OT: General Video Game Discussion VII

[llamapalooza]

Far Cry 4 is pretty good. Initally it seemed pretty similar to FC3 in gameplay, but as the game went on it really came into it's own. I like it. (The "Buzzer" gyrocopter is just great, best means of transportation in any Far Cry game ever made lol)

I picked up GTA5 for XB1 after work tonight. So far, it's taking forever to install.

First digital game I've gotten on the XB1, and I think it probably took like eight hours to install. Disc version still probably would've been two or three. Between long-ass installs, huge filesizes, microtransation DLC garbage, and the ship-first-and-maybe-fix-later mentality, I'm kinda sick of "next gen" already. There's some cool stuff, for sure, but every time I go back to my Wii U and **** just works I get kind of nostalgic.

 

[llamapalooza]

Also, dat Mario Kart 8 DLC. That is how you do DLC right. Release a full game with nothing cut, then come back a few months later with something spectacular. The new tracks are sick, and 8 for $8 is a steal.

Even the soundtrack is killer:

 

[BurnsyMN]

First digital game I've gotten on the XB1, and I think it probably took like eight hours to install. Disc version still probably would've been two or three. Between long-ass installs, huge filesizes, microtransation DLC garbage, and the ship-first-and-maybe-fix-later mentality, I'm kinda sick of "next gen" already. There's some cool stuff, for sure, but every time I go back to my Wii U and **** just works I get kind of nostalgic.

The whole install thing is just stupid. The only explanation I have for forced installs on discs is to take up room on your hard drive so they can sell you a larger hard drive in the future.

The broken games at release is nonsense. The only way it stops is if people stop buying games, which they won't. Companies know they can patch it later, therefore they can set the release date whenever they want. (They sure aren't going to miss the holiday release dates). As a consumer, I appreciate honesty. I'm sure it is the big heads at the top forcing games to release when they want. I would more likely purchase more games from a company in the future if they were just honest. If the head developers come out and say "I know we really hyped this game up and you're excited but the facts are that it is not ready to be released. Instead of giving you the headache and frustration of waiting on a patch, we're going to release at such and such a date so you can enjoy the game as bug free as possible". To make up for delays they can just offer free gamer pics or something. That sounds a lot better than trying to save face with free DLC because of a broken launch

 

[forthewild]

The whole install thing is just stupid. The only explanation I have for forced installs on discs is to take up room on your hard drive so they can sell you a larger hard drive in the future.

The broken games at release is nonsense. The only way it stops is if people stop buying games, which they won't. Companies know they can patch it later, therefore they can set the release date whenever they want. (They sure aren't going to miss the holiday release dates). As a consumer, I appreciate honesty. I'm sure it is the big heads at the top forcing games to release when they want. I would more likely purchase more games from a company in the future if they were just honest. If the head developers come out and say "I know we really hyped this game up and you're excited but the facts are that it is not ready to be released. Instead of giving you the headache and frustration of waiting on a patch, we're going to release at such and such a date so you can enjoy the game as bug free as possible". To make up for delays they can just offer free gamer pics or something. That sounds a lot better than trying to save face with free DLC because of a broken launch

Actually the reason why the games install isn't for them to sell you a larger HDD its because the data is read faster off the HDD than a blu-ray disc so that the game can actually be played as is.

While both sony and MS SHOULD have included a 1TB at minimum they didn't but its not a reason to sell you a bigger HDD, its because of the data transfer limitations with optical disk.

 

[gphr513]

I understand the frustration, but I think you guys are being a bit hyperbolic.

What games have been "broken" at release? Gamers way overuse that term. Bugs =/= broken. Games have had bugs since the beginning of time. Remember the days when there was a bug/glitch in a game and you just had to live with it?

The installs are frustrating, for sure, and maybe GTA is different because it's such a MASSIVE game, but it took Unity about 20 minutes to install before I could play it (the rest installed while you're playing). A digital game, especially massive ones like GTA, are going to take a long time to install. That's no secret. One of the negatives about digital.

And server issues on release day was never something that was going to change in next gen.

