At what point do our high standards hurt ourselves

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. and it bothers me becuase I cannot seem to land on the right answer, and I can certainly tell in other, less polite forums, that people get frustrated wtih my point of view.....

Here is the crux of the issue put in the form of some questions......

If I buy a shooter from UBI like Lockdown (Let's use Lockdown as the example in the extreme becuase I think we all agree it was pretty blah-zay..) have i hurt our shared goal to get better, more realistic shooters next time or have I helped it.

Now before you just jump and make a simple knee jerk reflex answer, Let me rephrase now to give the question some context.

If I buy a shooter like GRAW1, which I consider an excellent shooter but still not quite going as far as I would like to see, have I helped or hurt the shared goal of getting an excellent realistic shooter.

When I bought GRAW, people at the other forum got pretty irrate with me for saying that I felt I got my moneys worth. I added that I wanted some bugs fixed, but I was really enjoying SP and COOP mission right from release and I felt satisfied. I caught holy helen for that opinion. But i stuck by it.

Here is the kicker. For me, i wanted oh so much more. and the summer of patches brought some of that. But I knew that if we don't support companies who develop these things, and we don't support companies who publish these things (I am not a UBI hater ... deal with it), then our chances of ever seeing another thing like what we really dream of gets diminished. Not enhanced

The other side (who also have a valid point) say if we "buy their Garbage" (I'm not talking about GRAW, but I certainly saw people call GRAW that when it was first released ... i still think they were wrong), "Then they will keep shoveling this incomplete, buggy, unsupported stuff at us".

Are they right? if we don't buy, I fear they will never even give this stuff a chance next time.

I see us all in a catch 22.

I remember when hard-core-esqeu flight sims ruled the roost. Loved the stuff Janes this, skunkworks that etc. Then it just got too risky for them. Most companies quit trying. I bought 2 or 3 copies of F4:Allied force since it came out and I tell everyone I know they are crazy not to own it. Not only do I want them to enjoy it, I want to assure the genre's survivial by adding to sales.

I hope I have posed my question in a way everyone can understand....

What's the right Balance here?

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

The only way to really get what you want is to become a developer, or more precise a game designer working on a companies own IP.

Besides that, I know what you're talking about. I have 1-2 copies of all the old Sierra "Quest" games and Lucas Arts adventure games. I own 3 copies of SWAT3. But they where all good game in my eyes, so I just had to get the new editions, and the next one and so on... when I still had the money for that kind of thinking.

As for your example, I'd buy games that I'm mostly pleased with, like you felt about GRAW in your example, as I then send the message that I at least think it's in the right ballpark. But I wouldn't buy a game I'm mostly displeased with, like Lockdown in your example, to show that they are far from what I want. In the last 5 years I haven't bought a game without testing it first, by demo, in the store or a borrowed copy. And it has saved me some money for sure... let's just say I didn't buy Lockdown. And yes, if a product doesn't get sold it will not go on in the same style... But good sales result isn't a grantee that it will either.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Wolfsong

[Colin]

This is a good question.

I tend to have my own bench mark, GR1 was that.

All that follows should be as good if not better.

To date this has not happened, close but no close enough.

I was simply spoilt.

Will Graw II fill the gap I dont know yet, Ill let you know in May.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

The only way to really get what you want is to become a developer, or more precise a game designer working on a companies own IP.

Besides that, I know what you're talking about. I have 1-2 copies of all the old Sierra "Quest" games and Lucas Arts adventure games. I own 3 copies of SWAT3. But they where all good game in my eyes, so I just had to get the new editions, and the next one and so on... when I still had the money for that kind of thinking.

As for your example, I'd buy games that I'm mostly pleased with, like you felt about GRAW in your example, as I then send the message that I at least think it's in the right ballpark. But I wouldn't buy a game I'm mostly displeased with, like Lockdown in your example, to show that they are far from what I want. In the last 5 years I haven't bought a game without testing it first, by demo, in the store or a borrowed copy. And it has saved me some money for sure... let's just say I didn't buy Lockdown. And yes, if a product doesn't get sold it will not go on in the same style... But good sales result isn't a grantee that it will either.

But even as a developer the marketer can push you around... and make you release it early persay or tell you what it can and cannot have.

Colin... using GR1 as a benchmark made me hate Graw on release. I hated domination as it was not GR1 like for example. Now however once i got past that i actually enjoy domination. GRAW was a very good game on it's own. Just not GR1. (which also had it's never fixed flaws.)

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

...or tell you what it can and cannot have.

This is hard if it's not their IP. The tricky part could be to find a publisher to get it out when it's done though.

