Quality Vs Quantity In Modern Games

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I just read a good article over on Forbes, of all places.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/02/20/blaming-gamers-for-the-street-fighter-v-backlash-is-ridiculous/#692410ab18d9

To sum it up, it's talking primarily about Street Fighter V's notorious lack of content in its present state and how the industry tends to place the blame on the consumer, saying that gamers care more about quantity than quality. The author argues that is a "ludicrous" statement and I feel he summarizes it well by saying 

" You see, quality means very little if there’s not much there for you to play, just like quantity means very little if the quality isn’t there to match. It’s the balance of these two things that make games appealing. And there’s quite literally nothing new or strange or different about this. This has always been the case. Perceptions haven’t changed in this regard one little bit. "

and he goes on to say

" Street Fighter V doesn’t suffer the slings and arrows of the “modern market.” It’s just another example of a game publisher trying to change that market to fit its own vision, even when that vision runs directly against the desires of consumers. "

The article also mentions Battlefront and Titanfall as games that suffer from expecting the consumer to pay full-price on quality alone in a barebones game. I must admit, I don't really play video games these days outside a few select series for a whole list of reasons, but this whole "pay full price now and maybe get more content later" is in the top 3.

What do you think? Is it reasonable that gamers expect quality and quantity in equal measures. Does the lack of content in an otherwise excellent game dissuade you from purchasing it?  

 

[Garpocalypse]

 IMO this is the one genre that should be exempt from this line of thinking. As long as the game itself is balanced and there aren't any game breaking oversights (like Kung Lao's ridiculous aerial combos in MK 2011 that were patched eventually) then a lack of "content" as in a few missing modes that won't see as much play as 2-player and online mode should be ok. The game that you're paying for is in the individual matches, not extras like story mode which no fighting game has done well anyway.   However, one thing I haven't been able to find out is if the game shipped with a halfway competent practice mode as that would be the real deal breaker,  especially if the rumors of the game going out early so people could practice at home for the coming tournaments were true.  

DOA5 had a phenomenal training mode that provided you with frame data for each individual move and allowed you to program CPU actions and reactions quickly so you could test the application of your characters movesets against just about anything you could think of.  Soul Calibur V had a great one too though it's been so long for me since I played it i don't remember if it gave frame data or not.  Regardless, a practice mode that lets you program commands for your AI training partner or set simple reactions such as block after hit(which i believe SF4 had as default for sparring practice) should be the minimum a game ships with.  

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I could agree if they weren't charging the same price, or where I live, more money for the game than previous iterations. Not to mention, SFV is operating on the cancerous "freemium" model in the way that you can unlock future characters. 

I think it was Maximilian on YouTube who was talking about SFV last year and he said that he felt it would need to be more than simply a fighting game in order for the series to evolve and continue to do well. It's not just about single-player modes either.

Personally, I had tons of fun with all of Tekken 3's different modes back in the day and I've always thought the crazy different modes in Smash Bros is probably one of the reasons the game is so popular. I just can't justify buying something new that focuses on this one thing that it does really well when cheaper, older iterations had really good mechanics too but at the same time, gave me more to do.

 

[Garpocalypse]

Well, now that you mentioned F2P models that's actually a good point.  DOA and Tekken both have F2P games that are well designed fighting games that limit you in your available characters or amount of matches you can play for free so spending 60+ bucks for similar features may not add up to most people.  

Tekken 3 definitely had some awesome modes for sure. Volleyball was one of my favorites to play on a sat night with some friends over.  Most of Namco's motivation to include a large amount of extras in Tekken was probably because Tekken's only actual competitor was Virtua Fighter which, at least until VF4,  seemed to make it a point that you were buying just a fighting game with no extra bells or whistles.  Or even an ending for your character.  Just a sweet looking still image.

[Kat]

10 hours ago, Garpocalypse said:

not extras like story mode which no fighting game has done well anyway.

