Life of Black Tiger [PS4] and other shit games that show a lack of QA on PSN

[Deleted member 11852]

I hate that it's ok to sell garbage because no one is forced to buy it attitude.

This is tricky. This isn't a million miles from an edict that nobody should be allowed to sell anything shit, which is effectively mandating a subjective review/approval policy prior to things being available for purchase so as to 'safeguard' people who don't want to take responsibility for their own purchasing decisions.

That is a very thin line. Rather than people be safeguarded from dumb decisions I think it is better for people to make informed decisions by learning from bad decisions / which is how most biological organisms learn and evolve.

The alternative is a curated walled garden approach to decisions which requires consumers to wilfully surrender freedom of choice to to 'accredited' choice made by others.

It's one thing to test that software doesn't breach minimum standards like not crashing or losing data but it's quite another to surrender choice to a third party about what is worthy to be a choice at all.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

This is tricky. This isn't a million miles from an edict that nobody should be allowed to sell anything shit, which is effectively mandating a subjective review/approval policy prior to things being available for purchase so as to 'safeguard' people who don't want to take responsibility for their own purchasing decisions.

That is a very thin line. Rather than people be safeguarded from dumb decisions I think it is better for people to make informed decisions by learning from bad decisions / which is how most biological organisms learn and evolve.

The alternative is a curated walled garden approach to decisions which requires consumers to wilfully surrender freedom of choice to to 'accredited' choice made by others.

It's one thing to test that software doesn't breach minimum standards like not crashing or losing data but it's quite another to surrender choice to a third party about what is worthy to be a choice at all.

I mostly agree with this, however, if there is no information available with which to make an informed decision, then there is no way to make an informed decision.

I'll use Steam as an example. Prior to the introduction of the automated refund policy, you basically had zero information on most of the products sold on Steam (other that that provided by the developer) until a sufficient number of people had purchased the product and bothered to leave a review. Reviews which may or may not be helpful (saying X game is shite isn't helpful. ). Reviews which in many many cases were submitted by the developer, the developer's friends and family, or people that the developer gave free copies to with the promise that those people would leave a positive review. Those reviews then meant many more hundreds or thousands of people would buy the game without any warning that it might be at best a pile of crap or at worst a predatory application released by a developer deliberately releasing a quick and dirty cash in with little to no gameplay.

All of which means that for the first potentially few hundred to few thousand people that buy the game, there was no way to make an informed decision and they were stuck with their purchase.

The only lesson you could learn from that is to don't buy smaller indie games because they aren't going to get reviewed. Some of which may be really appealing for the person that just learned that they shouldn't take chances on a small indie game, but which they'll never know since they've been burned a few times in the past.

This would currently appear to be the situation that PSN users find themselves in, assuming that Sony is going to allow self publishing of indie games with little to no curation as in the case of Life of Black Tiger.

Steam corrected this by implementing the automatic 2 hour refund policy which allows users of Steam to learn whether a title is good or not (take a chance on a small indie project) without being stuck with said purchase.

That isn't the only way Sony could address this, however. As I mentioned in another thread, there are two options that would protect the consumer while at the same time not put Sony into the roll of curatorship or censorship depending on how you want to look at it.

1. The aforementioned automatic refund policy.
2. Mandating that any game sold must have a playable demo representative of the gameplay. IE - a section of the actual game and not something wholly independent of the game.

There's nothing wrong with allowing almost anything and everything onto PSN similar to Steam or Android. But it'd be nice if there was mechanisms in place to allow the consumer to take a chance on an indie project while at the same time being somewhat safe from predatory developers who are only there to take advantage of an open system.

Regards,
SB

 

[London Geezer]

Some people actually like shit. Ok that came out wrong.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I mostly agree with this, however, if there is no information available with which to make an informed decision, then there is no way to make an informed decision.

If you form a decision to buy based on lots of independent positive reviews and/or personal recommendations then you would be making an informed decision and could avoid buying games like this. If there is literally no information then the decision to buy is far from informed!

