Are incomplete/broken games ok? They seem to be

This is by no means a new phenomenon, but in some cases it seems to be fully accepted. If this has been discussed to death already please skip. I've just had this on my mind lately.

Take PUBG for example. The game has found crazy success and seems to be loved by many. But it also seems to be a barely playable mess as well. This is my own anecdotal evidence, but I have yet to play a match (maybe 10 tries) that wasn't just pure lag. I've also seen many reports and articles about this and other problems with the game. My friend (that bought me the game) on the other hand just talks about how he's never had this problem, or really any to speak of. I've tried multiple workarounds to no avail. But still the game has sold 20+ million, I think. Does this sound reasonable? Is this worthy of peoples money? Maybe there is some weird anomaly on my end that affects only this game, but that seems a stretch.

Here's another one, Rainbow 6 Siege. Unfortunately my concerns with this game are more second hand than personal experience, but still deserve acknowledgement. By many accounts this game has been plagued with server problems, glitches, bugs, etc. since day one. According to the piece from this site https://www.gamespot.com/articles/rainbow-six-sieges-astonishing-comeback/1100-6455698/ it was all worth it. Granted, they seem to have fixed a lot of the problems, but if they put out a game that was broken...is that ok?

What are we willing to put up with? What is acceptable? As long as they get to the desired point...over two years! Is that ok?

I don't know what it's like to be a developer, so I don't know what to ask for. As a consumer I feel like we deserve better. But as a developer...I would ask for your money, time, and patience.

Is that they way it should be?

lol no!

For people with low or shit standards sure they'll take them, but anyone who thinks they are "ok" are deprived of quality games and probably wouldn't know what a real high quality game was if it hit them right in the face.

They absolutely are. Not a fan of it, though.

As long as they are totally upfront with the description of the game, and people still want to play it well it's ok then, as for me hell no I would rather they release a game when it's ready and then complain it's still broken :P

I could give an indie game some leeway, developed by a very small team doing something ambitious for low price. Like it's a miracle that such a game works at all and I can forgive some rough edges, bad pop up, bad textures or worse performance than in a AAA game.

The Witness didn't exactly run great on my PC that should be able to run such a game with ease if it were AAA. It didn't even cross my mind to knock off points for the performance issues because I totally didn't care about it with the idea in mind that this game got made at all.

It is expected at this point for online multiplayer games. For offline/single player games, not so much.

Obliviously not, there is no reason in the world to want anything but the best product possible.

Certain games earn more of a pass than others, some questionable. Like Bethesda who's criticisms almost unanimously are pushed to the side, where as some other unknown would most likely suffer heavily from reviewers.

The size and price of a game can factor in as well. If a game is being sold £39.00 (attempting to push £49.99/£54.99), that's alot of money, nothing is excusable. More insulting prioritizing monetization over stability.

A small indie team with a budget price game, more forgivable. And many of them put in more effort than the "AAA" Publishers are putting out fixes.

Asset flip Greenlit games with have-a-go developers, obviously not. Blame being directed at Valve.

---

Another, annoyance. Older games.

Steam allows publishers to dump older titles on Steam without a second thought to patching them for modern capability.

In almost all cases it's users (myself included) making Steam Guides to third party software in order to get them up and running, let alone use higher resolutions.

When you own 1000+ games, these quibbles mount up, that shouldn't exist in the first place.

You have to remember that nobody is be forced to buy anything.

Everyone has the option to educate themselves about what they are buying and wait if they don’t feel the game is for them yet.

Early access game are clearly labelled as work in progress. So if that’s no something for you then just wait until it’s finished.

To me they aren't. That so many people bought PUBG in the state it was in is insane to me.

Broken games are never okay. But, if a game is fun enough, I can see some people who would put up with it.

Take STALKER: Call of Pripyat and Call of Chernobyl for example. The engine they're on is crap. I get 100+ fps in many occasions. And yet, they run worse than many games which are at 30 fps. Lots of lag spikes, even when I relocated the game to an SSD. I think the culprit are the sound files because when I turn off the sound, there are a lot less lag spikes.

Yet, despite all the problems, I can't stop playing the two games.

The piss-poor performance is probably why so many YT videos of the STALKER games show them looking like they are in Low detail settings.

@dimebag667: It's a newish phenomenon though.

