The truth about free updates and frustration (including opinions)
- Thread starter seeker939
- Start date
I can relate to manny opinions here, and I understand why people get frustrated @ Frontier.
I can't and won't blame anyone for that, but there are always 2 sides on the coin.
Yes, planet coaster could use a polish of it's basegame features and trust me they do know, Bo and other Frontier employees said so manny times now.
I can even tell everyone they have a team working on it, just read between the lines.
I'm not at all close to the source to know these things, I listen, watch and read almost everything Frontier does say/post.
Yes, Frontier could be more open about their current development status, but the picture is bigger then that.
The game industry is REALLY BIG, that also means the competition is REALLY BIG.
If they would communicate more openly other game companies could (in theorie) steal that knowledge and inplement those things in their own games (faster).
That's one of the main reasons they keep it for themselfs.
Another major part has to do with us, the players/customers.
If they would let us know what they are working on right now, and for some silly, minor reason the developers didn't notice it can't make it to the next (promised) update.
How would "we" react to that? Yes even more frustrated as we are now.
It can even be worse, they work on something really really cool, and at the end it's impossible to inplement it into the game... --> for alot of people here it would be the worst day ever.
This does make it sound simple, but marketing in the game industry isn't at all simple.
No doubt they have people hired to keep those things in check.
It's even so if you work for a company in the game industry (even small ones) you often have to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
So try to understand them too.
The game industry did change alot the last decade(s). More and more companies see the benifits of involving their community.
I follow ALOT of companies that do so, since i play(ed) manny different games, so far Frontier is doing alot better then others.
They even organized an EXPO, I really wish I could have been there, sadly I couldn't make it.
You know I get frustrated that people just can't or won't understand that the people who work @ Frontier are also human, and that it's "just" their job and most if not all @ Frontier love their jobs.
That means they do what to they do as fast and devoted as humanly possible. I'm even impressed by their rate of updates and the amount of content they release.
If they could they would please everyone of us, but you can't make a perfect game in an imperfect world/universe/multi-verse... some things are just impossible.
We can keep posting all our concerns and frustration on the forum here over and over... it won't change anything because of the above reasons.
I suggest to instead of beign mad and cranky to encourage Frontier with what they do right, and gently make suggestion where they could improve.
It would make them happy and work faster and we wouldn't ragequit planet coaster because certain features aren't there YET.
Look at the bright side of life
THIS! [up]
Last edited:
I'm really hoping for a huge success of PC, but they gave us... let's say a beta version. Instead of the AAA game we have something like AA(+A in progress) game.
The game still feels incomplete. Of course they started to work on really cool tools to create the parks we want... but that's it (so far).
Sorry, but things that should work intuitively like placing paths, create nice coasters, edit the terrain (water!?) or try some new ideas for buildings, are all not easy to use and that's the reason why I'm still not happy with this game, yet!
Why do we still need to adjust everything to ground level?
It's not fun to create a nice park, it's really hard (and time consuming) work.
The PDLC and free updates to top up the minimum content of the game is up to Frontier's business plans...
But PC should be a game (for me a newer/better RCT3) and not a design programm. So this aspect needs some more attention.
The game still feels incomplete. Of course they started to work on really cool tools to create the parks we want... but that's it (so far).
Sorry, but things that should work intuitively like placing paths, create nice coasters, edit the terrain (water!?) or try some new ideas for buildings, are all not easy to use and that's the reason why I'm still not happy with this game, yet!
Why do we still need to adjust everything to ground level?
It's not fun to create a nice park, it's really hard (and time consuming) work.
The PDLC and free updates to top up the minimum content of the game is up to Frontier's business plans...
But PC should be a game (for me a newer/better RCT3) and not a design programm. So this aspect needs some more attention.
