Helldivers 2 and Palworld devs wish players understood that 'easy' additions and updates are sometimes really hard: 'That's half a year's work. That takes six months'
-
If gamers are bitching about a game not adding a whole new island, you should ignore them because they're clearly idiots.
If gamers are bitching about your menu system being navigable by someone with less than a PhD (cough, Risk of Rain 2 on console, cough), and you're estimating that will take 6 months to fix, then that's because you (as a company) coded your software badly.
cough, Risk of Rain 2 on console, cough
I still remember when they somehow broke the Xbox version and nobody could get past the start menu.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
It would also be great if devs added things during development that should simply be there at launch. Instead of that, shit gets rushed out the door with promises of future fixes and updates. And then devs get all huffy when people rightfully ask for things to be added that are supposed to be basic launch features…
-
This post did not contain any content.
The PC build is trash
-
All that stuff is great if you've the time. I've got maybe 1-2 hours a week for the game.
If you don't have the time to read a book,watch a movie or play a game you should not start it.
I'm over 50, like you only have a few hours, i have a tremendous backlog of games i just have to play and a family to provide for.
(mechwarrior clans is the first one which comes to mind but i have dozens)But i came back for this event. You miss nothing. Every weapon you can "buy" does not really alter the game or changes anything. The standard liberator is still one of the very best primaries.
-
It would also be great if devs added things during development that should simply be there at launch. Instead of that, shit gets rushed out the door with promises of future fixes and updates. And then devs get all huffy when people rightfully ask for things to be added that are supposed to be basic launch features…
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know Helldivers 2 -- what basic launch features were/are missing?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Half a year's work takes 6 months? I had no idea
-
I'm definitely experiencing FOMO with the warbonds I don't have. I don't have the time to play/grind or the inclination to pay for them, so I am missing out. There's three warbonds that I don't have and sure I'll eventually get them maybe but right now I'm missing out. Being able to unlock things is a big part of a game to me. I'm not dedicated enough to HD2 to skip the other games I want to play in order to get the unlocks. The whole process is lowering my interest in the game. I paid for it, I want to use the new toys that get released with it. If I were to buy it today, I'd be so far behind I'd feel short-changed in what I got access to.
It’s by far the least scummy of all online shooters.
I still have multiple to unlock and I have no issue paying for them. I have way more money than time to play.
-
It would also be great if devs added things during development that should simply be there at launch. Instead of that, shit gets rushed out the door with promises of future fixes and updates. And then devs get all huffy when people rightfully ask for things to be added that are supposed to be basic launch features…
What I don't understand is why do developers make bad games? They should just make good games instead.
Gamers want good games, not bad games.
-
It was only an example. As the asset already exists in the game elsewhere, adding that same asset somewhere else in the game should definitely not take even an intern more than a week to implement.
Again, it is understandable in certain circumstances that major content drops take time. But for something as simple as the flashlight attachment example (which again is only a hypothetical example), there is no excuse for something like that to take 6 months or more to implement. Even if they have other priorities, something like that is so menial to implement that it would not take any significant amount of time away from higher priority development. Particularly because, in the example, other guns already have flashlight attachments, it already exists in the game. Unless they programmed the game in the literal worst way imagineable, they likely have a modular weapon system with slots that accept attachments. Very easy to add a new slot and allow it to accept the flashlight attachment, again as an example.
I think you're misunderstanding the concept of priority.
-
What I don't understand is why do developers make bad games? They should just make good games instead.
Gamers want good games, not bad games.
Soo true
-
cough, Risk of Rain 2 on console, cough
I still remember when they somehow broke the Xbox version and nobody could get past the start menu.
I had to read an article about that. It apparently coincided with the release of the second DLC. It was pretty broken on PS5 as well. That just screams some high level exec said it MUST be out on the announced date cause they told someone that it would be. Likely part of a contract or their bonus was tied to it. Doesn’t matter if it’s unplayable. It ‘met’ the release deadline. Now we’re just ‘doing maintenance’.
