Fast food could be equal to some indie project that you bought at Steam on sale. And yes, there it's fine.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Definitely not full (over)priced AAA games.
You misinterpreted the metaphor. It's not the game that's the fast food here, it's the platform at a particular price point. (Yeah, I realize the metaphor is strained by this point, but I didn't choose it.) If you want better tasting food (fewer crashes), move from the fast food restaurant (PC) to a slightly more gourmet option (a console) and pay the price (controller instead of mouse, lack of graphics and control configurabililty, even more $$ if the game is an older release).Originally Posted by Licher.Rus Go to original post
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if indie games (at least ones with reasonably competent developers) are generally more reliable than triple-A, simply because they usually try to do a lot less and so are less likely to bring out all the odd configuration problems in a system.
This pretty much demonstrates the problem. On a platform where reliablity is extremely difficult, people complain in the same breath that not enough money is being spent on reliability and that the game costs too much.Definitely not full (over)priced AAA games.
1st, I would have serious questions, if they would have to have their full team research bugs. I would also add, even with their full team they haven't been raining new content. They supposedly been working on Avatar since TD. They just took on Star Wars. I would even doubt their full team is even working on anything TD relatedOriginally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
2nd, I know I would prefer not to spend anymore money on broken content. They might be surprised if they actually released content with minimum bugs or no bugs, how much players may be willing to spend on games from a company that didn't consider bugs as acceptable.
3rd, What's the difference in buying one expensive game you would play for years with your friends, with the occasionally dlc or upgrade? Or spending the same amount, if not more on cheap game after cheap game every week?
4th, As long as players accept sub-par video games. The industry won't strive to improve. Why strive to remove bugs, when players will accept them and make excuses for you.
I think players are aware that software bugs are inevitable. Deadlines combined with many different complex systems - something is surely going to slip through no matter what kind of budget a game has.Originally Posted by Robert-of-Hague Go to original post
In regards to Division 2, I believe the concern comes from old bugs not being fixed yet, depending on their severity.
There are a lot of people at Massive and Ubisoft that are responsible for providing us (customers) a gaming experience that is commensurate with what was advertised, stable, and performs well within the stated system requirements.
Every single one of these people are employed with job responsibilities that are aligned with that overall mission.
Bugs happen. But there are entire frameworks which should be used that prevent critical bugs from getting past development testing, past QA testing, and released into production.
Every software developer that works these days knows about interdependencies..... with third party libraries, OS'es, etc. and certainly interdependencies with other products in the studios portfolio.
To have what happened happen, that doesn't happen without people failing at their job responsibilities. The Massive and Ubisoft Connect product owners need to sit down and figure out how they failed -- and how to not do that again.
That is what needs to happen. What doesn't need to happen is for the customer base to "learn" how they should temper their reasonable expectations.
It is not unreasonable to expect two teams under the same studio to actually do their jobs. And if those teams in fact did not fall down on their job responsibilities -- then layers of management above them certainly did.
So whole PC platform is kinda fast food for you?Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Wow, that nice, even if remember that latest consoles are not even near in price to even medicore PCs
So, you are saying, that going to fast food and buying spoiled food there for restaurant prices is fine?
But I don't think that PC is fast food. What a strange idea?..
Basically, you speak for the whole IT programmers community. Ok.Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
This is fine then. Continue to Ignore commons sense
What is it lately with people taking something low key, and assuming it means some kind of broad sweeping concept?Originally Posted by As1r0nimo Go to original post
I specifically said Ubi/Massive in regards to THIS game. Not the entire IT industry. Not all programmers everywhere. Not every single game in existence.
How is it ignoring common sense to point out that the development of The Division 2 has been sloppy, filled with exploits and bugs far and above what would normally be encountered in a game with such a well-established dev team from a major publisher?
I'll answer that for you: It's not. Not unless you're using Bethesda as your measuring stick. In which case I have to wonder what rock you've been living under where you think that bottom of the barrel development is standard.
As I said, the metaphor is strained at best. It's not one I would have picked.Originally Posted by Licher.Rus Go to original post
But the key takeaway here is that if you think of a console as a platform, you can think of PCs as millions of subtly different platforms. (This is a bit broad, but captures the general idea.) This makes getting a certain level of reliability on PCs much more expensive than on consoles, so you would expect that to achieve an equivalant level of reliability that the PC game would be significantly more expensive. That probably wouldn't fly from a marketing poitn of view (I can just imagine the screaming in this forum if Ubi said that all PC gamers had to pay even 20% more than console gamers for the same game), so they sell it for the same price and either put the same amount of work into reliability (thus getting less on the PC side) or cross-subsidise from console version sales.
Maybe imagine it more this way. You run a cafe that sells coffee and tea. The coffee of the same quality as your tea costs you twice as much per cup, but the coffee drinkers, who refuse to drink tea, will scream their bloody heads off and boycot your shop if you charge more for a cup of coffee than for a cup of tea. So how do you handle this?