Blizzard: Shipping Unfinished Games "Devastates" Developers

[GodKlown]

From where I sit, Blizzard is playing with a double-edged sword. Not many businesses aside from gaming and the auto industry get away with selling an unfinished product in the name of financial gains. Taking the time to do the job right, regardless of the project having a concrete release date is a good thing. However, taking 5-15 years to release the final product tends to create a lack-luster interest in the final product. People who follow the development aren't quite very likely to hang on for more than a couple of years, despite the promises of the developer of how good they expect the game to be. The ability to see into the future and predict what gamers will want is a difficult thing.
I'm certainly not defending games released before they have all the factors in place the designers wanted just to start making a return on their investment. Independent studios seem to have a far harder experience in balancing the budget on developing a game without going broke before the debut of the game is in sight, and some borrow heavily against the game in order to just make the release before bankruptcy. There is a growing movement to support indie companies for their fresh ideas, regardless if they utilize the most up to date graphics, physics engines, etc.

On the other hand, Blizzard makes millions and millions every month off of Warcraft subscriptions alone.

By that logic, why ever would they be working on a game they're hoping will beat WoW (their new MMOG)?

Ideally, I doubt that Blizzard wants to really keep WoW around for 20+ years. It is becoming clear that they have reached their saturation point in the market, and without completely overhauling the franchise (whoops, almost forgot about Cataclysm!) they will just be making minor updates to an aging game that people are losing interest in. It would make much more sense for them to create a newer intellectual property to continue the success they are having with WoW by introducing something else to eventually replace it. World of Diablo, possibly? Don't laugh until I'm proven wrong here.

Sadly though, it seems that Blizzard has gotten stuck remaking the same three games for years (two really, since this will be the first sequel for StarCraft). While they have met with a lot of success in these pursuits, gamers will eventually get sick of playing an updated version of the same old games. New generations of gamers may latch on to them, but their premises may not stand the ultimate test of time as interests change as fast as the landscape of gaming and technology. Outside of the basic stories, WarCraft, Diablo, and StarCraft do all share a similar art style and gameplay. Lots of killing, just with different enemies. There isn't much variety between them aside from the obvious details of them being set in different times, locations, and circumstances. The three of them could be argued to basically be the same game (excluding WoW, as Diablo and StarCraft haven't made the leap to MMOs, so I'm talking WarCraft if anyone remembers that game). They clearly understand their niche in the market and tailor their games accordingly, with a constant influx of money to allow them the freedom to polish their games in due time. But how long is too long in game development? Can we all really stand to keep up our enthusiasm for Diablo 3 if it takes another 3-5 years?

 

[darkhawk918]

Blizzard only have so much money because they refused to release their games until they were virtual masterpieces. This is not something smaller (or bigger, but less daring) will usually do. More production time = more cost.

That extra money spent on production time is a risk. If the game doesn't do very well, that extra production money will have been wasted and worst of all you run the risk of not meeting your numbers and risk being dropped.

If you feel you have a masterpiece in the making but your company does not feel it's worth the risk the best thing to do is to arrange a meeting with management (an additional meeting to that which would take place anyway if the company is being pushed to release) and express your views and try and convince them to take that risk.

Successful games like World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy all took that risk and games like Turok and Mirror's edge didn't resulting in what should have been great games being dismal.

 

[Beowulf DW]

What if instead of setting deadlines for games, goals were set instead?

Developers could say, "We want to accomplish X, Y, and Z with this game, and once we do, we'll release it."

 

[thenamelessloser]

I might be being pedantic but don't many of the Blizzard games have quite a bit of patches for balancing issues and other problems? Has a Blizzard game ever been truly TOTALLY finished when it came out?

 

[VanBasten]

Developers could say, "We want to accomplish X, Y, and Z with this game, and once we do, we'll release it."

Developers can say whatever they want, unfortunately they don't make the decisions on when to release the game, publishers do. That's sort of the point of the article.

 

[Je-Tze]

The thing you are missing in your little editorial is that Valve and Blizzard are in the positions they are SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they've ALWAYS insisted on realeasing only when finished. That's why WoW is a "machine that prints" money. As much a i don't like the game, they took their time on it and did it right, as they've done with every game since (at least) Warcraft2.
In other words, these guys have been doing things that way since before they were succesful.

 

[WickedArtist]

I might be being pedantic but don't many of the Blizzard games have quite a bit of patches for balancing issues and other problems? Has a Blizzard game ever been truly TOTALLY finished when it came out?

I reckon that's because balance is a shaky deal. Players find exploits or superior strategies in the current balance system, and the balance system has to be changed, which creates different opportunities for superior strategies, which calls for more changes to the balance, and this cycle continues on and on. Balancing is an ongoing work of non-stop maintenance, and I think what make Blizzard so good at it is that they actually invest the resources for such maintenance.

