Delays Hurt Video Game Business 352
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.'"
hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a temporary trend. (Score:0, Insightful)
Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
What about old gamers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Big business. No problem. Move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Good point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)
HL2 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
IMO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What they should do... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Price? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, though. I'm all for the demo models of games. Give me a level or so, and if it's good, there's a good chance I'll buy the game. Don't expect me to shell out $50 for something, sight unseen, and then be happy about it when it sucks.
Marketing is the real problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Slashgaming, on the frontlines (Score:5, Insightful)
NEWS FLASH!!!
EXCESSIVE DELAYS HURT ANY INDUSTRY!!!
Please move along, nothing to news here.
Story and gameplay vs visuals (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, the thing that pisses me off about the game release delays is the the developers are 'debugging'. I think that's bull.
How many games don't release a service pack/update/bugfix within a couple of months of the game release anyway?
Again with the stereotyping (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:What about old gamers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not just games (Score:5, Insightful)
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:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Message to marketroids: Complex software takes time. It's fucking ready when it's fucking ready - deal with it.
Delays can be a "good thing" (Score:3, Insightful)
For example: Let's look at a case where the title released "on time" but sucked ass. The definitive example of this was Ultima 9. This was supposed to be Richard Garriot's 'swan song' for the Ultima series. The final chapter in a very successful and much loved 20 year old franchise. Immense pressure from the EA suits forced Garriot (against his pleas) to make sure U9 "shipped by Christmas". It met the delivery date expectation: at the expense of the consumer's expectations. The game was virtually unplayable. Bugs ranging from annoyances to full blown "quest killers" were rampant. Add that to the fact that you'd need a fully "state of the art" (+$2500) system to even load the thing. U9 entered the marked at $60 dollars. I never even saw it hit the $9.95 rack. It just disappeared.
Now for a company that consistantly delivers late, we need look no farther than Blizzard. Starcraft, Diablo (1 & 2), Warcraft 3 were all "vapor" for many moons. They also rank as the most successful titles in PC gaming history, with longevity and replay value that is unsurpassed. WC3 is nearly three years old, and it still sells for $40+. Diablo 2 debuted in 2000, and was on the top 10 seller list no later than 6 months ago.
As a consumer, I'm not going to spend my $50 on crap or a mediocre product. If I'm curious about a game, I'll wait till it hit's the $10 rack anyway (about 4-6 months after the release date - gotta love the irony). But if it's a hot title from a company with a record for Quality out of the box, not after "patch1.4", I'll drop the $50.
the id software model (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What they should do... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
In a couple of years.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And this wasn't a problem before? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just games (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:UT2004 (Score:2, Insightful)
After playing the demo, I am seriously doubting if I should be buying a game that could as well be made as a Mod for UT2003.
And yes, of course UT2003 had alot of revamped stuff out of UT, but in the end the whole new look of the engine gave it a totally new feel : Now I just don't know if it's gonna be worth my precious money once the big games are about to release (Doom3 and HL2)
Re:I don't know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Marketing is the real problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me on this one.
Re:They can't win (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duke Nukem' Forever! (Score:3, Insightful)
Even when it would have been released 2 years ago it would've sucked donkey balls.
There is too much WRONG with that game to list, even though it would be technologically ok on the original release date.
Re:Big business. No problem. Move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said that, 100,000 hours is a little over 11 man years so it's probably more a case of using silly units to make a project appear more impressive here.
Stop crapping on developers (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hurts more than the gaming industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Bass-ackwards. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not just games (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this relate to business? Well, IANAM/MP (music/movie producer), but my feeling is that they have a pretty good idea of how long it takes to go from conception to packed theaters (and if not they have a clever tactic called "Coming Soon"). Same with music.
Don't get me wrong, I love good music (I lean to folk, indie rock), movies (Magnolia is up there), and games (good old WC3), but for a lot of the music and movies out there it's as scientific as anything else.
Re:Fallout (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:HL2 (Score:3, Insightful)
- great story
- great levels
- good playability
- never boring
The games with wonderful graphics are 5 a dozen, what is lacking lately is gameplay and HL1 had lots of it.
For the recards, HL1 was one of the most delayed game. When they had an almost final product, the team met and reviewed it objectively, reaching the conclusion than their game was a "me too!" game on the quake engine. They refused to release it, studied it, found what was good and built on it. The rest is history.
Doom3 follows the same syndrome. For the first time since doom2, ID will release a GAME, not just a 3D engine. The emphasis is on the 1st player game, with music, ambiance an story. Built with a next gen 3D engine, this is highly anticipated.
Games are often late, but the reason behind it can be very different. When a Blizzard game was late, we all assumed they were testing and balancing it, so that the final product is FUN.
Delays hurt any industry, bad products hurt too...
