By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
walsufnir on 06 February 2015
Edit Thread
VXIII said:
walsufnir said:


I know what he is saying but I don't see many "victims" because of that. Unity was definitely a bad example but other games weren't ready, too, by release and were not annual. 

At least I agree that devs should get a little bit more freedom but it's their work and nobody is asking me if I want more time in my job to finish because the schedule is ridiculous - I don't get it anyway.

Being a victim doesn't necessarily mean a broken games full of bugs. Tight release schedule forces the developer to re-use the same asset and tricks without further improvement to the experience in general, and that can happen in many different ways. The whole thing hurts the progress of the industry in general, Which is why it is "hated".


It depends. If you have separate teams working on titles you actually release n-annually, with n being the number of teams working on it. Like COD n=2. Of course sports games are a different story, there you automatically re-use assets everytime by a certain degree.

How this hurts the industry in general I don't see, though. Devs always had tight release schedules, no matter if in gaming or in general.

If for further improvement to the experience this is always subjective. Did racing games change the last 30 years? For sure! For the better? Depends what you like. But this has nothing to do with annual releases but more with how much innovation there is in the industry in general, in my opinion.