Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

gaming Video game companies need some regulations.


Singe

Recommended Posts

When a video game company releases an incomplete game or they are localizing a game deciding to remove/alter original content for the purpose of censorship while charging the standard game prices. Then these companies should be required to put a label on their game box saying that a game is incomplete or it's censored.

 

Same with patches if a game company wants to release a patch to censor something, the consumer should have the final say on wanting that content kept or removed by deciding to install the patch or not, instead of forcing an installation.

Edited by Yellow Diamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish there was a proper way to do this. We would have to create a whole new company dedicated to finding this out, sorta like the ESRB. With horrendous companies like Activision pushing out incomplete games and charging full price, having a label of shame for them would be glorious. Tony Hawk 5 is a perfect example. The game was not finished, they rushed it out the door as quickly as possible because of their contract expiring. So they decided to release it entirely unfinished and instead released a patch that was twice the size of the game itself. Genius. Oh, and the game was still absolute garbage. Activision should have a 'this game sucks' seal of approval on their titles.

  • Brohoof 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Activision should have a 'this game sucks' seal of approval on their titles

 

This contradicts itself almost, but at the same time would bring a tear to my eye in its absolute perfection if you could indeed slap that on a game box. Not just Activision either.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have to conform to the regulations as determined by the government when it comes to certain content though this isn't always the case. With Nintendo for example, Nintendo of America has an issue about games containing religious and sexualized content--blood was a big no-no though I don't know if they still have an issue with that--so they demand such content be removed/altered before it can be released otherwise it will get rejected. I know that they have softened their stance in recent years but it still remains a pretty contentious issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish there was a proper way to do this. We would have to create a whole new company dedicated to finding this out, sorta like the ESRB. With horrendous companies like Activision pushing out incomplete games and charging full price, having a label of shame for them would be glorious. Tony Hawk 5 is a perfect example. The game was not finished, they rushed it out the door as quickly as possible because of their contract expiring. So they decided to release it entirely unfinished and instead released a patch that was twice the size of the game itself. Genius. Oh, and the game was still absolute garbage. Activision should have a 'this game sucks' seal of approval on their titles.

 

It will also have to deal with certain companies like NISA that still censor games rated Mature because they want to inject their morals into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Singe, I've moved your topic to Media Discussion since it isn't especially controversial or liable to set off really heated arguments. This also makes the topic more accessible to a wider range of members.

 

Contact me if you have any questions or concerns!

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part the only ones who make incomplete games are people who put their games on early access where they'll sit there and roll out updates to the game adding features that should be in a complete game for several years. Games like that never come out of early access but people keep buying them regardless. Why release a full game when you can release a skeleton that they can just add on to as their whims demand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to buying incomplete games, I'm sorry, but that's the consumer's fault. If you're not happy, stop rewarding these companies by buying their incomplete games; get informed, read reviews, talk with other gamers about it and vote with your wallet. That's how capitalism is supposed to work and there's no reason regulation should be required in the entertainment industry to ensure people are buying things in their best interest. Plus, I don't even know how you would even go about forming a body to dictate what is considered a complete game or even who would hold them accountable.

 

Patching I agree with you 100% on though. Patches should always come with patch notes describing the changes they're going to bring to the game and be optional. You might need a mechanism to ensure up-to-dateness for online multiplayer when it comes to balance patches, but the owner of the game and the system it plays on should ultimately be responsible for the software updates the game receives and doesnt receive.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part the only ones who make incomplete games are people who put their games on early access where they'll sit there and roll out updates to the game adding features that should be in a complete game for several years. Games like that never come out of early access but people keep buying them regardless. Why release a full game when you can release a skeleton that they can just add on to as their whims demand?

 

Early Access games are not a bad thing but I can see where this is coming from. There are plenty of games that were formerly in or are still in Early Access but have significant progress made and they're actually really entertaining to play; The Long Dark, Factorio, Space Engineers, and Unturned. Kerbal Space Program was formerly Early Access before it became a complete game in 2015. And recently, 7 Days To Die is very popular too. 

 

However there are also Early Access failures. DayZ and H1Z1 are Early Access and they put their prices as high as if it was a complete game, and now both games have received much more negative feedback for slow development, buggy gameplay, or simply just cash grabbing. Unturned used to have problems with gameplay bugs and hacking too, but at least the dev fixed them as quickly as possible and now the game runs way better. Find it unbelievable that a teenager can put more effort into a game than a group of developers. Recently Rust has been getting a bit of reviews with a fair amount of people disappointed; it's been 3 years but it hasn't made much progress, and hilariously enough most of the content you have on Rust can be experienced in Unturned, which is free to play. Sorry if I mentioned Unturned more often but I should but I find it very disappointing that a low-poly zombie survival F2P game can do better than games you have to pay more than $20 to get. 

