Given the fact that so many high-profile games have released with so many problems this generation, one wonders if and why developers weren’t prepared.
I don't think thats the case . I think the publishers are putting too much pressure on the developers to release games that are not ready so they can get them on the market at a faster pace and if is broken then they will patch it later. it sucks bruh but I think the developers were ready but they need the publishers to be less greedy
All blame on the people writing cheques, no blame on the people taking the cheques and failing to deliver what was agreed?
I'm not a sympathiser for greedy publishers, but it is not necessarily fair to expect them to just ride out delays because dev studios are missing clearly defined deadlines. Every day that a game is delayed balloons the budget and throwing more money at it is not good for them or us. Pretty sweet for the devs though.
Maybe publishers are putting unrealistic expectations on the devs. Maybe they are offering the devs too much freedom, and the problem is devs mis-managing the project. Seems presumptuous to say it is the publisher's fault, as we simply don't know the details.
In every case there will be a point in the project where the dev and/or publisher becomes aware that they are behind schedule. Then a conversation must take place. None of us a privy to that process or conversation, so how can we take sides?
You present some great points bruh like you said none of us are inside those companies but for example WB knew that Arkham Knight wasn' t ready to release on PC and EA knew that BF4 wasn't ready . Who makes the ultimate decision is the publisher.
Yes, definitely some good examples of publishers willfully releasing broken games. I'm not defending that. Arkham Knight in particular was apparently handed off to a team of 12 to port, with an immovable deadline.
I'm just pointing out that in some cases the publisher may not be the villain*. Deadlines are a normal part of any project, and money is a finite resource.
Both parties need to revisit their time frames and more importantly I think they need to stop announcing games before they are ready. Once they announce a game the media and public jump on it for more information and details, this places an unnecessary stress on deadlines there on out. If your game is good the hype will follow, announcing too early can actually hurt a games production rather then help it and force decisions by devs and publishers they otherwise could have avoided.
New hardware allows for bigger and more complex games. That means more content, and it takes more time to create that content. So development times increase
WOW Someone with common sense. People act like this is still the old days. Games have so much content today that they are bound to be glitchy, I think most games get fixed really well quickly like Witcher 3 for instance that was not even that bad from the start considering how HUGE of a game it is.
Architecturely this is the 'easiest' gen to develop for, especially when your game is multiplat, the problem is largely the dudes signing the cheques placing hitting their chosen release date over quality.
A connected, online gen has allowed them the freedom to patch things, while that had huge benefits to everyone including the end user it also means they can release games in a state that historically they wouldn't of been able to.
Still, no developer or publisher WANTS to release a broken game and rarely are they truly unplayable.
no people just over expected, you have to understand a fact. in the history of gaming first few years always see bunch of average games. and this gen actually is better that We have actually gotten good to great games
you look at past gens and first few years always saw very little software support but this hasn't been the case
dead rising 3 ryse knack infamous second son forza horizon 2 forza 5 drive club Witcher 3 batman the order 1886 bloodborne
and I haven't even listed many 3rd party games
so just don't go into a new generation expecting awesome games at launch. it usually takes few years
Indeed, the developers have also been too comfortable developing for certain platforms, and then skips over the quality check for something else. Publishers certainly haven't gotten better with the years, but developers play a role in this as well.
It's because they don't have to try as hard on consoles.
They got used to making basically the same game year after year after year on a static platform.
They didn't have to try to upgrade assets very much, because they were already at the limits of the machines for years.
Just reuse assets, add a few new ones, write a crappy story or a new configuration of a multiplayer map, hire some voice actors... and done. (of course there's lots more that goes into it, but innovation wasn't generally one of them).
They just got used to doing the same old thing, and suddenly for the first time in 5-7 years, they had to do something NEW.
Look, this is how it breaks down.
The good Sony/MS studios, have been able to make some decent games. They were held back, but since they were staffed pretty well and tried hard, they were able to make a few games that were more technically advanced.
But the ones that have really come out like gangbusters, are the companies that have been continually making better games because they have been making PC games.
DX11 effects to them aren't a big thing, they've been doing it since 2009! Hi-res textures? No problem, they've been making better textures for every game.. they didn't stop in 2007 like many 360/PS3 games pretty much did.
But you see, the vast majority of developers aren't the top notch first party or the all platform third parties.
Even then there have been growing pains, as even some of the big boys have shown that some of their teams weren't really prepared.
But overall, if they made a PC version of their games anytime in the last 7-8 years, they were more equipped to make better PS4/XB1 games.
Why could Crytek make a game look good on XB1 around launch? Because they've been making stunning looking games on PC for years.
That's what it all boils down to. Continuous improvement.
You can't do that very well if you are making all your games in a static environment (power wise). Because suddenly you have all this more power with a new console, and don't know how to use it.
Those that have been growing their games with the growth of power, which happens with each Intel/AMD/Nvidia release, are constantly thinking about what to do with these increases in power. So when a new console hits, they already know what to do WITH the power, it's more about getting it compatible with the consoles themselves.
They already know how to max out 1.3 and 1.8 TFlops, because they've been making games that can suck 3-5-10 TFlops of power to run right.
Now, there will be efficiency gains over the course of the console life, but that won't help them suddenly hit 1440p or use 8k textures, etc, etc. It just means cramming a bit more into various constraints that won't be increased.
Think of it this way. You won't be able to increase the strength or size of that medieval plate of armor, but you can put an artist to it and paint it better and put some polish on it.
Another way to look at it. You won't be able to make the car have a bigger engine, but you might be able to tweak the settings to slightly increase your gas mileage.
1. They thought the consoles were way more powerful than they are. 2. They thought game devs would have the time & budget to utilize the console's power. 3. They thought games would finally look like last gen's tech demos. 4. They didn't realize that with more power and features comes more bugs. 5. They didn't listen when people warned that the conventional gaming industry was dying.
Seeing as this gen of consoles (except Wii-U) are very PC architecture orientated I think there are other reasons for these broken games to be released.
I don't think thats the case . I think the publishers are putting too much pressure on the developers to release games that are not ready so they can get them on the market at a faster pace and if is broken then they will patch it later.
it sucks bruh but I think the developers were ready but they need the publishers to be less greedy
New hardware allows for bigger and more complex games. That means more content, and it takes more time to create that content. So development times increase
It is certainly evident that journalists were unprepared for this Generation.
Architecturely this is the 'easiest' gen to develop for, especially when your game is multiplat, the problem is largely the dudes signing the cheques placing hitting their chosen release date over quality.
A connected, online gen has allowed them the freedom to patch things, while that had huge benefits to everyone including the end user it also means they can release games in a state that historically they wouldn't of been able to.
Still, no developer or publisher WANTS to release a broken game and rarely are they truly unplayable.
no people just over expected, you have to understand a fact. in the history of gaming first few years always see bunch of average games. and this gen actually is better that We have actually gotten good to great games
you look at past gens and first few years always saw very little software support but this hasn't been the case
dead rising 3
ryse
knack
infamous second son
forza horizon 2
forza 5
drive club
Witcher 3
batman
the order 1886 bloodborne
and I haven't even listed many 3rd party games
so just don't go into a new generation expecting awesome games at launch. it usually takes few years