Pretty much. They've been screaming how they've wanted this, how it's engaging and how much revenue it brings. This obviously comes with human cost.
Also obligatory: Unionize
[PCGamer] The pressure to constantly update games is pushing the industry to a breaking point
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Pretty much. They've been screaming how they've wanted this, how it's engaging and how much revenue it brings. This obviously comes with human cost.
Also obligatory: Unionize
Also Activision and EA need to split up their teams in both developing a new game and updating the current one, Ubi and Epic keep their full focus on supporting fortnite and rainbow six.
Battle passes are just as bad in my opinion. You pay a monetary price for the permission to spend an enormous amount of time to ensure that you get every item available in the battle pass that you paid for upfront. It's gross. You're paying for the privilege to free up as much of your schedule to hang out in their ecosystem based on the fear of missing out of stuff you already paid to have.
Wouldn't have to worry about slow content drips if you put out mod tools and opened your games up to modding like they used to be.
Talk about nailing every aspect of it. It's not that old but you could tell me it was written today and I wouldn't know better.
Doesn't get brought up nearly enough as it should.
Well I hope GAAS, microtransaction and loot box filled games burn to the ground then.
Crunch sucks in any scenario, but to prop up the scourges of this industry via crunch...man.
Give developers their lives back - no matter what that means for the "scope of games" and "engagement". I was way happier in the days where I bought a game and everything was on the disc/cart (other than paid DLC) and I bet it was not as hellish of a world for devs as it is now (I'm sure crunch still existed tho). Bring those days back!
Crunch sucks in any scenario, but to prop up the scourges of this industry via crunch...man.
Give developers their lives back - no matter what that means for the "scope of games" and "engagement". I was way happier in the days where I bought a game and everything was on the disc/cart (other than paid DLC) and I bet it was not as hellish of a world for devs as it is now (I'm sure crunch still existed tho). Bring those days back!
Yep. And, even though the majority of posters in this forum position themselves as against GaaS, they also ask for more content in games. It'd be hard to stop using this model, because games that do try it might be considered failures.
Wouldn't this kill the likes of ''Destinys'' and ''Fortnites''?
Overall GaaS are more miss than hits, but you can have good and fun games in this form of content.
I do think we've hit the GaaS tipping point where the market can only sustain a small portion of them.
I don't know what developers prefer, but I like it when a game comes out and it's just finished (more or less (there's always bugs)). The team moves onto the next project and fans get to enjoy the game.
I don't know what developers prefer, but I like it when a game comes out and it's just finished (more or less (there's always bugs)). The team moves onto the next project and fans get to enjoy the game.
The rest of the non-game software industry ships updates daily. Most service based software means a constant stream of revenue which means that shipping is not a big deal, if it doesn't make it in that week that's cool it goes next week, they don't crunch.
I cannot overstate this. It's not GaaS that's the problem. This is literally a game industry management culture failing.
I cannot overstate this. It's not GaaS that's the problem. This is literally a game industry management culture failing.
There was actually a time where games came out and really didn't have bugs of any consequence. You got the disk, cart or tape and that was that and they worked for pretty much everyone other than those looking for glitches.
Personally I tune out of every game that so much as hints at being GaaS in nature. And I don't mean Control having some DLC a few months later, though people sure love trying to call everything GaaS.
Maybe some new vocabulary is needed to help those of lesser understanding.
"Games as a poorly designed time sink with the purpose of squeezing money out of users"
"Games as a broken up mess of content"
"Games as a front for microtransactions"
Maybe some new vocabulary is needed to help those of lesser understanding.
"Games as a poorly designed time sink with the purpose of squeezing money out of users"
"Games as a broken up mess of content"
"Games as a front for microtransactions"
GaaS games require ops teams (Teams with an oncall that can be paged) as they are at that point like serving an online storefront. Theoretically and often, it does improve code quality, but, if somehow a team falls behind, it becomes an endless cycle of getting back into good shape.
Wouldn't go that far. Games would have game breaking bugs in them quite often. Like look at launch version of Castlevania, if too many sprites are on screen at once it'll straight up lock up and you have to do a full reset. Most of these types of things would be fixed in revisions (just patches) of the games, so they can happen quite a bit of if you have a day 1 copy of the game there most likely will be bugs that didn't get caught for launch that could be nasty game enders.