 

Also while some devs may abuse Early Access to basically cash grab off an incomplete game (like DayZ), for other devs the problem is just funding the game and getting enough feedback. Some Early Access games are run by small indie companies or individuals (or teenagers) and it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to complete development compared to big game companies where they can just shit out a game every few months or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early Access games are not a bad thing but I can see where this is coming from. There are plenty of games that were formerly in or are still in Early Access but have significant progress made and they're actually really entertaining to play; The Long Dark, Factorio, Space Engineers, and Unturned. Kerbal Space Program was formerly Early Access before it became a complete game in 2015. And recently, 7 Days To Die is very popular too. 

 

However there are also Early Access failures. DayZ and H1Z1 are Early Access and they put their prices as high as if it was a complete game, and now both games have received much more negative feedback for slow development, buggy gameplay, or simply just cash grabbing. Unturned used to have problems with gameplay bugs and hacking too, but at least the dev fixed them as quickly as possible and now the game runs way better. Find it unbelievable that a teenager can put more effort into a game than a group of developers. Recently Rust has been getting a bit of reviews with a fair amount of people disappointed; it's been 3 years but it hasn't made much progress, and hilariously enough most of the content you have on Rust can be experienced in Unturned, which is free to play. Sorry if I mentioned Unturned more often but I should but I find it very disappointing that a low-poly zombie survival F2P game can do better than games you have to pay more than $20 to get. 

 

Also while some devs may abuse Early Access to basically cash grab off an incomplete game (like DayZ), for other devs the problem is just funding the game and getting enough feedback. Some Early Access games are run by small indie companies or individuals (or teenagers) and it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to complete development compared to big game companies where they can just shit out a game every few months or so.

I can't say I disagree with any of this but I was trying to make a point. People call a lot of retail games "incomplete" because they think somehow there should have been more to the game when there isn't.

 

It's a pet peeve of mine to see people say big games are somehow unfinished product. It is almost never the case and seems to be little more than people trying to overcompensate when they justify their reasoning when they didn't like a game.

 

If you want actual incomplete games you look at the above mentioned Early Access games that took advantage of a userbase that didn't and couldn't have known better when they put money into a product only for the developer to take the money and run. Or games that literally keep their endings behind a paywall. Maybe even a game that is so broken as to make it literally unbeatable because of horrid game-breaking bugs that prevent you from progressing and sometimes even force you to restart the game.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except a game is completely subjective and this would be impossible to do not to mention to legal issues. Think we don't do it for movies or books why should we do it for video games? I would be 100% against this idea.

 

I wish I could brohoof this 100 times. We already have review magazines and sites that tell you how the game is. If you don't like a company then don't buy their stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game developers/publishers don't need regulations. The market is already good enough. If something sucks, people will share stories about it, especially youtubers with 1,000,000+ subscribers, and if they say bad things about someone/something, that's going to hurt a company's reputation. And if something's awesome, people are going to talk well about it. Bad stories get shared more often and more widespread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Game developers/publishers don't need regulations. The market is already good enough.

If they don't need any, then it could be argued that no industry does. I would prefer regulations that helps the consumer when it comes to predatory companies which are basically scamming them anyway. One thing we can do is make all false advertisement illegal so people will know what they are buying. Another thing is to either make early-release games illegal or to make it illegal to sell them. They have to be distributed for free or not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't need any, then it could be argued that no industry does. I would prefer regulations that helps the consumer when it comes to predatory companies which are basically scamming them anyway. One thing we can do is make all false advertisement illegal so people will know what they are buying. Another thing is to either make early-release games illegal or to make it illegal to sell them. They have to be distributed for free or not at all.

Isn't false advertising already illegal? If someone gets caught and takes them to court, it's an easy win if they have the time and money to get the law involved

 

Early release is just a business strategy. If the consumers don't like it, they won't buy it. There are enjoyable games that are early release yet haven't even been completed yet with no sign that they actually will. This is just me being a possibly stupid opinionated consumer, but I'd rather have Black Mesa incomplete than not have it and keep my $20

 

Early release gets plenty of shame. If an idiot throws away money on a bad game, that's their fault for not doing any research. If an early release game is good and someone buys it, that's the consumer's benefit

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Early release gets plenty of shame. If an idiot throws away money on a bad game, that's their fault for not doing any research.

No "research" is going to amount to anything when early release is based on hype that is often fabricated in order to sell games. Unless someone has access to privileged information, they must go into a transaction blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No "research" is going to amount to anything when early release is based on hype that is often fabricated in order to sell games. Unless someone has access to privileged information, they must go into a transaction blind.

