Avoiding buggy release / cut content

[moridin84]

Hopefully I won't get too much flak from this subject, my intent is certainly not to 'troll'.

 

Pretty much every game which Obsidian has released has had

a) A large amount of 'cut' content

b) A large amount of bugs

 

I'm sure that part of the reason was deadlines and issues with publishers but ultimately isn't this a 'bite off more then you can chew' thing?

 

Obsidian seem to be very very excited about this project which, while totally awesome could easily result in the same thing happening. Of course, as this is funded by Kickstarter they can (and probably will) delay the release by quite a bit if they need to it. Ultimately though, they only have so much money and will need to release it at some point.

 

I doubt this will be another 'Sword of the Stars II' but you know, it's something to worry about. Especially with these stretch goals going on and on.

 

Personally I'd be happy if some of the stretch goals which they are offering will be pushed until after release, or possibly even as DLC's.

 

 

What kind budget do they normally get for making games anyway?

Edited September 27, 2012 by moridin84

[Aedelric]

You are right to be concerned, Obsidian does have a certain track record.

 

But as you said yourself, most if not all the blame rests with the publisher, they shorten deadlines which demands cut content, they give permission for patches when bugs are present, they are the ones that quality control the product, so if it is released buggy, they are to blame.

 

Obsidian has no meddling publisher this time.

 

Edit - Budget depends on the kind of game, doubtful Obsidian will release figures. But fully voiced triple A would cost millions.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Aedelric

[dlux]

Pretty much every game which Obsidian has released has had

a) A large amount of 'cut' content

b) A large amount of bugs

It is not Obsidian's fault if a publisher decides to release a bugged game.

[Haerski]

What kind budget do they normally get for making games anyway?

 

It's clear this is going to be low budget game compared to some other titles Obsidian has produced in past, but it's also an old-school RPG with isometric graphics and only partially voiced dialog; Something that is rarely if ever done nowdays and thus it's hard to find a fair comparison. Still, I'm sure they know what they are doing and if they say they are going to make this game with 2 million dollars, I believe them, but I won't hold it against them either if they slip with few of those stretch goals.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Haerski

[moridin84]

You are right to be concerned, Obsidian does have a certain track record.

 

But as you said yourself, most if not all the blame rests with the publisher, they shorten deadlines which demands cut content, they give permission for patches when bugs are present, they are the ones that quality control the product, so if it is released buggy, they are to blame.

 

Obsidian has no meddling publisher this time.

 

Edit - Budget depends on the kind of game, doubtful Obsidian will release figures. But fully voiced triple A would cost millions.

 

Was it really an issue of publishers changing their deadlines, or was it just Obsidian failing the meet their deadlines and the publisher not willing to let them push it back? I don't know the details either way but I don't see why publishers would go around shortening previously given deadlines.

Edited September 27, 2012 by moridin84

[nikolokolus]

I think the general feeling is that maybe Obsidian accepted projects with sometimes ridiculously tight deadlines, that may not have been completely realistic. But they probably weren't in a position to be choosy and decline or push back.

[Director]

It's a good point. Things are a bit different this time though:

 

1. No way the game will be done by April 2013. (Or whenever it was planned for). Obsidian are gonna say "Yeah - we need more time" and we'll say "OK".

2. If they let the feature creep get in, and go over budget, well, we're screwed. They can't hit up a publisher for extra cash to keep the lights on here.

3. We're the beta testers, and we're paying for the "privilege". So if any bugs make it into release, if we missed them - our fault.

 

So yeah, it's an issue. We will be a lot easier to deal with than a publisher though, since we don't expect a return above a game and a t-shirt.

 

Also - they can hopefully be pretty honest and say "Look - we had to drop Wererats as a playable race, we just don't have any more money for the art team", or "Yeah - the Teleport spell wasn't working, after 2 weeks, we couldn't get it to not crash the game, so we dropped it". This kind of info usually doesn't reach us, so it will be kinda cool to see what features get dropped and why - and I assure you that features will get dropped.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Director

[Starwars]

I think it would be fair to say that one should not blame either publisher or developer completely in these cases. I believe KOTOR2 was kinda rushed out by the publisher if I recall correctly. Other games seem to be a bit of a mix. NWN2 was straight up buggy at release (and still feels pretty janky). Alpha Protocol seemed to have some pretty heavy bumps in the road in the development. New Vegas suffered mostly from bugs inherent in the engine itself, and I don't think Obsidian had the development time to delve fixing things in the engine itself. Dungeon Siege 3 was smooth as butter though and it used their own engine.

