I will say GW2 is stated they will not release until the game is ready, they will not tell us something is there they have not made ready. Response has been from consumor to let them in give them more. GW2 refuses. That is the issue, people scream I want and when they get a weak game they cry, More Dev's need to say no. Rift is getting a at a boy and girl for actually releasing a playable game that works. For th first time in over a year I am having fun with a game, and not hitting error does not work all over.

If I wanted to make as much content as WOW has and its major expansions to be a primary, initial release in one game, I would spend around 10 years creating a game and by then the graphics in my platform will be outdated and have to revise the whole thing. 

Even if GW II gets released when they are ready, there are still expansions and things to consider. I believe the BASE GAME defines the rest of the game. If the base game t urns out to be horrible, the expansions will be horrible too. 

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by kaiser3282

By your logic, a dev can make lets say 80% of the game good, but then 20% of it is missing things and has some bugs/broken stuff, works in progress, etc.... and that 20% completely invalidates the other 80% simply by being there. Think of it like a girlfriend who you treat perfectly, but you have a couple of habits/preferences/opinions that she doesnt like, or maybe you just started your career but arent quite in your prime yet but will be there eventually. That girlfriend nags at you constantly about those things that she doesnt like, and never acknowledges the good things about you, or the fact that you are trying to advance yourself but thats not good enough, you have to be at the highest position in your carerr right that moment. Sound like a good way for a girlfriend to be? Ignore all the good because theres some bad? Should a reviewer do the same and focus purely on the bad only giving low scores because there are bad things about the game, and completely ignoring the things that are good about it?

Hell, you guys act like reviewers are going around flooding the sites with a bunch of games rated a 10, when really most of them sit around like 7-8. Do you really consider that good? 7/10 = 70%, which would be a C in most school systems. C = average / ok, passing but needs improvement.... thats far from an A+. Should teachers just start throwing Fs around and failing all their students if theyre not scoring 90-100% on every single thing? Of course not. Why should a reviewer give every game that has some problems an F (completely failing and unplayable) instead of a C (alright, some good/great things, but needs a lot of work in some areas)?

 NO.. again.   This is really not as hard a concept as you make it out to be.  If a game is 80% complete then it would have an 80 set as it's maximum score.  So if it were 80% complete, but otherwise was a PERFECT GAME it would get an 80.  If it was an average game... the fact that it was unfinished would obviously make it an instant failure.  Also let's be blatantly honest here.  The games we are talking about are released WAY less than 80% done. 

 

Again though.. I provided a very specific example of exactly what I am talking about as opposed to your theoretical strawman.  Here is my example (for the second time...)

 

A review contains this line (Note that this review as made 6 months AFTER the game released!!!:

"Taking heed of the screaming, disgruntled customers in the corner, I feel we must first address the biggest issue regarding Mortal Online. While this is a game with masses of potential, of current, this game is nearer to state of closed-beta rather than retail release. From the desktop-launcher to the combat system, Star Vault’s creation is riddled with bugs, glitches, errors, misjudgements and everything in-between."

And the summary score for that same game was described as:  The game has a few standout features with few, if any, glaring detractors.

 

Does that make ANY sense?  Few if any glaring detractors?  After saying the statement above? 

 

No.. as I said.. I commend the author for the article but as the managing editor of this very site HE is responsible for propagating the acceptance of the very same unfinished product that he rails against.   Maybe this article is a turning point for him... we will see.

 

 This.  There are too many reviews from MMORPG.com that simply gloss over the fact that many of the MMOs they are reviewing have glaring issues that are reflective of an incomplete game.   Furthermore, as I pointed out in another post, almost every MMO recieves a 7.5-8.9 score, and according to those scores the adjetive selected next to that score is "good" or "great" (not C+ for 7.5).   

