Do Game Consumers Expect Faulty Games?

[BvBPL]

Came across this post in another forum:

And glancing at how well XCOM:EU did on Steam (the only presale numbers we had the slightest clue about, due to it's rank), and the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I'd say Jake is plenty happy. And whether the game needs significant work or not, all that really matters is that it sold well. If it did, it means they will be motivated to fix, improve, expand, etc. And that is a very, very good thing for us X-COM fans.

Link

(emphasis mine)
(my response below)

Apropos the motivation to fix the game following release: would you accept any other good that had to be fixed after your purchase? Particularly a new good, rather than a used one? The sentiment that gamers should accept a flawed product on the trust that problems with the product will be fixed in the future is bizarre. No other set of consumers that I can think of would accept such arrangement, particularly when there is no warranty to protect the consumer against faulty video games except physically damaged discs. I'm uncertain if the attitude above (which is widespread in the video game community) about how video game consumers should interact with buggy video games is actually good for the consumer.

Of course, the difference between fixing and improving a game can be a fine line. Civ 4:BtS is superior to Civ 4 Vanilla, but I don't know if BTS fixed the game as much as it improved it (although there certainly are overt fixes in BtS).
--

What do you think? This being a subforum on a video game forum, it seems likely that many of us play video games. Are we, as consumers, more likely to accept a poor product from a video game company that a poor product from another company on the assumption that a later fix can be provided? Obviously this behavior is integrally linked to the new information economy with its focus on early adopters. I said above that I couldn't think of another group of consumers that would accept a poor product, but now that I think about the SNAFU over the new iphone's map program demonstrates that plenty of people will buy the new new thing regardless of its flaws just to have the new new thing. (although, to be fair, the iphone's map problem is just one minor element of the phone itself. I assume that the iphone is, in other ways, adequate.)

Equally, what does this mean for the consumer? Will or should consumer expectations of products be lowered now that companies can roll out hot fixes later on? Should we demand that products be released in a largely bug free state? Could you imagine a similar situation with non-technology-based goods like, say, a refrigerator or a car? (Keep in mind that we are rapidly coming to the point, if not at it already, were cars and fridges can be attached to the internet so it might be possible for GE to send your icebox a hot fix.)

 

[GoodGame]

If you pay money out for any product/service, without warranty/contract, then in effect you are rewarding the producer. So that's your answer. If people pay for crap, then expect more of the same to be offered next time.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Much of that legal gibberish that most people don't bother to read means that you legally have no recourse regarding bugs and design flaws. Eventually this will change when laws are finally enacted to protect consumers, as they already are with other products that have major defects and flaws.

 

[BvBPL]

Laws are present to protect consumers, but the indemnity clauses of the gibberish generally override those. The gibberish contracts are adhesive though, which provides some protection to the consumer, however indemnity clauses in adhesive contracts are generally only void in exchanges of the necessities of life or heavily regulated products and services

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's my point.. These products will eventually become far more regulated due to how bug-ridden and how many design flaws the typical software currently has, much less games. Until then, you really have no viable recourse.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm more likely, but then I understand the reality of PC Gaming in 2012.

Simply put, it's probably what we're getting or nothing. We're not going to get 100% finished products, on day one, of that complexity.

All I want is a fun, innovative, clever game that starts out relatively stable and gets perfected over time. The idea that it's going to be 100% shiny rounded corners without a bug in sight on day one is a fiction dreamed up by idiots who have never seen how complex the inside of a game really is ( and I barely have, at that. )

I buy a game and bash around with it right after release to enjoy the novelty factor, then I revisit it's expansions later for a more polished, mature experience.

But that's cool. Y'all keep banging around waiting for perfect games to be delivered by angels on chariots of light. I'll be gaming quite contentedly here on earth.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That many of the bugs will ever be fixed and the game will be "perfected" is just as much a "fiction". This is particularly true until we have far more strict consumer laws which force the vendors to actually spend far more time and effort to do so.

 

[AlpsStranger]

That's my point.. These products will eventually become far more regulated due to how bug-ridden and how many design flaws the typical software currently has, much less games. Until then, you really have no viable recourse.

You actually look forward to legal regulation of games? LOL

I can imagine it now. Cling cover is banned because it's considered a "lemon" mechanic. Health pickups are mandated over regeneration. The "League of Hardcore Gamers" manages to ban ironsights. Talent trees are mandated over "Pandaria Style" talents because the latter is "lame." ( That's the legal term, anyhow. )

Game design by lawyers. Fun times

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is no different than any other product. Software game vendors really don't even try to address most of the known bugs and design flaws at present because they know they don't have to do so. Instead, they work on the next release which they essentially force you to purchase.