Guilty Gear and BlazBlue say hello. Both series have had a very competitive scene while still including a rather long(for a fighting game) story mode. They often include a classic Arcade mode, along with a story mode. After that there's usually some sort of challenge mode and/or extra mode - The latest BlazBlue(Chronophantasma), for example, included story mode, "Abyss Mode", and a 20 level challenge mode for each character. Additionally, they release Extend versions with balance and bug fixes that also include a ton of extra content - In Chronophantasmas case, they added 4 extra story modes.

Regarding the topic, I'd have to agree. Quality is important, but has to have a balanced "quantity" as well. I can forgive this when it comes to fighting games - Using the aforementioned Guilty Gear as an example, they often release mobile versions(at a somewhat lower price) that have the story mode and other content cut, and this is usually fine. After all, people interested in fighting games aren't likely to pick up the game (much less the portable version) for the story. Seems like most fighting games that come out are like this, and there are very few fighting games I'll actually pick up because of this.

[Brandon Strader]

Games are different  and most people don't even play all of the content before they start whining .  Games do cost too much, but quality/quantity per game is subjective.  The person writing that article should've realized that. 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

8 hours ago, Brandon Strader said:

Games are different  and most people don't even play all of the content before they start whining .  Games do cost too much, but quality/quantity per game is subjective.  The person writing that article should've realized that. 

To an extent, yes. If you're judging quality by "good game" and not the technical details then it is highly subjective and some people may be satisfied with the amount of content, but that's not the case the article is making.

What he's saying is that despite the fact that Rainbow Six: Siege, Battlefront, Titanfall and SFV have received praise for their gameplay, they (objectively) have less content than their predecessors or the average game in their genre and have received backlash and loss of fanbase even in the multiplayer because of this. Other people in the industry argued that this is because of gamers' expectations changing, but the Forbe's author argues that this is BS and gamers have always wanted quality and quantity in equal measures.

I look at it this way: Say you're going to the movies and they're showing a short film that's only a 1/2 hour long. What if they said to you that it costs the same (or more) for a ticket to the short film as the others, but don't worry because it's a really good short film, the best in its genre right now. Sure, it's a bit short, but the blu-ray will probably feature an extended cut when it comes out in a few months. Would you pay for that, or would you pay to see the full-length feature that still got great reviews and has a funny post-credits scene? You know, like Deadpool or something.

[Brandon Strader]

U know what game had less content than all of those, The Order 1886.. but I loved the hell out of that game. One of the best games on my PS4, and I bought Fallout 4.. I put it on top tier next to Bloodborne. 

Fallout 4.. has a lot of content, but its annoying as hell copy paste of the same shit to extend the gameplay.. I can understand some people being into that but noooo.... I've heard New Vegas was better but it froze when I forgot to save and I never played it again.  

But yeah The Order 1886. People absolutely trashed the game. But it's really one of theeee beeeeeest games-as-art ever made, and I don't consider a lot of games to be art. The ironic thing is that the 8~ or more hour length of the game is really not that short. Nobody whined about BioShock Infinite being 11 hours with no multiplayer

I don't go to theaters because of reasons. But If I did I'd buy the popcorn, some snacks, a large drink, bring an expensive girl, watch 20 minutes of the movie, use the restroom, go back to my seat and play on my phone

[shadowpsyc]

1 minute ago, Brandon Strader said:

Fallout 4.. has a lot of content, but its annoying as hell copy paste of the same shit to extend the gameplay.. I can understand some people being into that but noooo.... I've heard New Vegas was better but it froze when I forgot to save and I never played it again.  

 

New Vegas froze for me ON THE LOAD SCREEN coming back from a save, so that when I try to reload the save it just stays on the load screen forever.

 

New Vegas is totally better though, I actually just got bored with FO4. For some reason I'm more willing to swallow Bethesda's copy paste nothing really matters approach in a classic fantasy setting(TES) than with the 50s post apocalypse, I could still go back and redo all the shit I've done 50 times before in Skyrim. Dunno why that is, objectively FO4 is probably better on both quality and quantity, but then that's only considering the objective aspects of quality and not how much of it is really subjective

[The Damned]

You want a good example of quality, quantity and prices? Here's one.

