Why do publisher's release BAD games?

[CTU_Agent24]

Think about it, Why would a publisher / game designer release a game they know isn't the best it could be?
Surely they hold focus groups / market research's to find out if the audience likes it, and reviewers who get a 'hands on' before the game is released will provide feedback as to what they like / dislike...
Is it Money? Time? Cut your losses and run? even then, surely it is better to invest more into refining a great game game, then releasing a mediocre one.
Examples; Alone in the Dark, Turok and more...
Why?

 

[HuCast]

Because the 'mainstream' audience doesnt care? We that surf the web for gaming reviews are a minority-most customers grab the game because it has a cool cover or name on it. Compare it to hamburgers: everybody knows that they are not good and healthy but as long as the majority eats them the way they are there is no need to reduce the artificial flavors or fat

 

[chaostheory]

Because delaying the game again would cost more money then they could expect it to make, so they release it to cut their losses.

 

[captainwillies]

simple. money! bang

 

[sunami88]

I've often wondered that too, but I'll have to agree with some of the other guys in the thread: It's all about the all mighty dollar. If they release a crappy game and 100 people buy it it's better than not releasing it at all and having 0 people buy it.

Pretty crappy tactic, but obviously it works well enough.

 

[tobyornottoby]

even then, surely it is better to invest more into refining a great game game, then releasing a mediocre one.

I guess that because either there's a time deadline (like holiday seasons, competition that you don't want to get released before you) or because there's no faith that the development team can make it right with reasonable extra costs

you know what I'm wondering a lot: how do games get BAD in the first place?

 

[roo18]

Because it's hard to release a good game.

 

[CatmanStu]

What I don't understand is the money invested in the first place.

Let's say you have two developers A and B, the last game A made was a critical and financial success, the last game B made was a turd with no redeeming features. Now as a publisher surely A has shown you can throw a shed load of cash at them and odds are you will have a hit, but why throw development cash at B who have done nothing to warrant that risk. Surely you would want to see a half decent beta version before taking the gamble.

 

[Squeaksx]

Well there tends to be three reasons why a publisher releases a bad game. One they ran out of money, time, and ect. and have to release it despite it not being polished out. They pull off an Uwe Boll and genuinely believe that the mov...GAME is good despite the fact that ninety percent of people find it to be crap. Three is they don't test it enough to find every single little bug and game-play and figure that it is a good solid game.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Poorly thought out ideas, innovation gone wrong, trying to rip off someone who is already pretty bad, that sort of thing.

you'd say poor ideas and out-of-hand innovation would show early in the process, whereas ripping bad ideas who'd do that in the first place

 

[Theo Samaritan]

Alot of the time its a case that the publishers don't care - they see money and give a deadline. EGOSOFT had this problem with X3: Reunion, the deadline meant the store release was as buggy as hell.

Then again EGOSOFT actually cared about this and released patch 1.2 on the same day as the games release. Can't fault them for their support. Unfortunately other games companies don't care so much, and after the publisher's deadline has past and they are shipping copies they see it as not their job to support the actual software.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Well, the majority of the shitty games were created because the developers blew all of their money and/or ran out of time. If someone is making a game they really have to think ahead and invest money and time properly. Think of Valve or Rock Star, although R* sometimes really delays their releases (see GTA IV!), I can't think of a single (REALLY) bad game by this companies. Why? Because they play(ed) their cards right

... then again there are the idiots that think that they: a) did it right b) successfully ripped someone off c) have so many fanboys that they can do whatever they like and d) pretty much everything else that Mr. Croshaw bashes game devs for

 

[j1-2themax]

I remember reading an article in a magazine which did a pretty good job when it comes to summarizing where things can go wrong with a game. While time and money are the most common reasons, outside influences can also cause a game to go sour (i.e. one development team was asked to change the entire genre of a game within 2 months or so because one of their more powerful investors told them to.)

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

Because it's hard to release a good game.

Exactly, as someone who wishes to persue a career in videogames journalism I'm aware that most games I'll end up playing in my dream job will probably be rated under 70% or whatever the rating system is. Despite best efforts a lot of companies just can't make their game shine.

Either that or they're EA, I wouldn't be surprised if they botched up Dead Space.

 

[Milkatron]

Well, the majority of the shitty games were created because the developers blew all of their money and/or ran out of time. If someone is making a game they really have to think ahead and invest money and time properly. Think of Valve or Rock Star, although R* sometimes really delays their releases (see GTA IV!), I can't think of a single (REALLY) bad game by this companies. Why? Because they play(ed) their cards right

... then again there are the idiots that think that they: a) did it right b) successfully ripped someone off c) have so many fanboys that they can do whatever they like and d) pretty much everything else that Mr. Croshaw bashes game devs for

San Andreas


If you look around in the world today, people (even outside of gaming) believe they are the best and the world revolves around them and only them. Now if you make this person into a game developer they will overlook a few gameplay issues because they helped to make it. Sometimes just a couple of these people in high ranks is all it takes to make a good idea explode in our faces and sometimes wallets.

 

[metagaia]

I can understand how games with bad execution come to be realeased (Daikatana, Turok etc), I struggle to see how games with bad concepts get released like Bomberman: Act Zero. When the fundamental premise behind the game is flawed, surely time and money are not needed to waive that idea out of the window?

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

I can understand how games with bad execution come to be realeased (Daikatana, Turok etc), I struggle to see how games with bad concepts get released like Bomberman: Act Zero. When the fundamental premise behind the game is flawed, surely time and money are not needed to waive that idea out of the window?

Some people are just so pretentious they think their game is good, like Squeaksx said. Time and money are wasted in the developement of a flawed game that is cancelled though, it may just be a better idea to release the bad game and hope people are stupid enough to buy it.

 

[tobyornottoby]

The guys who made Turok Evolution?

sry know nothing 'bout that one >.>

anyways, I'll also coin a more personal reason: the goals/wishes of the developers themselves. Different people wanting different things... it's so much harder to get something great out of that than a team with a single focus

(and this hooks back to the topic because a publisher could decide not to put more resources into such a team)

 

[T360]

i think alot of the bad games that clog up the game shevles are licensed games. these games are usally made by devlopers who are just going through the motions and dont really care about because its not there orgainal IP. The fact that money is always a factor however id wonder why not invest to make sure the game will sell at blockbuster level rather then a one week jump on its relase then bad sales afterwords because of word of mouth.

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

Because they can still make money by half-assing their way through it.