Due to popular demand...

[Zenoth]

I know it isn't new, developers have been reactive like that in the past, although I don't think it ever became common, but I'm noticing that it seems to happen more often since a few years. I'm referring to developers releasing a game (often a multi-platform port) and then adding options (options that should have been there from the start) because there is an actual "demand" for that from the consumers, and the word demand here is used loosely, we could often talk about outcry (with reasons) and... rage.

Speaking of which, id Software's first patch for RAGE got my attention due to something it mentions in its release notes. I'm quoting the part of the notes that made me create this thread:

RAGE Patch Release Notes - October 8th 2011
-------------------------------------------

RAGE defaults to lower video settings to allow the game to work on a
wide variety of hardware and software configurations.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to anticipate all possible graphics
driver issues in combination with unique end user hardware and software
configurations. For this reason RAGE does not automatically increase
video/graphics settings as this could result in negative side effects
on specific hardware and software configurations. The original release
of RAGE does not expose many video/graphics options for people to tweak
because some of these settings, although desirable from a quality
perspective, simply will not work on specific configurations either due
to hardware limitations and/or driver bugs. Due to popular demand for
more video and graphics options, this patch updates the video settings
menu and exposes several quality and performance settings. However, not
everyone may be able to increase the settings due to hardware limitations
and/or driver bugs.

What do you guys think about such school of thought from developers? And, not just id Software, but any developers doing things like that?

Let's look at it a bit closer...

[...]although desirable from a quality
perspective[...]

Why would developers care about video/audio settings on the PC version of a multi-platform game being "desired" or not in the first place? And, additionally, if it involves a "quality perspective" then why not letting us temper with such options as we see fit? There are no disadvantages in creating video/audio (or others) options. The job of developers, in my opinion, when it comes to deciding "which options" make it in the final release (before any patching is done) is not to decide for us if we... "merit" those options to start with. On paper, black on white, the machine we will install the game on may or may not be able to "take advantage of" or be "compatible with" such options, but that part is up to the consumer to find out.

Normally developers test their games on various hardware configurations, and testers actually test the game itself for bugs related to hardware or software issues. The results from such testing/polishing is in the developers hands, yes. But once a game ends up packaged and ready to be purchased in a store or ready to be downloaded on-line then (call me naive if you want) everything that follows is up to us, the gamers. Which should mean that developers should not take in consideration whether we can "benefit from", can "understand those options" or that we supposedly "desire" specific options.

What they need to do is give us the options that the engine offers in terms of video and audio settings/values adjustments, and then from those options the player decides (or finds out over time, with trials and errors at worst) which options to max out or to let go on medium or lower settings.

Example that comes to mind: Unreal Tournament 2004's in-game options.

Due to popular demand[...]

This one really bugged me.

Why? Look, Mr. Developer Joe, there is no justification to give, or excuses to make, or "demand" to wait for before you guys give us a minimum number of video/audio options for the PC version of your beloved multi-platform games. There is no patch that should have the "main role" of providing mere options that should have been included with the final release of a game. I was actually pissed off when I read that one, id Software, and yeah I know other developers out there have done it too in the past, but dammit guys, really? Waiting for a "popular demand"? C'mon, that's just...

Ok, anyway, point being made from me, I want to know what you guys think of developers doing stuff like that. How do you feel as a consumer. Do you feel humiliated? Do you think it's an isolated case? Because, in my book, I felt as if we, gamers (PC gamers should I specify) suddenly had to actually demand options in our games for developers for them to finally "consider it". And that... and that left a very, very bad impression. It's not just RAGE, but this being the latest example just made me see red and black for a moment.

 

[gorcorps]

"This pointless babbling brought to you by your friend Zenoth"

I don't get it...would you rather they just do the release notes in a list like almost everybody else? Looks like your biggest issue is how they explained the reason for the change, and not the change itself. Very odd thing to be concerned about especially when the game itself is so flawed.

 

[Rifter]

Honestly i Agree. The due to popular demand thing really means we wont spend money on it till enough people bitch about it. They try and get away with as little as possible as long as the backlash is not that great.

I think we will be in for more of the same going forward with most game companies, especially the ones that do cross platform releases.

