Support NeoGAF

[Astral Dog]

So to the people that agree that voting with your wallet is the solution. Do you really think the majority (or enough that it would have a massive impact) can get on board and actually "vote with their wallet" to get these companies to stop, or change what they are doing?

Maybe on a personal level, it's the solution. Because if you stop pre-ordering games and buying games/series that are buggy/broken, you yourself won't have a broken product you wasted money on. But you still have the issue that a vast majority of consumers that go out and buy these games, don't seem that informed. And whenever something is broken, they tend to "forgive" or "forget" by the time the next annual/release or sequel is out a year later.

So is voting with your wallet really the solution? Or is people speaking out, and making a bunch of noise (which is bad PR and press) more likely to have an impact? Or is the media actually doing their job, reporting these broken games, these bad practices, and or calling them out on it....more likely to get things done.

I am honestly surprised the majority here is saying that they think this is the solution. If I'm wrong, and am looking at this the wrong way, okay. I'm open to changing my view points. Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way. But I honestly don't see enough people "voting with their wallet" for the majority of releases, to get these companies to stop doing these things. It feels like the people that "vote with their wallet" end up being a vocal minority, and it's just a small dent in their overall bottom line.

Whereas I've seen more companies "change" because they were afraid of bad Press or PR building up. I still say the solution is people being vigilant and active. And making noise when something isn't right. And the media stepping up and doing their job, and holding these people accountable when they do bad things (anti-consumer practices). I mean, if enough people voted with their wallets, then sure. That would fix things. I'm just not confident that it's actually realistic and something that would happen (on a large scale).

EDIT: On an individual level, voting with your wallet is a solution. You yourself, won't have broken games or have wasted $60 on something bad. I'm speaking on a larger level, of getting companies to stop doing these things. I think voting with your wallet isn't realistic.

I know I've said this over and over in the thread. But I'm just really surprised that people think it's the solution. I guess maybe I'm wrong.

Voting with your wallet has to be repeated because even here on GAF there is a lot of people that complain but they buy the $60 game day one anyways, sometimes without even reading reviews.

Besides that, you are right, even if its a minority complaining, if its loud enough we can see changes to the products, like with Unity.

 

[Nesther]

I'm going to pre-order Persona 5 and MGSV and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
There's nothing wrong with pre-ordering games from developers you trust. Just don't pre-order from untrustworthy folks like Ubisoft, EA etc.

 

[Adam Prime]

its also interesting to think how many people who don't frquent video game Internet sites don't even know , or care, that a game is broken.

My brother bought Halo MCC and has never once complained about a damn thing about the game, he loves it. Non gaming enthusiast can't even recognize a bad or broken game! Lol

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Where did MCC win best multiplayer of the year again?

Just because they didn't gave the game any awards after it released does not mean there isn't a problem.
The game should have been re-scored much lower with big bold letters telling people about the game's flaws.

 

[Atreides]

No it's not. The specs are much lower on WiiU, making the range of what is possible much smaller. Games like No Mans Sky, Driveclub, Destiny, MGS5, etc are not possible on WiiU. It means more developers and more dev time for those studios working on such ambitious games. More people means more potential for bugs. Besides graphics I think the biggest area games have seen advancement this gen are online features. Going by MK8 and Smash (which I love) Nintendos feature-set is very limited. Most of Nintendos games don't even try.

Online problems due to unexpected demand are one thing (though they should have designed the game so it is easy to add extra servers to avoid this). That can be understandable. But most bugs are found by the testers. The publisher just decides not to fix them to release the game on time.

Take SM3DL. Fun Mario game right? Take that and add on 4 player online coop, a full blown level editor, a website for sharing, rating, and tracking levels, and you have Littlebigplanet 3. To this day nintendo is yet to make an online coop platformer. LBP is 2 gens old now, and they even did it on a handheld.

Nobody has ever released an online platformer game with so much interaction between players as in SM3DW. LBP does a lot of concessions in gameplay to be able to pull online coop. It's pertfectly fine to complain about the lack of online features of Nintendo's games. But pointing LBP as an example of why Mario games should have coop is absurd, because it ignores the differences in gameplay that make online coop in Mario games much more difficult.

