# Delaying Games and Hardware - Beneficial or Harmful?



## Ryukouki (Oct 5, 2014)

​I think it's definitely been too long since one of these has popped up, but hopefully I'm able to kind of get back into the swing of things... While looking for a suitable topic for discussion, this idea popped up courtesy of another user, and I actually liked the idea of exploring this. Thinking about games and hardware that have been delayed, did they often end up better or worse for us? Is delaying a game a good thing, or a bad thing? And what about games that have been held in development for extremely long periods of time?​​[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​​I don't know about you guys, but I like my games to be polished and well done. For me, if it means that I have to wait another few months for them to release it, I have no problem so long as they deliver. It's like Miyamoto said: delaying something will eventually make it good, but rushing something out will make it bad.​​

​In a way, I see Miyamoto being a bit hypocritical here, as the Nintendo 3DS project felt a bit rushed, and while it did relatively well in terms of a sales point, it comes nowhere close to the Nintendo DS in terms of success. I feel like the Nintendo 3DS was too rushed, and didn't spend enough time in development. The 3D had a sweet spot to deal with. The system had an oddly placed analog stick, and the system felt like it had too many errors, something that could have been easily fixed had it spent more time in development. Sales were pretty mediocre for the console, to the point where the price had to be dropped to get more people interested in the console. Even now, with the future release of the New Nintendo 3DS, it feels like this is where Nintendo should have started with the 3DS. There wasn't a need for a 3DS XL and Nintendo 2DS. All it does is create way too much confusion for consumers. Seriously, Nintendo, the naming convention is terrible. I'm sorry. It doesn't make your stuff sound like it's a brand new generation, but a minor upgrade or step up.​​

​A prime example of a rushed title is _Diablo III. _This game spent a decade in development. The predecessor, _Diablo II, _was an amazing title, and fans had high expectations for the title. What _Diablo III _players got at launch was a complete mess - plagued with server issues, gearing problems, the implementation of an auction house that completely killed the game and its gearing mechanics, to spend time basically hunting for good deals on the auction house, a horribly bad storyline that made little sense, amongst other things. Today, _Diablo III _has an expansion, called _Reaper of Souls, _which greatly improved the game and today is one of the games I enjoy playing because the developers fixed a lot of the issues that people had been suffering with.​​

​In another instance of a rushed game, let's look at _Pokémon X and Y. _The titles were announced in January of 2013, and released in October that same year. Comparing the graphics of the newer titles to that of the older ones, the difference is drastic. Sprites are fully animated, and in three dimensions. The environment looked vastly different, with a whole different view of how the game was supposed to play out. When the titles finally came out, they sold like hot cakes. After the initial euphoria of a _Pokémon _game died out for me, I started to realize that this title was probably one of the weakest titles in the franchise, and it felt way too rushed. Announcing a title and then telling the fans that it would be released ten months later led to big expectations, and I expected good things. What I got was a relatively lackluster plot, no real post game content, and a lack of creatures to capture for a new generation. The game got stale within a week. With the _Pokémon X and Y _titles, it should have spent more time in development, fixing the issues that plagued people the most - the noticeable frame rate lag when 3D was enabled in battle, or the hit-and-miss 3D effect that displayed in only a handful of areas in the environment. Let's take a look at a game or two that has spent a long time in development now.​​One of the first games that comes to mind about keeping a game in development for a long time was Activision Blizzard's new MMORPG _Titan. Titan_ spent years in development, and after god knows how many years, Blizzard recently announced that they were pulling the plug on this project because it wasn't the game that they were hoping it would be. This feels more like an extreme case, because people had high expectations and hopes for it, and then it just fell apart.​​

​More prominently, let us take a look at two Square Enix titles that are in development and to be released in 2015 - _Kingdom Hearts III _and _Final Fantasy XV. _With _Kingdom Hearts III_, there hasn't really been a true sequel that continued the story since _Kingdom Hearts II _appeared back on the PlayStation 2. Fans had been clamoring for the title, and only recently did the title make waves when Square Enix announced its development. The initial trailers came out and the hype was immense. I recalled even my Facebook feed exploding over the development, because the game was so widely loved (I personally couldn't attach to anything in _Kingdom Hearts _besides the music, but that's a whole different beast that I could spend a long time discussing...). Looking at how long the game has been held in stasis for, I think that Square Enix has a great chance of making things better and right again, because they've been straying really far from what used to make them great in the first place. They seem to have found the right track again, somewhat, with the release of a recent trailer for their _Final Fantasy XV _title. _XV, _originally _Final Fantasy XIII Versus, _has also been in development for a very long time now, and only now has seen a few small trailers here and there. After the debacle that was _Final Fantasy XIII, XIII-2 and XIII-3_, which had been slammed for its relatively lackluster story and gameplay, things are finally looking up and the hype actually feels real for both of these titles. This feels like a great case of delaying a game done right. They could release it early, but it would just end up being slammed as a poor game. I really hope that they could make these two games right and bring themselves back up into a good spot.​​​
​Looking at games now, while my body could be screaming for a game to be released right this second (I'm looking at you, _Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire), _I also know that it's definitely better if the game takes its time in being developed properly. I'd much rather see a polished gaming experience that feels whole in comparison to a rushed game that, as Miyamoto said, would be bad forever. Where do you guys stand in terms of all this? Do you guys like games to come out sooner at the price of possibly being bad, or do you guys favor the games that spend longer times in development? What do you guys define as a game that has been in development too long? Is there such a thing as too long? Let me know in your comments! Shoutout to Vengenceonu for the topic idea!​​​


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 5, 2014)

This is KIND of off topic, but I've come to really resent that Miyamoto quote. It has some truth to it, but it's also rather presumptive of certain things that aren't inherent. For example, a rushed game CAN be good with the appropriate staff and work time and dedication put in, and a delayed game is FAR from guaranteed to be good (Duke Nukem Forever, anyone?). But people (especially Nintendo fans, in my experience) use it to damage control every time a game they're personally invested in gets delayed.

I would certainly prefer a polished, delayed game than a rushed, sloppy one. But you know what I would prefer even more? A polished game that doesn't get delayed a million times.

Edit: I've only played maybe an hour of Pokemon X/Y, but I feel the game was rushed and lazy even from a technical standpoint. No 3D in the overworld, frame rate drops while using 3D in battles, no analog movement or 360 turning... It's like they cut corners at every turn. I mean, really, what game in 2013 with 3D movement using an analog pad/stick DOESN'T have 360 degrees of movement or analog walk/run control?

Then compare it to Super Smash Bros. 3DS, which is only a year younger, pushes the 3DS to its limits to get 60 fps in full 3D (with a few minor drawbacks) and was only delayed by a couple months from its vague "Summer 2014" release date, and it makes Pokemon X/Y look downright shameful by comparison.