Borderlands 1 was a game I spent some time on, and it was an OK game for the time. I liked some of the ideas and mechanics, and had fun with it.

It offered three pretty good campaigns with lots of stuff to do, and a mediocre arena combat map pack. $10 each.

Borderlands 2 comes out a few years later, and holy shit, this is how you do a sequel. Looked better, played better, felt better. Great villain you loved to hate, awesome variety of missions and settings, really fun and cool weapons. Worth it.

Within six months, Gearbox releases two more characters classes to play, as well as three campaigns with new locations, characters, stories, missions and weapons. These are $10 each, and $5 for the first level cap. They offered a Season Pass (back when they were good ideas and actually offered good content) to get all four campaigns and the level cap for like $25. That's actually a pretty good offer).

Before 2013 is over, they drop the fourth campaign (the best one of the series to date) as well as another level cap (to 72) with more challenging stuff like Digistruct Peak and fighting level 80+ enemies. $10 each (again, the Season Pass covers this).

From October 2013 to April 2014, they offer five holiday-themed mini campaigns. They're about an hour to two hours each, depending upon the player. They cover Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's Day and Spring Break, with lots of fun little missions and background stories about the game's universe. All are very thematically well done; they each have unique assets like new enemies, buildings, locations and such. $4 each. Pretty good, and well made. Worth the price.

That's over a year and a half after the game came out. Plus, Gearbox still supports the game, three years later! They updated the game with a patch that fixed balance issues in higher levels, and there's talk of another patch later this spring. That's three and a half years after it came out, and they're still supporting it!

SKIP TO BORDERLANDS THE PRE-SEQUEL.

A few years after Borderlands 2 comes out, they announce another game. It takes place between Borderlands 1 and 2 and details the events that happened therein. We get to see how the villain of the last game rose to power, etc, it's going to be awesome! Right!?

First thing we find out is that the game is being made not by Gearbox, but by 2K. Gearbox wants to focus on its other games, namely Battleborn.

Next, we hear that the core game is going to have less content than BL2 did. "It's going to be about in between what Borderlands1 and 2 offered" is what 2K tells us. We're already getting about 30% less content for the same price as when BL2 launched.

Then we find out that the Season Pass, which is now more expensive, is only offering four items, not five like the previous one. We're paying more for less content, again. The game isn't even out yet at this point. Next, we find out that two of those four items are characters. OK, they're pretty cool characters, but why not offer two campaigns instead, making the Season Pass worth the increased price?

The third item turns out to be a mediocre combat arena map. Not multiple maps, just one. It's only saving grace? it has a level cap increase. I guess that makes it twice the value somehow?

The last item is revealed as the single campaign they made. While pretty awesome if you're a fan of Clap-Trap, it was still nowhere near what the game needed to offer at this point. It was shorter than the BL2 campaigns. Even with another level cap increase, it was still just not near as much as we had before. Too little, too late.

The last straw was that the game cost a fraction of what it cost to make Borderlands 2. They took the Bl2 engine and modified it. Now, they did a lot with it, like low gravity, ice weapons, totally new locations and enemies, but the fact remains that the cost, even with all the new stuff, was still cheaper than what the last game cost.

For the same amount of money they charged in Borderlands 2, the Pre-Sequel ended up with 30% less content. The Season Pass gave us less than half of the content for more money than Borderlands 2 did.

You know what the worst part of this is? BL2 was made by Gearbox, the developer of the first game. BL:TPS was made by 2K Australia, a division of 2K, the publisher.

Six months after the game came out, 2K shuts down their Aussie office. The reason?

The studio wasn't making enough money to justify being the expense of being there.