I love Nintendo as much as the next guy, but I recognize that part of the reason they launch with less bugs is that the degree of difficulty is lower. It's a choice that Nintendo has made philosophically (and to a degree financially), and not evidence that their devs are more skilled than other devs.

And I recognize the fact that game complexity has actually little impact in we having these bugs. Publishers deciding not to fix these bugs because players will buy anyway and being able to release a patch for the worst bugs are the main reasons.

It's certainly not related to devs being more skilled. These bugs are usually found in testing, but the publisher decides not to fix them.

 

[mdubs]

The cynicsm about IGN in this thread is embarrassing, it's as if this site personally kicked the puppies of half the posters in this thread. Come and actually make a relevant contribution about the article instead of not even bothering to read the OP and going "sneak ign".

For anyone wondering Colin has been saying this for the past year, how on earth does it make sense to hold one (ex)editor accountable for the site's direction when he possesses a correct viewpoint if a. He doesn't work there anymore, and b. He isn't the reviews editor and did not personally give out any of the offending scores some of you gleefully question.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Just because they didn't gave the game any awards after it released does not mean there isn't a problem.
The game should have been re-scored much lower with big bold letters telling people about the game's flaws.

They docked MCC 1pt for having multiplayer issues, so the final score was 9/10. Thats a really nice score for a game that didn't work at launch.

Now they want to turn around and be your friend, telling you we shouldn't be putting up with these broken games.

 

[ThatManTy]

Maybe IGN should start by not giving out 7s, 8s, and 9s to broken games.

Assassin's Creed: Unity - 7.8 - so badly broken, Ubisoft made official apology
SimCity - 7.0 - nearly unplayable for many people, nonfunctional AI, has all but ruined SimCity brand name
Battlefield 4 - 8.5 - completely unplayable for weeks after launch, crashing systems
Diablo 3 - 9.5 - completely unplayable at launch, many bad features have since been completely removed by Blizzard
Halo: MCC - 9.0 - nonfunctional online for several weeks after release
Driveclub - 7.9 - nonfunctional online for several weeks after release
Skyrim - 9.5 - To this day, runs like absolute shit on PS3, still have save file corruption issues
Fallout: New Vegas - 8.5 - tons of launch bugs on both consoles, save file corruption issues

And that's just what I could remember of games that were either entirely-to-partially non-functional or had severe game-breaking issues at launch. And they have the audacity to blame this shit on us. Jesus.

lol Skyrim still sticks out to me. I had to endure all the pop culture arrow to the knee jokes, and I never even got to play the game due to my own research and knowing that the game was a mess on ps3.

I ended up taking the risk on a similarly bugged game (Battlefield 4), and the very first time it deleted my save file, I stopped playing, and traded the game in. I didn't preorder a game in all of 2014.

But even then... IGN gave The Crew a 6 right... but it was predated by a week of Let's Plays in which they had 5-6 IGN crew members hyping the game so hard, basically trying to get people to preorder. That's about the same level of asshattery if you ask me.

 

[Gunslinger]

"Stop buying them."

/thread. Unfortunately too many average gamers out there who really doesn't care, and will keep supporting these companies to push out unfinished messes.

 

[ReBurn]

I can't believe pre-ordering became the norm in the first place. You damn fools.

Once upon a time if you didn't preorder you didn't get a copy of the most popular games when they released. But those days are long gone. There really is no reason to do it any more.

 

[Mononoke]

Voting with your wallet has to be repeated because even here on GAF there is a lot of people that complain but they buy the $60 game day one anyways, sometimes without even reading reviews.

Besides that, you are right, even if its a minority complaining, if its loud enough we can see changes to the products, like with Unity.

Sure. I mean on a personal level I agree people should stop buying games that are broken. Stop pre ordering games from companies that are anti-consumer.

On that level, not buying their stuff means that individual is no longer supporting things they don't want to support. They are no longer wasting their $60. But just as an overall solution to getting companies to change their practices, I'm not seeing it as a viable/realistic solution.

Maybe I missed the point of the article. Or maybe is misread the replies in this thread. But speaking in larger terms and how to get companies to stop doing these things, I don't think voting with your wallet is realistic. I think speaking out, giving them bad press and PR is a much better solution. I just wish sites like IGN did their jobs and actually reported on this stuff.

