In the past few years, some of the biggest video games released have been regarded as absolute trainwrecks in the eyes of most gamers. I remember when CD Projekt Red's "Cyberpunk 2077" launched in 2020. It was a game that was hyped for years, and I was incredibly excited to play it. But when it released, it was a buggy mess. Fast forward to the 2023 launch of Bethesda's "Starfield," another game I had hugely anticipated. It was supposedly twenty years in the making, but once again, it released with major bugs despite being one of Bethesda's biggest launches ever.
Now, in 2024, I just recently downloaded a new game called "The First Descendant," and within the first 24 hours of the game's launch, the servers were down, and the game couldn't even be played. I was able to hop on and play a couple of days after the launch, but still, the circumstances of the release felt so familiar and unsurprising that it's caused me to ask:
What is with this new trend of video game developers releasing "AAA" titles in unfinished (and sometimes unplayable) states?
If you scroll through Twitter/X or Reddit, you might find answers blaming developers and game studios, but perhaps there is more to this new trend in the gaming industry.
The video game industry is highly competitive, with massive financial stakes involved for multiple parties. There's also the fact that new monetization models, like pre-orders, microtransactions, and Games as a Service (GaaS) models, introduce all kinds of economic pressures that can compromise the quality of a big game at launch.
Like I said, "CyberPunk 2077" looked very promising and was highly anticipated before its release but it still launched with numerous bugs, performance issues, and incomplete features, especially on older consoles like the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. The widespread backlash of criticism from players and critics led to over $51.2 million lost in refunds and the games' temporary removal from the PlayStation Store.
CD Projekt Red admitted to mandatory crunch periods leading up to the game’s release. Crunch is when developers work extended hours to meet strict deadlines, typically leading to burnout, reduced morale, and high turnover within development teams. Extended periods of crunch can also lead to physical and mental health issues among developers, resulting in long-term career impacts and a toxic work culture, as seen in reports from developers of Bethesda's "Fallout 76," another game that launched in 2018 with numerous bugs, server issues, and a general lack of content.
These examples show how the pressure to release games by a certain date can compromise the quality of the final product, leading to bugs and incomplete features. So why do companies do it? Money!
They're driven by a need to show continuous growth and profitability to their shareholders, which can seemingly lead to rushed releases to meet fiscal quarter goals or capitalize on high-demand periods like holidays. Which is why many publishers now rely on pre-order sales to gauge market interest and secure early revenue.
Pre-order campaigns are centered around hype and marketing, sometimes overselling features that aren't ready or fully developed, leading to consumer disillusionment. Because pre-orders generate substantial upfront revenue for game studios, they also incentivize publishers to market and sell games aggressively before they're actually fully finished. But this financial pressure can lead to rushing the development process to meet pre-order launch dates.
In the digital age, distribution platforms like Steam, Xbox Live, Nintendo Online, and the PlayStation Network all allow for continuous updates and patches post-release. This technological capability has shifted the industry’s approach, as these platforms have made it possible to release games that can be completed or fixed later on based on player feedback.
This shift set the stage for the GaaS or live service model, which emphasizes continuous content updates over time. Many titles like Epic's Fortnite, have been successful with this approach. While this can keep games fresh, it can also lead to initial releases that feel incomplete, with core features presumably added later.
Because of this new model, gamers are now like beta testers for games that aren't finished; New games typically cost $60-$70 and instead of getting a full experience at launch we now receiving a staggered rollout of features and content.
On top of this, it feels like developers are being forced to prioritize creating systems for microtransactions, like cosmetic items, loot boxes, and battle passes, over finishing the core game. This focus can detract from the overall game quality and could explain why gameplay systems and bugs aren't fixed in time at launch. Games designed around continuous revenue streams seem to launch in a bare-bones state because of the companies' plans to add content post-launch, creating an impression of incomplete products to us consumers.
Game's like Bioware's "Anthem" and Crystal Dynamic's "Marvel's Avengers" launched in bad, buggy states and gamers who preordered these were sold false hopes of future content and support, but the reality was that while the subsequent updates addressed many of the bugs and balancing issues of launch, they left little time, money, and energy for more content.
