The truth about free updates and frustration (including opinions)

[Stream]

It is a very different world and economic climate in the gaming industry today than back in the days. Back then you more or less were forced to release a game with no bugs because there very very limited ways of updating them after release. You had to make new CD-ROMS for example. Very costly. If you had a bug you just had to live with it. Slim chance to get an update out quickly. Buying a game back then was a much higher risk than today and the games cost about the same as today. Some might even be cheaper today than before. But the consumers also did not know about a certain game until it was ready for release and you only heard about them through a magazine or maybe a TV show. There were no Internet (as we know it today), no YouTube to advertise the game etc. Unless you were a big developer or a brilliant person (Chris Sawyer) you had no chance to survive in the gaming industry. Today news about games are leaked (or released on purpose) long before a game is finished. With platforms like Steam even a tiny 2 person company can get their games out there for next to nothing compared to how it used to work. Now they are "forced", in many ways by us the consumers, to release early to undercut the competition or to stay relevant as a company (survival). It doesn't always work but just see what happened with RCTW. PlanCo was a hell of a lot more refined and finished game at release than RCTW ever became. But Atari saw that they were losing towards PlanCo and were forced to release early or all the customers would have gone to Frontier (which they eventually did do). So we, the consumers as a whole, not just for this game, has created this way of release cycles long time ago. Even the mamoths in the software industry, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc. have stopped releasing new versions, they just released updates to the existing ones. In many of those cases, like Adobe and Microsoft, you still have to pay a monthly or yearly subscription fee. Same thinking with the "Season Pass" feature a lot of games, mainly FPS and bigger AAA releases. You as a consumer either pay a subscription fee and get access to whatever new content they decide to release (not always known upfront what it will be and how much). This is the economy of the gaming industry today. The past is in the past, we need to move on shape the future. It was not always better in the past. Certainly not in the gaming industry world.

I mean... that was quite a long time ago. Talking like... 15 years ago maybe? For PC games at least. There were patches coming out for games a long time ago, even for RCT3 they had patches coming out. Of course they couldn't be as huge as they can be now due to internet speeds, but they could at least fix bugs and stuff via downloadable patches.

I also don't think that anyone is arguing about whether things were better in the past or not, it's more of a fact that companies released full games back in the day, whereas now games seem to be a work in progress even after release - and not just bug-wise but also content-wise. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is another discussion, but the fact is that you can't count updates coming out as being a bonus or a gift from developers, when all they actually are is a means of completing the game.

 

[moonjive]

Whilst I like the idea of paid add-ons there's one issue which is the disparity it creates between those who wish to purchase the content and those that don't. Shared content down the line will grow ever more restrictive ( I will always refer to LittleBigPlanet here, but they have a play and create mode which allows users who don't have the content to play but not edit levels). They should try to keep the paid content to large and infrequent points. People will always reflect upon RCT3 which on release was a pay once and then only 2 more times for the massive expansion packs. The base game also had the themes such as horror, which we are now obliged to pay extra for (but the out of place holiday theme was free...) It makes the more long term fans a bit confused as to what the total cost of all these smallish add-ons will be in addition to the base game, which was and still is incomplete in my opinion. I get that there will be free updates, but developing and deciding what is free to what is paid for, therefore concerns me as this is a much slower process, and the individual purchases may eventually be compressed into one purchase pack, i.e an ongoing construction of an expansion pack made of the multiple add-ons throughout the year. I hope this is not the case as i'd much rather pay one price for all. It is just unfortunate that the gaming economic model has changed to become this way, and that Frontier has followed suit. I would have always paid for a tiered deluxe edition of the game for say £49.99 (instead of £27.99) which included all future paid content (assuming there won't be any huge expansions).