Back in the day if a developer released a broken game it was broken forever. There were no updates and the best you could hope for was a patch on some magazine disc but for cartridge games forget it. So while you got the odd broken game these were scorned as the worst games in history.

Now with the way the world is deadlines are more important than ever and so companies are forced to release totally broken games safe in the knowledge that they can fix it post release. It's frustrating, and makes you wonder what happens when they stop supporting the game years down the line. We really need to give companies more time and put pressure on them to release their games complete and fixed on launch. If that means extending the deadline so be it.

And no more bringing out the single player portion months later after backlash. That should be one of your main focusses from the start. Disappointed in Capcom and Sony for SFV and GT for this crap. Single player games are all I basically want. Stop shoving me into the online world.

I'd rather purchase a game like PUBG in the game preview state going in and knowing what I am getting myself into. Then buy a game like Friday the 13th that comes out and is a hot mess cause they we not prepared for it to launch let alone sell as successfully as it did. I don't know if any of y'all bought or attempted to play Friday the 13th at launch but that was a game that should of been in the preview program or had a beta to get ready cause that game pissed a lot of people off at launch. Had they been upfront and said hey this might not work we are launching in game preview it's a work in progress bare with us, we just want to get it on your system have people play it and optimize and tweet it as we go. I'd of been cool with that and more understanding.

Overall it's a nice feature for indies they can get their game on a system have people put money into it so they can keep developing it, and make it better via community feedback. I'd rather back a game preview than back a kickstarter for a game.

depends on the game. kotor 2 the sith lords was considered incomplete till fans patched it up by adding in the restoration mod. Same with vampire the masquerade bloodlines

Although it may be a different topic, I feel like it's appropriate here.

Skyrim is a 6 year old game and has just been re-released for the Newer Generation of Systems and even in VR...and yet ALL the Bugs from Launch are still present.

And Yet we find this acceptable.

It all depends on a number of factors that can hold varying degrees of weight. Who’s developing the game, if the game is based on a known property or not, people’s expectations of said game, and cost of the game. Ultimately though it just comes down to how much people enjoy playing a game compared to whatever problems they experience with it.

@LegatoSkyheart: Jim Sterling... *walks away*

Just know the differnece of early access/beta/alpha vs. Full release. A good portion think early access/beta/alpha is a finished product and should run flawlessly(you know what your buying into when participating in these games).

I remember seeing some dude cry on twitter because he took off work and wasnt able to get into Sea Of Thieves Alpha.

I only have issues when games get cut short, like Sony cutting the cord on Socom 4 so quickly. Why i prefer xbox live, especially with BC, multiplayer games now stay alive longer and with club feature can always party up with people.

Broken games suck. I tend to avoid buying games at launch as publishers can not be trusted to give the developers enough time to finish the game. It is usually safe to buy a game a few months after release as the necessary patches have come out. It ends up being cheaper too. This system works well if you always have a good backlog of games to keep you busy.

And I would say that's what hurts the most; they are lowering the quality of games for all of us and not just themselves. I really just want better games for myself, but that means everyone gets better games!

Yeah it was different back in the day, but this has been a problem for a while now, and seems to be here to stay. I probably annoy the hell out of my friends, but argue and fight against this mentality all the time.

I will always give leeway to people that "swing", and not just play it safe. And I get the risks involved, but always going for the safe bet is what's making this world so boring.

Can you help unpack some of this for me? Why have we allowed this to become an expectation? Are we just so deprived of joy that we're willing to give anything for sub par?

Another one that I can't let go of is, why do most online FPS games always have some broken/jacked grouping systems at launch? I honestly don't know how complicated the task is, and I assume they're light on servers at the beginning so they can ramp up as they go, but for a game like Call of Duty...how do they not have this honed to perfection by now? They do it every year.

Pretty much this. Early Access games is just that, an early look at a game that is a work-in-progress game. The developers make it known by clearly labeling it and people; gamers have the option of whether or not to buy the game and try it out or skip out on the game and wait until it's released. It's very simple...

With PUBG. I bought this game the day it was released as an Early Access title because my friend told me about it. He was watching the game closely and when it released on Steam we both bought it and enjoyed the game quite a lot. I knew the game was incomplete but broken? I personally nor did my friends who played PUBG encounter any serious issues. The most was lag, getting stuck somewhere, or most recently rubber banding in very few matches.