Last edited:
There's definitely a sweet spot where GaaS can work, it's not just rabid fans demanding more content for no reason. If you launch a game like Anthem with a 5 hour campaign and 3 multi player missions don't be surprised if people want new stuff to keep playing it. But saying that it's got to be done right and if you make people work overtime too much they're just going to quit pretty quickly, especially when there isn't a deadline like a launch date for knowing when it will be over.
The stories of companies stuck in a crunch to release new content are indicative of poor management. They either didn't release with enough content or are letting the money men call the shots.
The stories of companies stuck in a crunch to release new content are indicative of poor management. They either didn't release with enough content or are letting the money men call the shots.
In my mind, the most recent example of this is with Genshin Impact. You have folks getting and thoroughly enjoying a game with a greater scope and content than most $60 games out there right now. Then they burn through 60 or 70 hours of fresh and interesting content by playing 12 hours a day in a game that is clearly designed to keep expanding over time and now that they've hit the "endgame" grind, all I hear are people losing their minds and calling the devs lazy for not including more. That isn't excusing the more predatory parts of the game like the gacha or to some degree, the limitations of resin but... It's like people forgot the sheer joy the game gave them for dozens of hours before hand just because this live service style game doesn't give them infinite content.
In my head, Genshin is basically a great BOTW style JRPG with a robust single player. When I eventually get done with exploring and the single player story stuff I'll probably put the game down until the next big update outside of the dailies and I don't really care about grinding every character to do a million damage. I get that's not how everyone plays these games but... I dunno. Maybe it's a healthier expectation? Not just for us, but for the devs too. We don't need to have a game altering patch or update every 1-2 weeks. We don't get them for God of War or Horizon, why should we necessarily get them for Genshin? If tomorrow, the devs announced they are done doing content for the game, I'd still be more than happy with what I've played.
In my head, Genshin is basically a great BOTW style JRPG with a robust single player. When I eventually get done with exploring and the single player story stuff I'll probably put the game down until the next big update outside of the dailies and I don't really care about grinding every character to do a million damage. I get that's not how everyone plays these games but... I dunno. Maybe it's a healthier expectation? Not just for us, but for the devs too. We don't need to have a game altering patch or update every 1-2 weeks. We don't get them for God of War or Horizon, why should we necessarily get them for Genshin? If tomorrow, the devs announced they are done doing content for the game, I'd still be more than happy with what I've played.
I wouldn't say everything was totally bug free but my experience in the 80's was playing a tonne of games and I cannot recall any time I found an actual bug, or had to take a game back. Once we went digital then things got lazier. Admittedly games likely got more complicated to make and test and given the industry isn't known for its rigid "engineering" practices it was more likely bugs would be present in more recent decades. However, games for the most part just worked. Now it's a given they'll get bug fixes, even 0 day patches because they are broken on release.
Maybe i'm mistaken but i feel like this happens more at developers in the US.
I think the US in general has a big problem with extra working hours. Just saw a docu about the making of Frozen and the last 3 months was also a 12h a day 6/7...
That's crazy to me and i would get the hell out of there as soon as i would hear it. The thing is, the docu wasnt even hiding it. Its 'normal' for them.. and they disnt show it as a problem but more as a 'look at these guys working like crazy to make the movie you love.'..
I think the US in general has a big problem with extra working hours. Just saw a docu about the making of Frozen and the last 3 months was also a 12h a day 6/7...
That's crazy to me and i would get the hell out of there as soon as i would hear it. The thing is, the docu wasnt even hiding it. Its 'normal' for them.. and they disnt show it as a problem but more as a 'look at these guys working like crazy to make the movie you love.'..
In my experience, this started in the X360/PS3 gen with game patches and post-launch DLC, and just escalated.
It's typical for studios to crunch for 3-4 months leading up to launch, sometimes longer, (and sometimes to crunch to meet milestones during development).
Most people probably kid themselves thinking there will be some sort of relief upon releasing the title, and I'm sure there is to some extent, but then the fires start. Gamers find issues, perhaps they complain about game balance, or aren't happy with the amount of content in a certain game mode, developers pivot to meet demands, and many in the studio are left still crunching to get patch, after patch, after patch out.
