double post

cpl_rk, you are being unneccessarily hostile. you are using broad generalizations that don't help. Mogag_AoW is not a developer, i'd bet money on it, and responding to him on a forum for a single specific game and claiming universally that all 'developers' are arrogant,whatever, its safe to assume the developers of this game are going to take it personally and assume its directed at them, more over it doesn't make for a friendly enviorment for discussion. yeah he baited you, you let him and responded in kind then snapped at someone trying to be a voice of reason, someone who agrees with you if you hadn't noticed, just doesn't appreciate your way of expressing it, and if this keeps up, this thread will degenerate into a flame war. what fun

i shall seek my conversation elsewhere, enjoy.

If the majority of games you purchase don't work you do have something wrong with your computer, or you have something going on with them (spyware, viruses, old drivers, weird hardware configuration, ect).

Probably owned 7-8 system (and all the upgrades in between) and I rarely have a game that doesn't work...Elemental was the first in a VERY long time.

I don't think the the 90's were some golden age, but I don't look back on them as some buggy time either.  The only difference is back then (specifically DOS times) it required more knowledge on the users part in configuration stuff.  Like setting IRQ's, boot options, and stuff like that.

BTW, the fragile hypothesis only works in a limited scope.  With any given game alone I'd say personal experience is a weak metric to go by.  However going over the course of decades with dozens (or hundreds) of games that observation has a bit more validity.

If 9/10 really didn't work that wouldn't be something to bitch about...that's a freaking epidemic and would literally cripple the industry.  The fact is that's really not the case.  The % of users who have trouble with any given game is normally very low, with a few hear and there that are significantly higher.

Or in human-robot-language:

YOU ARE PART OF A STATISTICAL ANOMALY. 

*BEEP*

PLEASE CHECK SYSTEM SETTINGS.

*BEEP*

REFER TO ONLINE INTERNET DATABASE FOR TROUBLESHOOTING PROCEDURES.

Let's put it in a real nutshell:

I make a call to get a piece of memory from a video card via DirectX.  On Card A, I get my memory.  On card B, I get an error code.  On card C, I get a bad pointer returned because it didn't handle running out of texture memory gracefully. On Card D, it crashes the process because it expected me to first query the pool available prior to calling it.  If I, as a developer, don't happen to own Card C or Card D, I will have customers that will run into a problem.

The problem is that the sophistication of the tools can lead developers into having a false sense of security.  In the classic days of PC game development, you were using assembly language and didn't rely on high level API calls that didn't always work as they would expect.

And that's before you get into areas where the guy who builds himself his own mega rig but doesn't properly ventilate it and some game comes around that causes it to heat up and suddenly it starts causing the game to crash.  Or the guy who's running a program that injects itself into every process that happens to blow up a random game because of the way it runs full screen. Or the case where the sound driver (we usually talk about video drivers but sound drivers are nearly as bad) is slowly leaking 4K per second because the driver makers never thought the 3D sound would be used in quite the way it is being used.

One other thing I've found prevalent among the other game-community and technical forums I've participated in over the years is that less gamers than not are actually running a legit Operating System (of course this again is just my own personal experience so feel free to dispute).

Aside from just being wrong, the above creates a slew of problems for both the end-user and the developer alike.  Over the years that I've been helping out in gaming/technical communities I've noticed the following issues were too often solidly traced back to a non-legit OS on the user's end:

-  system files out of date or missing entirely and causing "strange behaviour" (of course many pirated OS's cannot be updated so........)

-  system services either disabled or completely stripped out of the OS (again either done by the pirate or some gamer who thinks they know what they can and cannot disable)

-  since "updating" the OS is often not a priority (or possible) for many gamers their installations may not have important service-packs/bug fixes and or frameworks/runtimes properly installed.

-  non-legit OS's also often start out crippled in other ways (sometimes in ways which adversely affect overall security) which then cause more damage as the installation is more easily attacked by malicious software.

...etc.

Keep in mind, I'm not calling every gamer a pirate here......I'm simply saying.......it happens (too often in my opinion) where the gamer gets up in arms about a game "they purchased" not working etc. etc....only to find out that the issue was directly related to the "pirated" OS they were attempting to run said purchased game on.

