always bums me out steam sale browsing when you see a bunch of negative reviews like abandoned game. devs dont care, when what clearly happened is it wasn't successful enough to fund further development
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Literally today I was in a meeting about how many players on my recent release want more levels, but we can't afford. Except making a new level is exorbitantly expensive and we haven't sold enough to cover dev, let alone dlc. It's sad, but I don't even think its miserly. Gotta pay devs to make stuff
personally i like supporting devs even when the game is unfinished because at least i got something to mess around in when i couldve had nothing at all
But in other cases they were legitimately abandoned titles because the dev team made a pocket of cash, walked away on vacation for a couple months and just moved on to another title
(Has happened to multiple early access titles I attempted to play/support over the years)
This reminds me of all the people saying they know there will be an expanded version of a game later, so they'll just ignore the first version entirely. And then when the expanded version doesn't happen due to lack of sales of the first, they whine about it, as if they didn't say they didn't want it
To be fair to those people, any dev that regularly does this deserves for their games to flop. Complaining about the lack of a rerelease after the flop is pretty unreasonable, though.
I saw a post a while back about how at least a percentage of those reviews are probably from kids that grew up with live service being the norm, and thinking finished video games that don't get any updates is somehow a bad thing. Much to think about.
That's endemic yeah, alongside "concurrent player count" (public steam metric) as a be-all end-all proxy for success regardless of game type, because those 7 hour narrative experiences definitely "fell off" compared to multiplayer shooters right
Yes, to the point where even developers are complaining about it publicly, especially the more it becomes about point scoring against "rival" games or as part of some culture warrior bullshit argument
That's absolutely stupid. I don't look at that number for any reason other than out of curiosity or as a general gauge of games that are strictly multiplayer that requires other players to have an idea of relative activity.
Ah yes, because those 8 hour narrative games for $15 that peaked at 50k people made by one dev (which makes about $500k at those numbers) is totally a failure and not a massive stepping stone for said indie dev to now go and make something bigger and better /s
The fact that players expect continued development of a finished product is a problem in itself. I understand complaining about bugs, or things already promised, but too many games have wild expectations about what it means for a finished product to be "supported".
I feel this. Every major popular game has “seasons” with new fluffed up content like 4 times a year now. It just feels unnecessary and I can only imagine the time crunch hell it puts devs through. It sets really unrealistic expectations for lesser funded projects.
I would assume that when he says unfinished game he's implying EA, but if he's talking about post launch, then, well, a game should get a rating based on its quality at launch. This is why Steam added the "last 30 days" part of reviews. To show if a game has grown or fallen to waste.
this is getting really deep in the weeds, do you want me to apologize for saying something that may or may not have only been tangentially related to the original post? I think they are capable of making that judgment for themselves
this happened with Wolcen, they pretty much spelled out that they ran out of sales money and can't magically keep a team around in case it picks back up. game dev is hard!
Wolcen was one of the rare cases where Steam didn't have any problems refunding it way past the 2 hours window because of how broken the game was at launch.
Saw a comment like this about the (amazing) Rogue Legacy also. The game was finished, updated for years but players are so used to being sold DLCs and to have their game be an alpha version at launch, that they think shipping a finished game is abandoning it. Wild.
Take 2 ran a publishing group called private division to foster smaller indie projects. they bought the rights to KSP, and funded KSP2. When the interest rates changed, all the companies that had spent the last 5 years buying teams and projects started laying people off, they shuttered it.
I mean, a lot of these games are unfinished in major ways if not barely functional to begin with. I'm not gonna fault anyone for walking away when the math doesn't work out, but they're still selling a product and the concept of abandoning it on unfinished would be kinda insane in any other medium
The AAA brain worms of the expectation of constant updates to every game for years. Sometimes it's more than enough for a game to see release, people demand too much for no reason. Games don't have to be perfect.
On one hand, players deserve a finished product when they’re buying non EA games.
On the other hand, having negative reviews is like dead spiral that keeps the dev from ever updating it. Even if they have the mean to, why would they continue working on a badly reviewed game instead of a fresh start?
“Lazy and greedy devs” isn’t even a vernacular in the industry. Nobody is lazy. Nobody is greedy. No one wants their product to fail. It always comes down to the budget from a controlling source.
The thing is you may not know part of your game is broken until it releases.
This happens with AAA Studios that have millions of dollars and dozens of QA testers that are trained to find this stuff. Of course it's going to happen with some indie dev who's probably just asking a friend to play test.
gamers love to posture at being pro-consumer fighting against exploitation but that always manifests as just lecturing poor developers to just have money to do everything for free. baldurs gate does it why dont you. lazy devs greedy devs. no empathy or actual awareness of the real problems
What are you arguing here? Should I leave positive review out of pity because game didn't sell well? Or should I leave no review so other players can buy it blindly and be potentially disappointed? I'm sorry, but If game is buggy or is missing content then it's fair to call it out for this.