 

As far as cut content goes, I don't think OEI has a big problem with it (all games have cut content). It's just that it's gotten so highlighted with KOTOR2 and the restored content mods. So as soon people find something cut in the game files, it gets blown out of proportion a bit.

 

With PE, I don't think there will be a lot of problems honestly. I think it will be easier for them with their own QA department. Plus, if there is something they really want to include or if they feel the game needs polish, they can move the release date around and decide how much time they would need. Unity also seems stable enough.

[Aedelric]

You are right to be concerned, Obsidian does have a certain track record.

 

But as you said yourself, most if not all the blame rests with the publisher, they shorten deadlines which demands cut content, they give permission for patches when bugs are present, they are the ones that quality control the product, so if it is released buggy, they are to blame.

 

Obsidian has no meddling publisher this time.

 

Edit - Budget depends on the kind of game, doubtful Obsidian will release figures. But fully voiced triple A would cost millions.

 

Was it really an issue of publishers changing their deadlines, or was it just Obsidian failing the meet their deadlines and the publisher not willing to let them push it back? I don't know the details either way but I don't see why publishers would go around shortening previously given deadlines.

 

Bethesda bought the rights to Fallout 2004, they released their game 2008 (Four years to make). Even if Obsidian started the moment Fallout 3 was released, that is only two years, we know they did not even have that long.

 

Knights of the Old Republic Sith Lords, Lucas Arts forced an early release to make the holiday sales, hence the mass of cut content.

 

Alpha Protocol was never fully patched well because Sega dropped all support, a developer can not release patches without permission from the publisher.

 

 

Obsidian have always got the short end of the stick, the blame falls on the publishers almost every time. I expect great support and I do not expect cut content or forced early release this time.

 

Edit - As for a company going over budget on their product, that is their own problem. Everyone that backs Kickstarter knows it is a risk, that is the only drawback of Kickstarter.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Aedelric

[Director]

 

Alpha Protocol was never fully patched well because Sega dropped all support, a developer can not release patches without permission from the publisher.

 

 

Yeah... the real issue when this happens is "The Publisher isn't gonna PAY for the developer to make a patch".

 

The developer can't have people working for free, QA isn't free, so no patch.

 

That's gonna be a big issue for ArcanaGate:Torment, (final title of Project: Eternity), because you can't have a Kickstarter to patch a game. Well, you could I guess, but it would be a bit lame.

 

The only hope really is that additional sales on release will provide cash to patch critical game-breaking issues.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Director

[Aedelric]

Money is not the main issue, legality is. No permission, no patch.

[Director]

Money is not the main issue, legality is. No permission, no patch.

 

Source?

 

When a developer says the publisher won't grant us permission to patch a title, what they really mean is that the publisher doesn't want to spend more money on the title. People have to eat, they can't work for free.

 

Additionally, staff hired to work on a title aren't retained to write patches, the entire coding team might not be around after the title ships - or could be working on another title.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Director

[Aedelric]

And your rant does what for this topic?

 

You said nothing different than your previous post, if it is how you feel and you do not trust Obsidian, then you should not be here.

[Shades]

From what I've heard, a lot of the blame seems to lie with publishers for bug testing and pushing a game out early in relation to the games that Obsidian have received some flak over.

 

Now it would be interesting to see/know how how buggy games like Planescape: Torment and the Icewind Dale series were on release (not Obsidian but Black Isle of course, still they have people in common). I can't remember myself and I don't know if there were any very active internet communities around them at the time either.

 

As for the stretch goals... To be honest if I were them, I would have figured out an outline for the whole game and its content first with a timeline for that lot. Then I would have made the stretch goals through taking things that I already knew were going to be in the game. Dishonest, yes (this is why my alignment is neutral ), but that way there wouldn't be any problems with possibly over-extending yourself. I'm guessing they aren't doing things this way, especially since some of the stretch goals seem to reflect what people are asking for in places like these forums.

