I agree though people who bought the Apex battle pass is entitled to updates. Sell your game as a service, provide the service which includes updates or whatever the market demands of it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Rapid growth and fast updates of Fortnite are damaging for the industry
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
I agree though people who bought the Apex battle pass is entitled to updates. Sell your game as a service, provide the service which includes updates or whatever the market demands of it.
If a company is going to market their game as GAAS they have a duty to keep providing content for their players. Its no different to last gen when companies couldn't compete in terms of graphics or the size of their open world.
Maybe it's a good thing. If companies decide they can't compete with Epic they might try a different idea and we'll get more diversity as a result.
Maybe it's a good thing. If companies decide they can't compete with Epic they might try a different idea and we'll get more diversity as a result.
There's a difference between updating your game regularly and releasing new content every week, the latter is not how things should work, only Fortnite is doing the latter and the balancing of the game is a shitshow thanks to that; you don't see Siege getting a new operator or map every week, you don't see Dota 2 getting new heroes every week or changing the meta and you don't see The Division 2 getting raids every week. Pretending to see new content every week is entitlement only because Fortnite is doing it.
Not sure. I think the issue with Apex Legends is, that it's also within the same genre and it's huge initial success. But I'm not sure, if people expect the same standard for all GAAS titles.
E.G. I'm playing Sea of Thieves and Dead by Daylight. Both games are GAAS titles currently. But SoT is doing right well with pushing out content with bigger updates and only doing small adjustments/fixes etc. between them.
Dead by Daylight on the other hand has an update cycly of pushing out a new Chapter all three month (New Survivor+Map+Killer+Cosmetics), while doing one MidChapter patch (Balance+Fixes+Cosmetics) inbetween. So they have something like a six weeks update cycle and I don't see the playerbase beeing unhappy with it or expecting a Fortnite level of updates. So I'm not sure, if Fortnite sets high standards for GAAS titles in general. At least when I look at these two games, which work within their own update frequency.
E.G. I'm playing Sea of Thieves and Dead by Daylight. Both games are GAAS titles currently. But SoT is doing right well with pushing out content with bigger updates and only doing small adjustments/fixes etc. between them.
Dead by Daylight on the other hand has an update cycly of pushing out a new Chapter all three month (New Survivor+Map+Killer+Cosmetics), while doing one MidChapter patch (Balance+Fixes+Cosmetics) inbetween. So they have something like a six weeks update cycle and I don't see the playerbase beeing unhappy with it or expecting a Fortnite level of updates. So I'm not sure, if Fortnite sets high standards for GAAS titles in general. At least when I look at these two games, which work within their own update frequency.
Exactly this, releasing meaty updates every 1-2-3 months is perfect and that's how things are for the majority of GAAS title, but now the GAMERS and in the investors want to see weekly update with meaty content only because Fortnite is doing it.
That's why I asked, what should be the standard frequency of updates. I only get not as frequent as Fortnite like it's some kind of Godly outlier. Also explain why the weekly updates are not how things should work without simply by comparing it to other games. Why not compare it to other games you may ask? Because they're different. Fortnite doesn't have operators or heroes. Fortnite only has one map.
You break the balancing of the game by releasing weekly updates, in highly competitive games, just like Fortnite, since there's an eSport scene, if you release a patch changing how guns work, adding new content that changes the gameplay constantly it's a shitshow because you might add something that breaks the game, nerfing or buffing some guns or deleting guns from the game. This of course does not impact the non-competitive audience but at the same time you'll find part of the community complaning about the constant changes.
This happened recently https://www.shacknews.com/article/111473/fortnite-collegiate-champ-epic-is-ruining-their-game
and this https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/20...-shield-health-elimination-patch-v8-20-revert
Consumers aren't that mindless as the most here probably expect. They will not be storming the walls if their new favorite game doesnt have weekly updates IF the alternative are quality updates at a reasonable pace. They will respect that.
If you need weekly updates to keep your players engaged you probably have bigger problems than your update schedule.
Also the Fortnite updates aren't THAT massive. Mostly small tweaks and/or a new gun that often time isn't that impactful to the game at large. But they do enough to spice up the engagements from time to time. If anything, other developers should take note on how these seemly small updates are enough to keep the game fresh.
If you need weekly updates to keep your players engaged you probably have bigger problems than your update schedule.
Also the Fortnite updates aren't THAT massive. Mostly small tweaks and/or a new gun that often time isn't that impactful to the game at large. But they do enough to spice up the engagements from time to time. If anything, other developers should take note on how these seemly small updates are enough to keep the game fresh.
Ubisoft has more manpower and multi-studio infrastructure than just about anyone. If anyone could do it in a reasonable manner, it's them.
Which is not to say they will, but on its face it's very different from what Epic went through and is still going through with Fortnite where they faced rapid expansion.
Consumers demand better services and frequent updates.
Let's blame everything to Epic's overly support to Fortnite.
Let's blame everything to Epic's overly support to Fortnite.
Traditional AAA devs like Respawn need to learn that you can't release a GaaS title and put a skeleton crew on it for the rest of its life. That might be the approach Valve takes but literally nobody who plays Valve games is happy with the pace of their updates.
Bioware are learning this too.
Bioware are learning this too.
Ok I have seen it all now. People are complaining because games are updated too often? There is nothing wrong with that at all. How they companies get there is a different issue and may need to be approached differently. Constant updates aren't going away. But saying constant updates is bad for the industry is misdirected.
It is the same thing that happened with mobile games and F2P, people get used to it and start demanding (not asking or suggesting) others to do the same.
The most popular games always delivered content in one form or another.
Cod - one game every year with 16 maps in between.
Bf4 - one game every two years with 16 maps in the first year.
Mtg - expansion every 3-4 months.
MMOs - expansions with smaller updates in between.
Lol - heroes every two weeks in Season 2.
Survival games have regular updates and rare expansions even without microtransactions.
Borderlands 2 with 8 expansions without gaps.
AC - base game + Season Pass every 1-2 years.
World of tanks, Path of exile, Warframe, Smite, Starcraft, HotS, OW - all about delivering content because players will not stick around for months without updates... Mods have been a large part of the content, which most AAA got rid of... If you cannot deliver on content for the multiplayer game, then downgrade graphics. People are waaaaaay more forgiving for below-average visuals and audio.
I don't want to invest my time into more games where developers are incapable of delivering content at a similar rate as their competition.
There is no market-wide expectation of Fortnite content delivery, people are just receiving a short end of the stick in the vocal cases. The post-launch support for EA or Bethesda games is an abomination of incompetence and greed.
Cod - one game every year with 16 maps in between.
Bf4 - one game every two years with 16 maps in the first year.
Mtg - expansion every 3-4 months.
MMOs - expansions with smaller updates in between.
Lol - heroes every two weeks in Season 2.
Survival games have regular updates and rare expansions even without microtransactions.
Borderlands 2 with 8 expansions without gaps.
AC - base game + Season Pass every 1-2 years.
World of tanks, Path of exile, Warframe, Smite, Starcraft, HotS, OW - all about delivering content because players will not stick around for months without updates... Mods have been a large part of the content, which most AAA got rid of... If you cannot deliver on content for the multiplayer game, then downgrade graphics. People are waaaaaay more forgiving for below-average visuals and audio.
I don't want to invest my time into more games where developers are incapable of delivering content at a similar rate as their competition.
There is no market-wide expectation of Fortnite content delivery, people are just receiving a short end of the stick in the vocal cases. The post-launch support for EA or Bethesda games is an abomination of incompetence and greed.
Of the games I play or played where there is complaints about content release pace, I have rarely seen people ask for Fortnite speed.
Battlefield 5 get far less content than previous battlefield games, that's what it's usually compared to, not Fortnite.
Dota 2 get less and less new hero released every year for the past ~4 years, nothing to do with wanting weekly update.
And finaly Apex, which as direct competitor to Fortnite do get compared to Fortnite often, even then I do think most/half of the complaints would disapear if they were at least closer to a middle ground between their current pace/amount of content release and fortnite's. Apex update seemed disapointing regardless of Fortnite existence I'd say ( not that I still follow them much ).
Battlefield 5 get far less content than previous battlefield games, that's what it's usually compared to, not Fortnite.
Dota 2 get less and less new hero released every year for the past ~4 years, nothing to do with wanting weekly update.
And finaly Apex, which as direct competitor to Fortnite do get compared to Fortnite often, even then I do think most/half of the complaints would disapear if they were at least closer to a middle ground between their current pace/amount of content release and fortnite's. Apex update seemed disapointing regardless of Fortnite existence I'd say ( not that I still follow them much ).
If they're committed to games as a service that's their choice, and I won't fault Epic for raising the bar on what that means. Now it means more than charging players for quicker progression and skins - they decided to move the industry toward that, they better keep up.
I was happy making a purchase and not having the game trying to reach into my pockets, but oh well, this is the future they wanted.
I was happy making a purchase and not having the game trying to reach into my pockets, but oh well, this is the future they wanted.
there's a limit to how fast they can push out the update without working their employees to death. Making unrealistic demand to the update is what causes them to overwork, and thus what contributes to the issue.
Adding more people is a band aid solution, because the issue persist. The root of the problem is the management of the company conditioning the players to expect frequent major update every week while the bottom employees are forced to meet the deadlines.
Exactly this.
Leauge of legends used to have a new champion every two weeks. Now is a new champion or remake every 2 months I think. And both rates make me think that overwatch as an example is an extremely slow game to add new content.
I get what you say, but doing something good cant be considered damaging. Its like saying Witcher 3 was damaging for the industry because it setted the bar to high in many aspects.
I get what you say, but doing something good cant be considered damaging. Its like saying Witcher 3 was damaging for the industry because it setted the bar to high in many aspects.
I don't think you understand anything, you might want to exit the thread to not embarrass yourself. Its not about updating too often. Its updating too fast. Its not about the amount of updates. Its about the time developers take to create those updates.