Of course the above-listed issues can also be present even if the user is running a legit-OS and just doesn't update (I know a few of those...hehe) or they don't have internet access to the system in question.  My personal experience has just been that the above issues don't tend to be the root of the problems for legit OS owners that's all.

the Monk

This doesn't matter, it's just a problem that needs to be overcome. If testing the game detemnines that only video cards A, B, C work but not D, E, F, then the specs on the back of the box need to specify: 4XGameAB requires video cards A, B, C, (in addition to whatever other specs it needs), and it would be nice if it was also mentioned on the back of the box that video cards D, E, F caused failure problems, so that consumers with these type video cards can avoid the game if there are know compatability issues with that hardware.

Perhaps testing any particular game across a wider array of system combinations and hardware would help determine what works and what doesn't.

Bottom line: only provide specs that you "know" work. If you need to "narrow" the specs a lot, do so.

I'm just a consumer, I expect the product to work as advertised if my system matches the specs on the back of the box.

Well, I wasn't snapping (at least not what I would define as snapping), nor was I trying to offend the second guy or start a flame war, whatever that is. But, I'm not one of those "we are the world" hand-holding liberal types, quite the opposite, so if I come off a little harsh to a small subset of people, there's nothing I can do about that .. but it wasn't my intent to "snap." Boy, you should've been in my family when I was growing up if you think that was snapping, my mom would've taught you the meaning of the word. Tact is not a word known to me nor is "political," if the crap in our government today is any kind of example of that word's meaning.

I certainly won't apologize to the guy that feels that consumers (who can't fix a game that was broken out of the box) are "crappy at using their computer and learning from earlier experiences," because there's nothing to apologize for.

Oh come on, thats just plain silly!  Do you really think that gamers should have their games preform adequately if their hardware meets the posted minimum requirements and that games purchased should function as designed or have the functions as posted on their box?  That's insane!!! 

Please read the above with sarcasm detectors on, also, maybe take a look at the Gamers bill of rights, created by Stardock and then look at the game, the box, and how it came out.  Yes there are things that deserve to be bitched about.  I agree and I don't see how anyone can in anyway disagree that a game should work adequately if your computer matches the specs. 

As for Stardock and Elemental, yes this game had a bad release, and yes it failed outright on a lot of the Gamer's bill of Rights, but Stardock is making amends and I applaud them for that, many games just stay in poor shape. 

Right, so the computer matches SPECS...........what about solving the issue (which I think is an even bigger one) of whether or not the OS and more importantly the STATE of the OS (ie. service-pack/framework/runtime patch-level) matches spec?

How do you propose the DEV's tackle that one?

Well, fuck anyone running an illegal OS and then bitching shit don't work.  Solved.

But therein lies the rub.. the "specs" aren't anything specific. At best, they mention the minimum/recommended amount of RAM and the minimum/recommended "power" of graphics card. The majority of them don't actually list a specific card, just a "xx MB DirectX x.x compatible 3d card".

It is impossible to test every possible hardware and software configuration to make sure that the game works on every conceivable computer setup.

This is why console games just work - every console is running the same hardware and the same software.

You're of course welcome to live in the fairytale land where a publisher can test every configuration of software and software imaginable to make sure that the game works on 100% of the systems it's installed on.. but it's never, ever going to happen.

Well, I got that from Stardock's Gamers Bill of Rights.  If they created that shit, they should at least live up to it, if not them, who?  I don't think it was intedned as bullshit.  They need to try harder to live up to that.

They also created the thing right under that says people that can't get it to work can return it. You have to remember that the GBOR is written in as much legal-speak as possible. Note it doesn't actually say that they promise the game will work on all computers "within specs", just that gamers can demand that they do.. but they know full well it's impossible to release a game (save something like a content-only expansion) that will not have any technical issues whatsoever, and the next bullet point basically concedes this fact

If we're going to focus on SD and Elemental, it's worth noting that many of the technical issues at launch would've been eliminated if they gave the beta testers access to the finished thing before pushing it out to the shops. They are small and can't really get a huge QA department like say, Blizzard, so they need to rely more on the (willing) beta testers to make sure the game is at least technically ready for launch.. but that didn't happen.

