Holiday Game Delays - Are They Good for Gamers?

[Andy Chalk]

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.

That's a good point. Are we just delaying the inevitable by splitting the flood in half and dealing with two somewhat smaller onslaughts of new games?

I think we may get around that if publishers look at the situation and say, well, we missed Christmas so we might as well avoid any kind of arbitrary launch targets and just put this thing out when it's ready to go. Some games will take longer than others and you're bound to have things spread out a bit, with some releases in spring, some in summer, fall, etc.

Could go either way, but it has to be a better situation for gamers in the end. If nothing else, even if we have a similar pile-on of hot game releases in summer 2010, we'll be in a better place to deal with it because we won't be getting bent over by the traditional holiday expenditures.

 

[Rect Pola]

Not bothered in the least. It has been said for years that a dump on the holidays and other "red times" was a poor strategy compared to releasing throughout the year when they get around it. Less rush stress for them, less wallet stress for us. More time for us to finish games, more attention to smaller titles.

The addiction to the holidays started when the industry was new and the majority of gamers relied on parents for the biggest haul. Now the most gamers are older, more games come out, and they're more expensive than ever; making the holidays one painful glut for everyone involved.

 

[DeathQuaker]

Thanks for the article. It's great to hear that more devs and publishers are dedicating themselves to giving themselves time to finish good games than release early for some preconceived rush period. I think there was an article here awhile ago talking about how EA was realizing the holiday release period wasn't all it was cracked up to be (largely because Mirror's Edge got drowned by the hype surrounding Fallout 3 and the ton of other lauded games that came out around the same time).

I understand that overall more people spend money during the holiday season, but I think I can make an educated estimation that gamers with their own income buy roughly equally for themselves year round. If anything, there should be more summer release games (like there are summer release movies) because so many active gamers are in school/college and have more time to play during the longer vacation period.

I was always frustrated with the rush to holiday release because of exactly what's said in the article---pushing for a release just results in problems. I will buy a game I want whenever it comes out IF I hear it functions on release with few issues. If I hear it's a load of unfinished garbage, I ain't touchin' it whether it's Christmas or not.

 

[dochmbi]

The longer development time, the better, so long as it stays within max 6 years.

 

[GonzoGamer]

To quote that Mario guy:

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

That's actually an excellent quote. No one will remember if your game is delayed, but they'll remember if it's crap.

I like that one as well. And it's true. However sometimes games can be delayed and suck anyway.

Personally, I think between Brutal Legend, Dragon Age, Assassins Creed, and Mass Effect 2, I'm not going to be bored while waiting for God of War3 (that was delayed right?) . Besides, most of the delayed titles aren't games I was looking forward to to begin with.

 

[Valiance]

I'd much rather see a complete game.

 

[Xelioth]

are you kidding with this question? this is the best thing ever. the over-saturation of games in the holiday season means I'm much more likely to have good games spoiled for me or to miss out on the multiplayer while it's still good. I'm looking at half a dozen high-profile games all coming out within a month or two of each other and whether that's up to par with last year or not, at $50 a pop that list is nothing to sneeze at.

absolutely ecstatic that developers aren't so worried about release dates as they once were. now I get more good games spread throughout the year to keep me entertained at all times, rather than just immediately after christmas.

 

[Susan Arendt]

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.

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.

Ubi knows the first Red Steel was bad -- they were dealing with new tech and a demand that the game be a launch title. They themselves weren't happy with what they released, but they didn't have the option of delaying it. Now they do, and they're using that ability to polish the game.