----------



## raulpica (Oct 5, 2014)

Miyamoto is right - a delayed game can be good, a rushed game is a turd forever. (*cough* SimCity *cough*)


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 5, 2014)

I am of the opinion that you take whatever time you need in order to make the best game you can.  People aren't going to look back on an amazing game and remember that it was pushed back a year, they'll just remember it as an unforgettable game.  If you push out an incomplete game to meet a deadline, the game won't be remembered for being on time, but for not being everything it could be.  In the short term, sure you'll make money getting it out timely and not spending the extra resources to get it right, but in the long run, people will put their trust in games by developers who put out great, complete titles, and be hesitant to buy from a company that puts out rushed, incomplete games.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 5, 2014)

STOP TEASING ME WITH KH III ;_;


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 6, 2014)

raulpica said:


> Miyamoto is right - a delayed game can be good, a rushed game is a turd forever. (*cough* SimCity *cough*)


 

I'm going to add that any game that is developed without focus or a true plan, no matter if it's rushed or delayed, is doomed to failure. It's one reason why developers may develop a game, but then scrap it at some point and start over, because they are unsure about what they want to do. They go in full throttle without knowing where their destination is.


----------



## BLsquared (Oct 6, 2014)

Hm.
Good food for thought. Like comparing Rockman 1 to 2 and 3; 1 was so rushed it was almost obvious, whereas 2 and 3 were masterpieces on the NES due to them given the proper time to develop. But then we get to the extreme that is Valve: they only release games every so often. Most are instant hits (TF2, CS, Portal 2), but then others were given too long to develop and many all but lost interest (almost TF2, HL3). Then there's the altogether cancelled games, but we won't get into those.
I myself prefer the best product possible, and that usually implies waiting for a more finished product. Comcept, don't fail me now!


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

There's a delicate balance that needs to be kept when delaying a product. There's nothing wrong with needing a month or two of extra time to polish things up, sure, but if the delay is so long that your product is no longer relevant to the market by the time you're done, you might as well brace yourself for disappointment or start over fresh - I have two examples of the latter situation.

Watch_Dogs Wii U is going to be released soon, but at this point anyone even remotely interested in the game has already played it on different platforms and those who haven't at least read that the game is mediocre in gaming publications. The Wii U launch is so far behind the other launches that the game is no longer relevant without any additional content - it should be bundled with the DLC to make the purchase reasonable, but it's not getting the DLC at all, making it probably the least preferable version to buy.

The other, more extreme example would be Duke Nukem Forever - it went through so many delays that it had to be scrapped several times due to the engines becoming outdated, and once the game was picked up and finished by another studio, it just couldn't live up to over a decade of accumulated hype.

To summarize my point, delaying a game can be beneficial, it can give the developers time for some final adjustments, but you can't delay a release indefinitely as you'll eventually lose your window of opportunity for a successful release or your product will pale in comparison with more modern ones which popped up while you were faffing about.


----------



## Vengenceonu (Oct 6, 2014)

A delayed game isn't good IMHO. Look at "Watch Dogs", it was hyped up as the beginning of "Next-gen" gaming to the point of everyone's pants being coated in Cowper's fluid. Then it got delayed, released and fell flat on it's scarfed up face in terms of hype. That was the most dissatisfied 7/10 I've ever played. Don't even get me started on "Diablo 3", the supposed successor to WOW.

When games are delayed, game studios and publishers are in a way setting themselves up to fail. By delaying it you create more hype thats hard to live up to because people are assuming it will be even better then what you originally promised (except with games that don't take themselves too seriously like "South Park: Stick of truth").


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

Delaying a game is preferable to releasing a game that's broken out of the box, Vengenceonu. Obviously in a perfect world no delays would ever happen and all development studios would have perfect development schedules, but we don't live in a perfect world and sometimes sh*t happens. This is why most studios should adopt schedules that assume the product will be ready long before the release date, giving themselves some wiggle room in case they run into some unexpected problems. It's always better to be done two months early and start working on DLC than to be done 2 months too late.


----------



## jonthedit (Oct 6, 2014)

Sonic 06'

That is all.


----------



## zhdarkstar (Oct 6, 2014)

My only qualm with delays in software/hardware these days is regarding the New 3DS' launch schedule. Nintendo is shooting themselves in one foot in an attempt to put the other foot forward. It's become abundantly clear that Nintendo's refusal to have the N3DS available outside of Japan/AU this holiday season is a move done to push more Wii U units with Smash Bros bundles (nothing officially announced, but it only makes sense that there'd be a SSB Wii U bundle) in the RoW(Rest of World) markets.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

zhdarkstar said:


> My only qualm with delays in software/hardware these days is regarding the New 3DS' launch schedule. Nintendo is shooting themselves in one foot in an attempt to put the other foot forward. It's become abundantly clear that Nintendo's refusal to have the N3DS available outside of Japan/AU this holiday season is a move done to push more Wii U units with Smash Bros bundles (nothing officially announced, but it only makes sense that there'd be a SSB Wii U bundle) in the RoW(Rest of World) markets.


Y'know, Japan and Australia are relatively close to one another and they're considerably small. The reason why North America and Europe have to wait for the N3DS is that they're _huge_ and you need to manufacture _a whole lot of units_ to satisfy demand. The reason why Nintendo wants to sell the N3DS in Japan and Australia already is that they've had sh*tty fiscal years due to the Wii U underperforming - they want to sell what they already have as quickly as possible to recuperate while they prepare for a more global launch later on.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

In an era of patches, DLC and updates that means little, if I consider game sequels using the same engine/remade mechanics as iterations on the theme (and in every sense but the name that is the case-- art, code and, unfortunately, story all see loads of reuse, possibly bordering on vast majority of percentages) then it means even less. I once saw a presentation from a developer of mobile phone games and they shot for minimum functional product and (free) updates from there, it is a model that is used all the time in other parts of software development too, and even hardware where software will count for a lot.

Being marginally less glib... things to not happen in a vacuum so Foxi4's comment on designing for the real world applies.


----------



## zhdarkstar (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Y'know, Japan and Australia are relatively close to one another and they're considerably small. The reason why North America and Europe have to wait for the N3DS is that they're _huge_ and you need to manufacture _a whole lot of units_ to satisfy demand. The reason why Nintendo wants to sell the N3DS in Japan and Australia already is that they've had sh*tty fiscal years due to the Wii U underperforming - they want to sell what they already have as quickly as possible to recuperate while they prepare for a more global launch later on.


 
That may be, but it's undeniable that they're sacrificing a lot by doing so.

1) They're going to sell even less of the O3DS than initially expected during the holiday season. When a more advanced model is only months away, sales of the current model are going to bottom out. I expect only the most die-hard of fans to purchase the two latest CE 3DS models released in the US (SSB3DS and Persona Q).

