Take-Two: Good Games Are the New Bad

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
Take-Two: Good Games Are the New Bad



Take-Two has indicated why it might have a policy of delaying games until they're considered perfect.

Take-Two is known for delaying games, with will prevent [http://www.amazon.com/Noire-Xbox-360/dp/B002I0HBZW/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1284579280&sr=8-5] all but the most successful Take-Two games from turning a profit, but the publisher refutes the idea with CEO Ben Feder recently saying that if you don't make a great game, you've made a bad one.

At a recent investor's conference, Feder professed his belief that if a publisher only puts out a good game, it won't make it in today's economy. "Our industry more than ever is driven by hit products," he said. "Today, consumers are very careful with the way they spend their dollars."

He calls the current worldwide sales environment "challenging," but that doesn't mean that he thinks Take-Two should rush its games out the door. Once again championing the success of Red Dead Redemption [http://www.amazon.com/Red-Dead-Redemption-Playstation-3/dp/B001SGZL2W/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1284579306&sr=8-2], Feder pointed to it as an example of what consumers will spend their money on.

To Feder, good just isn't good enough. "Good games don't make it anymore," he said. "In fact, good is the new bad. Games have to be great, and there's no company like Take-Two to make the best games in the industry."

Take-Two's subsidiaries' constant delays could be related to a mandate from the top of the company that require they only put out products worth the price of admission, which will ideally show it to consumers with a high overall review average. I've got to say, this definitely makes Take-Two seem like one of the most gamer-friendly publishers, because it seems like it wants to earn money by putting out not just good games, but great games.

In the case of Take-Two subsidiary 2K Games publishing Gearbox's upcoming Duke Nukem Forever [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/paxprime2010/8071-PAX-2010-Hands-On-Duke-Nukem-Forever], I would make an exception to the mandate. That game doesn't need any more delays.

Source: IGN [http://ps3.ign.com/articles/112/1120512p1.html]

Permalink
 

hansari

New member
May 31, 2009
1,256
0
0
IF he brought up up Mafia 2 as an example, I'd really follow his confidence.
 

robinkom

New member
Jan 8, 2009
655
0
0
Blizzard was always notorious for doing this as well. Diablo II took several years to complete until it was up to their standards.
 

ElephantGuts

New member
Jul 9, 2008
3,520
0
0
I'd much rather a developer make me wait for a game while they take their time with it and make it right than them rush out a game before it's ready. We all know what happens in the latter case. The Total War series is a well-established, great series of quality games, but because of time constraints Creative Assembly released Empire: Total War as what seemed to be little more than a polished alpha version.

It's patience and willingness to take their time and money to make their games right that prevents that sort of thing from happening to our favorite series. It'd be terrible if that ever happened to a Rockstar game, but I think they know better than that. I also hope CA learned their lesson.
 

Ignatz_Zwakh

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,408
0
0
I'm fine with this if they manage to deliver more games like RDR. Here's hoping L.A. Noire follows suite, especially since I love film noir.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
robinkom said:
Blizzard was always notorious for doing this as well. Diablo II took several years to complete until it was up to their standards.
While diablo 3 is shaping up to be more like a wow clone with more blood and tits than a diablo sequel.
 

HentMas

The Loneliest Jedi
Apr 17, 2009
2,650
0
0
SEE SEE!!! I TOLD YOU ALL!!! ITS A PRANK!!! THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO RELEASE DN:F THEY ARE SETTING UP THE PIECES TO SAY "IT HAS BEING DELAYED!!!"

it wouldnt really surprize me after all.
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
I'd rather a game be delayed that be hastily released. Sure, gamers may *****, but ultimately, the ones who do are impatient. Quality over quantity, my friends. Also, if they take their time, there is less of a chance of things being left out, or things being made into DLC because they couldn't finish it in time.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Daemascus said:
This can only be a good thing for gamers.
Until those gre3at games start needing great budgets, and they have to be sold at grat prices (not great for us, the gamers).
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
Why bring up Red Dead Redemption as an example of a great game? Not that the game itself has problems, but it's really buggy; if that's their idea of quality control, we should be worried.

P.S. Thanks
 

RelexCryo

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,414
0
0
Covarr said:
Why bring up Red Dead Redemption as an example of a great game? Not that the game itself has problems, but it's really buggy; if that's their idea of quality control, we should be worried.

P.S. Thanks
This^. Players played it for the concept/theme, not great game design. I once killed *most* of the enemies in a mission, but one was still alive. The game suddenly skipped to a cutscene. And during the cutscene, the one enemy who was still alive kept shooting at us. The guy I had been escorting, that I worked so hard to keep from dying, was killed during the cutscene. I still won the mission though. For those wondering, him dying is not normally part of the cutscene. Rather than normal cutscenes, the computer just took control of the NPC and me, teleported us to a specific location, and forced us to act in a certain way. NPC's could still shoot at us while we did this. Because the cutscene was triggered early, he died.

This was Pike's Basin Hideout.
 

Midway Monster

New member
Sep 11, 2010
17
0
0
Does this mean we may never see another "Earth Defence Force : 2017" ?!?!

I don't think I want to live in that world...
 

Colonel Alzheimer's

New member
Jan 3, 2010
522
0
0
*starts slow clap*
Finally, someone other than Valve starts getting it. Delay as much as you have to Take-Two. If you keep releasing games like Red Dead: Redemption, you've got a fan in me.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
I think he's on to something there. Even though you can patch games after release, if it's a buggy mess or whatever at launch, it's going to take a hit regardless of if you fix it later.

I just keep thinking of ModNation Racers right now and how even though they finally patched some of the crap up after months of the game being out, United Front Games has still trashed their reputation with me and I really don't want any more games by them in my library. Probably doesn't help that the game is still a pain in the ass even after their first patch...

Oh yeah and somebody will probably say it anyway so why not bring this up: "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." - Shigeru Miyamoto
 

willsham45

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,130
0
0
What was it valves gab said, A game can be late for a while but will suck for ever...or something along those lines.

I would much rarther wait longer for a game and maybe even pay a little more (wait no i would still wait for it to come down to budget price but what ever) to get a good polished game with minimal flaws than a buggy game that is esentally no fun. Look at along in the dark for the 360 over the ps3, one had a little more time in development and is playable.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Um... okay. Good job guys... I guess? Aside from not getting games as soon I don't see anything bad to say about this. Developers want to make games better and are putting more time into them. Ugh... Slow clap, anyone?