Poll: Delay it or patch it?

[Krantos]

From a business perspective, it makes more sense to delay it.

On the one hand, if you're raised hype on the product, people are going to get a little disappointed when you delay it, and some of the hype is likely to wear off.

On the other hand, if you release a broken product... yeah, that does a LOT more damage to your brand. Speaking for myself, the ACU fiasco has made me decide not to get Far Cry 4 when it comes out.

So not only does releasing a broken product all but kill sales for that game, it also makes people incredibly wary about buying any future games from you.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

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.

I think you mean foresight. Hindsight would be releasing a buggy game and than saying we should have delayed it.

OT: It depends on the state. If its going to be a really bad and bug riddled release than I say delay it. Frankly I think Unity should have been pushed back a year and Rogue should have been stepped up to this year's title. I do think patches can be acceptable as long as the game runs fine 99% of the time and the patches are for the 1% that doesn't or if its the balance out the multiplayer or even the single player.

 

[Mister K]

Please do delay it. I'd rather get my hands on a completed game then buggy one.

 

[Something Amyss]

Delay, 100%. I'm tired of paying to be a beta tester.

Thanks to Early Access and Greenlight, you can move up to paying to be an alpha tester!

Oh, that's not what you meant. >.>

My bad!

 

[johnnybleu]

From a business perspective, it makes more sense to delay it.

On the one hand, if you're raised hype on the product, people are going to get a little disappointed when you delay it, and some of the hype is likely to wear off.

On the other hand, if you release a broken product... yeah, that does a LOT more damage to your brand. Speaking for myself, the ACU fiasco has made me decide not to get Far Cry 4 when it comes out.

So not only does releasing a broken product all but kill sales for that game, it also makes people incredibly wary about buying any future games from you.

I suppose it can be a balancing act for publishers. On the one hand, you don't want to string your consumers along for years with endless delays, but at the same time you don't want to drop a defective product into their hands. As mentioned above, I think one of the best ways to avoid most of this is for publishers to only announce/hype games once they're closer to completion, that way devs have some breathing room.

Of course, we also can't ignore unforeseen problems. It's easy for us to point the finger and say "look at those bastards selling us a broken game!!!", but I'm sure there's a lot more going on behind the scenes. For all the mess Lords of the Fallen is in, I'd like to think the devs had no idea how many problems they were going to have. Three patches in, and some of these issues are WORSE for some players.

Delay, I believe games should be actually finished before release.
Also, there is no guarantee that the patch will be available in 10 or 20 years, so that buggy mess you released is the game as far as history is concerned, especially on consoles. The intended experience lost forever.

This is something that I've brought up a lot with one of my preferred genres in fighting games and people don't seem to think of it as big problem. Which is weird because at the moment if you buy a new or used copy of the relatively recently released and by average tournament size third largest fighting game in the world in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 you cannot actually play the entire roster because two of the characters where DLC and are no longer available for sale due to licensing issues/Capcom being Capcom. No idea why people aren't more worried about this.

Is that UMvC3 thing true? Wow... Well, I've been worried about things like this since online-only games first started appearing-- even multiplayer, or online features. Eventually, support will stop. Servers will be shut down. Then what? I can still dust off my old SNES and play those games any day, and I don't need the publisher's permission. It's kind of strange buying a game nowadays, knowing it has a limited lifespan. Eventually, you just won't be able to play Diablo 3. That's where pirates and hackers come in, I suppose.

 

[Clearwaters]

Delay it. You'll have to wait either way so I'd rather just have them delay it and get a great experience with the game day one.

 

[vledleR]

Delay!

Not all of us live in South Korea and are connected all the time. Some of us live in rural parts of the world with spotty internet connections.

Someones probably mentioned this, but a buggy/unpolished/rushed games leave bitter first impressions, bad reviews etc.

 

[Steve Waltz]

From a business perspective, it makes more sense to delay it.

On the one hand, if you're raised hype on the product, people are going to get a little disappointed when you delay it, and some of the hype is likely to wear off.

On the other hand, if you release a broken product... yeah, that does a LOT more damage to your brand. Speaking for myself, the ACU fiasco has made me decide not to get Far Cry 4 when it comes out.

So not only does releasing a broken product all but kill sales for that game, it also makes people incredibly wary about buying any future games from you.

That?s absolutely not true; you?re letting your conscious and bias as a gamer get in the way of your "business perspective."

Release dates are chosen on when they think the most sales will be. For example: 2K released NBA2K15 at the beginning of October while sports fans are getting hyped up about the start of the basketball season. Lots of sales and lots of money rolling in. The servers were all wonky and there were plenty of bugs floating around in MyCareer and MyGM. If 2K decided to hold back on the release of NBA2K15 until early December to get the servers running functionally and fix all the bugs in MyCareer then there will be a SIGNIFICANT difference in sales because consumers are not as hyped up about the release as they would be in October.

