Are Developers Getting Lazy?

Written by Adam Dodd

Friday, 16 January 2009 04:38

In this wonderful era of online gaming, DLC, and patches; too often do we see game developers releasing unfinished games with the promise of patches to make the game whole. Some companies are going so far as to cut out already completed parts of games so they can cash in on them as DLC down the road while others are blatantly screwing the gamer. Gamers pay for completed products, so should we stand for this treatment by game companies?

Gotta love the ladies(?) of Fable II.

Recently it was announced by various former employees of Crystal Dynamics that some content from Tomb Raider: Underworld was taken out of the game so it could be sold as DLC in the future. Whether or not this is true (another former employee said the content was removed from the game for other reasons), this isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Fable II was even (temporarily) released without coop, which is arguably one of the game’s most important features.

Obviously, it’s a smart move for a company to withhold something from the game so it can be sold to make extra money later on, but is this fair to the gamers who buy the game expecting their money’s worth? I think not. When I buy a game I want everything, so if a developer is withholding certain missions, items, etc. so they can sell them later, that’s really frustrating. But when a company decides to release an unfinished game so they can make a certain release date, that really bothers me.

Dead Space

The obvious king of using DLC as a way to squeeze money out of a game would be EA. I mean, come on, weapon skins?! Who cares what the weapons in Dead Space look like? Stop charging for worthless content like weapon skins and give us new weapons or missions please! The fact that unfinished games can be patched after release or already finished content can be withheld from the game to be sold later isn’t good for gamers. I don’t see this getting anything but worse as the costs of developing games rises, but I think that if the price of video games dropped around $10, then I’d be more willing to accept crappy horse armor and (temporarily) unfinished games. What do you think?

Comments (5) Add Comment

...
written by Tralfaz, January 16, 2009

I'm going to help you out here. I believe the word you're looking for is "Publishers," not Developers. A developer (also read "development company" - if that company isn't a child company of a publishing company) would love nothing more than to give you a completely realized game from start to finish that properly communicated the ideas he had in mind. Nothing is more irritating to a developer than removing a part of their game - especially when that part WORKS.

I suppose there could be the case that parts of games are removed, even when they fit well with the rest of the game, simply because there doesn't exist enough time in the project to give it the polish it needs. These parts may be later released as DLC, but I guarantee you a developer would rather have a few more months to finish the game with those parts than to release something arguably incomplete, just to package the rest as DLC later. It certainly would not be the developer's thought to do so; that line of thinking comes from the publishers.

So, perhaps you think it's a matter of semantics, and Developer/Publisher, Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to, but I think it's important to make the distinction. If you want things to change, you'll need to know the source of your misery. And note, I fully agree! Unchecked DLC is a problem, and we needn't support that shit. Just... take the publishers to task, and leave the developers out of it.

...
written by Rev, January 16, 2009

The best example of this was Rainbow Six : Vegas. They were in such a rush to get it out and on the sales floor that there was GAPING holes in the game - single and multiplayer. It was a glitchfest from start to end. Then you have games like Tomb Raider, where in the PC version a glitch meant that an essential lever you needed to press didn't appear.

I don't think it's the developers fault. I think it's more the publishers putting pressure on the studios to finish the game quickly so the publishers can make money from it. But whatever happens, neither publishers or developers can expect to release DLC (and some substandard DLC at that!) at a price that people will pay if they don't make the original game right the first time round.

...
written by Jim Squires, January 16, 2009

Anyone remember when EA was selling in game cash and walkthrough videos?

King of the fast buck, indeed.

...
written by Ryan Hewson, January 16, 2009

It's a tricky question. Because it all comes down to what you perceive as "value".

There are a number (dozens, actually) of 360 games that have 100KB "unlock" keys for DLC content. Those are always content that is already on the disc.

It's really up to the developer/publisher to decide how they want to handle it, and conversely it is up to the player to decide if it's worth the money, in each individual case. I can understand business decisions that might take something "out" of the initial release and move it to DLC later, that doesn't particularly bother me as a concept. It happens to lots of games. We are not privy to the machinations and struggles of development, we don't know the title's history, and as enthusiasts we are only barely cognisant of the efforts, trials and tribulations that go into developing a good game and worthwhile DLC.

So in the end you are left with a simple question, is it worth it. It doesn't really matter to me how they deliver the DLC, if it's already on the disc or if it's downloaded. I make a decision as to whether or not I feel the extra money justifies what the DLC adds to the game. That's it. If you feel that the DLC is a ripoff, just don't buy it.

The fact that all the myriad versions of "horse armour" out there still continue to sell (like Dead Space skins) is surprising to me, but it also tells me that some people will pony up. I can't believe anyone has actually purchased a GamerPic either - you are paying for a bloody GIF – but there you go.

...
written by Gecko, January 28, 2009

thats pissing me off too, skins are not worth paying for now new weapons i can see that as worth paying for also dead space suits are not worth buying as well i saw them all they are is color pallet edits theres no real change in the outfit to be worth paying for as well as the free upgradeable suits all they did in my opinion was add a few extra metal bars on the suit every time you upgrade he looks like a damn cheese grader.