Half-Life 2: Aftermath Delayed 29
exdeath writes "Halflife2.net announced that Valve's follow-up to last years acclaimed shooter Half-Life 2 will not be releasing in November 2005 as originally planned. From the post: 'Just wanted to give you a quick update on Aftermath, specifically its ETA. We're working very hard to finish this new episode for HL2, however, its going to take us a bit more time to get it into top shape. As such, the target release for this one is now Feb/March of next year.'" Confirmed by Valve. Ensaddening.
Well damn. (Score:2, Informative)
Fuckin A it is. I have to say, I'm not surprised. But you know what? Half-Life 2 was well worth the wait. In fact I felt that it was at least two years ahead of its time, a bargain for 2004. I know Aftermath will not just be an expansion pack, and will dig deeper in the story line just like Blue-Shift did to the first episode.
Its also hard to be upset at Valve since they are promising me de_nuke and a few new models for CS:Source this month.
Re:Amazing. Game developer's that still give dates (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Amazing. Game developers that still give dates (Score:4, Informative)
I've been puking so long I'm starting to like it
Sorry man, but developers -- for all their artistic vision -- have very real budgets to keep. And, this may come as a surprise, but even in a speculative venture like a PC game, you can get a pretty decent estimate of how long it takes to develop something.
Why, then, is stuff perpetually late, or rushed to market?
Well, first, most titles aren't late or rushed. Most of them are on time and on budget. And most of them, most people wouldn't want to play. But they generate a steady budget. The others? Well, sure they're pushing the envelope. Why? Because they have a bunch of nuts at the helm who don't necessarily care about business. What happens when you pair those nuts with a distribution model? Bad things. Really bad things.
What do I mean?
Hell, when I set down to make something, I'm excited. I write the damn code, and it's fun and interesting. Then it's written. And I show it off, and folks want changes to the UI, or additional functionality, no matter how much of a pain in the ass. So I do that. Then I get the damn thing full of their functionality, and guess what? It's time to test it. And develop the game content to use the little engine, and test that. And mysteriously, the time from getting the idea to writing the initial draft of the code is pretty damn short. And to get myself through those dark hours, I convince myself that it's gonna work fine the first time, yeah sure.
But too many folks out there actually believe it will. Crap, man, I see so many otherwise respectable game companies issue "coming soon" or "imminent" release notices on software they obviously haven't even gotten to beta stage. Yet anyone with a brain schedules beta to last 3x longer than alpha.
You can predict how long a dev cycle will take, even with new hardware and questionable vendor support -- we now have several such generations of data available. And if you're in doubt, remember Scotty's advice from his TNG appearance.
So sure, give a date, and put it way down the road. Get funding till then and everything's good; better yet, only give a date to those who are funding you, and get plenty of funding. Only declare a release date when you've inked the deals with the distributors. Really, "buzz" and "viral marketing" is one thing; "letting my community manager feel cool" is entirely something else. Learn the difference.
But run your company so that you need to hit "miracle-coder" dates, and each project could sink you, and you won't be around for long.
I'm amazed how many clods out there don't follow these basic rules.
(scratches head, returns to fixing up the "trial balloon" he floated and the suits sold as a complete product to deliver in two months) errr... nevermind