bad games, devs fault or the publishers fault? YOU DECIDE!!

YOU DECIDE........

The publisher doesn't make the bad game, they sell it. Even though I choose developer, some publishers overhype games and thus they appear to be bad when they just didn't live up to the hype.skudoops

Developers, though part of the blame lies with the publishers (whenever they rush the game just to meet a release date, knowing that the game is not complete and needs extra time in development).

Developers, though part of the blame lies with the publishers (whenever they rush the game just to meet a release date, knowing that the game is not complete and needs extra time in development).

Whermacht02

Forgot about that hehe.

I fail to see how its the developer's faults in 99% of cases.

I seriously doubt any developer thats employed genuinely wanted to create a bad game. You're not going to spend 2 - 4 years of your life trying to release out a bad product that doesnt sell well and puts your job in risk since the publisher might not continue with your studio. Thats completely nonsensical.

Yet, an all too common scenario is where the publisher doesnt provide enough money and/or time in order for the developers to thoroughly finish and polish up the game. I cant see any developer on the planet refusing more time and resources to make a better game.

I fail to see how its the developer's faults in 99% of cases.

I seriously doubt any developer thats employed genuinely wanted to create a bad game. You're not going to spend 2 - 4 years of your life trying to release out a bad product that doesnt sell well and puts your job in risk since the publisher might not continue with your studio. Thats completely nonsensical.

Yet, an all too common scenario is where the publisher doesnt provide enough money and/or time in order for the developers to thoroughly finish and polish up the game. I cant see any developer on the planet refusing more time and resources to make a better game.

XaosII

You see it's when the developer agrees to certain things such as how much the game will cost, release date etc etc. When a company puts funding into you expecting certain things and they don't happen and it ends up costing ALOT more and taking longer than originally intended it looks like a bad product and thus they give less funding,less time and care less for the product.

I fail to see how its the developer's faults in 99% of cases.

I seriously doubt any developer thats employed genuinely wanted to create a bad game. You're not going to spend 2 - 4 years of your life trying to release out a bad product that doesnt sell well and puts your job in risk since the publisher might not continue with your studio. Thats completely nonsensical.

Yet, an all too common scenario is where the publisher doesnt provide enough money and/or time in order for the developers to thoroughly finish and polish up the game. I cant see any developer on the planet refusing more time and resources to make a better game.

XaosII

Well thats true. Nobody wants to spend money/time on something that is bad. However, the point here is that a game ends up being bad because of the gameplay (in which case, the developer is at fault for not "developing" good and atractive gameplay mechanics), it can also be bad because its full of bugs (again, developer's fault for not optimizing the game though the publishe may be at fault here as well because of the set deadlines and release dates, and they rush the game out to the shelves) or because some other thing. What I mean is that the developer has the control over the project: how will the game look like, how players will play through this game, etc... So if one of those components is bad, its very likely (IMO) that its the developers fault.

I blame developers. Publishers create release dates because they need a return on their investment, they can't just bleed money indefinetly for a game.

Sometimes those "rushed" games have taken many years and many millions to make, the reason publishers force devs to release those games is because they need to start making that money back. Look at Vanguard, many many years in development, went through 2 publishers and the dev (Sigil) has been accused to lying to publishers in order to get more funding for the game.

If a publisher over hypes a game it is because the dev studio has sold to them that the game deserves that hype.

The only time I blame a publisher for a bad game is if they are the dev too or they force a dev to hold patches (THQ to GSC Game World).

Well thats true. Nobody wants to spend money/time on something that is bad. However, the point here is that a game ends up being bad because of the gameplay (in which case, the developer is at fault for not "developing" good and atractive gameplay mechanics), it can also be bad because its full of bugs (again, developer's fault for not optimizing the game though the publishe may be at fault here as well because of the set deadlines and release dates, and they rush the game out to the shelves) or because some other thing. What I mean is that the developer has the control over the project: how will the game look like, how players will play through this game, etc... So if one of those components is bad, its very likely (IMO) that its the developers fault.Whermacht02

Yet if they are provided with more time, or more money (for consultans, extra employees, better equipment) from their publisher, they would have the time to tweak, balance, and polish up their work. Blizzard games take a hugeamount of time for them to make it, but thats exactly why they end up with an unrivaled level of detail and polish.

While its true that they may initially have thought of an idea that sounded well on paper but proved poorly in execution, if they had the time, wouldn't they have taken it to change it? But with deadlines looming over set by the publisher, how could they afford to take the chane to do so when it might come out even worse if rushed. The reality is that no developers are going to work for free for several months to finish up a game, but they'll work on it longer if given the budget for it.

[QUOTE="Whermacht02"]Well thats true. Nobody wants to spend money/time on something that is bad. However, the point here is that a game ends up being bad because of the gameplay (in which case, the developer is at fault for not "developing" good and atractive gameplay mechanics), it can also be bad because its full of bugs (again, developer's fault for not optimizing the game though the publishe may be at fault here as well because of the set deadlines and release dates, and they rush the game out to the shelves) or because some other thing. What I mean is that the developer has the control over the project: how will the game look like, how players will play through this game, etc... So if one of those components is bad, its very likely (IMO) that its the developers fault.XaosII

Yet if they are provided with more time, or more money (for consultans, extra employees, better equipment) from their publisher, they would have the time to tweak, balance, and polish up their work. Blizzard games take a hugeamount of time for them to make it, but thats exactly why they end up with an unrivaled level of detail and polish.