There's nothing wrong with allowing almost anything and everything onto PSN similar to Steam or Android. But it'd be nice if there was mechanisms in place to allow the consumer to take a chance on an indie project while at the same time being somewhat safe from predatory developers who are only there to take advantage of an open system.

It would be nice.

 

[Pixel]

The author should have stated this is purely a graphic remastering of atari 2600 gameplay mechanics. Then he'd be praised left right and center.
/just kidding

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you form a decision to buy based on lots of independent positive reviews and/or personal recommendations then you would be making an informed decision and could avoid buying games like this.

That still depends on other people taking a chance on this title. What's necessary is gameplay videos. PSN is a dire mess when it comes to game listings. Some have vids, some have vids that don't play, some have pictures, some have nothing. All the other stores mandate representative content. Steam required actual gameplay but was lax in enforcing, but that's changing. Sony should require gameplay videos. No-one watching a gameplay video would expect anything other than garbage from LoBT and could choose to avoid it.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That still depends on other people taking a chance on this title.

A new game from a dev you've not heard of, with little-to-no marking, no representative gameplay videos, good reviews (or any reviews at all) is surely already a massive warning flag? Why would you take a chance at all if you've kind of person who may be easily disappointed with a poor experience?

An 'informed decision' by an informed consumer is literally that. There is no innate right to make purchasing decisions without consequences (disappointment) or recourse (a refund) unless statutorily mandated.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A new game from a dev you've not heard of, with little-to-no..., good reviews (or any reviews at all)

Where do those reviews come from? People have to play the game. If the media won't cover your game (they don't cover 99.99% of games made) then you're reliant on people trying the game. Before I buy it, I'm dependent on someone else buying it and telling me what it was like. So someone has to pay for it. You could easily have a case of a kid reading about a game where they get to play as a beloved tiger and paying for it full of anticipation. This purchase was informed by the description and that was enough.

An 'informed decision' by an informed consumer is literally that. There is no innate right to make purchasing decisions without consequences (disappointment) or recourse (a refund) unless statutorily mandated.

You can't be informed if there's not enough information. That's why I think gameplay videos should be mandated. There are lots of different folk out there with different buying habits, and though they have to take responsibility for that, they should be assisted. That's why we have various advertising standards, and why social pressure gets storefronts like Steam to change to be more informative (ensuring videos are actual gameplay; updating reviews into recent and long-term to show where a game has improved) and companies even put consumers first to help build consumer confidence such as Google's refund policy.

It's in Sony's best interests to support consumer choice. If consumers have to go onto the web and search for every game to find out what it's about, they'll make less impulse buys.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Just watch Jim Sterling to get a good idea of the game

Wow ppl are awesome! He made a 18 minute video with this kind of source material????? Hats off ! People can talk about anything for that long and here I fall short of words for amazing games [emoji14] !

Sent from my SM-N920G using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Where do those reviews come from?

Review codes form devs to reviewers. That's pretty much how every indie/greenlit game gets exposure when natural buzz has not formed. This is how good games get exposure. This doesn't happen overnight.

If the media won't cover your game (they don't cover 99.99% of games made) then you're reliant on people trying the game. Before I buy it, I'm dependent on someone else buying it and telling me what it was like.

There are bountiful number of youtube channels and websites that cover nothing but obscure indie games. For a potential consumer to google a new title and get nothing at all; no previews, reviews, coverage, no videos, no demo then that really ought to be telling enough.

You can't be informed if there's not enough information.

Right, and that's why buying this title would be an uninformed decision and that's on the consumer.

What you think Sony should do is academic, that's not how Sony's store works now and if a consumer is going to bumble through purchasing decisions wishing the world was a little fairer then they'll make some poor decisions. A few of these and human nature will generally result in a change in behaviour to compensate for a less fair consumer experience.

