I would like to directly highlight one thing that has been mentioned.
Firstly I should say I won't comment about the F1 games. I gave up on them largely for the reasons the OP so directly addressed.
About WRC. I think these games are still very good including the latest (I have not purchased the very latest game, but from what I've read and watched I think it will be good. I'm put off purchase as it's currently the swan song of a long running, much loved series of WRC Rally games over the past two decades.
OK. The point. Back in the time of Colin McRae and other games of that period, I think the publishers put a lot of faith and trust in the developers. That resulted in excellent innovative games (for their time) on release. I don't think or remember anything wrong with or in need ot patching with Colin McRae.
Didn't EA make a decent profit, while also keeping gamers happy and eager to purchase later games at that time?
Although I don't hold a negative view of WRC Rally games, there is an underlying feeling, which the OP has written about. He is right.
I also do not think issues are the fault of the developers (currently CodeMasters). I believe corporate head office people have swung the focus too much towards making profits. This causes the developers to rush, and of course release a product which worse than what they are capable of.
Give the devs full latitude, and let them have a big say, or better THE say in when a new game is polished and ready to release.
Executive leadership are not really interested in good games it seems. Just profits on an inflexible timeline. I blame them 100%. Not the devs, we all know what devs such as Codemasters are capable of, let them really shine by going back to previous Colin McRae era of doing things. Give them time and freedom. Aim for a release that isn't automatically patched to be playable at/just after release.
This can only be positive in the long run. Gamers buy good games. Not games released on timeshedule with other restraints put on the dev by seeminly clueless, executive leadership.
It won't be instant, but if this model is used, the devs & Executive leadership - everyone involved will be associated with great high quality, full tested game releases. It's bound to increase sales going forward, long term I mean, measured in multiple years.
Why is that not obvious? A good release, or two improves the image of the publishers overall, for all games. It's a win win, just not instant gratification to meet shareholder expectations, unrealistic publisher expectations, just to try to reach the short term annual goals set.
It's a model doomed to failure over the long term. No wonder high powered CEOs and directors of publishers change frequently. Everything (mostly) seems short term, (by that I mean 1 year, or max 2 year) pre-determined profit by date goals. Yes, it is necessary to a degree.
However for the long term and increasing success, trust of customers, positive sentiments and more the short term cash grab model just doesn't cut it.
Edit: My post above is in agreeing with and adding to the excellent points made by the OP in the first post. That is part 5: My focus now is purely WRC, as stated I gave up on F1, but I feel it's worth pointing out the general direction, taken together with my (this) post above.
5. Final Words – WRC vs F1 Game Quality. This is a copy past of the title of part 5. I hope everyone reads it.
