Why do devs release rubbish games?

[Keepitclean]

OK, most games that we think are rubbish are rubbish in our opinion, I meansome people like them. But there are some games that are so rubbish, that are so insanly pathetic and they still manage to get released. eg. bomberman for the xbox360

Does anyone know why these games are released?

 

[El Poncho]

They are given a date to finish the game, they won't be able to make that date and the publisher wants them to release it then so they can't do what they wanted to do with the game I guess.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

To make money? Without having to spend time actually making something good?

 

[trog08]

Someones idea of a sick joke?

 

[WrongSprite]

Old thread.

Money.

 

[Keepitclean]

hmm I guess. But wouldnt the Business men who run the studios realise that it their produdct is that bad and realise that they are probably gonna make a loss?

 

[squid5580]

To make money? Without having to spend time actually making something good?

Right because they just grab some monkeys out of the jungle and hand them keyboards. Then they wave their magic wands and make discs and cases appear so they don't have to pay for manufacturing costs.

Or it could be someone has what sounds like a good idea. They put alot of time and money into the project. Realize that it sucks but they are too invested in it to pull out and write off all the costs. So they put it out and hope that they can break even. Or at least reduce the financial damage so they don't go bankrupt. Some actually learn from this and don't make the same mistakes twice. Which is alot better than them going under and new companies coming in and making them.

 

[Souplex]

Because the popularity of Half Life sent the message that developers don't have to try to make lots of money.

 

[Ciarang]

Because the popularity of Half Life sent the message that developers don't have to try to make lots of money.

Seriously? Are you TRYING to start a flame war?

OT: I have no idea, I ask the same question all the time...

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

To make money? Without having to spend time actually making something good?

Right because they just grab some monkeys out of the jungle and hand them keyboards. Then they wave their magic wands and make discs and cases appear so they don't have to pay for manufacturing costs.

Or it could be someone has what sounds like a good idea. They put alot of time and money into the project. Realize that it sucks but they are too invested in it to pull out and write off all the costs. So they put it out and hope that they can break even. Or at least reduce the financial damage so they don't go bankrupt. Some actually learn from this and don't make the same mistakes twice. Which is alot better than them going under and new companies coming in and making them.

I'm sure that happens. The example OP gave was the remake of bomberman. Which clearly isn't a good idea at all, and most likely a cynical ploy to get our money by preying on our nostalgia.

 

[Lukeje]

Because people buy them. That's the simple answer...

 

[squid5580]

To make money? Without having to spend time actually making something good?

Right because they just grab some monkeys out of the jungle and hand them keyboards. Then they wave their magic wands and make discs and cases appear so they don't have to pay for manufacturing costs.

Or it could be someone has what sounds like a good idea. They put alot of time and money into the project. Realize that it sucks but they are too invested in it to pull out and write off all the costs. So they put it out and hope that they can break even. Or at least reduce the financial damage so they don't go bankrupt. Some actually learn from this and don't make the same mistakes twice. Which is alot better than them going under and new companies coming in and making them.

I'm sure that happens. The example OP gave was the remake of bomberman. Which clearly isn't a good idea at all, and most likely a cynical ploy to get our money by preying on our nostalgia.

I highly doubt it is all that much easier or cheaper to make a bad game than it is to make a good one. They still need people to code it. They need to manufacture the discs, cases, box art ect. They still need to fork out the dough to pay for licensing fees to the console company. And then they have investors that want to see a return on thier investment. When a game bombs it costs them money. So it makes no sense for a company to intentionally pay money out of thier own pockets to make a game. Since that is the logic you are using.

 

[Captain Pancake]

They release them because they hope people will like it. It's just down to chance and opinion whether anybody actually likes it.

 

[Keepitclean]

But captian pancake surely they get some one from an objective view point to look at the game before release. If they didnt bother to do that at all taht would be a very very poor business decision.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

To make money? Without having to spend time actually making something good?

Right because they just grab some monkeys out of the jungle and hand them keyboards. Then they wave their magic wands and make discs and cases appear so they don't have to pay for manufacturing costs.

Or it could be someone has what sounds like a good idea. They put alot of time and money into the project. Realize that it sucks but they are too invested in it to pull out and write off all the costs. So they put it out and hope that they can break even. Or at least reduce the financial damage so they don't go bankrupt. Some actually learn from this and don't make the same mistakes twice. Which is alot better than them going under and new companies coming in and making them.