It's in Sony's best interests to support consumer choice. If consumers have to go onto the web and search for every game to find out what it's about, they'll make less impulse buys.

Or they'll buy the games with good reviews, videos, demos and so on.

 

[orangpelupa]

Btw sony store for PS avatar and theme also without quality filter.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Review codes form devs to reviewers. That's pretty much how every indie/greenlit game gets exposure when natural buzz has not formed. This is how good games get exposure. This doesn't happen overnight.

It all sounds great, until you see what it's really like.

Total Biscuit, not even a reviewer as such, gets hundreds to thousands of review codes for indie games every month. A LOT of really good indie games slip through just because he has no time to even install the vast majority of the games he gets review code for, much less play them enough to make an impressions video.

He doesn't do reviews just because he doesn't believe a game should get a review unless the person doing the review has actually played the game through to completion. And he doesn't finish most of the games he gets review code for. Many reviewers, don't bother to finish a game and release reviews that may or may not be representative of the full game.

He tries to play each game at least 2-3 hours before doing an impressions video. The video itself might 2-3 hours to compose, edit, and upload. Needless to say he only gets through a very tiny fraction of the games he has code for.

So yeah, he gets a lot of code. But without playing a game you can't know if it's any good. And without the time to play all the games. He just has to guess at what might be good. So a lot of good games just don't get looked at.

At best you can try to find Twitch Streams and YouTube VOD impressions/"Let's Plays" of a game, but even there you'll only find a tiny fraction of available indie games on either of those platforms. There are just so many games that it's difficult to get coverage for them.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And so what indies are reliant on is viral advertising and people buying and reviewing, which means people need to buy the game in the first instance. If it's not safe to try a game blind, no indies will be discovered and the gaming industry will become watered down to just those who can afford marketing. Again, Google provides a refund option. I think DSoup is technically correct, but in real life I think PSN would be better certainly with mandated gameplay videos (which any dev can produce even if not beautifully edited) and additionally with a very short Google-like evaluation window or demo. It's interesting that the 1 hour demo of PS+ on the PS3 has been dropped for PS4 and there's now no demo. I'm guessing publishers pressured that change to sell less-than-stellar titles (although to be fair 1 hour is representative for some games too).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And so what indies are reliant on is viral advertising and people buying and reviewing, which means people need to buy the game in the first instance. If it's not safe to try a game blind, no indies will be discovered and the gaming industry will become watered down to just those who can afford marketing. Again, Google provides a refund option. I think DSoup is technically correct, but in real life I think PSN would be better certainly with mandated gameplay videos (which any dev can produce even if not beautifully edited) and additionally with a very short Google-like evaluation window or demo. It's interesting that the 1 hour demo of PS+ on the PS3 has been dropped for PS4 and there's now no demo. I'm guessing publishers pressured that change to sell less-than-stellar titles (although to be fair 1 hour is representative for some games too).

Gameplay videos can help, but developers can and will upload gameplay videos that are not representative of the game. No Man's sky on Steam is a prime example of that. They have gameplay videos showing pre-release "stuff" that doesn't exist in the actual retail game. As do some of their screenshots on Steam. It's a pretty big problem.

Much better, if there's just a playable demo of actual gameplay content. Or just an automatic refund as long as it's submitted within 1-2 hours of a person first starting a game. Starting playing, not starting installation.

Of course, automatic refunds incur credit card charges for the platform holder, so instead, they can just make the first 1-2 hours of ALL games on the platform free. That serves as an automatic demo. And people can try anything they want, risk free. Also encourages indie developers to not release games that are only 1-2 hours in length.

Regards,
SB

 

[bunge]

I'm so tempted to buy this game.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It all sounds great, until you see what it's really like.

Total Biscuit, not even a reviewer as such, gets hundreds to thousands of review codes for indie games every month. A LOT of really good indie games slip through just because he has no time to even install the vast majority of the games he gets review code for, much less play them enough to make an impressions video.

