939
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
939 points (97.3% liked)
Gaming
19181 readers
404 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Why is the consumer just expected to roll over and take it when a game sucks instead of the responsibility being on the publisher to release updates until the game resembles what was originally advertised? Games aren't on ROM cartridges anymore, you can still improve the game after it's released.
Look, No Man's Sky set the precedent for what you're supposed to do when your game sucks at launch. And we should expect nothing less from game studios with ten times the person-power and money.
No Man's Sky is a great redemption arc, but it would have been better if the game hadn't sucked at launch
Yeah, if a product is sold, I expect it to work for the most part. Now, mistakes happen, and not much to do about very obscure things and it's great if thing can be added afterwards.
But what I want, and this is apparently wild, is a finished 1.0 product that works as expected.
Obviously sucking at launch is bad. But it's inevitable that some games will suffer that fate and as No Man's Sky showed, that's no excuse for the game continuing to suck after launch.
Yeah, if their publisher hadn't forced them to release in its unfinished state, it would've been a lot better.
Agree. Also the same with CP77 - I don’t care how much they update and polish that game, I’m not touching it again. It was barely playable on XBOX1X on release. I luckily was able to sell my launch day copy with a small loss, but I’m not trusting them with my money again, after I (and many others) have been misled, and given an unplayable game on consoles.
I am not an investor to lend money to the company for development, I am a consumer, so I want a working game for my money on Day 1, otherwise I’m shopping elsewhere - as plenty of studios manage to great and polished games (e.g. most PS exclusives).
I always wait a few years before buying a game. It prevents situations like this and saves aot of money to boot. Not just the game price but also because I don't need the highest spec pc
I was gonna write. I agree with him but No Man's Sky kinda defeats his point.
I pre ordered no man's sky, because the people who made fucking Joe Danger said "I'm going to procedurally generate a universe"
I played it a bit at launch, but the antihype, especially spoilers about the ending made me stop. It's a bit dense to try to get back into at the moment, but I regret nothing. I paid a modicum so that the guys that made Joe Danger could make a universe, and because me and people like me didn't demand a refund, they got to do it.
Thanks, because I bought it after it got good and I've put 1000+ hours into it.
I have no proof but in my eyes it all smells like Sony and other gaming news are to blame. They hyped up the game to unachievable levels and then held Hellogames to the previously set deadline. I am very happy they sat down and finished the game, although there is new content patch ever few months still. Gave them those 60$ happily even though it's not my kind of game.
It's not a redemption arc, it's a people forgetting it exists except for those who want mediocre resource accumulation simulators.