When Quality Pays The Price For Going Gold
Posted 06-18-2008 at 03:02 PM by H2O Ninjitstu
In this article I ask is the rush to release and cash in on new games causing the overall game quality to suffer?
There used to be something very special about being involved on a working title, like a piece of art it would have had a great amount of care, dedication and time spent on it. The end result would be something the dev team could feel proud about, happy in the knowledge that their product would be enjoyed by thousands. But with the ever expanding demand for new games there is a greater need to develop games quicker. With that the artform of creating a great game has succumbed to the quest for money. Like all industries it can be harsh at times, but in the same way that football is more about money than sport the video games industry can sometimes let business decisions affect games. Too often I have seen, and on occaision experienced how much pressure developers and studios are under to get their title to go gold before a strict deadline. The process of making a game is being done quicker, each stage used to be a gradual process of time, games went from alpha to beta, pass submission and then went gold only once they were as near to perfect as possible.
As much as I love this industry there are still things I don’t personally like. Maybe these are the words of a tester but I just think that a little bit more time spent on ‘quality assurance’ would go a long way. I’m not saying games don’t still have to go through as many checks anymore because anyone who has seen the TRC/TCR Standards manual will say otherwise, just that actual playtesting should be considered as important. This is where I think the root of the problem begins, where the business sense comes into play. In order to release a game a developer has to submit their game to Sony or Microsoft (or respective companies) for tests and at a cost of around £8000 a time it means its vital to pass submission first time, otherwise its a waste of company money. Once the game is approved its more or less the green light to release. This is when the situation changes and it becomes less about being perfect and more about when the moneymen can sell it.
In some way it seems saddening and annoying that the final versions of some games can be so flawed. Halo 2 is a perfect example of how bug finding can become a game within the actual game itself. The fact that glitching, despite being a industry hated word, is now a common online gaming expression says it all. The worst culprits are the companies who know they will sell games just for the name alone and churn out games like mass produced Fords. Could more time and care be taken when making a game? Definitely, but business is business.
Dedicated with respect to those who set new standards and seek quality over quantity
There used to be something very special about being involved on a working title, like a piece of art it would have had a great amount of care, dedication and time spent on it. The end result would be something the dev team could feel proud about, happy in the knowledge that their product would be enjoyed by thousands. But with the ever expanding demand for new games there is a greater need to develop games quicker. With that the artform of creating a great game has succumbed to the quest for money. Like all industries it can be harsh at times, but in the same way that football is more about money than sport the video games industry can sometimes let business decisions affect games. Too often I have seen, and on occaision experienced how much pressure developers and studios are under to get their title to go gold before a strict deadline. The process of making a game is being done quicker, each stage used to be a gradual process of time, games went from alpha to beta, pass submission and then went gold only once they were as near to perfect as possible.
As much as I love this industry there are still things I don’t personally like. Maybe these are the words of a tester but I just think that a little bit more time spent on ‘quality assurance’ would go a long way. I’m not saying games don’t still have to go through as many checks anymore because anyone who has seen the TRC/TCR Standards manual will say otherwise, just that actual playtesting should be considered as important. This is where I think the root of the problem begins, where the business sense comes into play. In order to release a game a developer has to submit their game to Sony or Microsoft (or respective companies) for tests and at a cost of around £8000 a time it means its vital to pass submission first time, otherwise its a waste of company money. Once the game is approved its more or less the green light to release. This is when the situation changes and it becomes less about being perfect and more about when the moneymen can sell it.
In some way it seems saddening and annoying that the final versions of some games can be so flawed. Halo 2 is a perfect example of how bug finding can become a game within the actual game itself. The fact that glitching, despite being a industry hated word, is now a common online gaming expression says it all. The worst culprits are the companies who know they will sell games just for the name alone and churn out games like mass produced Fords. Could more time and care be taken when making a game? Definitely, but business is business.
Dedicated with respect to those who set new standards and seek quality over quantity
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
Great Blog! I do agree quality over quantity is best. However I've also notice that because of the ability to patch and patch games again that glitches slowly get removed. Not the best plan of action but games like DA:O and WoW when they first came out were riddled with bugs and glitches. Now they run really well. I imagine companies find it cheaper not to spend a lot on QA and just let their audience find the bugs for them to a certain extent.Posted 01-13-2011 at 02:35 PM by PMS Dioscuri 
