Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Delays Hurt Video Game Business

Posted by michael on Fri Feb 13, 2004 06:33 PM
from the whooshing-noise-as-deadlines-fly-by dept.
George Bailey writes "Wired.com has an article (No Room for Slacking in Game Biz) dicussing the damage game developers cause themselves via delays in releasing games to market. To quote from the article: 'As the games become more complex and sophisticated, less of them seem to meet release dates that companies initially tout. A few years ago, the fallout was usually just disappointment among fans. But as the video-game industry matures and surpasses Hollywood in size, more is at stake -- like marketing campaigns delayed and intricate positioning against competitors disrupted. What's more, missing a promised release date can bleed buzz, precious in an industry where many young buyers have to take the time to squirrel away $50 for a typical purchase.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fjordboy (169716) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:34PM (#8275415) Homepage
    I take it a step further - ignore the game release dates altogether and buy them after they've been out for a month - the previously priced 50$ video game is now $10.
    • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:55PM (#8275601)
      Exactly. This is such a 'woe is me' article. Damn companies are now begging. Sickening. Fucking marketing people are out of control.

      Message to marketroids: Complex software takes time. It's fucking ready when it's fucking ready - deal with it.

      • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

        by wideBlueSkies (618979) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:20PM (#8275800) Journal
        >>It's fucking ready when it's fucking ready - deal with it.

        Which is what the guys from 3D Realms keep saying.

        wbs.
      • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by deacon (40533) on Friday February 13 2004, @08:19PM (#8276229) Journal
        Hey, have you ever shipped a product?

        There is an old cliche, "It is time to shoot the engineers and move into production:

        And yes, I AM AN Engineer, and like all engineers, I have the same tendency:---->

        Fact of life: Many engineers, given the chance, will keep polishing the helmet because there is another speck of dust on it.

        Real world fact: No product is ever perfect to every customer, and there comes a time when you have to stop farking around, finish up, and ship the product!

        The alternative is to bankrupt the company, throw everyone out one the street, screw the shareholders and people who have given you credit to buy all your equipment, and start over!

        And while we are at it, let us look at this timeline:

        1400s: Astromony is too hard and takes time, plus the earth is the center of the universe.

        1800s: The sun is the center of our solar system. Germs are a figment of your imagination, plus medicine is so hard.

        2000s: Of course germs exsist, and with the proper percautions and drugs, are not a problem. Software is so hard. It will be done when it's ready.

        2300s: We have the methodology to write bug free software on time and under budget. But those matter-antimatter transporters are so hard...

        • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Photon Ghoul (14932) on Friday February 13 2004, @10:04PM (#8276860)
          You don't play games do you? The real world fact is that I'm tired of shelling out $50 for an unreturnable product that isn't finished. Yes, some bugs are to be expected but have you ever played a $50 game that is completely broken? The game industry has a lot of problems and unrealistic release dates from publishers is one of the worst.
            • Re:The Thing (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Dylan2000 (592069) on Saturday February 14 2004, @05:20AM (#8278628) Homepage
              You try before you buy but you had already played right through to the end and still hadn't decided whether you were ready to pay for it or not?

              Maybe I'm dumb but what on earth would have motivated you to go to the store and buy the game after you'd already completed it?

              I've heard this argument again and again that 'if it's really good I'll buy a copy just to put on the shelf to reward the developers.'. It's bullshit. Once in a blue moon I believe you might do that for a very special game but the prospect of paying $50 for something which you won't use makes a game's chances of getting onto that shelf, well... let's just say slim. The fact that you played the game through to the end, then found a bug and said

              Patch or no, failing to catch bugs like that is simply unacceptable. I pay for games that are worth my money.

              suggests to me that you were never serious about buying it. Even though you extracted its full purchase value from it. That's not try before buy that's just getting the game for free. I'm not judging you for that - I couldn't give a crap - but don't lie to yourself and especially don't lie to me.
    • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:07PM (#8275701)
      I take it a step further - ignore the game release dates altogether and buy them after they've been out for a month - the previously priced 50$ video game is now $10.

