@Setho10 

I completely agree. I think the worst offender was Asura's Wrath. Play through the game, get to the last boss... then get the middle finger telling me "Buy the DLC to unlock the last boss". I died a little that day.

 

Thanks for the great conversation! I'd chat more but this probably isn't the best place to have 1-on-1s. I'll be watching your blog though, and great luck in the future!

 @Cypress131 My question to EA would be, you claim this current system to be so successful yet you haven't posted a yearly profit this entire generation. Take Two and Blizzard have. I too get why EA is doing what they do, but like I said, I think the franchise potential of Medal of Honor has pretty much been killed because of this. They have lost years worth of profit to protect one quarter. Again, I get why they did it, but I really wish they wouldn't be so short sighted.

 

THQ's situation makes me sad as well. They have really turned the quality of their titles around, yet they suffer from two things. The main thing is they just don't have the marketing budget to really succeed in AAA development against titans like EA and Activision Blizzard. And secondly, unlike Take Two, their titles are not good enough to overcome that issue. What factors go into that second one I don't know, but I would expect it falls a lot to budget constraints. It's a shame. I really hope they pull through. Jason Rubin is a good guy and a really smart developer. Whether his ability to manage is as great as his ability to design remains to be seen, but Rubin would be on my shortlist of people who could really push some quality into a publisher's titles. As for the new model of DLC/Patches etc, in many ways it is a good thing especially on consoles. Patches are generally a really great thing. They can be bad, as in these cases, but in general they are good. DLC in theory is a really great idea as well. I just think that DLC prices are too high for too little content. I recently beat Minerva's Den, the DLC for Bioshock 2. It was 5 dollars and included a completely new single player campaign with new VO, cutscenes, levels, weapons, abilities, and characters. And it was a good three or four hours long to boot. Now I would have happily paid $10 for that but the point is that you compare that to spending $15 on a couple of maps and it feels like players are not getting their money's worth. And again, I get why companies do it. Activision just released quarterly results that saw Digital Sales represent 51% of their income. They are also the first company I have seen this week to post a quarterly profit. They do it right from a money making standpoint. Really they do it incredibly, and I respect them for that, but that doesn't mean I hate them any less. I don't mind that they release Call of Duty every year. That's all well and good. But I do mind that they charge more for all the DLC than they do for the entire game. 10 years ago I could spend $30 on a full blown expansion with a lengthy new SP component plus new multiplayer modes, weapons, maps, and more. Now obviously the cost of developing games has gone up in the past 10 years, but it hasn't gone up enough that I should have to pay $75 for nothing but additional maps. Where are the new modes, the new weapons, the new abilities, the balance tweaks, the SP component? Yes, DLC is a good idea, but for those of us who can remember 10, 15, or even 20 years back, then it starts to become pretty clear that the value of expansions vastly exceeded those of current DLC packs, even taking into account the massive increase in development costs.

 

 @Setho10 

"That is long before they need to press discs and would give DICE some breathing room to actually put out a good beta and fix the problems and then put the game to disc."

 

See that's an issue though. Publishers don't want breathing room. The more breathing room, the longer they have to pay developers without seeing the product hit market, and the lower their profits get. At the same time, that really isn't a bad thing. It's a balancing act, and if they fall one one side, they company loses money, and if they fall on the other side, the game doesn't come out perfectly. That's why they've started to rely on those day1 patches. They honestly don't WANT the game to come out with bugs in it, but they'd rather launch a buggy game with a day1 patch then to push it back and lose tons of money and investors. That's why they widened that balancing act towards the earlier launches.

 

That said, I don't like it either, but I understand the mentality that goes into it. As for the betas being so late?...

 

Yeah that sounds like EA. It should have been much earlier.

 

As for THQ... well, that situation makes me depressed. Yes, THQ is ABLE to delay it, but not for long. They've lost so much money from investors and production costs, that if they miss one or two more dates they'll be bankrupt or more likely, bought out. Somebody messed up bad. They're not losing "a bit of money", they're losing millions and their stock is plummeting fast. 

 

Take Two is... interesting. I was at EA when we were trying to buy them out, and i'm glad they refused. The reason Take Two can get away with delaying games, is because they are one of the most consistently excellent game publishers in this era of gaming. They have overwhelming faith in Rockstar, Gearbox, and their sports series, and are willing to take the risks involved with pushing them back, because they know they'll be successful.

 

If Take Two sold out to EA, all that trust would be gone. EA doesn't run like that.

 

That all being said, I agree that day1 patches have begun getting pretty ridiculous. And I can completely empathize with those who can't or don't want to have to utilize them. At the same time, with the market becoming more and more based on digital downloads then physical discs, I can see why these issues can occur.