I completely understand devs stopping support for a game, life happens, especially if it didn’t make money. But at least have the courtesy to warn players on the store page:
"The game is no longer supported, this content is missing, there are bugs."
i promise i am not engagement farming lmao it’s not a great experience to have thousands of people see a post i made off the cuff on this end either lmao
I think we are going in circles. Players can be and often are ignorant or assholes. I admitted this much. But same applies to developers. My objection was only to the broad stroke of initial post which to me read as one sided look at the issue especially with contents of post I first replied to
i mean you should do what you want, it’s the part where assuming malice or malpractice from the developers is so common bothers me. i was specifically looking at reviews of a game that came out, not in early access, the team got fucked over by the publisher, and are pausing updates til febuary
I think one thing that sucks is people will lump everyone related with the development and commercialization of a game into "the devs".
"This game is abandoned" can be valid commentary/criticism for future buyers, but the reviewer may not know what happened so they'll just blame "the devs".
Call out was not just for perceived malice. I specifically replied to the part about "worst that can happen if game you purchased gets abandoned". Also some developers can absolutely be greedy and uncaring. Lets not pretend that just because job is hard and often thankless no assholes do it ever.
If a game is marked as an Early Access title then those purchasing it should be aware of what they're signing up for, however there's no reason that rating an long deserted game as such to warn against future purchases should be seen as a bad thing.
That can be done without resorting to insults. Just a simple “game is no longer supported”. Ideally there’d be some clear indication a game may have issues due to not being updated anymore that doesn’t require a user review.
If a dev can't bother to send an update to the effect of "I can no longer continue developing this project due to reasons, what you see now is what you get" then I would argue that the statement "devs don't care" is more of a harsh truth than an insult.
Hold on, in the examples I am aware of, the developers did send that announcement. The user reviews either did not read it or did not care and continued to blame them for things that were easily explained.
Not much bad could happen, no but don't expect people to pay for unfinished unless it's right there in there on the store page in bold caps, UNFINISHED but you might "taste something" regardless, who knows?
Its a symptom of capitalism. People only have so much money and time and dont want an experience with too much friction because the money they spend couldve bought food. People get mad, feel cheated, and lash out. It sucks.
I've been binging Starfield these last couple days & find it's goofs very amusing. It doesn't bother me that the planets aren't No Man's Sky or that my hoarding doesn't always stay where I left it. The game so far is really fun.
Unironically playing a variety of PS1 and PS2 games as an adult has reshaped a lot of my thoughts on what it means to be a good game. They just don’t make any games like Onimusha: Warlords or PS1 armored core anymore
I actually met the devs of Flamberge once and they were some the nicest, most passionate people I've ever seen. Been waiting for the game to finally come out of early access for years and knowing it was likely abandoned out of necessity breaks my heart. Glad at least some ppl remember it fondly
Yeah there's a lot of gymnastics surrounding it all, like it's all about "the right to free artistic vision" but this is almost always a guise for "They did something I don't like" because creators have to be both unchanging in morals but also beholden to them???
Just really tired of the general cynicism. It's not hard to come by! The idea that every decision ever is this inauthentic bid for shareholders or marketing if it even vaguely deviates from the expectation. Exhausting and frankly a little depressing.
I remember when noodle made a video about how not every developer can make games on the same scale as Baldur's gate 3, and trying to often leads to their bankruptcy. Then someone made a hour and a half response video where they were like: "Ermm, so you want bad AAA games? Corporate shill!"
A certain Steam group was known for going after small devs, lumping them in with actual fraudsters, saying that their lack of experience was instead asset-flipping scams. If their harassment comments were removed, they'd cry censorship and cover-ups; even get YouTube reviewers to do 'expose' vids
I honestly think TotalBiscuit and Sterling really helped amplify and normalize a lot of this behavior in online spaces a decade ago. Any and every problem regardless of scale was treated with the same ire and urgency by them that led to entitled if it isn't perfect its a scam attitudes.
They're not pro-consumer, they're pro-consumerism. They want with a blind, unending avarice that has been instilled in them since they first held a game cartridge.
i remember seeing the discourse around that one dev that was like "hey don't expect bg3 as the norm" and the absolute meltdown people had over that very normal and obvious opinion and thinking "oh no"
I think people vastly overestimate just how much money indie devs make from their games, for starters. We're not talking about the ones who are their own big studio (which seems to be the norm in Europe), we're talking about those who post mostly on https://Itch.io and link to their Patreon.
