Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nyt

What are your views on video game delays ?

Video game delays  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. What are your views on video game delays with regards to optimization?

    • The extra development time results in games with better optimization.
      15
    • The games are often still unoptimized even after long delays.
      16
  2. 2. What are your views on video game delays with regards to gameplay?

    • The extra gameplay features, which are worked on during delays, should be packaged into the base game.
      28
    • The extra gameplay features, which are worked on during delays, should packaged into DLC.
      3
  3. 3. Are games being delayed too often? For example, The Witcher 3 has been delayed twice.

    • Yes.
      15
    • No.
      16
  4. 4. Are games being delayed for too long? For example, Driveclub was delayed for a year.

    • Yes.
      17
    • No.
      14
  5. 5. Should developers rather set less optimistic release dates than have to announce delays?

    • Yes.
      29
    • No.
      2


Recommended Posts

So for this week's OCC Poll...

 

What are your views on video game delays ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not mind delays if the game is getting better because of it.

If the game gets delayed and it is still shit in performance or any other aspect (looking at you Ubisoft), i DO mind it and purposely not buy the game until second handed or in an extreme steam sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers don't get to set release dates...publishing companies are the ones to blame for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Most game publishers are the scum of the earth. If a game makes millions, they reap most of the profit. If a game loses them money, they sell off the developer to make even. Usually the first game a developer makes is their own. If it's successful, they're usually contracted to make more for the publisher, but the publisher dictates what games they need to make. Only rare instances do the developers still retain control of what they want to make. You still see them hanging around and making good games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted. Personally, I support decent delays as long as they benefit the game as a whole. Whether that mean less bugs, better performance, or more gameplay features, that's fine with me. But, I say this as a person who hasn't bought a video game upon release since Doom 3 was released on the original Xbox in 2005 (the date is as far as I know). I wait for years until after a title is out, then purchase it on a Steam sale, lol. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Most game publishers are the scum of the earth. If a game makes millions, they reap most of the profit. If a game loses them money, they sell off the developer to make even. Usually the first game a developer makes is their own. If it's successful, they're usually contracted to make more for the publisher, but the publisher dictates what games they need to make. Only rare instances do the developers still retain control of what they want to make. You still see them hanging around and making good games.

El I think you are being a bit hard on Publishers. Now I do not disagree with your setiment, but Publishers are the ones taking the risk in making a game. They fron the money to a developer so the staff is paid while the game is produced and if the game fails the lose is mostly their, so they should make the largest profit itf it is a win. The Publisher does not "dictate" which games are produced, they choose which games they will invest in, big difference there. Plubishers at the end of the day are gamings investment bankers.

 

The hope of crowd sorucing is that a developer can get away with making the game by having the funds generated by the audience up front and then make the profit from addiitonal sales. The problem both types of investment have is a pressure put on the developer to get the game out as fast as possible. Ideally the dev would fund the project 100% and take as much time as they need and then make back their money in sales. However few developers have the captial to go it alone on a multi-year game development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^ Most game publishers are the scum of the earth. If a game makes millions, they reap most of the profit. If a game loses them money, they sell off the developer to make even. Usually the first game a developer makes is their own. If it's successful, they're usually contracted to make more for the publisher, but the publisher dictates what games they need to make. Only rare instances do the developers still retain control of what they want to make. You still see them hanging around and making good games.

The Publisher does not "dictate" which games are produced, they choose which games they will invest in, big difference there. 

I don't think there's any real difference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^ Most game publishers are the scum of the earth. If a game makes millions, they reap most of the profit. If a game loses them money, they sell off the developer to make even. Usually the first game a developer makes is their own. If it's successful, they're usually contracted to make more for the publisher, but the publisher dictates what games they need to make. Only rare instances do the developers still retain control of what they want to make. You still see them hanging around and making good games.

El I think you are being a bit hard on Publishers. Now I do not disagree with your setiment, but Publishers are the ones taking the risk in making a game. They fron the money to a developer so the staff is paid while the game is produced and if the game fails the lose is mostly their, so they should make the largest profit itf it is a win. The Publisher does not "dictate" which games are produced, they choose which games they will invest in, big difference there. Plubishers at the end of the day are gamings investment bankers.

 

The hope of crowd sorucing is that a developer can get away with making the game by having the funds generated by the audience up front and then make the profit from addiitonal sales. The problem both types of investment have is a pressure put on the developer to get the game out as fast as possible. Ideally the dev would fund the project 100% and take as much time as they need and then make back their money in sales. However few developers have the captial to go it alone on a multi-year game development.

 

I've worked in the video game industry while at Microsoft. The publishers DO dictate what game they want produced. The difference between just investing in a company and investing as well as making changes to a game to become profitable is millions of dollars. Not all of it is bad. Microsoft had produced a couple of games that would have been horrible, and made them into some decent games. They've also watered down some potentially great games.

 

If you want to look into the history, look at Ensemble Studios (gone), Big Huge Games (acquired by 38 Studios, then re-acquired by auction by Brian Reynolds and Tim Train, but basically a shell of their former selves), Aces Studio (gone), and Bungie (now their own company again). These companies made Microsoft a couple hundred million dollars. All but Bungie remains a strong company, and do you want to know why? Because their "clause" had Microsoft leave them alone after Halo was a hit. Microsoft finally learned not to interfere.

 

I will agree that I am a bit hard on Publishers. :P

 

I am also really interested in seeing how Shroud of the Avatar pans out. I was a HUGE fan of the Ultima series from when I was a kid. My favorite days of MMO gaming was with Ultima Online. I caused quite a ruckus with me and my brother back in the day in that game, we still talk about it. I also was an avid reader of the Dragonlance series (and their other series). Tracy Hickman is also working on the game. If I want any game to make it, it's this one.

 

I also really miss listening to your show. :(

Edited by El_Capitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

El I think you are being a bit hard on Publishers

I disagree.  Publishing companies, aside from a very select few, are the bane of good games. There are good publishing firms but they are the diamonds in the rough compared to standard fare...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whomever it is that creates the issue the problem as I see is is that they push out the marketing to grease the wheels of anticipation, then put out a game as a beta test( Physical release)  to find all the problems and fix them with a few big patches right after release. In essence we are used as the beta testers and we pay for the privilege. It sucks to say the least but its how the game works now.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whomever it is that creates the issue the problem as I see is is that they push out the marketing to grease the wheels of anticipation, then put out a game as a beta test( Physical release)  to find all the problems and fix them with a few big patches right after release. In essence we are used as the beta testers and we pay for the privilege. It sucks to say the least but its how the game works now.   

This is why I refuse to buy any AAA game at launch.  I've been burned too many times.

 

Hell, I just bought the new Wolfenstien game and it runs like ASS even with even with everything turned down to the minimums...and this is what, 9 months after release???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×