... Ill let you know in May.

erh... June.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Wolfsong

[spm1138]

If a developer isn't going to do it right, I couldn't really care less whether they repeat their failure or not.

[NoQuarter]

I tend to have my own bench mark, GR1 was that.

Using [GR] as a benchmark is only inviting disappointment; it's been said (by others) before, [GR] is a freak occurrence. And these days, Ubi is using totally different Datum.

____

It is Catch-22.

Prayer might help, holding your breath only leads to light-headedness.

[Ick]

It would seem to me that there are two ways to make money when producing software of any kind:

#1. Make specialized software for few people....................that are willing to pay higher prices for the specialization.

Example: Banking software, dedicated applications, other proprietary industry specific software.

#2. Make software with broad appeal to a lot of people.....................that are willng to pay a fair price compared to other options.

Example: Quickbooks Accounting Software, Microsoft Word, applications for my PDA, Video Games.

Since #1 just ain't gunna happen in the video game marketplace.....

-----due to "investment risk" of developing a product very few will ever purchase

-----with buyers that are likely NOT gonig to pay higher prices for the specialization

-----with customers that are only going to gripe, moan, and bawl about features and cost

You are therefore left with #2.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Ick

[Papa6]

...or tell you what it can and cannot have.

This is hard if it's not their IP. The tricky part could be to find a publisher to get it out when it's done though.

... Ill let you know in May.

erh... June.

I think the problem rests on the fact of technology and having to buy OTHER peoples wants.

Example: GRIN. GRIN is the dev who makes GRAW/GRAW2 as they see it. Someone at UBISOFT had to see what GRIN had for an idea to give them the greenlight to make GRAW. this is an obvious reason as GR2 PC was yanked just "about" the time it was being completed. So UBI stopped the work and turned to GRIN and gave them the role of DEV. so we get games according to OTHER peoples ideas and concepts of gaming. Maybe the way of continuing success by seeing what made GR a great game, then they would be able to see.

But game devs and publishers all want to copy each other or come out with the "latest and greatest" technology to out do each other. REAL success is measured by how long a game survives and is played and modded. no other game i can think of FPS wise even comes close to GR. pretty technology doesn't win hearts and minds. because after the pretty graphics have transformed into a dull ho-hum game, people find that there's nothing else to the game.

Companies who want to be successful need look no further than GR to see how and why it survived 6 yrs now and is still being played. GRAW1 won't live ANYwhere as long as GR has.

I remember when GRAW was in development, people suggested that a medic be added to the game. what the hell for? every OTHER game has a medic in hollywood style health recouperation. a real medic only patches you up well and long enough to get you transported to a combat hospital and then to a rear hospital like Landstuhl medical center in Germany etc.

But we buys games of what the dev wants to give us, gameplay, concept,everything. On a positive note, GRIN has worked hard to rework GRAW and give us what we wanted or close to it. but I don't think we'll be able to get GR from GRAW2.

-Papa6

[Colin]

The only way to really get what you want is to become a developer, or more precise a game designer working on a companies own IP.

Besides that, I know what you're talking about. I have 1-2 copies of all the old Sierra "Quest" games and Lucas Arts adventure games. I own 3 copies of SWAT3. But they where all good game in my eyes, so I just had to get the new editions, and the next one and so on... when I still had the money for that kind of thinking.

As for your example, I'd buy games that I'm mostly pleased with, like you felt about GRAW in your example, as I then send the message that I at least think it's in the right ballpark. But I wouldn't buy a game I'm mostly displeased with, like Lockdown in your example, to show that they are far from what I want. In the last 5 years I haven't bought a game without testing it first, by demo, in the store or a borrowed copy. And it has saved me some money for sure... let's just say I didn't buy Lockdown. And yes, if a product doesn't get sold it will not go on in the same style... But good sales result isn't a grantee that it will either.

But even as a developer the marketer can push you around... and make you release it early persay or tell you what it can and cannot have.

Colin... using GR1 as a benchmark made me hate Graw on release. I hated domination as it was not GR1 like for example. Now however once i got past that i actually enjoy domination. GRAW was a very good game on it's own. Just not GR1. (which also had it's never fixed flaws.)

Graw 1 on release had a couple of bits missing squad size and tournament ready.

Th squad size was an obvious one I set my sites on more than four of us playing missions and haveing a ball, didint happen.

My expectation was let down.

To me this was the main flaw.

Not being able to do tourneys in missions was the other let down.

This was a heart breaker.

Graw 1 came so close to full filling my expectations and my previous experience of online gameing.

So I kinda set myself up for disapointment.