2) They're only going to sell a fraction of the N3DS units they would have sold with a holiday launch. Average disposable income takes a massive dive in the months following the holidays, as credit card balances are being paid off. Not as many people are capable of buying consumer electronics in the first third of a calendar year.

3) They're going to have to spend more money marketing the N3DS to the RoW markets. Part of the upside to a holiday launch is that you don't have to do as much advertising to the general public. The stores themselves would do all of the heavy lifting by placing the products in their numerous ads leading up to the shopping season.


As for Ryukouki's opinion on the multiple versions of the 3DS, I half agree. The 2DS probably wouldn't have been released if parents taught their kids to take care of their stuff. However, I have to completely disagree about the 3DSXL. The 3DSXL exists to prevent the alienation of the original Nintendo demographic, the adults who grew up in the 80s/90s. The 3DS may fit in the hands of children without problem, but a lot of adults (primarily males) found it too small to use for an extended period of time. I refused to be an early adopter of the 3DS purely because I knew that a XL model would soon follow.


----------



## SonicRings (Oct 6, 2014)

TL;DR: Sonic '06 = rushed, Sonic 4 Episode 1 = delayed.

...Wait, people complain about the physics in Sonic 4 Episode 1 because they find the need to let go of the D-pad mid-game in order to slow down for some reason. Forget I mentioned that. Sonic '06 still holds true. Probably the best example for this topic.


----------



## mr allen (Oct 6, 2014)

zhdarkstar said:


> 1) They're going to sell even less of the O3DS than initially expected during the holiday season. When a more advanced model is only months away, sales of the current model are going to bottom out. I expect only the most die-hard of fans to purchase the two latest CE 3DS models released in the US (SSB3DS and Persona Q).


 
That's completely ignoring both production cost and advertisement. World wide launches aren't exactly cheap here. That's also under the assumption that everyone knows of the N3DS. All Nintendo has done so far is announce it for Japan and Australia, so unless you're the kind of person that keeps up with gaming news all the time you most likely wouldn't of heard of it. O3DS sales may drop but you're overestimating things here.



> 2) They're only going to sell a fraction of the N3DS units they would have sold with a holiday launch. Average disposable income takes a massive dive in the months following the holidays, as credit card balances are being paid off. Not as many people are capable of buying consumer electronics in the first third of a calendar year.


 
No one has ever said that they were going to release it in early 2015, and they most likely won't for the reason you just gave, no one has money.



> 3) They're going to have to spend more money marketing the N3DS to the RoW markets. Part of the upside to a holiday launch is that you don't have to do as much advertising to the general public. The stores themselves would do all of the heavy lifting by placing the products in their numerous ads leading up to the shopping season.


 
What? Why on earth would you want to cut marketing, especially for the holiday season. You want to advertise the hell out it, not let stores do that for you. If you don't it'll just lead to mass confusion. Nintendo already learned that the hard way with the Wii U (at least i hope they did). Why would someone want to buy a N3DS when they could just buy an O3DS? What makes them different? If no ones knows then they're just going to buy an O3DS instead, which would defeat the purpose.



@topic: Delays can be really beneficial but there does come a point where it starts becoming harmful. If all you do is keep delaying something it can start to make one wonder. Are there that many glitches in it? Is it that big of a game? Did they scrap it and start from the beginning? What I think is the major problem here isn't the delays themselves though, but that things are being announced way to early.


----------



## DSAndi (Oct 6, 2014)

In general delaying somthing for clean out bugs or better in general is a good thing.
For Nintendo delaying is more harmfull. I must say im not into Videogames anymore. I play mostly on PC old games that i can buy for 10€ or less. Most of em are only 1-2 years old.
Since i dont really know the consolemarket anymore i often read post in different forums about Nintendo.
To me it seems Nintendo has a hard time. They dont seem to get many 3rd Party game developers. Most games are from Nintendo while most of the other games are for casual play or just crap. 
Im also tired to see mostly the same Nintendo games over and over again. A new Mario game here some other zelda game there mostly the same stuff like always.
Even if the games different they just bore me.
I had a Wii but i did not much use it. I had some nice games and could also use the "bad" games if i wanted but i got so desinterested in Nintendo i did not even care.
In fact i had more fun hacking the wii then to play anything on it.
I dont know about the Wii U but i often read ppl waiting for games and have not enought to play. Then the games they wait for got more delayed.
If it is like that no Wonder Nintendo gets a hard time. I often think ppl only buy Nintendo hardware because of the Nintendo games and play other popular games on PC or other consoles.
Aside from that, Nintendo hardware is often already outdated. They have some nice ideas sometimes but i dont know if they can hold up with that for long.
The Wii was to me more a gamecube with different controls. The Wii U seem not much better then the Wii but i cant really compare them because i did not see a Wii U working or playin some games on it.
I like the DS Lite, but i did not see the advancement in the DSI. Even the 3DS and later 2Ds seem not that much advanced. However i did only play a few minutes with the 3Ds yet.

Well i can kinda care less about game delays, because i only buy old games for cheap. If i finish 3-4 games per year thats pretty good, because i have so less time to play acutually.


----------



## NakedFaerie (Oct 6, 2014)

I find a delay can be good if its done properly. When you delay a game because there are bugs that need to be fixed then ok, but when you delay it for no good reason its just stupid. Look at all cross platform games and WiiU games. WHY are all WiiU games delayed? Even if you delay a game a week there are a lot of people with multiple consoles that wont wait a week and they just get it on another platform.
I have multiple consoles and the PS4 does look a lot better than the WiiU but I still buy games on the WiiU because I want games for it. I spent money on the console I want games to play on it, not for it to collect dust and not much else.
Now, game like Watch Dogs and its 9 month delay. Thats the worst of them all. I've finished WD on PS3, PS4 so why would I want to get it on WiiU after 9 months of waiting? Its also not going to have the DLC and extras the other consoles have so it'll be 9 months late without any extras and at full price where you can easily get it really cheap on another console. THEN the developers will complain that it didn't sell. OH DEEERRR MORONS! ITS 9 MONTHS LATE OF COURSE IT WONT SELL!!!
Well it'll sell 1 as I still want it on that console BUT I'll get it from the shop that lets me return it within 7 days so if it doesn't warrant the 9 month delay it'll be returned.

Delay also adds to the hype of the game. Again with Watch Dogs it was first delayed a year for "polish" which was stupid as if you look at the videos from E3 the year before it was released it looks 10x better so they didn't add polish they removed it. They actually dumbed it down for consoles and edited the PC version to cover up the good looks. When you unlock the graphics on the PC version it kicks a$$ over the PS4 version. It looks way better on PC than any console. (Yea, I got it on PC too. I like the game)
Yea, where was I going?.... Oh yea, hype. A delay makes people think its going to have less bugs and be better but when its finally released you wonder what they really did as its still got bugs and doesn't look as good as the videos you've seen. Now it doesn't live up to the hype so people are disappointed.