 

The biggest problem I have is that there's two different models of game development that are starting to stand out. One is the old model, where you make a game and you're done. The other is a newer model, where the game you make lingers on. Supporting the game, adding new content in the form of DLC, adding bug-fixes, ect... are all pieces to this new model of game development that many of the older gamers dislike, whereas most newer games actually EXPECT. Too many times have I heard, "They've stopped supporting their game". People actually get angry about it at times!

 

The old model is slowly starting to disappear. The time when gamers could go and buy a physical disc or cartridge and plug it in and play. As much as I like the old model, I see the new model having more pros then cons for most people. We see more content then we ever would for an old model game, and if there's a bug, you can report it and it can actually be fixed.

 

The next step was already tried once, with the PSP GO. Although the whole "digital only" thing was too early, it most likely is where we will end up. At that point, you'll be downloading not just a 1st day patch, but the entire game, like many already do with steam.

 

As always, this is just my point of view as both a developer and a hardcore gamer. I've been writing so much, maybe I should just start my own blog. :P

 @Cypress131 Fair enough. I never intended to clump those people together. I apologize. The question of whether or not to delay a game can be a tough one. I understand that there are major repercussions when a publisher delays a game. But many small companies manage to do so. THQ just delayed 3 games as I said. Take Two delays virtually every game they release. Yea you lose quite a bit of money and have to spend much more for a rush job but if the game isn't done then it isn't done. Also, specifically in EA's case, why hold a Beta after the point where the game went into production? Now obviously it isn't that simple, but both Battlefield 3 and now Medal of Honor Warfighter had major day one patches after very glitchy and at times downright broken Betas. Now on the one hand I'm sure these betas helped find and fix a lot of those bugs, but why hold a beta so late in development? Again, I know the logistics behind it, but it just seems like a poorly planned development cycle. Maybe the companies really need three years to develop the game? I dunno but with two straight years of this happening you would hope EA has learned its lesson. Now is the time to say a game won't ship next Holiday. That is long before they need to press discs and would give DICE some breathing room to actually put out a good beta and fix the problems and then put the game to disc.

 @CincoToesI'll agree on that. But I think most developers try to make the best game possible the first time around. Quality is important to publishers now that franchises are so important. While the quality of any specific game doesn't really effect sales of that game, it does effect the sales potential of later games in the series.

 

 @Setho10 I agree that it's good to have a way to fix things, but I also think knowing you have a way to fix thing later will make some less vigilant in doing things right the first time, especially when boatloads of money are there to be made.

 @shingui5  @Setho10

 The point is, unfinished s**t should not be on store shelves and being sold as a full game. Nuff said.

 @Raphy_Turtle  @Setho10  @shingui5 Yeah you are right. Things have changed. Now it is okay for developers to release a game with broken bugs and say they will fix it later. I still can't play Ghost Recon Future soldier. $35 in the toilet... The internet thingy i sort of agree with you, they can't cater to such a minority, but still, you have to agree that it must truely suck donkey balls for those people to buy a game only to find out that it has some major issues. And I only mean games with major bugs now, some minor shit is acceptable and people should nopt whine about those imo. 

 @Setho10  @shingui5 Jesus get off your high horse Setho. Shingui is right in that technology has changed. While we all agree it's unfortunate some don't have internet or limited service, technology industries like Gaming must target today's standards to truly excel in their field and can't tailor to everyone on the globe without holding themselves from advancement. I mean the movie industry doesn't release VHS anymore yet there are still some who don't have Blu-Rays or even DVD players. Like Obama said: ''We also don't use Bayonets and Horses anymore.'' Just kidding. I get the fairness argument but gaming is a luxury. No one is entitled to having internet or all services. I live in Montreal, and even though I pay extra to have a higher internet strength, it's still shite compared to the average on the rest of the East Coast...and we're the second largest city in Canada! Gaming and Internet isn't a public program we all pay for in taxes, (which then would actually entitle us to equal service quality), it is a product.If you bought a computer game but your computer couldn't run it because it's too old, would you blame the industry for not tailoring their game to Old-Gen technology?

 @shingui5Oh and watch the Giantbomb quick look of Medal of Honor if you want a source for my info. Patrick Klepick, one of the best news journalists in gaming, has sources at EA who told him and he discusses it there. I didn't watch the AC3 one due to spoiler issues, and I don't think Patrick was on that one, but I assume they still talk about the patch.

 

 @shingui5That is an incredibly arrogant thing to say. For one, many nations simply don't have broadband Internet, or at least not in rural areas. Even some of the US has no broadband Internet beyond Satelite. For a lot of people it isn't a choice. Cable/Telephone companies just don't find it valuable enough to lay lines there. I have a friend, used to be a very prominent member here, who lived in rural Ontario. There was no high speed Internet around there. She luckily owned a pretty successful business and could afford Satelite internet, but very few in her town were as lucky. Her speeds are slow and a couple clouds can knock out the Internet for hours at a time and she pays several hundred dollars a month for the connection. Just because you live in an area where high speed Internet is both cheap enough to use and even offerred at all, doesn't mean that everyone is as lucky. There are far more people in this world without high speed internet than with.

