log in or register to remove this ad

 

So Cyberpunk 2077

MarkB

Legend
Pretty much. Unless they're blind, everybody on the inside a project can see the bug lists and problems when they run it. They all would like more time to work on it. Up to and including infinite time (you can fix bugs forever, it turns out).

It's the people outside that circle who want to make money, pay the bills who say "No, we need to ship it and make some money." Executive types make that call.

CD Project Red hasn't released anything big since The Witcher 3. Maybe the Gwent game made them some easy coin, but they were probably bleeding cash to make CP. Exactly the kind of pressure to release a game before its really ready.
Plus it was literally the most anticipated game of the year by a wide margin, which means that they were also under enormous pressure from the retailers and the general public.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MGibster

Legend
That is an incredibly cynical point of view. Far more likely, is it just isn’t feasible to take extra years to test an effectively complete game that you’ve found all the obvious bugs in, especially when a few hundred thousand fans will find the same bugs in hours that would take a small team of play testers months, at least, to find.
Given the abominable behavior of many game companies that includes microtransactions, introducing problems to the game you can solve by making micro purchases, gambling in the form of loot boxes, the abhorrent treatment of their employees, and their habit of releasing broken software, I'd say the cynical point of view is quite reasonable in this case.
 


trappedslider

Adventurer


Cyberpunk 2077 publisher says it took the ‘wrong approach’ with PS4, Xbox One versions​


Studio executives answered investor questions during a conference call


Top executives at Cyberpunk 2077 developer CD Projekt Red spoke to investors Tuesday to address the game’s recent rocky release. CD Projekt co-CEO Adam Kiciński told the group that the company’s management board was “too focused on releasing the game” and underestimated the scale of Cyberpunk 2077’s problems, according to a transcript of the call.

“We ignored signals about the need for additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen consoles,” Kiciński said. “It was the wrong approach and against our business philosophy.”


Cyberpunk 2077 was released on Dec. 10. Reviewers, including Polygon, were issued early release codes ahead of launch — but only on Windows PC, where the game runs best. Reviews were mixed, but many cited a large number of bugs even on Windows PC. Those bugs, however, were little compared to how the game ran on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. Problems run the gamut from unplayable, game-breaking issues to silly bugs.

Michał Nowakowski, CD Projekt’s senior vice president of business development, reiterated that the management team didn’t address last-gen console issues well enough. When asked about how Cyberpunk 2077 got through Microsoft and Sony’s console certification process, Nowakowski said he assumed that the two companies trusted CD Projekt Red would fix the game ahead of launch.

“Obviously, that did not come together exactly as he had planned,” he added. Nowakowski said updates will come in December, January, and February — with the “larger improvements” slated for the latter two months. Players shouldn’t expect the console versions to look or run like the Windows PC version, however: “That definitely isn’t going to happen,” Nowakowski said.

“I’m not saying it’s going to be a bad game — but if you’re [sic] expectations regarding, say, visuals or other performance angle, are like this, then we’re openly stating that’s not going to be the case,” he said. “It will be a good, playable, stable game, without glitches and crashes, though. That’s the intention.”


Co-CEO Marcin Iwiński added that he hopes players will be able to enjoy the experience on consoles “by Christmas,” noting that the major updates are coming after that.

On Monday, CD Projekt Red apologized to players on Monday for not showing last-gen console footage — “not allowing [players] to make a more informed decision about [their] purchase.” In that note, published on Twitter, CD Projekt Red said players can get refunds for their game by contacting Microsoft or Sony. Some players have reported that the console makers are denying refunds. Some believed that CD Projekt Red’s message implied that refunds would be guaranteed, but the developer clarified in Tuesday’s conference call that it has no special arrangement with Microsoft or Sony regarding refunds. To get a refund on a purchase, it must meet the requirements set up via the particular storefront. For instance, Sony’s policy is that players can get a refund on purchases made within 14 days, if the software hasn’t been downloaded. Valve’s Steam storefront is similar — refunds are available for games purchased within a 14-day time frame, though it allows for two hours of play time.

During the call, CD Projekt Red did not address criticism of the developer’s mandatory “crunch” period, nor did it comment on ongoing accusations of transphobia. The full transcript of the call is available online.
 

trappedslider

Adventurer
On my way to perform a hostile takeover
eea4206d-e3ce-4510-9b99-451290347390.png
 

embee

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
Imagine that: a highly-anticipated release turns out to be glitchy, unstable, and incomplete, and people complain about it.