Now maybe, just perhaps, MMORPG.com will decide to go with a multiple scoring solution to their reviews.  I don't accept what a recent re-review of AION said which is the numerical score wasn't important, which praised the game for being much better than it was at launch because of the new content, etc.  and YET gave it a LOWER score than the initial review at launch. 

Perhaps the next editorial post you make Jon should be about the way MMORPG reviews games and gives them such glowing reviews despite how awful it must be for games to be released incomplete. 

Good article. There needs to be a good base before you continue with things. As previous posters have said, "It's a new MMO, it will be better later" type of stuff is getting rediculous. I want the box price to be worth it AND I want the subscription they ask for to be worth it also - I don't see that as too much to ask.

Well OP - good one. ofc I agree

BUTT

Most Customers who buy games, esp MMOs are underaged - aka they can not differentiate good from bad. And everybody knows they would arraign anything.

Means: Devs can screw around how they want and wrap it all up in a shiny present - 99% of the stupid Kids buy it anyway.

But honestly? Lets take this to another Level from now on. Why not  SUE those companies who Release unfinished Stuff and earn Millions. I mean hello!? Loophole or what? Switzerland???

And I am very, VERY honest with this one. Side-effect: Earn Millions for great justice!

I can not sell a car which lacks of screws here and there and lateron send them to my customers, hoping they are still alive to recieve them!?

But you find this effed-up attitude all over this damned planet. People are getting greeding so frigging fast! Its just gross.

Originally posted by crunk001

Well OP - good one. ofc I agree

 

BUTT

 

Most Customers who buy games, esp MMOs are underaged - aka they can not differentiate good from bad. And everybody knows they would arraign anything.

Means: Devs can screw around how they want and wrap it all up in a shiny present - 99% of the stupid Kids buy it anyway.

 

But honestly? Lets take this to another Level from now on. Why not  SUE those companies who Release unfinished Stuff and earn Millions. I mean hello!? Loophole or what? Switzerland???

 

And I am very, VERY honest with this one. Side-effect: Earn Millions for great justice!

 

I can not sell a car which lacks of screws here and there and lateron send them to my customers, hoping they are still alive to recieve them!?

 

But you find this effed-up attitude all over this damned planet. People are getting greeding so frigging fast! Its just gross.

 Amen brother!

Sue their greedy asses? What a terribly hypocritical thing to say. How is that being productive?

Lets say developers have what seems like an air tight plan for a innovative game, then completely unforseeable events happen with bugs, publishers making it worse, etc. You will go and say the same thing woudn't you because you don't know the whole picture.

@ Rugster - Agreed. When everything is about money that's when games no longer are games. Look at the NFL, MLB, NBA, ect...

@ crunk001 - Agreed about greed. Indipendent productions are really the only thing to look forward to for myself anymore. Only because with their first or second big hit they produce solid games and really show their value. Often by the third game you see their funds go up and their integrity slip.

This is not to say everyone does this, but a large majority. Oh yes... I could name names, but that would only start hate because of my opinions by those who would worship said companies.

Too much of anything even money is destructive. It can make you lazy, breed an obsession for more of it, and cost you things that money can't buy. This isn't some moral wisdom. This is a fact. Then it all becomes a question later. Are you a game developer with a vision and dream or were you a tycoon just waiting for the moment to spread your dollar wings and soar?

Nobody would refuse to be rich, but I would hope some would refuse to have their values bought by the lowest bidder.

"If I misspelled anything. I do apologize for any who would spend the time to correct strangers on the way they type."

The movie analogy is a good one. Studios don't release half finished movies, MMO developers shouldn't launch half finished games. When a movie goes over budget, the studio evaluates whether what they have is worth completion, or more worthy of the trash bin. No use throwing good money after bad, but they also know it would be idiotic to scrap a promising movie, just because it went over budget.

It seems too many developers are willing to kill a game that could have been a real winner, if it was finished, rather than spend the extra time and money to get it right.

Great article. I agree with everything.

Nice read but I would have appreciated a bit more in depth reasoning about why games are being released unfinished.

