Game Delays - Bad News or Good News? - article discussion

I'm very much in favour of games being delayed if they aren't up to scratch.

I'd rather wait and play the game that the developers originally envisaged rather than a lesser version that was released purely to meet a publishers deadline.

Take GTA 5 for example. Delayed by six months and the final product was excellent. On the flip side I remember hugely anticipating Gran Turismo 2 on PS1 and being very disappointed with its visuals which the developers put down to Sony forcing them to rush it out in an unfinished state.

I hate it when a game I've been looking forward to clearly could have spent more time in development, it can have a ruinous effect.
 
Last edited:
You can see why some developers would want to release sooner rather than later to exploit a gap in the release window, but the ramifications can be dangerous. It harms their credibility as a whole and the sales of that individual title. I hope there's not another Battlefield fiasco as that was terrible business all round by EA.

All we want is the complete version of a game, finished to the highest standards and if a delay is going to achieve that then im happy to wait.
 
Definitely in favour of a delay if needs be. The PC gamer is constantly being fed rubbish releases that have been pushed out far too early.

Pretty much every AAA PC game should not have been delayed to fix issues.

Watchdogs, BF4 etc etc.
 
I think saying I am in favour of a delay is quite trendy now and gives them more reason to continue with that. Well, I am not happy with it. That denotes poor project management and resource allocation. When that happens to a studio that is poor, it is somehow understandable, but when it comes from the likes of Ubisoft (Watch Dogs) it is laughable. They said we are delaying the game to give you a better experience, and look what a release.Poor optimization and graphics dumbed down on pc. I feel bad for preordering Watch Dogs on pc and certainly won't do that again with any titles that smells like something fishy:)
I know we are talking about video games but we are also talking about the money that are being paid, and in my opinion they charge quite much compared to the quality nowadays.
 
Blame the publishers not just the devs, publishers can be very demanding and it can create all sorts of problems.
Bad project management definitely contributes though, mix that with a publishers wants/needs through a project and you get fudging and quick fixes all over the place.
 
I'll leave a master of game design to answer the question:

bad-game.png
 
Kickstarter funded Pro Pinball Timeshock Ultra Edition was slated to be delivered by end of 2013. It's still only at Alpha release 7 months on. But you know what, I don't care. What they are trying to create will be the best pinball simulation ever seen period.

What price greatness vs a few extra months of waiting?
 
I think saying I am in favour of a delay is quite trendy now and gives them more reason to continue with that. Well, I am not happy with it. That denotes poor project management and resource allocation. When that happens to a studio that is poor, it is somehow understandable, but when it comes from the likes of Ubisoft (Watch Dogs) it is laughable. They said we are delaying the game to give you a better experience, and look what a release.Poor optimization and graphics dumbed down on pc. I feel bad for preordering Watch Dogs on pc and certainly won't do that again with any titles that smells like something fishy:)
I know we are talking about video games but we are also talking about the money that are being paid, and in my opinion they charge quite much compared to the quality nowadays.

I see your point when a game is still buggy after a hefty delay, that is unacceptable but just think how much worse it might have been had it released on time.
 
I'm all for delays if it means the game won't come out with a bunch of bugs and glitches. Sadly that isn't the case and the games still come out all buggy. Look at Watch Dogs which from what I read had game breaking bugs. Ridiculous.

The fact is companies just don't give a rip when they know they can just release a bunch of patches. Those who buy at launch are just beta testers who actually pay the company for that privilege.

The entire industry sucks.
 
Yep sadly the industry is in a bad way currently like you say with some games using launch as a test window for later patches to be released. I like the way things are moving however with alphas and betas coming out and wouldn't mind at all if early versions of games were released via PSN/XBL like they are on Steam for a reduced price.

The only problem with the alpha/beta process at the minute is that they tie you into a pre-order in order to get into the testing stages. It's not a big deal as such as you could cancel it or transfer your money to another game, but it should be either fully open or invite only where you register your interest early on.

Games should be complete well before release, using the last few months as polishing and perfection time. Just look at the upcoming Dragon Age, all employees got a playable version to play over Christmas to find bugs and see where it needed improvement before launch, nearly 12 months away!
 
I think it can be both. I would personally prefer that they delayed the game then released it more polished as opposed to just shoving out an un-finished pile of rubbish just to hit their deadline.

It's annoying but I don't really mind the extra waiting if I know I'll get a better product at the end (unfortunately not always the case).
 
I believe if a game is not finished, it should never be released.

A restaurant wouldn't sell raw food saying it is ready...
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom