Poll: Delay it or patch it?

[Something Amyss]

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.

I definitely understand the frustration with Ubisoft right now. They seem to be doing all the wrong things.

Unity had a delay, a day one patch, an embargo that lasted beyond launch, and issues of the wazoo. It's like the perfect storm of fail. And while sales are down from the last game, I'm not sure it has anything to do with any of those facts.

More likely, it's a combination of declining sales in the franchise (a number which was a slow one, but still) and the divided user base given it's a current gen only title.

All things considered, I wish the consumer public wasn't so quick to snap up new titles, as it's both the reason for the annual release model and issues with quality assurance and control.

What's even more baffling to me is that Assassin's Creed is supposedly done over multiple years with many teams working on it, yet they screwed up more horrendously than other games.

I'm sort of getting off topic, but this is also kind of relevant. Right now, ACU seems to be the perfect figurehead for this topic.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

For me, I think it depends on the state of the game in general. If it's riddled with bugs and performance issues to the point that they're very likely to happen no matter what you do then it would be wise to delay it until it is in a stable state where such issues are rare if not non-existent.

If the game has just a few bugs that prove to be just a nuisance but doesn't cripple the game experience in terms of gameplay or performance then launching and patching the game later should would be okay in my book. I could tolerate some odd, and in some cases amusing, visual bugs and whatnot and be more or less content with it.

If I had to choose though, I'd say delay it until the game plays like a dream right out of the box.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I consider delaying to be the lesser of two evils. As the old mantra goes, I'd rather play a great game tomorrow than a terrible game today.

 

[EHKOS]

Delay it and then patch it too. Delaying a game shows respect to the consumer. Sure, we could release it now, but we put love into this project, and I don't want them to see it until it's up to our standards.

That's how I treat every track I put out, practicing the same damn song over and over until it's up to my standard of quality. It is professional.

 

[Windcaler]

Personally anytime a developer says they want to delay the game by a reasonable amount of time I feel better about the project. Delays show hindsight and allow for developers to make a better game. Getting the release right the first time. This means the release should turn out much better then it originally would have (Although that makes me question how much worse watch dogs would have turned out without that delay).

Patchs are kind of a mixed bag. Its always nice to see bugs and imbalances patched out but IMO its more harmful to a developers reputation and the game itself if they go with the release and then patch it mentality. For one most reviews they review the game as is and dont update it over time so when someone looks up a review 3 months down the road theyre reading a review of the game as it was at release, not neccessarily the game it is now. Secondly a developer that releases extremely buggy games tends to keep that reputation years after they no longer deserve it. Reputations a big thing in this industry.

 

[TallanKhan]

If you are going to charge full price for your product on launch day then it ought to be released in an acceptable state. I appreciate a game is a complex product and it isn't realistically feasable to catch every single bug post launch, but too many games are released these days in a state that quite frankly, the developers and publishers should be ashamed of.

That's the one thing I do miss about the pre-online era, particularly for consoles; with occasional exceptions, if you wen't out and brought a game, you knew it would work (no guarantee of quality mind you, but it would do what it was supposed to). There was none of this: "We'll fix it later... but only if enough people notice... and then only if they complain loudly enough... and then only if we can be assed"

 

[johnnybleu]

If you are going to charge full price for your product on launch day then it ought to be released in an acceptable state. I appreciate a game is a complex product and it isn't realistically feasable to catch every single bug post launch, but too many games are released these days in a state that quite frankly, the developers and publishers should be ashamed of.

Well, it's my understanding that publishers set release dates, and devs have to meet it. I doubt many developers actually WANT to rush an unfinished product out the door and cause a pile of ill will. Unless they need to release it ASAP to pay the bills...

That's the one thing I do miss about the pre-online era, particularly for consoles; with occasional exceptions, if you wen't out and brought a game, you knew it would work (no guarantee of quality mind you, but it would do what it was supposed to). There was none of this: "We'll fix it later... but only if enough people notice... and then only if they complain loudly enough... and then only if we can be assed"

I agree with you there, but you have to remember that back in the good old days of the SNES you could have a team of 20 people and make a perfectly fine game. Nowadays you've got these monumental projects involving hundreds of people, thousands of man hours, million of dollars, and complex technology. The physics engine alone on most modern titles are probably far more intricate than the entire NES library. There's a lot more room for error, and it's more than likely a side-effect of games becoming more and more advanced. While this doesn't excuse releasing a shitty game that's gonna crash every 20 minutes, I'd like to think developers had no way of knowing that certain graphics cards or chipsets would cause trouble, for example. I imagine things just get exponentially worse once you go cross-platform... That said, I still think publishers should work more closely with devs to ensure the release date is realistic, and that the game is ready.

