3 ms·

Not just survivorship bias imo. You had to ship a stable game because you couldn't patch it later. And the scope of games was much smaller, in complexity and ga

Not just survivorship bias imo. You had to ship a stable game because you couldn't patch it later. And the scope of games was much smaller, in complexity and game length, so it was easier to QA. End result is that on average games were much more stable than modern games are at 1.0.

maccard 5y ago
> And the scope of games was much smaller, in complexity and game length, so it was easier to QA Agreed on this point. > End result is that on average games were much more stable than modern games are at 1.0. Have you got an actual source for this? I think you're missing a large amount of pure crapware that was released. I have memories of playing the Sierra adventure games being incredibly unreliable for example. Ports for DOS were unbeatable without cheating because they were so sloppily done[0]. E.T. [1] which has been associated with the fall of major games companies and is widely known as the worst game in history, or Bubsy 3d which is literally meme material. 95% of boxed games that were released were complete and utter crapware. [0] https://kotaku.com/that-time-a-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtle-game-was-litera-1778291066 https://kotaku.com/that-time-a-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtle-g... [1] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/31/530235165/total-failure-the-worlds-worst-video-game?t=1645538777843 https://www.npr.org/2017/05/31/530235165/total-failure-the-w...