Yet another ridiculous defense of day-one DLC

The main problem with what he says is far too often games release with too many bugs, while there is day one dlc available for purchase.

It's a conflicting message, and excuses will always be excuses.

You know that many program development companies does have a team for creating the program and completely different team to maintain it including finding bugs.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/400341/bethesdas-hines-thinks-some-gamers-misunderstand-day-one-dlc/?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-News-RSS

This time is Bethesda's markeping VP. I paraphrase what he said:

"Gamers who complain about day one DLC don't understand how game-making works. We finish the game months before it hits the shelves, so in these months we can't just waste our creative team on bug fixing, so we make them produce DLC for the game."

This excuse is stupid for three reason:

1) If bug fixing is such a trivial and routine matter, why did Skyrim come out in a barely playable form with more bugs than anyone could count that Besthesda had to work for months to fix?

2) If bug fixing is such a trivial and routine matter and the development of DLC doesn't interfere with it, why did the trend of releasing buggy, unfinished games start simultaneously with the DLC trend? In other words: last gen had no DLC and I can't think of a single game that had a game-breaking bug.

3) This guy doesn't realise that we have no objection to day-one DLC per se: we object to being charged extra for it when it could be included in the game disc.

Can't put in the disc? Either release it for free or be smart and release it a few months later so that no one will complain. Just stop blaming us for your greed/stupidity.

This, the sad thing is though they still get sales when they release a buggy mess of a game. I really enjoy the Elder Scrolls games, but they do need to get more people working on bug fixing... and now they have shown why they are full of bugs. DLC is more important.Rattlesnake_8

They're buggy because they're scale is absurd. Creating a game of such size is not easy, let alone one that works. There's a ton of code that needs to be written for those games -- enough to account for literally every action, every quest, and every little random occurrance in the entire game. That's a f*cking tall order. Bug testing those games must be a nightmare. I can't imagine how they can even begin to recreate bugs or even know what line in the code needs to be reworked. None of The Elder Scrolls games would ever be released if they were able to take their time and work through every single possible bug, glitch, or broken variable before ever releasing the game.

They're buggy because they don't have that time. They have deadlines to meet. They can't take their time because that isn't how this industry works. They have to deliver something, even if does end up being less than functional. It's the unfortunate reality of business. DLC has nothing to do with it.

I do have a run for DLC and that is at least one DLC must be worked on while the game is still in development. If they does not happen then they should not have DLC.

People can complain all they want, but as long as they pay for it, game companies are going to continue to do it. Bug fixing isn't something that generates revenue. That's why DLC is a higher priority. They can just patch the bugs later...maybe...if they feel like it.GreatExarch

That is even if they can find the bugs. There are many times that bugs are only found after the product has been out for a while.

Ridiculous statement by Mr. Hines! Maybe, they should pay the consumer which they use for a beta tester, free of charge.

I swear this is what Bethesda is probably thinking: " Let's give the product to our loyal fanbase and they will discover and report all bugs. Next, we will patch the game and praise Akatosh those testers actually paid for our product and then tested it for free. Ridiculous!

They're doing it wrong if the game is 100% finished and thoroughly tested "months" before it hits the shelves.

But let's follow their logic for a second. In order to be consequent, shouldn't everyone make games with the bare minimum amount of content that people will accept to pay $60 for? And then keep making content and charge for it through the DLC model...

At the end of the day, though, if there is day one DLC, it's because some gamers lack self-respect and buy those things.

Sloppy games and DLC are unrelated things. I believe developers ship sloppy games with mile long lists of bullet points because if they make a tight, polished game limited in scope and content, gamers will tend to dismiss their game as not being worth the money, but if they make a sprawling, sloppy epic with multiple modes, gamers will buy it and then wait for the patches.

I don't understand the outcry. What's the big f*cking deal about day-one add-ons? If you don't want them, don't buy 'em. Acting like they're some affront to our rights is just ridiculous.

