Dear ESO Community

Dragondc3

I am writing this post with the hopes of bringing to light a most important issue that absolutely plagues not just ESO but almost every single game we love.

Do you find yourself feeling like most of the games you play are filled with bugs and give you the general overall feeling that you are playing a beta and not a fully fleshed out, polished, or a ready for retail product? I can probably safely assume that most of your answers to that question are YES and I hope to enlighten you as to why this is happening and where to place the true blame on the source of this plague.

Most of us are quick to blame the developers of the game because it is after all their product and therefore they are the ones responsible for the state of the game once it is sold to or given to us as a retail product. This is technically true but there is a key factor that most gamers either forget or it never even crossed their minds that there is someone else involved with the products development who is the true reason and the most important entity involved in a games release to which the blame should directed towards far more accurately than the actual games developers.

This entity that we tend to forget is the financial firm that bankrolled the development of the game. Before a game ever enters development it is just an idea. An idea that will take incredible amounts of time and more importantly MONEY to ever become more than just an idea. The developer takes this idea (The Elder Scrolls Online) and presents this idea to a firm of investors to which they must sell this idea to them and hope that they will see the potential of this idea to make money. No investor is going to bankroll a game that they think will not make them a profit. This is the most important step a developer must go through if they ever hope to even have a chance of creating their game. The sad part about this is that they are for lack of better words; Selling their soul to the devil. I say this because it is a necessary evil in which the developer must absolutely do unless they are by some incredible way able to financially support the development of their game through their own funding or through donated funding such as a kickstart, but regardless it comes down to money, period!

I say this is a necessary evil because it involves an entity in the development process who's concern is nothing other than money. They do not care if the product has bugs, missing content, or half baked content. As long as the product can make them money then they could care less about the things that annoy the user, in this case is you and I. I truly believe that no serious developer would ever release a half baked product with their name attached to it unless they had no other option. They so desperately want their idea to become reality they will do almost anything they can to help their game reach the player. This so very often is the absolute reason that we are subjected to games that if those games were a meal that we went to a restaurant to enjoy a nice quality meal that we would be able to send back to the chef and justifiably complain that your meal was not cooked properly, to which you would most likely not only get the situation fixed immediately but more than likely receive a discount if not a complete refund for the hassle. Investment bankers in the video game industry know that it is not so easy to turn around and say hey, my game to which you charged me $60 for (just a hypothetical number to which can be applied to any game and any amount you paid) is completely under par, missing content, has content that is broken, basic no brainer content is left up to add-on creators to add UI functionality that should have absolutely been included in the game by default.

From the developers point of view they are stuck between losing their funding or upsetting their clients to some extent. The developer realizes that with no funding they cannot even give you a half baked product let alone desperately try and play catch up and fix or add said content. At some point during the development phase the money grubbing investor gets tired of waiting on a return for their investment and they force the hand of the developer to release the product as is or risk losing everything and being written off as a loss. The developer then has a serious choice to make, release the product with bugs and missing content to which they can hopefully fix at a later date or end up not being able to release anything because the bankers pulled the plug. You may be thinking if I were in their shoes I would tell the bankers to kiss me where the sun doesn't shine but there is a serious problem if they were to do this. When they sold their idea to the investment firm they had to make a contract with them and in this contract are the ownership rights to the games coding. No investment firm is going to invest their money into a product to which if the developer decides after a point in time that they no longer wish to work with them could simply turn around and get a different investment firm to back them. At this point the developer does not truly own their product, the bank does. They cannot just pick up and move to a different bank without permission and hefty fees from the investor if they are even granted permission. They would literally need to buy their own game back from the bank which lets be honest if they could afford to do that then they wouldn't have needed an investment banker in the first place.

The banker looks at $$$ only. They say to themselves ok this product has taken X amount of years to develop. We have invested X amount of dollars so far. Even though this product is not 100%, hell it may not even be 75% if we can sell X amount of copies we will break even and if we sell X amount of copies then we turn a profit and as long as we break even then we don't care if the customer is 100% satisfied because we got our money back and usually even turned a profit. They hold a mighty power over the developer and they force them to release products that you and I wouldn't dare pay for if it were a car, a house, food, or any other type of product.