Delaying games is stupid. DON'T give a release date UNTIL you know you can release it FINISHED by then. And give it at LEAST 2 months beta testing as these days no game gets beta testing and they all need it.
What they should all do is think of a release date and add 6 months then release that date. If its finished before then think about all the happy gamers getting a game before its due release date. Most games are released in beta format or late so wouldn't it be great to get a game 2 months before the announced date.



DSAndi said:


> In general delaying somthing for clean out bugs or better in general is a good thing.
> For Nintendo delaying is more harmfull. I must say im not into Videogames anymore. I play mostly on PC old games that i can buy for 10€ or less. Most of em are only 1-2 years old.
> Since i dont really know the consolemarket anymore i often read post in different forums about Nintendo.
> To me it seems Nintendo has a hard time. They dont seem to get many 3rd Party game developers. Most games are from Nintendo while most of the other games are for casual play or just crap.
> ...


 
NIcely said. I got a WiiU because I though it would be competition for Xboned and PS4 but as no developers make games for it and I'm not interested in Mario games I lucked out. 
ALL Mario games suck these days. Mario Kart? WTF? Its the exact same game and always has been just a new console to play it on. And Super Mario Bros, again WTF were they thinking? Again the exact same game just a new console. NOT INTERESTED.
I think Mario, Zelda, Kirby etc should all die and they should think of a new character completely, even better think of a completely new game. I don't want to play a 1980's platformer on a 2013 console.

It's not the game devs fault thou, Nintendo put some really stupid rules onto their games. I think there is 1 rule that if you put a game in their estore (eshop, whatever) and it doesn't sell at least 10,000 copies in the first year you dont get paid for any of them. WTF NINTENDO!!! So if it sells 9,999 copies the dev doesn't get paid. Now that just sucks and I can see why people don't want to make games for it.
They give the devs too many restrictions and rules its just not worth their time and efforts to make games for it. They want to make games and get paid thats why they give the WiiU and 3DS a miss.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 6, 2014)

A delayed game can be good, but if you keep incessantly delaying a title over and over, eventually you no longer have a game; you have an artifact.

Artists have a nurturing instinct with their creations, and it's understandable, but you can't hold on to your babies forever. Your little chicks have to leave the nest eventually, and if you realize that they're just never going to hatch, well, you have to move on (and maybe cook up on omelette or something, I don't know, I'm hungry).


----------



## NakedFaerie (Oct 6, 2014)

zhdarkstar said:


> 2) They're only going to sell a fraction of the N3DS units they would have sold with a holiday launch. Average disposable income takes a massive dive in the months following the holidays, as credit card balances are being paid off. Not as many people are capable of buying consumer electronics in the first third of a calendar year.


 
Then explain the PS4 and its release date? I know it came out in November but it was sold out till April. I couldn't walk into the store and buy one till at least April/May as they were sold out and when they got them in they only lasted a day or two so it doesn't matter when the release date is it will sell if people want it.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 6, 2014)

NakedFaerie said:


> Then explain the PS4 and its release date? I know it came out in November but it was sold out till April. I couldn't walk into the store and buy one till at least April/May as they were sold out and when they got them in they only lasted a day or two so it doesn't matter when the release date is it will sell if people want it.


 
Probably because a lot of the people who wanted to buy it but couldn't due to the shortage saved the money until it was available.


----------



## gudenau (Oct 6, 2014)

Minecraft was in development for years, and Kerbal Space Program probably will be aswell. Both amazing games!


----------



## matpower (Oct 6, 2014)

NakedFaerie said:


> I think Mario, Zelda, Kirby etc should all die and they should think of a new character completely, even better think of a completely new game. I don't want to play a 1980's platformer on a 2013 console.
> 
> It's not the game devs fault thou, Nintendo put some really stupid rules onto their games. I think there is 1 rule that if you put a game in their estore (eshop, whatever) and it doesn't sell at least 10,000 copies in the first year you dont get paid for any of them. WTF NINTENDO!!! So if it sells 9,999 copies the dev doesn't get paid. Now that just sucks and I can see why people don't want to make games for it.
> They give the devs too many restrictions and rules its just not worth their time and efforts to make games for it. They want to make games and get paid thats why they give the WiiU and 3DS a miss.


...Umm, no need to kill Mario, Zelda, Kirby, etc, they just need to use a new concept and make it mainstream, actually, using an old character also gives people that "trust" feel(However, this can backfire if people are expecting the same - Example: Turning GoW into a JRPG), also that 1985 platformer can be worked to be something better than your 2013's platform, you can always improve the concept or the userbase wants to play that 1985 platformer(Which is kinda true, with that 8bit retro-styled games becoming popular).
Now for that last issue, it applies for the Wii Shop Channel only AFAIK, also nobody knows if the eShop still uses that policy AFAIK too.


----------



## SSG Vegeta (Oct 6, 2014)

No need for 3DS XL you say I disagree I love the extra space & bigger screens  the XL has to offer the 2DS on the other hand could have been skipped so the arrival of the New Nintendo 3DS/XL  could come earlier on in the game


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 6, 2014)

SSG Vegeta said:


> No need for 3DS XL you say I disagree I love the extra space & bigger screens the XL has to offer the 2DS on the other hand could have been skipped so the arrival of the New Nintendo 3DS/XL could come earlier on in the game


 

This, the 2DS feels so.... rushed, cheaply made. I know it's for kids, but, small screen, no hinge, smaller buttons, yeah, not getting it.


----------



## SSG Vegeta (Oct 6, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> This, the 2DS feels so.... rushed, cheaply made. I know it's for kids, but, small screen, no hinge, smaller buttons, yeah, not getting it.


 
I used to own one so I definitely agree with you its made out of cheap material & its meaningless i'm glad I traded it in inorder for me to upgrade to the NN3DS XL


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Oct 6, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> This, the 2DS feels so.... rushed, cheaply made. I know it's for kids, but, small screen, no hinge, smaller buttons, yeah, not getting it.


 
I have literally seen videos of a smashed 2DS  completely thrown and banged with a hammer fiercely and it survived 
I feel like this was a right choice for kids because for some reason they don't know how to handle a hinge but this option should have been way earlier since they are putting their N3DS out now as something to get.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 6, 2014)

SSG Vegeta said:


> I used to own one so I definitely agree with you its made out of cheap material & its meaningless i'm glad I traded it in inorder for me to upgrade to the NN3DS XL


 

I've been thinking about getting a 3DS, again, but yes, I felt the 2DS at a Best Buy kiosk and was like "screw this!" there must be a fine line between delaying and rushing it, a fine line, but even when not rushed or delayed, there are games that will still be sub par.


