Jump to content
LCVG

Issues with online gaming


 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, so here we go: A lot of new games come out, and moments after they come out, people get frustrated and angry because the game they just bought didnt work for some reason. Either the online portion of the game is laggy or the game is taking forever to install or some technical bug is happening.

 

The first thing on people's minds at that point is: I paid good money for this, it should be working and it's not, therefore I'm pissed.

 

The thing is, most people don't factor into account the way people (as a group) do things. Look at LBP as a current example. A lot of people are having issues with the online, and complaining about it "isn't this what they have a beta test for" etc. Look at WoW, a holiday patch hits, and suddenly the game becomes unstable etc etc. Look at issues with PSN - some people complain it just doesn't work: this is what you get with free net service, etc etc.

 

Ok, now you say "well they should have tested it, so it would work - I mean I'm paying money for this!". The thing is, they did. The problem is, you have to deal with it in a "live" environment. And the thing about "live" environments, people act/react in groups.

 

In a beta you may have a few thousand testers checking to see if things work. But there is a huge difference between live and beta. When something goes live, the number of people trying to do something jumps from thousands, to literally millions. A major limiting factor of computing currently is that millions of people all trying to do the same thing effectively acts like Monty Burn's disease (everyone tries to fit through the same tiny door, and nothing works right because of it). My experience with games, especially online has proven this to be a cause of problems, over and over and over again.

 

Why are WoW's servers unstable the first few days after the Horseman event starts? Because everyone and their grandma, and their grandma's grandma are ALL trying to do the same thing, At the same time.

 

The thing that puzzles me is why people don't understand this concept and instead let themselves get bent out of shape when things are unstable at first. This is what will Always happen when something is brand new, people will flock to it, overload it, and cause instability. Eventually given time things Should stabilize but... The simple truth is that it's impossible to predict the number of people All trying to do the same thing at once, and whenever people behave in this fashion, whether it's gaming or otherwise, it's fundamentally impossible to deal with the capacity - certainly at least at first. (see lineups for the original Star Wars trilogy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It is quite possible to simulate the load a system will experience once it goes live, especially if you have years of historical data to go on (e.g. Blizzard & EA sports).

But when you can get away with releasing the software untested, seeing what goes wrong, and, maybe, fixing it later.... that's what you're going to do, because it's the cheaper option.

 

They are probably well aware that the system will be unstable at first, but they consider angering a few people now an acceptable trade-off to spending the resources to avoid the problem in advance. As you mentioned, things will stabilize in a little while, and everyone will forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When something goes live, the number of people trying to do something jumps from thousands, to literally millions.
Really? I could see "millions" playing something like Halo 3, Gears of War 2, Madden, and possibly GTA IV when it is first released - but those titles are huge and I would think the producer and developer planned for it. Are there really that many titles that vastly outsell their expectations? Obviously the game discs have been made, otherwise all those people could not even play the game - there must have been some expectation that the game would sell. SOCOM is vastly improved now, but it was a complete disaster initially - and I would guessestimate only a couple of hundred thousand people were playing at best - and it is online only. MGO was a disaster and that game (MGS 4) was always expected to sell millions. MS must have had some idea how many units they would sell before last Christmas and the entire Live system was a disaster for 2 to 3 weeks.

 

I would think this would apply to LBP - the publisher and developer must have had some idea of the numbers being sold initially. I can still find the LBP game for sale everywhere around me, but cannot find any copies of Fallout 3 (for the 360) or Fable 2. That would tell me that the LBP publisher had a good idea how many copies were needed for its initial run. Maybe they should have shared this information with their server/online people.

 

I just think that for an industry that has sales revenue in the billions, too many mistakes are being made. Gaming is mainstream and huge - I do not think it is unreasonable for a $60 plus game to work as advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I buy something I expect it to work as advertised. It doesn't matter if I understand the technical hurdles involved in getting a feature to work.

 

Publishers have enough experience under their belt with online gaming that they should have a good idea what is needed to avoid issues. They just know they have us by the balls. What are we going to do? They already have our $60 so we're locked in.

 

It's really similar to the question regarding the release of unfinished games for the PC. The game is rushed to stores to start bringing in revenue despite the fact it may have serious issues on some systems. Patch after patch are released to finally bring the game up to expectation most consumers had at launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all well and good, but I'm trying to think of a popular technology product that "just worked" and there are very, very few examples.