Originally posted by SBE1

Perhaps the next editorial post you make Jon should be about the way MMORPG reviews games and gives them such glowing reviews despite how awful it must be for games to be released incomplete. 

 

Seriously? Prehaps you may want to doa  little research before calling me out publically. Bith myself and many other people who work on this site, have answered this so many times. Our reviewers are not coearced and the score that they produce is not altered by staff. Why? Because that way, there is no way for editorial to in any way corrupt the scores. Which we'e accused of all the time. So yeah *shrug* I don't know what else to say on the matter. Believe me, don't believe me, that's your right as a consumer but please try to be informed before calling someone out. 

good honest article. we need more like these.

seriously just tried this global agenda game today. i thought 'oh another game went f2p... lets see why'.

guess what... a sort of pvp game which bothered to make pve (from first look it seemed like guild wars type of balance - a lenghty campaign and loads of pvp goodness).

however... the game has ONE pve area. ONE. only one... :|

and the game is out for what? one year?

its so bad that most players are almost using this shortcoming as a meme in game.

that one and only area is in the desert. somebody asks where should they level after desert and ofcourse dozens of people respond that the player should go to the jungle area and find t-rex boss or whatever. naively that player says 'THANKS GUYS, MUCH APPRECIATED!'.

while this is a well done joke... it only reflects the ridiculous problem - theoretically you could check all the game content in a few hours (if they didnt have lvl requirements).

that shouldnt happen... especially to a game that exists for a year.

I agree with much of what was said in this article. I'd also defend MMORPG.com on their reviews of unfinished games as people say...MMO's as Jon said are not ever really "finished" so therefore MMORPG inevitably will need to review a game prior to it being fixed or having the plan the developers envisioned actually executed. I mean some dev's take years to make an MMO work properly and gain subs. MMORPG needs to bring in hits and reviews are one way of doing it. At least they offer more honest opinions by stating that a core idea might be great but the remainder of the game is too bug ridden to be enjoyable. I find myself easily understanding the clear message they convey in reviews but perhaps others might look at a 7/10 and think it automatically means it's good.

FFXIV was the biggest let down for me because it had great potential but was completely rushed to the table. People complain about Rift saying it's a cookie cutter MMO but it's certainly polished and there is at least some end game content. It still has balance problems but that's what most dev's focus on anyway NOT fixing game ruining bugs or fixing core game mechanics that make a game virtually unplayable for some.

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Kothoses

Mr Wood I have disagreed with some of your opinions in the past, however I can honestly say this column is one I 100% agree with.  Its about time MMO developers and publishers realised that charging us for a box of a game and then charging us a monthly fee for an unfinished buggy release is not acceptable.

 

Honestly I have to salute Square Enix for taking the step of suspending monthly fees for players of FFXIV online.  Yes you can say they should not have released the game, i was beta testing it and we screamed at them about how unfinished it was, but atleast they recognised it and took steps accordingly.

Well... Before we give SE much more credit than is warranted, the fact that the game was panned by just about every major game site, and its sales had dropped off, may have been a major factor in their decision.  MMO's typically have a retention problem after the first free month, but the prospects of losing the overwhelming majority of their player base is no doubt one of the factors in their decision as well.  Final Fantasy 14 should never have been released in the state that it was. It not only damages the brand, but makes SE look bad as well.

 

Oh I am not disagreeing with you on that point, like I said during beta we screamed at them to go back a few steps.  I did not buy it because of how bad that was, BUT they took an unprecidented step, and yes the pressure was there, but look at Cryptic and Funcom (Age of Conan and STO I am looking at you) they were even more messed up in many ways but they just blundered on.  Eventually turning their games good, but at a point where it was too late because the vast majority of potential players had already been burned.