Lol added a new champ every week during its peak and was great, now with more than 100 champs it is harder to balance, but I dont think prefering a game with a faster pace of updates is something wrong.
You play GaaS for along time and most people play a lot of hours per week, so if they prefer a game that changes things up constantly, that's Ok.
I don't think it's harming the industry. It's only harming the industry if you're saying everyone is trying to, and will be seen internally as a failure if it doesn't, dethrone Fortnite as the "biggest" game in the world.
Set expectations. There are other major games in the world that don't update nearly as much as Fortnite.
Set expectations. There are other major games in the world that don't update nearly as much as Fortnite.
I understand exactly what the implications of the thread are. There are other ways of maintaining the pace without crunch. Get your head out of the sand and look for other options.
First of all, I feel for the professionals who are already being affected by unreasonable crunch to sustain this maddening new model of business, and the ones who will be in the future.
Second, GaaS is based on perpetual engagement, which means a continuous output of content. On the one hand, we have Fortnite with excessive updates, in the other we Anthem which is literally starving it's userbase and slowly dying. I'm guessing a balance between those two is the reasonable thing to expect but publishers should understand that the audience is always going to expect more, better and even more rapidly delivered content, if they don't think that's reasonable then maybe they shouldn't bother with the GaaS model at all.
Second, GaaS is based on perpetual engagement, which means a continuous output of content. On the one hand, we have Fortnite with excessive updates, in the other we Anthem which is literally starving it's userbase and slowly dying. I'm guessing a balance between those two is the reasonable thing to expect but publishers should understand that the audience is always going to expect more, better and even more rapidly delivered content, if they don't think that's reasonable then maybe they shouldn't bother with the GaaS model at all.
I absolutely can't complain that Epic is giving us too much content and updates, or that those updates are coming out too fast. I'm a consumer. Why wouldn't I want more content, more quickly?
And, yeah, Apex Legends? Respawn needs to pick up the pace. They have a good core game but I want more updates and content.
And, yeah, Apex Legends? Respawn needs to pick up the pace. They have a good core game but I want more updates and content.
You said you understand, but your post which I quoted suggest otherwise. Indeed there is a way to maintain the pace without crunch: by giving the developers more time to push out the update. Fortnite's rate of update isn't sustainable for most developers in the industry.
Players play their games for a reason. I don't think people will switch over because another game they initially haven't played or explicitly disliked get more frequent updates. Fortnite can bring content every day for all I care. And people who aren't into that crafting/BR stuff probably don't care either. I don't see any future "damage" to the industry because of that. Some people probably really want to see Epic burn, no matter what they do.
Maybe your demands are ridiculous
Maybe we should stop looking at Fortnite as the golden rule of how fast updates should come out.
If I had a dollar for Everytime I heard someone say "well fortnite does it quick" I would be able to buy Epic and shutdown fortnite.
Massive and Bungie seem to hit the more realistic expectations. Respawn came out and said they are not going to do that. Same with Blizzard.
Epic in always crunch will eventually burn people out.
Fortnite is not the standard for GaaS
Stop acting like it is people. It's not realistic for other devs to do that to their employees.
Yes but what determines a "regular update"
And are you against crunch.
What games are you using as an example of regular updates?
Well yeah this is the only logical endpoint for GaaS, been saying so for at least two years now. The only reason we don't see a publisher culling worse than during peak CoD, is because the industry has grown massively since then (you just wouldn't know because they're all locked up in Candy Crush, Dungeon Fighter, PUBG, LoL and Fortnite). But the more people get used to the model, the more anything outside of the top 10 will starve. A healthy creative industry needs products, not subscriptions and services.
It's interesting how I was willing to not condemn GaaS too hard because it seemed like it was creating reasonable working conditions for the staff.
But in the end it's a lack of government regulation that creates excess, not any delivery model. If Fortnite has more chance to succeed when the staff crunches itself to death, then unchecked inevitably the biggest GaaS games will be the ones with the least scruples.
It's interesting how I was willing to not condemn GaaS too hard because it seemed like it was creating reasonable working conditions for the staff.
But in the end it's a lack of government regulation that creates excess, not any delivery model. If Fortnite has more chance to succeed when the staff crunches itself to death, then unchecked inevitably the biggest GaaS games will be the ones with the least scruples.
Last edited:
The part where you think the issue here is amount of update. No one is arguing there's too many update.
The argument here is how long the developer takes to develop and push out those update.
Its fine if the game has many major updates. The issue here is if the devs is expected to deliver the update every week instead of every month.
If you are already predisposed to the idea that it means more crunch, then yeah. If not the idea of more updates is fine. Developers may need to find a different way of approaching.
I fucking new it. All of the shitty Twitch streamers complaining about the pace of every other Battle Royal update always rubbed me the wrong way (yeah I know I watch too much of this shit). You hate to see it.
I don't know if they're damaging for the industry more so damaging for the Epic devs who are potentially being burned out. No one else is following their model and they probably shouldn't. Updates should come out when they're ready to ship, not because some other game is pushing them out faster.
