• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Poll Why do modern games release in buggy, broken states? Do developers need more time to develop games across the industry?

Do games need more development time?

  • Yes they do

    Votes: 41 36.9%
  • No they don't

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • The issue isn't development time at all

    Votes: 18 16.2%
  • The issue isn't solely development time

    Votes: 50 45.0%

  • Total voters
    111

MiguelItUp

Member
Feb 24, 2015
7,703
7,034
810
Honestly it really depends on the situation. There are way too many variables to answer such a question.

There are plenty of examples where development time isn't the issue and it's more so the management and overall production. Giving a dev more time when they have other development issues isn't just going to miraculously fix the problem.

For example, CP2077. They had plenty of time, I don't think time was the issue with them whatsoever. I think it was more so production and mismanagement through and through. CDPR isn't THAT huge, and they haven't had THAT much experience. So the idea of them putting out multiple ports of CP2077, especially at the same time, stretched themselves INCREDIBLY thin. It was WAY too ambitious for them and they ended up biting off more than they could chew. That's just one major issue as well, but you get the idea.
 

sunnysideup

Banned
Nov 11, 2018
1,110
1,992
585
Because they can.

Pre patch days, they would have all there game returned and make no money and they would be sued.
 

Excess

Member
Dec 8, 2020
826
1,361
355
It isn't developers.

It isn't executives.

It's bad project management, and more specifically agile project management.
 

tr1p1ex

Member
Feb 18, 2014
1,004
274
525
if you didn't buy the buggy games then they wouldn't get released. But the market has spoken- it would rather play buggy games now than wait.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Phase

Phase

Member
Sep 25, 2019
2,086
3,833
665
It isn't developers.

It isn't executives.

It's bad project management, and more specifically agile project management.
Jerry Seinfeld GIF
 
Last edited:

Rest

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Feb 28, 2014
8,744
1,353
870
They always did, it's just that there are more games being released now and games are more complex than ever. Plus, internet connected consoles are nearly ubiquitous, so publishers can tell developers to rush stuff out and have a patch ready day 1.
 
Jan 10, 2018
142
149
380
It's a lot of factors. Publishers pushing to hit target deadlines tk maximize sales and the marketing push, games being much bigger and complex now, overworking devs to a point they probably just want it done, massive sunken cost into the development ect. Being able to patch the game after release also helps obviously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

pr0cs

Member
May 10, 2006
10,516
3,671
1,635
Never forget, fall 2017. It can happen again
Games are EXTREMELY complex now, we're not talking 2d sprites days like Nintendo but massive projects with tens of thousands of lines of code, massive open worlds with a LOT of scenarios that are difficult to find prior to getting into gamers hands. There are a lot of moving pieces to get to fit together, especially when you consider AI, physics, multiple paths and complex scenarios, this isn't A+B=C type problems anymore, it would be really foolish to compare games now to games of the past, it will only get harder to stabilize games as customers demand more and more usage of the hardware available to the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bartski
Jun 15, 2019
1,915
3,246
455
Ease of digital patching making QA less prioritized
This is the answer. Why spend time and money delaying your game and paying QA testers when you can just push it out the door and have the average Joe help you polish the game and then praise you for bothering to update the broken mess? Back in the good ol' PS2 days even most objectively bad games actually worked as intended, they were just bad games. There were exceptions of course, but by and large publishers were happy to go the extra mile because if they fucked up the launch the game was fucked forever and it'd affect their reputation, as a result generally only relatively minor bugs slipped through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
Sep 24, 2005
6,428
7,319
1,885
Sea lab
If cyberpunk didn't stop people from buying games at launch I don't know what will. Thankfully MS and Steam/Epic have your back on buggy busted games for quick and easy refunds.
 

namekuseijin

Banned
Jun 10, 2020
3,250
3,646
625
no, they need money to keep polishing their early access games. $60 is clearly not cutting anymore...
 

SaturnSaturn

Member
Oct 30, 2018
782
1,886
465
No one has passion for games anymore in the industry, plus diversity hires. ergo quality of games and quality of gameplay dont matter anymore

Same with video game journalism, they would rather do anything else if they could, but they are dropouts from school, they hate the medium and their target base
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tr1p1ex and Phase

Corgi1985

Banned
Dec 31, 2020
1,274
2,104
370
It takes forever to make a decent game and you maybe get one game every two years that isn't broken derivative AAA garbage. The games that aren't broken are extremely boring. Like octopath traveler.
 