I remember the days of Steam Greenlight being unbearable for this. the one shot many devs had to get their game on Steam was through a gauntlet of angry, constantly yelling gamers; lot of unfinished games and review bombing from that
One must continue putting in money and updates until all parties have shut down. (like parenting). What irks me is, if there's modding support, then it's "Making the players work for you for free". But if you enable money for mods, it flips to money-grubbing. It's all just an excuse for Egos.
I get that games as service requires updates but it is wild to me that lifelong maintenance and expansion of the games is practically the expectation at this point.
honestly makes me really worried about the future of helldivers 2 considering how much power they have given there comunity. there is a presitent now that they can yell at the devs to get free shit, so WHEN the next big cosmetic thing drops for that game and its never free what happens
I suspect that Arrowhead has gotten increasingly good at answering to the the voices in their room. Their players, their devs, and Sony. I suspect they knew the Hellgast stuff would cause anger, and got sony to agree to the free part 2 if it failed ahead of time. It all happened very quickly.
Some games are just cash grabs, copies of popular games made to make a quick buck and are abandoned. Look how many Phasmophobia rip off games there are to see examples of this.
Someone posted on the High Fleet Community Forum and asked if this game was dead. And my reply was, well, if dead means 100% completed and finished to the desires of the developer, then I guess that means dead. Just as Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 20-year-old games are also dead. They did not reply...
Nah, games can be finished...like say Asteroids, Pong, and so on. You set a goal, you make the game to the goal, you remove bugs, then finished game. Sadly the internet has had a corrosive effect on that due to always being able to patch the game after launch. Creates opportunity for goal creap.
The very first bullet point of how not to use Early Access tells devs to not put their games there if they don't have the funds to finish their game already secured.
Devs misusing EA and then abandoning titles, while leaving them for sale with undelivered promises still listed should be called out
People leave these kinds of reviews on finished games though, if the Dev doesn't release new content updates or sequels. Steam is a very demanding marketplace.
I ask because OP never said A SINGLE WORD about Early Access.
OP is talking about games that are finished, but greedy, annoying users think all finished games should still be developed on and on and on, FOR FUCKING EVER, for free.
No starting indie dev is going to the have funds secured. Being realistic using EA as a way to get hype and more funding is a viable option when used correctly. GameMaker even cites as such
The irony is that the negative reviews are probably contributing to the problem. If you're mad because you like the game and want it to be finished, give a good review and advocate FFS.
Yes agreed! People don't seem to understand these are executive decisions and have little to do with the devs who have poured their hearts and souls into them.
I dunno. I'm still upset CrimeSight got shut down in less than a year. And yet they had everything they needed to convert the game into an offline game so it could still be played after the servers went down.
god i feel this. 🙄 there's this solo dev i follow who has a habit of going radio silent, then reappearing with a huge content dump. never fails, every single time he goes quiet people review bomb and post thread after thread crying "abandoned" "dead game", it's so annoying.
Yes! I've seen this happen to other devs, but my comment was about panstasz. I think right now he's still radio silent, but this is probably the third time he's done so. I have sympathy for him, working solo on the game that is a hobby and having a lot of irl drama to contend with, too.
That was definitely worrying, but this seems like his MO. Though we'd all like to see new WoH content, the game is "finished", so it's odd that so many seem to expect him to add content to infinity, to the point of insulting him. New content or no, I just hope the guy's okay :(
Personally actually hate when I have to turn s recommended into a not recommended cuz a have very likely got shut down from lack of funding. I mis the MMO NEStalgia. I can't recommend a dead game, though v.v
I watched my buddy release a game that couldn't put food on the table. Grants paid for most of the development however the sales couldn't help them make a mortgage payment. Not all Indie devs have the financial means to keep going, keep supporting independent devs, they could be your neighbors...
“Abandoned game” stuff drives me crazy. Live service has poisoned peoples minds like they just didn’t need to develop it anymore. Not every game needs/can afford the 2.0 MEGA OVERHAUL PATCH tm
Plus, people seem to have forgotten about how that really only happens with certain games by certain AAA devs with certain conditions. Even ones as massive as Bioware can't get away with it (Anthem, for example), why would they think some hobbyist dev can?
I know! it's sad to find a game that is super enjoyable, but you reach a point and realize it's not finished and they are no longer maintaining it. I wouldn't neg the devs though, they need to make a living. So they have to move on.
That’s a completed game though, I think the OP means games that never got the polish and perfection like the devs originally wanted, and players instead assuming they got their cash and ran with it. In most cases they stopped working on the game because they ran out of money. Game dev is expensive.
I think they mean for abandoned games that are listed as though they will still be worked on or have updates Coming Soon TM. It would be nice if steam had a way to flag a game as abandoned and incomplete.