This can be especially bad for inexperienced developers and QA working for large studios arlt companies like EA, that constantly release new games. Those industry workers can get bounced from project to project to project, working 3 months regular time, then 3 months crunch, endlessly on and off for years. That sort of scenario is pretty abusive in my opinion.
It's typical for studios to crunch for 3-4 months leading up to launch, sometimes longer, (and sometimes to crunch to meet milestones during development).
Most people probably kid themselves thinking there will be some sort of relief upon releasing the title, and I'm sure there is to some extent, but then the fires start. Gamers find issues, perhaps they complain about game balance, or aren't happy with the amount of content in a certain game mode, developers pivot to meet demands, and many in the studio are left still crunching to get patch, after patch, after patch out.
This can be especially bad for inexperienced developers and QA working for large studios arlt companies like EA, that constantly release new games. Those industry workers can get bounced from project to project to project, working 3 months regular time, then 3 months crunch, endlessly on and off for years. That sort of scenario is pretty abusive in my opinion.
Check comments on Destiny development. Often it is like "omg, bungie is so shite, they gave us another pallet swap armor, more bounties chasing busywork disguised as content, yet AGAIN".
So on different parts of this very forum the attitudes will be very different.
Thats why I said "in my perfect world"
I didn't like Destiny or Fortnite because both compel you to play and in a way, punish you when you don't.
I'd rather just have one and done games I get the whole experience from at my own pace when I want to play them.
Imagine like... buying a book and then not reading it for a few months but then having the first couple chapters deleted because you didn't play it when it came out.
This is fair, and it is also my main problem with GaaS, FOMO is a bitch.
Obviously I'm only speaking for myself here, but as someone who tends to get FOMO around seasonal things but also wants to both have time to play multiple games and have other hobbies, I'd honestly be happy if they slowed way down. I don't need or want a new "season" of content every 4-6 weeks.
Removing GaaS won't stop CEO from treating their devs like shit. Developers need to unionize and the added compensation for their work should come straight from the paycheck of their bosses.
maybe this will finally bring publishers/devs back down to the damn earth and do one and done with a surprise expansion again.
Ghosts of Tsushima was done perfectly.....we got a great singleplayer game, didn't expect much and all of a sudden we get a multiplayer update coming this week that no one was even expecting and its now what we all want for a side project. We are happy we got it, but no where ever did anyone expect it.
I'd rather have that than a game touted as a GaaS and then not get anything for months/years at a time. If you want a good revenue stream with solid update/content then go mmo style or don't do it at all honestly.
Ghosts of Tsushima was done perfectly.....we got a great singleplayer game, didn't expect much and all of a sudden we get a multiplayer update coming this week that no one was even expecting and its now what we all want for a side project. We are happy we got it, but no where ever did anyone expect it.
I'd rather have that than a game touted as a GaaS and then not get anything for months/years at a time. If you want a good revenue stream with solid update/content then go mmo style or don't do it at all honestly.
For all the criticism they got for overdoing it for a while with serious Quantity > Quality problems for a few years, I'd say the Paradox Interactive model is the best GaaS business model, and infinitely more sustainable than the model Fortnite and Destiny normalized.
No MTX bullshit, no crunch-forcing content schedule, just Premium fixed-price expansions once a year or so with a smaller scale DLC here and there - Paired with mod support to keep the gaps in the content schedule filled. Which, I should add, don't eat into DLC revenue like some execs would assume, as many mods for modern games rely on code and content from expansions as the backbone of them, which creates incentive for players to buy DLC.
No MTX bullshit, no crunch-forcing content schedule, just Premium fixed-price expansions once a year or so with a smaller scale DLC here and there - Paired with mod support to keep the gaps in the content schedule filled. Which, I should add, don't eat into DLC revenue like some execs would assume, as many mods for modern games rely on code and content from expansions as the backbone of them, which creates incentive for players to buy DLC.
Just wanna say that I agree with all of this. There's definitely improvements that could be made to the gacha or resin system but I dunno what people expected when they play the game for 12 hrs a day.
I'm only at AR18 cause I play a couple hrs a night after work but I'm still having a blast.
