The infamous statement “When it’s Done”… sadly something that a lot of devs and publishers completely ignore when releasing broken games to eager gamers ready to give away their hard earned cash. When will enough be enough?
Looks at Battlefield 4 as a perfect answer to this question. RUSH JOB = BUggy Mess. "Didn't know I had to pay $60 to get into Battlefield 4 Alpha, thanks EA" ----Random Gamer.
Most EA games, actually. Me personally, ME3 was another big indicator. They wanted it done in 18 months, which is nowhere near the amount of time ME3 needed and we all know what we got in the end: a product that only loosely matched, if at all, what the developers were saying about it. EA is the worst offender of this, in my experience.
Other example: Bethesda trying to rush Skyrim out to get the 11/11/11 release date. outcome= all kinds of problems from gameplay bugs to gamebreaking ones and not to mention that memory problem on console where if you had a 10-12mb save or higher the game starts slowing in framerate and stuttering. Big publishers trying to man handle developers into release there game as soon as possible just to see the $$$, that's corporatism for you.
Deadlines are good no matter what you work in. It helps limit your "scale" to a realistic one. When you think you have all the time in the world, you could think "too big". And that hurts games more than anything, promising too big and then realizing down the road that it isn't what you promised and something you cannot deliver. There shouldn't be a hard deadline, but a working deadline. You have deadlines for each part of your games and as you meet or miss your deadlines, you know if your games will end up finished on time. (and if you need to rethink some of the other non-essential parts of the game to meet the deadline).
This. It's naïve to think the industry should work without deadlines. All we'll get out of such bad management is more studios going under. If buggy releases suggests anything it is that more should be invested in getting good project managers.
Arbitrary Deadlines are no good when publishers push them without listening to the developers in the 1st place. I've said this many times on here: Some ignorant "suit/publisher" claims to the media that they have the greatest game coming out in 3 months. The DEVELOPERS (those that actually write the code) shake there heads and tell the "suit" that they cannot release a game that early in the process. They give a far more realistic timeline. Then we hear there are "delays" from the PUBLISHER, not the developer who never promised a published date. It is epic facepalm on a global scale. Why doesn't this happen for good indie developers? Because they don't have "suits" running around claiming all sorts of crap that they shouldn't be spewing.
@thors That's because indie developers aren't having someone put millions of dollars into their project. It's common sense, when someone invests in you, they want a return eventually, not "when it's done". While I agree some publishers need to relax with timelines, I completely disagree that devs that have had millions of dollars invested in their project should be able to do w/e they want. This is how publishers and developers do under. Then no one is happy.
You have to agree though some companies who do the whole "When it's done" argument take the p*** Half Life 3 for example...a franchise which fanbase have followed and supported Valve for years, a fanbase which got Valve to where they are now and yet we haven't had a drop of info about it for years, it's been 7 years now since Episode 2 was released and it ended on a cliff hanger.
Which may be an indicator that the deadline should be roughly at the five year mark at the latest.
Yea but heres the thing, Valve never released a little teaser trailer for HL3 saying "Will release when its done", fans created the hype and if there is anyone to blame it definitely isn't Valve.
This ^^^ They never did so that's why we always expect the reveal of HL3 at e3.
double post :/
And was DNF ready when they released it?
Ever heard of extenuating circumstances?
While hardware instead of software, anyone following the RetroN5? It's sadly receiving a backlash as it's been delayed many times, only to now officially get a "when it's done" attitude. The company isn't responding to ANY comments by the community, unless it's one random snarky reply to a humorous comment. They're allowing their FB and Twitter feeds to fill with vitrol. All of this when allegedly it comes out "in April"....yet now outside sources (not the makers) state that it'll be out late next month, going to stock shelves in little stores before fulfilling preorders, and jacking the price another $40. I dunno if my rant has now gone off topic, but it shows how when one group puts a release date then backpedals repeatedly how the community can ask for your head, while still asking for your product.
On the other hand, if a game is taking a long time to come out that's usually a sign of bad management and creative indecisiveness. The result can be a lazy mess. The pressure of deadlines can be beneficial because they demand more sophisticated organization and discipline to get the job done, resulting in a tighter product.
Yea, but at the same time its really easy to get yourself into a situation you do not make a game with an end in mind resulting in a game that ends abruptly when the money dries up, which is also very common.
Ultimately I see the developer being late as a fault on that developer's time keeping. Games aren't just about mechanics and graphics, just like making anything else, it's about managing a team, time, money, and expectations. Thing is though, a delay is acceptable. Projects the world over don't hit the mark every time (it's not the end of the world by any means), but only with gaming is it really acceptable for a publisher to figure that it's easier to cut their losses and push the unfinished product onto the consumer. So yeah ultimately publishers suck, and it'd be swell if a developer could just ask for more time when necessary. But I really don't think the solution is to just do away with time keeping.
Ubisoft asked for more time on WatchDogs and it is well deserved as it looks amazing. Though they took a huge hit in their stocks when it was announced. No matter what it has an impact on the company. It can be delayed and forgotten completely and over budget. Can be released as scheduled and full of bugs and the name gets ruined. Or the balance of delays a few months and polishing up more. It's a though call to make.
Unrealistic and even hasty deadlines aren't good but there's got to be something. I don't care for the "When its done" mentality about as much as a rush job.
i think it's fine if companies delay the game to fix it
Battlefield 4 is a good example. 6 months later they added the servers that community said they needed back in November for the game to run well.
We need to understant that is not something good to always hear something positive but untrue.
My view on this matter is that deadlines are important: people must have a timescale to work to or nothing would ever get done. However, delaying games that won't be complete by launch day is the right thing to do. Rockstar delayed GTA V last gen and most were grateful of their honesty and commitment to delivering a title gamers would be happy with. EA pushed BF4 out the door unfinished, kicking and screaming, and six months of patching later we're still a long way from a satisfactory product. Checked the BF forums: the majority of franchise fans are upset, and with very good reason in my view. This mentality of "launch it on schedule, we'll patch it later" HAS to stop. It's bad practice, and as history proves it is detrimental to quality, reputation and a gamer's trust.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.