Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This year it has gotten worse where companies will release a game that is incomplete and need to either release an update to make it a game worth playing..
A few games that may have started in 2015 have really shown how waiting for the rest of the game really puts people off a game until it is released and people have
time to see if its worth the money spent.

The three games that jump to mind is ..

Star Wars Battlefront - a shell of a game compared to its predecessors; players were charged a "seasons pass" for the additional content. The game as released with a
had full of levels and to get the rest of the game you had to pay for it again. Now this Christmas they have released the "complete edition" with all the additional content.
So we need to wait a year now to buy a game for the publisher to complete it.

No Mans Sky - Another game that promised the world and came up way short. It was released in august and just now four months later we get an update fixing major
game play issues..The game is also in bargain bins everywhere because once the word got out the game is incomplete.. sales tanked

Age of Sigmar - This year we saw the release of the Generals Handbook; A year later after the game was released fixed glaring issues that over half of the community
felt the game need since its release.

I am sure there is a ton of others.. but I am really not liking the fact we get games that are a beta test and we are paying full price for them. And the game that don't now
have micro transactions for stuff a few years ago was free.

Personally, I blame the advance of the internet for worse games. A lot of them don't seem so properly tested because they can just go "mneh, day 1 patch." And fix it.

Some of it, like Battlefront, is just greed talking and winning.

On the No Man's Sky front, they just released a patch/update which is finally bringing base construction into the game, with more to come.

Way too late for something promised at launch but still, shows they haven't just dropped it completely, I guess. Maybe they'll also do something to make reaching the centre more worthwhile as well.

 Genoside07 wrote:
This year it has gotten worse where companies will release a game that is incomplete and need to either release an update to make it a game worth playing..
A few games that may have started in 2015 have really shown how waiting for the rest of the game really puts people off a game until it is released and people have
time to see if its worth the money spent.

The three games that jump to mind is ..

Star Wars Battlefront - a shell of a game compared to its predecessors; players were charged a "seasons pass" for the additional content. The game as released with a
had full of levels and to get the rest of the game you had to pay for it again. Now this Christmas they have released the "complete edition" with all the additional content.
So we need to wait a year now to buy a game for the publisher to complete it.

Did you actually play Battlefront?

You had the option of buying a Season Pass, which brought in new Heroes, new weapons, and a single new planet with several different maps set on it. Anyone who bought the game or season pass can get the fourth DLC pack(Rogue One: Scarif) soon, adding two new Heroes(Jyn Orso for the Rebels and Krennic for the Imperials), a new locale, and weapons...or anyone who didn't pay for the season pass or get the game can just go get the Complete Edition($39.99 brand new, which is cheaper than the season pass)

The game was released with a "handful of levels"(Hoth, Endor, Sullust, and Tatooine)...which in turn had a couple of different maps for each, notably for different game modes(Deathmatch had small maps, Walker Assault was strictly on Tatooine and Hoth and had its own dedicated maps for that, and Conquest had its own maps as well as the ship combat having its own maps).
Additionally, before ANY paid DLC was released we got a free map pack called "Jakku" which was the only thing on the disc which you didn't have access to right at the start of the game.

No Mans Sky - Another game that promised the world and came up way short. It was released in august and just now four months later we get an update fixing major
game play issues..The game is also in bargain bins everywhere because once the word got out the game is incomplete.. sales tanked

This is the only one I will agree with you on. But that's because everything about this game screamed it was going to come out like this.

Age of Sigmar - This year we saw the release of the Generals Handbook; A year later after the game was released fixed glaring issues that over half of the community
felt the game need since its release.

Personally, the General's Handbook was useless. We didn't need points. We needed to beat players upside the head until they realized that pick up games aren't the only way to play things and that talking to their opponent before playing a game isn't a bad thing.

I am sure there is a ton of others.. but I am really not liking the fact we get games that are a beta test and we are paying full price for them. And the game that don't now
have micro transactions for stuff a few years ago was free.

