Post by Shrouded Wolf on Jan 11, 2014 3:58:19 GMT -5
So... I was listening to a gaming podcast recently where a highly interesting (to me, anyway) question...that I will extend out to this forum for discussion.
The question is, what is your opinion on gaming and video games transitioning from being a product into becoming s service rather than a static product?
On one hand, it seems to be great. Look at TF2 when the big class updates were dropping, paired with an introductory video and everything. Or, while I'm not a fan of the game due to its community, look at DOTA2. Those games were awesome and they were made even more awesome by the developers. Or hell, look at Minecraft. It started off as a great game...and it became even greater, often thanks to the ideas and support of its community (especially once Jeb took over).
On the other hand, I'm looking at the consequence of the whole "Early Access" thing on Steam and its ilk in other places, there have been tons of people that have been releasing games where they have been charging full price (or, even more) that they would charge on release that are in alpha (or even, pre-alpha) state, where the game is either bugged to hell...or even, is broken and just straight-up unplayable.
As a perfect example, Audio Surf 2. I suppose, one could make the argument that it's on me for having invested in something that's not necessarily complete, but... When I had picked it up, I ended up paying full price for something that had menus that were barely functional (if that) and the only unlocked game mode was essentially unplayable.
Another example, although not a personal experience of mine, is Spacebase DF-9. It's supposed to be what essentially is Dwarf Fortress, but in outer space. The issue is that the game is packed with content that's simply filler to be (hopefully) filled in at some point in the future...and there's the fact that there's basically nothing to do once you figure out the optimal size of the necessary rooms. And that's not even addressing the bugs...like how space stations aren't considered as objects, for whatever reason.
There are ways to make something like this work...especially, if you get your systems down and be functional where you deliver a product that's essentially ready for consumption with the chance to round out the rough edges and get ideas from the community on further ideas to build on top of the base systems...yes, is the chance of giving people bad experience that will influence people to not even try the game when it's completed worth it?
I mean, this kind of thing has its advantages over a classical beta testing system (I'll stick to indie games, for the sake of ease of use). You get to address a much larger audience that might have a wildly varying sea of ideas that might find bugs in obscure places that a limited audience wouldn't be able to find. Also, if a developer is running out of money, it can be the difference between having an (eventually) finished product and the game being scrapped entirely.
..yet, is it hurting the gaming community as a whole by influencing people to sell their things before they are even remotely complete and might never even be finished? Or can it be considered a way to weed out the games that might have failed anyway?
The question is, what is your opinion on gaming and video games transitioning from being a product into becoming s service rather than a static product?
On one hand, it seems to be great. Look at TF2 when the big class updates were dropping, paired with an introductory video and everything. Or, while I'm not a fan of the game due to its community, look at DOTA2. Those games were awesome and they were made even more awesome by the developers. Or hell, look at Minecraft. It started off as a great game...and it became even greater, often thanks to the ideas and support of its community (especially once Jeb took over).
On the other hand, I'm looking at the consequence of the whole "Early Access" thing on Steam and its ilk in other places, there have been tons of people that have been releasing games where they have been charging full price (or, even more) that they would charge on release that are in alpha (or even, pre-alpha) state, where the game is either bugged to hell...or even, is broken and just straight-up unplayable.
As a perfect example, Audio Surf 2. I suppose, one could make the argument that it's on me for having invested in something that's not necessarily complete, but... When I had picked it up, I ended up paying full price for something that had menus that were barely functional (if that) and the only unlocked game mode was essentially unplayable.
Another example, although not a personal experience of mine, is Spacebase DF-9. It's supposed to be what essentially is Dwarf Fortress, but in outer space. The issue is that the game is packed with content that's simply filler to be (hopefully) filled in at some point in the future...and there's the fact that there's basically nothing to do once you figure out the optimal size of the necessary rooms. And that's not even addressing the bugs...like how space stations aren't considered as objects, for whatever reason.
There are ways to make something like this work...especially, if you get your systems down and be functional where you deliver a product that's essentially ready for consumption with the chance to round out the rough edges and get ideas from the community on further ideas to build on top of the base systems...yes, is the chance of giving people bad experience that will influence people to not even try the game when it's completed worth it?
I mean, this kind of thing has its advantages over a classical beta testing system (I'll stick to indie games, for the sake of ease of use). You get to address a much larger audience that might have a wildly varying sea of ideas that might find bugs in obscure places that a limited audience wouldn't be able to find. Also, if a developer is running out of money, it can be the difference between having an (eventually) finished product and the game being scrapped entirely.
..yet, is it hurting the gaming community as a whole by influencing people to sell their things before they are even remotely complete and might never even be finished? Or can it be considered a way to weed out the games that might have failed anyway?