Having had projects get canceled due to lack of interest from people/lack of capital, I'm not surprised some of them just... quit without proper updates. It's demoralizing.
I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I can understand why some devs act that way
The main point of my post is that the promises are still up. Just because you're a little business or sole trader it does not mean you get away with false advertising. This shouldn't be contentious.
Abandoned in the sense it doesn't get further updates after being finished? Fine, you gave me what I paid for, everything else is just extra. Abandoned in the sense that it was never finished and the devs dropped it? Don't sell it unless you have a plan to finish it with or without buyers.
Nobody has a crystal ball. You do not know what the future is. Your wife could get cancer. A flood destroyed Hello Games' offices, and destroyed a ton of their work. There is no way to actually know and predict anything. Not even AAA can make the promise you are asking for.
Don't be obtuse. It's unlikely that most unfinished games sold before 1.0 qualify for force majeure. See, I don't have a big problem with believing in devs and I do buy a lot of EA if I see a good idea. But you bet your bottom if it's left unfinished, I'll leave negative words to warn others.
The descriptor steam uses for early access games states that they may end up unfinished and that you shouldn't buy them if you don't expect that. It sounds like you should just not buy early access games at all, if that's how you feel about it.
MAY, not intended to. We discussed the potential unexpected situations where that might happen. If you intend that or think it's likely, you're just abusing the system. EARLY access implies there will be normal access later. It's not a kickstarter. Why are you against consumers informing each other?
I don't have a problem with it at all. I guess I'm more playing off the anger i'm feeling from your replies. I don't like blaming people for problems i don't have enough context for. I don't actually have a problem with leaving a review saying a game is unfinished. 1/2
Yep! And so many hidden gems in those selections too. Folks don't seem to realize that Early Access sales literally help FUND the continued development of the game. Which is why it's crucial that if there's an indie game that catches your eye, jump on it asap! You're helping more than you may know.
Just because steam says it's not a zebra to avoid legal liability, it sure does have hoofs and stripes, and lives in africa. Like, what is the point of early access then, if not for steam to get a cut of kickstarter's market?
That's what happens when game devs flood the market with early access unfinished clone half ass games. The games that come out lack quality in favor of a quick buck.
I mean, I get that it's a business and all, but that's not going to stop me from calling out Warpzone and Team17 for ending support of Hammerting while it was still missing several advertised features (most notably mod support). If they've failed to deliver a promised product, that's worth knowing.
Comments
But in other cases they were legitimately abandoned titles because the dev team made a pocket of cash, walked away on vacation for a couple months and just moved on to another title
(Has happened to multiple early access titles I attempted to play/support over the years)
So what's the problem here?
Dev know about the bugs but many release it because have no funds left to develop further
On the other hand, having negative reviews is like dead spiral that keeps the dev from ever updating it. Even if they have the mean to, why would they continue working on a badly reviewed game instead of a fresh start?
That reason is a lots of devs used to release half baked games thinking they can drip feed features until it's complete.
Some devs actually do. Lots didn't. Those are abandoned games and should be reviewed accordingly.
This happens with AAA Studios that have millions of dollars and dozens of QA testers that are trained to find this stuff. Of course it's going to happen with some indie dev who's probably just asking a friend to play test.
If you deliver incomplete and put in the work, fine. I will buy everything Hello Games releases until I die because of how they handled things.
If you walk, the game is abandoned and deserves to be called abandoned. It's that simple.
...yes, that's how they can afford to make games, did you miss that part?
"The game is no longer supported, this content is missing, there are bugs."
Not that hard, right?
Conjecture vs. practical experience with a given topic is a heck of a stance.
My job is to guide players who scream at me everyday about "bugs" or "broken quests" when it's actually just them being blind, stupid or both.
Is their input valuable to anyone?
"This game is abandoned" can be valid commentary/criticism for future buyers, but the reviewer may not know what happened so they'll just blame "the devs".
Like you’re fine to leave those reviews but I felt like the call out was for targeting devs for perceived malice.
i feel like folks who complain were raised on like Minecraft and Terreria and don't get how they are unique
And I'm sorry, if your game isn't getting funded, maybe it's just not good.
Other times it's EA games that haven't had patches for 12-18+ months and no communication from the devs
Devs misusing EA and then abandoning titles, while leaving them for sale with undelivered promises still listed should be called out
I ask because OP never said A SINGLE WORD about Early Access.
OP is talking about games that are finished, but greedy, annoying users think all finished games should still be developed on and on and on, FOR FUCKING EVER, for free.
Or else they're "abandoned."
I naturally assumed, because nothing was mentioned about Early Access.
If you want to Kickstarter a game, then do that.
https://gamemaker.io/en/blog/early-access-games
I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I can understand why some devs act that way