Because updates usually mean the game isn't finished? If a monetized model meant developers would actually be motivated to put out a complete game on day 1, then sure.
Because then you are saying that the game is done, so if you try to charge for something after, even if you claim it's an update, then if your game is a broken buggy mess, that's your game no take backs.
I've often backhanded Bethesda for their lazy approach to their games, rarely updated to remove the bugs with modders usually offering a better game but this is worse.
This is quite a bit more shameless. He appears to be talking about bug fixes rather than adding new content. He talks as if games are shipped bug free or even functional, when the standard model for well over a decade has been to ship out buggy messes, have a day one patch, then fix things with even more patches in the months following the game's release. I don't know why it's so much to ask to release free patches when the players are serving as free beta testers.
Day one patches exist because games get etched onto discs months before release date and if they quash a bug after that they have to patch it day of since they can't patch a sealed disk. Day one patches aren't a big deal if they're small, but they've started being up to 30 or 40 gigs.
The day one patch isn't really the problem here, and for reasons you describe it's pretty much unavoidable. The product should be at the very least functional after the day one patch is applied, and they should put off the release if that's unfeasible. The real problem is it often takes months after release and half a dozen patches to reach that functional state, and they often leave bugs that aren't game breaking unaddressed completely. I'd obviously rather them fix their shit than not fix their shit, but we really ought to stop rewarding this behavior from companies instead of incentivizing it like the jackass the article is talking about suggests.
I agree with him, actually, just not in the way he thinks: imagine how little shit people would put up with on release if they had to pay for it to be fixed....... ah, who am I kidding; people thought paid DLC would never catch on, but there will always be whales and consoomers to ruin it for everyone.
I'm not sure they really ruined much. If you wait for a year after release games are patched, complete and go on sale for 75% off or more. That wasn't the case for games in ye olden pre-DLC times.
Publishers just shifted the bulk of income to the impatient. If you're a little bit patient it's cheaper and more convenient to get games and there are more games than ever.
It's not like back in the olden days when every year and every released offered something exciting and new. Technological progress has all but stalled and games are just remakes these days. Doesn't matter if you play them now or in a year.
Because updates usually mean the game isn't finished? If a monetized model meant developers would actually be motivated to put out a complete game on day 1, then sure.
Why should anyone buy your game until it’s bug-free?
Fuck this greedy Jap faggot. Didn’t he fill the second game with tranny shit?
It won't of course. They'll just get even lazier about shipping a working product if they're paid to fix the mess.
Because then you are saying that the game is done, so if you try to charge for something after, even if you claim it's an update, then if your game is a broken buggy mess, that's your game no take backs.
I've often backhanded Bethesda for their lazy approach to their games, rarely updated to remove the bugs with modders usually offering a better game but this is worse.
what_year_is_this.jpg
This seems like a discussion that's 10-20 years out of date. Paid DLC is the standard,not the exception these days.
This is quite a bit more shameless. He appears to be talking about bug fixes rather than adding new content. He talks as if games are shipped bug free or even functional, when the standard model for well over a decade has been to ship out buggy messes, have a day one patch, then fix things with even more patches in the months following the game's release. I don't know why it's so much to ask to release free patches when the players are serving as free beta testers.
Day one patches exist because games get etched onto discs months before release date and if they quash a bug after that they have to patch it day of since they can't patch a sealed disk. Day one patches aren't a big deal if they're small, but they've started being up to 30 or 40 gigs.
The day one patch isn't really the problem here, and for reasons you describe it's pretty much unavoidable. The product should be at the very least functional after the day one patch is applied, and they should put off the release if that's unfeasible. The real problem is it often takes months after release and half a dozen patches to reach that functional state, and they often leave bugs that aren't game breaking unaddressed completely. I'd obviously rather them fix their shit than not fix their shit, but we really ought to stop rewarding this behavior from companies instead of incentivizing it like the jackass the article is talking about suggests.
That and because they release games in pieces via DLCs is why I don't play games anymore that haven't been out for at least a year.
Does he? The article makes it sound like this is about "a $9.99 DLC adding a lot of new content to the game as well as a true ending."
I agree with him, actually, just not in the way he thinks: imagine how little shit people would put up with on release if they had to pay for it to be fixed....... ah, who am I kidding; people thought paid DLC would never catch on, but there will always be whales and consoomers to ruin it for everyone.
I'm not sure they really ruined much. If you wait for a year after release games are patched, complete and go on sale for 75% off or more. That wasn't the case for games in ye olden pre-DLC times.
Publishers just shifted the bulk of income to the impatient. If you're a little bit patient it's cheaper and more convenient to get games and there are more games than ever.
It's not like back in the olden days when every year and every released offered something exciting and new. Technological progress has all but stalled and games are just remakes these days. Doesn't matter if you play them now or in a year.
Sounds like a neat way to get sued for selling a product that was falsely advertised as finished and working.
And I think air in Japan should cost money.
An opinion is like an asshole: mine is right.
maybe just make complete games to start with and you won't have to update them
Swery is a weird boy. Makes sense him to have weird takes.