      You're so right : I've just bought Xenon II for the Atari ST (excellent gameplay under the STonX emulator) and they actually payed me to buy it!
    • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edwdig (47888) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:19PM (#8275789) Homepage
      That's only true for PC games. Console games tend to take 6-12 months to be reduced in price. Games that totally bomb might get reduced in price sooner, whereas games that did really well will take forever to come down in price (notice how it took about 2 years for Halo to drop in price).

      Unless you're planning on waiting a long time to get the game, you're better off buying it right away, as there's a decent number of stores that will give you a discount for preordering, or will sell it at a cheaper price for the first few days.
        • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by frankthechicken (607647) on Friday February 13 2004, @08:57PM (#8276488) Journal
          It's a salient point, the cost of developing a game is insanely high, probably as much as the cost of developing a movie ten to twenty years ago, yet the games industry cannot rely on replica t-shirts, dolls, posters, cinema tickets for their income. Instead they purely rely on the sales of the DVD(to continue the anology, though admittedly at 3-4 times the price). It seems to me, either the gaming industry is missing a trick(i.e merchandising), or the games industry is not mature enough to be able to make the merchandising sell.

          Which begs the question, is the industry not mature enough to manufacture these sales, or are the games themselves not mature enough?
  • by chill (34294) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:34PM (#8275419) Journal
    You mean people aren't holding their breath waiting for DNF to get released? The YEARS of delays have damaged the possibility of sales? Gasp! Say it isn't so!

    -Charles
    • by n0nsensical (633430) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:44PM (#8275504)
      I'm beginning to think Duke Nukem Forever was just one big joke from the start. There is no game development company 3D Realms. It's 2 guys with a website seeing how long they can fool the world into thinking they're actually working on a game, and how many vaporware awards they can win.
    • by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday February 13 2004, @06:44PM (#8275509) Homepage Journal
      You mean people aren't holding their breath waiting for DNF to get released? The YEARS of delays have damaged the possibility of sales? Gasp! Say it isn't so!

      One problem is, missing the strike while the iron is hot. Duke Nukem was hot, now it's cool, now it's cold, and finally it's a dead fish on your doorstep and you wonder where it came from, now that you've moved on.

      There was some game, back in the day, I waited for eagerly on the Amiga. It looked like the be-all, end-all RPG and I wanted it so bad I'd scream in frustration each time I heard it was futher delayed (for quality control, etc.) Well, eventually I gave up. I don't know if it ever came out. I was onto something else.. NetHack, IIRC

    • by Alan (347) <arcterex@@@ufies...org> on Friday February 13 2004, @06:51PM (#8275576) Homepage
      Probably not :)

      People are waiting for Half Life 2 and Doom 3 to be released however. A good example of the 'late release == sucky game' can be seen in Daikatana. When it was released it was a very advanced game..... for two years ago (or whenever their original ship date was). Sadly they released it in the present, not the past, and therefor it sucked donkey balls.

      Hopefully Doom3 and HL2 get put out RSN and aren't subjected to the same fate.
    • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:58PM (#8275629) Homepage
      Dr. Obvious says: games that are in shops make more money than games that aren't.
  • Derek Smart (Score:4, Funny)

    by xeeno (313431) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:34PM (#8275420) Homepage
    Need I say more?
  • Not just games (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Friday February 13 2004, @06:35PM (#8275425) Homepage Journal
    Look, delays hurt *all* kinds of businesses. This is why most companies who know what they are doing do not comment on future products, and some (like Apple) go to great lengths to keep folks from knowing about projects in the works. Other companies who are less capable try and build enthusiasm by pre-announcing products to say, "Hey, look how cool we are".

    • Re:Not just games (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bamafan77 (565893) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:54PM (#8275595)
      Look, delays hurt *all* kinds of businesses. This is why most companies who know what they are doing do not comment on future products, and some (like Apple) go to great lengths to keep folks from knowing about projects in the works. Other companies who are less capable try and build enthusiasm by pre-announcing products to say, "Hey, look how cool we are".

      While what you say is true, it doesn't take into account other realistic scenarios. This isn't so much about fan disappointment from overzealous announcements, as about dealing with sensitive timing when it comes to outside collaborations with non-gaming companies(movie, toys, mags, etc). Tons of money is tied up into these collaborative schedules and unfortunately, game development (or software dev in general) isn't as condusive to predictive scheduling as other areas.