I really enjoyed "Marvel's Avengers" once I was able to actually play it. The story was amazing, but the gameplay was too repetitive and even the expansion content just felt like more of the same. The game didn't benefit from the live service aspect, and probably would have done better as a standalone game focused on the story and characters.
Delivering new, fresh content on a routine basis is a highly unsustainable model that only few publishers have pulled off. Some games like Bungie's "Destiny 2" have been successful overall with the live service model, but even several of their expansions and updates have faced criticism for lack of content, bugs, and balancing issues at launch. Couple this with the concept of content vaulting, which involves removing content from the game to, as Bungie puts it, "create a sustainable ecosystem where the world can continue to evolve in exciting ways." The Destiny Content Vault, as they call it, is a content model that allows Bungie to cycle content out of the game, with the possibility of a later return or update.
The notable issue of this being that they've removed game content that players explicitly paid for. Although there are arguments to be made that Bungie is within their rights to remove game content, and that this move is necessary for the game technically speaking, I'm more interested with the social impacts of this kind of model. As someone who's played Destiny for over a decade, I can say that it is frustrating to not be able to play the original missions and activities that I paid for when I bought the game, or even the majority of the content from expansions that I paid for as well. It then feels insulting when you buy a new expansion or season pass that's hyped up and marketed by Bungie, only to find out they're recycling old content that you already paid for.
Bungie has been struggling to find the right balance with their live service model, but there are other games who have thrived in the digital era. Epic Games' "Fortnite" consistently releases new content, including skins, weapons, game modes, and map changes. These updates keep the game fresh and engaging for players. As of the time writing this, the game's all time peak player count is a whopping 11,616,374 as of December last year. This makes sense since seasonal events like Winterfest 2023 and collaborations (e.g., Marvel, Star Wars) generate huge levels of excitement and bring in tons of new players.
While Fortnite has faced occasional balancing issues and server problems, Epic Games’ quick response and frequent patches have helped maintain a positive player experience, and their approach to live events and community building keeps Fortnite players loyal and involved in the game's continued developement. Because the game uses a free-to-play model with microtransactions only available for cosmetic items and battle passes, it avoids pay-to-win mechanics, but keeps spenders invested in playing to get value out of their V-bucks purchases.
Fortnite isn't the only sucessful free-to-play live service game. MiHoYo's internationally popular mobile game, Genshin Impact launched with a polished and expansive world, that has high-quality graphics, and engaging gameplay, which helped it stand out from other GaaS titles. The game’s story, voice acting, and world-building are incredible and highly praised. The gacha system, while controversial, is designed to be engaging and rewarding, attracting a dedicated player base. Players are incentivized to spend money to obtain rare characters and weapons, which keeps the revenue stream flowing. Limited-time events and character banners create a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging active participation and spending so it's hard for players to quit or fall off due to FOMO.
Although gacha systems can be problematic and lead to gambling addictions, miHoYo pretty generously provides players with regular in-game currency and rewards, balancing the free-to-play and pay-to-play experience. And because they release regular updates that add new characters, storylines, events, and regions, they keep the game fresh and seem to always provide players with more new content to explore.
Fortnite and Genshin Impact have thrived using the GaaS model due to their consistent and high-quality content updates, strong community engagement, and effective monetization strategies. Some games, like Destiny 2 or Apex Legends, have done decently well at maintaining their live service models, but they've each undergone a lot of changes by the developers and not all releases have been consistently well-received. In contrast, games like Marvel's Avengers, Anthem, or Fallout 76 have struggled to survive with this kind of model and failed to deliver continuous, compelling content, faced huge technical issues, implemented unpopular monetization strategies, and didn't do enough to engage effectively with their player communities.
Examining these differences highlight the importance of a player-first approach for games hoping to have post-launch support and success in the era of GaaS titles. So, what can be done? Well, I think the industry execs need to find a balance between their financial pressures and the quality of the final product. And they need to enable their developers to be capable of creating a complete and polished game experience at launch, even if it means delaying release dates. Gamers deserve better, and the industry has to adapt to meet new expectations.
Comments