Poll: Delay it or patch it?

[johnnybleu]

We often hear news of games being delayed (Bloodborne, recently). Having a game you've been itching to play for months get pushed back another month or two is never fun, and at times painful. However, sometimes the devs just need that extra time to polish the game and squash a few more bugs.

Conversely, I've recently played the new Borderlands, and we had to restart the game every single time my wife and I played because of various bugs, glitches, freezes, and crashes. My wife even had her character's inventory wiped. Similarly, the Lords of the Fallen forum on Steam is filled with the threads of angry consumers who want a refund, or the ability to just play their game. Some are even going so far as accusing the developer of knowingly and deliberately releasing a buggy game, with no intention of patching it.

I'm fully aware that developing a game for PC has to be a nightmare, let alone developing a cross-platform game with a simultaneous launch. I'm also aware that some times, the publisher dictates when the game is released, and if they deem the game to be in a "good enough" state, they'll go ahead with the launch, especially since it's become increasingly easy to patch the game once it's out.

Personally, I'd prefer waiting a bit more and actually enjoying the experience to it's fullest. Sure, the waiting sucks, but it beats experiencing a faulty product.

What do you people think?

 

[veloper]

I don't care when a game's released too soon, I'm just going to wait until it's patched up to an acceptable state anyway, or wait even longer.
How does waiting suck? I reckon most PC gamers have a backlog.

 

[Slayer4472]

I'd rather wait a few months to get a game than try and play it in a broken state. Besides, hype is fun, and I enjoy feeling it.

 

[Czann]

Delay it!

No one will die if your game is delayed but a bugged mess can kill your game.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Delay it I dont want to play an incredibly buggy or broken game or/and one that has lots of features missing. Patches should only be used for unforeseeable faults or problems that arise as the game evolves (if its a competitive game) not as a reason to crap out an unfinished game early just so they can meet a target or get some money in. Putting out a game that is a mess and then just apologising it away and promising patches should not be allowed but it seems that this is being seen more and more as acceptable.

 

[Spider RedNight]

Dear God, just DELAY the damn thing! Patches are a pain in the ass even if they're supposed to help and you end up waiting (half of the time for an unusually long AMOUNT of time) nonetheless, so why not just wait for the whole game, polished and more new-looking than rolling your eyes and looking at a loading screen for God knows how long

 

[Elfgore]

Delay, for my own sake. If I have to wait longer for a game, I just get a little impatient in waiting. If a game comes out in a complete mess of a state, I'm gonna be devastated. I rather wait longer and get a complete, smooth running product. Over something that is broken and unplayable.

 

[RJ 17]

I'd much rather them delay the crap out of it than release a broken, unfinished product. I've been wanting to play Arkham Knight since it was announced. It was supposed to come out last month, but now it's not coming out till next summer. And I'm glad they pushed it back to fix whatever issues came up, better that than to release something as crap-tastic as Assassin's Creed.

Now if it gets delayed and still releases as a crappy, bug-filled game...that's when you get pissed.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Delay it, give it some more room to breathe rather than face a Battlefield 4/AC Unity fiasco. Rushed releases never help a game become great. Unless the glitches are so ingrained in the code that you have to rework it from the ground up, then just cut your losses because it won't recover.

 

[Barbas]

I'm with that person - delay it for as long as you need, just make sure you take enough pride in what you're creating to get it right the first time around.

 

[Something Amyss]

People always say delay, but it seems like delays are usually met with rage, scorn, and mockery. One wonders how sincere we are.

However, I'd go one step further and point out a lot of the games with issues are happening because of an annual or bi-annual release schedule, and I'd really rather we just give that up. I was happier when my favourite titles weren't meant to be replaced by the new, shiny, and often broken successor a year later.

And I'm glad they pushed it back to fix whatever issues came up, better that than to release something as crap-tastic as Assassin's Creed.

Now if it gets delayed and still releases as a crappy, bug-filled game...that's when you get pissed.

Considering that's what happened with Assassin's Creed, I'm not sure if this was intentional.

 

[Jon4]

I think it is better to delay the game and get it right the first time around. Releasing broken games haunts developers for a long time as people tend to remember the issues more than the fixes.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Delay it till it works.

people will complain, but ultimately, delaying a game is better then releasing a buggy, broken mess, cause releasing a buggy broken mess can kill your game.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

First impressions are everything. If you don't delay it your game could forever have a reputation as a buggy mess even when it's patched to be smoother than James Bond.

 

[RJ 17]

And I'm glad they pushed it back to fix whatever issues came up, better that than to release something as crap-tastic as Assassin's Creed.

Now if it gets delayed and still releases as a crappy, bug-filled game...that's when you get pissed.

Considering that's what happened with Assassin's Creed, I'm not sure if this was intentional.

Which further justifies the anger and frustration that people are showing towards Ubisoft now.

I agree with your point on annual releases, by the way.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

isn't that one of the benefits of early access sometimes? the people who want to play it early, bugs and all, get to, while anyone who wants to wait, can wait until the game is fully out of early access?

not how it is ALWAYS used, but plenty of games benefit in this way for the different consumer mindsets.

 

[laggyteabag]

I would rather wait a few months or weeks to have a game that is in an acceptable state from day one as opposed to having it be rushed out the door as a buggy mess. A delay is much better than a disaster.

 

[Mezahmay]

I buy games years after they're released anyway, so I guess delay it. It's entirely irrelevant to me.

 

[lunavixen]

Delay it, I'd much rather have a polished game that comes later, than a buggy PoS that comes out on time. People who are waiting for the game will understand that you're trying to do the right thing by delaying it and giving people a better game, first impressions are key (as Ubisoft have just found out the importance of). Annual and bi-annual releases certainly don't help because of the 'expectation' of a yearly game, but with the way they try and expand them, they're more buggy than their predecessors.

 

[Stryc9]

Delay, if you know about the bugs delay the launch and fix them. Putting a working product out is better than releasing something that's broken with no way of knowing that everyone who buys the game will either know about the pre-release patch or have access to them right away.