I’m a dev and I firmly believe that if people could see the software they use daily as a physical object like a car…they’d be more “Hell, no. That’s a death trap” than they probably realize.
-
See: Destiny and Telesto.
In the wake of all the layoffs and such I don't know if any former employees have (as vaguely as possible) discussed the codebase yet. It seems like such an absolute nightmare.
-
That's nothing new.
Gamers who don't know any programming, or maybe made a little utility for themselves. Looovee to bring out the old "just change one line of code", "just add this model", etc. to alter something in a game.
They literally do not understand how complex systems become, specially in online multiplayer games. Riot had issues with their spaghetti code, and people were crawling over eachother to explain how "easy" it would be to just change an ability. Without realizing that it could impact and potentially break half a dozen other abilities.
as a professional software dev, games with fozens or hundreds of abilities that interact with eachother scare me
-
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know Helldivers 2 -- what basic launch features were/are missing?
There's a strong argument that the server architecture needed to be better at launch, but then the game sold more than an order of magnitude better than it was expected to, so no one would have noticed that it scaled badly had the player count been in line with their design and testing.
-
What I don't understand is why do developers make bad games? They should just make good games instead.
Gamers want good games, not bad games.
Well, the fact is that there are also a LOT of dumb customers willing to buy crap. God knows why.
Just look at the trending / best selling lists on Steam. There’s shit on there that I wouldn’t play if you paid me. Yet somehow there’s enough of a customer base for that that they sell it.
Honestly, Steam should look into setting a minimum quality level for things sold on the platform.
-
Even if you're an actual software dev, it's still pretty much impossible to guess how much work something is without knowing the codebase intimately.
And even then it’s sometimes impossible because how much can you keep in your head at once. Everybody specializes on these large projects. I may have 30000 ft view of how things operate but getting down into specifics can be hard. I have some intimate knowledge of the learning management system we develop for, which is way less complex than most games, and there are always little gotchas when you make code or architecture changes.
-
What I don't understand is why do developers make bad games? They should just make good games instead.
Gamers want good games, not bad games.
The developers aren't in charge of what's in the game, the PMs and accountants are
-
Well, the fact is that there are also a LOT of dumb customers willing to buy crap. God knows why.
Just look at the trending / best selling lists on Steam. There’s shit on there that I wouldn’t play if you paid me. Yet somehow there’s enough of a customer base for that that they sell it.
Honestly, Steam should look into setting a minimum quality level for things sold on the platform.
Well, the fact is that there are also a LOT of dumb customers willing to buy crap.
As much as everyone love Oblivion...it all started from there with the $9 horse armour DLC.
God knows why.
Yet somehow there’s enough of a customer base for that that they sell it.
Kids. Fucking kids. Thankfully I am never that stupid to buy individual DLCs even when I was a child, which is compounded by familial circumstances and education, but kids will be kids. Either they stole their parent's credit card to pay for useless virtual items, or they were spoiled and never taught with financial literacy.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
So then why don't they have regular bulletins in their games showing 'Look, look! These features will be coming by xx/xx/xxxx!' ?
Things set the timeline back? 'Oh no! Looks like we won't be releasing this on that date, it will actually be this date!'
Seems like a non issue for anyone with a 6th graders capacity for interacting with other humans. These are IT folks, with the added layer of gamers to boot — though. Anticipating motivations and responding to others input isn't exactly a strong suit.
Edit: oh, beyond that — I have very little sympathy for a developer of a content drip. You're out for the money, don't whine when people inevitably get sick of waiting for a little more of something they've already gotten maximum enjoyment out of.
-
It would also be great if devs added things during development that should simply be there at launch. Instead of that, shit gets rushed out the door with promises of future fixes and updates. And then devs get all huffy when people rightfully ask for things to be added that are supposed to be basic launch features…
supposed to be basic launch features
isn't this very subjective and dependent on the game and scale of success?