----------



## morphius (Oct 6, 2014)

duke nukem forever?


----------



## Apex (Oct 6, 2014)

jonthedit said:


> Sonic 06'
> 
> That is all.


 

Super Smash Bros. Melee.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Oct 6, 2014)

So what Mr. Miyamoto's saying is Melee's a bad game? I don't think the fans and EVO players agree though.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 6, 2014)

Without reading the wall of text, I would definitely say it's beneficial.
Just look at Sonic 06, you can't find a better example than that. Although that game is hilarious(ly bad) in its own way, so it's not ALL bad. In a way, it's so bad it's good.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 6, 2014)

For starters, I think that quote should be "a delayed game CAN potentially be good. A rushed game is a bad game forever."

And even then, I think you should be thoughtful about what you call "rushed". What Miyamoto means (and I agree with), is that if features aren't properly tested or have to be cut, then it'll be much harder if not impossible to fix. Then it's better to polish them up before releasing them. But these have to be things that the developer KNOWS IN ADVANCE. And that there is no internal politics that hold the game back (sort of meaning that everyone, from the CEO down to the actual programmer, wants to get it fixed).

As such, diablo 3 (or, in fact, anything blizzard makes) is certainly one of the LAST games you should ever call rushed. Sure, it had its flaws, but these were, in a way, unavoidable flaws. Of course everyone wants to play it on release day, so of course the servers are going to be overflooded. But aside from releasing it on different days (which is getting harder and harder the more online purchases become more common), there is no way around it. And buying roughly twice the server capabilities just to serve a playerload that is only a problem the very first week or so, is insane in a financial way. Same for simcity, for that matter.
This well ties in to the other flaw of the game: it was needed for the trading house, which in itself required the online connection (without it, you can bet that within a few weeks or even days, illegally modded items would trade hands). I agree that the auction house was a mistake...but there was no way to know this for sure in advance. It's easy to look at it and say that it DIDN'T work, but near impossible to predict in advance that it WILL NOT work. And this isn't something blizzard can test, as such features requires the entire internet to test it out.

So...when taking into account that rushing should imply that just the TECHNICAL issues should be fixed, there is also something to be said about marketing. And the general audience as well. We all know that it takes time to create a great game. And the sort of game we want changes over time, which makes predicting how long it'll take a hard guess. The irony is: the more the game aims to be a clone of another game*, the easier it is to estimate. But when games are anticipated, pretty much everyone wants to know the one thing programmers cannot tell them: when it is going to be finished. So marketeers have to take educated guesses at a launch day. And sort of have to remind the programmers that they can't just KEEP adding stuff to the game (which would delay said game).
IMHO, those marketeers don't do a good enough job. I already pointed out the factors that make it hard for them to properly set a launch date, but even then (and even taking into account that writing software is just HARD) they should be able to make better guesses. And why are games always DELAYED and never released "too early"? If you ask me, those guys should (in general) take more time actually spending time with the team discussing roadmaps, time tables and such. Reality is often different, though. And I'm afraid gamers play a part in this (we don't automatically cancel our preorders when we hear a game is delayed. Often it's more of the contrary: the news of a delay is publicity for the game as well, which is generally good).





*watch_dogs, for example, is just Far cry or Assassin's Creed with a hacking submechanic. The entire guesswork mostly comes down to "how big is the open world going to be, and how many minigames/subquests are going to be in it?".


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (Oct 6, 2014)

I think it very fitting that they've rushed every Mario game since 2011 and they've all been very meh.

It can only be good news that they didn't show off a new Mario game at E3 this year. It means they've started taking their time again.


----------



## DaniPoo (Oct 6, 2014)

Well, It's never good to rush any kind of project project really. You'll probably end up with a product that doesn't feel complete in one way or another.
But that does not meen that by delaying a project you'll automatically end up with a better product, You still need to see what needs to be done under this time of developement. 

I rather have these big companies delaying their games than having them rush their games. 
Because I trust that they have good judgement and a vision of what they want their games to be like. 

Still, the best thing would be if they would be able to finnish their games well within deadline.


----------



## FireGrey (Oct 6, 2014)

And then you have a game like Watch Dogs which was both delayed and rushed.


----------



## Metoroid0 (Oct 6, 2014)

raulpica said:


> Miyamoto is right - a delayed game can be good, a rushed game is a turd forever. (*cough* SimCity *cough*)


 
sonic 06

Did anyone thought of Metroid when reading miyamoto quote?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

FireGrey said:


> And then you have a game like Watch Dogs which was both delayed and rushed.



I am not sure I would really call Watch Dogs rushed, be in it general or by Ubisoft standards (thinking early assassins creed vs later ones). No argument there were elements that could have used improving or that could have gelled together better, however for me most of those felt like issues further up the design chain. On the other hand if they were doing the iterative design bit then I guess it could have used a few more rounds.


----------



## CathyRina (Oct 6, 2014)

The problem with the 3DS is not being rushed, it's the poor choice of names. But I think You already know that.

About FFXV though, Ryukouki do you even read the news? This game sounds awful any way you look at it. A single button action RPG made for casual audience. Great. Because FF13 wasn't casual enough right? And the way it looked it some trailers it appears that this game will have automated dodging. Yeah, no thanks, SE has no idea what they should do with their FF franchise. It will be FF13 all over again. Well marketed BS.

To stay on topic delaying a game in order to achieve good quality is something that should be done. However you shouldn't delay it too much or else you end up like Duke Nukem Forever.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> The problem with the 3DS is not being rushed, it's the poor choice of names. But I think You already know that.
> 
> To stay on topic delaying a game in order to achieve good quality is something that should be done. However you shouldn't delay it too much or else you end up like Duke Nukem Forever.



I can see some logic in the Wii U being a poor naming choice, I am not so sure the 3ds is a poor name in the same sense. The 3ds doing poorly seems to be more because they released a relatively weak console, one without games, had their third party developers split between it and the considerably nicer to develop, market and contemplate the size of audience for android/IOS platforms and their own.

On DNF I am not sure it is the best example. I would agree with assessments that DNF was almost a library/museum of game design, or at least first person shooting design, throughout the years. Whether it would really happen again today if I designed a game over the next ten years I am not entirely sure. I am not saying the industry is unchanging, however what changes are happening seem to be refinements rather than leaps (and that is a good thing from where I sit), give or take the times someone decides to merge two more traditional "genres" and we get a mini gold rush.


----------



## CathyRina (Oct 6, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> I can see some logic in the Wii U being a poor naming choice, I am not so sure the 3ds is a poor name in the same sense. The 3ds doing poorly seems to be more because they released a relatively weak console, one without games, had their third party developers split between it and the considerably nicer to develop, market and contemplate the size of audience for android/IOS platforms and their own.


