This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion


 Balders Gate 3 just opened up a massive can of worms for greedy devs.

A game that has a massive amount of content, a huge replay ability factor, NO MICROTRANS or store purchases. Oh and it is actually polished and playable at launch.

Compare that to games like Diablo 4 and Destiny 2. Lame weak content, little to actually do post game but grind, anything that might be worth having is behind a paywall. Elden Ring and BG3 came under fire from devs for "over delivering". Excuse me, so a game dev that actually values making an enjoyable game, that is consumer focused rather than a bare minimum release where you get to pay a premium for the right to be beta tester yet anything worth having in game is classed as an add on that cost you more... is "over delivering"? No, thats called being a decent Dev studio that delivers on their promise and is why they get positive as hell reviews.

FromSoftware and Lorian have proven that you can make an amazing game, for a reasonable price and it be focussed on the game and enjoyment rather than treating gamers like money making udders just to be squeezed. Yet AAA studios care more about the money than the product that they're selling. Blizz/activison are going to destroy Diablo because they're using the same crappy business model Destiny 2 is known for. It's a rancid behaviour. CDPR have polished Witcher 3 for ages and it's still a well loved game, it released great and only got better. So massive multi billion pound studios CANNOT just sit and say oh no... don't expect us to do better for the 60-100 pound asking price for our beta game, spend more money in the store over the next year and we may actually patch the issues.

A lot of readers will like just say "don't buy it day one blah blah...". Normally I wait for games to come down in price and recently wait to see how well they perform on release because of terrible dev behaviours. I shouldn't have to. If a dev makes a promise on the calibre of its game, they should be held to it. I have bought the Resident evil games day one and they are amazing. Dark Souls games, Nioh + 2 and a few others that all delivered on that promise of an amazing experience from day one. It should not be a lottery of when a game releases if it will actually be playable or not. It is another reason I respect Nintendo more that the others. They only release things that work and they're not riddled with micro transactions. A lot of studios will never see my money again while this practise is the norm.

EDIT: For clarity, I believe ALL devs guilty of chasing the bag rather than giving quality products need to do better and if they can't then they should look to make internal changes so they can. I will not alter my original post as I still stand by it.
When buying games at a premium on day one is pretty much being a BETA tester so it gets cleaned up 12months later, yet feels hollow until you buy every add on going or cosmetic pack so there's actually some content... That is not how gaming should be.
The product should be high quality with actual content for the money you pay and anything else should feel like a bonus. My examples may not fit for everyone looking but those are the immediate ones that are easy to find. Still, Buying a broken game on release should not be allowed to happen. Especially when there is no transparency in the way it is executed. 

If they are millions into profit making games, they do not need to be so greedy and then call "overheads", it's more like shareholders if they're being honest.

  • Someone was joking about that devs deliver buggy games at lunch so the buyers will find and report/complains about it. So they don’t need to pay their workers to do it Joy

  • Someone was joking about that devs deliver buggy games at lunch so the buyers will find and report/complains about it. So they don’t need to pay their workers to do it Joy

  • I believe there's also another hidden factor behind this problem, the marketing departments dictate when games are released and that date becomes set in stone whether it's ready or not. The same happens with operating systems and more productive applications too these days. There really needs to be a huge cultural change but also it is nigh on impossible for them to test on every single hardware combination out there. However, they should easily be able to recreate and fix the more common showstopper bugs that seem to crop up on release days at present.

    Also quick ports from console titles need to stop, they should be rebuilding the games properly for PCs to account for the different hardware capabilities rather than cludging it and expecting end users to put up with janky games for months while they then do hardware optimisation post release.

  • It makes absolutely no business sense to do this considering the reputational hit the game takes and that bugs can often be game-breaking, not just superficial, which is a ridiculously bad hit to reputation. And devs themselves would hate for this to be the case because they take pride in their work. Honestly if anyone actually believes this stuff I'm worried about you. It's nothing but toxic nonsense if it's taken as anything more than a superficial joke.

    What AntiKytherA says about marketing departments is simply not true, at least not for the vast majority of studios. The marketing department is told what marketing to put out, it does not make decisions about game releases and the health of game states. That is also nonsense.

    What happened with CP2077 has nothing to do with the intention of this "joke". Two completely different situations.