I don't understand the outcry. What's the big f*cking deal about day-one add-ons? If you don't want them, don't buy 'em. Acting like they're some affront to our rights is just ridiculous.

c_rake

Sloppy games and DLC are unrelated things.CarnageHeart

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Sloppy games and DLC are unrelated things.Black_Knight_00

Last gen multiplayer was an exception rather than a rule and patching wasn't a possibility due to a lack of hard drives. Also, the old Elder Scrolls games (including the original Xbox edition of Morrowind) were plenty sloppy. The tighest game Bethesda ever shipped was Oblivion at the beginning of this generation, but they took a lot of flack for that being smaller in scope than Morrowind. Bethesda's fans care more about scope than polish so its no surprise they chose to ship Skyrim bursting with content and crawling with bugs, then spend the next year or so killing bugs and selling DLC to the millions that bought the game.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Sloppy games and DLC are unrelated things.CarnageHeart

Last gen multiplayer was an exception rather than a rule and patching wasn't a possibility due to a lack of hard drives. Also, the old Elder Scrolls games (including the original Xbox edition of Morrowind) were plenty sloppy. The tighest game Bethesda ever shipped was Oblivion at the beginning of this generation, but they took a lot of flack for that being smaller in scope than Morrowind. Bethesda's fans care more about scope than polish so its no surprise they chose to ship Skyrim bursting with content and crawling with bugs, then spend the next year or so killing bugs and selling DLC to the millions that bought the game.

I know, but what I'm not cool with is the way they keep blaming the consumers for "not getting it"Black_Knight_00

To be fair, most don't.

This idea that they could just throw that content onto the disc shows a misunderstanding of how this all works. Most day-one DLC begins development as the game goes gold, which is the finalized code that's to be printed on disc. Tossing whatever DLC their making on there would require they resubmit the game for printing, thus pushing the release date back a little further. Additionally, that leaves the development team with nothing to do. With DLC, they have something to work on once the main game is done. Thus, that ensures resources aren't being wasted.

Meh. I have no qualms about day one dlc. If I feel a game is worth my money I'll buy it. If I feel that dlc is worth my money then I'll buy that too. It doesn't matter to me when it's created or how it's delivered, I simply judge it on it's content.Archangel3371

That's how I look at it too, but I do believe some quality in every game gets sacrificed when the developers are already thinking about what they can release as dlc along with the game. Focus on making the game as well as you can, then focus on the dlc after.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I know, but what I'm not cool with is the way they keep blaming the consumers for "not getting it"c_rake

To be fair, most don't.

This idea that they could just throw that content onto the disc shows a misunderstanding of how this all works. Most day-one DLC begins development as the game goes gold, which is the finalized code that's to be printed on disc. Tossing whatever DLC their making on there would require they resubmit the game for printing, thus pushing the release date back a little further. Additionally, that leaves the development team with nothing to do. With DLC, they have something to work on once the main game is done. Thus, that ensures resources aren't being wasted.

They're doing it wrong if the game is 100% finished and thoroughly tested "months" before it hits the shelves.

But let's follow their logic for a second. In order to be consequent, shouldn't everyone make games with the bare minimum amount of content that people will accept to pay $60 for? And then keep making content and charge for it through the DLC model...

At the end of the day, though, if there is day one DLC, it's because some gamers lack self-respect and buy those things.

ReddestSkies

While I'm not excusing Skyrim on the PS3 being nigh unplayable upon release, your comment regarding gamers lacking self-respect when purchasing a game with day-one DLC is a tad ridiculous.

Firstly, Skyrim is massive and offers plenty of game for the retail price thus I would have no qualms with day-one DLC given the scope and content included in the game.

Secondly, much of the day-one DLC tends to be cosmetic fluff, such as costumes, color swaps, weapon skins, etc. I certainly don't feel ripped-off for not having access to such superfluous content and if others choose to spend significant money on such ancillary and largely superficial additions that is of no consequence to me.

I agree that these issues are worth a discussion but I also think people are getting carried away with the broad generalizations regarding those who opt to spend their money differently than we may agree with. I certainly don't think purchasing a Lancer skin or Classic Dante for the DmC reboot means that the person in question is lacking in self-respect and frankly, you are far too intelligent to believe such a specious and vapid notion.  

 

"Gamers who complain about day one DLC don't understand how game-making works. We finish the game months before it hits the shelves, so in these months we can't just waste our creative team on bug fixing, so we make them produce DLC for the game."

 

Bethseda

Wow, after reading that I feel like I chased after Alice down the rabbit hole. That comment is so improbably idiotic. For a higher up in marketing of all things to openly admit that quality control takes a back seat to producing a revenue stream is unconscionable.

Tact, they lack it.

He should make sure that his brain is functioning correctly the next time he speak. His verbal diarrhea is costing his credibility.

[QUOTE="ZhugeL1ang"]

[QUOTE="Bethseda"]

 

"Gamers who complain about day one DLC don't understand how game-making works. We finish the game months before it hits the shelves, so in these months we can't just waste our creative team on bug fixing, so we make them produce DLC for the game."