You can be quite sure that a game who was once a subscription based game and turned F2P has absolutely reached that marker to which the investment banker has reached their quota. The can then afford to drop the subscription requirement and reach a whole new target audience with the hopes that they will see more profit from customers who weren't willing to pay a monthly fee but might be more inclined to spends a few dollars here and there via in game purchases for real money aka the Tamriel Unlimited Crown Store. Everything they sell in that store or in any game that offers in game purchases for real money is pure profit because they are selling a virtual product. The only cost to them is the manpower it takes to create the product, a product that requires no actual resources to create. They don't require steel to make a digital vehicle, they don't have to buy housing and feed to create a digital horse, etc...hopefully I made my point clear with that analogy. In the grand scheme of things micro transactions (in game purchases for real money) actually have the potential of earning them even more profit than a monthly subscription because most people are more inclined to make micro transaction purchases. They used the subscription to guarantee a certain revenue stream quota and once they reached that quota they no longer needed that guaranteed revenue to support their investment.

The point I am trying to make with this long post is absolutely not saying that ZeniMax is doing anything wrong, it is to point out the fact that the true reason this game or any game like it has the feeling of an unfinished product is because it is an unfinished product and it is that way because the bankers have forced the hand of ESO developers to release the product before it was truly ready to be released. This is why the developers are constantly playing catch up, trying to get the game up to par with what a true 100% polished retail game should be.

As a gamer community the only choices we have are to understand that this is an unfortunate reality when it comes to our hobby and we can try to understand this sad reality and simply support the developers of our game by continuing to pay our fees and make purchases with the hopes that they will finally be able to be closer to 100% as quickly as possible. Another option we have as gamers is to write into our favorite gamer magazines and try to get them to write articles on this plague to our hobby and bring it to light to more of our brothers and sisters with the hopes that somehow it will change the way bankers behave when financing video game production. We can write to our congressman/women and try to bring to light the fact that our hobby is being abused by bankers and they are releasing sub par products to which any other industry would be crushed if they had these kind of business practices. No other product that I can think of is abused as much as video games. We are constantly subjected to broken products and expected to just "understand" or trying to convince us that this is just the way it is so accept it. It is wrong and we do not deserve to be abused in this fashion. They know that we love our hobby so much that we will pay for that game anyway so they abuse us because they know we will buy it anyway.

Try to remember all the things I talked about in this post and try to remember that it is not always the developers fault and is more justifiably the fault of the financial investors as to why we are constantly sold fools gold. I love this game and I love many other games that have been subjected to this plague but we cannot hope to ever see things change if we don't stand up together and let the developers know that we are aware of this and they need to let their investors know we are aware of this and are getting tired of it. Hopefully if we make our protest loud enough and protest to the right people then maybe congress can write laws to protect us from receiving half ass products because the investors are forcing our developers hand to release games that are not ready to be released.

I hope this post was informative and I hope it will do more than just be buried in the pile. Please write to your favorite magazines, write to your state senator, tell your friends to do the same, lets make our voice heard and do something positive for our favorite hobby.

xMovingTarget

We live in the era of getting quick money. Aka the early access era. I just hope this era ends very very soon.

Aeladiir

tl;dr:

We live in the age of capitalism.
Video games are an industry.
OP = Einstein

Gidorick

That's why crowdfunding has become so popular.

Armitas

Lately I have been thinking that its more of a matter of process. The bank rollers are definitely pushing things out before they are ready, but working along side that issue there seems to be a lack of internal communication. I come to this conclusion because I just can't believe that someone who does X would not check that X was a really done. Everything is obvious to us because we play the game in completion, but they work on it in minute portions separated by departments and people.

It takes several workers to build a plane. Each one builds a part often without a full understanding of the finished product. They must all trust that the work order will lead to a finished product. In the end it will be the pilot that will determine if the plane was a success.

Tldr TPS for everyone!