Do you know what microtransactions are?

Because from the way your post is, it sure as hell doesn't seem like it.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Personally, I blame the advance of the internet for worse games. A lot of them don't seem so properly tested because they can just go "mneh, day 1 patch." And fix it.

True. Once upon a time developers wouldn't even dream of patching console games. Now it's the norm.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Some of it, like Battlefront, is just greed talking and winning.

I can't really disagree with the greed comment, though I do feel the videogames industry's pain somewhat. A new game will cost you roughly the same as a new game would have cost in the 90s. Games get more ambitious over time too so development costs have spiralled while the sale price has stayed the same.

It's true that successful videogames these days tend to sell more than successful videogames of a couple of decades ago. It's still a challenging environment though.

In light of this it seems that publishers (and developers) have decided that rather than increase the base sale price they're better off releasing Day 1 DLC, season passes that don't cover all the DLC, etc...


Ultimately though consumers need to take some responsibility for their hobby. Personally I never buy a game until all the DLC has been released, I then buy the Complete edition if I think the DLC is worth it. While mine is a pretty extreme example those who moan about unsavoury practices shouldn't be surprised that publishers keep doing it while we (the consumers) keep buying it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Did you actually play Battlefront?

You had the option of buying a Season Pass, which brought in new Heroes, new weapons, and a single new planet with several different maps set on it. Anyone who bought the game or season pass can get the fourth DLC pack(Rogue One: Scarif) soon, adding two new Heroes(Jyn Orso for the Rebels and Krennic for the Imperials), a new locale, and weapons...or anyone who didn't pay for the season pass or get the game can just go get the Complete Edition($39.99 brand new, which is cheaper than the season pass)

The game was released with a "handful of levels"(Hoth, Endor, Sullust, and Tatooine)...which in turn had a couple of different maps for each, notably for different game modes(Deathmatch had small maps, Walker Assault was strictly on Tatooine and Hoth and had its own dedicated maps for that, and Conquest had its own maps as well as the ship combat having its own maps).
Additionally, before ANY paid DLC was released we got a free map pack called "Jakku" which was the only thing on the disc which you didn't have access to right at the start of the game.

My issues with battlefront are its offline multiplayer modes which are, frankly, rubbish compared to Battlefront 1 and 2.

This is important stuff. Perhaps we should make a Video Games folder to discuss it.

Yeah, I find it hard to blame commercial enterprises for trying to make money. It is their raison d'être ater all. The fault lies with the players, who accept these business practices and support them with money.
If you don't like a company's business practices, don't buy their games. Simple as that.


I usually don't buy games on release. I wait a few months until the initial roughness has been patched and good reviews of the gameplay are available.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Did you actually play Battlefront?

You had the option of buying a Season Pass, which brought in new Heroes, new weapons, and a single new planet with several different maps set on it. Anyone who bought the game or season pass can get the fourth DLC pack(Rogue One: Scarif) soon, adding two new Heroes(Jyn Orso for the Rebels and Krennic for the Imperials), a new locale, and weapons...or anyone who didn't pay for the season pass or get the game can just go get the Complete Edition($39.99 brand new, which is cheaper than the season pass)

The game was released with a "handful of levels"(Hoth, Endor, Sullust, and Tatooine)...which in turn had a couple of different maps for each, notably for different game modes(Deathmatch had small maps, Walker Assault was strictly on Tatooine and Hoth and had its own dedicated maps for that, and Conquest had its own maps as well as the ship combat having its own maps).
Additionally, before ANY paid DLC was released we got a free map pack called "Jakku" which was the only thing on the disc which you didn't have access to right at the start of the game.

My issues with battlefront are its offline multiplayer modes which are, frankly, rubbish compared to Battlefront 1 and 2.