Then maybe marketing shouldn't preadvertize games? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about waiting until the games in in post production? Either advertize games in production with unspecified dates or dates so far in the future that you can gaurantee it. Then only as development completes do you reverse the estimete in a conservitive mannor.
Ship when done = Never ship (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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....
total disagreement from here. (Score:4, Insightful)
As I sit here, after just playing a bit of halo on my xbox, I'm thinking about how the release of halo 2 has been pushed back to fall of this year. It doesn't bother me so much, as long as the game itself is good. One could say that it would be better for bungie to release a half-cooked halo 2 now, in the hope of selling more units, but I think that if bungie wants to release one of those games that are pretty much immortal and that I'll remember for a long time (such as the first halo), then they should release it when it is properly finished.
Reminds of Diablo 2 being pushed back over a year from its initial release date. For that matter, most of blizzard's games get pushed back, but the proof is in the pudding, blizzard puts the finishing touches on the games, making them top notch, and hence they move huge volumes at the stores. Did any company ever make as huge a return by releasing a buggy, unfinished product?
What's the big rush anyways? There are so many games out at any given time, that are good and worthwhile to play, that it doesn't bug me for a second if a company decides to delay their game to make it a much more quality product. I'll pay for a quality product, I won't pay for something that was pushed out the door, simply because the game company needed to ship something.
As for duke nukem forever, I'll be interested to see what they will unleash on us after all that development time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a much cooler game than we all imagine it will be. But, that's for time to tell.
Delays (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not just games (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, you need to forcast realistically. In gaming, there is really no execuse for a marketer to draw a line in the sand and say that a product is irrelevant after a certain date. If it is a good game, it will do fine. The importance of forcasting the release date is so that you can coordinate other parts of the product release. So, my thinking is that you want to use normal software "good forcasting" practices to make sure you hit the date you pick. That starts with picking a realistic date - not letting it be dictated by marketing.
Re:The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
First and most obvious is the "down payment" which is usually $5 and gets discounted when you pay the full price when the game is released, not a discount since you end up paying a full $40/50 at the end either way.
Second they will try to throw in a free item (EBGames gave you a free GBA-to-GC connector if you pre-ordered FF:Crystal Chronicals), neat and in some cases helpful, but for singleplayer gamers thats just a useless plug since the GBA-to-GC aspect is only for the multiplayer; thats one extra plug you don't need laying around.
Third the trade-in method. If you trade in X games you get Y game for free when its released (very common since they rip you off when they sell/buy used games). This is a fairly obvious and self-explanatory point.
Blame the media (Score:2, Insightful)
Did they hype up coming products ever? They published tips, level guides, cheat codes, etc. They wrote articles about games you could buy and encouraged people to go buy games.
They also didn't have enough of that game in stock so you hopefully would buy another and come back later to get the one you wanted, but, hey, that's a monopoly.
Instead of talking about games you can't buy for a long time the focus needs to be more on games you can buy right now. Before a game comes out you read months of previews. Then one month of reviews and that's it, it's on to hyping another game.
The game industry is often compared to the movie industry. Sure, you can read a bit about a movie coming out with xxx staring in it once in a while, but 95% of people who go see a movie don't see hype about it a year before it comes out. They pretty much don't even learn about it until a couple weeks or one month before it comes out. In the game industry most people know about games long before they are close to coming out.
Well Tough! (Score:4, Insightful)
Some games have plot (and in exceptional cases about as good as your average fantasy book). Why shouldn't they be able to delay? Some (though not all) of the books we still read as great literature were edited and rescripted for 20 years. Screw cash flow and give me quality!
Re:The Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You'd be suprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Replay value. Often, I'll play through the game on 'easy' then work my way up through the levels of difficulty (good way to find easter eggs/etc), its also a good way to catch stuff you miss the first time around.
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.
Actually, it's far from bullshit. Recently I downloaded Call of Duty, played it through, and liked it to much I went out and bought a copy, because it was worth the money. The same thing I did with Battlefield 1942, UT2003, UT, Quake 3 Arena, C&C Generals, and Half-Life (and hopefully Half-Life 2 sometime soon!) All of these games impressed me enough that I decided that they were worth the $40-$50, and went out and actually paid for a legit copy.
The reason I usually download, play, then buy is because I once made the mistake of falling for the hype behind Black & White. I read the glowing reviews, interviews, etc; and ran off to the store to shell out $50 of my hard-earned money ($50 is a lot when you're a highschool student with a fast-food job). I installed the game, played it for a bit, and realized that it completely failed to deliver. $50 down the drain. Never again, I vowed. So now I download first, and the software developers can prove to me that their game is worth my money. Yes, when I download a game that have no intention of paying for, it is stealing. I don't deny that. But more often than not, if its good, I'll buy a legit copy.