Last edited:

KungFucius

Member
Jul 16, 2008
2,238
1,186
1,280
Isn't this just what the proliferation of Agile leads to? Why ship the perfect product when a minimally viable product can be shipped months sooner and updated? I am sure a lot of them think the day 1 patch will fix all the big issues up until a week or so before day 1. I don't see how any manager would let the team delay any game unless it is really not ready for prime time because the marketing runs for months leading up to release so a change in release day basically trashes that.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,437
5,890
540
Digital download opportunity and systems having giant storage.

If this was the Xbox/PS2/GC era or earlier there is no way games would release as broken or incomplete.

The 360/PS3 era either. Ya there patches, but they were super small. If it wasnt for getting RRoD in 2012 when I bought a 250gb Xbox, I would had got through the entire 360 generation with a 20gb HDD. And that was enough for dashboard updates, XBLA/Indie downloads, saved games and all patches.

Haha, I did get through the whole gen with the 20GB drive. I bought my lone RRoD replacement unit just before the slims got released and at that time the most reliable model available was the Jasper that was mostly available in the arcade version. I just slapped my sad 20GB drive on that and played on. Missed my chromed disk drawer though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StreetsofBeige

harmny

Banned
Oct 29, 2020
1,396
3,582
410
Lol at how a couple of people here are blaming agile for this just when a couple of days ago cdpr announced that for their new games they are going to be using agile instead of waterfall which they said was one of the reasons for cyberpunk's messy state
 
Last edited:

KhrisNF

Neo Member
Sep 3, 2019
11
6
140
It's more of a release strategy than time constrictions. Easier to release a barebones broken mess and fix it on leisure and trickle some paid DLC along the way than release a one and done game on release date. Release dates are 100% based sales strategies than when the game is supposed to be finished. Only exceptions are smaller projects and AAA games that are absolutely unplayable on launch.
 
Apr 5, 2021
1,245
2,401
360
because the ability to patch them and fix issues. if they couldnt do that, they would take more time to make sure the game is polished.
 

NahaNago

Member
Aug 29, 2014
4,809
1,868
600
Too many things can go wrong in games today since they are so complex. From what i can tell they do need more time to debug, but what company is willing to let their team debug the game for 2 to 3 more years since that seems to be what cyberpunk needed. I guess start the debugging process earlier and don't leave it to mostly to the last year but as soon as parts of the game becomes playable.

  • Yes , the ability to patch later has allowed companies to release unfinished buggy messes
  • underestimating what would be needed for development of the game
  • The pressure from investors is honestly the least likely thing. The game has a budget and an estimated time to get it done and the studio fails to accomplish it. So blaming it on the investors when the studio made the initial schedule for the game seems wrong. Cyberpunk is a good example, the game was probably suppose to do a gta V and release before next gen came around and milked the updated hyped new graphics for next gen but completely underestimated what it would take to make the game before next gen came around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Ozzie666

Member
Jun 27, 2020
659
630
295
Something to be said for developing for an exclusive console, learning the tech inside out. Porting and developing across multiple systems can cause issues. I blame corporate green and shareholder pressure more than anything. But I do find it interesting Nintendo doesn't seem to release buggy unfinished software compared to most big developers. The old Blizzard was similar, release it when it's fully cooked.

Also consumers have let these big companies get away with it, day one patches, bugs are part of launches now. Cyberpunk is a prime example of the disconnect between creations and profits, also ambition. A game that was supposed to work on last gen, was developed for this next gen? really?.

PC architecture introduced a lot of issues, the patch it later mentality. PC are more powerful and companies start to chase something beyond their initial vision. As I said, working for a specific console, with limitations, controls ambition to some extent. Cyberpunk fiasco was the cherry on top.
 

tassletine

Member
Oct 24, 2007
1,582
656
1,385
Without sounding too political I think it's to do with certain companies having a strict socialist attitude.

I know someone who worked on Cyberpunk and all he said when I criticised the game was "keep playing I think you're really going to like it". They were clearly sniffing their own farts over there.
He couldn't understand why I didn't like it because of all the hard work that was put in and made excuses because of that, almost asking for sympathy, trying to get me to factor his experience into the final product.

I've worked in similar places where not enough harsh critcism is given, if any. It's all about remaining "positive" and supporting each other.
I've seen business close because people won't say what's needed. Some people would rather go down with the ship.
 

MAX PAYMENT

Member
Dec 3, 2012
4,966
118
755
GA
I think its as simple as shifting the cost of testing in house, to having consumers buy the product to test it.

They tried it and the market didn't push back almost at all, so it's the new business practice. Fix it in the field.