Rainbow Six: Siege. Another game alongside PUBG that I would say are my two favorite multiplayer games on PC at the moment. I've been with Siege since before release, played the beta to get a feel for the game. I loved the idea and how the game played. When I bought it. Yes, I agree it was a pain. Dealing with the whole NAT issue and U-Play being garbage. It was frustrating. Nonetheless, I loved the game and I kept playing because in the end I could look past certain issues because that's how much I enjoyed the game. Again, I wouldn't say the game was broken but it did have more than its fair share of issues at launch.

Yeah I think too eagerly we've given control away to these companies by saying "I don't want to deal with problem X, you do it!". And now we're at their mercy for the sake of convenience.

That's a key point in everything...transparency. And sadly it's pretty hard to find. But with the game preview stuff that raises a different question; how long is it acceptable for a game to be a "preview"?

What video game kickstarters actually yielded something of worth? The couple I did were duds? Seem to have better luck with board games.

Hmmm. So are you saying that if the framework is solid enough then it's cool? I get that, but I also get skittish about relying on the community to fix something they bought. But I'm not intimate enough with either of those titles to speak about them.

The but that seems to be a problem...a lot of these betas and alphas are basically a demo of the finally product, and not just a representation of what could be. Most of the betas I've ever played were maybe a month or two out from release; so how different could the game be in that short window?

I hated what they did with Socom. And from I've seen and played of H-hour...I'm sure I'll be left wanting.

That's how I try to operate as well. And pre-ordering is about the silliest thing one can do.

No its not okay.

We need to completely remove this from the industry and i would actually be a fan of legislation ensuring this as its a consumer protection issue.

It actually amazes me people pay to play alpha and beta versions of games. If feedback and testing is so important for companies, than they'd have no problems doing more open beta's instead of charging people for incomplete games.

I brought this up in a different response, but how long is it ok for a game to be in preview status? I've seen some cases of games milking that goodwill and it has hackles up. If people know what they're getting into then I say that's fine.

I have my own qualms with Siege, but even saying that, it's still probably one of the best multiplayer shooters out. I think a better tactical shooter is in there, but that's me.

Games cost a ton to make. Multiplayer games take more testing than can be done internally to be the scale that players expect today. Just like Devs have scope creep, gamers have expections creep. We want games with hundreds of players, yet we expect them to run perfect day one? Not gonna happen. Also think about game prices. When I was a kid in the 80s, I paid $50.00 minimum for a game that had 100th of the content that games of today offer. Adjusted for inflation, that same game would easily run $80+. And that is on games that would have a dev team of 10 people. Games cost a ton of money to make, and multiplayer games have a ton of variables to consider with testing. Gamers in general have simply become too unrealistic and somewhat entitled at this point. (I understand this is a very unpopular opinion).

DayZ is still more buggy than the ARMA2 mod (citation needed). I am only guessing here but I don't expect that game ever to be finished. Which is a shame because I would have bought it but hey you can still play the far superior and less buggy mod!

DayZ (Bohemia Interactive) must have the worst developers in the world because although I'm too lazy to check it's probably still a load of shit.

The only new phenomenom is see is a ridiculous level of blind nostalgia!

There were always 'incomplete' games everywhere. Actually, incomplete games in the past used to be cases of almost unplayablility or even bugs making impossible to finish the game.

Do you think that games like the Rise of the Robots (with fighters you could barely control), or more recently Shadow of the Colossus (running at 20fps on PS2) would get a free pass by current standards? Like it or not, the quality of games is much higher now than anytime in the past.

Standards are much higher now, for the best, and thanks to patches and updates, unfinished games get fixed over time.

There is a difference between a broken game and one with minor issues that keep getting worked on over time. Some high profile online games are constantly updated and improved, they are never 100% finished, just so many variables and sometimes you patch one thing which creates issues elsewhere.

A broken game is something different. It's a game with critical flaws that makes certain things not possible. For example I remember Fallout New Vegas, after 20 hours in, I was stuck in a quest I could not complete.....there was nothing I Could do. I had to start a new game from scratch or wait for a patch.