I'm sure that happens. The example OP gave was the remake of bomberman. Which clearly isn't a good idea at all, and most likely a cynical ploy to get our money by preying on our nostalgia.

I highly doubt it is all that much easier or cheaper to make a bad game than it is to make a good one. They still need people to code it. They need to manufacture the discs, cases, box art ect. They still need to fork out the dough to pay for licensing fees to the console company. And then they have investors that want to see a return on thier investment. When a game bombs it costs them money. So it makes no sense for a company to intentionally pay money out of thier own pockets to make a game. Since that is the logic you are using.

What is good, is not necessarily what sells. You could look at just about any industry and find examples of this being true. Record companies manufacture bland pop acts, tv is littered with reality shows, lame game shows and terrible soaps. Quality might not be of paramount importance to the people who give projects the green light...

Anyway, I would have thought that to make a good game would take alot of time, which would mean alot of work, alot of paid hours to a larger team of developers than it would take to make a shitty game. I would think that this is where the costs are, manufacturing plastic cases and burning discs doesn't actually cost all that much.

These are just my thoughts, which I can't exapand on right now as I have to go to work. In any case, I posed my ideas as questions instead of asserting them outright.

 

[Chrono180]

Because many people are idiots who can't tell the difference between a bad game and a good game. This is because people are brainwashed in schools to ignore the little voice in their head that says "I'm not having fun with this, in fact, this really sucks" which is also the little voice that tells you which games are good and which are bad.

 

[Mordwyl]

Stupid people buy rubbish games. Why bother making another EVO when Spore sells more?

 

[eatenbyagrue]

To make money, but not for the reasons that most people think.

See, game developers are paid a salary, not a retainer. A salary means that they're paid by the hour, and when the developers are sitting idle, without a project to work on, the company loses money.

A game, even a bad one, is a "good" business decision in the sense that, 1) you're keeping your entire dev team busy, and thus preventing them from just coming in, sitting at a desk and doing nothing, while 2) allowing the company to recoup at least a part of the day-to-day operational costs.

 

[LogicNProportion]

There's a certain Pink Floyd song about currency that coems to mind at this question...

 

[squid5580]

To make money? Without having to spend time actually making something good?

Right because they just grab some monkeys out of the jungle and hand them keyboards. Then they wave their magic wands and make discs and cases appear so they don't have to pay for manufacturing costs.

Or it could be someone has what sounds like a good idea. They put alot of time and money into the project. Realize that it sucks but they are too invested in it to pull out and write off all the costs. So they put it out and hope that they can break even. Or at least reduce the financial damage so they don't go bankrupt. Some actually learn from this and don't make the same mistakes twice. Which is alot better than them going under and new companies coming in and making them.

I'm sure that happens. The example OP gave was the remake of bomberman. Which clearly isn't a good idea at all, and most likely a cynical ploy to get our money by preying on our nostalgia.

I highly doubt it is all that much easier or cheaper to make a bad game than it is to make a good one. They still need people to code it. They need to manufacture the discs, cases, box art ect. They still need to fork out the dough to pay for licensing fees to the console company. And then they have investors that want to see a return on thier investment. When a game bombs it costs them money. So it makes no sense for a company to intentionally pay money out of thier own pockets to make a game. Since that is the logic you are using.

What is good, is not necessarily what sells. You could look at just about any industry and find examples of this being true. Record companies manufacture bland pop acts, tv is littered with reality shows, lame game shows and terrible soaps. Quality might not be of paramount importance to the people who give projects the green light...

Anyway, I would have thought that to make a good game would take alot of time, which would mean alot of work, alot of paid hours to a larger team of developers than it would take to make a shitty game. I would think that this is where the costs are, manufacturing plastic cases and burning discs doesn't actually cost all that much.

These are just my thoughts, which I can't exapand on right now as I have to go to work. In any case, I posed my ideas as questions instead of asserting them outright.

I would think that it would take a big team to make a game look good. And if you already have the engine you could probably reduce alot of man hours. I just don't think that 2 games being built from the ground up that have the similar graphics and gameplay (like 2 FPS's) 1 being good and the other being terrible (which is subjective of course) the bad one would be all that much cheaper to make. Although there is one thing that we can't account for. What kind of wages does the company pay. And what kind of talent are they paying for. A company could hire a bad designer who they think is good but isn't. And end up paying through the nose for them. Or they could hire a good one who works for peanuts because they lack experience.