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.
"Any update is a bonus not a right": Peak co-developer Landfall reminds impatient fans it's not a live-service studio
Submitted 2 weeks ago by commander@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
Comments
catalyst@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
grue@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Peak was pretty solid from day 1, I don’t think it was 100% bug free but it was definitely less buggy than most AAA games are released
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
I mean, No Man’s Sky notoriously did not deliver on its grand promises…for at least 2 years after its initial launch.
KaChilde@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The game came out. It was great. The devs worked on additional biomes, features, and updates. They were also great. The devs decided that it was time to shift focus away from a game that they feel is as complete as it needs to be right now. ‘Fans’ throw a temper tantrum.
The devs have been very open with communication throughout development and after. This feels like fans forming a paradoxical relationship with a development studio and getting butthurt when that relationship isn’t two way.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It‘s sad really, because we always praise their efforts in our game group when another update drops. Like, we can barely fathom the devs still improving it and for that price!
It‘s baffling to hear other players have taken this gift from the devs as a free pass to criticize them endlessly. I guess they‘ve been spoiled too much? Seeing as the game is still sitting at a very good rating on Steam I guess it must be a tiny screaming minority.
Anyway, imagine how these players would react when the devs drop a banger DLC for 5 bucks. You would never hear the end of it.
Zahille7@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
Action_Bastid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ll disagree very slightly.
It’s not that buggy games didn’t exist in the past. It’s the buggy games failed a lot harder in the past. There was tons and tons of garbage. Lots of people ended up with a piece of shovelware that grandma bought from the bargain bin at the local game store for Christmas. It’s just that back that the scam was more stealing out of the pockets of publishers than the general audiences, since those types of games were typically sold to the publisher outright back in the day, rather than having a dev split.
ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I wouldn’t say any update.
The game should be fit for purpose, bug fixes should be expected.
New content should not, a ‘roadmap’ should not be expected. But I do expect the game to work.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Not exactly the words I would have chosen to say that, but I understand the sentiment.
Colonel_Panic_@eviltoast.org 2 weeks ago
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.
fishy@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
I bought it for like $5 and got like 30 hours of co-op with my buddies. Games at the arcade cost that much for a few minutes and aren’t nearly as fun as watching your friend fall to their death or get chased by the rapey as scoutmaster.
Anybody complaining is a fool.
Colonel_Panic_@eviltoast.org 2 weeks ago
Watched friend fall to their death and it was extra funny because their sudden scream and then silence.
10/10 would play again.
IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Same with Linux distros. People bitch a lot about FOSS when you know damn well they’ll never contribute.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
People think they can demand things for open source devs. No wonder they demands things from companies that sold them something. The sense of entitlement has no bounds.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
If updates are forced on you, its not a bonus anymore.
StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
So wait, if they make a bonus and steam makes you update the game, you automatically don’t like it?
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I don’t know if you can read or not, but I said its not a bonus anymore. Don’t hallucinate stuff I did not say. If I like an update or not, depends on the update. Not every update is a bonus, especially if they have to fix an undercooked game in example. A forced update is not a bonus. I hope that is clear now.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I‘m always amazed by Peak‘s updates because they literally don‘t have to do it. Nobody is asking them to… except I now learn that some ungrateful players do, apparently. Like, I know it‘s not perfect and many of those QoL updates are deeply appreciated but for the price it was already a very good game. People need to learn to appreciate things. Seriously.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Live service has broken people’s brains.
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Digital distribution seems to have had some really negative affects both on game development, and consumerist mindset. Don’t get me wrong, it’s probably been a huge boon for indie studios, but my point remains.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.
Bahnd@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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).
Damage@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
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
badgermurphy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Subscriptions make much more sense if they are actually providing a continual service, such as MMOs or newsgroups. They stop making sense when you have to pay retail for the software, then also must subscribe for it to work. Companies that do that are having it both ways by selling you the product and then still charging you rent on it.
The only software that needs to be updated regularly is stuff that needs to be secure; locally running self-contained games and other software do not. So, I absolutely should be able to buy once and then be entitled to updates for at least some period of time, then be able to opt into renewals or not based on my needs.
You can’t sell me a hammer, charge me every time I swing it, and take a percentage of the profits of the thing I built with it, but that is exactly what many software companies are being allowed to do. The fact that the product is not tangible makes that fact less obvious, but still just as true. Getting paid forever for work you did once is a societal ill.