I can totally see them having the game give you a reccomended list of settings but then have them all available to change in game, dont have it be reccomended or else. They are loosing PC sales and ill bet a portion of that is the people unwilling to jump through hoops to play with the settings they want. Nowdays you need to manually edit config files, download third party apps or hacked exe's to get to alot of the settings. Personally i refuse to play a game with motion blur, i hate it, it makes things look like crap. Maybe if i had a crap GPU it might be ok and mask the lag a bit but i just cant stand it. And over the last few years some games make it really really hard to disable some settings and it can get very annoying.

They cant possibly test all hardware configs so how in the hell do they make these decisions about what settings to enable and at what levels? I really dont get why they cant just have them all available to edit in the options menu.

 

[biostud]

In all other games you can just choose auto if you want 'console easiness' and those who like to tweak can do so. If not broken don't fix it.

 

[Zenoth]

"This pointless babbling brought to you by your friend Zenoth"

I don't get it...would you rather they just do the release notes in a list like almost everybody else? Looks like your biggest issue is how they explained the reason for the change, and not the change itself. Very odd thing to be concerned about especially when the game itself is so flawed.

I don't think that you understand what it implies.

Do you honestly think that it is "normal" for PC gamers to have to find a way by themselves and manually edit configuration files, sometimes even having to create a third-party program (think Borderlands) that can finally get some basic options such as V-Sync and Field of View out of a freshly released game? I was looking for a FoV option myself since by default it looks zoomed-in, to me, so by having the option to change it I would have been able to adjust it to my taste. It's not "how" they explained it, it's the guts they had to tell us that it was because of popular demand. It reveals a lot. Making a "usual" release notes that merely mentions the actual changes without giving a reason behind them is a very good way to just let the outcry pass by unnoticed, and developers don't have to "explain" themselves with such formal patch notes. In this particular case of id Software and RAGE it troubles me. Why do they take the time to "reveal" to us that it was because we bitched about it that we finally got it?

You think I've done a pointless babbling, but I think you forgot what it is like and what it should be like having options in a PC game at release, perhaps you play most of your games on consoles now for all I know. I don't, and I notice it when options lack in a PC game. But the insult (it is) is when a developer come out and say... "well, alright, you guys cry out it, you'll have it". Well thanks! It might seem pointless from gamers to bitch about options in game, but they heard it and it serves its purpose. You can consider this post a "pointless babbling" if you wish gorcorps, but you cannot deny that gamers had the last word on RAGE and id Software. Maybe they themselves thought that we were a bunch of whiners, but that's the point, what we asked for is something that just a couple of years ago would have been included in a final release PC game without hesitation, and any following patches would actually focus on fixing bugs rather than "adding options".

I think that developers themselves started to forget about options in PC games since a couple of years, and they become reactive, rather than proactive, only to be suddenly awakened and most likely annoyed by loud-enough outcries about it.

 

[wuliheron]

Rage is only the equivalent of Dx 9 and the engine automatically reduces the textures whenever necessary to maintain a constant 60fps. There just isn't much to adjust to begin with and the few menu items they added in their patch are only there because it makes it easier to deal with some of the bugs that have been discovered. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but only if they're worried it will fall off.

Its the same with any other business. People are always looking for new ways to save money and cut corners. If you don't like vote democrat and write your congressman.

 

[Childs]

id is getting good at passing the buck.

 

[AstroManLuca]

id is getting good as passing the buck.

Yeah it's funny how both id and Epic have turned their backs on PC gamers. Fuck those guys, it's easily possible to cater to both audiences. Carmack and CliffyB have both made it clear that they hate PC gamers and PC gaming in general. I will not buy another game by either developer.

 

[FancyTurtle]

I know it isn't new, developers have been reactive like that in the past, although I don't think it ever became common, but I'm noticing that it seems to happen more often since a few years. I'm referring to developers releasing a game (often a multi-platform port) and then adding options (options that should have been there from the start) because there is an actual "demand" for that from the consumers, and the word demand here is used loosely, we could often talk about outcry (with reasons) and... rage.

Speaking of which, id Software's first patch for RAGE got my attention due to something it mentions in its release notes. I'm quoting the part of the notes that made me create this thread:



What do you guys think about such school of thought from developers? And, not just id Software, but any developers doing things like that?

Let's look at it a bit closer...



