MLB The Show Server Issues: Detailing the Saga So Far

[jeffy777]

I specifically asked about lag and online performance during one of the Twitch streams and Ramone said they couldn't really answer because they wouldn't know until the game launched. Maybe it's time to consider a beta to really test the servers in advance BEFORE release...

At this rate, it's starting to feel like the servers will only improve when the load decreases...and less people are playing the game...as in they've given up for the year and traded it in.

[Dolenz]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

And even if we consider the game a total loss, it's $60. Sucks, but not the end of the world.

Well , many paid $100, and that extra $40 was specifically so we could have the extras that would allow us to play DD. The mode that is most broken.


I can be patient but there is a limit to that patience, especially when there is little to no communication that gives me any idea about how much longer I am supposed to remain patient.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by dasfette

I don't think I totally understand this mentality that some in the OS community have around developers. It very much feels like, per those folks, no one is ever, ever, ever to become upset over the way a game releases. You're allowed to provide "constructive criticism", but anything other than that can become reason for deletion of posts or banning (and, for the record, I'm not, by any means, condoning personal attacks on devs). Well, funny thing around constructive criticism: I'm not a software engineer. And even if I was I simply don't have access to the game's coding. So it's a little difficult to provide constructive criticism around why the game's online modes don't work. I can't imagine ANY other industry/commercial product where this is acceptable. If you buy a new car from Chevy and it doesn't go into reverse, are you satisfied with "you just have to be patient until Chevy finds a fix"? No! "Oh, and you better be an engineer because, unless you can tell us WHY the car won't go into reverse, we don't wanna hear it." Sure, a car costs considerably more than a video game. But let's use a battery-operated shower cleaner. If you put the batteries in and it doesn't spray, would anyone find it reasonable for the consumer to "wait for a fix"? No! You'd return it as broken and have the choice, as a consumer, to buy a different product from another developer. But video games don't work that way. Once you open that plastic wrapping, it's yours. If it doesn't perform to established expectations? Well, sucks for you, because no returning it. So you're either forced to wait for a fix (and you BETTER not say anything bad about the product - only constructive criticism!) or you sell it on the open market. It's absolutely absurd that we let the video game industry get away with such things. But, that's where capitalism is so great. If you truly want to change those practices, you simply stop buying the product. SDS is a business here to make a profit. No profit means changes to the product, or no more business. So, maybe we should all put our money where our mouths are and stop buying the game until the devs decide to put out a working product that is worth the cost they charge.

Quote: Originally Posted by 335TDC

Great post, especially concerning the "constructive criticism." I've always felt that OS was too sensitive about this, but at the same time I understand their desire to control the vocabulary used on their site. The "provide a solution or don't complain" angle is total garbage -- it's a mealy-mouthed middle-management business mantra meant to prevent the boat from rocking even while it's sinking. The difference with video games and product returns, quite simply, is a simple caveat emptor: these are true luxury items, and the buyer can easily wait a week or two to see how things play out. But we don't, mainly because we love them and their releases are treated with such fanfare, much like blockbuster movies. It's our own fault at this point, and that sucks.

A few comments on this line of thinking...

1. OS is a privately owned website that can institute whatever rules it deems necessary. If users don't like it, they don't have to use it. No one is forcing anyone to post here. But, when you do, it has to be by the rules.

2. Even if you don't feel competent to levy "constructive criticism" your wording can go along way to determining whether the post is acceptable or not. Almost 100% of the time when people name-call the devs (or anyone else), that will result in a deleted post at minimum. People know to expect that and the rules are very clear. People that can't get their point across without name-calling either need to remember to breathe before posting or they are not mature enough to be part of this community (theoretically).

3. Furthermore, do you really need to be a software engineer to think constructively--at least in general terms--about what the issues are and how to fix them? I don't think that's the case. You could say that your online experience is very frustrating and that Sony would be wise to change servers or upgrade and I think most people would consider that quite milquetoast and constructive in nature--even if not incredibly detailed. It's when you say it with expletives and accusatory language/name-calling that makes it unpleasant.

4. Your whole Chevy analogy doesn't fit. If you have a problem with a Chevy, you take it up with the dealership/GM. If you have a problem with Sony's game, you take it up with Sony. Venting on a middle man's website (OS) is not completely necessary in getting your issues resolved (or at least communicating your displeasure). Chevy will deal with a lot more heated feedback than OS, because Chevy is selling you a product and wants you to buy another. OS doesn't get any benefit at all from being patient toward irate feedback. Your analogies don't work because you're conflating consumer-business relationships (buying a product directly from a business) with consumer-third party situations (posting about the transaction on a separate message board).

5. As for the idea of putting your money where your mouth is....I totally, unequivocally 100% agree. People can skip next year's edition if they don't like this one and that's a reasonable thing to do. Furthermore, this whole "pre-ordering" glitzy versions is part of the problem. If they don't even need to display their "wares" and prove it to the customer, their model allows them to publish essentially a prototype on launch day and fix it over the ensuing weeks and months as they always do.