Here is a quote from PUBG Gamespot review, this is why this game despite its issues is popular. It's not the same thing as broken:

"PUBG's technical shortcomings can undermine its broader achievements on rare occasions, but they don't override your desire to continue playing"

@dimebag667: What gets me is popping an old game in and having to reinstall around 20 updates where they've been messing with it. And what happens when this game gets too old? You end up with the original broken mess, if it works at all. You can still play games from your old ZX Spectrum or Master System but there will be games on PS3 which you wont be able to soon.

Like anything in regards to entertainment, its subjective to the individual. PUBG is far from unplayable in my experience on X1X. No Mans Sky was unplayable because it was a boring pack of lies finished or not.

Well lemmings seems to have very low standards these days, that I guess it's okay for them to play broken games , but for us sheeps and cows it's not okay and we always demand and get nothing but the best .

I'm patient enough to wait a while after release for things to get fixed so personally I don't care if they release broken games or not. However the general masses are grudgingly accepting it as a fact of life but obviously no one wants a broken/incomplete game. Most of the young gamers buy where their friends play anyway. PUGB is a perfect example of that as I know a few young gamers that wouldn't otherwise care or know about that game if it wasn't so heavily talked about from their friends. Peer gaming wins.

I don't know, but i feel defending it just makes it more stupid cause you like to some extend a broken half finished games.

In this day in age with how lazy and dumb gamers are its a normal thing now. They are like sheep following main stream trend games. Many gamers today play games they dont like, just because... its popular or my friends play it. Be it PUBG or FIFA. We live in a very sad era and devs are happy to take the money.

I feel the way the developers for PUBG did was good. The game was released as an Early Access title back in March is it? Followed by months of tweaking and working on the game as they expected and managed to hit that release date of later this year. I feel developers should release Early Access titles when it's in the alpha stages and they're able to go from there and shoot to release within the next 6-9 months; if anything a year in case things come up.

That happens to not be the case though for half the Early Access titles...lol. Day Z has been out for 4 years now! Wreckfast has been out since January of 2014 & Reign of Kings is just dead now...

Its okay now as most people can download patches for their consoles.

-it was genuine issue during PS2 era, tho. PS2 musta been the console that received more broken, buggy as heck games than any other console ever. Half of PS2 titles are buggy enough to be pretty much unplayable... And that's prolly the reason you can buy used PS2 games for pennies these days.

Like what titles? I don't have a big inventory of old PS2 games. But, I can't recall any that were broken.

Yep, it's by no means a broken game. Very playable, especially after this 1.0 update. The FPS is melted butter on PC, and most of the lag issues have been sorted out. There's still some here and there, but it's not nearly as bad as it once was. Also, vaulting made the game twice as enjoyable.

PUBG has seen more updates / progress than h1z1 / dayz combined, in just 9 months.

Theres a difference between early access.............and e*2a : eternal early access.

Online games tend to be broken too often now

Friday the 13th is another online game that has a long way to go before being good.

lol, is that a joke? Do you actually play the games?

-here's few broken, glitchy as heck games from my shelf: Enter the Matrix, Auto Modellista, The Getaway, Oni, Sonic Riders, True Crime 1&2, Jet Ion GP, Terminator Dawn of Fate, Mafia.... and I cannot even remember the names of all those horribly buggy PS2 games I just threw away in discust after trying to play them...

Now I love PS2, and love collecting games for it, but sad fact is that only small amount of games I've gotten for it turn out to be playable. You can usually trust well known brands, apart from sonic, but there is no trusting even big devs such as Rockstar that made that abominable Oni, or Ubisoft that was responsible for that lacklustre bug fest Jet Ion GP.

I usually read reviews first before buying a game. Hence, I was able to avoid the low-scoring games you mentioned. Every PS2 game I have worked fine.

Never. I hate the idea of the early access game. Basically buying a template until they can afford to add fixes. When they did it on PC, I was like, "eeehhh" but when they started doing it for console, that was the beginning of the end. Since consoles don't come with options to tweak games to a playable state. It's unacceptable. It's going to start becoming a crutch with some developers too. They can sell you a broken game at full price, and never be obligated to finish it.

I think a game should be at least at some stage of completion if they're going to attempt it. But I believe consumers should be smarter with their money and not support the practice. It bad enough when AAA games come out unfinished and broken, let alone buying an unfinished game on purpose.