Agree, a month more of beta testing would have made a huge difference.

You can expect/demand anything you want. 

The question posed was why do so many games ship with problems. I've given some pretty specific, concrete examples.  You can say it "doesn't matter" all you want but it doesn't change reality.  

The game has to be functionable as defined from some starting point. I don't expect anything from anyone anymore, especially companies. It's very sad to me that we've grown so thick-skinned from experience that we expect games not to work from minimum reqs. Anyone who knows more-than-a-little about computers, or has the wisdom of having been burned before when a game failed to function “out of the box” after having met minimum specs (like I was once) will not make that mistake again .. this is going to be the group of most "computer-literate" or "hardcore" gamers.

So, if you and I know better and are not the target of the "minimum system req" trap, then who is? I’ll answer that: It's going to be those people who know the least about computers: young kids buying their first PC game, parents or grandparents buying the game for their kids or grand kids for birthdays or Xmas. These are exactly the types of people who deserve to be the most well protected and not left to the PC game company "wolves" who are doing everything in their power just to make a buck, as every other corporate entity does these days.

Let's think about this from a legal perspective for a moment. What exactly are the "minimum system requirements" and what exactly does this phrase mean? Every single game has this label attached to the back of the box. I'm no lawyer, but I feel 90% certain that it's supposed to define the minimum system requirements that a consumer’s computer system must have in order for that game to function properly on that consumers PC or MAC. And, it obviously involves some legal or consumer protection because all PC games have this label.

Now, you, I, and I'd be willing to bet 90% of "computer-literate" and “hardcare” gamers know that a game with a posted minimum REQ of 10MB RAM (for example) will not function with 10MB of RAM on most computer configurations. And, just as you & I and everyone else who fits into the group of “computer literate or hardcore” gamer would know this, so too would the developers & computer companies. These people are not ignorant. So, why would they label a minimum req of 10MB on a game they know won't work on most configurations? ... I'll tell you why, it's greed.

Pure and simple.

They know that with 300 million people in the USA, and 100 million computers (just saying for example) that a whole lot of those are going to be older computers with minimal RAM installed, and that means much more profit. If they truly cared about their customers (and no company does nowadays, they just want you to think they do), they’d post the minimum reqs at 20MB for this particular example, which covers the whole enchilada .. although there are other reqs, RAM is just one that I’m using for example purposes.

The Gamers Bill of Rights states that a game should function without technical problems. If it does, the gamer has the right to return it for a full refund.  This is something Stardock did - provided full refunds to people. 

People have chosen to read a lot of things into the Gamers Bill of Rights that simply aren't there.  You'll note that the GBOR does not say that a game should work perfectly on all systems. Why doesn't it say that? Because that's impossible.  All it can do is say that a gamer has the right to expect the game to work on their system and if not, they should be able to return it.  That's the crux of the first two goals of the GBOR.

Next time you're wondering why all the 1.0 games are coming out for consoles (other than Elemental, name ONE major non-sequel released in 2010 exclusively for the PC) think long on the challenges vs. profitability of making new games for the PC versus platforms with standardized hardware/software subsystems.

PC games will *always* have some level of compatibility problems on release. Always. The difference between a good PC game developer and a bad PC game developer is how they support it AFTER release.  If this is a problem for you, get an iPad.

That's right, the reality is I've bought some PC games that didn't work "out of the box" even though I've met the system reqs given by the computer game company. It's too bad they didn't have a proactive "can do" attitude toward problem solving instead of a reactive "excuse" attitude then maybe I could've enjoyed those games instead of having to return them for a refund.

The point here I think was that cards D, E, F, [Insert Next Letter Here], were not available or made available for testing, so the developers cannot make a definitive statement about whether systems with those cards can run the game without a problem or not. It is not ever going to be the case (and quite reasonably so) that a developer will have every relevant card in the world available for testing.

