Topic: 1Up's List Of Their Top 5 Botched PC Game Launches; so, list some of yours!

[MysterD]

1Up's List Of Their Top 5 Botched PC Game Launches
5. Hellgate: London
4. Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
3. World War II Online
2. Half-Life 2 / STEAM
1. Ultima IX: Ascension


So, guys -- what do you think of their list?

And what do you think in your opinion were some of The Worst Botched PC Game Launches?

I'd think games like these might also be worth a mention for some pretty bad PC game launches:
--Pool Of Radiance
(uninstalling it could wipe your HD Clean)
--Deus Ex: Invisible War
(horrible interface, game didn't perform half-way decent until patches were put out)
--Gothic 3
(even after all of its patches, still to this day some not-so-great performance and still bug-infested)
--GRAW
(bad in game-performance)
--SC: Double Agent
(pathetic save system, bad in-game performance)

[Pugnate]

Ultimate IX does belong on that list. Daggerfall could have been on as well.

Oh god, Pool of Radiance too, though I think they were looking for highly anticipated titles. Something up with RPG launches though.

[gpw11]

--Pool Of Radiance
(uninstalling it could wipe your HD Clean)

 

[K-man]

How does Daikatana not make that list?

[Xessive]

How does Daikatana not make that list?

I think that one died before it officially came out..

[scottws]

I don't get why HL2 is on there.  I don't remember any of those things that 1Up is talking about.

[Pugnate]

I don't get why HL2 is on there...

haha you are sending Que/D an invitation here.

haha Xessive will remember this, because I ranted about it after I bought the game. Not to mention my run in with a racist EB manager, after I tried to return.

Basically, the game would by default install on a drive without creating a folder. For example, it would install in C:\ instead of say C:\Program Files\POR, unless instructed to.

The problem arose while uninstalling, where it was programmed to simply wipe out the contents of the game folder. For those who hadn't created a destination folder, the uninstall would lead to the deletion of everything on the partition.

It didn't happen to me, because I had created an actual folder for the game. Of course I read about the issues later, and was shocked, though not as shocked by how poor the game was. See, it was the next D&D game after Baldur's Gate II, and fans had expected the same level of excellence, even tough it wasn't from Black Isle/Bioware.

[Quemaqua]

I imagine the HL2 thing they're referring to is simply the fact that Steam went down like mad when people first started buying/downloading/initializing it.  I didn't experience that as I didn't get it right when it came out, so I only got to experience the other hundred and fifty bugs that came from trying to play it normally at a later date.

[scottws]

I got it right away and I just don't remember that at all.  But yeah I had an issue later where the offline mode was broken in the version of Steam I had, and I had just moved back to my parents and did not have Internet access in the room I was in until I purchased a wireless card.  I wasn't able to play HL2 for about a month because of that stupid issue.

[Pugnate]

Apparently, Bioshock had similar issues during the first day of its release.

[MysterD]

About HL2/Steam, that had to do w/ namely what everyone said -- the authentication wasn't easy b/c of web traffic galore and that the game didn't work in SP Mode offline upon release for many people.

Good thing I waited on that game...

Apparently, Bioshock had similar issues during the first day of its release.

First thing was -- servers weren't even up until sometime into the afternoon to "authenticate" the game.
Second thing was -- you could try to authenticate, but web traffic didn't ensure you'd always get through.
Third thing -- limited install number sucks.

[PyroMenace]

All of the Battlefield games.

[scottws]

All of the Battlefield games.

Hear! Hear! Buying a BF game on release is like paying to be a beta tester.  In fact, it's like paying a premium to be a beta tester, since the games are down in price by the time there have been a few patches to fix some of the issues.

[MysterD]

Hear! Hear! Buying a BF game on release is like paying to be a beta tester.  In fact, it's like paying a premium to be a beta tester, since the games are down in price by the time there have been a few patches to fix some of the issues.

If the game's fine out the box, then sure -- $50 it should sell for. No problem w/ that.

But, I do believe if a game is going to come out in a Alpha or Beta state and all -- and both the publisher and dev's know it, but have agreed to one release date and they just have to get it out there (to get it out there) -- the game should NOT be released at the usual $40-50 price-tag. I'm sure some gamers wouldn't mind throwing down $20-35 for a new PC game, which feels like it's still in Beta state and has a ton of issues all over it, if they know the company plans to continue to patch the game up. A buggy game is going to be a hell of a lot easier to swallow at $20-35 as opposed to $50.

So, why not just start off w/ the price drop b/c it acts like it's in Beta (buggy, buggy, and buggy) and then raise it to $50 once the game runs great and is perfected?

When Beta-in-a-box costs $50 (see Hellgate: London), once the word gets around from gamers that "I spent $50 on a game and my new uber-PC runs it like junk" and many other games and many reviews will likely say the same thing, nobody will buy it. They'll ALL wait for the price drop AND for when it's patched up.

Early adopters shouldn't have to pay full-price to suffer w/ bug-ridden messes and framerate messes.

[gpw11]

So, why not just start off w/ the price drop b/c it acts like it's in Beta (buggy, buggy, and buggy) and then raise it to $50 once the game runs great and is perfected?

You know, as stupid as it sounds that could actually be a viable model. 

Early adopters shouldn't have to pay full-price to suffer w/ bug-ridden messes and framerate messes.

While I don't disagree with this in theory, it kind of goes with the territory. Not so much with software, but certainly with hardware.

[Cobra951]

That's something that buyers bring upon themselves, really.  Some up-front research and a bit of patience would flush buggy games right out of the market.

[MysterD]

You know, as stupid as it sounds that could actually be a viable model. 

Plus, they'd probably sell a lot more copies of the game if this was the case. I mean, Hellgate: London sold great in the first week. But once word got around about its issues galore, that was pretty much the end of its through the roof sales. I'm sure they would've had a lot more of them $50 sales, if the game ran out-the-box in the condition it actually runs in now (which is very good, w/ a hell of a lot less bugs and actually good framerates).

But, after the word got out in no time, I'm sure what would've been more $50 sales for them turned into a big $0 for many b/c it was VERY buggy out the gate -- some people still won't even touch the game b/c of its bad reputation, even if it's on sale at a much cheaper price.

If they sold the game upon release for say $30, I'm sure many gamers would've said, "Beta-in-a-box for $30 instead of $50? At least they're honest that it's nowhere near perfect and that they are working on. If it's still too buggy for me, I'll wait a few months and then try it again."

$30 sales probably would've been a lot better to them than $0.

Hell, they just recently asked for financial aid and got it, too...