 

[Sayter]

No it's not. The specs are much lower on WiiU, making the range of what is possible much smaller. Games like No Mans Sky, Driveclub, Destiny, MGS5, etc are not possible on WiiU. It means more developers and more dev time for those studios working on such ambitious games. More people means more potential for bugs. Besides graphics I think the biggest area games have seen advancement this gen are online features. Going by MK8 and Smash (which I love) Nintendos feature-set is very limited. Most of Nintendos games don't even try.

Take SM3DL. Fun Mario game right? Take that and add on 4 player online coop, a full blown level editor, a website for sharing, rating, and tracking levels, and you have Littlebigplanet 3. To this day nintendo is yet to make an online coop platformer. LBP is 2 gens old now, and they even did it on a handheld.

I love Nintendo as much as the next guy, but I recognize that part of the reason they launch with less bugs is that the degree of difficulty is lower. It's a choice that Nintendo has made philosophically (and to a degree financially), and not evidence that their devs are more skilled than other devs.

Zelda U and Xenoblade Chronicles X seem just as ambitious as any of the games you listed. Look at what PlatinumGames was able to do with Bayonetta 2 on the Wii U. It's a drop dead gorgeous game that runs like water over glass. Now look at Sonic Boom.

Nintendo has shown that you don't need bleeding edge tech to make games that look fantastic and perform very well. It's not so much that talent is the issue as much as publishers cutting corners.

 

[SystemUser]

maybe they should stop giving broken games like The Master Chief Collection good press then

Yeah, it seems crazy that they would review a game that for many people is a online game without experiencing one other most important parts of online. I doubt that matchmaking was working before release and magically broke afterwards. Maybe reviewers should experience the game for real before writing reviews.


Bungie made reviewers wait and reviewers hated them for it. They got early access to MCC and posted reviews with out actually playing online for real.


I didn't read the IGN article, but I hope it mentions that critics should try to review the complete game experience. Maybe they should have said something about howmany times they crashed while reviewing MCC. My longest session in MCC before crashing was about 4 hours and the shortest was about 15 minutes. With the amount of content in MCC is seems like you would need to spend 20 hours with it to experience the majority of the content. Based on my own experience and the experience of my friends I would estimate that every reviewer that spent at least 20 hours probably crashed at least 5 times. Maybe the reviewers didn't feel the crashes were worth of mention due XB1 games being less stable in general. I own four XB1 games and all four games have crashed multiple times. It could be that crashes are just expected on XB1 and reviewers don't feel the need to report crashes.

 

[uncredited male]

Once upon a time if you didn't preorder you didn't get a copy of the most popular games when they released. But those days are long gone. There really is no reason to do it any more.

But think of all the cool outfits.

 

[GDJustin]

"We're going to keep giving those games 8's and 9's though."

The most hate I've ever seen around an IGN review is the 5.9 given to Alien: Isolation. Along with (somehow) accusations of corruption, bias, "check didn't clear," and so-on.

Game reviewers, especially ones at large outlets, just can't win.

 

[grosvenor_92]

"Stop buying them."

Took the words right out of my mouth

 

[Otakumegane]

What if I have to pre-order Nintendo games because of stock shortages that seem to happen too often?

 

[Smokey]

Maybe IGN should start by not giving out 7s, 8s, and 9s to broken games.

Assassin's Creed: Unity - 7.8 - so badly broken, Ubisoft made official apology
SimCity - 7.0 - nearly unplayable for many people, nonfunctional AI, has all but ruined SimCity brand name
Battlefield 4 - 8.5 - completely unplayable for weeks after launch, crashing systems
Diablo 3 - 9.5 - completely unplayable at launch, many bad features have since been completely removed by Blizzard
Halo: MCC - 9.0 - nonfunctional online for several weeks after release
Driveclub - 7.9 - nonfunctional online for several weeks after release
Skyrim - 9.5 - To this day, runs like absolute shit on PS3, still have save file corruption issues
Fallout: New Vegas - 8.5 - tons of launch bugs on both consoles, save file corruption issues

And that's just what I could remember of games that were either entirely-to-partially non-functional or had severe game-breaking issues at launch. And they have the audacity to blame this shit on us. Jesus.

