About 2 months ago, I posted some observations on TPA and programming in general (if you missed them, these posts were On Pride and Programming, What Greed Won't Get You, and The Lust for Results), wherein I tried to explain some of what goes on in software development for the benefit of the layperson who might not understand why TPA has some of the issues that it does. And a few other developers put in their 2 cents in the comments (thank you!), and for a while I assumed the point was made.
Since then, of course, TPA has had some issues like the ball-quantum-tunneling-through-flipper problem fixed and other issues like the what-the-hell-happened-to-TZ-on-the-Vita problem crop up. And despite the fact that I'm viewed as one of the defenders of the faith here, even I'm starting to grow concerned:
Or at least there were powerful reasons until stuff like this started showing up and shooting the critics in their collective foot:
There is a reason why TPA is the way it is, and more generally why games in general are as they are. Consumers over the last few years have come to see software as something that should be developed quickly and obtainable cheaply. Very well, "fast" and "cheap" are two options in software development. But the third is "good", and you can only have two at a time. "Good" in software means increased development time for additional testing and increased development cost (we don't work for free!). But ask your customers to pay more to cover this additional cost and they go running for the hills, or more likely to your competitor. So "good" is left for dead.
I happened to find the press release for the release of Timeshock on the PlayStation, back in 1998. Timeshock was - and still is - a very good table; hopefully Silverball Studios will find a way to proceed with the remake despite their kickstarter failing. It was not a $2.50 table, nor even a $5 table. The suggested list price was $44.95. Go ahead and look for yourself; I'll wait here. This was not for 18 tables, as $45 will get you on TPA...this was for one table. Does anyone seriously think that even if the tables were absolutely perfect in all respects, were optimized to utilize each platform's capabilities to their fullest, and were provided with all the adjustments and features a player could want, that FarSight would be able to sell the tables for $45 each?
Of course not. But if Cunning Developments (Timeshock's original creator) had to charge $45 in 1998 for one table, and FarSight charges us $5 in 2013 for one or two tables (OK, $8 if you splurge on the Pro version), then are we really justified in whining like invaders from the Facebook page that Medieval Madness's center gap is infinitesimally wider than it should be? Does it ruin our enjoyment of Twilight Zone if the artwork on the slingshots is reversed? No.
Should we continue pointing out these things until they get fixed? Yes. Should we continue criticizing blurred playfields, zoom camera cockups, and malfunctioning leaderboards? Absolutely. Just do us all a favor and leave the drama out of it.
It is a misfortune when a game-ending bug ruins your 1-in-1000 game...I've had it happen both in TPA and on real machines, and I understand the urge to vent one's spleen at the responsible party. But it would be a greater misfortune if we lose what little voice we have in TPA's development process because we allowed these forums to become as vitriolic as the Facebook page.
Since then, of course, TPA has had some issues like the ball-quantum-tunneling-through-flipper problem fixed and other issues like the what-the-hell-happened-to-TZ-on-the-Vita problem crop up. And despite the fact that I'm viewed as one of the defenders of the faith here, even I'm starting to grow concerned:
That post is from 8 months ago, when the Frankenstein Multiball camera glitch first appeared. We're apparently still having this conversation, and even though I'm still mostly happy with TPA and I still think I've more than gotten my money's worth out of the game, it's getting harder to argue with its critics. Cirqus Voltaire has been borked on iOS for months. TPA's flagship table arrived on the Vita literally in a blur. Issues are found and reported during beta testing and yet not fixed, or the beta tables are score-locked, which causes the testers not to be able to even get to some parts of the game, which of course end up being the parts that are having issues. The kickstarters have not been handled particularly well. So there are many and powerful reasons to be critical of FarSight now that TPA is not new and we should have moved past the "growing pains" stage.Yes, if this were a $60 game by a big developer, I would probably be in the hellraising stage myself at this point. Yes, at some point these issues with delays and bugs need to be corrected; we should not still be having this conversation six months from now.
Or at least there were powerful reasons until stuff like this started showing up and shooting the critics in their collective foot:
Let it be said right away that it is perfectly within someone's rights to refuse to purchase further DLC if he is unhappy with what he has currently. But what positive result could this gentleman possibly have expected to obtain by insulting the development staff (and indirectly, all software developers, including me) and publicly hoping for FarSight to go down in flames? Assuming a FarSight developer does eventually read his post, is it reasonable to expect him to come to any conclusion other than irritation? Can the FarSight developer do anything constructive or helpful with this post? No.(name removed) said:Yes of course I realize that - as evidenced by my earlier post I also realize that different Farsight employees do scan the forums and topics from time. I have faith that eventually the post will make it's way to a Farsight developer who will read it. The other reason why I put the post here was to remind everyone that the only true way nowadays that Developers will listen is to put your money or lack thereof where your mouth is. Don't just complain but if you actually refrain from purchasing future content is IMO the only way they will finally listen to reason. If sales figures keep going down further and further then they might - just might mind you - finally see the light and put out a better quality product which is what we all want. At this point I am sadly all for them going out of business and seeing what Zen can do with all the licensed tables!
There is a reason why TPA is the way it is, and more generally why games in general are as they are. Consumers over the last few years have come to see software as something that should be developed quickly and obtainable cheaply. Very well, "fast" and "cheap" are two options in software development. But the third is "good", and you can only have two at a time. "Good" in software means increased development time for additional testing and increased development cost (we don't work for free!). But ask your customers to pay more to cover this additional cost and they go running for the hills, or more likely to your competitor. So "good" is left for dead.
I happened to find the press release for the release of Timeshock on the PlayStation, back in 1998. Timeshock was - and still is - a very good table; hopefully Silverball Studios will find a way to proceed with the remake despite their kickstarter failing. It was not a $2.50 table, nor even a $5 table. The suggested list price was $44.95. Go ahead and look for yourself; I'll wait here. This was not for 18 tables, as $45 will get you on TPA...this was for one table. Does anyone seriously think that even if the tables were absolutely perfect in all respects, were optimized to utilize each platform's capabilities to their fullest, and were provided with all the adjustments and features a player could want, that FarSight would be able to sell the tables for $45 each?
Of course not. But if Cunning Developments (Timeshock's original creator) had to charge $45 in 1998 for one table, and FarSight charges us $5 in 2013 for one or two tables (OK, $8 if you splurge on the Pro version), then are we really justified in whining like invaders from the Facebook page that Medieval Madness's center gap is infinitesimally wider than it should be? Does it ruin our enjoyment of Twilight Zone if the artwork on the slingshots is reversed? No.
Should we continue pointing out these things until they get fixed? Yes. Should we continue criticizing blurred playfields, zoom camera cockups, and malfunctioning leaderboards? Absolutely. Just do us all a favor and leave the drama out of it.
It is a misfortune when a game-ending bug ruins your 1-in-1000 game...I've had it happen both in TPA and on real machines, and I understand the urge to vent one's spleen at the responsible party. But it would be a greater misfortune if we lose what little voice we have in TPA's development process because we allowed these forums to become as vitriolic as the Facebook page.
