- 0 Posts
- 18 Comments
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.
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’m reminded of the Foundation in Asimov’s Foundation series. The Foundation was deliberately banished to a remote world scarce in metals and other industrially necessary materials. Instead of choking them off, it forced them to innovate. The giant galactic Empire never had to be efficient, they could afford to build fleets of huge resource hungry vessels. The Foundation had to learn to miniaturize numerous technologies so they could be built with fewer raw materials. And that ultimately put them at a huge technological advantage.
Are you one of those pornographic people? Large swathes of the population are considered intrinsically pornographic by the authors of these laws. Queer people are walking talking pornography simply for existing. Also most politics and any news dealing with violent events is pornographic.
Have you ever shared a story about police brutality? You are a pornographer.
I don’t even see how this is supposed to help with phone addiction. Sure, if short form video is your poison of choice, it could help. But if your addiction is more of the reddit, lemmy, discord, or group chat variety, or anything else text-based, wouldn’t making typing easier make these addictions even worse?
Can we make “secular saints” a thing? Why should we reserve the title of “Saint” specifically for the Catholic Church? I think we should just get in the habit of referring to any unambiguously good person, who has performed great acts of generosity and selflessness, as a saint. They don’t even have to be religious. If someone wants to interpret it religiously, they can say that anyone so good is almost certainly bound for Heaven, but it need not be religious. Why can’t we have secular saints? Why can’t we have Saint Stephen of San Jose or Saint Fred of Latrobe?
In litigation, if one side destroys evidence beforehand, or goes to great lengths to deliberately not collect it, courts instruct juries to presume against the side that destroyed the evidence. Companies that think they’re being clever by using apps that auto-delete records aren’t as clever as they think they are. This Teams feature is obviously meant to make it difficult to assist in corporate malfeasance. Using Teams is now a liability risk to companies.
Sure. But the point is they viewed those updates as an obligation, not a bonus. I view those first updates as an obligation - merely delivering the core features promised. But anything beyond that is a bonus.