That aside, while I don't disagree with Blizzard's stance on not rushing a game release, developers still need to manage their projects correctly and set realistic goals and expectations for their work. It's one thing to be rushed before even being given a reasonable chance to complete a game, and another to take too long because the project was mismanaged or that unrealistic standards and goals were set for it. These are two extremes that should be avoided.

 

[Zer_]

What if instead of setting deadlines for games, goals were set instead?

Developers could say, "We want to accomplish X, Y, and Z with this game, and once we do, we'll release it."

That is what they do, unfortunately they often only get to completing Y and then they have the publisher on their ass to release the game.

Blizzard has one hell of a Quality Control team as well. StarCraft: Ghost was never released for a multitude of reasons of course, but one of the bigger reasons is because they didn't feel like the game did the StarCraft source material justice. Ghost was also slated for release near the end of the X-Box life-cycle, but why, then do you think Blizzard dropped the whole project instead of porting it to the 360 with improved visuals?

I also suppose that at the time they felt is was much more worth their time and effort in developing WoW prior to release. But again, that just means they felt that WoW was more worth it then Ghost which falls under the whole Ghost not being up to par thing.

 

[SimuLord]

That's easy for Blizzard to say, if only because they have a nearly unlimited access to continuing operations funding thanks to WoW's subscription fees and game sales.

For a developer that's trying to get a product out before their funding gets yanked out from under them by a publisher, it's a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. Rush the game, and their reputation gets destroyed. Take too much time in development, and the publisher pulls your funding and your company goes bankrupt.

The entire gaming model is broken. The only game I can think of in recent memory that shipped finished was Mount and Blade, and then only because it started out as a two-person combat-simulator project that was doing just fine for its budgetary needs and just happened to pick up a publisher (Paradox Interactive) willing to get it out to its wider audience. It's almost cheating for me to name it 2008's Game of the Year when so many had been playing it since long before then.

 

[Zer_]

That's easy for Blizzard to say, if only because they have a nearly unlimited access to continuing operations funding thanks to WoW's subscription fees and game sales.

For a developer that's trying to get a product out before their funding gets yanked out from under them by a publisher, it's a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. Rush the game, and their reputation gets destroyed. Take too much time in development, and the publisher pulls your funding and your company goes bankrupt.

The entire gaming model is broken. The only game I can think of in recent memory that shipped finished was Mount and Blade, and then only because it started out as a two-person combat-simulator project that was doing just fine for its budgetary needs and just happened to pick up a publisher (Paradox Interactive) willing to get it out to its wider audience. It's almost cheating for me to name it 2008's Game of the Year when so many had been playing it since long before then.

I agree that their is definitely an issue with the whole system. The only thing I contest is that Blizzard had this policy since long before WoW. You can't just go and say the only reason they can do this is because of WoW, that is simply false.

 

[dodokiller88]

The argument that Blizzard is able to use this philosophy solely because WoW is a cash cow is false. This has been Morhaime's philosophy ever since Warcraft: Orcs and Humans and it's this philosophy that has put Blizzard where it is now. If Blizzard hadn't put so much work into polishing WoW before they released it, it may very well have flopped and Everquest would still be the industry-standard MMO.

 

[toapat]

Blizzard got away with it, pre wow, to the fact every one of its games won several game of the year awards.

and that games like Call of Duty exclusively owe their continued existance to Starcraft.

before Starcraft, multiplayer was viewed as something unnecessary for games.
when starcraft released, it became the first widely played online game, going so far as to become The online game, and holding that title for over a decade.

Blizzard was only allowed at first when they only have warcraft because everyone who suported them knew they had potential.

that potential became one of the single largest economies in the world, going so far as to be able to make money no matter what

 

[SimuLord]

That's easy for Blizzard to say, if only because they have a nearly unlimited access to continuing operations funding thanks to WoW's subscription fees and game sales.

For a developer that's trying to get a product out before their funding gets yanked out from under them by a publisher, it's a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. Rush the game, and their reputation gets destroyed. Take too much time in development, and the publisher pulls your funding and your company goes bankrupt.

The entire gaming model is broken. The only game I can think of in recent memory that shipped finished was Mount and Blade, and then only because it started out as a two-person combat-simulator project that was doing just fine for its budgetary needs and just happened to pick up a publisher (Paradox Interactive) willing to get it out to its wider audience. It's almost cheating for me to name it 2008's Game of the Year when so many had been playing it since long before then.

I agree that their is definitely an issue with the whole system. The only thing I contest is that Blizzard had this policy since long before WoW. You can't just go and say the only reason they can do this is because of WoW, that is simply false.