I feel like this should be in the OP. The article is hilarious coming from them.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

The cynicsm about IGN in this thread is embarrassing, it's as if this site personally kicked the puppies of half the posters in this thread. Come and actually make a relevant contribution about the article instead of not even bothering to read the OP and going "sneak ign".

For anyone wondering Colin has been saying this for the past year, how on earth does it make sense to hold one (ex)editor accountable for the site's direction when he possesses a correct viewpoint if a. He doesn't work there anymore, and b. He isn't the reviews editor and did not personally give out any of the offending scores some of you gleefully question.

I agree with the article and am glad it was written. With that said, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that it's on IGN, which is itself a very big part of the problem. Pretty ironic. And not at all surprisingly, none of the issues with reviews are mentioned by him.

 

[Trago]

I think we should seriously wave a red flag when said gaming site is receiving ad money for a game.

 

[mdubs]

I agree with the article and am glad it was written. With that said, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that it's on IGN, which is itself a very big part of the problem. Pretty ironic. And not at all surprisingly, none of the issues with reviews are mentioned by him.

Well what do you expect, him to call out his former/current employer with an editorial on their own site?

 

[semiconscious]

Lol very true.

yeah, there's definitely a bit of 'talking out of both sides of your mouth' going on here. looking forward to ign qualifying their glorious, hyperbole-filled previews with cautionary 'remember last time' warnings ...

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well what do you expect, him to call out his former/current employer with an editorial on their own site?

He can call out reviews in general without specifically mentioning anyone by name. In the article he points out that a publisher/dev that has released a broken game probably learned their lesson and won't do it again. Then he asks "But how can you know for sure?". Isn't that where reviewers should come in? They get the games early and have an opportunity to layout the faults that a game may have.

 

[Azriell]

For some of those, keep in mind that IGN uses this scale for AAA games

I know IGN gets a lot of hate, and most of that hate is probably justified. I haven't regularly visited the site in 5-8 years, so I don't have much of an opinion on it either way. But they give their scores context labels. http://www.ign.com/games/reviews for examples. A 6.0 is "okay." Now I don't know how often they give 6s, but at least they have a number set aside for "okay" games. That's a lot better than pretty much all outlets a decade ago, which is when that scale was truly applicable.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

Well what do you expect, him to call out his former/current employer with an editorial on their own site?

Do I expect it? Nope. He could bring up the issue with reviews in general though without specifically calling anyone or anything out. Instead it just isn't mentioned at all as if the problem doesn't exist.

 

[mdubs]

Do I expect it? Nope. He could bring up the issue with reviews in general though without specifically calling anyone or anything out. Instead it just isn't mentioned at all as if the problem doesn't exist.

Readers and his bosses aren't stupid, they would read between the lines

 

[terrisus]

Stop listening to IGN hyping up broken games and believing their reviews on broken games.
In fact, stop going to IGN altogether and you'll probably come out ahead.

 

[terrisus]

For some of those, keep in mind that IGN uses this scale for AAA games

This is completely wrong.

Spoiler

This bar graph implies that their review scores actually correspond with the game's quality.
Their review scores really have no correlation with quality at all.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

Readers and his bosses aren't stupid, they would read between the lines

Ok then Colin could say cool bro, You've given me a great story for my new show.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Games were also a few orders of magnitude simpler back in the 80s and 90s. Of course they had fewer bugs.

 

[mdubs]

Ok then Colin could say cool bro, You've given me a great story for my new show.

Well at least you seem to be aware you have naive expectations. He's still on Beyond and freelances, I doubt he's going to give that up to appease a few warriors of principle on gaf

 

[SystemUser]

Maybe IGN should start by not giving out 7s, 8s, and 9s to broken games.