As for the blame, well, blame the consumers who knowingly pony up $100+ before the game even comes out with every expectation that they'll be disappointed. Also, blame the suits at Sony Corporate for putting their game developers on unrealistic timelines with a skeleton crew and minimal resources. I'm sure the guys at SDS dislike buggy game releases at least as much as we do. I'm sure they are upset that the rollout was not smooth and they have to figure it out while under fire from very unhappy customers. Personally, this is one of the reasons I am happy to work on editing for a while, lol, before ever playing a game.

[dasfette]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

A few comments on this line of thinking... 1. OS is a privately owned website that can institute whatever rules it deems necessary. If users don't like it, they don't have to use it. No one is forcing anyone to post here. But, when you do, it has to be by the rules. 2. Even if you don't feel competent to levy "constructive criticism" your wording can go along way to determining whether the post is acceptable or not. Almost 100% of the time when people name-call the devs (or anyone else), that will result in a deleted post at minimum. People know to expect that and the rules are very clear. People that can't get their point across without name-calling either need to remember to breathe before posting or they are not mature enough to be part of this community (theoretically). 3. Furthermore, do you really need to be a software engineer to think constructively--at least in general terms--about what the issues are and how to fix them? I don't think that's the case. You could say that your online experience is very frustrating and that Sony would be wise to change servers or upgrade and I think most people would consider that quite milquetoast and constructive in nature--even if not incredibly detailed. It's when you say it with expletives and accusatory language/name-calling that makes it unpleasant. 4. Your whole Chevy analogy doesn't fit. If you have a problem with a Chevy, you take it up with the dealership/GM. If you have a problem with Sony's game, you take it up with Sony. Venting on a middle man's website (OS) is not completely necessary in getting your issues resolved (or at least communicating your displeasure). Chevy will deal with a lot more heated feedback than OS, because Chevy is selling you a product and wants you to buy another. OS doesn't get any benefit at all from being patient toward irate feedback. Your analogies don't work because you're conflating consumer-business relationships (buying a product directly from a business) with consumer-third party situations (posting about the transaction on a separate message board). 5. As for the idea of putting your money where your mouth is....I totally, unequivocally 100% agree. People can skip next year's edition if they don't like this one and that's a reasonable thing to do. Furthermore, this whole "pre-ordering" glitzy versions is part of the problem. If they don't even need to display their "wares" and prove it to the customer, their model allows them to publish essentially a prototype on launch day and fix it over the ensuing weeks and months as they always do. As for the blame, well, blame the consumers who knowingly pony up $100+ before the game even comes out with every expectation that they'll be disappointed. Also, blame the suits at Sony Corporate for putting their game developers on unrealistic timelines with a skeleton crew and minimal resources. I'm sure the guys at SDS dislike buggy game releases at least as much as we do. I'm sure they are upset that the rollout was not smooth and they have to figure it out while under fire from very unhappy customers. Personally, this is one of the reasons I am happy to work on editing for a while, lol, before ever playing a game.

I agree. OS is a private website, here to make money - and they can do as they wish. I can think how I wish. I can (technically) post what I want, bad language and all. And OS can delete my posts/ban me. Hell, if I do something REALLY stupid, I can even get arrested! That's totally cool, all the way around. It's responsibility for the action/individual - and that's great! I'm being totally serious.

The reason people post on forums is to connect with other consumers/individuals. OS is a bit different (and I would argue, better) because we DO get developer response. If OS isn't the forum to allow for freedom of thought around game performance (or at least limited thought, in some form), that's totally fine. Again, OS can do as they wish.

The reality is that people will go SOMEWHERE to talk to each other. See those ads at the bottom of the page? That's profit. They exist because OS has people who visit the site. So, truthfully, the same mentality applies to OS. If someone doesn't like that there are rules, or what the rules are, then don't belong to/visit OS. No profit = a change in philosophy/rules, or, possibly, no OS.

Personally, I don't mind the rules and, for the most part, I like what OS provides. Thus the reason I'm not on here cursing or attacking devs. I even try to follow the rules! What I am providing is my opinion, in what I believe to be a constructive manner. Remember, "constructive criticism" can be rather subjective.

You mention going straight back to the dealership (or, in this case, Sony). I agree. If people are really angry about the game, they should probably call Sony/SDS until they're sick of hearing from 'em. But I got to say that I disagree with your thought that, in reality, people ONLY go back to the dealership. If that were the case, forums around vehicle/vehicle performance wouldn't exist. Yet, they do.

Regardless, we're on the same page. The Show isn't, in my opinion, a bad game (surprise: I don't play online). SDS seem like decent folks. OS is full of really cool, smart people. And it absolutely makes sense that some people are upset over the game, and over OS. Again - take it or leave it. That's the choice we all have to make.