 

[En Anu]

It is a very different world and economic climate in the gaming industry today than back in the days. Back then you more or less were forced to release a game with no bugs because there very very limited ways of updating them after release. You had to make new CD-ROMS for example. Very costly. If you had a bug you just had to live with it. Slim chance to get an update out quickly. Buying a game back then was a much higher risk than today and the games cost about the same as today. Some might even be cheaper today than before. But the consumers also did not know about a certain game until it was ready for release and you only heard about them through a magazine or maybe a TV show. There were no Internet (as we know it today), no YouTube to advertise the game etc. Unless you were a big developer or a brilliant person (Chris Sawyer) you had no chance to survive in the gaming industry. Today news about games are leaked (or released on purpose) long before a game is finished. With platforms like Steam even a tiny 2 person company can get their games out there for next to nothing compared to how it used to work. Now they are "forced", in many ways by us the consumers, to release early to undercut the competition or to stay relevant as a company (survival). It doesn't always work but just see what happened with RCTW. PlanCo was a hell of a lot more refined and finished game at release than RCTW ever became. But Atari saw that they were losing towards PlanCo and were forced to release early or all the customers would have gone to Frontier (which they eventually did do). So we, the consumers as a whole, not just for this game, has created this way of release cycles long time ago. Even the mamoths in the software industry, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc. have stopped releasing new versions, they just released updates to the existing ones. In many of those cases, like Adobe and Microsoft, you still have to pay a monthly or yearly subscription fee. Same thinking with the "Season Pass" feature a lot of games, mainly FPS and bigger AAA releases. You as a consumer either pay a subscription fee and get access to whatever new content they decide to release (not always known upfront what it will be and how much). This is the economy of the gaming industry today. The past is in the past, we need to move on shape the future. It was not always better in the past. Certainly not in the gaming industry world.

Point being this new modern way of releasing games has its pros and definitely cons, it also opens the gateway to kickstarter and dodgy software companies who had no intention to have any longevity!

On the plus side you get an early bird version, community build up, insight to future projects for the same game.

On the down side you get a basic game, reduced content (original SIMS is a good example for this), waiting months & years for bugs to get fixed, reading community deflation to the problems just mentioned and therefore heated debates leading to more negativity, conflict of interest between those that want fortified base game and those who don't care much for that and just want the DLCs and aesthetics,

I can see where you are trying to go with those however your bias is pro PC/Frontier and not objective.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I mean... that was quite a long time ago. Talking like... 15 years ago maybe? For PC games at least. There were patches coming out for games a long time ago, even for RCT3 they had patches coming out. Of course they couldn't be as huge as they can be now due to internet speeds, but they could at least fix bugs and stuff via downloadable patches.

I also don't think that anyone is arguing about whether things were better in the past or not, it's more of a fact that companies released full games back in the day, whereas now games seem to be a work in progress even after release - and not just bug-wise but also content-wise. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is another discussion, but the fact is that you can't count updates coming out as being a bonus or a gift from developers, when all they actually are is a means of completing the game.

Thank you, there was me think I was not being rational and I mentioned the WIP situation earlier today in other replies.

 

[En Anu]

Whilst I like the idea of paid add-ons there's one issue which is the disparity it creates between those who wish to purchase the content and those that don't. Shared content down the line will grow ever more restrictive ( I will always refer to LittleBigPlanet here, but they have a play and create mode which allows users who don't have the content to play but not edit levels). They should try to keep the paid content to large and infrequent points. People will always reflect upon RCT3 which on release was a pay once and then only 2 more times for the massive expansion packs. The base game also had the themes such as horror, which we are now obliged to pay extra for (but the out of place holiday theme was free...) It makes the more long term fans a bit confused as to what the total cost of all these smallish add-ons will be in addition to the base game, which was and still is incomplete in my opinion. I get that there will be free updates, but developing and deciding what is free to what is paid for, therefore concerns me as this is a much slower process, and the individual purchases may eventually be compressed into one purchase pack, i.e an ongoing construction of an expansion pack made of the multiple add-ons throughout the year. I hope this is not the case as i'd much rather pay one price for all. It is just unfortunate that the gaming economic model has changed to become this way, and that Frontier has followed suit. I would have always paid for a tiered deluxe edition of the game for say £49.99 (instead of £27.99) which included all future paid content (assuming there won't be any huge expansions).

