Players have been getting less and less patient with disaster launch and thus hated the game which is known for disaster launches. A few games get away with it but since Cyberpunk or maybe even Fallout 76, the general concensus is that a broken game is not worth the time, not even if it gets better later. Games that get away with it usually have some saving grace, like Jedi Survivor being playable but having unplayable performance on PC. Even then, it pretty much lost the PC crowd. BF 2042 was unplayable at launch on every platform, had no redeeming qualities and it even tore out core parts of the game, like the class system, in favor of systems that can be indefinitely monetised. In a game that costet AAA money.
The only reason Ubisoft is getting away with the “it’ll be good later” thing is that a) they invented it in the AAA space with Rainbow6Siege and b) they actually stick to these games for a long time. EA gave 2 years for Star Wars BF2 to sort its shit out, put out a new release of the game with all the cosmetics in it and the the next week announced that they no longer support it. Neat. Meanwhile, Ubisoft has not only stuck with R6S, but also developed a new anti-cheat system so it doesn’t die to cheater and are still sticking with it. Another Ubisoft title, For honor. The game was okay at launch but playercount wise it was DOA. Yet, the game is still getting updates and new content regurarly 5 or so years later. THAT is the difference. EA dips on the first sign of losing money while, for all the things I despise Ubisoft, I gotta give props to them for sticking to their games for long time.
Also, Battlebit has shown that BF has a place in the modern gaming, EA/Dice just refused to just make a BF game for the past almost decade. They made something that resembled BF with WW1 and WW2 paint, then a piece of turd, but not a single BF game.
There has been this narrative of “Gamers won’t accept buggy releases” since the 00s when coverage of games began to extend past the review (because prior to that: Reviewers expected games to be broken in pre-release and never talked about it after).
Its a load of nonsense and always has been. Because, as you yourself justified it
. Games that get away with it usually have some saving grace, like Jedi Survivor being playable but having unplayable performance on PC.
and
they actually stick to these games for a long time
Which is the real thing. It doesn’t matter how buggy a release is. What matters is how much people like the company behind it.
Which, like I said, is kind of the secret to Battlebit. It had a MASSIVE launch because… Battlefield is fun as hell and different types of FPS players/streamers can still migrate their skills over. But, because the Battlebit Devs are a small team and it “looks indie”, people cut it a lot of slack. Which, again, translates to acceptance.
EVERYONE hates EA so people who play those games are pissed off and at each other’s throats. Which makes for a really negative vibe and means any time you die, you get angry. I popped back in to BF4 a few months back and holy crap was everyone incredibly toxic… about a game they had been playing for ten years
A good middle ground is Warframe and Digital Extremes. The community has been getting increasingly angry at DE (in part because of influencers who are sick and tired of playing the game that made them financially viable), but you get those weird shifts of “Ha ha. Something broke and we are trapped on a loading screen in Railjack. Keep an eye out for Sevagoth” to “FUCKING DE BREAKS FUCKING BUGFRAME ALL THE TIME”. And that can be the difference between “ha ha, I hope I keep my drops” to “Well, I’m done for the night”
And then Battlebit where people are generally incredibly positive about the game… ableit often by being negative about BF (the bar is low). And that means that when you get downed, you start joking around on voice chat and get a feeling for who is old enough to remember Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers and who is probably too young to be playing the game at all. But it means that you don’t care about getting killed by a sniper from a kilometer away after sprinting for three minutes since spawn because you have a grin on your face over someone pretending they are a 40k Commisar
It’s probably a thing where it’s cyclical of how much people are accepting of broken releases based on parameters like ‘when was the last huge broken launch?’ and the current generation who didn’t experience broken launches sunddently entering the gaming space.
Players have been getting less and less patient with disaster launch and thus hated the game which is known for disaster launches. A few games get away with it but since Cyberpunk or maybe even Fallout 76, the general concensus is that a broken game is not worth the time, not even if it gets better later. Games that get away with it usually have some saving grace, like Jedi Survivor being playable but having unplayable performance on PC. Even then, it pretty much lost the PC crowd. BF 2042 was unplayable at launch on every platform, had no redeeming qualities and it even tore out core parts of the game, like the class system, in favor of systems that can be indefinitely monetised. In a game that costet AAA money.
The only reason Ubisoft is getting away with the “it’ll be good later” thing is that a) they invented it in the AAA space with Rainbow6Siege and b) they actually stick to these games for a long time. EA gave 2 years for Star Wars BF2 to sort its shit out, put out a new release of the game with all the cosmetics in it and the the next week announced that they no longer support it. Neat. Meanwhile, Ubisoft has not only stuck with R6S, but also developed a new anti-cheat system so it doesn’t die to cheater and are still sticking with it. Another Ubisoft title, For honor. The game was okay at launch but playercount wise it was DOA. Yet, the game is still getting updates and new content regurarly 5 or so years later. THAT is the difference. EA dips on the first sign of losing money while, for all the things I despise Ubisoft, I gotta give props to them for sticking to their games for long time.
Also, Battlebit has shown that BF has a place in the modern gaming, EA/Dice just refused to just make a BF game for the past almost decade. They made something that resembled BF with WW1 and WW2 paint, then a piece of turd, but not a single BF game.
There has been this narrative of “Gamers won’t accept buggy releases” since the 00s when coverage of games began to extend past the review (because prior to that: Reviewers expected games to be broken in pre-release and never talked about it after).
Its a load of nonsense and always has been. Because, as you yourself justified it
and
Which is the real thing. It doesn’t matter how buggy a release is. What matters is how much people like the company behind it.
Which, like I said, is kind of the secret to Battlebit. It had a MASSIVE launch because… Battlefield is fun as hell and different types of FPS players/streamers can still migrate their skills over. But, because the Battlebit Devs are a small team and it “looks indie”, people cut it a lot of slack. Which, again, translates to acceptance.
It’s probably a thing where it’s cyclical of how much people are accepting of broken releases based on parameters like ‘when was the last huge broken launch?’ and the current generation who didn’t experience broken launches sunddently entering the gaming space.