      Saying "No comment" or "It'll ship when it's done" is a lame-sounding option when partner companies have money tied up in your success too.
    • Re:Not just games (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dukael_Mikakis (686324) <andrewfoerster@NosPAM.gmail.com> on Friday February 13 2004, @07:07PM (#8275700)
      Yes, file this under "duh".

      Of course it seems obvious to anybody ("delays hurt business? You mean if we don't have a product we won't have sales? You mean baseless hype irritates people? Well there goes our business model."). It's just especially noticeable in video games because they are notorious for delays (and have previously gotten away with them). For whatever reason it seems to me that movies and music generally come out on time, or are delayed well in advance.

      I was skeptical about video games being a bigger industry now, but it's true that video game sale [cnn.com] did surpass box office sales [boxofficemojo.com] in 2003 (interestingly, the CNN article also discusses video game delays). It feels like it's the result of the industry advancing too quickly and not knowing the general timeline for releases, or what they can expect to accomplish.

      Too often you hear about games trying to include/do too much or use technology that is too advanced. With music, for example, they know they're looking for 60 minutes (even 40 minutes these days?) of produced, committee-written whatever, a warm, silicone body to sing it and move it out the door. Gold album.

      For my money, wired is a fun interesting source for gadgets and stuff, but it's too sensationalist technology. It feels to me like it treats tech still as some miracle or black-box that is to be possessed but not truly known. It is just like wired to treat this like some groundbreaking news when video games and technology are, at heart, just like any other industry. Not a flame or a troll, just my thoughts.
  • The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 13 2004, @06:35PM (#8275427)
    The real problem is companies that delay games... and the finished product is still buggy or just plain sucks. Some game companies have earned the right to delay a game to ensure quality, and game buyers/players expect that. If Blizzard says they need more time, then we're willing to give it to them.
      • by Behrooz (302401) on Friday February 13 2004, @09:55PM (#8276800)
        Blizzard doesn't owe you or me anything

        A more complete statement would be that Blizzard doesn't owe you or me, or their publisher, any money, and hence can take as long as they need to to ensure that their game is actually finished when they release it.

        Financial pressure is the real reason for most optimistic release dates, and the insane pressure of creating an up-to-date working awesome game on the schedules alloted to the dev teams is the reason that many games do not meet those optimistic release dates.

        Consider the statement "If we don't go gold by November our publisher is going to stop paying our operating costs and we're all going to be out of a job." and you have some idea why some games are released when they are.
  • Fallout (Score:5, Funny)

    by centauri (217890) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:36PM (#8275429) Homepage
    fallout was usually just disappointment among fans

    No way, the first Fallout was great! The second one was way too buggy, though, and I'm not just talking about the ants and the radscorpions.
  • Come on... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bendebecker (633126) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:36PM (#8275434) Journal
    This story has got Dukenukem Forever written all over it. One can learn all the things listed in the article just by reviewing its developemental history. Throw in an analysis of Daikatana ad you've mastered the issue.
  • Price? (Score:5, Insightful)

    >What's more, missing a promised release date can bleed buzz, precious in an industry where many young buyers have to take the time to squirrel away $50 for a typical purchase.

    Sounds to me like it wouldn't be a problem if the price weren't something they'd have to "take the time to squirrel away".
  • by KingOfBLASH (620432) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:38PM (#8275452) Journal
    What's more, missing a promised release date can bleed buzz, precious in an industry where many young buyers have to take the time to squirrel away $50 for a typical purchase.'"

    I really wonder if this will be true 20 years from now when gamers like me who grew up playing games and have pay checks to buy what we want become a larger portion of the people who buy video games then teens. Of course, teens have much more time to play video games then people with jobs do, so perhaps this will never be true. I do hate playing MMORPGs -- not because I don't enjoy them, but because I can't compete with a 15 year old who can play the game 8 hours a day!

    • by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday February 13 2004, @06:52PM (#8275580) Homepage Journal
      I really wonder if this will be true 20 years from now when gamers like me who grew up playing games and have pay checks to buy what we want become a larger portion of the people who buy video games then teens.

