this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
389 points (97.3% liked)

Games

38755 readers
1680 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

It would also be great if devs added things during development that should simply be there at launch. Instead of that, shit gets rushed out the door with promises of future fixes and updates. And then devs get all huffy when people rightfully ask for things to be added that are supposed to be basic launch features…

[–] [email protected] 34 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

What I don't understand is why do developers make bad games? They should just make good games instead.

Gamers want good games, not bad games.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

The developers aren't in charge of what's in the game, the PMs and accountants are

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 hours ago

To be fair, the Prime Ministers should really be focused on more important things than a game companies software development.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago

Yess. I boggles me that the narrative is still "devs this, devs that". It doesn't take becoming a game dev to understand that actual software developers are not calling shots on plot twists, monetisation model and so forth. Like, what the hell is wrong with people babbling about devs?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the fact is that there are also a LOT of dumb customers willing to buy crap. God knows why.

Just look at the trending / best selling lists on Steam. There’s shit on there that I wouldn’t play if you paid me. Yet somehow there’s enough of a customer base for that that they sell it.

Honestly, Steam should look into setting a minimum quality level for things sold on the platform.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the fact is that there are also a LOT of dumb customers willing to buy crap.

As much as everyone love Oblivion...it all started from there with the $9 horse armour DLC.

God knows why.

Yet somehow there’s enough of a customer base for that that they sell it.

Kids. Fucking kids. Thankfully I am never that stupid to buy individual DLCs even when I was a child, which is compounded by familial circumstances and education, but kids will be kids. Either they stole their parent's credit card to pay for useless virtual items, or they were spoiled and never taught with financial literacy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

horse armor that didnt even add armor to horses (edit. Functional armor, before someone ACKSHUALLY's me :p)

It just, iirc, 3x'd the horses base health.

I am still salty about that shit to this day, because its what lead us to the miseryscape of nickle and dimed bullshit we have today.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 14 hours ago

supposed to be basic launch features

isn't this very subjective and dependent on the game and scale of success?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know Helldivers 2 -- what basic launch features were/are missing?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

There's a strong argument that the server architecture needed to be better at launch, but then the game sold more than an order of magnitude better than it was expected to, so no one would have noticed that it scaled badly had the player count been in line with their design and testing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Ah yeah that's a tricky one. I guess as developers we'd all like to be ambitious and plan for millions of users but that sort of hardware and architecture takes time and money that might not be realistically in the budget/scope.

I've also not really got insight as to who would have a say on that kind of hardware, whether that's PMs or devs. Probably higher-ups, right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago

I think for something like this, you'd rent cloud servers as you'd expect the number of concurrent users to change over time and ideally would be able to spin up more capacity when you need it without having to have those machines available all the time. You still need some kind of system that decides when to order more capacity with enough warning that it's actually available (you can tell AWS you want a VM immediately, but it still takes a couple of minutes to transfer your data onto it and boot it up, which is longer than people want to sit in a loading screen) and decides which servers to assign to which users.