I loved POTC with the various builds installed but was angry that so much time and effort went into fixing up the game (and not from the publisher/developer I might add, but from the modding/patching community who received little if anything in the way of compensation for their efforts). POTC should have worked properly when it was released and its a constant gripe of mine, that we continually fork out our money for bugged or incomplete games. From what I've read AOP has gone down the same road as POTC (perhaps to a lesser extent).
My comment or question is this: Do we do ourselves any favours buying bugged/unfinished games? In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term we are basically sending out a dangerous message to PC Game developers that we'll buy their games regardless of bugs because sooner or later someone will release a patch or a mod that will fix it. Its also quite irritating that some commercial reviewers dont even pick up on the bugs (because they dont play the game for long enough), and we are left to discover the bugs the hard way. I trust reviews from other consumers much more than those from the likes of PC Gamespot for this very reason.
I have now decided to draw a line in the sand by not being a party to this kind of "anti-quality" consumer behaviour any longer. If a game is bugged (and by bugged I mean to an extent that it spoils enjoyment) or half finished (amounts to the same thing in some cases), then I wont buy it or take it back. Of course its entirely you're choice as to whether you do the same but by writing this post I do hope to encourage others to follow suit. I believe we need to send a message to developers that we arent going to stand for second rate products anymore.
Developers may say the product was finished quickly because of budget constraints. Codswallop. How much more would they really need to add to the price of the game, in order to recoup the additional costs of fixing it up. I seriously doubt it would add more than 20% to the price, and would anyone complain anyway if they had to pay an extra 20% for a game that works. Or put another way, who would like a 20% discount on a game that doesnt work properly?
Perhaps its just me and I am being unreasonable by demanding that developers produce games to a high quality but then again, it is expected of me in my own job. My job title is "Actuary", not "part-time beta game player" who has to pay for the privaledge of being such.
Really interested to hear other peoples views on this.
My comment or question is this: Do we do ourselves any favours buying bugged/unfinished games? In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term we are basically sending out a dangerous message to PC Game developers that we'll buy their games regardless of bugs because sooner or later someone will release a patch or a mod that will fix it. Its also quite irritating that some commercial reviewers dont even pick up on the bugs (because they dont play the game for long enough), and we are left to discover the bugs the hard way. I trust reviews from other consumers much more than those from the likes of PC Gamespot for this very reason.
I have now decided to draw a line in the sand by not being a party to this kind of "anti-quality" consumer behaviour any longer. If a game is bugged (and by bugged I mean to an extent that it spoils enjoyment) or half finished (amounts to the same thing in some cases), then I wont buy it or take it back. Of course its entirely you're choice as to whether you do the same but by writing this post I do hope to encourage others to follow suit. I believe we need to send a message to developers that we arent going to stand for second rate products anymore.
Developers may say the product was finished quickly because of budget constraints. Codswallop. How much more would they really need to add to the price of the game, in order to recoup the additional costs of fixing it up. I seriously doubt it would add more than 20% to the price, and would anyone complain anyway if they had to pay an extra 20% for a game that works. Or put another way, who would like a 20% discount on a game that doesnt work properly?
Perhaps its just me and I am being unreasonable by demanding that developers produce games to a high quality but then again, it is expected of me in my own job. My job title is "Actuary", not "part-time beta game player" who has to pay for the privaledge of being such.
Really interested to hear other peoples views on this.