If you're a new dev you need to be realistic about what channel or site will cover your game. Total Biscuit has 2 million + subscribers. Your game would need to be exceptional and your pitch email a work of genius.

Devs problems are very different to consumers buying decision problems. If consumers make informed decisions they can avoid buying poor games at the risk of missing some cool ones.

But, as I said above, there are options (videos, demos) to let potential customers to see/try your game risk free to them - even without reviews. Devs are in a highly saturated and competitive market so you need to make it easy for prospective buyers to feel comfortable giving you money.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Gameplay videos can help, but developers can and will upload gameplay videos that are not representative of the game. No Man's sky on Steam is a prime example of that. They have gameplay videos showing pre-release "stuff" that doesn't exist in the actual retail game.

That's not gameplay then! That's muckup

As do some of their screenshots on Steam. It's a pretty big problem.

Steam has said it's going to change though so consumers are informed.

Much better, if there's just a playable demo of actual gameplay content. Or just an automatic refund as long as it's submitted within 1-2 hours of a person first starting a game. Starting playing, not starting installation.

I think the refund is the ideal. Demo's require work and can be circumvented, although on a console I guess it can be hard coded to reject the game. But then you need to download the full game to try it, But videos are quick and easy and representative as long as you require several minutes of raw game footage.

Of course, automatic refunds incur credit card charges for the platform holder, so instead, they can just make the first 1-2 hours of ALL games on the platform free. That serves as an automatic demo. And people can try anything they want, risk free. Also encourages indie developers to not release games that are only 1-2 hours in length.

That's unfair. You're starting to dictate the content then. As long as people know they are buying a short experience, there should be room for 1-2 hour experiences. That one of the problems with forced demos of fixed lengths on short games.

It's said demos lose more sales than they gain. Perhaps they shouldn't be mandated? There are games I've bought recently that I wish I hadn't, but I also accept that refunds on those because I don't like them would be improper. Like going to watch a movie at the cinema and then asking for your money back because you found it boring and the script dire. It's quite easy to draw up a consumer Utopia with risk-free purchases, but there'd be cost and repercussions. So just some simple aids to consumer purchasing might actually be the better balanced solution? The Google demo changed IIRC from 1 hour to 15 minutes, with the purpose being mostly to check that the game works on your phone.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That's unfair. You're starting to dictate the content then. As long as people know they are buying a short experience, there should be room for 1-2 hour experiences. That one of the problems with forced demos of fixed lengths on short games.

Ubisoft recently allowed anybody to download the full Watch Dogs 2 game on PS4 and Xbox One and play it for three hours, which was an interesting experiment. The whole game downloads and Sony and Microsoft's timed licences limit playtime to a maximum of 180 minutes - played how you like. Then if you like it, you can just buy it and it unlocks permanently.

I would like to see more of this for larger games and it solves the issue of special demo builds.

 

[tuna]

Total Biscuit, not even a reviewer as such, gets hundreds to thousands of review codes for indie games every month. A LOT of really good indie games slip through just because he has no time to even install the vast majority of the games he gets review code for, much less play them enough to make an impressions video.

Good thing there is more than one youtube reviewer then. I do not believe there is a lack of recognition for outstanding (indie) games. From what I have seen, the good stuff gets recognized.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How do you know that? If there are hundreds of amazing titles no-one has heard of, you wouldn't have heard of them to know they are being overlooked. The only way to truly know if indie titles are getting overlooked or not is to go looking and extensively study the games out there.

One thing I've noticed is that the same games (and same producers) get the same coverage across the media and forums. When I then perform a search of games made for a platform, turns out there are many, many more than I've ever heard of. There's absolutely zero way the media are properly covering this to give every reasonable game a chance. It's the same with books and films, where the vast majority of manuscripts go straight from the slush pile into the bin. Harry Potter could very well have not happened. There could have been a dozen Harry Potters rejected prior to HP's release for all we know.