By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - This "delays are good for games" needs to stop

 

So who's fault is it?

the publisher's 29 21.17%
 
the developer's 33 24.09%
 
the consumer's 6 4.38%
 
your mom's 68 49.64%
 
Total:136
The Fury on 27 May 2014

Games should be given realistic release dates, now it seems games are announced on promise and then developed instead of nearly finishing a game then announcing it. I mean, how unfinished was Drive Club to go from a launch title to a year in game exactly?



Hmm, pie.

Around the Network
vivster on 27 May 2014
Deimos said:

GTA V and The Last of Us were delayed...

By my argument they were obviously perfect even before the delay.

Someone still fucked up at some point though.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Xenostar on 27 May 2014
vivster said:

That's what we would like to think. But listen to your heart if this is really true in an age where content is purposefully removed from games before release to sell it for a premium later.


OK i see were now in tin foil hat territory, Im out.



vivster on 27 May 2014
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?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster on 27 May 2014
Xenostar said:
vivster said:

That's what we would like to think. But listen to your heart if this is really true in an age where content is purposefully removed from games before release to sell it for a premium later.


OK i see were now in tin foil hat territory, Im out.

Believe me, I'm always a proponent for DLC and I think companies have all the right to chop their product into little pieces and sell it individually. That's exactly why I believe that all business decisions are made with profit in mind. Adding content to a delayed game just to make it better for the consumer doesn't sound like something anyone would do.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
TheFallen on 27 May 2014

School and College teach us that being ahead of schedule and sticking to tight deadline is extremely important and we must stick to them. In reality though that's not how it works in the real world. If something is delayed or behind schedule it's usually for a damn good reason.



episteme on 27 May 2014

Depends.

Nintendo games usually get delayed to get more polish (DKC was an exception).
Ubisoft games get delayed to be playable and need many patches. They never fix all glitches in AC games and they left SC: Blacklist MP on Wii U unplayable.
EA has no problems with releasing almost unplayable games, but they try to fix the issues (BF4 works ok now).



Xenostar on 27 May 2014
vivster said:
Xenostar said:
vivster said:

That's what we would like to think. But listen to your heart if this is really true in an age where content is purposefully removed from games before release to sell it for a premium later.


OK i see were now in tin foil hat territory, Im out.

Believe me, I'm always a proponent for DLC and I think companies have all the right to chop their product into little pieces and sell it individually. That's exactly why I believe that all business decisions are made with profit in mind. Adding content to a delayed game just to make it better for the consumer doesn't sound like something anyone would do.

LIke it or not one of the most important thing to pubs is the meta score, Dev bonuses are often paid out based on meta score and meeting dead lines. Devs have every incentive to make a better game even if for some reason you think these devs only make games for financial gain (You know not because there passionate about what there making.). 

Publishers are more and more only interested in new IP's that they can build a franchise off, which again means releasing a first game thats not a complete stinker or buggy mess.



TheGhosts on 27 May 2014

In my opinion you should be happy that the developers release any game for the console you own, and if they say they want to delay it for any reason than you sould be fine with it or stop playing with consoles!!!



Aerys on 27 May 2014
vivster said:
Aerys said:
So your point is to say that delays are good for games eventually

My point is that delays in development are a natural process in most games and shouldn't be applauded. In the end it's just an extension of the production time to reach the point they were planning to reach to begin with and not beyond that point.


Yes, it should be applauded compared to game that are not finished and polished and still are released. It's good that some publishers care about the game quality



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m