[335TDC]

You can't "go back to the dealership" with a video game. Once the shrink wrap is broken, it's YOUR problem. That, my friend, is a "bad analogy."

[Houston]

I think it has got to the point where originally there was regular lobby rank games etc, then they added online franchise well back then it was just call leagues.

Fast forward in the past few years there is now Diamond Dynasty, Battle Royale, I believe I think Home Run Derby can be played online as well, but my point is all that online stuff going on on 1 particular server. I think with all that overload tons if not a hundred thousand or so syc games going on, tons of people playing rank matches and lord knows how many DD games going on across the world.

Everything is just bogged down now way to much going on there game online since they added DD without making any significant server changes or upgrades.

I remember Madden 11 the old online franchise before there was any connected career EA had a separate server for the online franchise and one for all the rank matches. Back then I never had any issues in there online franchise it was pretty smooth. The only time I can remember having a small problem is when they would put a roster update out or server maintenance it would be down for a little bit. I think EA uses dedicated servers and Howie that use to work for SCEA told me its sorta p2p where its pings off towers or something like that.

All in all its time to upgrade there servers if your going to have everything running at once online. Just my $0.2!!

[335TDC]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

A few comments on this line of thinking... 1. OS is a privately owned website that can institute whatever rules it deems necessary. If users don't like it, they don't have to use it. No one is forcing anyone to post here. But, when you do, it has to be by the rules. 2. Even if you don't feel competent to levy "constructive criticism" your wording can go along way to determining whether the post is acceptable or not. Almost 100% of the time when people name-call the devs (or anyone else), that will result in a deleted post at minimum. People know to expect that and the rules are very clear. People that can't get their point across without name-calling either need to remember to breathe before posting or they are not mature enough to be part of this community (theoretically). 3. Furthermore, do you really need to be a software engineer to think constructively--at least in general terms--about what the issues are and how to fix them? I don't think that's the case. You could say that your online experience is very frustrating and that Sony would be wise to change servers or upgrade and I think most people would consider that quite milquetoast and constructive in nature--even if not incredibly detailed. It's when you say it with expletives and accusatory language/name-calling that makes it unpleasant. 4. Your whole Chevy analogy doesn't fit. If you have a problem with a Chevy, you take it up with the dealership/GM. If you have a problem with Sony's game, you take it up with Sony. Venting on a middle man's website (OS) is not completely necessary in getting your issues resolved (or at least communicating your displeasure). Chevy will deal with a lot more heated feedback than OS, because Chevy is selling you a product and wants you to buy another. OS doesn't get any benefit at all from being patient toward irate feedback. Your analogies don't work because you're conflating consumer-business relationships (buying a product directly from a business) with consumer-third party situations (posting about the transaction on a separate message board). 5. As for the idea of putting your money where your mouth is....I totally, unequivocally 100% agree. People can skip next year's edition if they don't like this one and that's a reasonable thing to do. Furthermore, this whole "pre-ordering" glitzy versions is part of the problem. If they don't even need to display their "wares" and prove it to the customer, their model allows them to publish essentially a prototype on launch day and fix it over the ensuing weeks and months as they always do. As for the blame, well, blame the consumers who knowingly pony up $100+ before the game even comes out with every expectation that they'll be disappointed. Also, blame the suits at Sony Corporate for putting their game developers on unrealistic timelines with a skeleton crew and minimal resources. I'm sure the guys at SDS dislike buggy game releases at least as much as we do. I'm sure they are upset that the rollout was not smooth and they have to figure it out while under fire from very unhappy customers. Personally, this is one of the reasons I am happy to work on editing for a while, lol, before ever playing a game.

Regarding #1, who the heck denied ANY of that? Anybody who posts on here regularly already knows the TOS, but that doesn't mean you can't "constructively criticize" moderator oversensitivity if you think it's there.

OS does a good job overall of moderating comments, but it's certainly conservative and errs on the side of OVERprotecting dev teams (which is the deal you make with the devil if you want them on your site). I am quite pleased with this write-up -- it's very un-OS-like to take a semi-hard stance like it does. Kudos.

[b22gamer]

Have to agree with most of what is being said, but the direct attacks at the devs are not warranted.... You can tell in the streams that the devs eat, sleep and breathe video game baseball. Any issue that presents itself is surely a thorn in the side of anyone who works on the game. Which I think is entirely understaffed.
I think it starts at the top and yes these guys are pressed with unrealistic timelines and minimal resources. It is the same nonsense that went on with EA after they held the exclusive NFL rights. Most recently, EA has put out a decent Pro football game, (still has its flaws) but it took a couple of years for them to do so. Without competition , there is no incentive to get better, because at the end of the day, no one else is pushing you for a share of the market. SDS/Sony need to realize that this game isn't Halo or Destiny, it's a game in a genre that thrives on realism that is true to the sport, but also a game that is PLAYABLE and FUNCTIONAL . How are we able to revel in the beauty of this game each year if we can't appreciate it due to inconsistent servers or constant bugs?