 

With a heavily anticipated release of just about anything, you're going to have a vocal minority (majority?) complaining about something. iPhone buyers complaining about touchscreen issues, Live users complaining about downtime, LBP users complaining about lag, SOCOM users complaining about a broken experience, MacBook people complaining about glossy screens, Windows users complaining about Vista, ... you see where I'm going here?

 

Nothing ever works out of the door or just as we all hope it would. So what can we do? We can and should complain. That's how things get fixed.

 

The only surprising thing here is that this happens EVERY TIME something new comes out that isn't exactly what we expected from the vacuum-environment lab tests and closed betas.

 

Why do we continue to act surprised? That's the part I don't get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only surprising thing here is that this happens EVERY TIME something new comes out

Except it doesn't. Look at Warhammer as a perfect example. The game launched with almost 300,000 users and the launch went without a hitch. The beta period leading up to the games launch was actually used to *improve* the experience and test server load. Sure there were small issues like some servers having wait queues but by and large the launch was a success. Mind you, I don't disagree that Warhammer is in the minority but not every game gets it wrong.

 

It's all well and good to say we should expect the worse but somehow when people vocalize thier issues it's turned into "Why are you suprised?". Personally, I'm not at all suprised to see Little Big Planet's popularity affect server performance but I sure as hell am annoyed by the fact that I have to wait upwards of five minutes to load a level at certain hours of the day. Why does being annoyed/frustrated and vocalizing those concerns suddenly equate to suprise? It's as if certain people want others to go into a game thread and say "Ah well, I knew this was going to perform like shit out of the gate so no biggie!". That's nonsense.

 

Camp pretty much hit the nail on the head - we should EXPECT these products to work properly after shelling out $60 bucks. Not the opposite. If they don't, the issues should be vocalized in a productive fashion to the studios/publishers who released the product to make sure we get fixes ASAP. I can also understand voicing frustrations here on the forum and around the web. It's completely natural and acceptable. What I can't abide is the same person ranting over and over again about said issues (and I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just saying that as a generalized pet peeve of mine). Say your peace and move on is my standpoint there.

 

I also won't bother getting into the inconsistencies and hypocrisy people play out with these online issues also. People who will gladly tear into one company for certain online issues while being wonderfully understanding towards another for an identical problem which is absolute horseshit in my eyes. It happens more often than I care for around the web (and here at times).

Edited by Romier S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think technical issues are pretty much inevitable regardless of the product, it all falls under the laws of Chaos Theory and complex systems. The simple fact is a computer or a console are highly complex systems, just as software is highly complex. The probability of something catastrophic or serious going wrong out the gate, Despite the best planning is quite frankly, ridiculously high. Just because some products can survive the abuse doesn't necessarily mean that it's Easy - which I think a lot of people seem to take for granted. That doesn't mean we should be content with inferior products out the gate either, but it does demonstrate that there's a fundamental issue with the way releases are handled.

 

(as to the millions issue, I'm referring to recent issues with WoW and the Headless horseman event when it first launched when pretty much every instance server Except for the server for the Horseman had to be shut down because of the sheer raw demand - effectively amounting to a DOS attack coming from the game's players.)

 

Not saying we shouldn't expect quality off the shelf at all either, but the reality is, no matter how much testing you do, it's very difficult to not have Something slip by.

 

Now I get just as aggrivated by delays, lag, etc, but what I see happening here is a fairly common issue: Everyone has certain expectations out the gate, and those expectations are extremely difficult to live up to, regardless of product or testing At least during the period of heightened instability surrounding a launch.

 

What puzzles me is why so few are successful at contingency planning to deal with the spikes around launch?

 

What it really boils down to is having a massive Sudden influx All at once, stressing the systems. Think about what would happen if every single person in one city all decided to flush their toilets at the same time? Testing often doesn't seem to account for that kind of behavior, or anticipate the destructive consequences but that's exactly what we see happening in almost every major title launch on consoles, it's also what we saw happen with extremely popular films and theaters being unable to handle the load with millions deciding they ALL had to see the same film.

 

While experience is valuable in anticipating issues, what I think a lot of people fail to understand is there are technical limitations to hardware which ultimately impede the ability of developers to deal with loads. This is partly why they upgraded T1 to T2, to T3 (think that's the most recent generation) The fact is though, the technology still can't quite keep up with the level of simultaneous demand, so during some periods, accessing material becomes difficult

 

I'm just trying to get a feel for the big picture here, since it seems like this is a fundamental issue that will only get worse as the gaming base gets larger

 

In response to Romier's statement above: As I understand human behavior, it's unfortunately perfectly consistent for people to behave inconsistently when it comes to issues which *can* frustrate them, since anticipation can factor into their ability to deal with frustration. Thus it's consistent that the same person can rationally accept one frustration while flipping out over another one which they hadn't anticipated/expected >.<

 

I just think better management needs to be done around launch periods to help ease strain on servers, and on players, because negative experiences tend to push people away from even good games. In all honesty, it's why I'm somewhat suprised why queuing systems or staggered releases aren't standard for online titles.