Assassin's Creed: Unity - 7.8 - so badly broken, Ubisoft made official apology
SimCity - 7.0 - nearly unplayable for many people, nonfunctional AI, has all but ruined SimCity brand name
Battlefield 4 - 8.5 - completely unplayable for weeks after launch, crashing systems
Diablo 3 - 9.5 - completely unplayable at launch, many bad features have since been completely removed by Blizzard
Halo: MCC - 9.0 - nonfunctional online for several weeks after release
Driveclub - 7.9 - nonfunctional online for several weeks after release
Skyrim - 9.5 - To this day, runs like absolute shit on PS3, still have save file corruption issues
Fallout: New Vegas - 8.5 - tons of launch bugs on both consoles, save file corruption issues

And that's just what I could remember of games that were either entirely-to-partially non-functional or had severe game-breaking issues at launch. And they have the audacity to blame this shit on us. Jesus.

I feel like this should be in the OP. The article is hilarious coming from them.

I agree. IGN seems to be one groups most at fault after the publishers, developers, and first parties. Microsoft felt the need to give MCC owners a copy of uprezzed Halo: ODST because of how broken it was, but IGN gave it a 9.0

 

[EatMyFace]

Refunds. Don't be afraid to request them.

 

[dan2026]

DON'T FUCKING PREORDER!

Its really that simple.

 

[Taker666]

This is not so simple either, you have to provide the disk long before the game is complete so the review can coincide with the release. The reality is this shit is hard and devs on the whole are doing everything they can to deal with this issue. Sure there have been a plague of issues as of late but the industry will self correct. IGN is just ranting about something they understand little about.

They managed back in the days before consoles had hard drives.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

DON'T FUCKING PREORDER!

Its really that simple.

If you're a hyperbolic dumbshit who doesn't have good enough taste to buy quality games, sure.

 

[Halabane]

I think Kotaku and some other sites may have it right. Stop talking about games before they are ready to be released. This drives the hype and gets people to pre-order. If sites talked more about released games then it may help.

But there are way to many people throwing money at kickstarters, patreon and greenlight that show the business model is now in favor of buying things before they are fully developed or for that matter even designed/conceptualized. Essentially game buyers are now venture capitalists. You're going to get burned every once in a while.

 

[Ellite25]

Yeah I always hear these guys defend the MCC on podcasts all the time. If they want to tell us to stop buying these games, they need to do their part by hammering games that are broken, even if it's just one aspect. If they want to tell us how to stop companies from releasing broken games then they should do their part in sending publishers/devs a message by giving them really low scores.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

Well at least you seem to be aware you have naive expectations. He's still on Beyond and freelances, I doubt he's going to give that up to appease a few warriors of principle on gaf

naive expectations when it comes to this = complete honesty and integrity. So yes I admit I do have very naive expectations. I want a martyr, but I certainly don't expect it.

Again though I'm glad the article was written at all. Better to say what he did than nothing at all.

 

[Servbot24]

If you're a hyperbolic dumbshit who doesn't have good enough taste to buy quality games, sure.

True that

Got Bloodborne on preorder for months and not a care in the world

If you preorder Battlefield 5 or Ass Creed V you kinda get what's coming

 

[SystemUser]

Once upon a time if you didn't preorder you didn't get a copy of the most popular games when they released. But those days are long gone. There really is no reason to do it any more.

I haven't heard of this being a problem since cartridges. You can always find a new game. With carts they were all in one location and they didn't have the ability to adjust production. With optical discs most publishers will contract multiple manufacturing facilities for big games. Hardware can sell out. It is almost impossible for an optical disc release to be sold out for more than a week or two. If a game is able to sell out in the first week there will be more made.


In the last 10 years no one I know personally has been unable to find a new game. I think one time I had to call three stores before I found a copy. The game stores sell out, but usually the stores that people don't think of as game stores have copies left.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

I haven't heard of this being a problem since cartridges. You can always find a new game. With carts they were all in one location and they didn't have the ability to adjust production. With optical discs most publishers will contract multiple manufacturing facilities for big games. Hardware can sell out. It is almost impossible for an optical disc release to be sold out for more than a week or two. If a game is able to sell out in the first week there will be more made.


In the last 10 years no one I know personally has been unable to find a new game. I think one time I had to call three stores before I found a copy. The game stores sell out, but usually the stores that people don't think of as game stores have copies left.