I never did play sp in gr1 but sp in graw 1 was awsome this did make up for some of the let down.

If Graw 2 eliminates the 2 above problems and is as well done as Graw 1 in other areas if not better This will more than fill my expectations.

Good Post Sd

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

Example: GRIN. GRIN is the dev who makes GRAW/GRAW2 as they see it. Someone at UBISOFT had to see what GRIN had for an idea to give them the greenlight to make GRAW. this is an obvious reason as GR2 PC was yanked just "about" the time it was being completed. So UBI stopped the work and turned to GRIN and gave them the role of DEV. so we get games according to OTHER peoples ideas and concepts of gaming. Maybe the way of continuing success by seeing what made GR a great game, then they would be able to see.

The problem I see is when the publishes own the IP, and not the developers. This ties the developers to follow the publishers decitions and don't give them the freedom to create what they want, and always have to ask the publisher if this and that is ok when they come up with an idea.

In the above example UBI is the owner of the IP, so they call the shots.

If you look back to when RSE owned the IP, they called the shots on the game design but could get suggestions from their publishers. But it was still RSE's decition that mattered as they owned the IP. And if the publisher didn't want to publish the final product, they had the freedom to look around for another publisher that feels they want to stand behind the product, simply because the developers owned the rights for the product IP, not the publishers. In that case the developer could end up with a game that is never published, but it's the risk that has to be taken if you really want you IP to look and play axactly as you want.

Worst case would be D&D... In that cases you even have a third party that is the IP owner... they license their IP to a publisher. So the developer has to ask the publisher if an idea is ok, and hte publisher has to ask the IP owner if the idea is ok... Been there on the BioWare projects I did, and it's optimal if you want to create a great game based on the developers inhouse ideas and spirit.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Wolfsong

[krise madsen]

Interesting subject, but it asks questions that are impossible to answer.

For one thing, who are "we"? I practically never play MP, only SP and coop, so if a game with brilliant SP/coop but atrocious MP came out, I'd probably like it. So am I included? What about the hardcore MP clan gamer who never touches SP?

But it's true that money walks and... you know the rest I'm sure.

So, if a game doesn't deliver and we don't buy it, it tells the developers/publishers a lesson, right? Not necessarily. Who says they will learn the right lesson? And if they make a good game and we buy it by the truckload, who is to say they don't utterly mess it up in the sequel? How well do you think R6:Lockdown built on the "lessons learned" from R6:Raven Shield?

Some in the games industry will listen and learn, like Blackfoot Studios. Most will not.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

... like Blackfoot Studios.

That still remains to be seen.

But I would suspect that they are dealing with their own IP so the chances are good.

[PONDLIFE]

With UBI they i suppose right or wrong want to take the Ghost Recon franchise in a different direction to what many people on here want, but remember we are not the majority of the buyers market. Even with GRiN being the developers of the game still have to get what they and i presume us (with a little encouragement) would like to see included, or omitted from GRAW, but I'm sure they come away from many meetings with UBI disappointed or frustrated with the approach thats been taken by the publisher.

GRiN have made Combat simulators so they're a more than capable of programing a more tactical game, but they also require payment and unfortunately unless we could afford to pay them direct theres no way we would get the game we truly want.

[FI_FlimFlam]

Nice topic. Glad to see the replys are well thought out and things are being discussed with an open mind.

I believe that depending on the publisher and the developer, the message you send by purchasing can be different. With UBI it appears that simply purchasing the product that is terrible to you, would most likely send a positive message to them and perhaps influence them to continue to take the series away from what you would like. This is not necessarily bad for the publisher because for them sales = good. The problem lies when the publisher/developer doesn't care to listen to input and address things such as design issues and or bugs. Vegas is a perfect example. UBI didn't really listen to the consumer after lockdown. They didn't even listen to their own created panel of gamers concerning what was needed to make the game a success. They continue to in no way address the issues with the game. One only has to goto the UBI forums and see what a mess they are to see what purchasing Vegas means for UBI and how that is all it really cares about.

Now with GRIN that is another story. They have been VERY responsive to end user input IMO. Responsive to the extent that they have attempted to give us what we have asked for (many times from very conflicting opinions) while still having to stick to the framework that UBI dictated (let's not forget UBI paid them to develop the game that UBI initially invisioned). When a publisher or developer is responsive to input from the fanbase, is it a good thing to purchase to support them? Does it send the right message? In part I think it does send the right one of support from the fan base in this case. Really I think the message of the initial purchase isn't as important as the willingness of the publisher to listen to the messages of fanbase post purchase which GRIN has done a decent job with IMO.