Last edited:
Every new item will become second nature after some time and used enough you don't want to go back to how you used to do it. A good example (for me) is FIFA from EA. I get the new version every year and every time I get the new version it takes some time to get used to the "new controls". Yes, they are for the most part similar as before but with slight variations. Even these small variations have a big impact in how you play. You learn/adapt to the controls and eventually master them. Then they become second nature until the next version comes out. I am by no means a good FIFA player, average at best but I enjoy the game, but even "professional FIFA players" have the same struggle the first couple of weeks with the new game. For me, going back to the RCT3 style of building feels very outdated and clunky compared to what PlanCo does even though they are "similar". Progression will always have resistance in the beginning, no matter what field it is in.
What kept RTC3 popular for so long was the design part of the game, not the game itself. That I think has influenced Frontier a lot when developing PlanCo. The majority of the hardcore fans that kept playing RCT3 enjoyed the design part more than the game and management part. Frontier also got a lot of praise for that decision during the early days and even today, especially when you compare to how they competition turned out with RTCW.
Afraid RCTW is gonna steal the show with a final update you mean? [haha]
Where does this assumption come from? Aside from the usual suspects, who would hold it against Frontier if they explained sorry, but for this or that reason we can't include feature XY as soon as we wanted to. And giving us a rough roadmap wouldn't mean they had to make promises.
You're arguing they shouldn't say anything and let people become frustrated because if they gave more information there's a chance people might become frustrated if things don't go as planned... [squeeeeee] Can you see the irony here?
We're not talking about perfection here. We're (maybe I should say I?) not talking about making everyone happy. There are 3 things Frontier says they're offering with PC: building, simulation and management. In every area there are issues that people have been pointing out for a long time.
It's only reasonable to expect Frontier to turn these three things into a working and enjoyable game. If after a year people are still complaining about the same things since before release you gotta wonder what's going on. This is what I think is happening.
Is it a huge game? Sure. But it was the company that set the scope of the project. If they can't get work done fast enough having more people work on it should do the trick, right?
You see, requesting faster progress/ more fixes/ etc. doesn't mean anyone is disrespecting hard working devs or saying they're lazy and should do more. I believe Bo when she says everyone working on the game is greatly invested. But there is still not enough progress at basic things. So we're talking about priorities here as well.
The best way to encourage people to encourage someone is of course telling them they're mad and cranky. [wacky]
I find it's fun up to a certain point. Then I lose interest because of all of the little (and some bigger) annoyances and the huge amount of time everything takes.
After hundreds of hours I'd say that's true for some things (terrain) but not for others (water!!!!, making paths confirm to terrain). Also there are things that are hard because features are missing (matching different grids to align things), bugged (3D gizmo) or a flawed design (scenery <> blueprints).
Last edited:
This part again becomes very subjective to what each person has as its priorities. Around launch and during the first 6 months or so there were a lot of "complains" about too few rides (compare to RTC3) so Frontier prioritized adding/finishing more rides for the game. Now we have almost double the amount of rides compared to launch. Then there were a lot of requests for fireworks and they added those as well. There were also a ton of requests for custom screens so that was added to the game. A lot of people complained about the limit of not being able to select what textures they would like to use for each map. Frontier first said it would not possible and then they figured out a way to do it. to make us happy. All these were highly requested items that Frontier one way or another prioritized. Spending time on these items (I have no idea of knowing how they were prioritized originally, if at all) took away time from looking into other things. Unfortunately, for us, Frontier has limited resources, every company has, so if they change direction so please some parts of the customer base, other items may, temporarily, take a backseat for a while. You may not agree with how they prioritize things since they don't fit into your wishlist but it does for others. I don't think we can say that they have added anything that the majority did not like at the time it was added. Just look at the live streams, reveal blog posts etc and see the happy people.
Again, subjective items. I don't really have an issue with any of those items, either because I don't think they are broken or need adjustment or that I don't use them myself. These are all my subjective thoughts, not yours as I know they are different. But we are all right to have them and they are all equally correct seen from an objective standpoint.