 

[Ladde]

Buggy releases are a norm nowadays thought so no suprises there. Mainly these problems are down to the game developers not optimizing the game well enough.(Which seems to be happening more and more with both the console and PC games)

 

[Swervin81]

The advent of patches seems to have created some complacency within game development IMO. Putting out a buggy, not very well tested game because they know they can fix things down the line.

 

[gphr513]

The advent of patches seems to have created some complacency within game development IMO. Putting out a buggy, not very well tested game because they know they can fix things down the line.

I'd say the reason is more ambitious games, and more complicated software.

Not like they're sitting there going "Woo! We dunt have to work hard anymore!"

If they wanted to put out a relatively bug free game, I think they could, but then everyone would be complaining about how they aren't doing enough with the hardware.

 

[Ladde]

It really is about the publishers pushing the developer teams to push these games out as fast as possible.
They get limited timelines to make a game and most mainstream games go trought the absolute minimum amount of beta testing.
Then they piece the game a bit to make dlc´s 1 month after the launch or even with the launch. The publishing companies have just become more greedy.

 

[Vashanesh]

It really is about the publishers pushing the developer teams to push these games out as fast as possible.
They get limited timelines to make a game and most mainstream games go trought the absolute minimum amount of beta testing.
Then they piece the game a bit to make dlc´s 1 month after the launch or even with the launch. The publishing companies have just become more greedy.

Bingo.

Look who's putting out buggy crap, lately. Ubisoft, one of the biggest publishers out there. They still have bugs in the Assassin's Creed engine that haven't been fixed in 4+ releases. They don't care, because they've got their yearly releases...

You don't see small-medium sized dev teams putting out awful games, unless you count some egregious examples on Steam Greenlight, but that's another conversation entirely.

 

[gphr513]

Saying that Ubisoft puts out awful games is just not true.

 

[Swervin81]

Saying that Ubisoft puts out awful games is just not true.

I wouldn't say that, but they can be underwhelming at times. I did not enjoy Watchdogs, especially after all the hype it got as potentially being a GTA replacement. Assassin's Creed is pretty good, but there are more underlying issues underneath Ubisoft. Just look at EA, they make a few good games (FIFA especially), but they are rated the worst company in all of North America. Speaking of GTA... remember when Rockstar said heists would be here in 2014?... I'm still waiting!

 

[StealthClobber]

I wouldn't say that, but they can be underwhelming at times. I did not enjoy Watchdogs, especially after all the hype it got as potentially being a GTA replacement. Assassin's Creed is pretty good, but there are more underlying issues underneath Ubisoft. Just look at EA, they make a few good games (FIFA especially), but they are rated the worst company in all of North America. Speaking of GTA... remember when Rockstar said heists would be here in 2014?... I'm still waiting!

Well to be fair, heists are coming with the next GTA Online update, and those are usually on a pretty constant release cycle.

Watch Dogs was over-hyped by the fans and only the fans, which is why when the game came out and everybody saw how underwhelming the game was, the fans are the ones that cried and moaned. Don't forget though how Ubisoft intentionally gimped how the game looked on PC to not make the console releases look as bad, until gamers found out how to unlock those graphics and all of a sudden the game looked 5x better.

Then there's Ubisoft intentionally getting rid of the FOV slider in the pirated versions of Far Cry 4. I bet they thought it would be so funny at the time, but not changing FOV from default really doesn't hinder gameplay at all, and it was just a waste of time from doing other things they could have been doing like, I don't know, fixing AI spotting bodies through god damned walls? Or not being able to shoot people on ladders? Shooting a guy climbing down a ladder with a bow and arrow in stealth, it not killing him, and then alerting the entire camp. That has to be one of the most annoying experiences for me in FC4 so far

 

[gphr513]

I wouldn't say that, but they can be underwhelming at times. I did not enjoy Watchdogs, especially after all the hype it got as potentially being a GTA replacement. Assassin's Creed is pretty good, but there are more underlying issues underneath Ubisoft. Just look at EA, they make a few good games (FIFA especially), but they are rated the worst company in all of North America. Speaking of GTA... remember when Rockstar said heists would be here in 2014?... I'm still waiting!

I had GTA V on 360, there were heists online, weren't there? Are they not in the XB1 version?

 

[Swervin81]

I had GTA V on 360, there were heists online, weren't there? Are they not in the XB1 version?