 

This also doesn't even cover the people who can't afford high speed internet. You ever live in a poor neighborhood? I lived on the south side of Chicago. People there often barely had enough money for food. Internet of any sort was out of the question. And these weren't people who lived on Government handouts like some politicians might have you believe. I road on the buses with these people to and from work every day. Bus was packed from front to end. Often we had to leave people behind because they just wouldn't fit. You think those people had the money for High speed Internet? No, they didn't. And they worked as hard as anyone, if not harder. Multiple jobs. I'd see them coming home from work at 10:00 PM or later. These hardworking people deserve to play a game just as much if not more than anybody. To say that these people are not keeping up is typical upper class drivel. They can't keep up. And they deserve the same quality of game as everyone else. Please keep your elitist comments off my blog from now on. They aren't appreciated.

 

 @Raphy_Turtle I don't think it is really something companies try to hide honestly. It's not a bribe as much as a loophole in the rules. It isn't a common thing to do. It happens on very rare occasions. It is not common practice. I'm a game developer. I hear these things from people in the industry. I didn't hear directly from one of the developers in this case, but I have heard similar tales from developers I meet at GDC or similar places. I honestly am surprised you are in doubt about this. I just know that these things happen. I hear it from fellow developers all the time. I can't give you a source per say because I am told these things in person. Cert rushing is just something that happens. Cert skipping is rarer but it does happen. I just know this from talking to developers. I can't cite a source. You don't have to believe me but I always thought it was common knowledge honestly. It's not something a company announces to the public, but it's commonly talked about among developers. I learned about it before I even graduated from college. I've taken classes that spent a lot of time discussing console certification. It's a big thing for a developer to know. So while I can't say with absolute certainty that EA or Ubisoft did this in these cases, it is something that happens so I never really thought to question it. If the developers said it happened then chances are it happened. That's about all I can give you.

 @Setho10 That's not a viable source. First of you should post the link. (I'm not familiar with GiantBomb and I was left guessing what ''Quick Look'' referred to.) A video review in which a game reporter (no matter how well respected) says employees of one company told him they had to pay penalties to pass said game, is hardly a solid source. It most certainly doesn't prove that this is a common practice.If you have a documented fact elaborating on video game publishers  paying their way past a regulation to launch a game, then post that as your source. Right now, this is just one ambiguous issue briefly mentioned in a video unrelated to said issue; and you assuming every game released with a certain amount of subjectively unacceptable bugs must have ''bribed'' their way to the market. It sounds to me like it's more of a ''best practice'' standard set up by moderators asking for certain functionality on release day. If Microsoft and Sony judged a game was too broken to run on their platforms, they'd take action to force the distributors to fix their products.

 @Raphy_Turtle I gave you a source in your comment above. Giantbomb's quick look of Medal of Honor was the first place I heard about it. Their news editor Patrick Klepick was told this by several Danger Close employees.

 @Setho10 Look never mind I don't want to argue with you. You're obviously very emotional about this, judging by the fact that you replied to every comment on this blog. I share your frustration with buggy games but I wouldn't claim so far as conspiracy. Also games are patched, what does it matter so much in the end if producers fix their faults? Idealism is nice but seldom realistic.

 @Setho10 Source?...

 @Raphy_TurtleConsole certification is not a legal process. It is a process where companies submit their games to the console maker who tests the game with internal testers to assure the game meets certain quality standards and follows a lengthy list of rules and requirements that every game must correctly follow to be allowed on the system. The rules section contains things like logo placement, standard button icons (for example having the buttons be correctly colored when they appear in prompts on the 360) and so on and so forth. Quality requirements are much less stringent than in the past but the game must run without crashing the console or corrupting any data among other things. Obviously a game may on occasion freeze up, but common occurances of crashing will deny a game cert. What EA at least did, was pay Microsoft and Sony to ignore the significant bugs in the game that would have traditionally blocked them from release and promise a day one patch to bring the game up to quality standards. I can't say for certain that Ubisoft did the same, but there were several bugs that required players to load a previous save, or that crashed the game entirely. The prominence of these bugs leads me to believe that Ubisoft must have also paid to get through cert. I can't confirm that one, but many developers at Danger Close admitted that EA did this so that has been confirmed.

 

 

 @Raphy_Turtle I agree, of course there are bound to be a few bugs that slip by the testers, but the amount of bugs present in AC3 were ridiculous. It was clear these bugs were left in intentionally to meet the release date, but I would rather see the release pushed back by a week than have to download a day 1 patch. 

 

There are still a good number of publishers out there that do care about quality over profit, though. I just wish they'd get more recognition so other publishers would have to discontinue their greedy practices. One thing that seems to be helping is crowd-funding. Developers raise their own money so they don't have to obey some greedy publishers demands, I like it.