[Brandon Strader]

Attaching price to the product is irrelevant though, especially when you could just buy the handsome collection that includes all the DLC. It's been on sale for like $24. Probably less on that PC casual platform

but people are going to pay what they feel the product is worth and I don't know, everyone feels quality and quantity in a different way

[Nabeel Ansari]

On 2/20/2016 at 5:00 PM, AngelCityOutlaw said:

What do you think? Is it reasonable that gamers expect quality and quantity in equal measures. Does the lack of content in an otherwise excellent game dissuade you from purchasing it?  

No, because I play Street Fighter so that I can thrash other people/get thrashed by other people. The only "mode" I care about is training mode to hone whatever it is I can't hone with a moving opponent. If the game satisfies that criteria, really well, I don't care if it lacks other things I'm never going to use/play. From what my friends have told me, Street Fighter V plays a lot like III mechanically, which is worth $ to me way more than Street Fighter 4 even considering the content quantity gap.

[The Damned]

2 hours ago, Brandon Strader said:

Attaching price to the product is irrelevant though, especially when you could just buy the handsome collection that includes all the DLC. It's been on sale for like $24. Probably less on that PC casual platform.

I specifically stated release prices of individual games and content, not current market prices or for special edition bundles that came out years later.

The thing about that game is... it wasn't bad. The low gravity as fun, the ice weapons were cool, you got to play as both Clap-Trap and Jack (albeit as a body double), there were laser guns, you got to go to the Hyperion moon base... it offered everything the fanbase was asking for and did it well.

It was just the bad combination of pricing-versus-content, and the constant comparison to BL2. I know that was what I did in my previous post, but what I mean by that is that for all the good aspects that TPS had, it was simply overshadowed by what BL2 had accomplished by that point. When TPS came out, BL2 was still going strong after two years. It set the bar really high, and TPS just couldn't match it. By itself, it's a good game. In the shadow of its big brother, though...

I still play TPS occasionally. Clap-Trap is a hilarious character to play, jumping over massive gorges and valleys in low grav is fun as hell, and lasers in any form will make someone happy. I just wish that they put more into it in the first place to give it more longevity.

[MindWanderer]

It's all about PR and presentation.  Even in SFV, in which the gamers know perfectly well that vs. mode is where they'll spend 99% of their time, the fact that what were "core features" of the series thus far are now missing seems like a major oversight.  You can justify other choices all you want, but making that strong first impression is where most of the money is.

A lot of developers are spending a lot of research money figuring out what players want.  That's important, but you also need to provide players what they think they want.  You need them to invest, and then also to keep them there.  A lot of companies seem to forget this these days.  Once you decide you're smarter than your consumers, you've lost.

Also, since Street Fighter has such a long history and large fanbase, people care about the characters.  A story mode helps cement that and create investment.

 

For an example of how staged releases can work well, you just have to look at Nintendo's current methods.  You have Splatoon, an unknown property, which came out with a small single-player campaign, for players to learn the ropes, a fairly small but diverse range of weapons, a single online multiplayer mode, and a local multiplayer mode.  Enough to give players a taste of everything.  They also promised a lot more to come, for free.  Over the next 6 months, they added 3 more online modes, a ton more weapons and outfits, and new stages with new mechanics.  Huge success.

Similar story for Super Mario Maker.  The base game worked really well as it was; the additions of checkpoints, an online companion, and completion statistics are gravy.  The new objects aren't even necessary at all, but they do show continuing support from Nintendo, which is valuable PR.

For their established fighting series, Smash Bros., they released a thoroughly full game.  Although the "story" mode was much weaker than in previous iterations, it was more closely based on the multiplayer game and served as better practice for it.  Then they released several more characters and stages for money.  It actually surprises me how much they're able to charge for the DLC for this one, but apparently they've hit a price point that works well for them.

Mario Kart 8 has only released cosmetic stuff (usually a good bet) and new tracks.  The tracks are a really good value compared to the initial cost of the game, but again, this seems to be a price point that works for this game.  Again, the original release was feature-complete, and the extras are just extras.