 

The whole thing came to mind because of recent issues with some online games, and well, a conversation I had with a doctor about how time is being managed in the local medical profession. (Everyone pretty much wants their time off at the same time, and that causes problems.) Just seeing some interesting parallels. (so many want to play the same game at the same time, etc)

Edited by OzzelsCousinFred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand human behavior, it's unfortunately perfectly consistent for people to behave inconsistently when it comes to issues which *can* frustrate them, since anticipation can factor into their ability to deal with frustration. Thus it's consistent that the same person can rationally accept one frustration while flipping out over another one which they hadn't anticipated/expected

That's a wonderful psychological explanation for what just plain amounts to bias. Which is also a perfectly natural human trait. We're all biased to some extent afterall. However, much like stupidity it doesn't make it any less annoying or tolerable when it's on blatant display.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a wonderful psychological explanation for what just plain amounts to bias. Which is also a perfectly natural human trait. We're all biased to some extent afterall. However, much like stupidity it doesn't make it any less annoying or tolerable when it's on blatant display.;)

 

Amen! When one console drops the ball with say, online play, and someone comments on it. The comments are met with sarcasm and the issue is dismissed. On the other hand another console messes up once in a blue moon it's slammed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it doesn't. Look at Warhammer as a perfect example. The game launched with almost 300,000 users and the launch went without a hitch. The beta period leading up to the games launch was actually used to *improve* the experience and test server load. Sure there were small issues like some servers having wait queues but by and large the launch was a success. Mind you, I don't disagree that Warhammer is in the minority but not every game gets it wrong.

 

Wait, what? That's actually a good example for what we're talking about in an entirely different way.

 

I'll quote you:

 

The reality is that Mythic has too many servers for the game right now and I wouldn't doubt if there's a consolidation of servers that happens over the next couple of months which is why I'm generally not as concerned about the population of the servers as is.

 

In other words, the game doesn't have as many subscribers as they had hoped, so of course the online experience is going well. They have the headroom. In other examples, like Halo 3 and the 2 day death of Live, Little Big Planet's massive influx of users and user-created levels, we're looking at games that are doing better than anyone could have expected or scaled to.

 

But in reference to WAR, saying it went off "without a hitch" is some serious historical revisionism, methinks. People are having graphics and framerate issues, long server queues at launch, and other glitches. While it was a fine launch by all accounts, there certainly were hitches.

 

Anyway, and not to be too argumentative, I'm just saying that it's a bit comical that we haven't learned from previous launches and still expect things to launch without problems.

 

First adopters have historically been part of the testing process. Sure, beta tests, QA, and all that should (and do) catch as much as possible, but it's just not realistic to think that the lab is the same as reality.

 

Not saying we shouldn't expect quality off the shelf at all either, but the reality is, no matter how much testing you do, it's very difficult to not have Something slip by.

 

Now I get just as aggrivated by delays, lag, etc, but what I see happening here is a fairly common issue: Everyone has certain expectations out the gate, and those expectations are extremely difficult to live up to, regardless of product or testing At least during the period of heightened instability surrounding a launch.

 

Yes. That's the reality. Complaining is fine, and you should do so, but let's not act completely surprised every time this happens. It will happen again.

 

That's a wonderful psychological explanation for what just plain amounts to bias. Which is also a perfectly natural human trait. We're all biased to some extent afterall. However, much like stupidity it doesn't make it any less annoying or tolerable when it's on blatant display.

 

Not sure what you mean. Are you accusing people of being biased and / or stupid when they complain? Or when they don't complain and say "deal with it"? In either case, that's not fair and it's argumentative. Technology breaks, ans as early adopters we're here to break shit. If we can't deal with that, we shouldn't be standing in line for first shot at things that we all know are going to be patched, updated, broken, and patched again.

 

Go pick up WoW or Halo 3 now and you'll have no problem getting online and life will be just peachy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think technical issues are pretty much inevitable regardless of the product, it all falls under the laws of Chaos Theory and complex systems. The simple fact is a computer or a console are highly complex systems, just as software is highly complex. The probability of something catastrophic or serious going wrong out the gate, Despite the best planning is quite frankly, ridiculously high. Just because some products can survive the abuse doesn't necessarily mean that it's Easy - which I think a lot of people seem to take for granted. That doesn't mean we should be content with inferior products out the gate either, but it does demonstrate that there's a fundamental issue with the way releases are handled.