So wouldn't the best solution be to insist on better releases from big name publishers?

It's not too much to ask. Other studios do it, with fewer people, shorter schedules, and smaller budgets.

But then you would probably have to increase the price. And the first rule of video games is that "No video game shall ever have a base price of more than $60."

(And don't you DARE bring up the fact that using CPI Inflation, a game that in 2000 cost $60 should, today, cost more than $90!)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I loved the first four games, but AC3 completely killed my interest in the series. The historical moments felt so forced and hackneyed, Conner was boring, the final confrontation was a total letdown. I just didn't enjoy any of it.

The ships were fun though
Damn. Conner was boring, to you? The final confrontation was a letdown!?

I can't even imagine how someone could play the same game I played and have this experience, its so very much the opposite of my own experience.

Conner was perhaps the only likeable, interesting, genuinely sympathetic, protagonist of any AssCreed I've played, having lost interest trying to finish Black Flag, which was only worth playing for a couple side characters and the ship combat.

The final confrontation was worthy of the series finale of a really good dark HBO drama. The gameplay wasn't the focus of it at all, but I was fine with that, having invested in the conflict between the characters.

The weak point of the game was, as is usually the case with these games, the historical characters. But the game showed the founder's hypocrisy and dishonesty better than any media concerning the revolution that I've ever seen.

The only thing that was disappointing to me in the game was the parkour, due to the architecture of the setting. The trees help a bit, as does going through buildings, but yeah, AC2 had the best parkour, by far.

Ah, well. We all experience things differently. To me, AC3 is the only one of the Desmond AC games that tells a truly compelling story, rather than just a decent story that moves the fun parkour assassin game forward but doesn't do much else.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No - what no studio will choose to afford before launch. But then, from too many development managers' points of view, quality cuts into the bottom line.
The market won't bear price increases, and QA testers get paid. It's not a real choice, because there aren't multiple viable options.

Most AAA games today require thousands upon thousands of people-hours of playtesting to find all the potentially broken system interactions, which simply cannot be completely done pre-launch.

Not to mention, there is nothing wrong with how things are. This isn't 1992. You aren't buying a disk that is the state of the game as it will always be unless you purchase a second copy in the form of a game of the year or special edition version.

The bugs tend to be worked out within a week of launch. Whining about that is...unreasonable.

EDIT: okay, there is plenty wrong with the video game industry. this just isn't an example.
 

MGibster

Legend
The bugs tend to be worked out within a week of launch. Whining about that is...unreasonable.

EDIT: okay, there is plenty wrong with the video game industry. this just isn't an example.
I think the complaints are valid. But so long as people keep buying games pre-order or at launch they've got to accept the awful truth that they're part of the problem. I don't typically purchase games at launch but I did Cyberpunk. While it's not a horrible game, I don't think it would have hurt me to have waited.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I think the complaints are valid. But so long as people keep buying games pre-order or at launch they've got to accept the awful truth that they're part of the problem. I don't typically purchase games at launch but I did Cyberpunk. While it's not a horrible game, I don't think it would have hurt me to have waited.
I personally won't be purchasing AAA games until things like mandatory crunch time and other worker abuses end, but I disagree on this. The purchasers aren't part of why games are released with bugs. It happens because the game has to come out at some point or it becomes a loss, and AQ testers are costly.
 

Most AAA games today require thousands upon thousands of people-hours of playtesting to find all the potentially broken system interactions, which simply cannot be completely done pre-launch.
This is true. Most triple AAA videogame companies outsource a chunk of the QA testing, while also doing a ton of internal QA testing themselves. Towards the final crunch, coders and artists may be asked to jump in and test as well, and even then it can be hard to find and fix everything before the deadline. I have been in that position myself, where me, one of the artists, and a coder were testing deep into the night. It was around midnight when we all went home. It wasn't a horrible experience though, since everyone was passionate about what they were making. Being so close to completion of a game you've worked on for years is very exciting. I can only imagine the disappointment the team at CDPR is feeling right now, after all that hard work.

Of course that doesn't excuse the poor PS4 and Xbox versions of the game, but that is on upper management, not the development team.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
This is true. Most triple AAA videogame companies outsource a chunk of the QA testing, while also doing a ton of internal QA testing themselves. Towards the final crunch, coders and artists may be asked to jump in and test as well, and even then it can be hard to find and fix everything before the deadline. I have been in that position myself, where me, one of the artists, and a coder were testing deep into the night. It was around midnight when we all went home. It wasn't a horrible experience though, since everyone was passionate about what they were making. Being so close to completion of a game you've worked on for years is very exciting. I can only imagine the disappointment the team at CDPR is feeling right now, after all that hard work.