Why not be a smart customer and wait until a week or so for people to discuss the game so you can learn if a game looks good or bad? Companies want their customers excited about new products. It's stupid for anyone trying to sell anything to not make their stuff exciting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not be a smart customer and wait until a week or so for people to discuss the game so you can learn if a game looks good or bad? Companies want their customers excited about new products. It's stupid for anyone trying to sell anything to not make their stuff exciting

From whom? Magazines and other people paid to give games a good review? Or perhaps the general public? Sounds hit or miss because some people have to be fooled in order for word to spread and by then, it's far too late. What matters is that you are basically saying that companies should be able to lie to their consumers. It's not different from what film companies do with fake trailers, making a film seem like something completely different just to get people to pay to see it. It's not really making something look exciting but promising something exciting that doesn't exist. I think that when a company promises something, they should deliver it. Just because something is "creative", it shouldn't give license for people to deceive the consumer. The deception works because it takes advantage of consumer apathy and ignorance. People who know better just accept that these companies will lie to them again and again but buy their games anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From whom? Magazines and other people paid to give games a good review? Or perhaps the general public? Sounds hit or miss because some people have to be fooled in order for word to spread and by then, it's far too late. What matters is that you are basically saying that companies should be able to lie to their consumers. It's not different from what film companies do with fake trailers, making a film seem like something completely different just to get people to pay to see it. It's not really making something look exciting but promising something exciting that doesn't exist. I think that when a company promises something, they should deliver it. Just because something is "creative", it shouldn't give license for people to deceive the consumer. The deception works because it takes advantage of consumer apathy and ignorance. People who know better just accept that these companies will lie to them again and again but buy their games anyway.

From forums and youtubers, the community

 

Also, companies can't legally pay someone to give a good review. There are loopholes, like removing ads for bad reviews though. Just clearing up possible misconceptions

 

No, companies can't lie to their consumers, due to laws about false advertising. This applies to objectively measurable claims, like sales numbers. Subjective things like how fun something is can't be measured

 

I don't know anything about fake movie trailers since I don't watch movies. But similarly, there used to be a lot of trailers and commercials of prerecorded 'action' shown off in the gaming industry too, which didn't reflect the final product of the game. Reviewers and high profile youtubers called game companies out on this, causing them to slow down or even stop showing off prerended cinematics. Their commercials even show short messages to indicate when actual gameplay is on screen

 

How can a consumer be apathetic about a product if they're excited to buy it?

 

Game companies already have enough motivation to deliver their final products. It's merely the market at work. Businesses need good reputations to survive. If they don't deliver, people will talk badly about them and they'll get less sales. More rules don't need to get added because every problem is already solvable. If there's some company you don't like, go ahead and truthfully shame them to reduce the sales they get and their time they get to stay in business

 

Stop blaming companies for being good at marketing if you're stupid enough to keep getting hyped about products you've disliked in the past. Learn that these things they're trying to sell are things you don't like and stop buying them. It takes nothing beyond common sense. How profitable and prevalent is early access anyways? It seems kind of rare to me. I'd like to read numbers

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From forums and youtubers, the community

 

Also, companies can't legally pay someone to give a good review. There are loopholes, like removing ads for bad reviews though. Just clearing up possible misconceptions

 

No, companies can't lie to their consumers, due to laws about false advertising. This applies to objectively measurable claims, like sales numbers. Subjective things like how fun something is can't be measured

 

I don't know anything about fake movie trailers since I don't watch movies. But similarly, there used to be a lot of trailers and commercials of prerecorded 'action' shown off in the gaming industry too, which didn't reflect the final product of the game. Reviewers and high profile youtubers called game companies out on this, causing them to slow down or even stop showing off prerended cinematics. Their commercials even show short messages to indicate when actual gameplay is on screen

 

How can a consumer be apathetic about a product if they're excited to buy it?

 

Game companies already have enough motivation to deliver their final products. It's merely the market at work. Businesses need good reputations to survive. If they don't deliver, people will talk badly about them and they'll get less sales. More rules don't need to get added because every problem is already solvable. If there's some company you don't like, go ahead and truthfully shame them to reduce the sales they get and their time they get to stay in business

 

Stop blaming companies for being good at marketing if you're stupid enough to keep getting hyped about products you've disliked in the past. Learn that these things they're trying to sell are things you don't like and stop buying them. It takes nothing beyond common sense. How profitable and prevalent is early access anyways? It seems kind of rare to me. I'd like to read numbers

I remember the game, "No man's sky" where someone on youtube mentioned the many things they promised that wasn't in the game. It was all a lie, especially the part where they promised some great ending that didn't exist. If someone only knew the pre-release hype about all those lies, they would have been caught off guard, especially if the people who are making it don't have a reputation already. In the past, people made fake medicines that did nothing and then moved on to new suckers who bought everything they said.

 

People often buy things off of what they see in trailers. Remember, many are parents, grandparents who don't play games themselves. They aren't going on youtube or whatever. If a game is broken, they won't know about it until the recipient tells them that it is. That's seventy, one hundred or more dollars just gone like that. Enough broken games are made that I think it proves that most of them don't care about quality.