 

MethodManFTW

Wow, after reading that I feel like I chased after Alice down the rabbit hole. That comment is so improbably idiotic. For a higher up in marketing of all things to openly admit that quality control takes a back seat to producing a revenue stream is unconscionable.

Tact, they lack it.

Fair enough, but the way it is worded sure does leave one to wonder. I can't speak to the scope of work of the "creative team," but it comes off at face value as callous toward their customers.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/400341/bethesdas-hines-thinks-some-gamers-misunderstand-day-one-dlc/?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-News-RSS

This time is Bethesda's markeping VP. I paraphrase what he said:

"Gamers who complain about day one DLC don't understand how game-making works. We finish the game months before it hits the shelves, so in these months we can't just waste our creative team on bug fixing, so we make them produce DLC for the game."

This excuse is stupid for three reason:

1) If bug fixing is such a trivial and routine matter, why did Skyrim come out in a barely playable form with more bugs than anyone could count that Besthesda had to work for months to fix?

2) If bug fixing is such a trivial and routine matter and the development of DLC doesn't interfere with it, why did the trend of releasing buggy, unfinished games start simultaneously with the DLC trend? In other words: last gen had no DLC and I can't think of a single game that had a game-breaking bug.

3) This guy doesn't realise that we have no objection to day-one DLC per se: we object to being charged extra for it when it could be included in the game disc.

Can't put in the disc? Either release it for free or be smart and release it a few months later so that no one will complain. Just stop blaming us for your greed/stupidity.

Black_Knight_00

I dont know much about game development. Have never worked in a video game studio but I do work in software development company and what he;s saying is 99% accurate. The company i work for has R&D programmers that work on new stuff that may never be released, regular programmers that work on current projects that our clietns want, and support programmers that do the bug fixing. And thats just the programmers, the designers are always coming up with new stuff.

From waht I understand, Bug fixing doesn't require artists, level designers, lead engineers and lead anything. An intern or an junior software engineer can fix code that's causing issues. Of course leads are still there working with the teams tweaking the levels, making sure everything is balanced as well as it can be, but there are lots of people who are not part of this testing and bug fixing. What do you do wiith those people? Good companies will start pre-production on their next game before the game finishes but it's easier said than done because some leads are still busy making sure the game is the best it can be. So what do you do? you greenlight a DLC of course that doesnt require the same leads. 

Should it be included in the game for free? Well, thats a different topic. If a game is already 30 hours long like ME3 then I cant really complain.

Skyrim was a massive game. it's not a linear game like Uncharted. The more complicated the game, the more complicated the code, the tougher it is to catch bugs. Simple as that. Stop expecting thse insanely complicated software products to run flawlessly. It's just not going to happen.

[QUOTE="Bethseda"]

 

"Gamers who complain about day one DLC don't understand how game-making works. We finish the game months before it hits the shelves, so in these months we can't just waste our creative team on bug fixing, so we make them produce DLC for the game."

 

ZhugeL1ang

Wow, after reading that I feel like I chased after Alice down the rabbit hole. That comment is so improbably idiotic. For a higher up in marketing of all things to openly admit that quality control takes a back seat to producing a revenue stream is unconscionable.

Tact, they lack it.

"We finish the game months before it hits the shelves, so in these months we can't just waste our creative team on bug fixing, so we make them produce DLC for the game."

Hines

Skyrim was a massive game. it's not a linear game like Uncharted. The more complicated the game, the more complicated the code, the tougher it is to catch bugs. Simple as that. Stop expecting thse insanely complicated software products to run flawlessly. It's just not going to happen.

S0lidSnake

#1 - Skyrim was probably even more unplayable before it was bug-tested, with CTD bugs. Most of the bugs in Skyrim are gameplay related, and not horrendous bugs that would be found in testing.

#2 - this is nothing new. At least they can fix games now. Some older games had game-breaking issues that couldn't be addressed. QA had to be more intense in old games because they had no means to patch them (data was read off of a CD for non-PC games, or a cartridge).

#3 - Most of these items would never be added to the final product, which is why they're sold as DLC instead. I would rather have the option to buy new features than have them be thrown out because Bethesda has to meet a deadline.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] I don't expect that. But do answer my question: why did this generation have esponentially buggier games compared to the previous?SupremeAC

Stop expecting thse insanely complicated software products to run flawlessly. It's just not going to happen.S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] And as I said before, HDD and internet are concurring factors. But still, going from almost zero bugs to what we have today is quite the downfall. I find it hard to imagine that developers have started slacking off on QA just because they now can procrastinate and fix it post release.