Usually if someone complains that issues which exist since beta are not getting fixed, because Frontier is too busy making new assets, they're quickly reminded that the people who are making new rides are not the ones responsible for fixing stuff. This is correct obviously, so your logic doesn't make sense.
And my point still stands, all of the problems need solutions (I'll give management a pass because I can't see a solution here).
You argued PC's systems are fine and even better than everything before, once people get used to them. I'm telling you in my reply why this - while it may apply to some features - does not hold true. For example if multi piece moving screws up orientation this is not a matter of getting used to it. It's a bug or maybe the feature is simply unfinished. Saying you don't use it doesn't change the objective fact that it's not working as it should.
Last edited:
it seems to me that the hype train pre-release had different policies and rules in play.
and it worked very effectively.
and i think it's an essential ingredient to this "drip feed" release model.
the new rules of "hype" are, well, anti-hype.
surprise features have no hype, because hype is about the sense of anticipation, wonder, speculation. now we are expected to be excited AFTER the thing, rather than getting excited BEFORE the thing? that is an error in human behaviour management.
Examples:
* releasing videos and images that happen to contain "oops" spoilers
* letting Spoiler Sam run a little wild
* officially sharing future directions, concepts, art, ideas
* discussing (vs dodging) things in the forum
Sam, is a hype-generating machine! We love him, we cannot get enough of him.
but at FX17, it felt like he was totally shut down, and on a very short leash re spoilers.
even his presentation had no "Sam-ness"; he presented, stayed on script, didn't wander and freewheel like he normally does. the presentation was long enough to ensure he couldn't wander, and had NO time for questions. hmmm.
someone at Frontier has decided that "spoilers" (i.e. pretty much anything that generates hype, anticipation, joy, debate, discussion, wonder, speculation, ... i.e. everything that adds passion to the community), must somehow pose some sort of commercial risk? what about the risk that the releases fall flat, the surprises are met with much meh, and players are complaining without end on social media about the lack of hype-building communication?
this thread has discussed the release model, "free" updates, communication, and community reaction.
i think the outstanding hype train was, and should still be, an important ingredient of the release model.
it IS possible to pre-hype a "free update", because... anticipation.
it's like Alfred Hitchcock's quote "There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it." he also said this about anticipation:
it is almost impossible to post-hype a free update, since many feel entitled to it anyway.
I AM HAPPY (and i appreciate) that the team are doing their best to communicate within the new anti-hype rules, whatever they may be, but those rules are a fail. the old rules generated huge love, a predominantly positive forum, and huge sales. the new rules are generating the opposite. maybe the old rules contained a RISK of commercial damage, but the new rules are generating ACTUAL damage. time to re-evaluate?
another example: everyone i met at FX17 was insanely passionate, and talked enthusiastically and openly open their love of the game, love of the company, love of the community. so awesome. but bring up the lack of interaction on the forums and watch the body language: tense, shutdown posture, drop in volume and tone, muttering about "yeah, well, sorry", sudden change of topics... like suddenly an alien took over their brains. that is not natural, and i wonder if that is the result of strict rules, orders, policies, which make them uncomfortable.
and it worked very effectively.
and i think it's an essential ingredient to this "drip feed" release model.
the new rules of "hype" are, well, anti-hype.
surprise features have no hype, because hype is about the sense of anticipation, wonder, speculation. now we are expected to be excited AFTER the thing, rather than getting excited BEFORE the thing? that is an error in human behaviour management.