 

Complexity has very little to do with why these issues occur. Of course, publishers would love for us to drink that kool-aid.

 

Economics has everything to do with releasing games with online issues. Developers are responsible for delivering games by the release date so it makes sense to put the majority of their resources to work toward that purpose. The online segment of the market is generally significantly smaller than the offline segment so manpower is logically allocated on a solid offline experience and minimizing online issues to an acceptable level. They essentially practice triage: save the core game now, work on the elements used by a smaller percentage of your customers later. After release, a team can be dedicated toward refining the online experience.

 

In the case of LBP those of us 'early adopters' who purchased during the launch week are essentially free beta testers. We stress their networks and Media Molecule can ensure they have a solid system in place before the real masses come online at Christmas. Not only are these companies intentionally releasing games they know won't stand up to the online stress but they are taking advantage of their core hardcore customers because we have grown calloused toward such issues. We are used to seeing games suffer for the first couple weeks and pretty much expect it but we are hardcore gamers so we just deal with it...and eat up their next release with the same blind anticipation. We are sheep.

 

What developers/publishers do makes perfect sense too. Especially this time of year. LBP is going to make a ton more money from people who purchased post-release (i.e. Christmas gifts) than it makes from the hardcore gamer. We are not Sony's real customer. They stand to gain everything by wooing the new, casual and "mid-core" gamer at Christmas. Use the hardcore elite gamers to deliver a more solid product for the real money making crowd. Totally logical.

 

I'm just getting kind of sick of being their lab rat.

Edited by iCamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in reference to WAR, saying it went off "without a hitch" is some serious historical revisionism, methinks. People are having graphics and framerate issues, long server queues at launch, and other glitches. While it was a fine launch by all accounts, there certainly were hitches.

I'll give you that saying "without a hitch" wasn't the best description to use there but you missed the underlying point. I noted some of the issues you mentioned which you seemed to have happily ignored. Smaller issues that are a very real aspect of the MMO genre (which these games are almost always "in beta" as it is) like server queues, technical issues (on a PC game you're never going to get it 100%, duh) but the underlying point is that they had the server capacity to handle the load of players they received. Did they overestimate? Yes, but it worked out for the player base in that the general launch of the game was smooth for a large majority of the player base and was a success relative to other games in the genre.

 

Will it end up costing them dollars when all is said and done for the added infrastructure? Of course which brings me to...

 

In other examples, like Halo 3 and the 2 day death of Live, Little Big Planet's massive influx of users and user-created levels, we're looking at games that are doing better than anyone could have expected or scaled to.

Bullshit. Listen, I'm understanding of the issues associated with these releases but in many cases (not all mind so let me separate LBP here for a second) we're talking about an economic issue and it's one area in which I agree with Camp's statement. Its pure apologetic nonsense to say that they couldn't expect or scale to the userbase needs for a Halo 3. Come on. They simply didn't want to spend the money to scale to it and end up with more infrastructure that would have wasted dollars. It's completely understandable WHY they did what they did. They released and then took time to measure and scale accordingly but it's laughable to say that Microsoft didn't expect, couldn't predict and had no way to scale to the massive influx of users for Halo 3's release.

 

That's revisionist history to anyone that even tried to download the beta released with Crackdown on the first night of availability. The servers were destroyed and you're telling me they couldn't have expected a massive influx post-beta release? Yeah, right.

 

Are you accusing people of being biased and / or stupid when they complain?

Neither. Read the statement I made that Ozzel is responding too at the bottom of post #7. I'm speaking specifically of people that excuse these online issues in the case of it being a Sony release while shitting on MS for having similiar problems and vice versa. Biased, selective ranting. It's annoying, its tedious and yes it's stupid.

 

I've absolutely no idea where in the hell you pulled that I was calling anyone biased or stupid for complaining in general.:eh

 

Go pick up WoW.

Apparently judging by the event Ozzel mentions - that's not the case. Some of the discussion in this thread though makes it seem like that kind of performance is ok though. With 11 million subscribers Blizzard has no way to scale or expect that level of server capacity and we shouldn't really expect any better for our dollars.