Of course some will completely disagree with me since GRIN did not turn GRAW into a revamped [GR]. I sympathize with them and do recognize that when you are not creating brand new IP that expectations are legitimate in this situation. However like Rocco I was able to look past it and come to enjoy the game. Probably as that I wasn't as attached to [GR] like some here.

So to get back on topic, I think in this case the message will be taken both ways. UBI will take it as a success and indication that whatever is produced is acceptable and like by gamers. Which is not a good thing unless the game is exactly what you want out of the box. Which, let's face it, is highly unlikely - no offense GRIN but someone is going to have issues no matter what. But at the same time, by purchasing it, you give a developer like GRIN support, knowing that within the funding that UBI provides, they will support the game and listen to the fanbase to help make it better.

In this case, I recommend everyone wait for the demo. If they like it buy it and send your message. If not, send your message by not purchasing it and if it becomes what you want through patches, then buy. That is a more meaningful message to the developer and publisher IMO than the release week/month purchase - even though that initial time frame will generally determine if the game is a success or not by the publisher.

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

In this case, I recommend everyone wait for the demo. If they like it buy it and send your message. If not, send your message by not purchasing it and if it becomes what you want through patches, then buy. That is a more meaningful message to the developer and publisher IMO than the release week/month purchase - even though that initial time frame will generally determine if the game is a success or not by the publisher.

Although your analysis is certainly logical, cogent, and easy to follow, isn't it funy how your conclusionary paragrpah leaves the paradox in place? You give very specific advice on when to buy or not, but then conclude by recognizing that the initial sales surge, not the secondary sales that occur late by the well informed buyer, may actually be the only key indicator of success. and don't get me wrong here FI. I'm not teasing you. I agree with you.

No matter how we rationalize the process, the initial surge is probably the most important issue. and so we come back to the initial confusion that I feel. Since its GRiN, and since GRiN has lready shown the right stuff (at least to me they have), do we ignore the implications to UBI and just buy on day one becuase it is GRiN. My opinion is likely contraversial. ButI will buy right out of the gate in hopes that this show of support, even if bugs are annoying, will result in them getting fixed.

So I say again, do our standards and choices in these matters effect the final outcome? I think they might.

[FI_FlimFlam]

I'm not taking it as such. I intentionally left it because I do see it as a "catch-22". Really it can go either way. I think the best thing for the gamer is to evaluate the product/game first with a demo, then let the chips fall where they may.

Really, unless you have alot of disposable income, this is the best for most people. Then, who knows how a purchase will really be interpreted by the publisher and or developer. So the only thing that we as the consumer can ultimately control, is just our purchase. How that "message" is interpreted is really any one's guess.

Edited April 3, 2007 by FI_FlimFlam

[Big]

The demo didn't stop me from buying GRAW so that's not the solution neither in some cases (at least mine).

GRAW is/was a good game but definitely wasn't the game i was expecting so i stopped playing it many months ago. By checking the demo you wouldn't see that people "wouldn't be able" to mod it, to create real missions, stealth, open spaces, .... the things i liked in GR.

Simply GRAW wasn't a game for me. Nor bad nor good just not of my tastes.

That's why this time i will wait months to see the direction it takes before buying it, if i do it.

About the topic, i think as Pondlife said we tend to think that we represent more that we really do.

[Agent Smith]

But game devs and publishers all want to copy each other or come out with the "latest and greatest" technology to out do each other. REAL success is measured by how long a game survives and is played and modded. no other game i can think of FPS wise even comes close to GR. pretty technology doesn't win hearts and minds. because after the pretty graphics have transformed into a dull ho-hum game, people find that there's nothing else to the game.

HL1 and HL2.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Agent Smith

[Malleus]

REAL success is measured by how long a game survives and is played and modded. no other game i can think of FPS wise even comes close to GR. pretty technology doesn't win hearts and minds.

HL1 and HL2.

OFP/ArmA too, I guess...

[Fletch]

I hope I have posed my question in a way everyone can understand....

What's the right Balance here?

Saddly for me it means they are not getting one dime of my money for GR:AW 2 untill I read about it in this forum being everything we wanted in a GR based shooter. Not because I don't think the developer can do it but because I don't think the publisher will let them.

Another issue for me is if the computer will be able to handle the new game/graphics. I have a AMD 3500+ now and can barely get 20FPS with it set on Med and low. Even if you guys love the new game but it requires more computer I will wait to buy it till I can afford a better machine.

[Metal_Jacket]

I believe that GRIN knows what the public wants in a GRAW 2 pc game, after all they’ve had valuable experience with the original.