• HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Suck is forever.

    Unless you’re No Man’s Sky? Or Cyberpunk? Like games have been getting patches and updates for a long time, sometimes they get better, sometimes they get worse. Maybe he means your reputation as a developer and as a publisher is forever tarnished no matter how well you patch up the game post-launch.

    In the days of Half Life 1? Yeah, it wasn’t really feasible to patch games after they got printed on discs and left the warehouse.

    • Lemonparty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the days of Half Life 1

      Literally what the headline, article, and quote are about. Half life 1. When half life 1 released. When they delayed it because they didn’t want it to suck forever.

    • Briongloid@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sure they got better, but they never won me back, that original feeling of disappointment is still associated with the games for me.

      • teft@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m pretty sure this is what he means. It’s like first impressions with people. You only get one shot. Yes, you can improve the initial release to be playable and amazing but people will remember you put out a shit game to start with and that alienates people.

    • sigswitch@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an oversimplification, but first impressions do mean a lot. A lot of people will forever remember No Man’s Sky as being a terrible game, even though they did do a lot to fix it later.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah reptuational is part of the issue but there is also a big financial issue too. Delaying a game is financially difficult as it affects financial projects for each year with shareholders (who only care about share price growth). If you release a game in a poor state you get to hit some of the financial targets which benefits the publisher particularly, but for the developer it means longer terms sales are much lower as reviews and feedback come in that the game is crap. You then have to patch and repair the game.

      Patching has allowed publishers and developers to get away with this releasing of games in bad states, but it doesn’t change that fundamental issue which disproportionately affects the developer. Dev studios often only have 1 game being worked on at a time. An unready early release which is poorly recieved can be an existential crisis. For publishers, a poorly recieved game is a disappointment but generally have other many other games also on release so they can move on and not care as much.

      No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk are high profile exceptions. The gaming world is littered with abandoned flops, often due to not being ready for release.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, games that are delayed too much sometimes end up being outdated and therefore relatively bad. Eg. Duke Nukem Forever.