Why would developers care about video/audio settings on the PC version of a multi-platform game being "desired" or not in the first place? And, additionally, if it involves a "quality perspective" then why not letting us temper with such options as we see fit? There are no disadvantages in creating video/audio (or others) options. The job of developers, in my opinion, when it comes to deciding "which options" make it in the final release (before any patching is done) is not to decide for us if we... "merit" those options to start with. On paper, black on white, the machine we will install the game on may or may not be able to "take advantage of" or be "compatible with" such options, but that part is up to the consumer to find out.

Normally developers test their games on various hardware configurations, and testers actually test the game itself for bugs related to hardware or software issues. The results from such testing/polishing is in the developers hands, yes. But once a game ends up packaged and ready to be purchased in a store or ready to be downloaded on-line then (call me naive if you want) everything that follows is up to us, the gamers. Which should mean that developers should not take in consideration whether we can "benefit from", can "understand those options" or that we supposedly "desire" specific options.

What they need to do is give us the options that the engine offers in terms of video and audio settings/values adjustments, and then from those options the player decides (or finds out over time, with trials and errors at worst) which options to max out or to let go on medium or lower settings.

Example that comes to mind: Unreal Tournament 2004's in-game options.



This one really bugged me.

Why? Look, Mr. Developer Joe, there is no justification to give, or excuses to make, or "demand" to wait for before you guys give us a minimum number of video/audio options for the PC version of your beloved multi-platform games. There is no patch that should have the "main role" of providing mere options that should have been included with the final release of a game. I was actually pissed off when I read that one, id Software, and yeah I know other developers out there have done it too in the past, but dammit guys, really? Waiting for a "popular demand"? C'mon, that's just...

Ok, anyway, point being made from me, I want to know what you guys think of developers doing stuff like that. How do you feel as a consumer. Do you feel humiliated? Do you think it's an isolated case? Because, in my book, I felt as if we, gamers (PC gamers should I specify) suddenly had to actually demand options in our games for developers for them to finally "consider it". And that... and that left a very, very bad impression. It's not just RAGE, but this being the latest example just made me see red and black for a moment.

TLDR cliffs?

 

[greenhawk]

I can only assume OP that you are being fooled into thinking this way by marketing talk. In truth it is proberly closer to the actual truth in that the developers were restricted by the accountants and money to NOT test on a range of hardware and specifically cut corners where ever they can (ie: develope for the lowest common factor) and then not give a crap on things like allowing the customer to adjust settings.

This "demand" you point out is once again marketing speek for "we f*** up and do not want to admit it, so will look like the good guys and bow to the requests". What is more likly is the ones that stuffed up are the accountants. Some nice developer/coder proberly had all he/she needed already coded in the program complete with a menu page, just waiting for the go ahead from management. How else do you explain the "fast" turn around time from "customer demand" to delivery in a industry that has to test everything several times before releasing it?

 

[hooflung]

With all the driver releases for all different types of games, why should anyone take what iD is saying with a grain of salt? They are right. The PC is an ever changing target in regards to graphics. We have both big vendors changing their tech all the time. We blast the GPU manufacturers for not plowing forward and then we criticize a game maker when something goes foul in the release of a game that has everything to do with graphics chips and inconsistent drivers.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[greenhawk]

Can't have it both ways.

who wants it both ways? I just want the option to turn on/off features I find stupid. If that also allows me to step around issues with hardware (or enable features when the hardware advances), all the better. It is a "customisable" PC after all, why limit it via software?

Besides, a important side point of the who situation is, just what was the software tested against during it's several years of testing/development if some of these issues were not found before release? The current GPU hardware is nearly a year old. Not like it would have taken much to pick one up and check out how the software works on it. Not like their are a dozen different GPU hardware, with each behaving differently.

Seriously, even if the company did not do that sort of testing, you really expect gamers to belive that these game programers did not try the program on their own personal/home computers? I suspect the good game developers are proberly gamers at heart, so testing it at home seems quite possible to me.

 

[bononos]

If the present trend continues, we'll need patches just to change resolutions and brightness.

 

[thespyder]

I really gotta say that this is the type of "Entitlement" bull that I am growing to hate in the community today. Understand that game developers are not "Required" to provide any features/functionality what so ever that they do not have a mind to provide. PERIOD!

