Holiday Game Delays - Are They Good for Gamers?

[Andy Chalk]

Holiday Game Delays - Are They Good for Gamers?

A growing number of high profile games slated for a holiday release have been pushed into 2010, but is that really bad news for gamers?

Splinter Cell: Conviction [http://www.ubi.com] would be delayed earlier today during its first quarter sales report for the 2009 fiscal year. Explaining the hold-up, Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot said the Red Steel 2 team asked for more time to polish the game and ensure a high level of quality throughout.

The two Ubisoft games join a growing collection of high-profile titles that have been pushed back into next year. Chief among them is Red Dead Redemption [http://www.somethinginthesea.com/] could theoretically still make it, nobody really believes it's going to happen.

Mass Effect 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91942-Heavy-Rain-Delayed-to-2010].

What's left? At this stage we still have some solid gaming to look forward to, including Borderlands [http://www.brutallegend.com/]. It's a respectable selection but there's no getting around the fact that it's roughly half of what we had on our plates just a few months ago. Compared to previous years, the 2009 holiday season is looking like mighty slim pickings. But is that necessarily a bad thing?

It's undeniably frustrating, but bear in mind that these games haven't been canceled, merely pushed back. It's a safe bet that the extra wait will result in better games than we'd have if they'd been rushed out the door to make the season at all costs. While we're on the topic of costs, here's another upside: A lighter holiday release schedule means a lighter touch on the wallet, something we should all be able to appreciate.

There's even the possibility that publishers may figure out that shipping a finished, quality game is more important and more lucrative than the traditional "holidays or bust!" attitude. And personally, I'm looking forward to a winter in which I can actually play some games instead of rushing madly through them so I can move on to the next one.

What do you think? Are you disappointed that so many big titles won't be coming out until next year, or are you feeling the relief of a lighter load across your shoulders?


Permalink

 

[Radeonx]

Given the release of Modern Warfare 2, and the other big name titles that you released, I don't mind other games being delayed. I understand why, and it is a good business maneuver, but it won't change my mind about the game. If it is good, it is good, and if they need extra time to tweak it to be better, then fine. I just hope they don't screw the delayed games up somehow.

 

[dodo1331]

As long as I get to play MW2 and ODST, I'm fine. Besides, the only game I want that's coming out in the first quarter of 2010 is Mass Effect 2. I'm glad Bioshock 2 is getting some tweaks before release though, I don't want the game to be rushed and have glitches all over.

 

[Halfbreed13]

Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Alpha Protocol, Left 4 Dead 2 and Borderlands.
All of these games look good. All these games getting pushed back also look good. How do they expect me to buy all of these in a few months? Stack em. Now at least I can buy them.
Also:
HOW DARE YOU FORGET SINGULARITY *fanboy rage*

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

I don't have a problem with it at all. I'll actually be able to easily afford the big releases I want (Creed, Dragon Age and MW2) without having to starve myself for the privilege.

 

[The Random One]

To quote that Mario guy:

A delayed game is only delayed for a while.
A bad game is bad forever.

 

[iblis666]

to delay a game just means more time to play on the back log of games that all gamers have, the only impact will be on the companies themselves and maybe later releases.

 

[josh797]

this is great. a delayed game is a better game. it stands to reason that the more time they have, the more code put in, the bigger and better a game. im excited that splinter cell is pushed back. means they care about doing it right.

 

[Jumplion]

To quote that Mario guy:

A delayed game is only delayed for a while.
A bad game is bad forever.

Except, you know, Duke Nukem Forever (c'mon, it had to be said!)

Personally, I think this is showing a wider release times for games. Too often the summer meant absolutely no games to snack on and winter (IE Christmas season) always meant having to make up a huge ass list and make sure you didn't forget any games you're anticipating, while simultaneously trying to get the money to get them all and finding the time to play them all.

I'm all for games being delayed past the holiday season, this spreads out the release of games and gives us enough time to snack on the games we care about instead of going crazy in a month.