Patchs are kind of a mixed bag. Its always nice to see bugs and imbalances patched out but IMO its more harmful to a developers reputation and the game itself if they go with the release and then patch it mentality. For one most reviews they review the game as is and dont update it over time so when someone looks up a review 3 months down the road theyre reading a review of the game as it was at release, not neccessarily the game it is now. Secondly a developer that releases extremely buggy games tends to keep that reputation years after they no longer deserve it. Reputations a big thing in this industry.

That's a different issue, but still one worth talking about. Take Diablo 3, for example. It is currently a VERY different game than the one that launched. Or something like Minecraft. On some levels, I don't really like the idea of patching content, mechanics, and altering the core gameplay. I mean, if we can just patch a game into something else, who's to say when the game is "done", and when you should buy it?

At the same time, there is merit to the idea that features and options can be implemented later to accommodate players, or that gameplay can be tweaked and balanced to provide a better experience. All food for thought, I suppose.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Delay it. Dear God, delay it. No-one likes playing a broken buggy mess, even if it is only for a short while until the creases are ironed out. Plus not everyone has the Internet and releasing a game knowing that it will need patches means that those without access cannot receive the patches. I played Oblivion and Fallout 3 for years without Internet access - have you ever tried playing an initial-release Bethesda title without patch support?!? No-one should have to go through that. *shudder*

 

[maffgibson]

Delay. As someone who pre-ordered Rome II: Total War (never again) and has seen CA gradually drip-feed planned features into it in post-launch patches (seriously, for the first few months there would be entirely new gameplay elements any time I booted it up), only to COMPLETELY rebalance the game's buildings, character traits, diplomacy, civil war etc in a recent "free DLC" update, I really wish that they had just delayed it by a year and actually made sure that they were happy with it.

The recent update changed the game so much that I have had to completely change my playstyle. It is almost certainly a better game for it, but it still felt a lot like the rug being pulled out from under my feet. The fact that CA released a shoddy product, spent a year releasing minor patches before basically flipping the board and starting again is disrespectful to their fans, customers, and franchise overall.

As the old carpentry saying goes: "Measure twice, cut once". Shame so many developers do the equivalent of selling customers dining tables with wonky legs and spending the next year turning up in the middle of every Sunday lunch to make minor adjustments to it.

 

[Battenberg]

I went for delay because it seems like everyone is over reliant on being able to fix their game post launch and that irritates me no end; mostly because I'm old fashioned and long for the times where a game would just work straight out the box without ever needing patches or updates. That said what I'd actually prefer is for developers not to announce their release date before they actually know with relative certainty that they can meet it. Announcing your game 1 year + ahead of time and then putting out a release date well before the development stage is even finished just seems pointless to me. Surely the time, effort, and money would be better spent on making the game.

Regardless when a game is released in an essentially unplayable state like, for example, AC: U it reflects poorly on everyone involved and I tend to lose both trust and respect for the devs and publishers as a result. On the other hand the majority of the time when a game is delayed I just figure that's fair enough and I'm glad the devs have taken enough pride in the game to want to ensure it is exactly what they wanted it to be by release time.

 

[Gizmo1990]

Delay. As someone who pre-ordered Rome II: Total War (never again) and has seen CA gradually drip-feed planned features into it in post-launch patches (seriously, for the first few months there would be entirely new gameplay elements any time I booted it up), only to COMPLETELY rebalance the game's buildings, character traits, diplomacy, civil war etc in a recent "free DLC" update, I really wish that they had just delayed it by a year and actually made sure that they were happy with it.

The recent update changed the game so much that I have had to completely change my playstyle. It is almost certainly a better game for it, but it still felt a lot like the rug being pulled out from under my feet. The fact that CA released a shoddy product, spent a year releasing minor patches before basically flipping the board and starting again is disrespectful to their fans, customers, and franchise overall.

As the old carpentry saying goes: "Measure twice, cut once". Shame so many developers do the equivalent of selling customers dining tables with wonky legs and spending the next year turning up in the middle of every Sunday lunch to make minor adjustments to it.

I am with you 100%. I got it fairly early and it ran ok on my PC but I stopped playing in order to wait for the bugs to be worked out. After about 6 months I booted it back up and I had no fucking clue what I was doing for an hour because so much had been changed or added. I swear that the Senate politics stuff was not in the game at release.

OT:
Delay. If a game is relased with a day 1 patch that works and fixes everything then fine, it would be annoying but I could live with it but so many games now have day 1 patches that seem to fix fuck all that it is just stupid. My interest in DA: Inqusition is very low as I hated DA2 and I have been burned one to many times by BiowEAr over the last few years but delaying it did improve my opinnion of them a bit. It show's that they are really trying to get it right this time.