 
Both the DS and Wii were really popular amongs the casual audience (Which is the majority of people). If I was a casual who doesn't bother reading gaming news I would think the 3DS and Wii U are just upgraded versions of the DS and Wii like the DSI is.
Now with the 2DS, 3DS XL and new 3DS we have a big arsenal of confusion to the casuals. DS2 is a less confusing name and automatically signals that this is an entirely new console. But it appears that lame name puns are more important for Nintendo.


----------



## Delta517 (Oct 6, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> This is KIND of off topic, but I've come to really resent that Miyamoto quote. It has some truth to it, but it's also rather presumptive of certain things that aren't inherent. *For example, a rushed game CAN be good with the appropriate staff and work time and dedication put in, and a delayed game is FAR from guaranteed to be good (Duke Nukem Forever, anyone?).* But people (especially Nintendo fans, in my experience) use it to damage control every time a game they're personally invested in gets delayed.
> 
> I would certainly prefer a polished, delayed game than a rushed, sloppy one. But you know what I would prefer even more? A polished game that doesn't get delayed a million times.
> 
> ...


 

I agree. Fun fact: Eiji Aonuma didn't like working with Zelda OoT Master Quest/Ura Zelda, so he was challenged to make a sequel to OoT within just a year. That game became Majora's Mask, one of the best Zelda games.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Both the DS and Wii were really popular amongs the casual audience (Which is the majority of people). If I was a casual who doesn't bother reading gaming news I would think the 3DS and Wii U are just upgraded versions of the DS and Wii like the DSI is.
> Now with the 2DS, 3DS XL and new 3DS we have a big arsenal of confusion to the casuals. DS2 is a less confusing name and automatically signals that this is an entirely new console. But it appears that lame name puns are more important for Nintendo.



By and large I avoid interacting with members of the public/man in the street because I know how much of a pain it is, however I also try not to sell them too short and I fear you may be doing the latter. Equally the DSi was technically a new system, it did not play out in the same way as the GB and GBC might have but I am not sure I would dismiss it as easily as that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 6, 2014)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> I have literally seen videos of a smashed 2DS completely thrown and banged with a hammer fiercely and it survived
> I feel like this was a right choice for kids because for some reason they don't know how to handle a hinge but this option should have been way earlier since they are putting their N3DS out now as something to get.


 

Still don't care, the design is hideous and the screen is too small.


----------



## CathyRina (Oct 6, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> By and large I avoid interacting with members of the public/man in the street because I know how much of a pain it is, however I also try not to sell them too short and I fear you may be doing the latter. Equally the DSi was technically a new system, it did not play out in the same way as the GB and GBC might have but I am not sure I would dismiss it as easily as that.


 
Nintendo did it themselves tbh. They send a mail to the Wii Consoles about Wii U being an entirely new Console not just an upgraded model. So they clearly know that their target market is not well informed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Nintendo did it themselves tbh. They send a mail to the Wii Consoles about Wii U being an entirely new Console not just an upgraded model. So they clearly know that their target market is not well informed.


Here's the thing - there's a 100+ million Wii's out there... and 99 million of them have a centimeter thick layers of dust on them. Sending a message to Wii users doesn't accomplish much because there's not a whole lot of active Wii users out there at this point, at least not a lot of legitimate Wii users who'd care. Even before the Wii U was released there hasn't been a major Wii release for years, so the console was well into the realm of obscurity at that point in time.


----------



## CathyRina (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Here's the thing - there's a 100+ million Wii's out there... and 99 million of them have a centimeter thick layers of dust on them. Sending a message to Wii users doesn't accomplish much because there's not a whole lot of active Wii users out there at this point, at least not a lot of legitimate Wii users who'd care. Even before the Wii U was released there hasn't been a major Wii release for years, so the console was well into the realm of obscurity at that point in time.


 
that's beside the point


----------



## mkdms14 (Oct 6, 2014)

Kingdom Hearts III won't be coming out in 2015 and niether will Final Fantasy XV.  SE recently stated that Final Fantasy XV after entering full production back in 2012 was 55% complete and with Final Fantasy Type-0 to come out in March 2015 with a small playable bit of Final Fantasy XV it is safe to guess it probably won't be out until 2016 at the earliest.  Kingdom Hearts is still too early in its production.  It probably won't be out until 2017 at the earliest it might be released in 2016 if SE moves it with how they make games but I won't count on it.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Even before the Wii U was released there hasn't been a major Wii release for years, so the console was well into the realm of obscurity at that point in time.


 
What are you talking about? Zelda: Skyward Sword and Kirby's Return to Dream Land both came out only a year before the Wii U did. Mario Part 9 also came out in Spring before the Wii U released, though it's debatable whether that really counts.

I mean, it's still a pretty bad drought for a year before the Wii U's release, but it certainly wasn't "years since the last major Wii release" at that point.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 6, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Still don't care, the design is hideous and the screen is too small.


The 2DS is ugly as hell, but it has the same exact screen sizes as the OG 3DS (actually, the lower screen is 0.02" bigger, but that's nothing). Your previous statements, talking about how it's "cheaply made" is the absolutely opposite of what it is, it's extremely durable compared to the 3DS/XL. The smaller buttons? Not true, buttons are the same size as the 3DS, their only difference is they're located in a different position and they're..."mushy", sort of like the DS Lite. Clamshell and whatever is just preference, so meh on that. The 2DS is an excellent entry level handheld; it's cheap as hell, will last years of abuse, and is arguably more comfortable to hold compared to the OG/XL. 

As for the OP, it just depends on the devs I suppose, and how much time is gained/lost.

Take Watch Dogs, it was originally going to be released in November of 2013 until Ubisoft delayed it to "polish the game" (read: hype the fuck out of it, because there's no way they "polished" anything when the game was buggy as hell). When it released in May, the game was so hyped up that the ok-ish game it ended up being was completely shat on by everyone because it didn't live up to everyone's expectations. 

On the opposite spectrum, let's talk about Mass Effect 3. A lot of people felt the game was fairly rushed because of the various plot holes, the whole "BOOHOO NO GOOD ENDING " debacle that forced BioWare to throw some DLC out there, the argument that none of the decisions you made really mattered, etc etc. Despite all of that, was Mass Effect 3 as a whole a terrible game? Of course not, it's considered one of the best RPGs of 2012.


----------



## Youkai (Oct 6, 2014)

To get back to Topic,
Why "delay" a release instead of giving a late release date at given time ?

Really they give the Programmers hardly ever enough time to make the core of the game and in the end they rush like there is no morning and have a bugged game plus repairing all those bugs is harder than doing it right from the beginning ...
So in my opinion the best would be if you can assume Programming takes 2 years to give them 2 and a Half and tell the Programmers they get a bonus if they get it done faster in a good quality !