 

So quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there was some cut content (after all, you can refine something by cutting out what doesn't seem to be working), however I consider it more likely that they'll extend the end date for the game (depending on costs I guess, since this is a low budget game). And I will be absolutely happy with them doing so, because as an experienced company I trust that they know their own limits and how game making works well enough to not have the development going on forever (especially considering how much that would cost them). As for the bugs, I suspect/hope that doing their own quality testing will result in much better bug testing than what they've been getting from publishers, and who knows maybe a few of the backers with beta access will prove to be helpful here too.

[Knott]

In most cases Quality Assurance is the publisher's responsibility. And sadly this is often rushed and the people hired are the cheapest they can get.

 

Extra Credits talk about some of the differences between crowdfunding and the standard publisher/investor model in this episode:

http://penny-arcade....de/crowdfunding

Edited September 28, 2012 by Knott

[agewisdom]

Yes, Obsidian needs to get this right. Previously, the Publisher would bear part of the blame but since this is a Kickstarter funded project, they'll need to get it right. Otherwise the less than sterling reputation of QC at Obsidian will be cemented for good.

 

With so many potential beta testers, hopefully it would be easier to squish those bugs.

[Jaesun]

Pretty much every game which Obsidian has released has had

a) A large amount of 'cut' content

b) A large amount of bugs

It is not Obsidian's fault if a publisher decides to release a bugged game.

[RosesandAshes]

I think with the publisher out of the way, we're going to see less cut content.

As for bugs, dogs bark, fish swim, games always have bugs upon their initial release. The one recent game where I didn't encounter any bugs (or crashing) was Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, probably one of the most stable games I've played to date.

[Jozape]

From what I've heard, a lot of the blame seems to lie with publishers for bug testing and pushing a game out early in relation to the games that Obsidian have received some flak over.

 

Now it would be interesting to see/know how how buggy games like Planescape: Torment and the Icewind Dale series were on release (not Obsidian but Black Isle of course, still they have people in common). I can't remember myself and I don't know if there were any very active internet communities around them at the time either.

 

I have the original version of Planescape: Torment, and it's not that buggy. Although there is a reproducable crash along the main plot that I couldn't avoid, making the game unfinishable, but thankfully there's an official patch for that. And the game is still admittedly a lot better with Qwinn's fixpack.

[Tenebrael]

some of the stretch goals which they are offering will be pushed until after release

 

I totally agree, they should postpone releasing some content if it will lead to better quality.

 

or possibly even as DLC's.

 

Dont_even_say_this_word. DLC's are the biggest piece of s***t that appeared on this market. So, no, definetly, totally NO.

[Knott]

or possibly even as DLC's.

 

Dont_even_say_this_word. DLC's are the biggest piece of s***t that appeared on this market. So, no, definetly, totally NO.

 

That depends entirely on how it is handled and implemented.

Patches for a game are free and don't directly generate any income. DLC is a way to continue funding a game post-release and assuring continued support by the developer if the game doesn't sell as good as MineCraft does.

 

I can agree however that there are too many botched implementations of DLC. Day-one DLC and expensive reskins or unlocks of things that are already in the game to name just a few.

 

 

For this project however I can't see dlc being something useful. An expansion maybe..

 

Edit: Whoops, finished a sentence too early in there.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Knott

[Hiro Protagonist II]

TotLM was a patch and DLC. If you're going to have DLC, then have it as a patch as well.

[Director]

And your rant does what for this topic?

 

You said nothing different than your previous post, if it is how you feel and you do not trust Obsidian, then you should not be here.

 

What?

 

You said that "permission" from a Publisher was the reason that games don't get patched.

 

I said - that's essentially untrue, as the "permission" is the withholding of funds the devs need to do the work.

That's just reality. It doesn't mean I don't "trust" Obsidian - whatever that even means.

 

It's also a reality that this could be an issue in production of this game, unless Obsidian budget for a months extra coding time after release to fix stuff up.

[Director]

TotLM was a patch and DLC. If you're going to have DLC, then have it as a patch as well.

 

Wasn't that a free DLC because people complained about the length of IWD though? (Too short).

[GhostofAnakin]

That's the benefit of having a "flexible" deadline and being their own bosses. They don't have to rush a product to meet a publisher's deadline and can work on things that need working on, even if the "release date" is coming up.