 

It's also not fair to blame me or other consumers. If we buy a cake that looks pretty and good but when we bit into it, it's rat poison, it's not our fault. It's their fault. It's not subjective that something like an action can be performed in the game or that the visuals are acceptable according to the promotions. A lot of promotions are done in written format so we can't judge it until many have already bought the game. Reputation or otherwise, people can be caught off guard by a bad game in an otherwise fantastic franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the game, "No man's sky" where someone on youtube mentioned the many things they promised that wasn't in the game. It was all a lie, especially the part where they promised some great ending that didn't exist. If someone only knew the pre-release hype about all those lies, they would have been caught off guard, especially if the people who are making it don't have a reputation already. In the past, people made fake medicines that did nothing and then moved on to new suckers who bought everything they said.

 

People often buy things off of what they see in trailers. Remember, many are parents, grandparents who don't play games themselves. They aren't going on youtube or whatever. If a game is broken, they won't know about it until the recipient tells them that it is. That's seventy, one hundred or more dollars just gone like that. Enough broken games are made that I think it proves that most of them don't care about quality.

 

It's also not fair to blame me or other consumers. If we buy a cake that looks pretty and good but when we bit into it, it's rat poison, it's not our fault. It's their fault. It's not subjective that something like an action can be performed in the game or that the visuals are acceptable according to the promotions. A lot of promotions are done in written format so we can't judge it until many have already bought the game. Reputation or otherwise, people can be caught off guard by a bad game in an otherwise fantastic franchise.

Using one game as an example doesn't exactly prove the point. Even if it was a big thing it's still one game. Most games come exactly as advertised and it's purely up to the consumer to understand what they're getting into.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the game, "No man's sky" where someone on youtube mentioned the many things they promised that wasn't in the game. It was all a lie, especially the part where they promised some great ending that didn't exist. If someone only knew the pre-release hype about all those lies, they would have been caught off guard, especially if the people who are making it don't have a reputation already. In the past, people made fake medicines that did nothing and then moved on to new suckers who bought everything they said.

 

People often buy things off of what they see in trailers. Remember, many are parents, grandparents who don't play games themselves. They aren't going on youtube or whatever. If a game is broken, they won't know about it until the recipient tells them that it is. That's seventy, one hundred or more dollars just gone like that. Enough broken games are made that I think it proves that most of them don't care about quality.

 

It's also not fair to blame me or other consumers. If we buy a cake that looks pretty and good but when we bit into it, it's rat poison, it's not our fault. It's their fault. It's not subjective that something like an action can be performed in the game or that the visuals are acceptable according to the promotions. A lot of promotions are done in written format so we can't judge it until many have already bought the game. Reputation or otherwise, people can be caught off guard by a bad game in an otherwise fantastic franchise.

Good thing that people are allowed to refund games. NMS is 1 of the most refunded games ever

 

Your medicine argument doesn't apply to games. Back then, the internet didn't even exist, so bad news from consumers couldn't get widespread anywhere nearly as quickly as today

 

Most retail games cost $60. Sure there might be $10 worth in gas and tax to get the games, but also mentioning $100+ as a cost parents pay for their kids? Are they smart enough to buy the DLC too? Probably not. Kids aren't asking their parents for early access games for birthday and Christmas presents. They mainly/only know about mainstream games like COD, BF, Madden, and Fifa. I don't lurk what little kids think, but I have a friend who has a 12 year old son who watches Youtube and has heard about all the bashing COD IW gets, so maybe reputation bashing can get to them too. This is anecdotal evidence I'm only pointing out. It has no statistical value

 

If you buy a cake and end up eating rat poison, you could easily sue the bakery for $10,000s. It only takes common sense to realize that your analogy contains a blatantly illegal scenario

 

Wait, a lot of game marketing is done through text? For the longest time, I thought games were marketed heavily through videos these days

 

Reputations are so important in businesses. Have you even heard about COD's diminishing sales? It used to be the an amazingly well selling series. Now it's an absolute joke because the past 4 CODs so far have been disasters. That series is entering life support because the community criticized the last 4 game's qualities on Youtube and on internet forums. If someone gets caught off guard on COD, LOL. Even a 12 year old that I know knows how much of a joke it is now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Who would enforce those regulations? The government? That's dangerous giving the government control over what video games companies can or can't do, that would mean that the government can really screw things up like banning violence in games since it allegedly causes violence in kids. Not saying that I think video game companies should be able to do whatever they want, but I'm saying that the only means of regulating them would be through the government, and I'm strongly against giving the government more control. Besides, it's inconsistent to regulate only video game companies when companies in other industries do far worse things like social media censoring opposing views. Also, what harm is being done when a game company releases their game early and decide to change things in it? Going by that logic, Microsoft and essentially every single company that owns programs need regulations when they change their software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...