Totally valid issue. I just can't find a reason to get mad about Battlefront having a Season Pass. Especially when they did a good job showcasing early on what the Season Pass would contain(4 expansions, each with 2 new heroes and new weapons/game modes, etc) and have done a good job of spreading free DLCs in between the paid DLCs(We got a free DLC which added Hoth costumes for Luke, Han, and Leia for example, another free DLC added a new game mode called "Turning Point" which was Rebels capturing Imperial bases and essentially you playing Walker Assault in reverse) to keep the game fresh for those who didn't want to pay for the DLCs.

Oh, and they did a great job in having "free weekends" for the different DLCs where players who didn't own the DLCs could play them for the weekend. Any unlocks you made during those weekends were kept, whether you bought the DLC afterwards or not.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, I find it hard to blame commercial enterprises for trying to make money. It is their raison d'être ater all. The fault lies with the players, who accept these business practices and support them with money.
If you don't like a company's business practices, don't buy their games. Simple as that.


I usually don't buy games on release. I wait a few months until the initial roughness has been patched and good reviews of the gameplay are available.

I agree with this practice, except with developer that have earned my trust. From Software for instance has been great with all of the Dark Souls and Bloodborne series. I bought all of those on launch.

I posted this in general forums because I felt it was a growing trend every where not just the video game industry..
Took a little while to find out where my thread was, when it moved to video games I was confused thinking it was deleted for some reason..

Personally I feel games like Age of Sigmar, was rushed out the door and until a year later with the Generals Hand book did they fix major glaring issues..

Another table top game is Conan by Monolith, They missed their promised ship date by a year and still having to go back and reedit the rule book with corrections
and promised buyers they will mail a new hard copy to them once its complete.

I just don't like the trend of get it out the door as fast as you can .. then try to fix it.. back to video games.. a 8 GB first day patch is not good.. that means you know about a
problem and instead of delaying the ship date then fixing it, you go gold and hope everything will work by the time a customer will buy it.

But the other part was having a game at the end of its life have a collection disc with all content and the original disc that only contained a quarter of said content
and did feel like something was missing when released.

Games like fallout and GTA is an exception.. Complete game play and the extra is not needed but nice..

For me when it comes to video games lately, unless I absotively have to have it right now, I usually will wait a year or so before I buy it.. there's always a Game of the Year edition or whatever, and usually waiting will get you the full game for half the price, and then I get the full experience too. I like the idea of adding new missions via DLC, but on the other hand.. once I beat a game I rarely ever go back to it again. So I'd rather have all the content at once rather than missing out on some fun quests or other things that get added later, after I've moved on to something else.

Prices of games have probably gone down over the years.

I distinctly remember the price of Crash Bandicoot being £49.95 in 1994, and that's probably worth a lot more now.

Your average A list game is still about 50 quid brand new today.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Prices of games have probably gone down over the years.

I distinctly remember the price of Crash Bandicoot being £49.95 in 1994, and that's probably worth a lot more now.

Your average A list game is still about 50 quid brand new today.

My memories of PS1 games are them being ~£30, £20 if Platinum.

Also, Crash came out in '96 and the PS1 was only out in Japan in '94.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Prices of games have probably gone down over the years.

I distinctly remember the price of Crash Bandicoot being £49.95 in 1994, and that's probably worth a lot more now.

Your average A list game is still about 50 quid brand new today.

Well no acctualy, if anything the price of games has gone up quite significatly these last few years in Norway at least

The last full price game I bougth was Dishonoured 2, witch I payed 670ish NOk for, witch would be 62.94 GBP

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Prices of games have probably gone down over the years.

I distinctly remember the price of Crash Bandicoot being £49.95 in 1994, and that's probably worth a lot more now.

Your average A list game is still about 50 quid brand new today.

My memories of PS1 games are them being ~£30, £20 if Platinum.

Also, Crash came out in '96 and the PS1 was only out in Japan in '94.

I actually meant 96, when I was 4.

It's one of the first memories that I remember.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Prices of games have probably gone down over the years.

I distinctly remember the price of Crash Bandicoot being £49.95 in 1994, and that's probably worth a lot more now.