Edited by Romier S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshit. Listen, I'm understanding of the issues associated with these releases but in many cases (not all mind) we're talking about an economic issue and it's one area in which I agree with Camp's statement. Its pure apologetic nonsense to say that they couldn't expect or scale to the userbase needs for a Halo 3. Come on. They simply didn't want to spend the money to scale to it and end up with a larger capacity of servers and infrastructure that would have wasted dollars. It's completely understandable WHY they did what they did but it's laughable to say that Microsoft didn't expect a massive influx of users for Halo 3's release. That's revisionist history to anyone that even tried to download the beta released with Crackdown on the first night of availability. The servers were destroyed and you're telling me they couldn't have expected a massive influx post-beta release? Yeah, right.

 

No one said they didn't expect it. Wow. No one's making excuses, either.

 

Just the opposite. I'm saying we SHOULD expect it and NOT make up excuses. If it bugs us so much, get out of line and wait for the freaks to break the shit first.

 

Turning one's understanding of WHY these things into apologetic behavior and then into bias is just ... well, it's weird. Let's not talk about bias here. It's not conducive to what we're trying to answer: Why online honeymoons generally suck.

 

Smaller issues that are a very real aspect of the MMO genre (which these games are almost always "in beta" as it is) like server queues, technical issues (on a PC game you're never going to get it 100%, duh)

 

Isn't that similarly apologetic?

 

Please, I beg you, please -- anyone -- name an online game that was hugely popular that launched without a hitch. On any platform. Of any race, religion, or console manufacturer. It doesn't happen.

 

I'm not apologizing for LBP's server problems. Hell no. It sucks. I'd rather play the game. I hated the server resets and rollbacks in WoW a couple years ago just as much. I hated the SOCOM bullshit we all put up with back in the day. I hated Live being down in the middle of the holidays.

 

And as far as this stuff just being economic decisions, of COURSE they are. Do you think these people are in the charity business? That said, wouldn't it be BETTER business to build scalable servers to keep the word of mouth safe and to keep people from bailing on the experience? To that, I completely disagree that we, as early adopters, don't matter. In fact, I think it's just the opposite: we're the people friends come to for advice. We're the people writing reviews of products and getting the news out that the products are broken. Simply saying that the suits are being cheap is just as defeatist as explaining it away is apologetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then into bias is just ..

....something you're fabricating in you're own mind.:) To that point.

 

Turning one's understanding of WHY these things into apologetic behavior and then into bias is just ... well, it's weird. Let's not talk about bias here.

I've absolutely no idea where you're getting that I'm adding bias into ANY of the primary conversation here. It was an aside I mentioned in a post as being an annoying byproduct of all this, Ozzell commented and I expanded. Little else. My commentary on Halo 3 had absolutely NOTHING to do with that so please - let's not misconstrue my commentary and put words into my mouth that aren't there.

 

Isn't that similarly apologetic?

Sure but each of us has different levels at which we are going to let a game slide no? I'm not saying it's fair but it is what it is (there's a little bias for you:)). Not to mention that we have to talk about expectations driven by the genre of game we're dealing with which Ozzel touched on. I'm perfectly understanding about the fact that PC game developers can't reasonably be expected to account for a myriad of different system and driver configurations. They can, however, do the best they can do to insure maximum compatibility. I believe WAR did a pretty good job of it.

 

You still continue to miss the point in so far as WAR is concerned though. In comparison with its peers - it was one of the more successful and stable client launches in the genre and that's why I've mentioned it. In comparison with something like Conan - well there is no comparison. Conan is the very type of game that we're discussing here. A company rushing a product to store shelves and taking a "we'll fix all the crap that's wrong later" approach. It's the reason I cancelled my account and why Funcom won't be getting my money on any of thier MMO launches in the future.

 

Please, I beg you, please -- anyone -- name an online game that was hugely popular that launched without a hitch. On any platform. Of any race, religion, or console manufacturer. It doesn't happen.

That's an unrealistic question. I don't think anyone here is expecting an online game to launch with absolute perfection. I agree that's just never going to happen. Whether it be a weapon bug in Rainbow Six or perhaps some glitches that allow cheaters to win in Halo 3. Those problems are well worn and people have thier say about them in many of the threads on the forum. However, it's not out of the question for to people to expect the CORE of the experience to function!

 

The Socom beta was a mess but then it was a beta and that's what they are there for. Testing and improvement. From what I'm reading though the final game launch was also a mess that prevented people from even being able to play the game consistently. It's an online only game for god sakes. When the CORE of the experience is compromised - the developer/publisher etc. failed. Period. That's not someting that should have happened. The consumer should not have been forced to play beta tester for the first week of the game before they were able to get a reasonable experience for thier $40-50 dollars. I say that as someone that does understand the technical side of things but am also a consumer that spends money on these games. I think we can agree on that.