Black_Knight_00

Have you ever try to debug a program?

I do not complain that the car is not engineered well everytime my car is not working proplerly.

While I'm not excusing Skyrim on the PS3 being nigh unplayable upon release, your comment regarding gamers lacking self-respect when purchasing a game with day-one DLC is a tad ridiculous.

Firstly, Skyrim is massive and offers plenty of game for the retail price thus I would have no qualms with day-one DLC given the scope and content included in the game.

Secondly, much of the day-one DLC tends to be cosmetic fluff, such as costumes, color swaps, weapon skins, etc. I certainly don't feel ripped-off for not having access to such superfluous content and if others choose to spend significant money on such ancillary and largely superficial additions that is of no consequence to me.

I agree that these issues are worth a discussion but I also think people are getting carried away with the broad generalizations regarding those who opt to spend their money differently than we may agree with. I certainly don't think purchasing a Lancer skin or Classic Dante for the DmC reboot means that the person in question is lacking in self-respect and frankly, you are far too intelligent to believe such a specious and vapid notion.  

Grammaton-Cleric

The thing is that when someone buys a day one DLC, he encourages the kind of business practice that goes against his interests as a customer. You send the message to developers that it's fine to charge you an extra for content that was created before the game was released. It's not at all that I feel ripped-off when developers don't give me access to some content; if I don't think that the game is worth $60, I don't buy it at $60. 

But essentially, it encourages developers to put in their game the minimum amount content that they think a large amount of customers would buy at $60, and then charge for the rest. This doesn't mean that every developer is going to do it, far from it, but some will simply because the incentive is there. Just look at how widespread cosmetic DLC is right now. 10 years ago, PC developers included that sort of thing for free in patches, and were only charging for significant amounts of new content (expansion packs).

It also encourages developers to look for ways to extract every possible nickle from the customer in a very cold, calculated way, which is not the best way to deal with a product that needs creativity and artistic freedom to really hold my interest. It shifts (another) part of the creative process from the artistic team to the marketing team.

We've never enjoyed an era within this medium where software was released as pristinely and flawlessly as you seem to be implying here.

Software has always shipped with bugs, many of them crippling and even game-breaking (I still remember the Carth bug in Knights of the Old Republic) and subsequently, when a game ships with a particularly bad glitch that cannot be patched, you enter an entirely new realm of annoyance.Grammaton-Cleric

The whole gaming industry is just losing me as a customer.  Bethesda releasing broken games and then saying they spend the months before release working on DLC instead of debugging is just one thing among many.  I was reading a review of that new game Defiance this morning and they said you can unlock in-game content by inputting codes you get from watching ad's.

Etc. Etc. Etcetera.

How many developers have to go bankrupt, how many publishers have to watch their stock price plummet, and how many CEO's need to step down before they get a freakin' clue?

The whole gaming industry is just losing me as a customer.  Bethesda releasing broken games and then saying they spend the months before release working on DLC instead of debugging is just one thing among many.  I was reading a review of that new game Defiance this morning and they said you can unlock in-game content by inputting codes you get from watching ad's.

Etc. Etc. Etcetera.

How many developers have to go bankrupt, how many publishers have to watch their stock price plummet, and how many CEO's need to step down before they get a freakin' clue?

Jackc8

Other then capcon related games what dev released day-one DLC that you had to pay for? And Im referring to meaningful DLC like an extra mission or a new playable character. Im not talking about skins or clothes for your avatar.Diablo-B

I couldn't tell you because I almost never buy DLC at all, but I don't understand how this has anything to do with what I'm saying. Even if there was no day-one DLC at all in the industry, I'd still post the same thing regarding hypothetical day one DLC...

[QUOTE="SupremeAC"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] I don't expect that. But do answer my question: why did this generation have esponentially buggier games compared to the previous?Black_Knight_00

Have you ever try to debug a program?

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

[QUOTE="SupremeAC"] I wouldn't relate this to the rise of DLC per se. Last gen had less bugs because there was no way to fix them after the product had shipped. These days, with internet connectivity and consoles with HDD's, it's easy to swat a few bugs that didn't get caught in time for the game to go gold. It's not a problem of focusing either on DLC or on bugs, it's just that the modern day structure of how we play games allows for post-release fixes, thus they are less of a priority in the weeks leading up to the release.wiouds

Have you ever try to debug a program?