Exactly - I have mentioned this in many other threads about big expansion packs (after underlying issues of base game has been resolved, yes big expansion packs maybe bi annual releases for them with fair to generous content and tools, this also gives everyone a chance to use the workshop also knowing simply only two expansions to date have been released and not several micro transactions!

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I agree that things were not better in the past. There was a time when there were no patches. Games got released with game breaking bugs and they got never fixed. It is a different time now.
You will probably agree, we should participate in the shaping of the future. This is why we're here, we want to participate.

The participation means that Frontier have to also reply to members regarding the most important base game fixes and then the wish list secondary!

 

[FutureFear]

You're saying no matter what Frontier does or doesn't do, people will always complain and no matter what they do or don't do PC will always be imperfect. So if I take your argument seriously it leads to the absurd conclusion it doesn't matter what Frontier does or doesn't do. The devs could as well pack up and go home. Hm....

They can do whatever they see fit with planet coaster, it's their game, you just bought a license to play it... and by doing so agreed to their terms of use.
They don't have to tell us anything or give us any (free) updates, in theorie they can even quit supporting the game and you, or any of us can't do anything about it except complain.

Yes, it doesn't matter what Frontier does or doesn't do, the game always will be imperfect for atleast 1 person.
Like i said perfection doesn't exist, you can't please everyone.... people will always find something to disagree on.

It just seems some people here still don't get it, Frontier does know all the flaws, bumps and bugs in planet coaster no matter if they are pointed out/ posted here on the forum, Facebook, twitter, reddit, youtube,...
They said more as once they do read the forums and listens to the community on al these platforms.
Do they really have to answer to every single post that points out these "bugs"and/or suggestions??
Or do you rather want they use that time to actually fix the problem or inplement that suggestion...??

So yes they could actually waste precious time to enlighten us with everything they are working on (and at that time not work on it...)

I understand the frustration that some people have because "bugs" are still in the game even after a year... and yes in that time they could have fixed it... why they didn't I don't know... but i can assume they had/have other priorities. Will these things be fixed in the future..? I don't know and I assume they don't know either, because no one can predict the future. Are these things on their to do list, they probably are will they ever tell us they are there? Probabably not.
Why? Because they probably have other priorities...

If you go on a restaurant you also don't ask the cook to explain why your favorit food isn't on the menu or what's inside your meal,... you just eat it, pay it, like it or hate it --> same principal with planet coaster.

If the food is that bad you just cook it yourself, but i doubt anyone here attempted to make a game like planet coaster because they don't like it.

 

[Chems]

They don't have to respond to all the problems/bugs people post here. Although it would be nice if they at least respond to some of the issues that have been popping up again and again since the game's launch.

 

[ojonas]

The participation means that Frontier have to also reply to members regarding the most important base game fixes and then the wish list secondary!

Frontier doesn't HAVE to do anything. Maybe they should (or shouldn't) but by no means are they obligated or should be forced to do so. They have probably had many long meetings and internal discussion on how to handle this situation (bugs reported by users) and whatever way they have selected is what they are doing at the moment. That may chance next week or month. Who knows. Business are by nature very dynamic and fluid. The risk they are taking by not replying to certain (all?) questions and reports is that maybe some or many decided to stop playing the game and not buy anything else from Frontier potentially reducing future income. From what it looks like Frontier seems OK with that and in that case also believe that the alternative would be more risky to their long term business model. Only time will tell if they are right or wrong with that. But they do not have to tell us anything. We accept their terms of usage by buying the right to play the game (license). They still own the game, we don't.

 

[Stream]

Frontier doesn't HAVE to do anything. Maybe they should (or shouldn't) but by no means are they obligated or should be forced to do so. They have probably had many long meetings and internal discussion on how to handle this situation (bugs reported by users) and whatever way they have selected is what they are doing at the moment. That may chance next week or month. Who knows. Business are by nature very dynamic and fluid. The risk they are taking by not replying to certain (all?) questions and reports is that maybe some or many decided to stop playing the game and not buy anything else from Frontier potentially reducing future income. From what it looks like Frontier seems OK with that and in that case also believe that the alternative would be more risky to their long term business model. Only time will tell if they are right or wrong with that. But they do not have to tell us anything. We accept their terms of usage by buying the right to play the game (license). They still own the game, we don't.