Originally posted by mmogamefan

I guess I am in the minority but what is the point of this column, to make generic complaints about the things we all know about?  Games should be released in a finished state, devs should squash bugs before worrying about new content, yeah, everyone agrees with that.  Use the power of editorial man, what games are you talking about, give me examples.  If I was reading an editorial column on a website dedicated to a different hobby, and the subject was failed new product releases, there would be some specifics and examples.  

This coulmn is doubly hard to take seriously with a limp shot at SOE, ostensibly for DCUO, when this site had plenty of opportunities to trumpet the serious flaws in that game, but instead you guys soft sold any problems.  I was playing the beta and thinking "this game has some big issues" and see those concerns echoed in the forums, then I'd read columns by Jon and Bill that were trying to put a positive spin on everything.  I'm not saying you guys didn't acknowledge problems, but always couched in optimism.  

It's not editorial's job to be cheerleaders for publishers.  If you are going to take shots at companies that deserve it, then do it, name and shame, have opinions and back them up.  To me this is an attempt to show that you guys are credible critics when your actions tell a different story.

 

Agreement here.

This article has its heart in the right place, but unfortunately it lacks any sort of journalistic oomph.  I believe the press has power.  This editorial does not.  I honestly scanned through it and got to the end and said "That was it?"  No specifics, no hard look at reality, just a laundry list that will be read and ignored.

It's not that the editorial was poorly written because it wasn't, and I wouldn't want Jon to take my post as a jab, in that regard anyway.  Rather I take issue with the attitude with which the article was written: a feeling of annoyance but a complete unwillingness to risk alienating the MMO companies that (I assume) supply advertising revenue and previews and interviews and all the other material that gives MMORPG.com an edge.  As a result, it felt like whistle-blowing without the effin' whistle.

Alternatively, it could be that the article was tepid in an attempt to avoid offending MMO fans, but that's worse.  Supposed to be a journalist, not a beauty queen.  It's not a popularity contest.

Insofar as people complaining about the "glowing reviews" of unfinished games and Jon's response, I don't think anyone was suggesting that editors actively censor and alter the reviewer's score.  But rather that, as managing editor, it is your job to hire (and fire) said reviewers as well as set the tone and general guidelines for reviews.  If you were to suggest the policy that incomplete/beta-versions of finished games should be harshly reviewed, then that's how it would be.  I don't particularly have a problem with the review scores (which are always going to be somewhat inconsistent and arbitrary), but to suggest that editors can't influence review scores is silly.

I wholeheartedly agree with what has been written by the author. Promise of future content is one thing, but what some game developers are doing is outright highway robbery.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by SBE1

Perhaps the next editorial post you make Jon should be about the way MMORPG reviews games and gives them such glowing reviews despite how awful it must be for games to be released incomplete. 

 

Seriously? Prehaps you may want to doa  little research before calling me out publically. Bith myself and many other people who work on this site, have answered this so many times. Our reviewers are not coearced and the score that they produce is not altered by staff. Why? Because that way, there is no way for editorial to in any way corrupt the scores. Which we'e accused of all the time. So yeah *shrug* I don't know what else to say on the matter. Believe me, don't believe me, that's your right as a consumer but please try to be informed before calling someone out. 

 Maybe you should stoop to informing reviewers  that  half finished buigfests should be scored accordingly. I'm pretty sure people would let you slide for insisting reviews be balanced and truthful. Possibly have dual reviews by one guy who hates everything and another who puts a happy face on.

I used to think that Vanguard:Saga of Heroes was the worst launch I had ever seen. Then I made the mistake of picking up Mortal Online. Sweet jebus.......I could not believe that a company could release whatever the heck that was on release and still exist. Most people said "SV is a small dev team, the game has potential. GIve it 4-6 months..........". Those people are insane. I am not subsidising a dev's lack of a buisness plan with my hard earned coin. Players have encouraged companies to pull this crap, because they have seen other companies get away with it.

"Players have encouraged companies to pull this crap, because they have seen other companies get away with it."

Exactly.