 

[JayRPG]

I'm in the camp of not announcing a release date 8 months in advance like you definitely know you can adhere to that development cycle. If you're game isn't ready, you still have to release it because you've been hyping it for the past 4, 5, 6, 7, 8+ months.

For all the shit Square Enix gets, at least they don't announce their games/release dates until they damn well know they can release a finished, polished game by that date.

The year-long hype trains need to stop, all it does is put unfair pressure on the developers who will likely never be able to live up to that hype due to self-imposed time constraints.

Announce your game/give us a teaser/tell us what it is about -> Tell us you will release it when it is ready -> announce the release date 1-2 months before-hand. Easy as pie, you don't give us a release date until you have a game that is pretty much finished.

P.S Localisations would generally be an exception to this rule, and my criticisms at the start of this post.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Del- what? The publisher is pushing it out the door anyway? Better get to work on the patches then.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Sweet baby jesus DELAY IT.
We live in an age where I hope everything gets delayed more often. Patches are so meh, because I could be enjoying how a game functions at that moment/or not, and then suddenly have everything change for better or for worse, to the point where the game just keeps screaming "I was incomplete once you know! Now i'm different!". But that's more so for multiplayer related stuff.
Now things with singleplayer... delay those till the sun's shine reflects off it's polish.
I wish Dark Souls 1 got delayed, I wish Dark Souls 2 got REALLY delayed, and boy did I get a kick out of Bloodborne being delayed recently. Sure I wait longer but I am a patient man, and waiting longer is always worth it.

Delays are love. They are life. (unless you're Ubi, then they're Satan)

 

[Pyrian]

People always say delay, but it seems like delays are usually met with rage, scorn, and mockery.

Buggy mess releases are met with rather more RSM, I think. Delay is always in the consumer's best interest. Business, however, is, less understanding.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I was gonna pick 'Delay' in the poll, but I saw burritos and picked that instead. It's right before lunch time for me and tacos burritos rule.

Anyways, I would much rather a company delay a game than send it out and have a patch. I'm really tired of downloading a patch day one or a patch much later to fix something that should have been fixed prior to launch. Nothing will stop me playing a game faster than having to wait for a patch to fix something.

It's pretty damn sad that this is actually something to discuss since you would think that companies would rather put out a finished product than shit something out and quickly work on a patch to fix things. Them the times I guess.

In any case, I will respect the hell out of a company that will push back a game to make sure everything works right and how it should. Yeah, I'll be super bummed about it, but I will get over it since I know they're trying to get things right.

 

[johnnybleu]

I'm in the camp of not announcing a release date 8 months in advance like you definitely know you can adhere to that development cycle. If you're game isn't ready, you still have to release it because you've been hyping it for the past 4, 5, 6, 7, 8+ months.

For all the shit Square Enix gets, at least they don't announce their games/release dates until they damn well know they can release a finished, polished game by that date.

The year-long hype trains need to stop, all it does is put unfair pressure on the developers who will likely never be able to live up to that hype due to self-imposed time constraints.

Announce your game/give us a teaser/tell us what it is about -> Tell us you will release it when it is ready -> announce the release date 1-2 months before-hand. Easy as pie, you don't give us a release date until you have a game that is pretty much finished.

P.S Localisations would generally be an exception to this rule, and my criticisms at the start of this post.

That seems like it would fix most of these issues, but sadly I doubt we'll see much of it. Though Nintendo is pretty good about keeping their release dates mysterious until the "last minute" (by industry standards), if I recall.

I was gonna pick 'Delay' in the poll, but I saw burritos and picked that instead. It's right before lunch time for me and tacos burritos rule.

Tacos are cool too. No need to cross them out.

 

[mxc2012]

It depends. If the issue is small/can be fixed with a day 1 patch I am ok with that. If it is not something they can do before release date then it should be delayed.

To me a developer delaying rather than a late patch shows that they actually care about the quality of the game and the experience you have as a player.

 

[Olas]

I know this will never happen in a million years, but how about just not revealing a game until right before release? Like maybe a few weeks or a month at the most. You don't have to worry about delaying because you're basically finished with the product anyway, and nobody has a chance to have any altered expectations of it based on previous promises that you couldn't uphold. And rather than feeling like we're always waiting for games to come out forever, it would instead be very exciting knowing that at any given time a major release could be about to release.

 

[mxc2012]

I know this will never happen in a million years, but how about just not revealing a game until right before release? Like maybe a few weeks or a month at the most. You don't have to worry about delaying because you're basically finished with the product anyway, and nobody has a chance to have any altered expectations of it based on previous promises that you couldn't uphold. And rather than feeling like we're always waiting for games to come out forever, it would instead be very exciting knowing that at any given time a major release could be about to release.

That would be nice but I can't see who would do it. Only the biggest triple A publishers with established ip would be able to do it and still sell, and even then it would be less than they could sell if they spend time advertising it.