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.'"
Not just games (Score:5, Interesting)
What they should do... (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree. (Score:5, Interesting)
My response to this (Score:5, Interesting)
------
"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
It's All In What You Promise (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Duke Nukem' Forever! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Games with bugs... (Score:4, Interesting)
They can't win (Score:2, Interesting)
Having said that though, there are very few games I've waited for which have come out on time lately. So the companies should definitely learn. I for one have stopped paying attention to the calendar, if its not believable then its not worth having.
Abolish the release dates until closer to when you have a more finalised estimate available. Or be more conservative with the estimate, rather than hopeful. As a rule of thumb I add a quarter to the calendar when dates are announced, it would be a good idea if they insist on announcing dates early if they did this themselves. Failing to meet an over-optimistic release date, even if for good reasons which it typically is, makes the company look foolish and less reliable.
Re:Duke Nukem' Forever! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I disagree... (Score:2, Interesting)
Game developers are trying to release their games simultaneously on multiple game systems. I'm no developer, but could this not slow development of one game?
If you're writing a game, don't you have to port the game for the PC, the Xbox, the PS2 and the Dreamcast? If the release for the Xbox before the PS2, does Sony get pissed off?
I'm just wondering if it's a development thing, or a political thing...
I would rather wait for a good game (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets look at MegaMan X7, I love megaman, but this was rushed, and it sucked.
MegaMan Zero2, unrushed and wonderful.
Nintendo took their time on the Metriod games and they are wonderful to play.
Halo 2 keeps getting pushed back, but I rather wait a few months and love it then to have it early and be sorry I bought it.
Yeah delays suck, but I would rather have a delay then a crappy-ass game that was rushed to market.
Re:Broken (Score:3, Interesting)
Valve (Score:2, Interesting)
the bastards.
Im still waiting on the edge of my seat for hl2. Some of my pals just know it will be out any day now.
wel... (Score:2, Interesting)
Um not if it's from a good Developer.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Blizz "hay were making a game"
Kid "OMFG when is it going to be out? Is it out yet?"
Blizz "STFU you'll get it when it's done"
ID "Hay were making a game"
Kid "OMFG when is it going to be out? Is it out yet?"
ID "STFU you'll get it when it's done"
Neither of those companies will hurt for sales...they have a loyal fanbase, just the same as SE does with it's FF series...the good companies own our souls and we can't not give in to them.
OH wait this is slashdot so maybe your talking about those open source games that are announced and then never come out or are released in varying alpha and beta stages over a 6 year period and never finished...yeah I guess that would hurt your company.
Leaving Money on the Table (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Then they decided they could save $10-20 per box if they cut down the size of the packaging, and they would pass on the savings to the customers. Well, as far as I can tell the packaging size has gone down while the prices remain high.
I suggest the high prices of these games are what hurts them the most.
For on-line games - too early is too bad! (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
What If It Was Movies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which begs the question, is the industry not mature enough to manufacture these sales, or are the games themselves not mature enough?
Isn't that what patches are for? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do we live like it's only been 5 years? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is like saying "hey it doesn't snow as much anymore, not like when I was a kid". Yeah it does. You just have fuzzy memory.
Re:Duke Nukem' Forever! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, what are you smoking and can I have some please? Games don't just come from the US. A lot come from the UK, France, Germany, even Australian studios make games. Why on earth would the US to AU exchange rate be involved here? Australia has its own economy, is its own market and has its own market balance. Or are you saying that you believe Australia is a satellite state of the US and the $A should bounce up and down along with the $US? Check the box of your most recent game. It will say 'printed in Australia' and so will the CD. It's made in your country by your countrymen and priced for your market. Why should another country's currency have an effect on that?
If you were smart what you would do to take advantage of this favourable exchange rate is order 'made in USA' games from the USA over the net. Pay in $US which you bought with $A and you'll save $A20. Use your brain to solve your problem, not your mouth to complain about it.
And finally piracy is huge everywhere. Now please, don't bogart that blunt, pass it over here.
Well, as the man said... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, to quote Sid Meier:
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.
Wired Egos... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a little history of Wired. Back in the 60's there was a really cool magazine called Whole Earth Catalog. It was a large inch-thick newsprint magazine with sources for thousands of interesting environmental and alternate life-style gadgets. Unfortunately the magazine's success went to its two creators' heads and they started thinking of themselves as the source of cool, the definers of cool, and everyone else as uncool. When they had the planet-sized ego to actually re-name the Earth in one of their magazines I stopped reading it. Evidently so did a whole lot of others because they went out of business soon after we no longer lived on planet Earth. Maybe the Post Office couldn't figure out how to deliver to another planet.
The creators of Wired are the same people who created Whole Earth Catalog and they still have the same Gaia-sized egos. They've come a long way from compost spreaders to iPOD replacements, but they still see themselves as the definers of cool and everyone else as hopelessly uncool or backwards.
A few years ago I read my one and only Wired Magazine and thought "What egomaniacs write this thing!". I didn't find out until later that it was the same old WEC crowd. In Wired's favor at least it didn't try to re-name the Earth, but who could read green and pink type on a red background anyway?
Loss of Respect (Score:2, Interesting)
I for one don't like to buy a game on release day and then have to wait for days until they've patched it up to stable and playable.
After I paid $50 for the bug filled, completely unfinished, over-marketed piece of crap game that was 'Enter the Matrix', I'll be very leary of ever purchasing something from Shiny again.
Due to their deadline, they are now in the unfortunate position of having to re-earn my respect. Aka, no impulse or first day release buys of Shiny software. I'm sure the shareholders are happy about that.
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then they decided they could save $10-20 per box if they cut down the size of the packaging, and they would pass on the savings to the customers. Well, as far as I can tell the packaging size has gone down while the prices remain high.
The new smaller boxes actually had nothing to do with saving money on packaging and everything to do with WalMart saying "Do it, or we don't sell it".