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

Have you ever try to debug a program?

wiouds

I still do not believe that all the problem of a new car to be fixed with how complex they are today. Programs are even harder to make sure they are working.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Have you ever engineered a car? You haven't, but you still complain if your car doesn't work properly.Black_Knight_00

I still do not believe that all the problem of a new car to be fixed with how complex they are today. Programs are even harder to make sure they are working.

No, they do not the staff, budget or time. In fact if they try then current games would have duke nukem forever development cycles.

 And as I said before, HDD and internet are concurring factors. But still, going from almost zero bugs to what we have today is quite the downfall. I find it hard to imagine that developers have started slacking off on QA just because they now can procrastinate and fix it post release.

Black_Knight_00

We've never enjoyed an era within this medium where software was released as pristinely and flawlessly as you seem to be implying here.

Software has always shipped with bugs, many of them crippling and even game-breaking (I still remember the Carth bug in Knights of the Old Republic) and subsequently, when a game ships with a particularly bad glitch that cannot be patched, you enter an entirely new realm of annoyance.

What has happened is that the console paradigm simply shifted to align itself closer to the PC model. PC games have always allowed the ability to patch software and this process actually leads to an overall better quality and performance though admittedly, the initial stumbling block of glitchy software that sometimes gets an initial is quite frustrating.

That understood, I haven't seen any compelling evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest this current generation has suffered from a greater number of glitches and unfinished software than previous eras. I do think we see more patches largely because of the emphasis and proliferation of online functionality, including leader boards, trophy support, etc. but I would actually posit that software had become increasingly more polished as this medium has evolved.

I'll need a few more examples of game breking bugs from previous generations before I can consider your point valid. Not counting PC gaming, of course (PC gaming has had patches since the dawn of time). Consoles only.

In the meantime, here's a few games with game breaking bugs from the last few years:

ZombiU
Skyrim
Devil Survivor
Zelda Skyward Sword
Tomb Raider

Just to name a few. I can research more if you want me to.

Black_Knight_00

What game breaking bugs were in Devil Survivor? I beat the game 4 times and I never came across any.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

I'll need a few more examples of game breking bugs from previous generations before I can consider your point valid. Not counting PC gaming, of course (PC gaming has had patches since the dawn of time). Consoles only.

In the meantime, here's a few games with game breaking bugs from the last few years:

ZombiU
Skyrim
Devil Survivor
Zelda Skyward Sword
Tomb Raider

Just to name a few. I can research more if you want me to.

Lucky_Krystal

What game breaking bugs were in Devil Survivor? I beat the game 4 times and I never came across any.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

While I'm not excusing Skyrim on the PS3 being nigh unplayable upon release, your comment regarding gamers lacking self-respect when purchasing a game with day-one DLC is a tad ridiculous.

Firstly, Skyrim is massive and offers plenty of game for the retail price thus I would have no qualms with day-one DLC given the scope and content included in the game.

Secondly, much of the day-one DLC tends to be cosmetic fluff, such as costumes, color swaps, weapon skins, etc. I certainly don't feel ripped-off for not having access to such superfluous content and if others choose to spend significant money on such ancillary and largely superficial additions that is of no consequence to me.

I agree that these issues are worth a discussion but I also think people are getting carried away with the broad generalizations regarding those who opt to spend their money differently than we may agree with. I certainly don't think purchasing a Lancer skin or Classic Dante for the DmC reboot means that the person in question is lacking in self-respect and frankly, you are far too intelligent to believe such a specious and vapid notion.  

ReddestSkies

The thing is that when someone buys a day one DLC, he encourages the kind of business practice that goes against his interests as a customer. You send the message to developers that it's fine to charge you an extra for content that was created before the game was released. It's not at all that I feel ripped-off when developers don't give me access to some content; if I don't think that the game is worth $60, I don't buy it at $60. 

But essentially, it encourages developers to put in their game the minimum amount content that they think a large amount of customers would buy at $60, and then charge for the rest. This doesn't mean that every developer is going to do it, far from it, but some will simply because the incentive is there. Just look at how widespread cosmetic DLC is right now. 10 years ago, PC developers included that sort of thing for free in patches, and were only charging for significant amounts of new content (expansion packs).

It also encourages developers to look for ways to extract every possible nickle from the customer in a very cold, calculated way, which is not the best way to deal with a product that needs creativity and artistic freedom to really hold my interest. It shifts (another) part of the creative process from the artistic team to the marketing team.