 

[newguy77]

As long as Assassin's Creed II and Modern Warfare 2 aren't delayed, I'm okay with it all.

 

[scnj]

This is a much slower gaming year than the last two, which were both fantastic. Seems like the industry is taking a year out to regroup, and 2010 will be awesome.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I'm at a point right now where the more games are delayed, the happier I am. It'll take me until Christmas just to catch up with my current backlog. I'm sick of the tsunami of hot, major releases that drops at the same time every year, and to be honest about it I haven't had a big holiday buying spasm in ages. It's probably a good thing overall, because by buying games on my own schedule instead of that the industry thinks is best, I've saved some bucks and haven't driven myself nuts trying to play everything on release day. It's a losing game.

 

[TheKaiserEcho]

I like it, I mean, Borderlands looks like it'll be all I need this winter, seein as ODST comes out in sept. I'm glad they pushed 'em back, I'll be able to save my pennies over time and actually buy them.

 

[FloodOne]

I love it. All the games coming out next year are the ones I want. More money at Christmas means more presents for my kid.

God of War III, Final Fantasy XIII, MAG and Mass Effect 2 are the real gems I'm looking forward to.

I'll probably pick up L4D2 with my Christmas gift cards though.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

there's also all the sept-oct releases, which are pretty much in the giftshopping area. I never understood the force it all out on the holidays mentality- most of these games aren't intended for children at all, so why bother getting them out at Christmas? You only give yourself insurmountable competition.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

I REALLY HATE it when lots of good stuff comes out at once. I cannot appreciate each thing as it deserves it and that is bad. I don´t like gaming ADS - I like to DIVE!

And in this case, yeah gaming works like drugs: A constant good supply of NEW to keep you high is better than the Heaven and Hell game - with long distances in between.

And I rathed have a delayed game than an unfinished=Bad game.

 

[Therumancer]

Hmmm, well my thoughts are that the delays could be financial. I mean the economy is in rough shape and dropping too many big titles on the market at once means that nobody is going to be able to buy them all and they are splitting the cash of the gamers a lot of differant way. By spreading out the release schedule through the year they guarantee more spending money to be availible for each big title. The extra time to polish them is nice, but I think it's simply a marketing ploy on some levels.


See, I for one do not believe the gaming industry is as chaotic as a lot of people think it is. This became pretty apparent when the whole industry pretty much coordinated for a universal price hike on games. If they can do that, I'm pretty sure they are comparing notes to avoid too much direct competition between the same types of titles being released at the same time. Spacing things out means more money for everyone. The game industry doesn't really compete (aside from lip service) the way it arguably should.

I'll also be honest in saying that I'm not 100% sure that the Brutal Legend lawsuit isn't a publicity stunt for game nerds given how Activision is the current big bad. "Fighting The Man" is a big part of Metal after all. The lawsuit gets people thinking about the game, wondering what could be concerning Activision, and of course builds anticipation as people wonder if it will even ever be released. Trust me, similar kinds of stunts have been performed before, though typically they don't involve multi-company lawsuits.

Simply put I figure that if Activision really wanted the title they could have had it. They made it clear it wasn't a property they were interested in, and as far as such things went it seemed like a fairly amiable parting. I could almost see Activision making some noise as being a friendly gesture to help promote the game under the circumstances.

I'm jaded of course, but consider also that a lot of people got invested in Brutal Legend. That includes Jack Black, Tim Schaefer, and a who's who list of Heavy Metal personalities. Granted all of these guys are getting paid for their time, but they seemed a bit more enthusiastic at times than paid promotions typically are (though perhaps they are better actors than I gave some of them credit for). While they got paid, I'd think Activision might very well alienate a good number of people they would prefer to keep availible for their own hiring/consultation/whatever if they were to win.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I'd much prefer it staggered throughout the year. I need time to actually play the fucking games, which I can't do when I have 5 new games at once. As it is, I'm already planning to get three games within a short time span, which is more than I'd like.