I mean, there are things like false advertisement and a reasonable expectation of quality when you buy a product. You can't state a game is going to be X, Y, and Z and then only deliver X. Not saying that that's what Frontier has done, just saying that they are obligated to deliver what they've said they would deliver. Which is a bit up for interpretation, but I think one thing they definitely haven't delivered on at this point is the "simulation evolved" aspect of things.

Either way, no one is demanding Frontier to do anything here, we're discussing why people get disappointed and upset when issues that are glaringly obvious aren't getting fixed, and they instead add in something that's kind of like... what? Of course Frontier can do whatever they want, the issue is whether that will make their player base stay/return or not. That's the issue and that's what they need to keep in mind moving forward.

 

[seeker939]

They can do whatever they see fit with planet coaster, it's their game, you just bought a license to play it... and by doing so agreed to their terms of use.
They don't have to tell us anything or give us any (free) updates, in theorie they can even quit supporting the game and you, or any of us can't do anything about it except complain.

Yes, it doesn't matter what Frontier does or doesn't do, the game always will be imperfect for atleast 1 person.
Like i said perfection doesn't exist, you can't please everyone.... people will always find something to disagree on.

The exact same thing could be said for any game and games company. EA, Atari...

Do they really have to answer to every single post that points out these "bugs"and/or suggestions??

Who exactly is demanding "answers to every single post"? Multiple people have said that's not what they meant. In this very thread they have explained that this specifically is NOT what better communication would look like.

The same nonsensical arguments keep getting repeated, even after it should be clear they have no validity. I mean not just in this one post but in general. Come on people!

Frontier doesn't HAVE to do anything. Maybe they should (or shouldn't) but by no means are they obligated or should be forced to do so.

Who exactly are you talking to right now? I mean, technically you're right but what's the point of making those statements?

The risk they are taking by not replying to certain (all?) questions and reports is that maybe some or many decided to stop playing the game and not buy anything else from Frontier potentially reducing future income.

Same as above: No, not all.

Even if there was no advantage in changing their communication strategy I'd still argue it's the right thing to do (see earlier in this thread).

 

[jamesviago]

Did they say when this will be resolved and put on an update?

#whenitsfun(tm)
#whenitsready(tm)

more seriously, there were three separate conversations, with groups of people, and the responses were fairly similar and in my head they summarised as: "we are investigating and are uncertain of the precise cause. therefore, it'll take an unknown amount of time to become certain (we don't know what we don't know). but it is important, and we hear you, and it will be fixed as a matter of urgency once we know what the problem is."

to be fair i was more interested in other topics, so i wasn't paying tight attention to this one, but that was the impression i got.
there were plenty of other people standing around listening as well, perhaps they could add value here...

 

[FutureFear]

The exact same thing could be said for any game and games company. EA, Atari...

Yes, every game company has such terms, I even had the "pleasure" to see my account in a game just been deleted (the game company quit supporting the game). The sad part is, it had a virtual value of 10K Euro... nothing I could do.

Who exactly is demanding "answers to every single post"? Multiple people have said that's not what they meant. In this very thread they have explained that this specifically is NOT what better communication would look like.

The same nonsensical arguments keep getting repeated, even after it should be clear they have no validity. I mean not just in this one post but in general. Come on people!

Yes some people have pointed out that answering to everything isn't what they want, but in the end it's what they have to do if they start answering to anyone...
Why?
Because you want an answer to A and i want an answer to B and the next person to C and so on,...
it seems it's really hard to understand they just don't have time to do that... that's one of the reasons why forum moderators exist.

 

[En Anu]

#whenitsfun(tm)
#whenitsready(tm)

more seriously, there were three separate conversations, with groups of people, and the responses were fairly similar and in my head they summarised as: "we are investigating and are uncertain of the precise cause. therefore, it'll take an unknown amount of time to become certain (we don't know what we don't know). but it is important, and we hear you, and it will be fixed as a matter of urgency once we know what the problem is."

to be fair i was more interested in other topics, so i wasn't paying tight attention to this one, but that was the impression i got.
there were plenty of other people standing around listening as well, perhaps they could add value here...