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> What are you talking about? Zelda: Skyward Sword and Kirby's Return to Dream Land both came out only a year before the Wii U did. Mario Part 9 also came out in Spring before the Wii U released, though it's debatable whether that really counts.
> 
> I mean, it's still a pretty bad drought for a year before the Wii U's release, but it certainly wasn't "years since the last major Wii release" at that point.


So all in all, three-four games within a two-year span? That's not much.  I wasn't being literal, my point was that people stopped playing on the system due to a lack of major releases in its final years.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> So all in all, three-four games within a two-year span? That's not much.  I wasn't being literal, my point was that people stopped playing on the system due to a lack of major releases in its final years.


 
Like I said, it was still really bad. But "no major release in years" isn't a very good hyperbole to use in this case.


----------



## Hop2089 (Oct 6, 2014)

The PS4 and Xbox One should have been delayed until late 2014, the consoles have suffered from droughts, huge amounts of remakes, and there has been very little support in Japan until recently and despite having great games announced, the Japanese market also suffers from large amounts of remakes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> Like I said, it was still really bad. But "no major release in years" isn't a very good hyperbole to use in this case.


Skyward Sword and Return to Dreamland were released in 2011, like you said. Sure, there was Mario Party, but even on the best of terms the Wii didn't see a single worthwhile release for several months, that's quite a downer to me considering the fact that the PS3 and Xbox 360 see support to this day. The Wii was very much dead the way I see it, Nintendo couldn't support it all by itself and third party long since lost interest.



Hop2089 said:


> The PS4 and Xbox One should have been delayed until late 2014, the consoles have suffered from droughts, huge amounts of remakes, and there has been very little support in Japan until recently and despite having great games announced, the Japanese market also suffers from large amounts of remakes.


Remakes aren't necessarily a bad thing as long as they're remakes of actually good, entertaining games. You say that about the PS4 and the Xbox One, but didn't the 3DS kick off with a line-up of remakes as well? Splinter Cell, Rayman, Starfox, Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid 3D, SMT: Devil Survivor and more? It was the Portendo 3DS for a long time.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 6, 2014)

Small delays can help fix a game overall and work out some of the bugs that they don't want in launch or at least make it stable enough to allow a future patch to fix it. But with that said Nintendo has been delaying far too much lately, to the point where there are extremely dry spells between games. Like yes the ones we have now are good, but they aren't holding over for new games and for the most part my Wii U is just sitting there collecting dust.
Then of course you have games like Watch_Dogs, which was a good game to begin with, but waiting for the delay on the Wii U is killing it. Like yeah I bet it's going to be good, but at this point in time everyone who is anyone has played, beaten, sold, and re-bought the game for shits and giggles. At this point the delay is just hurting the game more than it's helping it.
Of course there's also games like Duke Nukem Forever...I don't think there's a reason to get into detail on this game.

My point is, yeah delaying can help, but know the limits before you start killing the game with your delays.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Skyward Sword and Return to Dreamland were released in 2011, like you said. Sure, there was Mario Party, but even on the best of terms the Wii didn't see a single worthwhile release for several months, that's quite a downer to me considering the fact that the PS3 and Xbox 360 see support to this day. The Wii was very much dead the way I see it, Nintendo couldn't support it all by itself and third party long since lost interest.


 
I'm not sure why you're repeating that over and over again when I already said that I agree with that bit. But "no major release in years" is just a flat-out false statement. "Not a single worthwhile release for several months" is WAY different from "no major release in years."


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

I think there's a sweet spot for delays. Like one delay I think should be enough. Announce more than that and you're dead in the water.

If you delay a game too much, people begin to lose confidence and hype in it or build up unrealistic expectations for it. Like Half Life 3, while I guess never "announced" or "delayed", it's been so long that no one cares or people think it will be the most revolutionary thing in gaming.

A bad game will always be bad, but no one will care about a game that takes ten years to come out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> I'm not sure why you're repeating that over and over again when I already said that I agree with that bit. But "no major release in years" is just a flat-out false statement. "Not a single worthwhile release for several months" is WAY different from "no major release in years."


I apologize for my obvious and humorous hyperbole which I admitted was a hyperbole, I was just explaining that the hyperbole was a hyperbole.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I apologize for my obvious and humorous hyperbole which I admitted was a hyperbole, I was just explaining that the hyperbole was a hyperbole.


 

Yo dawg, I heard you like hyperboles...


----------



## tbb043 (Oct 6, 2014)

"A delayed game misses Christmas, but a rushed game, meh, we can always patch it later. Or fix it with DLC. YEAH, then we can charge for fixing it, yeah, lets do that!"


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 6, 2014)

tbb043 said:


> "then we can charge for fixing it, yeah, lets do that!"


 
Example?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> Example [of games being fixed with paid for DLC/expansion packs]?



The recent and upcoming Dead rising stuff? Equally games do not get made from scratch in a year and that means you are more or less paying for a current build every year for such games that get annual entries, probably even those with biannual entries. A few games got fixed between console and PC, assassin’s creed being a reasonable example of a semi modern title there. The 9 billion versions each street fighter game gets? In fighting games there have been a few where extra characters become paid, and in doing so add to a weak roster.
Going back into the past there were a few games with a "gold" version that you would not be able to upgrade to from the original release, but could buy.

I am not necessarily opposed to some practices there, however to question their existence would be a stretch.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 7, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> The recent and upcoming Dead rising stuff? Equally games do not get made from scratch in a year and that means you are more or less paying for a current build every year for such games that get annual entries, probably even those with biannual entries. A few games got fixed between console and PC, assassin’s creed being a reasonable example of a semi modern title there. The 9 billion versions each street fighter game gets? In fighting games there have been a few where extra characters become paid, and in doing so add to a weak roster.
> Going back into the past there were a few games with a "gold" version that you would not be able to upgrade to from the original release, but could buy.
> 
> I am not necessarily opposed to some practices there, however to question their existence would be a stretch.


 
Um, why are you changing what I was responding to? tbb043 didn't say anything about paying for new characters, etc. He specifically said "charge for fixing it" (a rushed game). And I'm asking for an example of a rushed game that charged for a "fix."


----------



## dwayne (Oct 7, 2014)

so is the z version delayed game


----------



## sion_zaphod (Oct 7, 2014)

What about "The Last Guardian"  Team ICO's would be masterpiece and follow up to ICO'S and SOTC .  Where is it? And when is it Coming?  Was supposed to be released on PS3 but can't see that now as PS3 is outdated and at the end of its life.  Funny that game and Final Fantasy XIII were the reason I bought a PS3.  Will never trust Team ICO again unless their next game is better than ICO and SOTC put together.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 7, 2014)

sion_zaphod said:


> What about "The Last Guardian"  Team ICO's would be masterpiece and follow up to ICO'S and SOTC .  Where is it? And when is it Coming?  Was supposed to be released on PS3 but can't see that now as PS3 is outdated and at the end of its life.  Funny that game and Final Fantasy XIII were the reason I bought a PS3.  Will never trust Team ICO again unless their next game is better than ICO and SOTC put together.


