Peak has been an incredibly fun game and WELL worth the price even if they never released any updates at all ever again.
But not only is the game fun and cheap to buy, but has a lot of replay potential and the devs release new updates and biomes and items and mechanics and even silly stuff like this April fools and the bbno$ concert thing. It’s been a blast playing off and on as the game evolves.
I can’t imagine how anyone could still complain after all that.
I would say it depends on the update. Bug fixes and things that should have reasonably been included in the original game? That’s a right. New content, new items, new bosses, new features that redefine gameplay, etc? That’s a bonus.
Like, let’s say there’s a feature that was shown in advertisements but wasn’t quite ready for the launch date. That’s an obligation; the company simply being expected to deliver what it promised. Some people likely bought the game contingent on knowing those features are on the way. I myself bought Kerbal Space Program 2. I loved the original and really wanted to help them continue their work. Hell, I met most of their dev team at a game con. But when I bought the game, I bought it not because of its features at launch, but because of all the features they were promising to implement. I feel really cheated after they shut it down before the game was finished. Sure, they delivered a nominally functional game, but it didn’t even match the scope of KSP1, let alone all the advertised features. And the thing is still a buggy mess. I do consider it an obligation to deliver on features you’ve promised. It’s also an obligation to deliver a game that is reasonably functional and free of bugs.
Compare KSP 2 to two other games I’ve played, No Man’s Sky and Satisfactory. Those games not only delivered on their original promises, but have kept making new content for years after they delivered what they promised. Any new features on these games are something I consider a bonus, something I’m joyful to receive, not something I feel obligated to receive.
I agree, assuming the game was released reasonably “complete” and with a minimum of bugs the first time. Or in other words, if the devs were held to the same standard as they were back in the '90s, when games got mastered to physical media once and routine, easy bug fix updates weren’t a thing.
Another thing for me is that i’m so used to playing early access games that start small and buggy and grow into behemoths of amazing content that i kinda want that experience with every game.
There is a joy to being along for the ride, plus it makes you replay titles over the long haul. Terraria always comes to mind and my nerds are running through Valheim for this exact reason (the mist lands are rough).
Digital distribution seems to have had some really negative affects both on game development, and consumerist mindset. Don’t get me wrong, it’s also probably been a huge boon for indie studios, but my point remains.
I remember when Oblivion came out and everyone found all the glitches and exploits, like the vampirism quest not finishing properly with Count Skingrad so you could just ask him to pay you over and over.
I also remember thinking it was a big deal anytime a developer sent out a patch for their game(s) around that same time. Like, damn you already made the game and now you’re doing more stuff to it?
Anyway I guess my point is people are impatient as fuck nowadays thanks to the internet.
Games are also just released in a poorer state now than they were in the past. Consider the extreme - old school console games. Anything from the pre-Dreamcast era couldn’t ever receive updates. The Dreamcast was the first console to have internet access built in. Hell, millions of people played computer games without having an internet connection. In that era, you could never update your game, except for going to new release versions. You could fix bugs in your new cartridges, but once an NES game was sold and out in the world, that was it.
But over time, it’s now become safe for publishers to assume their customers have internet access. Net access has become so ubiquitous that it can safely be assumed that anyone with enough money for a gaming console also has money for at least a cheap internet connection. What few exceptions to this exist are so small in number publishers can just ignore them.
Internet updates started as something rare. But they became the norm. And then the expectation. And finally the default assumption. Companies have since found that they can outsource a lot of their bug testing to their customers. Why spend money hiring hundreds of play testers to explore every nook, cranny, and odd game path, trying to root out every bug? Why not instead do just enough to make sure the game is decently playable? You pay for a small amount of bug testing. Then you sell your game to thousands or millions of people, and your customers do your bug testing for you!
Even better, you can value-engineer bugs now! In the past, you had to be incredibly thorough. Your testers couldn’t know how often a given bug or exploit would be encountered by the average player. They were trying to find everything. But with modern analytics, you can take a bastard bean-counter’s approach to bug fixing. Everything players do is tracked. So when people report bugs, analyze what portion of play throughs will ever encounter that bug. If it’s rare enough to not likely deter sales, then don’t bother spending money to fix it. This is how known bugs go unfixed for years. The question is not, “is there a bug?” The question is, “is there a sales-relevant bug?”