      You won't. Take my word for it. You'll spend the money on rent, toys (like bikes, telescopes, computers), tickets, golf, golf, big screen TV, sports car and dozens of other things. And despite the fact that you're reading this, you might even hook up with a woman and that'll be the end of your disposable income.

    • by Rallion (711805) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:05PM (#8275684) Journal
      I can't compete with a 15 year old who can play the game 8 hours a day!

      Buddy, your problem is that you've somehow come to believe that 8 hours a day is a lot.

      Why sleep when you have so much item-hunting to do?
  • I disagree. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by monstroyer (748389) * <devnull@slashdot.org> on Friday February 13 2004, @06:39PM (#8275462) Homepage Journal
    I think it helps the game industry. By creating so much undelivered hype and anticipation the frustrated gamer will lose patience and buy another game. The only undelivered games people tend to care about are ones that have a previous track record. Doom for example is anticipated because of the first Doom. By not delivering Doom on time, the young gamer will try something else and give 'new blood' a chance.
  • by Space cowboy (13680) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:41PM (#8275474) Journal
    The games companies aren't ickle teenagers in their bedrooms any more... I've just had 'Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance 2' (fantastic game, btw) which has a splash screen saying that over 100,000 man-hours were spent on the game...

    You have a release plan, you have a risk assessment, you have risk management. It's not a one-day's-brainstorming which ends up with 'ok, next Christmas then...'.

    The larger games companies are starting to seriously challenge the film industry for revenue, sometimes you get the film of the game (Tombraider) but most of the time you get the game of the film (everything else) - that should indicate where the power distribution lies; but it is dynamic, and a lot of effort will be put into maximising return on the large investment. Just like films. Big expenditure brings big risks and big rewards. Just like films...

    Simon.
      • by miu (626917) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:02PM (#8275660) Homepage Journal
        Sure thing, and this can be applied to things other than software development. I hear the South Koreans have a new system where 9 women can bring a baby to term in a month.

        North Korea is reputedly working on a way to have 100 men dig a hole 100 feet deep in 1 minute.

  • Good point (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 13 2004, @06:41PM (#8275477)
    The poster alluded to this, but not enough. Announcing the product before it ships is very important for the people who are deciding between buying a product now and waiting for a better product in the near future. The announcement of the game is saying "Hey, look how cool this is going to be. It beats all other games on the market now, so save up your money and use it for this instead of the instant gratification that won't last as long"

    The speculation and occasional leaks of information are vital towards feeding the anticipation of the game, and in many cases even surpass the actual quality of the game once it is released.

    If a company decided to not advertise a game until its release, I guarantee it will not meet with the same success that an eagerly anticipated game will see.
  • My response to this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SandSpider (60727) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:42PM (#8275481) Homepage Journal
    I sent a response to the Author and the Editors of wired.com. Hopefully it'll show up in the rants tomorrow, but...

    ------
    "The process starts when a producer conceives of a project and then goes through an internal sales process that can include being wildly optimistic about budgets and schedules, [Gifford] Calenda said."

    This is an interesting view, and yes, it certainly happens from time to time. However, as a former producer myself, I often find that I will present a reasonably budget, schedule, and feature list, only to see upper management tell me that the feature list is perfect, the budget is far too high, and the game needs to be done in half the time.

    Producers usually don't want their games to fail. There's very rarely an incentive on the producer's side to cut the development time, unless the producer is bad at making schedules (not uncommon) or the game is tied to a particular release date. However, most games being released are not tied to a release date such as a movie or sporting event.

    Upper management, or the publisher, if you're an independent developer, is significantly more likely to have a reason to cut the time and budget. Usually it's a) so the game doesn't cost as much; and b) so it gets out sooner, therefore generating sales revenue in a particular fiscal year. You can see why there will be pressure from management to either present a schedule that is unrealistic, or to cut a realistic schedule away from reality. Naturally, additional budget money is hard to get, and features could never be dropped, and those are really the only other ways of cutting the development time.