So let me get this straight: You bought a console in anticipation of a game that was really early in development with no release date, and now your mad at the developer for not releasing it, yet?

I really don't understand why people buy consoles in preparation for games that haven't released yet. Just wait until the game actually releases if said game is the main reason you want the console.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 7, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> Um, why are you changing what I was responding to? tbb043 didn't say anything about paying for new characters, etc. He specifically said "charge for fixing it" (a rushed game). And I'm asking for an example of a rushed game that charged for a "fix."



A fighting game comes out lacking either characters in general or characters within a canon, the former would be an example of weaker design/implementation as far as I am concerned and the latter is not far behind. Paid DLC to change this would then seem to be a paid for fix.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 7, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> A fighting game comes out lacking either characters in general or characters within a canon, the former would be an example of weaker design/implementation as far as I am concerned and the latter is not far behind. Paid DLC to change this would then seem to be a paid for fix.


When I hear, "pay to fix the game," I'm pretty sure it means "pay to FIX the game" regarding bugs, etc, not adding new characters and features. Saying that those are "fixes" is kind of pushing it


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 7, 2014)

A lack of characters, or a lack of known/expected characters in a themed or established fighting game, similar a lack of modes that are common to the fighting game concept would be an example of weak design or weak implementation of a design. Now not every game needs to be Mugen and some of this may be more of the things that were once bonus characters/costumes (possibly with moveset differences) now being DLC thing, however I would not even call it twisting to call that an example of paid fixes.


----------



## sion_zaphod (Oct 7, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> So let me get this straight: You bought a console in anticipation of a game that was really early in development with no release date, and now your mad at the developer for not releasing it, yet?
> 
> I really don't understand why people buy consoles in preparation for games that haven't released yet. Just wait until the game actually releases if said game is the main reason you want the console.


 
The game has been in development since 2007 it was announced in 2009 at E3 for 2011 release.  They have had 7 years of working on a game that will probably never be released.  I believe something similar happened over the NDS Gauntlet game.  It was hyped up for years then never released.  The complete rom has been dumped and can be downloaded.  What a waste of time and money.

BTW
I buy consoles, computers and games for many reasons but mainly these
To find out what the console is like
To play a game that is console specific e.g.  Gears of war, Halo on XBOX360 or Microsoft Windows (don't see those games on Sony or Nintendo Platforms)
Mario on Nintendo hardware (Not Microsoft or Sony)
And God Of War (Only On Sony Hardware)  
And oh yeah The Last Guardian made by Team ICO who only develop for SONY

Anybody that says they have never bought a console to play a specific game is lying.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Oct 7, 2014)

sion_zaphod said:


> Anybody that says they have never bought a console to play a specific game is lying.


 







Guilty...........


----------



## TecXero (Oct 7, 2014)

I think delaying can be good, if the developers have a direction and they think they can improve it. On the other hand, if the project is directionless, no amount of money or time will make it good until it gets a direction. For example: Duke Nukem Forever.

Rushed hardware is especially bad. PS2, Xbox 360, PS3, DS, Wii, and a few others suffered from hardware problems in their early iterations, some more minor than others, due to not being given more time for development and testing. Those issues were fixed later and they weren't bad system, but there are examples of extreme and bad cases.

There's also a problem with something being hyped up then delayed often, so by the time it comes out people have lost interest. Even if it's great, people have forgotten about it due to becoming desensitizes to the advertising and hype.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 7, 2014)

sion_zaphod said:


> The game has been in development since 2007 it was announced in 2009 at E3 for 2011 release. They have had 7 years of working on a game that will probably never be released. I believe something similar happened over the NDS Gauntlet game. It was hyped up for years then never released. The complete rom has been dumped and can be downloaded. What a waste of time and money.
> 
> BTW
> I buy consoles, computers and games for many reasons but mainly these
> ...


 
I never said that people didn't, or shouldn't, buy consoles for specific games that they're interested in. I just said that buying the console for that game BEFORE the game is even released is a dumb idea.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> I never said that people didn't, or shouldn't, buy consoles for specific games that they're interested in. I just said that buying the console for that game BEFORE the game is even released is a dumb idea.


Exactly. You don't buy a console based on a vague premise that a game you might like will be released for it. You shouldn't buy anything on a vague premise, period - smart shoppers wait for reviews to pop up, or at least a demo of some kind.


----------



## sion_zaphod (Oct 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Exactly. You don't buy a console based on a vague premise that a game you might like will be released for it. You shouldn't buy anything on a vague premise, period - smart shoppers wait for reviews to pop up, or at least a demo of some kind.



There were reviews for the game previews and reviews.  Some people actually got to play early alpha versions and reported on the game play experience.  Also it wasn't vague premise that it would be released for ps3.  Team ICO said at E3 it would be on ps3. Not skip a console generation and come out on ps4 which is what will happen now.  That's if team ICO finally pulls their finger out and gets the game released.  They will probably rebrand it as another RPG and not part of the ICO, SOTC series.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Oct 8, 2014)

This face. I can't this face outta my head! ;O;


----------



## Gahars (Oct 8, 2014)

sion_zaphod said:


> There were reviews for the game previews and reviews.


 
If you take previews as reviews, you have only yourself to blame.



sion_zaphod said:


> Some people actually got to play early alpha versions and reported on the game play experience. Also it wasn't vague premise that it would be released for ps3. Team ICO said at E3 it would be on ps3. Not skip a console generation and come out on ps4 which is what will happen now. That's if team ICO finally pulls their finger out and gets the game released. They will probably rebrand it as another RPG and not part of the ICO, SOTC series.


 

As someone who follows video games, you should know that any release details are tentative until the game goes gold, and even there can be delays. Considering that this game was little more than a trailer for years, that should've been the first clue that maybe, just maybe, this thing is a good ways off.

You made a stupid purchasing decision. Suck it up and deal with it.


----------



## CathyRina (Oct 8, 2014)

People bought PS3's because of FF13 being PS exclusive. Then The game became multi console and people regreted it. Then the game turned out to be shit and people regreted it even more.
Stop buying consoles prior to a games release dates!


----------



## Social_Outlaw (Oct 11, 2014)

Delaying a game is the best solution. Why people fail yet to mention that they're favorite game series getting milked? Oh as long as the game is good it doesn't matter, but people fail to realize that it does matter and it NEEDS to be delayed for a while. In my eyes these games are rushed, I played Borderlands 2 and that is a huge improvement over the first one. People do love they're game series but all I'm saying is just because you love your game don't ignore the fact that it could been improved way more than it currently is. Look at Mortal Kombat 10...


----------