[Brandon Strader]

I honestly feel like I agree with Neblix on this one, if the game provides you with exactly what you want, then the quality and quantity is fine, but it takes me back to what I was saying about such things being subjective. Surely there's a consensus, but a lot of the time the consensus is wrong (example: The Order 1886)

[AngelCityOutlaw]

A game that I'm currently feeling gets the quantity/quality absolutely right is Fire Emblem: Fates. I just picked up the special edition I had pre-ordered for about 100 Canadian Pesos and it's a great investment that is consuming my life now. Three storylines, each as long as awakening was and it already has a free DLC chapter out, tons of paralogues, lots of different kinds of objectives in the Conquest story, great new units without sacrificing the classics, "my castle" base-building, a fancy art-book and carrying case and all but those last two fit snugly on one 3DS cartridge.

25 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

I honestly feel like I agree with Neblix on this one, if the game provides you with exactly what you want, then the quality and quantity is fine, but it takes me back to what I was saying about such things being subjective. Surely there's a consensus, but a lot of the time the consensus is wrong (example: The Order 1886)

That's exactly why I asked the question as pertaining to the individual. 

Here's the thing though - how much are you willing to pay for "exactly what you want"? How do you decide what a fair price is for what you want? Is it fair for publishers to charge the same or more for a game that has less content than its previous entries or its peers even if you don't care about those features?

[Brandon Strader]

How much I want to pay is different than how much I'm willing to pay. Basic MSRP is $60 so that's what I'm willing to pay. What I want to pay is a lot less. But I want to pay a lot less for a lot of things. I get more enjoyment even out of a game people say has "no content" than I do out of a gallon of gas or a thing of cat litter. 

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

If you all remember, time was that you'd get a finished game with all kinds of bonus content stuffed in there in so many unexpected ways. Time also was that game development wasn't nearly as expensive as it is now and didn't sometimes require an army of developers to make. Games also haven't increased in price to compensate for the current financial landscape, which means that developers/publishers are going to try to find as many ways as they can to recoup their investment/cut costs. This naturally takes the form of DLC cash shops or large swaths of content cut to meet release schedules. Cases like Street Fighter V will eventually be the norm. Hell Final Fantasy VII Remake is in exactly the same position regardless of what apologists will tell you. 

Right now, I think I agree with Brandon and Neblix. It's about what the audience expects versus what's delivered. In the case of Street Fighter V, the target audience doesn't give a flip about the usual single-player modes outside of training, so is it quality to them? Potentially yes. That being said, I can certainly understand the perspective of those that feel it harms the perception of the series, and to an extent, I agree that it does. The perception of Street Fighter V outside of missing modes is that it was a barebones rushed out mess of bugs.

[Nabeel Ansari]

3 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Here's the thing though - how much are you willing to pay for "exactly what you want"? How do you decide what a fair price is for what you want? Is it fair for publishers to charge the same or more for a game that has less content than its previous entries or its peers even if you don't care about those features?

I don't actually believe in paying for games in the commodity-typed model we have right now in the economy, because I believe games are art; I don't believe in paying for art but rather supporting artists via patronage, but that's another extremist idealist socialist debate for never. I see assigning monetary value to something as subjective as an experience a bit materialist. If I want something, and have the money for it, I will give the money to get it; I don't usually fret over "wtf this has $7 less dollars of game assets than the last game" (I know you weren't saying this but I think The Damned was doing something along the lines of calculating %'s for game content).

That being said, I don't want Street Fighter V enough right now to pay $50 for it. I'm not calling out the developers for charging it (I'd feel wrongly entitled if I did), I just don't want to play the game badly enough to give $50 for it. I don't have the time to sink into it, or sit around and play it for hours a day. But I don't really go around and say that it's wrong they're charging $50 for it and it should be cheaper, for the reasons in the previous paragraph. I don't see it particularly offensive that they're "expecting" people to pay a certain amount for something. It's not like they're making me do anything. If it doesn't work out, they'll price drop it... this is normal in the game industry. Launch is always over-charged compared to the lasting levelled out price.

