Why is it suddenly okay for developers to release unfinished games?

[dalch]

Because dumb people pay for it.

[Djuntas]

Money. 10 char (woot, used that for the first time now - Always wanted to write 10 char, when no other word is needet!)

[serenka]

Ah, yes. DLC. DLC is releasing a game that is not complete, and pretend that it IS complete, all the while selling the bits that should have been in in the first place separately. I take offense at DLC. Unless it's free.

Depends on the doc and timing day 1 dlc is outright wrong, if that content was ready day 1, release it with the full game. A Few months down the line though, nothing wrong with that, if the Devs have been working on it the last few months of course they will charge for it.

[Lazy Gecko]

It's okay because people are completely willing to pay for it. I mean, at least they're honest and upfront about what it is they're selling. I can't really see anything worth getting mad over.

[Dedweight]

How about 'They're not released as unfinished games.' They're often betas or 'early access' deals, which spread some mouth-to-mouth advertising, and is great to find out if your game actually holds up when played by a larger audience.

Why do people complain about it? Entitlement.

You might have a point with those Early Access purchases but what about games like Oblivion or Skyrim(hell the whole Elder Scrolls series)? They're usually bug ridden and generally don't get fixed for long periods unless the modding community fixes them and other times you need a console command to bypass the bug all together.

If it's entitlement to expect game breaking bugs to have been resolved before a retail release then call me entitled.

[Stir]

Depends on the doc and timing day 1 dlc is outright wrong, if that content was ready day 1, release it with the full game. A Few months down the line though, nothing wrong with that, if the Devs have been working on it the last few months of course they will charge for it.

If it's a few months down the line, then the problem is the publisher pushing for it to be released prematurely. As such, the DLC content should have been in it from the get-go, but impatient publishers pushed for unreasonable deadlines and forced the devs to finish the thing through DLC. Customers shouldn't have to pay for that.

You might have a point with those Early Access purchases but what about games like Oblivion or Skyrim(hell the whole Elder Scrolls series)? They're usually bug ridden and generally don't get fixed for long periods unless the modding community fixes them and other times you need a console command to bypass the bug all together.

If it's entitlement to expect game breaking bugs to have been resolved before a retail release then call me entitled.

Hmm... Great example there, to be honest. Fact is that the Elder Scrolls games are incredibly system-heavy. So much so that it is very easy to overlook lots of bugs. Of course the game gets tested prior to release, and tested extensively, but only by a relatively small testing group... And that means that most bugs will simply not be found prior to release. It's the whole point of open betas, really; catching those bugs.
Problem is: If your testing panel is comprised of a hundred testers, then that is a large number. But when you're going retail (and it's a promising game), you may sell tens of thousands of copies... Which means that if there is a gamebreaking bug in there, and it is a very system-heavy game, then thousands of players will experience that bug, a bug that previously went completely unnoticed.

In a way, one could argue that Elder Scrolls games are simply inelegant in systems design (let's face it: They're also incredibly easy to exploit). But since those games are made as single-player games, that is generally fine (as long as the player doesn't notice just how inelegant and convoluted the system really is; generally achieved by having an easy-to-understand UI).

Should the developers fix things later on? Absolutely. But when the developers are held on a leash by a publisher, this simply isn't always possible. Also consider that with a systems-heavy game, fixing one issue somewhere may create an issue elsewhere, and that means long, long working hours. Which many companies will not want to invest wages in. The game is released, time to craft a new game for more money. Fixing an old game isn't going to make much more money.

[Edge-]

It's okay because people are completely willing to pay for it. I mean, at least they're honest and upfront about what it is they're selling. I can't really see anything worth getting mad over.

Pretty much this. There's clearly a market for people who are willing to buy super early version of a game that are unfinished, and developers can now do this due to the wide-spread availability of the internet and the ability to do rapid patching of clients. The tech wasn't there before otherwise this would have been going on for years.

As long as the devs are honest about their game, I don't see anything wrong with this practice at all. I actually kinda like it, because it helps educate people on the progression of games through early beta phases up till launch.

[Tackhisis]

The main reason for constant game updates is attempts to reinforce copy protection by requiring players to find and update their cracks to make them buy the game eventually.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Open betas were started because they allowed players to try the game first hand and give feedback while the devs made some adjustments ad at the same time get a salary to feed their families with.

[chrisnumbers]

The developers release Open Betas, which are usually pay to enter betas, then take the Forum trolls suggestions as fact, change the game to please them. In the end, you have a sold-out, dumbed down game that is catered towards casual players.

Could you give a few examples of games that fit this description?

[Achaman]

People have been releasing "unfinished" games since I was playing on my Atari. It's not really a new thing so much as it's much more visible now.

That and the fact that people expect games to have EVERYTHING now, it seems. 30 years ago it was fine for a developer to release a game where you played a spaceship made up of four lines that blew up oddly-shaped asteroids. People had fun, all was well. Now if you made that same game, people would want to know who is in the spaceship? What's my characters' backstory? Is there a bad guy sending the asteroids? Are the asteroids just rocks, or sentient asteroid-monsters? Why aren't the asteroids rendered in super-realistic 3D superness? Do the asteroids drop loot? Do I get XP for blowing up asteroids, and does my ship level up? What achievements are there for blowing up asteroids? Is there a housing system for my ship so I can build a cool house to fly around in between blowing up asteroids? Do the asteroids have voice-overs? Can I play online? Is there a PvP system so I can blow up other asteroid-blower-uppers in between blowing up asteroids? Are there Aster-Raids where I team up with other players to blow up a REALLY BIG asteroid to get phat lewts?

<takes a deep breath>

So yeah, it's no wonder developers end up releasing games that aren't "finished" nowadays. Between financial constraints, technical limitations, publishers breathing down their necks and the insane demands of the players.

l o l

Post constructively. Infracted.