Examples:
* releasing videos and images that happen to contain "oops" spoilers
* letting Spoiler Sam run a little wild
* officially sharing future directions, concepts, art, ideas
* discussing (vs dodging) things in the forum
Sam, is a hype-generating machine! We love him, we cannot get enough of him.
but at FX17, it felt like he was totally shut down, and on a very short leash re spoilers.
even his presentation had no "Sam-ness"; he presented, stayed on script, didn't wander and freewheel like he normally does. the presentation was long enough to ensure he couldn't wander, and had NO time for questions. hmmm.
someone at Frontier has decided that "spoilers" (i.e. pretty much anything that generates hype, anticipation, joy, debate, discussion, wonder, speculation, ... i.e. everything that adds passion to the community), must somehow pose some sort of commercial risk? what about the risk that the releases fall flat, the surprises are met with much meh, and players are complaining without end on social media about the lack of hype-building communication?
this thread has discussed the release model, "free" updates, communication, and community reaction.
i think the outstanding hype train was, and should still be, an important ingredient of the release model.
it IS possible to pre-hype a "free update", because... anticipation.
it's like Alfred Hitchcock's quote "There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it." he also said this about anticipation:
it is almost impossible to post-hype a free update, since many feel entitled to it anyway.
I AM HAPPY (and i appreciate) that the team are doing their best to communicate within the new anti-hype rules, whatever they may be, but those rules are a fail. the old rules generated huge love, a predominantly positive forum, and huge sales. the new rules are generating the opposite. maybe the old rules contained a RISK of commercial damage, but the new rules are generating ACTUAL damage. time to re-evaluate?
another example: everyone i met at FX17 was insanely passionate, and talked enthusiastically and openly open their love of the game, love of the company, love of the community. so awesome. but bring up the lack of interaction on the forums and watch the body language: tense, shutdown posture, drop in volume and tone, muttering about "yeah, well, sorry", sudden change of topics... like suddenly an alien took over their brains. that is not natural, and i wonder if that is the result of strict rules, orders, policies, which make them uncomfortable.
This makes me almost happy to hear. At least they know something is wrong. It has been probably my biggest criticism with this game, that we were "promised" (not directly, but it was very much insinuated) a very open and back and forth-type of development, but that was shut down real quick. Even the Coaster Head forum went silent once they got their money for it pretty much. It's something they should be ashamed about, and I'm kind of happy that it seems like they are.
This did strike me as odd, too. I had been under the same impression but after release they went dark quickly.
And sure you can try to spin it as "do you want the devs to hang out on the forums rather than make the game?" but in my opinion that's a false dichotomy.
Last edited:
To slightly disagree with myself for a moment,
FX17 did offer some pre-release hype value, although not in the more exciting modes I was referring to here:
So maybe they are hunting for some kind of compromise? I still submit that the old free flowing modes, with oopsies , clips, diaries and sneaky hints, was more effective than grand reveal announcements.
FX17 did offer some pre-release hype value, although not in the more exciting modes I was referring to here:
So maybe they are hunting for some kind of compromise? I still submit that the old free flowing modes, with oopsies , clips, diaries and sneaky hints, was more effective than grand reveal announcements.
so seeker how many hours should the developers answer questions on the forums? should they spend 1 hour 2 maybe 3 a day? instead of the developers sitting here answering the same question 30 times a day. Maybe we can get a section to post questions to them, or have Bo summit them and get an answers? that she could answer in the next weeks stream or every 2 weeks. As an owner of a company I don't want 1 of my highest paid employees sitting around responding to questions all day. that's not what he was hired to do.
Last edited:
All the key people I met, made a point of stating that they frequent the forums, read all the posts, and take it all in. In the office, and in their own time.
So your logic is partly true.
It would indeed take a little time to actually reply.
But it could save time too: they'll get good ideas, and might avoid building things we really don't want.
It's not really about answering questions, it's more about being open about where the development is heading. They keep reiterating the "community focus" that they're having, but (and I've said this many times before) it's all fluff really. Sure it's fun with contests and creator highlights, but that's not what the deal was suppose to be from the start. It was supposed to be a back and forth between the community and the developers, at least that's how they presented this whole thing from the get go. That doesn't mean that they need to go in and answer every single question that's posted in here, but it does mean that maybe they'll do a weekly/monthly developer update where we can give feedback on what's to come and which direction they're going in.