    I will grant you that, to a point, reducing development time and slashing budgets is a perfectly acceptable way to behave. It would be poor management that simply accepted a producer's word at every turn, because then the producers might take advantage of the unwary eye of management. However, management needs to listen to the producers if they tell them that a particular project is 'unlikely' or 'impossible'. If the people in charge of making decisions tell the project team to go ahead with the hobbled schedule and budget, then the project will likely slip.

    The worst part is when the development team has to take shortcuts to get the project out on time which result in more QA time at the end of the project. The ironic part is when the projects slips to meet the original schedule, but you had to do it the hard way, with lots of bug fixing and messy code.

    I hope this is a trend that goes away sometime soon in game development. The three worst habits in the Game Industry are poor scheduling, mandatory overtime, and laying off the project team or studio when the game is finished, and usually those three go hand-in-hand. It's a shame when the producers are solely blamed for the process, when it is terribly unlikely that they are the primary cause.
    ------

    =Brian
  • I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 (687974) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:42PM (#8275487) Homepage
    Delaying game releases seem to work well for Blizzard. Of course their games are always backwards in terms of technology but their story and gameplay are excellent. Maybe we should worry less about sophistication and technology and more about the non-visual aspects of the story? Then again, their FMVs are excellent, same with SquareSoft's. An interesting story with nice FMVs as reward for completing each stage seem to be the common theme here.
    • Re:I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bendebecker (633126) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:07PM (#8275699) Journal
      The problem with squaresoft is that lately it looks like you'll end up with a 10 minute cutscreen every two minutes. Theirs a point where you have to distinguish between a game with movies in between and a movie with a game in between. Getting back to the orginal idea, Blizzard does alright becuase they worry about the story and gameplay over the graphics, just a little too much though. Squaresoft is on the opposite side, they lean towards the movies just a little too much. But both are close to the sweet spot called 'balance'.
  • HL2 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bozyo25 (242110) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:42PM (#8275493)
    Had Half-Life 2 been released about 6 months ago when it was planned for, I know lots of people who had intended to buy it... and these are even people who never buy anything, since downloading games is so easy.
    HL2's graphics would have been so very advanced had it not been delayed repeatedly, but by now it won't really have much advantage over other games' graphics by the time it comes out this summer. I expect it'll still be a great game, with pretty exceptional graphics, but a lot more people were excited by it before.
  • by danaan (728990) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:43PM (#8275500) Homepage
    While it's true that delays in shipping a title can hurt sales and alienate potential customers, I think what it really comes down to is a company keeping its promises, and the way it communicates with those customers. NeverwinterNights is the perfect example. Not only did they fail to deliver on time or as promised, they waited until the very last moment to give any explanation to customers, and even those explanations didn't make sense. They had to have known they weren't going to be able to produce way in advance.

    You simply can't treat customers that way. Disney (despite it's current troubles) has made a mint on underpromising and over-delivering, and game companies need to start to take notice that they don't operate under a seperate rule system from the rest of their entertainment competition.

    The culture of game development has a great deal wrong with it, and missing deadlines is really only the tip of the iceberg.
  • by deanj (519759) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:44PM (#8275511)
    You know, if marketing would just STFU until there was a good solid date for a game, and not one that they pulled out of thin air, there wouldn't be nearly the number of problems there are.

    Sure, there are engineering slips, but the majority of those are because marketing (or worse, engineering management) gave the CEO a date he WANTED to hear, not the date he NEEDED to hear.

    Engineering slips because the date was unrealistic, marketing points the finger, and never gets the blame.
    • by pudding7 (584715) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:22PM (#8275813)
      Marketing doesn't make up the date. The date is provided to them by the developer. In most cases, the marketing team is far removed from the development team and in many cases they don't work for the same company.

      Trust me on this one.
  • by Mulletproof (513805) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:46PM (#8275527) Homepage Journal
    "Delays Hurt Video Game Business"

    NEWS FLASH!!!
    EXCESSIVE DELAYS HURT ANY INDUSTRY!!!
    Please move along, nothing to news here.
  • by kevin_conaway (585204) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:46PM (#8275534) Homepage
    Companies should develop a solid storyline and some good gameplay characteristics before announcing a game. Id rather have a fun game that doesnt require the latest and greatest than one that has all full motion video but no real substance. Hell i still play Quake 1/2 and Duke3d. Those games have stories and they are fun to play!
  • by faust2097 (137829) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:50PM (#8275570) Homepage
    an industry where many young buyers have to take the time to squirrel away $50 for a typical purchase.