In short, people now expect updates a lot more because games simply aren’t built like they used to be. Sure, buggy games always existed. Fly-by-night operators would make buggy shovelware and sell it to unsuspecting grandmas. But games from reputable publishers were thoroughly tested and debugged, as an internet-connected customer could not be assumed. Now, games at launch have become bug-filled messes. And they’re often shipped without their advertised and intended features fully implemented yet. And we’ve just become accustomed to this. We’ve learned to tolerate developer laziness. But in turn, we also expect updates to polish these turds on the backend.
You’re both (fundamentally) wrong. Mods don’t take time or need any extra effort. As long as developers don’t install measures attempting to prevent modification, mods.
Official support is a nice way of letting people easily keep the game alive. Not preventing it in any way is a baseline and should be demanded from all games tbh.
To advocate for the people annoyed at Fallout 4, it’s hardly trivial to roll back an update, and Steam at the very least tends to update automatically so it can just happen without you noticing.
Developers can do this if they choose to right now.
Most devs would turn off the feature if Steam was just indexing every release and letting people switch to old ones. This is because it will lead to users complaining about old versions for any number of dumb reasons.
At least there is a system build into Steam that allows that. Some games offer such an option even. They just need to expand that option and make it more standard. Also in the past, Steam game updates were not forced and you could stay on an older version. That should be allowed too, at least for non online games.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
Peak has been an incredibly fun game and WELL worth the price even if they never released any updates at all ever again.
But not only is the game fun and cheap to buy, but has a lot of replay potential and the devs release new updates and biomes and items and mechanics and even silly stuff like this April fools and the bbno$ concert thing. It’s been a blast playing off and on as the game evolves.
I can’t imagine how anyone could still complain after all that.
Not exactly the words I would have chosen to say that, but I understand the sentiment.
Good for them. People expect the world from devs these days. It’s especially galling with a game like Peak that is less than 10 bucks.
I would say it depends on the update. Bug fixes and things that should have reasonably been included in the original game? That’s a right. New content, new items, new bosses, new features that redefine gameplay, etc? That’s a bonus.
Like, let’s say there’s a feature that was shown in advertisements but wasn’t quite ready for the launch date. That’s an obligation; the company simply being expected to deliver what it promised. Some people likely bought the game contingent on knowing those features are on the way. I myself bought Kerbal Space Program 2. I loved the original and really wanted to help them continue their work. Hell, I met most of their dev team at a game con. But when I bought the game, I bought it not because of its features at launch, but because of all the features they were promising to implement. I feel really cheated after they shut it down before the game was finished. Sure, they delivered a nominally functional game, but it didn’t even match the scope of KSP1, let alone all the advertised features. And the thing is still a buggy mess. I do consider it an obligation to deliver on features you’ve promised. It’s also an obligation to deliver a game that is reasonably functional and free of bugs.
Compare KSP 2 to two other games I’ve played, No Man’s Sky and Satisfactory. Those games not only delivered on their original promises, but have kept making new content for years after they delivered what they promised. Any new features on these games are something I consider a bonus, something I’m joyful to receive, not something I feel obligated to receive.
I agree, assuming the game was released reasonably “complete” and with a minimum of bugs the first time. Or in other words, if the devs were held to the same standard as they were back in the '90s, when games got mastered to physical media once and routine, easy bug fix updates weren’t a thing.
Live service has broken people’s brains.
phone apps too, buy once update forever doesn’t make sense, just like subscriptions don’t make sense at the other end of the spectrum
Another thing for me is that i’m so used to playing early access games that start small and buggy and grow into behemoths of amazing content that i kinda want that experience with every game.
There is a joy to being along for the ride, plus it makes you replay titles over the long haul. Terraria always comes to mind and my nerds are running through Valheim for this exact reason (the mist lands are rough).
Digital distribution seems to have had some really negative affects both on game development, and consumerist mindset. Don’t get me wrong, it’s also probably been a huge boon for indie studios, but my point remains.
Patches are also a tool to keep a game in the news cycle in more recent times.
So much comes out every single week. It’s quite a lot of noise.
I think it also doesn’t help that these games released unfinished and unpolished.
I don’t remember any significant issues on PEAK’s release?
It had issues with some AMD cards where it’d crash on loading the second zone.
It was very very buggy.
It seems a lot of people dont remember a lot of buggy games these days.
The most profitable game ever was a buggy unplayable mess upon launch. GTAO.
I remember when Oblivion came out and everyone found all the glitches and exploits, like the vampirism quest not finishing properly with Count Skingrad so you could just ask him to pay you over and over.
I also remember thinking it was a big deal anytime a developer sent out a patch for their game(s) around that same time. Like, damn you already made the game and now you’re doing more stuff to it?
