By Matt Brown, Multimedia Director.
Capitalism: You get what you pay for. Or at least, you expect to get close. More and more however, for video game software, you’re only getting what developers give you.
Enough is enough. It is time to start the conversation: The FCC, or any regulatory body, needs to set mandatory minimum standards for software.
With all regulation, it is about consumer protection. We have been made to look naïve and desperate for intellectual properties (IPs) by developers. The biggest offender in recent history has been Ubisoft Montreal and their IP Assassin’s Creed Unity.
Released only one-year after it’s predecessor, Unity was made to be streamlined software. So streamlined that a “day one” update was issued that fixed multiple issues throughout the game. Why didn’t a multi-million dollar developer have the resources to debug (an industry term for error-checking) a game of this magnitude?
Worse, the day one fixes weren’t enough and the game was rendered unplayable, with refunds and apologies flying toward consumers. Thankfully though, the next patch fixed the in-game marketplace, where players could spend real world money for in-game items. Players could finally pay more money for a game they already paid too much money for.
Where is the integrity? Subscription based games rely on offering bug-free and well-developed media. Is this because the user is required to continuously pay to play? What is the FCC doing when the nearly unfinished Unity is allowed to be shipped with a $60 price tag?
Unfinished is the key word. Again, Unity had no public gaming demonstration. How was anyone supposed to know? Ubisoft was later found to be suppressing critical reviews by establishing embargoes that wouldn’t allow writers to post a review until 12 hours after launch. It is normal procedure for a game to be given a review weeks before launch.
The issue here is that there was no open demonstration, no public beta testing. Once Ubisoft met their pre-order quota, they had no incentive to hone Unity. It was already paid for; they already made their money back. The next Assassin’s Creed was already developed (and was released the same day as Unity).
Juxtapose this to the Polish developer CD Projekt RED’s The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. The four-year development time allowed for a release that was met roughly 300 hours of nearly bug-free gameplay–Not to mention free downloadable content being distributed periodically.
The kicker? Both of these games fall under the same manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of $60.
What kind of experience should be expected from a $60 investment? Presentation is everything, and a developer can, and should, take their time creating a near perfect piece of art. At the end of day, it is the developer that sets the release date.
As a consumer, did you get the full product? Did you feel that a corporation truly released this software for you, the fan? Or are they cashing in on your fandom?
The FCC and the MSRP must reevaluate what they deem a finished product, and enforce it. There needs to be regulation so that developers cannot give you logs instead of a cabin.
