Holiday Game Delays - Are They Good for Gamers?
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
That's actually an excellent quote. No one will remember if your game is delayed, but they'll remember if it's crap.The Random One said:
All i know is I am amazed they finally listened. Putting out 10 - 20 must have titles all at once while the rest of the year is just filler is just stupid. Especially when the age of the average gamer is no longer 10 yrs old. Most adults have jobs and families of thier own. So instead of being able to recieve all these games as gifts is really not an option. Sure we might get one or 2 from Santa but that still leaves alot of must have titles that we can't afford since we also have to buy presents for our families.
I gotta say compared to most years this one is turning out fairly well for keeping a consistent flow of must have titles throughout the year vs many others that everything came out between Nov. and Jan.
Though it probably means bad news for the used game market.
I gotta say compared to most years this one is turning out fairly well for keeping a consistent flow of must have titles throughout the year vs many others that everything came out between Nov. and Jan.
Though it probably means bad news for the used game market.
Okay, so here's the 64 bazillion dollar question then: Since, based on our rigorously scientific examination of the topic, it's quite clear that gamers prefer releases be more of a balanced, year-round affair rather than the current holiday-focused model, why does the industry continue to lean so heavily on the October-December quarter?
Even if a game takes a decade to finish up, I'd rather have a good game than impatience rewarded any day. [http://www.teamfortress.com/]
Ooh, seven thousand posts. High-five.
Ooh, seven thousand posts. High-five.
I would assume analysts like Mr. Pachter inform them this is the time to sell sell sell. To be fair, even though most gamers AREN'T children, that impression remains. Furthermore, even if your not a kid, the Holidays are the time to give and recieve gifts, and money that is usually held onto tends to flow freer. What these companies MISS is they are putting themselves into direct competition with all these other products- it turns into a horse race, and only one or two winners can get put out to stud. The rest make do till another day or get sent to the Glue factory. Coming out alongside a giant has ruined many a great game that, if allowed to come out on it's OWN time, would have done great (Mirror's Edge anyone?)Malygris said:
Everyone is locked into this mentality that the holidays are the retail boom, and people are less likly to spend money in February, but what they miss is that games are not like movies. They don't go away 2 weeks after their initial release. Of course there is always a start up boom, but NO one thinks to provide consistant advertisement and support - Ad's follow a game up to it's launch usually, and a month or so after, then vanish. Publishers gun to get the lion's share of their sales in the initial splash, but frankly I and I think other gamers are increasingly WAITING to see how all the reviews pan out and not buying games on release date, or at the very least showing restraint. And if we're agreeing that most gamers are not children, as most figures suggest gamers ate 18-30 and that these games aren't MADE for children, we can perhaps expect our consumers to exercise SOME intelligence.
Current market strategy is short sighted, with producers wanting to make as much on their investment as swiftly as possible. What they fail to see is that longterm sales strategy and countinued support makes for more successful games. Case in point, Valve.
Infact, I probably could've just said vALVE instead of all of that crap I just did.
Valve, bitches.
I think the real problem is that now all the delayed games are gonna clutter up Q1 2010. And that's a lot of games.Malygris said:
I think it's good with delay (to a point, as long as it isn't DNF long), cause:
A) It gives more room for improvement in the game.
B) Gives me more chance to focus on the games that come sooner, so I don't have to stress over that I want 10 games released at the same time.
A) It gives more room for improvement in the game.
B) Gives me more chance to focus on the games that come sooner, so I don't have to stress over that I want 10 games released at the same time.
Recalling that the first Red Steel om the Wii was an immense piece of shit, I call bullshit on that explanation. The first game had no polish nor anything to do with quality.
Back on the subject - the reason for the delay determines if its good for gamers or not.
Some games like Singularity get delayed just for the sake of it, in that case - it really sucks for gamers.
How could it be bad news? Rushing a release never brought anything good, and crowding the Holiday season only means many titles get lost in the confusion and sell poorly. Usually, it's not Madden 666 or Wii showelware, it's the games who barely make financially and that we "serious gamers" love most. The only bad news could be that "Early New Year" becomes the new Holiday season. As games - not only casual ones - move beyond the kids demographic, is there any reason to see them as basically Xmas gifts?
Yeah, while I'm enthusiastic about ME2, it's Borderlands that really has me excited.TheKaiserEcho said:
I'm guessing what we're seeing here is developers realizing that they don't need the game out during the holiday.Malygris said:
As for me I agree with the majority, I'd prefer if games were more spread out. Of course, that also means a truckload of games in "early 2010" is bad.