No, there weren't and no, there aren't.

 

[gphr513]

Oh.

Well, shhhh, Rockstar can do no wrong

 

[Avder]

About the only company that still remembers how to do games right is Nintendo.

It's really a shame they couldn't find a way to take advantage of developer frustrations with the PS4 and XboxOne to get some more third party stuff on the WiiU. It's basically a machine that's part way between the power of a 360 and XboxOne, so it's got what it needs to do what current era games are doing. Plus developing for that system would allow for more work on things like plot and actual gameplay mechanics and not stupid crap like adding to the detail of the crowd in the latest NHL game while stripping out core modes that the previous generation of games enjoyed.

Nintendo does games right but apparently they're doing hardware completely wrong, still. They haven't managed to get a system completely right since the SNES.

The N64 got beaten down by the playstation because a CD is a crap ton cheaper to produce than a cartridge.

The Gamecube lost to the Xbox and PS2 in part because gamecube discs can only hold 1.4Gigs of data compared to a DVD's 4-9 gigs.

The Wii came out strong against the PS3 and 360 but no one ever figured out how to do motion controls properly, and the systems graphics capabilities were far behind the other systems.

Now the Wii U is struggling for the same reasons the Wii faded down the stretch. Not powerful enough. Control novelties that are apparently too much for third party developers to comprehend. And the online component is still far behind the other two.

Nintendo and Sega should team up to make the next version of Nintendo's hardware, assuming Nintendo stays a hardware player when that time comes.

 

[Vashanesh]

Saying that Ubisoft puts out awful games is just not true.

Who said they were awful? I specifically said they've been buggy crap, but their games CAN be fun. My issue is with them as a publisher.

Watch Dogs for PC? Total mess, users had to find high-res options that were developer-disabled so the subpar graphics on console wouldn't look so bad by comparison. Because the game was rushed and poorly optimized for the new consoles.

AC3? Buggy as hell at launch, and I didn't bother to follow up to see if they even fixed some of the engine issues and crashing.

AC:U? The PC release has resulted in Ubisoft executives saying some of the most ill-informed and flat out stupid things I've ever heard. Blaming the consumer for piracy, blaming AMD for all their issues (when Nvidia has the exact same problems), saying that '10% of the audience is so poisonous and entitled'. These people clearly don't understand that they're judged on their product first, their actions second and everything else a distant third. When the first two are unacceptable and hostile respectively, why bother? The game itself also runs for crap, and has been shown that exceptionally impressive hardware does not compensate for the issues. Unacceptable for a retail released product.

They treat the PC market like a red-headed step-child. And then when PC gamers actually WANT to support them, issues and all, they implement garbage like Uplay and claim that it's the only way to fight piracy. Want to know how to really fight piracy? Create and then SHIP a quality product that's playable at launch, and don't ACTIVELY harm your userbases ability to seek out your products by hiding them behind yet another level of horribly obnoxious DRM. And don't blame your userbase for all of your problems. Did PC gamers cause AC:U to be rushed and poorly optimized? No, I think that was their executives who don't know their heads from a hole in the ground when it comes to dealing with this industry.

Myself as a PC gamer, I would be willing to buy Farcry 4 on PC, but I refuse to deal with Uplay. Because they've set this awful company-wide policy, my ONLY option to avoid it would be... *drum roll* PIRACY. If I don't want to deal with their completely useless service that doesn't benefit me as a consumer in any way, the only way for me to do that is to get their products illegally.

I realize I'm getting way too worked up about this, but it upsets me that companies can be so actively anti-consumer and still make hundreds of millions of dollars. It's mind boggling to me.

 

[gphr513]

I read your post as you saying that Ubisoft games were awful, my bad.

 

[Vashanesh]

I read your post as you saying that Ubisoft Ganges were awful, my bad.

Oh well, I got my rant out of the way, anyways.

 

[llamapalooza]

About the only company that still remembers how to do games right is Nintendo.

It's really a shame they couldn't find a way to take advantage of developer frustrations with the PS4 and XboxOne to get some more third party stuff on the WiiU. It's basically a machine that's part way between the power of a 360 and XboxOne, so it's got what it needs to do what current era games are doing. Plus developing for that system would allow for more work on things like plot and actual gameplay mechanics and not stupid crap like adding to the detail of the crowd in the latest NHL game while stripping out core modes that the previous generation of games enjoyed.