While its true that they may initially have thought of an idea that sounded well on paper but proved poorly in execution, if they had the time, wouldn't they have taken it to change it? But with deadlines looming over set by the publisher, how could they afford to take the chane to do so when it might come out even worse if rushed. The reality is that no developers are going to work for free for several months to finish up a game, but they'll work on it longer if given the budget for it.

Seeing that blizzard is both developer and publisher you can't really use them as an example :P.

Seeing that blizzard is both developer and publisher you can't really use them as an example :P. skudoops

Vivendi is Blizzard's publisher.

[QUOTE="skudoops"]Seeing that blizzard is both developer and publisher you can't really use them as an example :P. XaosII

Vivendi is Blizzard's publisher.

Eh? I thought that was only for WoW. Guess I was wrong =/

both. some devs make bad games. they dont intendo to but sometimes they just completly drop the ball. publishers also have to ake some flack as they can interfere too much with games there involved in and not let the dev do their thing.

sometimes they also make great games but there released in terrible shape. devs and publishers are responsible for that imho. the dev should have planned better and tested better and the publisher should never release n unfinished game.

so yea....i blame both.

Boiling Point, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and games like those are the Publishers fault for rushing the devs to meet a deadline, even though the game is buggy as hell.

Big Rigs, however, is definately, one hundred percent, the cracked out devs faults.

[QUOTE="Whermacht02"]Well thats true. Nobody wants to spend money/time on something that is bad. However, the point here is that a game ends up being bad because of the gameplay (in which case, the developer is at fault for not "developing" good and atractive gameplay mechanics), it can also be bad because its full of bugs (again, developer's fault for not optimizing the game though the publishe may be at fault here as well because of the set deadlines and release dates, and they rush the game out to the shelves) or because some other thing. What I mean is that the developer has the control over the project: how will the game look like, how players will play through this game, etc... So if one of those components is bad, its very likely (IMO) that its the developers fault.XaosII

Yet if they are provided with more time, or more money (for consultans, extra employees, better equipment) from their publisher, they would have the time to tweak, balance, and polish up their work. Blizzard games take a hugeamount of time for them to make it, but thats exactly why they end up with an unrivaled level of detail and polish.

While its true that they may initially have thought of an idea that sounded well on paper but proved poorly in execution, if they had the time, wouldn't they have taken it to change it? But with deadlines looming over set by the publisher, how could they afford to take the chane to do so when it might come out even worse if rushed. The reality is that no developers are going to work for free for several months to finish up a game, but they'll work on it longer if given the budget for it.

I'm sure every game would benefit immensely from extra dev time. But programmers, artists, QA, these are all really high expenses. If a game has cost $30 million to make (like Stranglehold) the game has to get released, publishers cannot throw around that much money and then more and expect to make a profit.

Blizzard has so much money they can self fund games. Most studios rely on publishers for money. Publishers have a limited amount of money, after a certain point the ROI (return on investment) will either be nothing, a loss, or so little they could have invested that money else where for a larger return. No publisher is willing to bleed money into a dev just because the dev wants to add more to a game which has been in development for 3+ years.

Boiling Point, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and games like those are the Publishers fault for rushing the devs to meet a deadline, even though the game is buggy as hell.

Big Rigs, however, is definately, one hundred percent, the cracked out devs faults.

Tsunami23

Do you know how long STALKER had been in development? 4+ years. It went through a number of changes I wouldn't have blamed THQ for releasing the game while in alpha stages.

I'm sure every game would benefit immensely from extra dev time. But programmers, artists, QA, these are all really high expenses. If a game has cost $30 million to make (like Stranglehold) the game has to get released, publishers cannot throw around that much money and then more and expect to make a profit.

Blizzard has so much money they can self fund games. Most studios rely on publishers for money. Publishers have a limited amount of money, after a certain point the ROI (return on investment) will either be nothing, a loss, or so little they could have invested that money else where for a larger return. No publisher is willing to bleed money into a dev just because the dev wants to add more to a game which has been in development for 3+ years.cametall

I know that. But for the sake of ROI, publishers throw out the game in state as it is. At that point who's really at fault? The publisher for knowing they will be launching an unfinished, unpolished game for the sake of recouping their losses, or the developers for not meeting the publisher's obligations on time? Yet given the option, any developer in the world would take the option of extra time and money to make the game better. But not every publisher is willing to give that option.

[QUOTE="cametall"]I'm sure every game would benefit immensely from extra dev time. But programmers, artists, QA, these are all really high expenses. If a game has cost $30 million to make (like Stranglehold) the game has to get released, publishers cannot throw around that much money and then more and expect to make a profit.

Blizzard has so much money they can self fund games. Most studios rely on publishers for money. Publishers have a limited amount of money, after a certain point the ROI (return on investment) will either be nothing, a loss, or so little they could have invested that money else where for a larger return. No publisher is willing to bleed money into a dev just because the dev wants to add more to a game which has been in development for 3+ years.XaosII

I know that. But for the sake of ROI, publishers throw out the game in state as it is. At that point who's really at fault? The publisher for knowing they will be launching an unfinished, unpolished game for the sake of recouping their losses, or the developers for not meeting the publisher's obligations on time? Yet given the option, any developer in the world would take the option of extra time and money to make the game better. But not every publisher is willing to give that option.

Its the developers fault for not utilizing the 2+ years they were given and accepted to make the game. As a publisher I'm not going to lose millions on a game because the dev can't get its act together. I'd rather get my investment back and move on to the next dev who may have its act together.