Is it fair to say they really didn't have many clear answers to give instead just giving generic statements?

 

[jamesviago]

Is it fair to say they really didn't have many clear answers to give instead just giving generic statements?

my impression was, that that conclusion would be unfair.

by that i mean, a few answers did appear "scripted" (told to say a certain thing), but most - 80%+ - seemed very genuine. the reasons and obstacles were legitimate and logical, not evasive. it was "cannot tell you what i don't know" rather than "cannot tell you because not allowed to".

we have asked for honest (even if unpopular) responses, and at FX17 i felt like we were getting honest (even when unpopular) answers to quite detailed questions. and there were groups of fans asking a LOT of questions. almost never were the responses "evasive". and fans worked out pretty quickly to ask several frontier people the same question, to see if the answers lined up.

so i came away with a positive experience, and a reinforced belief that they are really committed to the game and to the fans.

 

[Games4Tom]

my impression was, that that conclusion would be unfair.

by that i mean, a few answers did appear "scripted" (told to say a certain thing), but most - 80%+ - seemed very genuine. the reasons and obstacles were legitimate and logical, not evasive. it was "cannot tell you what i don't know" rather than "cannot tell you because not allowed to".

we have asked for honest (even if unpopular) responses, and at FX17 i felt like we were getting honest (even when unpopular) answers to quite detailed questions. and there were groups of fans asking a LOT of questions. almost never were the responses "evasive". and fans worked out pretty quickly to ask several frontier people the same question, to see if the answers lined up.

so i came away with a positive experience, and a reinforced belief that they are really committed to the game and to the fans.

I have to double this. I had that experience last year at the launch event already and have to say that it was exactely the same this year. I felt it was a lot og honesty around and I didn't feel to get empty phrases and blabla as asnwers to my questions.

 

[SPRidley]

I have to double this. I had that experience last year at the launch event already and have to say that it was exactely the same this year. I felt it was a lot og honesty around and I didn't feel to get empty phrases and blabla as asnwers to my questions.

Tripled in my case.
While i can say, sometimes communication is not their forte, a lot of it has been becuase some part of the community (thankfully, not all) get pretty angry when something has not gone their perfect way.
If we have unfinished water rides right now, dont forget, is becuase they were rushed as people literally said on the day "they would not buy the game if water rides were not present at release day" (or who does forget every stream getting spammed with "where is the water rides?"). The community is the one that loses here when they get angry because they think they are lied when, for example, do not see security guards or go karts implemented after they have been shown, the only thing we accomplish with this is them not showing or talking about stuff until they are sure it can be completed and added into the game in the next update.

Having a much more pleasant surrounding in the expo (were, i have to say, it was gladly surprising to see all the devs walking around the people at the expo, were you could openly talk with them about anything), they never evaded questions when asked and they went very deep into telling us why things were done the way they are done. And you can see the love their pore into the game clearly.
Also huge thumbs up for Andy C being as open as he is.

 

[Joël]

Tripled in my case.
While i can say, sometimes communication is not their forte, a lot of it has been becuase some part of the community (thankfully, not all) get pretty angry when something has not gone their perfect way.
If we have unfinished water rides right now, dont forget, is becuase they were rushed as people literally said on the day "they would not buy the game if water rides were not present at release day" (or who does forget every stream getting spammed with "where is the water rides?"). The community is the one that loses here when they get angry because they think they are lied when, for example, do not see security guards or go karts implemented after they have been shown, the only thing we accomplish with this is them not showing or talking about stuff until they are sure it can be completed and added into the game in the next update.

Having a much more pleasant surrounding in the expo (were, i have to say, it was gladly surprising to see all the devs walking around the people at the expo, were you could openly talk with them about anything), they never evaded questions when asked and they went very deep into telling us why things were done the way they are done. And you can see the love their pore into the game clearly.
Also huge thumbs up for Andy C being as open as he is.