Nintendo does games right but apparently they're doing hardware completely wrong, still. They haven't managed to get a system completely right since the SNES.

The N64 got beaten down by the playstation because a CD is a crap ton cheaper to produce than a cartridge.

The Gamecube lost to the Xbox and PS2 in part because gamecube discs can only hold 1.4Gigs of data compared to a DVD's 4-9 gigs.

The Wii came out strong against the PS3 and 360 but no one ever figured out how to do motion controls properly, and the systems graphics capabilities were far behind the other systems.

Now the Wii U is struggling for the same reasons the Wii faded down the stretch. Not powerful enough. Control novelties that are apparently too much for third party developers to comprehend. And the online component is still far behind the other two.

Nintendo and Sega should team up to make the next version of Nintendo's hardware, assuming Nintendo stays a hardware player when that time comes.

Apart from being kind of mediocre on the OS/online network/system software side of things, I think Nintendo's biggest problem legitimately is that their games are too good. People buy a Nintendo platform for Nintendo games, and there's no room for competition among third-parties. It's kind of a self-reinforcing problem, too: nobody buys a Wii U to play CoD on, so Activision stops releasing CoD on Wii U.

The Wii U, as hardware, is fine. It's perfectly capable of running some gorgeous games, it's got a tremendously comfortable Pro Controller that gets great battery life and can be used with almost every game that's put out, and it's actually really reasonably priced now with a fairly solid line-up of first-party games to justify the price.

 

[Avder]

Apart from being kind of mediocre on the OS/online network/system software side of things, I think Nintendo's biggest problem legitimately is that their games are too good. People buy a Nintendo platform for Nintendo games, and there's no room for competition among third-parties. It's kind of a self-reinforcing problem, too: nobody buys a Wii U to play CoD on, so Activision stops releasing CoD on Wii U.

The Wii U, as hardware, is fine. It's perfectly capable of running some gorgeous games, it's got a tremendously comfortable Pro Controller that gets great battery life and can be used with almost every game that's put out, and it's actually really reasonably priced now with a fairly solid line-up of first-party games to justify the price.

An knowing Nintendo, they're probably making a modest profit on each one sold unlike Sony and Microsoft which sell their consoles at a loss, I believe. Nintendo was selling Wii's and making $50 in profit off each one sold while Microsoft was losing like $100 on every 360 sold and Sony was probably similar with the PS3.

Even if they can't seem to get the hardware formula right, they've got the business aspect of it nailed down pretty well.

 

[llamapalooza]

An knowing Nintendo, they're probably making a modest profit on each one sold unlike Sony and Microsoft which sell their consoles at a loss, I believe. Nintendo was selling Wii's and making $50 in profit off each one sold while Microsoft was losing like $100 on every 360 sold and Sony was probably similar with the PS3.

Even if they can't seem to get the hardware formula right, they've got the business aspect of it nailed down pretty well.

I wanna say Reggie said after the price cut that it became about a $10 loss per unit, which they considered acceptable because they broke even on the first game purchased. And at that rate, I'd bet they're probably up to net profitability again with better manufacturing efficiency after two years.

I always laugh when people think Nintendo is doomed. They've been around for over 100 years and completely switched industries several times. They make quality products with an eye on reasonable financials. They'll adapt just fine.

 

[Avder]

I wanna say Reggie said after the price cut that it became about a $10 loss per unit, which they considered acceptable because they broke even on the first game purchased. And at that rate, I'd bet they're probably up to net profitability again with better manufacturing efficiency after two years.

I always laugh when people think Nintendo is doomed. They've been around for over 100 years and completely switched industries several times. They make quality products with an eye on reasonable financials. They'll adapt just fine.

Yeah they're very long term oriented which is something you see nothing from as far as Sony and Microsoft's gaming divisions.

 

[llamapalooza]

Also: My power cord on my Xbone broke this morning because of really poor cable design. MS Customer Service is OK (still under warranty so they're replacing it for free) but it'll probably take two weeks or so for it to get there and back. Meanwhile, if this was Nintendo, the replacement would already be on its way.