If I was sitting around and wanting to get back into a fighting game, hell yeah I'd drop the dolla.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

20 minutes ago, Neblix said:

I don't actually believe in paying for games in the commodity-typed model we have right now in the economy, because I believe games are art; I don't believe in paying for art but rather supporting artists via patronage, but that's another extremist idealist socialist debate for never. I see assigning monetary value to something as subjective as an experience a bit materialist. If I want something, and have the money for it, I will give the money to get it; I don't usually fret over "wtf this has $7 less dollars of game assets than the last game" (I know you weren't saying this but I think The Damned was doing something along the lines of calculating %'s for game content).

That being said, I don't want Street Fighter V enough right now to pay $50 for it. I'm not calling out the developers for charging it (I'd feel wrongly entitled if I did), I just don't want to play the game badly enough to give $50 for it. I don't have the time to sink into it, or sit around and play it for hours a day. But I don't really go around and say that it's wrong they're charging $50 for it and it should be cheaper, for the reasons in the previous paragraph. I don't see it particularly offensive that they're "expecting" people to pay a certain amount for something. It's not like they're making me do anything. If it doesn't work out, they'll price drop it... this is normal in the game industry. Launch is always over-charged compared to the lasting levelled out price.

If I was sitting around and wanting to get back into a fighting game, hell yeah I'd drop the dolla.

Good and interesting points.

[Bleck]

Games have an unfortunate recent trend of inflating the costs of less content, but Street Fighter V is not a good example of that, considering the large majority of the content to be added to the game is going to be free.

[Voodude]

I believe that a balance between both quantity and quality is necessary to make something great. Prime examples of games that get this balance right are open world games such as any Grand Theft Auto title, The Witcher titles etc. The main stories of these of these take dozens and dozens of hours to complete, but there is a literal shit-ton of side quests to complete, and the majority of side quests sit alongside the main story in terms of quality. Additionally, I am in agreeance with Garpocalypse. Fighting games are the worst genre to use as an argument for the piece (I believe so anyway), because in terms of content, they are generally all the same. Story/Career Mode, a couple of VS. Mode's, Practice Mode etc. The difference is in the aesthetic. Balance aka 'fairness' is the goal, which in a way generates both more quality and more quantity anyway, as if players feel that every character is balanced or fair, they will automatically have more characters that they will be happy to play and perhaps master, which would mean there is more quality within than another fighting game with half the roster being unplayable because of balance issues.

Sure, I've come across plenty of examples of high quality games with low quantity of content, mainly thanks to my Steam addiction. One extremely short game I will always remember playing is To The Moon. The gameplay within is practically non-existent, a combination of directional arrows and one 'YES' or 'OK' button, making it essentially a visual novel, but it had a beautiful story, the soundtrack was extremely moving in conjunction with the story, and I will always remember it. But, it was short. 3-4 hours to complete, with nothing to do beyond that story. I've never touched it again, because there's no quantity. I probably wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless it was heavily discounted.

I'm not going to persuade someone else to pay say, $20 for a book that has had all of the chapters ripped out minus the first 3. They may be the most amazingly well written chapters of any book in history. But $20? Only if the rest of the book was there. The opposite is true as well. If a game (RPG's are the worst when this happens) has 10,000 hours worth of content, but every single hour of that content is terrible, I'm most likely not going to get past the first couple of hours to even bother discovering if the rest of the content is any better.

Another way I look at the argument is: when people say quantity, do they actually mean quantity? Or are they referring to freedom (or the illusion of it) within the gameplay? I realize I may be splitting hairs (in fact, I know I am), but I think it's an interesting way of looking at it. Obviously, as Brandon stated above, all is subjective. Some people may be excited that a game has heaps of different modes that are all 'good'. Others may not care about any of it except the incredible quality of a multiplayer mode.