Hype is built up for the game with trailers and publicity so everyone gets stoked for the game. When a game is delayed, hype and interest goes down. This already happened with Evolve. Evolve was one of the kings of E3 this year; everyone was all hyped up ?Oh man! The devs of L4D2 are making a new co-op shooter game!" But hype and excitement towards Evolve is down since the game?s was delayed. Delaying a game is a last resort because massive hype = a titalwave of money and sales, and delaying a game will cut hype while consumers focus on something else. ?Evolve? Oh yea, that?s yesterday?s news. Today is all about Dragon Age: Inquisition!? Delaying Evolve cut the hype for that game and with less hype comes less initial sales. And initial sales are the things that matter most. Quality of a product is important, but nowhere near as important as getting those initial sales by any means necessary.


If a publisher releases a buggy game, they get to keep all of the hype and keep all of the initial sales that they?ve hooked. Once those initial sales are made, then they can fix it the product to proper standards. It may not be consumer friendly, but it?s the way that publishers can make the most initial sales. With that said, initial sales means more chances for money on DLCs and all that stuff as well. Initial sales, pre-orders, and hype are where the money is at, and delaying a game will cut those things, which is why publishers will do their best to avoid delaying a game. Patches are the best ways for publishers keep their initial sales and all the hype whole while still release a game that?s of acceptable quality.


Your final point is how "releasing a broken product kills sales for that game?? Not true, unless the game is severely broken, and even then Skyrim was buggy to hell, but still made a killing. Heck, the OP of this thread was motivated to make this thread thanks to Borderlands Prequel and 2K broke the bank with that game. Seriously, DNF still made money and it was a trash game. Quality of the game is not important as long as it sells and delaying a game costs sales, which is why publishers prefer not to do it.

 

[DementedSheep]

I don't buy new release so it doesn't effect me if they need to delay. That said even if it did bother me when games get delayed it seem to be both parties best interests to delay anyway. If it's bugged to shit it's just going to create a negative experience for the player. I've been in a situation where bugs have caused me to lose my save. Nothing kills the joy in a game faster. Do they really want to release a game then have it panned because of glitches? It also means the consumer has download and install a patch and not everyone is hocked up 24/7 and many have data restrictions. I can see why published would push to have it out anyway if it's something like wanting to release the game before/ along side of a similar game from another company, before Christmas or if they have been really really hyping it up so you get to point where people are sick of the hype and if you don'y release they move on but I don't know if it's worth it in the long run. You don't want that reputation. I don't expect games to be completely bug free on release but any remaining bugs should be very minor or very rare.

 

[Vivi22]

Any company that releases a game that is broken and unplayable for the majority of customers has ripped their fans off. Delay or don't release it at all as far as I'm concerned. Examples like the most recent Assassin's Creed have no excuse especially when they run like shit on consoles. Consoles for christ sake! They've got teams of 400+ making these games, they know the exact system specifications they're dealing with, and they still release it broken so they can make their one a year bullshit scheduling. Utterly ridiculous, and no one should be giving them full price for that nonsense.

 

[Ieyke]

The correct answer is always delay.
However, it is against everything I stand for NOT to vote burritos.
So I voted burritos.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Great thread.

Delay it.

A lot of people out there don't have access to patches for one, but I don't see why it's so hard for people to wait a few months longer anyway.

 

[Mimic]

Without a doubt delay it. I'm in no rush if anything it makes me feel more confident that they're doing some quality control rather than getting the product out the door as quickly as possible. As much as patching can fix things I don't think it is acceptable to release a game in a broken or buggy state as there will always be some people who won't have the online interactivity needed to get the patch.

 

[johnnybleu]

Release dates are chosen on when they think the most sales will be. For example: 2K released NBA2K15 at the beginning of October while sports fans are getting hyped up about the start of the basketball season. Lots of sales and lots of money rolling in. The servers were all wonky and there were plenty of bugs floating around in MyCareer and MyGM. If 2K decided to hold back on the release of NBA2K15 until early December to get the servers running functionally and fix all the bugs in MyCareer then there will be a SIGNIFICANT difference in sales because consumers are not as hyped up about the release as they would be in October.