Before WoW they were a fully independent entity, whereas now they're ultimately under the thumb of one Bobby Kotick. I'm not sure the situations between Warcraft 3 (for example) and Diablo 3/Starcraft 2 are exactly comparable.

I will grant Blizzard this: they produce exceptionally well-polished products that can be counted on to deliver the goods on release day.

Still, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the original point. Gamers will forgive a lot when it comes to unfinished products, but only if they have full faith in the idea that "a few patches with features the community asks for will fix things and make this game great." Developers who use their customers as gamma testers aren't exactly ideal, but I've been playing Paradox Interactive games since Europa Universalis 2 and I can tell you that they always get things right in ways that they couldn't possibly have thought of before their rabid fanbase gets hold of their games.

Even EA seems to have figured this out. Sims 3 has been patched five times already since its release in June and they're always working on bug fixes. With Sims 2 you got one patch per EP and you had to hope they squashed all the bugs because you weren't getting another one. Creative Assembly is another company that's figured this out; the #1 game on my all-time list (Rome: Total War) didn't become the greatest game of all time until its third patch (the 1.3/1.4 patch included with the Barbarian Invasion pack) and then the devs, adding extra frosting to an already delicious cake, patched it to 1.5/1.6 and cemented its place at the top.

All of this is by way of pointing out that it's not the status of a game at release that matters; it's your customers' ultimate perception of whether you're truly committed to going the extra mile to satisfy them.

 

[Freshman]

Yea, I pretty much love blizzard more than ...Anything i guess. mostly because they have never made a game that let me down. And now that they have infinite monies coming in from WoW, they can do whatever the hell they feel like. Anybody remember Starcraft Ghost? after like 3 or 4 different developers, it was scraped, because it sucked. And i thank blizzard for recognizing that, and then having the balls to act on it.

 

[Freshman]

In Blizzard's defence; they had the it's ready when it's done attitude even before the cash cow WoW.

What this guy said. does anybody remember operation CWAL? that was before WoW, and they weren't giving us anything till it was done even then

 

[ultimaavalon]

Starcraft Ghost

 

[manaman]

Every industry is diverse when it is new, then consolidates. There are only what a handful of companies that make tons of different kinds of sodas. Only a few shoe companies left, even through you can find 100 different brands in the malls. There are also only a handful of movie studios left, and only three major studios. Why should the gaming industry turn out any different?

Starcraft Ghost

Why did you remind me of this. I waited patiently for what felt like years for this game. It was one of the few titles I can really remember being wildly interested in before it came out, actually following the news on the games development. It might be in the top 10 list of the largest disappointments in my life.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'd just like to point out John, that Blizzard had this policy of giving developers all the time they need long before World of Warcraft existed.
Sams is right, shipping a game out before it is finished has killed so many games that had such great potential. Games such as KOTOR II, it was going so well until they chopped off the ending.
And I hardly think the financial constraints on the publisher are as much of a problem as you make them out to be John. As I already mentioned, Blizzard has maintained that policy long before World of Warcraft, and considering that whole speal about giving developers enough time was coming from Blizzards Chief Financial Officer, I'm thinking the trick for the publisher is simply a matter of proper budgeting. No doubt planning for extended development times and staggering their projects. I'm just guessing, I'm not an accountant.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Starcraft Ghost

Why did you remind me of this. I waited patiently for what felt like years for this game. It was one of the few titles I can really remember being wildly interested in before it came out, actually following the news on the games development. It might be in the top 10 list of the largest disappointments in my life.

Now I have to wonder... would you have been MORE disappointed if the game HAD come out, and been a steaming pile of rhinocerous droppings? I think I would've.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

On the other hand, Blizzard makes millions and millions every month off of Warcraft subscriptions alone. So yes, Mr. Sams, it's understandable that your company can afford to let the developers make their awesome games and release them when they're ready (and fully awesome), but not every studio has that same luxury.

Geez, Funk, so much spite towards Blizzard. Did a Blizzard employee run over your dog or something? Maybe you need to hop into a time machine to before WoW was released. Blizzard was still the same company they are today with the exact same philosophies (albeit a lot smaller of a company). This isn't "We make truckloads of money through WoW so now it's okay for us to delay games", this is "We've always pushed games back until they were as perfect as we could make them, because that's just how we roll." The only thing that's really changed about then vs now is that they can afford to have both Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 in development at the same time. Before WoW it was always just one game at a time.

And frankly, they're entirely right. Duke Nukem For-never aside, I'm sure you could fill a novel's worth of game titles that were making good progress towards getting finished, but hit an unexpected snag that slowed production a little. So a game that could have been great in a few months was instead mediocre and buggy today. I can certainly understand investors wanting to get a return on their money spent, but there should be more of a thorough review process on how much progress is being made before they decide to just shove the game out the door.