 

[AlpsStranger]

It is no different than any other product. Software game vendors really don't even try to address most of the known bugs and design flaws at present because they know they don't have to do so.

So the scenario I just described would be okay with you? "Flawed" mechanics being legally banned?

If so then you're an idiot. If not, I apologize.

EDIT: My God, I can't imagine a world where the wankers on RPGCodex or NFOHump actually had legal power *shudder.* We'd be regulated into eternal 1999.

EDIT2: Though the thought of a case about health pickups vs passive regeneration actually being argued before the supreme court is hilarious enough to be worth it, I think. Imagine if the Democrats supported free aim and the Republicans backed Iron Sights. Man, this could be too awesome not to live through.

Moderator Action:

If so then you're an idiot.

is a prime example of acting like a jerk, which you would do well to refrain from doing in the future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't buy that fantasy world you described. Instead, I look at how other products are currently treated due to laws which have finally forced vendors to not be completely incompetent and immoral.

Eventually, it will change. Microsoft and similar companies will no longer be able to fix bugs in future versions and force you to buy them to get them finally resolved, only to introduce even more bugs that essentially forces you to buy the next version.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't buy that fantasy world you concocted. Instead, I look at how other products are currently treated due to laws which have finally forced vendors to not be completely incompetent and immoral.

Define a "flawed mechanic" legally then, if my world is a fantasy.

You implied that "design flaws" would be regulated. Would that not involve litigation because someone found the passive health regen in Doom 4 "lame?"

What you're talking about would be akin to suing a movie studio because the acting was wooden or because "it was nothing but a bunch of explosions."

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why should I "define" you own absurd straw man for you? At present, software vendors have close to no liability to provide a functional product that works as it is advertised to do. This will eventually change as customers and legislators become more savvy regarding software, as it has with any other product.

 

[BvBPL]

I buy a game and bash around with it right after release to enjoy the novelty factor, then I revisit it's expansions later for a more polished, mature experience.

That's significantly different behavior than how people buy, say, cars or spoons. Other than vague statements about the complexity of video games (which probably aren't actually more complicated than a car or a fridge) and, perhaps, an appeal to tradition, you don't seem to present a reason why this behavior is acceptable in the video game industry and not elsewhere.

I can imagine it now. Cling cover is banned because it's considered a "lemon" mechanic. Health pickups are mandated over regeneration. The "League of Hardcore Gamers" manages to ban ironsights. Talent trees are mandated over "Pandaria Style" talents because the latter is "lame." ( That's the legal term, anyhow. )

I'm not actually as concerned about game decisions as much as I am about bugginess and the like. Okay, there's cling cover, of a sort, in XCom, but you can also, occasionally, shoot enemies through walls that you probably shouldn't be able to do so. My complaint is not about the cover system (regardless of whether or not I like it) as much as it is about being able to shoot through walls. The cover system is at least the intention of the game designer, whereas being able to shoot through walls is demonstrably not intentional.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Your only recourse at present is to play games where the vendor has motivation to eventually fix the bugs on their own volition. That is one of the primary reasons why I play WoW. I used to be adamantly opposed to subscription-based games, but they are really the only genre where it is in the vendors' best interests to eventually fix the bugs. They are far more interested in having that recurring revenue stream than they are coming out with the next product which is largely a fix of the existing bugs with even more added as new "features".

 

[AlpsStranger]

That's significantly different behavior than how people buy, say, cars or spoons. Other than vague statements about the complexity of video games (which probably aren't actually more complicated than a car or a fridge) and, perhaps, an appeal to tradition, you don't seem to present a reason why this behavior is acceptable in the video game industry and not elsewhere.

I guess I just accept the game-as-service model instead of the game-as-product model. A game goes through many tweaks and iterations and the one arbitrarily labelled as 1.0 is just somewhere along that continuum to me.

It's not acceptable in those other industries because it's not warranted for those products.

I'm not actually as concerned about game decisions as much as I am about bugginess and the like. Okay, there's cling cover, of a sort, in XCom, but you can also, occasionally, shoot enemies through walls that you probably shouldn't be able to do so. My complaint is not about the cover system (regardless of whether or not I like it) as much as it is about being able to shoot through walls. The cover system is at least the intention of the game designer, whereas being able to shoot through walls is demonstrably not intentional.