Your average A list game is still about 50 quid brand new today.

My memories of PS1 games are them being ~£30, £20 if Platinum.

Also, Crash came out in '96 and the PS1 was only out in Japan in '94.

I actually meant 96, when I was 4.

It's one of the first memories that I remember.

Ah, I see. Thought maybe you had a time machine and were being stingy with it

 welshhoppo wrote:
Personally, I blame the advance of the internet for worse games. A lot of them don't seem so properly tested because they can just go "mneh, day 1 patch." And fix it.

Some of it, like Battlefront, is just greed talking and winning.

Software development advocates Agile as the preferred project management methodology. With the rise of internet connectivity and the ability to patch something, this can yield unfinished results going out with the idea that then the community can id problems/features that need fixing.

Agile essentially says, have a tangible release at the end of a specified period, typically 1-3 weeks, so that you can repath more quickly. It works well IF used properly. However, developers are finding that pushing out betas or charging for not designed items works (see the wild success of kickstarter as an example). They can hit a larger base and garner feedback faster to make changes.

The opposite of the problem is Duke Nukem Forever, which was waterfall. Do everything with no feedback and push it out only to find it doesn't do what the end user wanted or doesn't do what they now want because it took too long.

 Genoside07 wrote:
but I am really not liking the fact we get games that are a beta test and we are paying full price for them. And the game that don't now
have micro transactions for stuff a few years ago was free.

Its hardly a new phenomenon, half finished games have been a scar on gaming since it's inception. As for No Man's Sky I take it you didn't play Spore on its release.....

Games are being released earlier in their development cycles today with the rise of early access, although this is limited to indie games and small scale developers for the most part, but you can still wait until the full release, there is no need to buy into the EA period.

Spore still doesn't feel like a complete game to me.

 Melissia wrote:
Spore still doesn't feel like a complete game to me.

Spore is really amazing, for the first two stages.

But yes, look at the old ET game for the Atari. Now that was an unfinished mess.

 Melissia wrote:
Spore still doesn't feel like a complete game to me.

I played it once, on its release day, and I haven't gone near it since.

 Trondheim wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Prices of games have probably gone down over the years.

I distinctly remember the price of Crash Bandicoot being £49.95 in 1994, and that's probably worth a lot more now.

Your average A list game is still about 50 quid brand new today.

Well no acctualy, if anything the price of games has gone up quite significatly these last few years in Norway at least

The last full price game I bougth was Dishonoured 2, witch I payed 670ish NOk for, witch would be 62.94 GBP

Not in Portugal, seems like we have always been screwed.

I remember a brand new Sega Saturn game was 12 contos, this translated into € means around 60€. How much does a brand new PS4 game cost? 70€.

I didn't have a PC for much of my youth, so I don't remember how much PC games cost back in the day.

Inflation exists.

The price of making a game has gone up.

The price of buying a game has stayed the same.

The alternative to DLC is games having a base.cost of $80 or even $100, instead we get a base cost of $60 with that extra content as optional. Naturally people complain ceaselessly about this, then buy it anyway. Alternatively, one could understand the situation, buy the game anyway, and save themselves the anger. If a game is not worth to you the amount it costs, don't buy it. If a dlc is not worth to you the amount it costs, don't buy it.

Or get stressed out about something that isn't going to change.

 Necros wrote:
For me when it comes to video games lately, unless I absotively have to have it right now, I usually will wait a year or so before I buy it.. there's always a Game of the Year edition or whatever, and usually waiting will get you the full game for half the price, and then I get the full experience too. I like the idea of adding new missions via DLC, but on the other hand.. once I beat a game I rarely ever go back to it again. So I'd rather have all the content at once rather than missing out on some fun quests or other things that get added later, after I've moved on to something else.

This is my game plan. I can't believe I used to pay $60 for games when they released. Now I have more money for games but less time to play them so I can wait. 13 year old me would faint if he saw the vast library at my disposal and how little it cost.