And given that the examples listed above are about how features were not provided Because (and an explanation is given, which is also not required) of factors that are both real and reasonable, I don't see the problem. It does look like (at least in the Rage scenario) there was some after market (and therefor gratis) work done to upgrade to the required features, and for that I think the company should be applauded. Understand that they were NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATATION to do any of that. And they did it for FREE.

Also understand that the phrase "Due to popular demand" means nothing of the sort. There is no compulsion either implied or in reality on the part of the community towards the developers. It is merely a popularity catch phrase and nothing more. It may mean that the community requested it. It may even mean that certain members of the community think they have the right to "Demand" it (but they don't).

 

[AstroManLuca]

I really gotta say that this is the type of "Entitlement" bull that I am growing to hate in the community today. Understand that game developers are not "Required" to provide any features/functionality what so ever that they do not have a mind to provide. PERIOD!

And given that the examples listed above are about how features were not provided Because (and an explanation is given, which is also not required) of factors that are both real and reasonable, I don't see the problem. It does look like (at least in the Rage scenario) there was some after market (and therefor gratis) work done to upgrade to the required features, and for that I think the company should be applauded. Understand that they were NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATATION to do any of that. And they did it for FREE.

Also understand that the phrase "Due to popular demand" means nothing of the sort. There is no compulsion either implied or in reality on the part of the community towards the developers. It is merely a popularity catch phrase and nothing more. It may mean that the community requested it. It may even mean that certain members of the community think they have the right to "Demand" it (but they don't).

Obviously they're not required to let you adjust your video settings, nor is anyone required to buy their game.

But it's fucking patronizing, and that's why people are unhappy. It's saying, "Hey, PC gamers, we know you've been carefully adjusting your graphics settings for years, but we think you're too stupid to figure this out so we're just going to prevent you from changing anything."

Wanting to be able to change the settings, a feature that has been present in most PC games forever (especially ones by id Software!), is not entitlement.

 

[Kudro]

When I release my AAA shooter on the PC, it will not have video options nor will you be able to even change your keybindings. Then when there's a post-release grumbling from a small group of whining PC gaming elitists, I will release a "patch" to include the above-mentioned options for FREE, even though I must do so at a great inconvenience to myself. Then gamers like thespyder, who certainly represents the vast majority of PC gamers, will applaud and praise me for my benevolence.

Agree with OP.

 

[AstroManLuca]

When I release my AAA shooter on the PC, it will not have video options nor will you be able to even change your keybindings. Then when there's a post-release grumbling from a small group of whining PC gaming elitists, I will release a "patch" to include the above-mentioned options for FREE, even though I must do so at a great inconvenience to myself. Then gamers like thespyder, who certainly represents the vast majority of PC gamers, will applaud and praise me for my benevolence.

Agree with OP.

Better yet, ship it with gamepad support ONLY. Hell, make it only support the Xbox 360 controller. No support for other gamepads or keyboard and mouse. That'll show those cocky PC gamers.

I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE KEYBOARD AND MOUSE SUPPORT. WHY ARE YOU ACTING SO ENTITLED, THEY'RE DOING YOU A FAVOR BY PATCHING THAT STUFF IN.

 

[thespyder]

Obviously they're not required to let you adjust your video settings, nor is anyone required to buy their game.

But it's fucking patronizing, and that's why people are unhappy. It's saying, "Hey, PC gamers, we know you've been carefully adjusting your graphics settings for years, but we think you're too stupid to figure this out so we're just going to prevent you from changing anything."

Wanting to be able to change the settings, a feature that has been present in most PC games forever (especially ones by id Software!), is not entitlement.

I suppose if you want to look at it that way, it might be frustrating.

But I look at it as exactly the way the indicated "Due to the fact that PC hardware is such a moving target, we didn't feel comfortable selling a product that was not going to work on 80% of PCs. So we held off on this feature. But now that we already have your money, and are under no obligation to give ANYTHING back, we are actually concerned about your wants, so we went above and beyond and actually did what you were asking for FOR FREE." (paraphrased)

They didn't need to do anything. And they had their money. People already bought it. AS IS. So anything they did after market (other than fixing obvious game breaking bugs (which Video adjustments do NOT fall under)) is praise worthy rather than condemnable (IMHO).

 

[AstroManLuca]

I suppose if you want to look at it that way, it might be frustrating.