The shooting through walls thing isn't really a "bug". Sometimes part of the scenery is there visually but is shorter or narrower on the "rules" layer than it is on the graphics layer. Does that make sense? It's hard to get used to, and it's particularly annoying in the UFO crashes/landings, so I do sympathize.

BTW, the original X-Com is quite buggy, though X-Com utils makes it a lot better. Still, worth mentioning before everyone piles on.

EDIT: I've been revisiting the Original X-Com a bit and had a question for any old fans who might be reading this. Is there any reason to research more than one thing at once in a given base? It gives you the option, but it seems dubious to the power gamer in me. Is there some kind of ideal number of scientists or diminishing returns effect to encourage doing multiple simultaneous projects?

 

[JohnRM]

This is exactly the reason I don't buy any game until it has been out for at least four or five months. Even accounting for that, I don't buy too many video games anymore cause they're mostly garbage, including Civilization.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I think rational consumers expect a certain degree of faultiness with many products and especially with something as technically complex as a video game. While this is by no means a defense of games that are virtually unplayable on release, I think that we have come to accept that a certain amount of glitchiness will exist in games and, perhaps more importantly, that the extra time and money that the developer would spend fixing these issues causes more harm than good. As evidence to my claim, I point to the fact that many games (including X-Com:EU) receive substantial numbers of pre-orders despite the current industry practice of releasing games and then patching it within a few days to correct as many issues as possible. In effect, any rational consumer should be able to reason that new game on release comes with a significant chance of technical issues and chooses to pre-purchase it anyway.

Your question about how video games compare to other products is a good one. Games are non-perishable and non-essential; a person should (barring any odd circumstances) be able to draw just as much utility out of a game regardless of the time that it is used. Also, given that patches and hotfixes are downloaded online, a consumer can get the game 'fixed' without any additional cost or effort on their part. I think that this last point is the thing that sets video games apart from most other products and is what makes gamers willing to shell out the money for pre-orders and continue to support a market that releases flawed games. Furthermore, I don't think that legal requirements on game quality are necessary. Any company that releases an unplayable game and refuses to fix it probably will not be able to sell much product in the future. It's just not a good business strategy. As a result, the incentive is on the company to ensure that they keep customers satisfied.

 

[cardgame]

In this case, I'm going to side with deregulators and say no to video game regulation. In the first place, it would be incredibly tricky to pin down bugs, glitches, etc. that legally need to be fixed. In the second place, it would hurt game production, especially by indie producers who may depend on alpha/beta funding to finish their games. A third point is that legislators are so @%@^!ng clueless about the internet, video games, tech in general. They would screw everything up in ways unfathomable.

 

[BvBPL]

The shooting through walls thing isn't really a "bug". Sometimes part of the scenery is there visually but is shorter or narrower on the "rules" layer than it is on the graphics layer. Does that make sense? It's hard to get used to, and it's particularly annoying in the UFO crashes/landings, so I do sympathize.

If it looks like my solider is shooting through walls then it is a bug. It doesn't matter to me whether it is on which layer, what matter is my experience. The only output I receive from the game is what I can visually see and if I can see my squaddies shot through walls they don't appear to be able to then it is a problem. I can accept that the action cam in XCom occasionally needs to show the character shooting in a weird way (like off to the left when shooting at an adjacent enemy), but the through walls thing happens a fair bit even absent the action cam.

Also, given that patches and hotfixes are downloaded online, a consumer can get the game 'fixed' without any additional cost or effort on their part.

Of course, there are examples of games that are only "fixed" by the application of an expansion pack with incumbent additional costs. Then there are games that include content on the disk that you have to pay additional money for to unlock (DLC).

DLC, fully, is a topic that would be better addressed on its own, but it irks me to no end that every time I boot up Arkham City I get an ad to buy the Catwoman missions even though they are included on the disk I bought. To my mind, that's pretty much the same as selling an unfinished product, as in the buggy games thing, and is just another way that the producer is taking advantage of the consumer.

As you mention, pre-orders are BIG business in gaming. I'm uncertain if this is necessarily a good thing for the consumer as it provides an incentive for companies to meet their ship dates regardless of the quality of the product. Then again, I play games differently from most players and I rarely buy new games that have just been released.

Tied into the pre-order issue is the huge emphasis on previews in the gaming press over actual reviews or other material related to games out presently. Game Informer is generally hugely biased towards previews of upcoming games rather than informative reviews or discussions of current ones. (Of course Game Informer, as the in-house magazine of Gamespot, has a vested interest in promoting pre-orders).