    Haven't we already seen tons of consumer data that shows that almost all money spent on games is by people over the age of 25? And aren't both Half-Life 2 and Duke Nukem Forever going to be rated M?
  • by Rick Richardson (87058) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:43PM (#8275944) Homepage
    I should state up front that I'm not interested and have never been interested in any of the sports or first person shooter games. So right off the bat I'm in the minority, and my opinion is suspect.

    My two big beefs with console video games are:

    1) Not milking the platform for all its worth. I loved all the Mario and Zelda games. But I will never understand why Nintendo doesn't create new variations of those games, with new puzzles, but using the same world.

    2) Console wars. These game manufacturers are in a race to create the next console. But why? I don't want to buy a new console. I want to buy more *GOOD* games for the consoles I already have. Games are not starved for technology. They are starved for creativity.

    -Rick
  • by Arch-out (710539) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:48PM (#8275980) Homepage
    I don't know about the rest of you, but I had planed to buy HL2 and then upgrade my hardware to run it if I had to. So no HL2 no new hardware. I dont think I am the only one that does this, and it would hurt the hardware people as well.
  • Bass-ackwards. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mbourgon (186257) on Friday February 13 2004, @08:06PM (#8276129) Homepage
    The delays don't kill a game. A bad game, released early, will still not sell. A good game, released late, will still sell. While a good game can become bad if forced to release early (*cough* Temple of Elemental Evil *cough*), I'd rather have the delay and have a completed game.

    The real problem is the hyping of games. They're hyping games that won't be out for over a year. I'm constantly surprised by games that just came out (I thought Chrome came out months ago, based on the hype back then). I suspect other people are, too.
  • by sakshale (598643) on Friday February 13 2004, @08:22PM (#8276252) Homepage Journal
    URU online* was just killed (laggy, unscalable design), SWG is trying to pull back all those who tried it and quit (great engine, no content), and I bailed FFIX (great content, poor user interface).

    Getting it out the door in a non-playable state is worse than getting it out late. Players will put up with some level of problems when a new on-line game is released. However, it there is not drastic improvement in the first month, they are gone for good.

    Harvest started out shaky, but there has been so many positive changes that many are still hanging on.

    The real problem is lack of communication with the customer base. Talk to us and we are very forgiving. Lie to us and we'll tell the world. (Or as least /. :)

    * This one was wierd - They released the game CD's while the on-line version was still in Beta! Only, they never called it a Beta, the called it a "Prelude"! 30 player limit per server, expanded to 35! Would that be called a MicroMulti-Player Online Game?
  • by wowbagger (69688) on Friday February 13 2004, @08:32PM (#8276334) Homepage Journal
    "Sometimes you have to shoot the enginner and ship the product."

    Back off that flamebait, friend - I *AM* the engineer.

    If you adopt a "We will ship this when it is done" then it never will be done, for a variety of reasons:
    1. The engineer will always think up some cool new feature, and absent any motivation not to, put it into the product. It takes YEARS of experience to learn the self-control to not do this (hell, I have decades of experience and I still succumb to that temptation on occasion.)
    2. The marketing guys will always think up some cool new feature, and absent any motivation not to, pester the engineer to put it in.
    3. The Q/A guys will say "I won't waste my time looking at anything that is not at least a release candidate." If the engineer releases an RC, absent any firm schedule, the Q/A guys will blow it off and not test it.
    4. When the Q/A guys finally do get bored enough to look at the code, they WILL find bugs, so there will always be one more bug to fix, and absent any motivation not to, the engineer will fix the bug in the current codebase - thus generating a new version that must go through Q/A (see above).


    Sometimes having a firm deadline is a wonderfully focusing motivator - the engineer will say "This is a cool idea - I will save it for AFTER the release", the marketing guys will say "Well, the customers want this really cool feature, but the return on investment isn't enough to jepordize the ship date, so we'll put it in later", the Q/A guys say "We'd better check this NOW, so any problems can get fixed before release data", and you actually make progress.