Valymer

I think a large part of the blame can be laid on Steam's Early Release system. I like some things about it but it has created this idea that games can be released and sold in what is basically an alpha state, after which the developer continues to work on the game and eventually get it to the point where it is considered complete.

The problem is that very few games (if any) actually get to that point. Instead they are eternally a "work in progress." And once the developer breaks even or meets whatever goals they set in terms of sales, the incentive to keep pouring resources into improving the game drops off drastically.

ZOS is obviously a lot different than the (mostly) small-time developers that release games like this on Steam--and it is an MMO, which is already assumed to be in a constant state of development--but I really feel like Steam has inadvertently created this atmosphere where consumers no longer hold game studios and developers responsible for releasing a complete, polished game that has gone through stringent testing and is more or less stable and bug-free.

There are a few exceptions of course, such as Blizzard and the company which delayed Witcher 3 to iron out some details, but unfortunately the number of companies that are more than willing to put a product on the market in a half-finished state certainly seems on the rise.

phermitgb

while I appreciate the OP's analysis of an often under-appreciated culprit of the decline of video game development, I do think he underplayed one of the key responsibilities of developers.

Developers are not COMPELLED to put out a game - any game. I'm sure they want to - I'm sure they have high hopes and big dreams - but they will not DIE if their game doesn't get made.

This means that developers do, at least at some level, have the power to determine whether or not a game gets released half-assed. Yes, the developers require backers - they require material resources with which to develop their product. And that money frequently comes from investment groups of one kind or another. And I have no doubt that those investment groups frequently make decisions about development (which they should at no point be allowed to do - they're not programmers - why do they feel they have the capacity to make good decisions about designing a video game - or anything else, for that matter?)...

but in the end, the developers DO have the power to say...No. No, we will not, we cannot in good conscience, release this game while these issues remain unaddressed. No, we will not tack on this hack ending to the end of Mass Effect 3 because some dill-hole decided at the last minute it was a great idea. No, we will not take this section of the game that we've already designed and hide it behind a code-wall so you can sell it 2 weeks after release as dlc. No, No, No, I'm going to slap you with a fish if you don't shut the hell up...

sorry - got caught up in the moment

yes, it's entirely possible that if the developer said "No" - then we would have no Elder Scrolls Online at all. There might be no Mass Effect 3 (which would break my heart, right up until the gdamn starchild at which point I would vomit blood and thank the gods above that there was no Mass Effect 3) - there would be no Mechwarrior Online or...enter whatever other broken but still enjoyable title you like here. The point being, yes, if developers said "No" at some point, the product that we enjoy, even in a broken and compromised state, would not exist at all.

But, by the same token, if the developer industry as a whole would REFUSE to release broken content, if the developer industry would starve the gaming community rather than provide poorly made meals, then the investment firms that make money off of their half-assed intrusions into game development would make NO MONEY from video games. A multi-billion dollar industry, and they wouldn't be getting any of it.

and if investment firms are really all about making money...I suspect they'd find a NEW way to work with developers - one in which they still make *some* money, while allowing developers to release the higher quality, less compromised products than we are currently seeing.

enlightened self interest can be a powerful tool in the armory of the idealist.

My point is, that yes...we as gamers could REFUSE to purchase half-assed products. Problem is, we're really not the best qualified people to determine if a product is half assed. We don't always know where the game is broken until we've bought it, played it, and figured out where it's broken. We don't always know what code has been hidden behind a pre-release code-wall or dlc or whatever...we find out when it's too late - after we've already paid. After the investment firm already has our money.

But the developers know - if anyone knows, the dev's know - they know what compromises they've been asked to make AS they've been asked to make it. They know what's coming up in the next couple of months - they know what's been hidden, what's been set aside and why...no one knows better than the devs which compromises their program has had to make, and why...no one is better equipped to tell the investment firms...NO...than the devs. They are the first line of righteous defense, and when they fail, WE...the far less well equipped and informed victims, have to take up the cause.

so, while I do have *some* sympathy for development teams, it's not much. I frequently find myself the avenging victim of a Dev team's failure to stand fast against the tyranny of greed - and so I find myself playing the broken games, the half-assed efforts and the compromised half-a-loaf games...and slowly, slowly but steadily, losing faith in the industry as a whole.