This example has been beaten to death, but it still a great one - Parkitect. Smaller game, sure, but also a LOT smaller team (they're pretty much three people developing this game). They still take time to do frequent updates on the development, they live stream assets being made, they take suggestions, they have a dialogue. And they manage to pump out frequent updates every single month.
It's not about having or not having time, it's about a certain way of developing a game. Frontier chose to do it behind closed doors, and I seriously believe that it has severely hurt the game's development and focus.
Last edited:
I will say this out of the 1 million copies sold. I would bet no more than 20K look at these forums or even post to them. that's only 2% of the entire planet coaster community. we are the minority of players to post or suggest ideas, or give feedback, and I would go even farther to say if the rest of the 98% looked on the forums it's in the troubleshooting section / bugs.
20k, or even 2k, is a statistically useful sample size, especially if it's biased towards the most active players, Early birds, coaster heads, potential modders, i.e. those who play a lot, paid a lot, care a lot, and are likely to still be playing 10 years from now.
It would not be statistically useful if the forum population was mostly non-players, infrequent players and people who spend the least money on the game.
I think the forum is more representative of the first group than the second.
so basically you just want them to tell the community what they are working on? And now you paint them into a corner so you can say you guys have been working on item XYZ for 6 months why is it not ready, what's the hold up when are you going to finish? Go read the modding thread that GregorBurns is working on, a week went by and 1-2 people where all like any news come on hurry up already.
As far as Parkitect goes it looks worse than RCT or a mobile phone game just on my PC IMHO just with more management.
Did anyone from Atari do that with RCT3 how about RCTW? not that I know of oh wait the few questions Matt Lab answered not many
Did anyone from Dice do that with Star Wars Battlefront? I don't recall seeing anything that.
Frontier is still doing some Live streams with developers just not as many as before and it's not an hour of Q and A. and if your talking about the 2 hour live chat with developers they may have gotten 10 questions answered, cause of 50 people typing questions 1 at a time. would I like to see more yes.
Last edited:
Joël
Volunteer Moderator
Nice post. Well explained, thanks! [up]
You're right about hype in retrospect. And not to disagee, but I would make a distinction between building hype (which is what worked well for the anniversary update, so well there was lot of disappointment) and giving the community an idea of what to expect (and not to expect) in the future. I feel there needs to be some sort of "balance" between the two. Because right now the lack of info makes the hype backfire.
2.5 hours. [wink] No seriously, it's really about transparency. You can repeat yourself over and over, the we're listening statement doesn't communicate that the devs are in fact listening. That's not because they're lying but because the disconnect between the message and their behaviour: There is communication but most of that has little to do with development. What many feel are the biggest concerns have still not even been acknowleged - in all this time. If someone is listening we expect they respond to us. This doesn't mean the devs have to write on the forums all the time. But you want to make people feel heard. Repeating a one liner doesn't do that. And pointing to a select few items that have been asked for to kind of prove you're serious really doesn't work either when it feels like you're going the easy way, cherry picking what is convenient for you. Be aware, it's about the perception.
If you as the owner of a company don't care about customer relations you're underestimating its importance. And if it poses an impossible challenge for Frontier to have someone talk about the direction of development I'd start worrying about more than just comunication.
This.
Staying in touch with your (potentially) most loyal fans doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
These questions are being asked as we speak. Are you working on this, is it possible that, when are you going to fix this... The same questions, over and over again and they go unanswered. So I don't see why this is supposed to be better.
They're working on the game for A YEAR now, it's only reasonable to ask what is the hold up, what is up with XYZ?, no matter how badly Atari was handling things with RCTW.
Except this "explanation" wasn't totally correct. [wink] Maybe you've overlooked my response but for example saying an objective fact was merely subjective doesn't make it that way.
Joël
Volunteer Moderator
I haven't overlooked your response.
Stating personal opinions as if it were facts (which apply to everyone) doesn't make those opinions facts.