On a more general note, it isn't just PC games that have caused this mentality among PC users. The very nature of the PC, PC OS's and software have gotten everyone used to the fact that sometimes, shit don't work until you beat it with a hammer, and sometimes not even then, so be prepared to taste the shit-spray with or without the after-dinner mint for your troubles.

Making something as sophisticated as a modern game for the PC platform is like trying to balance a smooth and beautifully shiny pearl on a rickety rain-slick tower of stacked wooden tables in disrepair. In the process you will bang a few support nails in here and there, and perhaps file a groove somewhere on the top surface. It may balance, it may not. To fix this, you need to make the shiny pearl more like a sticky ball of tar. Now of course, the sticky ball of tar is not going to be as attractive as a shiny pearl, so you need to find the threshold where it's enough like a sticky ball of tar to balance on the tables, but still enough like a shiny pearl to make you want it. But who knows how many types of table stacks this compromise will balance on? What if little Johnny threw a two-legged thing into the mix? What if neighbour Frank put a weighty marble surface on the top? What if silly Susie greased up the whole thing?

When computer systems are tested for bugs, problems and compatibility by the people who put them together (hardware, software, cooling and all) half as much as developers test their games before release, we might all be in a more ideal situatiuon. Better yet, if hardware and software makers collaborated more for purposes of compatibility across the board, there would be no excuse for major faults.

The reality is that these things will never happen. Regardless of this, the reputation of game development companies will still be hurt if they don't release a 99% perfect game. This will and does hurt sales, so obviously it is not something the companies want. At the same time, it is not viable to do the amount of testing that is actually needed to get a 99% perfect game, as cost-wise, this would not put the developer in a position to make more games. So, it's not always about greed, at least not with everyone.

Regarding WoM, it has already been mentioned that better measures could have been taken in development and pre-release, and these measures are now a part of policy as a result. Stardock is doing unprecedented things for a game developer to resolve the issues and to compensate, so I won't be attacking that dead horse.

I was talking about #5 that says "Gamers have the right to have their games perform adequately if their hardware meets the posted minimum requirements"  And that's what cpl is saying.  I didn't write this bill, you guys at Stardock did.  Did I read a lot into it?  Maybe.  But that is the risk you run if you put out something as ambitious as the Gamer's bill of Rights, you will be held to a higher standard and face criticism if you don't live up to it.   

And did you guys give full refunds?  I heard a lot of people say they could only get partial refunds when they called.  But, can't trust everything someone post on the net.  I don't want one, I enjoy the game.

That is right. It is the next step that most people miss I think. That is, if said 'right' is not obtained, then they have the right to a refund..... or a burrito, I can never remember which.

Damn a burrito?  I might just want a refund then...

  So Frogboy what's the answer then? I expect some tinkering being a pc gamer, but you know the problems of mass confiqurations are there, how to fix it for your future releases. When you "hire beta testers" does the company actively search their specs or look for someone thats has a spec you havent tested yet?

  Maybe a larger "permanent beta testing staff" that you send your future releases to/ ( i know piracy )/ for testing. Maybe said game for free, it would be a small price to give away 100 games to have that much more user configurations under your belt?

  As a pc gamer, I know I have to go under the hood every once in awhile, but lets not forget some of us can change our own oil and some can't. The goal should be that you don't need to open your hood to play a game. I appreciate your one of a few pc only devs, and we dont want you going the way of the Dodo, in fact to keep pc gaming alive we need more pc only games.

I blame Microsoft. lol.

Perform as in FPS and such.  I.e. don't put out a game that you say will run on a 486SX but in reality only "runs" in the sense that it'll load but plays like a slide show.

Regarding the partial refund, users who just didn't like the game wanted returns and that isn't covered at all by the GBOR and instead must adhere to Stardock's refund policy which is partial returns (which was designed really for our non-games where users who bought say Object Desktop were way in over their head).

I can't speak for how the industry should handle it.  I can say what Stardock is going to do is just have much much much longer public beta programs ala Google.  It means jettisoning retail first availability but I don't think that's going to matter in another year or two.