I take some comfort in knowing that the investment firms really are beggars to their own demise. The more they skim off the industry, the more sacrifices they demand for quick bucks, the less fulfilling their products will become, till the well dries up and games turn to other pursuits to occupy their time. I recommend getting together with friends and doing your gaming in person - it's messier, and not quite as pretty - but can be a TON more fun.

anyway - thoughts I had in response to thoughts by the OP...enjoy as you will...

MornaBaine

In before thread deletion.

There is an old and very true saying, "Any time you have to ask the questions "Why?" the answer is ALWAYS: Money."

The only way to turn this situation around is to stop rewarding the people who are responsible for it. I have, I think, finally learned my lesson thanks to ESO. I will never again buy a AAA title MMO until it has been out AT LEAST a year. After doing this three times now with Age of Conan, SWTOR and now ESO, as they say, third time is the charm. This game is nowhere near "finished" and neither were those others. All have given me, as a consumer, as much frustration as pleasure. All three have made me feel, as a paying customer, unheard and unvalued. And the only way to "correct" the abuses of this industry is for every other consumer in this hobby to do the same. Simply refuse to invest in something you know darn well is not a finished or even finely crafted product. Refuse to give them a cent until it is.

Meanwhile, invest in crowd funding for Indie titles. I want to see the day when Indie games that actually LISTEN to their players can create games that LOOK as amazing as ESO does. Taking down "the big boys" by supporting the more creative and responsive "underdogs" is the OTHER thing that will finally change this industry in the consumer's favor.

AaronMB

Well said. ^^^

ZOS_UlyssesW

Hi folks,
We ask that all threads on the forums have a clear discussion topic related to ESO as per our forum Code of Conduct. As everyone seems to be interested in discussing this topic, and it is staying constructive we will go ahead and leave it open, however we are going to sink it. Thanks for understanding.

UrQuan

Here's the thing that a lot of people who aren't in the software industry don't ever seem to understand: every single software release ever has had bugs. This is entirely inevitable.

The only way to theoretically avoid it is to test and re-test the hell out of every single scenario that the software might see, incrementally fix each bug found, and after each fix go back and retest absolutely everything. If you actually did this to the extent that would be needed to ensure a perfectly flawless piece of software, it would take 10X the time and money, and by the time the software was released it would be years behind the times at best.

There are always compromises that need to be made in order to actually release something. That means that a software release always contains bugs - some known and considered not significant enough to delay the launch, and others that weren't found in testing (there are always compromises made in testing too: you can never test everything that you'd like to). A software release also is usually lacking some features (for games I consider content to be in this category) that the designers would like to have in there, but that for one reason or another couldn't be completed in time for the launch.

The only differences are degrees: where the compromises were made, and whether they were the right compromises to make. It's a fact that money plays a big role in deciding how many compromises need to be made: there comes a point where if you don't release within a given time frame you have to start firing people because you're hemorrhaging money, and you can't keep it up. This is true regardless of the source of that money. It's just as true with crowd-sourced software as traditionally funded software (in fact there are a number of kickstarters that went bankrupt because they tried to do too much with their stretch goal promises).

There are a couple of other things to think about when it comes to release dates: the consumer's expectations, and the competitors on the market. Regardless of financial and development concerns, you have to take those 2 factors into account when deciding what release date is your worst case scenario, do or die date. Consumers expect you to stick to the release dates you communicate. If you don't, and if you keep pushing it back, they lose confidence. You have to make hard choices sometimes about whether that loss of confidence is significant enough to risk pushing something out that you don't think is ready, or whether they'll be patient enough to let you get your product to a better state. The competitors on the market are a big factor too. If pushing the date back means that you risk competing with a similar product coming out that's more advanced, then that's a big risk.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of factors that go into decisions around whether a piece of software is ready for release, but regardless of the decisions made, no piece of software is ever released that is 100% perfect. You just have to hope that the right compromises were made so that it can be considered successful.

MornaBaine

Wow, when something gets "sunk" it's never seen again eh?