    Of course, when the deadlines are not set with the buy-in of the engineers, the marketing people, and upper management, but rather are set for some highly arbitrary date....
  • by Tim Browse (9263) on Saturday February 14 2004, @06:41AM (#8278813)
    "A good game is only late until it ships. A bad game sucks forever."

    Or, to quote Sid Meier:

    "Great game. On time. Pick one."

    Being a games developer myself, one thing that winds me up is hearing the poor quality of games being blamed on 'lazy developers'. Now, it's true that many games developers may not have the best engineering skills in the world, or be any good at planning/project management, but trust me, having seen so many people work late nights/weekends for long stretches of time, the problem is not that they are 'lazy', or that they don't care about the quality of the product. Lay that particular blame at the doors of other people, where it rightfully belongs.

    As for dates - that usually comes down to publishers, rather than developers, as has been pointed out. The publishers push for a date related to their selling peaks (i.e. Thanksgiving), and usually refuse to consider any other date, even though they'll be going up against almost every other game that is released that year. Developers are pretty much powerless to prevent this - unless you're Valve or Bungie or Blizzard, then the publishers have all the money, and they dictate the terms. (Speaking personally, I loved the fact that when Valve demo'd Half-Life 2 at E3 and blew everyone away, they responded to questions about publishers with "We don't have a publisher yet." Unless you've worked in game development, you've probably no idea how good it felt to hear that.)

    Publishers also need stuff to give their marketing [guyswithtowels.com] guys to take around and show buyers to build interest in the game. This usually comes in the form of some shoddy demo/progress build that the developers are harrassed into producing. The same goes for game demos - ever wonder why most game demos don't actually seem to do a good job of demo'ing the game, and have lots of problems that 'will be fixed in the final game'? It's because the publishers demand a demo before the game is finished.

    On a game I worked on previously, we tried to avoid building up lots of hype for the game when it wasn't ready, and focussed on quality, because that's what we thought people would be interested in. Hell, no, the publisher didn't seem to care about that. They wanted screenshots, and they wanted them now! Never mind that the game wasn't even a game yet. The most important thing to them seemed to be when the profits would show up on their books. For example, they wouldn't accept a 3 month delay because then the income would slip through to the next financial year. I mean, the profits would be the same (actually, they would probably be significantly larger); they would just be appearing 3 months later. Now, I don't know much about accountancy/finance, but it seems to me that something somewhere is broken if that's how things are run. The best part was, in the trade mags, all we ever heard from games publishers was how developers were useless at business and couldn't see the bigger picture.

    If your focus is always on the next quarter's results, at the expense of everything else, I think that's a good way of not having a long term plan.

    • by katre (44238) on Friday February 13 2004, @06:43PM (#8275497)

      They should just skip using the calendar all together and set a release date of "when it is done". It would save so much pain and agony.

      Never heard of a little thing called marketing, have we? It takes time to build an ad campaign. It takes time to get ads in magazines, on billboards, in front of people. It takes time to get distributors to carry the game. Companies can't afford to develop a game, finish it, and then spend a few months convincing people they want to buy it. They need to have fans hungering for it as soon as its released: that's how you get huge sales numbers.

      • by Rallion (711805) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:03PM (#8275665) Journal
        Blizzard is a fine counter-example to this. They suffer from far more delays than most companies, but none of it ever gets bad buzz--because the release date just changes from 'kinda sorta soon' to 'approaching soon-ness' and they never need to explicitly say so. This allows them to carry out their 'release it when it's done' strategy and never get anybody upset.

        And it's impossible to say they fail to generate hype. WoW beta got 400,000 signups. And, come on, the start date for the beta hasn't even been decided on yet!
      • by ShadowBlasko (597519) on Friday February 13 2004, @07:38PM (#8275921) Homepage
        Theres once were some games called Duke Nukem,
        With lots of Blood, Gore, Guts, and Pukem.
        But the constant delays
        For infinite days,
        Made us all so damn mad we've rebuked em.

        (And just for the sadism's sake, as it is near Valentines day, I'll go ahead and shoot myself in the foot and post this logged in)