it was broken, it wasn't in the same way that The War Z was. Blizzard didn't sleaze out and hand us an unfinished and incomplete game. The Error 37 fiasco is a server-side issue; it has nothing to do with the code that's on the CD you purchased.

The War Z, however, is a case of desperate and unscrupulous devs hedging their bets by slapping microtransactions and a pay-to-win bundle on a product that wasn't functional at all to begin with. The problems weren't just server-side; The War Z wasn't fit to be delivered to consumers on the client side, period. Everything from the art assets to the animations screamed "Shady Developer". It even became apparent that Hammerpoint intended to abandon support for War Z ONE MONTH into its retail existence.

Why? Most likely because Sergey Titov's boatload of LLCs within other LLCs were part of a laundering scheme. Limited liability companies cannot be held accountable if their product tanks. You can prosecute them, but their status gives them more legal leeway than your standard incorporated company. In essence, Hammerpoint is legally allowed to simply take off with its subscribers' money.

Actiblizzion isn't an LLC. It's registered on the stock market. It has a shareholder base to report to. It has obligations. If Blizzard had pulled one fifth of what Hammerpoint did, you'd have a media blowout like nothing the gaming press has ever seen.

As unfortunately for you, comparing War Z to D3 can't possibly hold water. The auction house system works as intended, whereas the cash shop in The War Z is more or less designed for repeat visits - seeing as dying robs you of everything you've scavenged, including your purchased items.

One is a company that tends to overshoot just a tad but that nonetheless manages to operate within the boundaries of the law. The other is a scam shell constructed so a lucky few would have the opportunity to line their pockets and cut their losses before it's too late.

Diablo 3 was and is broken if you are only interested in hardcore mode. Nearly got killed by lag a few times, decided not to play anymore seeing as my character would definitely get killed by lag at some point, wasting all that time and effort.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

As for game breakin bugs I really only had 1.

If you really only encountered one game-breaking bug and it only affected one quest on one character, then the game wasn't really "broken," was it?

"Broken" is a big label to put on a game. It says "This game does not function as a game." Not "this game is buggy," not "this game is poorly optimised," it's "this game is broken."

What you've described are bugs and poor optimisation, not a broken game.

 

[Sylveria]

War Z was broken in its terrible glitches, bully tactics by the developers, and was so poor it was taken off Steam.

How is a game that caused such a fuss that it was removed from sale being used as a example of people accepting a broken game?

Same goes for Steel Battalion. It's known above all else for being non-functional.

Don't know about Diablo 3. I barely played it and, seriously, fuck having that debate again.

There is a concerning amount of people defending War Z with the usual "I'm having fun, I don't care what's wrong with it."

Some people just don't have any standards.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I know a guy who worked at Blizzard during launch day. The launch overloaded the servers but DRM had nothing to do with anything (unless you consider client server architecture to be DRM), don't tell lies.

War Z was widely condemned by gamers and by Valve. It was released early in an unfinished state to cash in. Nobody accepts it and people think it was a dick move.

I don't know anything about Steel Battalion.

People don't just accept broken games. Broken games get released and most of the time gamers ***** about them being broken, even if they aren't. Broken games get released for a number of reasons, lots of them having to do with time constraints and lack of resources. Usually nobody likes them and they don't make much money. There isn't any malice going on here.

 

[Sylveria]

Diablo III wasn't broken, OP. That's just your perspective of the product. Or if it was broken, it wasn't in the same way that The War Z was. Blizzard didn't sleaze out and hand us an unfinished and incomplete game. The Error 37 fiasco is a server-side issue; it has nothing to do with the code that's on the CD you purchased.

Actually Diablo 3 was and still is unfinished. Major components were not complete upon release with the promise they'd be patched in later. PVP being one of those features. Blizzard has since discontinued working on PVP since they can't get it to function how they want.

 

[zehydra]

"So why do we accept broken games?"

Why does who? If it's broken don't buy it. If you didn't know it was going to be broken, then you should have done your research. You bought it day 1 release?

Never buy it on day one. Ever.

Buying games on day one tells these companies that they can get away with patching it later. Expecting a buggy release and not buying on day one is the only way publishers will listen.

 

[Joccaren]

War Z was broken in its terrible glitches, bully tactics by the developers, and was so poor it was taken off Steam.

Diablo III was broken at its time of launch due to the terrible always-online DRM that causes so many to be unable to play something they paid for, yet pirates could play no problem. People defended it because "it's Diablo".

Steel Battalion for the Kinect was a defective product. No getting around that, it just didn't work, it was defective and if it were any other sort of product it would be recalled and probably couldn't legally be sold.

Now I'm not talking about games with glitches, in this day and age that's something that's bound to happen. Heck it's been happening since gaming started, but most of them aren't so bad they completely ruin the game. So why do we accept broken games?

Uhh...

What?

For one, NONE of those games has been accepted. Even Diablo, which is mostly accepted, has caught a lot of flack for this - and its not broken. Early on there were server problems, but now that's fixed. You don't have good Internet? Don't play an online game, its no more broken than WoW is because you need an Internet connection to play that too.

Steel Battalion... Have you not seen Yahtzee and Jim rag on about how shit it is? And the comments?
In no way is it accepted.

Same for WarZ, people bash the hell out of both of them.

Either you're question is "Why are broken games still made?" or it is "Why aren't people always complaining about the same broken games they've already complained about?".
The answer to both should be obvious.

The only broken games I see that are accepted are Bethesda games that, whilst not always broken or unplayable have ridiculous numbers of glitches and errors, often game breaking, and yet people brush it aside because "They're Bethesda, they do that", and even that's not that big a deal IMO 'cause they do slowly patch out many of the problems - even if some of their games are still downright unplayable for some people.

 

[Mauler]

Well for me as an ELITIST PC gamer its more of an common problem to wait for right patches(ergo Gothic 3) and still after half a year of patching its still unplayable, then download a Skidrow patches from a torrent site(or some other random community patch) and its DONE. For consoles I could say that they hawe less problems whith broken games(still hate those peskey PC dmr's(like realley why I had to be connected to internet to play Assasins creed(like realley I dont hawe internet at home and use it mostley from friends house, last job place(that's why most peoples who uses cracks hawe legit copies of games(sorry for off-topicking and overusing the "()")))))...

 

[Starik20X6]

It's not so much the gaming public that's accepting broken games (at least, it shouldn't be), it's the publishers that have started accepting it. And I think it's because now we have the ability to patch games. Back in the day, a broken game didn't sell, end of story, and the people who made them went out of business fast. Because it had to be perfect or near perfect at launch, there was a lot more strenuous testing and such.

I understand that occasionally glitches will slip through the net, and the infinite complexity of todays games means some minor glitches are inevitable. But these days it seems half-finished games get released because "we can patch it later". That's not how it should work. At all. And I can't believe someone has to explain that to them.