You could always find games at the big retail stores. I worked at a game store in college and this is one place where games could sell out. Coincidentally those were the places where you could preorder.

You only need to preorder niche games that most stores won't have. Just buy the games online if you don't want to preorder them.

 

[Yagharek]

Hype culture is to blame.

Hype previews sell a game as the second coming every fucking year even if its the twelfth game in an exceedingly mediocre series such as Assassins Creed.

No broken game ever gets called on it until its been out for six months by the major outlets, with very few exceptions. Look at the free passes handed out to broken shit like Unity, Halo MCC, Skyrim (or any Bethesda game for that matter) PS3, Battlefraud 4 etc.

These outlets like IGN are a bunch of lying scum, no better than the shoddy publishers they peddle for.

 

[Natureboy99]

Nobody has ever released an online platformer game with so much interaction between players as in SM3DW. LBP does a lot of concessions in gameplay to be able to pull online coop. It's pertfectly fine to complain about the lack of online features of Nintendo's games. But pointing LBP as an example of why Mario games should have coop is absurd, because it ignores the differences in gameplay that make online coop in Mario games much more difficult.

I played both, and I dont understand how you can say that m3dl has more player interaction. In lbp you can grab and drag other players with or without grappling hook. you can have multiple players pushing pulling or carrying the same object, you can shoot paint and other liquids at other players which has physical impact on them, not to mention throwing large objects at them. I could go on and on. All of this happens over an internet connection. The ONE concession they had to make was floaty jump, and that was done away with in lbp3.

I only went through sm3dl once, but it was 4 player and the feeling i remember from that game was 4 players running through the courses individually. Lots of bubbled players. Everyone took different paths. I think you could attack other players and jump off their heads iirc. It was a fun 4 player local platformer, but personally I was way more impressed with and had way more fun with lbp3. The community levels are better than the devs levels and are truly endless. I've even seen a perfect "port" of smb3 in lbp.

Anyways, I think we're going to disagree on this one. Nintendo games are worth the time and money. I just think their philosophy is extremely conservative so its no big surprise their games are low in bugs. I think they are starting to swing core again at the moment so its encouraging to see games like Splatoon get made. It's 8 player online. We had 64 players last gen. If Nintendo tried for a 64 player online match, would it be perfect day 1? They're not trying for more than 8 which says a lot.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Ok then Colin could say cool bro, You've given me a great story for my new show.

Maybe he doesn't want to throw people he worked for years with under the bus because he probably is friends with most of them? I guess he should have because a few people on gaf will get mad.

Think of your priorities Colin.

 

[Hyunashi]

Cannot be reiterated enough, but this is so rich coming from IGN. They are part of the problem and, tbh, a major part at that.

 

[terrisus]

Cannot be reiterated enough, but this is so rich coming from IGN. They are part of the problem and, tbh, a major part at that.

Agreed.
This really should be at the forefront - and the fact that it's not basically makes a joke of the whole thing.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I like how IGN frames this exclusively as a consumer issue while ignoring their own part in this debacle by praising these broken games to high heavens.

 

[Rain City Gamer]

Seriously... this coming from a site that gave Halo MCC a 9/10.

Fuck you IGN.

came to say this

 

[Nostremitus]

lol Skyrim still sticks out to me. I had to endure all the pop culture arrow to the knee jokes, and I never even got to play the game due to my own research and knowing that the game was a mess on ps3.

I ended up taking the risk on a similarly bugged game (Battlefield 4), and the very first time it deleted my save file, I stopped playing, and traded the game in. I didn't preorder a game in all of 2014.

But even then... IGN gave The Crew a 6 right... but it was predated by a week of Let's Plays in which they had 5-6 IGN crew members hyping the game so hard, basically trying to get people to preorder. That's about the same level of asshattery if you ask me.

I "beat" Skyrim on PS3 (I did most of the quests I'd found by the time I finally got around to beating the story mode.), I even had the Hearthfire DLC by then and didn't run into a single problem other than slow load times. It was perfectly playable. I even went back to my PS3 save file and converted it to a PC save when I bought the game and all DLC in a Steam sale last fall. The save file was still perfectly fine.

If I'd listened to the vocal minority I'd have missed out on the game.