But I look at it as exactly the way the indicated "Due to the fact that PC hardware is such a moving target, we didn't feel comfortable selling a product that was not going to work on 80% of PCs. So we held off on this feature. But now that we already have your money, and are under no obligation to give ANYTHING back, we are actually concerned about your wants, so we went above and beyond and actually did what you were asking for FOR FREE." (paraphrased)

They didn't need to do anything. And they had their money. People already bought it. AS IS. So anything they did after market (other than fixing obvious game breaking bugs (which Video adjustments do NOT fall under)) is praise worthy rather than condemnable (IMHO).

It's not damn hard to set the default options to their recommended configuration and hide video configuration behind a couple layers of menus. Maybe even give a confirmation/warning when changing the settings. Not including it is ridiculous; it's an omission of a feature that ought to have been there from the start.

Video settings are a standard feature in nearly all games. The only games I've seen that don't have any settings are console ports like Darksiders and a few others that have fairly simple graphics that most PCs can handle anyway. Everyone expected them to be there, so it's a slap in the face when they weren't.

 

[wuliheron]

All this fuss and speculation. If you read the notes for the patch they added the additional menu settings to make it easier for people to deal with the most common driver problems. It was quick band aid to help people get back to playing the game while they take the time to investigate the more difficult driver issues.

 

[Texashiker]

What do you guys think about such school of thought from developers?

I think its one of two things, or maybe both:

1. Rage is a console-to-pc port. Who needs video options in a console?

2. Rage was not finished when it was released.

 

[thespyder]

It's not damn hard to set the default options to their recommended configuration and hide video configuration behind a couple layers of menus. Maybe even give a confirmation/warning when changing the settings. Not including it is ridiculous; it's an omission of a feature that ought to have been there from the start.

Video settings are a standard feature in nearly all games. The only games I've seen that don't have any settings are console ports like Darksiders and a few others that have fairly simple graphics that most PCs can handle anyway. Everyone expected them to be there, so it's a slap in the face when they weren't.

With respect, you don't know what problems they had upon testing (always assuming that they even tried to scale video options) and how much time and effort was going to be necessary to correct for them. They may have encountered significant problems that a simple warning wouldn't have addressed.

Also, as is stated by Texashiker, it was designed as a Console game that was ported to PC. As such, Video setting scaling may not have been part of the initial design as it is not normally a concern for Console games. So creating video scaling would have required extra programming/configuring above and beyond the already completed product. And since porting to PC may have only been intended to add sales, they may not have wished to invest additional coding for that small market. Again, not an unreasonable decision for a game development company under the circumstances.

 

[darkewaffle]

Man the people in this forum never disappoint. I love how OP says "Well maybe you play all your games on a console" like it's derogatory.

You're playing a video game. Get over yourself.

Far as I'm concerned, as long as a game can adjust the resolution, texture resolution and hopefully AA/AF it's got the major ones covered. Past that you're really getting to the point of diminishing returns.

 

[thespyder]

When I release my AAA shooter on the PC, it will not have video options nor will you be able to even change your keybindings. Then when there's a post-release grumbling from a small group of whining PC gaming elitists, I will release a "patch" to include the above-mentioned options for FREE, even though I must do so at a great inconvenience to myself. Then gamers like thespyder, who certainly represents the vast majority of PC gamers, will applaud and praise me for my benevolence.

Agree with OP.

You are assuming that it was done maliciously. I see no evidence of that. But if it WAS done maliciously, then I too agree with the OP. However, sans facts to support that and given a perfectly reasonable explanation to the contrary I defer to Ocam's razer in that "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one."

In other words, I am going to go with the given reasons rather than believing in some elaborate machiavellian scheme to screw PC gamers. A plot that is then foiled by the DEVS themselves when they release the features post release.

If you have additional information on the subject, please let us all in on your wisdom.

 

[greenhawk]

And they did it for FREE.

nothing is free. Even in this case of not asking for more funding to add these "demanded features". What it is, is a low cost feature that benifits the company by reducing something the community is upset about. If you want to talk about "Free", best take into account more than just the money side of things*.

*side note: if ID did release that patch as a DLC that you had to pay for, would it make you happier or more unhappy?

Something like adjustment to settings is part of what differentiates PCs from other equipment, and is something I find worth while keeping. Hiding it under a "advanced" tab is fine by me, so long as it is accessable from the main menu without having to hack / edit / manually modify files.