 

Do you think these people are in the charity business?

Of course not and you know I and most everyone on this forum is well aware of that but then I'm not the one stating that large game releases like Halo 3 have no way to expect and or/scale to the influx of users on release. Bugs in an online game and server load issues are two very different things. Hell the network coding that goes into a game could just simply be piss poor and the developer in question simply doesn't have the time to fix it. I understand it, but I sure don't like it.

 

The point in so far as server load is concerned though is that if you understand that it's an economic issue and there's reasons WHY some publishers/developers become fiscally conservative - the argument that they CAN'T scale better for a popular releases goes right out of the window. I don't think there is some conspiracy where all developers knowingly release these games with issues. I just don't find that to be a realistic agenda. I do believe that in a lot of cases they do the best that they can with the data they have to try and ensure a smooth experience and it doesn't always work out that way. In other cases and maybe even hand in hand with trying to do the best they can do, they choose to scale up according to the userbase they have post-release. They may play it on the conservative side with thier infrastructure and network server base. That way they don't overcompensate as Mythic has done with Warhammer and end up dealing with infrastructure that wasn't necessary to begin with. Mind you this makes absolute sense from a development/fiscal standpoint but I think it's a mistake and it's a bad call to force the consumer into a beta tester role as so many games have over the years.

 

From a consumer standpoint, boy does it suck and it's pathetic that we should come into a game experience expecting the worse. When all is said and done most of these issues subside though. In a month we won't be discussing Little Big Planet's server issues (hopefully) and all will be forgotten but then that's the problem as you mention Josh. We're all rabid gamers and the need to play the game overrides our sense of consumer advocacy and the fact that our dollars help feed the machine a lot of the time. It doesn't mean I'll stop expecting more...:)

Edited by Romier S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think the core issue is expectations aren't being met, something has to be done because as many have said they expect product to work right the first time, and they also dont like feeling like lab rats all the time. Clearly there's a problem there, and it seems there has to be logical way of dealing with the problems.

 

The way I see it, gaming is going to continue to scale upwards as time goes on, this means problems that large companies are facing in terms of infrastructure, and consumer satisfaction are going to be a bigger issue for the industry as a whole. Frankly I dont want to be the lab rat any more either, I dont like getting burned on products, and I expect stuff to be solid out of the box, but I'm trying to juggle that idea, with the contrasting concept that as things grow, more problems will crop up, and I'm not seeing how this is going to be addressed manifesting itself, at least in terms of the company strategies.

 

While I understand the economic discinincentives to deal with these issues Do exist, and do represent a major PITA for all of us, I do think that there is a barrier between what the issues are Now, and what they may wind up being as gaming grows in popularity - and that economics (while still a factor) are going to become overshadowed by technical issues.

 

That worries me because we can see from the discussions here people have high expectations for products at launch, and get worked up when they aren't satisfied. Obviously placating the customer and making them accept a broken situation as normal is Unacceptable, but something has to be done to address these issues so that consumers don't turn in anger. Its clear from the tone of the responses here more than a few people are frustrated with these type of problems

 

The funny thing is, I'm looking at the situation in the games industry, and like I mentioned it before am seeing disturbing parallels in other industries (like the canadian medical system where we seem to be having shortages of practitioners, backlogs on treatment etc) I'm just thinking if an acceptable solution to the issues here is found then the other applications could be more far ranging, if the solutions are cross industry compatible.

 

It just seems like there should be some kind of method of prediction that could exist, a formula or something. I dunno I watched the Andy Kaufman story the other day and I've been all philosophical ever since. Dont mind me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a gap between expectations and acceptance.

 

I accept that due to the way the economics of the business works, and the fact that it is a vocal minority (key word minority) complaining, games will continue to be released as is. The reality is, sales figure and number of folks playing the game online speaks more to the companies than the ones complaining on GAF. Such is life.

 

On the flip side, I will continue to hope and expect that companies will learn from past mistakes, will try to make a better product for launch, etc. I do that because the second my expectations drop I feel that opens the door for them to push the bar even lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, I beg you, please -- anyone -- name an online game that was hugely popular that launched without a hitch. On any platform. Of any race, religion, or console manufacturer. It doesn't happen.

 

Mario Kart Wii. I've searched through the thread on this forum and others, and cannot find anything negative written about the online experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...