^ This! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Quadrupled. [up]

 

[En Anu]

my impression was, that that conclusion would be unfair.

by that i mean, a few answers did appear "scripted" (told to say a certain thing), but most - 80%+ - seemed very genuine. the reasons and obstacles were legitimate and logical, not evasive. it was "cannot tell you what i don't know" rather than "cannot tell you because not allowed to".

we have asked for honest (even if unpopular) responses, and at FX17 i felt like we were getting honest (even when unpopular) answers to quite detailed questions. and there were groups of fans asking a LOT of questions. almost never were the responses "evasive". and fans worked out pretty quickly to ask several frontier people the same question, to see if the answers lined up.

so i came away with a positive experience, and a reinforced belief that they are really committed to the game and to the fans.

Okay so its a big thumbs up for integrity, that is good, what is concerning is the planning aspect and having an open book policy on the protocol for a monthly/quarterly basis at minimum to instill confidence with consumers and fans. For example the phsyical simulator side is far advanced over the management side there is no balance and no depth and the integrity on the management side is compromised and therefore that is why they use the words 'simulation evolved', based on this does it mean the PC zenith will be reached in say five years time?

 

[ojonas]

Okay so its a big thumbs up for integrity, that is good, what is concerning is the planning aspect and having an open book policy on the protocol for a monthly/quarterly basis at minimum to instill confidence with consumers and fans. For example the phsyical simulator side is far advanced over the management side there is no balance and no depth and the integrity on the management side is compromised and therefore that is why they use the words 'simulation evolved', based on this does it mean the PC zenith will be reached in say five years time?

As long as PlanCo is being profitable they will keep supporting the game. Many ways to archive (free and paid updates) and measure (various financial tools) this for Frontier. No business will kill off a product that makes them money at a comfortable level (in this case the Planet Coaster franchise). If the money stops coming in they will either kill the series or reinvent it (release sequels that are different enough to warrant it to be a new game along with having a large enough customer base willing to buy a sequel.

 

[SoapyIllusion]

*stares with grief at the broken record playing*

No matter how you word a post. What tone you use, or what fancy title you place on it. The reality is it comes down to facts, vs expectations. What can be measured vs nwhat cannot be measured.

Anytime that can be systematically measured, in this case STATED , POINTED, WRITTEN and or LOGGED claims by Frontier. You have list, you can compare that list to whats in the game. If there is a clear issue in that claim. You have a point. If Frontier said we promise this will be free, and they charged for it in DLC then you have a point. If you have none of these which 99.9 percent of these posts dont. Then its expectation and interpretation of whats valued. Period. And you have no point, therefore little argument. You dont have to like it. But it doesn't make Frontier anyless right doing it.

 

[En Anu]

As long as PlanCo is being profitable they will keep supporting the game. Many ways to archive (free and paid updates) and measure (various financial tools) this for Frontier. No business will kill off a product that makes them money at a comfortable level (in this case the Planet Coaster franchise). If the money stops coming in they will either kill the series or reinvent it (release sequels that are different enough to warrant it to be a new game along with having a large enough customer base willing to buy a sequel.

There seems to be a dilema here, a catch 22!

The base game needs more refinement as per the 'simulation' side more so for the management/tools than display/rides/shops/etc, needs to have more intricate AI with regard to your actions/decisions within the game which will unfold a chain of events. There are many games like this where the graphics might not be state of the art but the QOL / game play is fantastic and intriguing.

You are stating that if we do not continue to buy the DLCs as they come out (even though we might not want certain ones) then in time the devs will/might pull the plug and maybe not do the sequel.

So caught between a rock and a hard place here, do we just blindly pump money in as consumers into DLCs and just hope for the best and indirectly allow a company to psychologically hold one to ransom or keep protesting about base game not buy DLCs and watch it fold with a good chance there might not be a sequel.

Software companies of course could hold consumers to ransom with regard to the DLC situation, and harness the optimism of the consumer, knowing deep down that maybe that certain company could never full fill the whole simulation as advertised!