Of course that doesn't excuse the poor PS4 and Xbox versions of the game, but that is on upper management, not the development team.
Yeah the console situation is just bad. Jeeeez.
 

MGibster

Legend
I personally won't be purchasing AAA games until things like mandatory crunch time and other worker abuses end, but I disagree on this. The purchasers aren't part of why games are released with bugs. It happens because the game has to come out at some point or it becomes a loss, and AQ testers are costly.
I don't necessarily mind a few bugs. Even after a few years, Witcher 3 still has bugs. But when the bugs are so bad your company's value plummets and people are demanding refunds it's indicative of a problem.
 

Gradine

Final Form
CDPR's storefront Good Old Games stepped in it today when they said they were going to post for sale the Taiwanese game Devotion, and then almost immediately retracted it, presumably due to pressure from the Chinese government.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
The market won't bear price increases, and QA testers get paid. It's not a real choice, because there aren't multiple viable options.

Most AAA games today require thousands upon thousands of people-hours of playtesting to find all the potentially broken system interactions, which simply cannot be completely done pre-launch.

Not to mention, there is nothing wrong with how things are. This isn't 1992. You aren't buying a disk that is the state of the game as it will always be unless you purchase a second copy in the form of a game of the year or special edition version.

The bugs tend to be worked out within a week of launch. Whining about that is...unreasonable.

EDIT: okay, there is plenty wrong with the video game industry. this just isn't an example.
No, this is very much an example of what's wrong with the game industry. QAers are badly exploited. There are horror stories galore. AAA producers have been saddling early buyers with buggy product for years, even to the point Motley Fool was warning investors about EA back in 2014 because of their QA issues and buggy releases.

Examples:

The fact that this isn't 1992 shouldn't really matter. But the game companies are counting on the ability to deliver day one patches to shore up their games' playability and the company's reputation (not to mention profit margins and stock prices). And a better QA process that includes more time/less crunch and more stakeholders as QAers rather than contractors as well as consumers willing to demand better rather than pony up the cash for the preorder
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No, this is very much an example of what's wrong with the game industry. QAers are badly exploited. There are horror stories galore. AAA producers have been saddling early buyers with buggy product for years, even to the point Motley Fool was warning investors about EA back in 2014 because of their QA issues and buggy releases.

Examples:

The fact that this isn't 1992 shouldn't really matter. But the game companies are counting on the ability to deliver day one patches to shore up their games' playability and the company's reputation (not to mention profit margins and stock prices). And a better QA process that includes more time/less crunch and more stakeholders as QAers rather than contractors as well as consumers willing to demand better rather than pony up the cash for the preorder
You're conflating two separate issues. Ending the poor conditions for QA testers wouldn't create a situation wherein games are released in comparable time frames with fewer bugs at the same cost to the consumer. AAA games as we expect them today would either stop being a thing, get much more expensive, or become rarer because only a few studios can afford to take twice as long to make a game.

The QA process cannot reliably find all the potential catastrophic system interactions (what cause bugs) that exist in a game as complex and enormous as most AAA games, in a financially viable amount of time. That is not a result of the abuses of the game industry, which I need no lesson on, thanks.
 

The market won't bear price increases, and QA testers get paid. It's not a real choice, because there aren't multiple viable options.

Most AAA games today require thousands upon thousands of people-hours of playtesting to find all the potentially broken system interactions, which simply cannot be completely done pre-launch.

Not to mention, there is nothing wrong with how things are. This isn't 1992. You aren't buying a disk that is the state of the game as it will always be unless you purchase a second copy in the form of a game of the year or special edition version.

The bugs tend to be worked out within a week of launch. Whining about that is...unreasonable.

EDIT: okay, there is plenty wrong with the video game industry. this just isn't an example.

From the POV of the individual consumer, I understand and relate to what you are saying.

For the major game publishers who claim these things, this reminds me of Erik Cartman explaining Crack Baby Basketball: "I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down."
 

trappedslider

Adventurer
MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD ABOUT THE GENERAL STATE OF THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY

So, there's a bike in the game that's modeled on Kaneda's bike in Akira and it's named Motoko Kusanagi as in the Major from GitS. ^_^ There's also a data shard called Cyberpunk 2020 Rulebook,but it's just a paragraph taken from the game.
 



Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top