Anyway I guess my point is people are impatient as fuck nowadays thanks to the internet.
Games are also just released in a poorer state now than they were in the past. Consider the extreme - old school console games. Anything from the pre-Dreamcast era couldn’t ever receive updates. The Dreamcast was the first console to have internet access built in. Hell, millions of people played computer games without having an internet connection. In that era, you could never update your game, except for going to new release versions. You could fix bugs in your new cartridges, but once an NES game was sold and out in the world, that was it.
But over time, it’s now become safe for publishers to assume their customers have internet access. Net access has become so ubiquitous that it can safely be assumed that anyone with enough money for a gaming console also has money for at least a cheap internet connection. What few exceptions to this exist are so small in number publishers can just ignore them.
Internet updates started as something rare. But they became the norm. And then the expectation. And finally the default assumption. Companies have since found that they can outsource a lot of their bug testing to their customers. Why spend money hiring hundreds of play testers to explore every nook, cranny, and odd game path, trying to root out every bug? Why not instead do just enough to make sure the game is decently playable? You pay for a small amount of bug testing. Then you sell your game to thousands or millions of people, and your customers do your bug testing for you!
Even better, you can value-engineer bugs now! In the past, you had to be incredibly thorough. Your testers couldn’t know how often a given bug or exploit would be encountered by the average player. They were trying to find everything. But with modern analytics, you can take a bastard bean-counter’s approach to bug fixing. Everything players do is tracked. So when people report bugs, analyze what portion of play throughs will ever encounter that bug. If it’s rare enough to not likely deter sales, then don’t bother spending money to fix it. This is how known bugs go unfixed for years. The question is not, “is there a bug?” The question is, “is there a sales-relevant bug?”
In short, people now expect updates a lot more because games simply aren’t built like they used to be. Sure, buggy games always existed. Fly-by-night operators would make buggy shovelware and sell it to unsuspecting grandmas. But games from reputable publishers were thoroughly tested and debugged, as an internet-connected customer could not be assumed. Now, games at launch have become bug-filled messes. And they’re often shipped without their advertised and intended features fully implemented yet. And we’ve just become accustomed to this. We’ve learned to tolerate developer laziness. But in turn, we also expect updates to polish these turds on the backend.
Same with Linux distros. People bitch a lot about FOSS when you know damn well they’ll never contribute.
A message for all developers: mod support.
Mod support backs devs into corners. And it’s unreasonable to expect all game devs to take the extra time.
If all users stopped bitching about breaking changes, we would have different story here.
And if users didn’t expect to have full freedom to mod multiplayer games (exploits) the whole story would be different too.
You’re both (fundamentally) wrong. Mods don’t take time or need any extra effort. As long as developers don’t install measures attempting to prevent modification, mods.
Official support is a nice way of letting people easily keep the game alive. Not preventing it in any way is a baseline and should be demanded from all games tbh.
Like I said, the conversation would be different if users and mod creators didn’t bitch about breaking changes in game updates.
Let them sing into the void.
I can’t disagree with you, Bethesda gamers are the worst about it I think, like Fallout 4 got an update recently and everyone was PISSED.
Like just don’t accept the update or roll back, we should be happy new stuff is still happening on a decade old game.
Fallout 4 is different, updating a game years and years later to add useless paid shit is obviously going to piss everyone off.
If it was an actual good update with some nice updates to the game, then the outcry would be moot.
They also didnt have a branch on Steam for the old version, Bethesda just didnt give a shit, they deserve any backlash.
To advocate for the people annoyed at Fallout 4, it’s hardly trivial to roll back an update, and Steam at the very least tends to update automatically so it can just happen without you noticing.
At this point people should know to lock their beth games to not update automatically, learned that lesson years ago lol.
But yes it would be nice if they made it easier to roll back to the last version like most other games lol
If updates are forced on you, its not a bonus anymore.
I wish Steam would have better versioning support, an option to easily use the previous builds of a game.
Captain of Industry has every version before a major release available. The tools are there.
Developers can do this if they choose to right now.
Most devs would turn off the feature if Steam was just indexing every release and letting people switch to old ones. This is because it will lead to users complaining about old versions for any number of dumb reasons.
Fuck em, just make it mandatory for the last 3 versions at least.
At least there is a system build into Steam that allows that. Some games offer such an option even. They just need to expand that option and make it more standard. Also in the past, Steam game updates were not forced and you could stay on an older version. That should be allowed too, at least for non online games.
deleted by creator