This "delays are good for games" needs to stop

[vivster]

Burek said:
Well, in the end, I still prefer to stick with "delays are good for games". No matter what the reason for the delay is, it certainly isn't so they can make the game be even worse or to break a working game.
As for the release date/time-frame, I see it as only hurting the company and their projected earnings. It doesn't hurt me at all, it's not like there is no other games I can play.

I was looking forward to playing The Division in 2014. It's delayed. So I'll play FIFA, Far Cry, Alien, something else...
If it is released in 2015, great, I'll play it then. If not, I'll play Dying Light, The Order, Witcher 3, whatever is released.

I have a little MS Word table into which I plug my planned purchases, I just cut and paste in a bit lower and move on. In the end, I'd rather play a fixed game than a broken game. So, "delays ARE good for games".

Even though the company is hurting most because of a delay it's still never in the interest of the consumer but that of the company. Of course it's also good for the consumer if a game is not completely broken but doesn't that show how low our standards have become?