Hype is built up for the game with trailers and publicity so everyone gets stoked for the game. When a game is delayed, hype and interest goes down. This already happened with Evolve. Evolve was one of the kings of E3 this year; everyone was all hyped up ?Oh man! The devs of L4D2 are making a new co-op shooter game!" But hype and excitement towards Evolve is down since the game?s was delayed. Delaying a game is a last resort because massive hype = a titalwave of money and sales, and delaying a game will cut hype while consumers focus on something else. ?Evolve? Oh yea, that?s yesterday?s news. Today is all about Dragon Age: Inquisition!? Delaying Evolve cut the hype for that game and with less hype comes less initial sales. And initial sales are the things that matter most. Quality of a product is important, but nowhere near as important as getting those initial sales by any means necessary.


If a publisher releases a buggy game, they get to keep all of the hype and keep all of the initial sales that they?ve hooked. Once those initial sales are made, then they can fix it the product to proper standards. It may not be consumer friendly, but it?s the way that publishers can make the most initial sales. With that said, initial sales means more chances for money on DLCs and all that stuff as well. Initial sales, pre-orders, and hype are where the money is at, and delaying a game will cut those things, which is why publishers will do their best to avoid delaying a game. Patches are the best ways for publishers keep their initial sales and all the hype whole while still release a game that?s of acceptable quality.


Your final point is how "releasing a broken product kills sales for that game?? Not true, unless the game is severely broken, and even then Skyrim was buggy to hell, but still made a killing. Heck, the OP of this thread was motivated to make this thread thanks to Borderlands Prequel and 2K broke the bank with that game. Seriously, DNF still made money and it was a trash game. Quality of the game is not important as long as it sells and delaying a game costs sales, which is why publishers prefer not to do it.

Very fair points. I'd be interested in seeing some numbers. And while I can certainly see WHY publishers do these kinds of things, I still think it's shitty. But then, I suppose the same could be said about any business or industry.

The correct answer is always delay.
However, it is against everything I stand for NOT to vote burritos.
So I voted burritos.

I can respect that.

 

[Steve Waltz]

Very fair points. I'd be interested in seeing some numbers. And while I can certainly see WHY publishers do these kinds of things, I still think it's shitty. But then, I suppose the same could be said about any business or industry.

I?d be interested in the numbers too, but I wouldn?t know where to find them, or if publishing companies even give them out. Also, as a consumer, I agree with you. I do think it sucks and I would prefer games be delayed to get a better quality product. But, I just wanted to make the point that, when it comes to business, patching *is* the right way to go, even though I don?t particularly like it. Nobody else seemed to see it, which is why I said something, that?s all. I?m still with everyone else when it comes to the "delay or patch? poll.

 

[CaitSeith]

Although ideally it should be ready to play from day one, and patching to be used just to fix some glitches that may have got pass QA; patching is being used just to deliver incomplete products, basically charging gamers full price for an early access AAA game. If that's how they want to use patching, I prefer they delay the game!

 

[Lilani]

People will complain either way, but in the long run a buggy release will hurt your game's reputation a lot more than a delayed release. And buggy releases make people wary of the quality of future games from the studio. With delayed releases, people might mock them when they set release dates, but they aren't going to avoid the product whenever it does come out for fear of low quality.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

What? I want to play NOW!! I don't care how it runs! I gotta play it now, and I wanna be the first guy ever!

Ok, seriously, I couldn't give a damn, but then I never buy games at launch anyway. And I have a massive backlog of games to play and replay, and the list keeps growing so no, I'm not too fussed about delays. Although I have quite a tolerance for bugs, I can't handle when they totally ruin the game.

Most Fallout games (ever since they went FPS) have been a horrendous mess for me, in unpatched form. And XCOM: Enemy Unknown. Those are the only real examples I can remember where I played a game to soon, and it actually got me stuck or broke the game and I was forced to restart or something similar. No more of that shit for me, thanks.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

Delay,I grew up on consoles and back in the PS2 and Older days you didn't have the option to for them if your game was buggy people would get upset & not buy it. Due to the fact that I collect games & hopefully my machines will be working at the time after the console is no longer supported I would wish to play the games & if they have bad glitches on the 1.0 versions it is likely I won't pick them up. As a few others in this thread have said a slight delay for quality is much better then a rush to release patches just to make some games playable. I don't know what it is with devs these days but they seem so intent on rushing out their products while at the same time not considering that some of their player base at least for consoles doesn't have an internet connection for patching, I have about 3 friends in this boat & I myself remember the great PSN blackout which if I had gotten a buggy game during that time I would have been unable to patch it. If devs want to keep receiving pre-orders (which for the record I don't think pre-ordering a game is a good idea unless it is either a collector edition of a game you really want or a game you will by no matter how buggy or terrible it is) they need to be more willing to send out a well crafted working product to the consumer on day one.

 

[RavingSturm]

Isnt the mail order rule part of the reason companies ship the product regardless of its readiness as far as pre-orders are concerned?