Support NeoGAF

[Bo_Hazem]

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"​

 

[ethomaz]

Yes.

Cyberpunk is a clear example and it will always be remembered as a rushed game if it ever back again to PS Store.

 

[Interfectum]

It still holds true. There is a good game hidden in the depths of Cyberpunk and Outriders but those games will be forever plagued with how they launched and will never truly recover.

 

[Aion002]

Example: Days Gone. Most of the people that played it on launch hated because of the issues. The game was later fixed... As someone that played way later, I love the game, there was almost no issues for me... But for the majority of day one players.... Well, Days Gone is just bad.

 

[Jacob Curnow]

It depends. I would say that the gaming market in terms of overall creativity, advancement and technology is not even really that competitive. It's probably like in the mid tier range of competitiveness at a technical and creative level, whereas something like the NFL or NBA are in that Super Tier range of being competitive.

Gaming, like many other businesses in the modern era, can be actually governed by "wokeness" or political leanings. Even if someone is not on one side of the political fence, especially in the USA, they are smart enough to pretend they are to keep their position and/or company. So the real competition lies in who can put out as many political dog whistles as possible to maintain their average-tier company.

That said: Here's the answer to your question directly. Even though the gaming community doesn't exactly produce revolutionary products on average, there's still quantity over quality; meaning lots of numbers. There's tons of new games coming out all the time whether physical or digital, and if a company is able to maintain the hype for their product (that is theoretically delayed in the topic creators example), then yes, they could end up banking in the end. But people have short attention spans, and even if a dev is making a really good game, gamers would be more than happy to get distracted and forget about their product if they take too long and don't spend the proper money on hooking people with advertisements, media appearances, hype, etc.

 

[jigglet]

Yes.

Cyberpunk is a clear example and it will always be remembered as a rushed game if it ever back again to PS Store.

I don't know, some people have very short memories.

 

[Dodkrake]

Or has it ever been valid? Should Miyamoto have said "... a rushed game only stays bad if you forget to release roadmaps and content-design updates"?

Of all the aspects of development, marketing has the greatest impact on initial returns for publishers and investors (in my opinion anyway). It's what indie developers are told will lift them up out of obscurity and so on.

Following a traditional development/marketing cycle, publishers force a game out, get huge launch sales and then work on adjusting the game's core design, balance and performance post-release;
That decision is made easier with the potential for feedback directly from players and the apparent ease of delivering updates directly to players.

Of course, developers and producers with unfocused development and overambitious goals contribute to this too.

Still, this practice will probably only get worse as the need for external investment grows with the complexity of games.

Of course, I don't know shit about what actually goes down behind closed doors. Pure speculation here.

Tl;dr: Do "bad" games stay bad these days?

No. No Man's Sky was pretty feature pale at the beginning and became a great game. That's one example.

This is true, CP2077 got delayed multiple times but that didn't stop the game from being released broken.

It got delayed multiple times but their shareholder calls show that it was eventually rushed (and is still not that great).

 

[Interfectum]

It depends. I would say that the gaming market in terms of overall creativity, advancement and technology is not even really that competitive. It's probably like in the mid tier range of competitiveness at a technical and creative level, whereas something like the NFL or NBA are in that Super Tier range of being competitive.

Gaming, like many other businesses in the modern era, can be actually governed by "wokeness" or political leanings. Even if someone is not on one side of the political fence, especially in the USA, they are smart enough to pretend they are to keep their position and/or company. So the real competition lies in who can put out as many political dog whistles as possible to maintain their average-tier company.

That said: Here's the answer to your question directly. Even though the gaming community doesn't exactly produce revolutionary products on average, there's still quantity over quality; meaning lots of numbers. There's tons of new games coming out all the time whether physical or digital, and if a company is able to maintain the hype for their product (that is theoretically delayed in the topic creators example), then yes, they could end up banking in the end. But people have short attention spans, and even if a dev is making a really good game, gamers would be more than happy to get distracted and forget about their product if they take too long and don't spend the proper money on hooking people with advertisements, media appearances, hype, etc.

 

[Interfectum]

No. No Man's Sky was pretty feature pale at the beginning and became a great game. That's one example.



It got delayed multiple times but their shareholder calls show that it was eventually rushed (and is still not that great).

I'd say No Man's Sky and FF14 are very rare examples of a game pulling itself out of the ditch. It doesn't happen often and publishers shouldn't expect it. Cyberpunk will not enjoy a 'No Man's Sky' level revival.

 

[Dusktildawn48]

Yes.

Cyberpunk is a clear example and it will always be remembered as a rushed game if it ever back again to PS Store.

I counter with Halo MCC and No man's sky. Rushed games can be made good if the developers care enough.

 

[Jacob Curnow]

Oh dear God, what?

 

[Miles708]

I'd say No Man's Sky and FF14 are very rare examples of a game pulling itself out of the ditch. It doesn't happen often and publishers shouldn't expect it. Cyberpunk will not enjoy a 'No Man's Sky' level revival.

Also no man sky and ffxiv are both served as GAAS, which would suck if it became the norm everywhere.

Despite the defeatism of the people in this forum, there are still a lot of games that can be played normally with no patch at all. I guess someone gave them the time they needed.

 

[MagnesG]

People always come out with a couple of rushed game examples that become good at the end, while forgetting that there must have been a gazillion games being delayed internally or public to ensure that those releases are of standards. That includes masterpieces of generations too.

 

[ethomaz]

I counter with Halo MCC and No man's sky. Rushed games can be made good if the developers care enough.

That is the point.
MCC and No Man's Sky is still remembered by the launch.
Both lose sales due that.

The first impression... that is what Minamoto was saying... look at the 343i reputation after the disaster... even today they are most quoted as bad developers.
And Hello Games? It does even exists anymore?

 

[Valonquar]

While the general idea of the statement is true, often a super delayed game ends up with too many cooks in the kitchen, leaving the game a disjointed mess. Often a super delayed game eventually hits a point where management says "fuck it, just release it as-is." and you get shit like FFXV or Cyberpunk 2077.

 

[Moonjt9]

If a game is garbage at release, I don’t give two shits if it ever gets better. It already put a bad taste in my mouth and ruined my idea of it.

Take No Man’s Sky as the perfect example. That game is by all accounts a stellar video game right now. In fact, I even tried it a little bit ago, but the stink of my first experience wasting my precious hours on that launch turd forever tainted any enjoyment I could get from playing it again. I dropped it again after 30 minutes.

The quote is the most perfect video game quote ever.

 

[EverydayBeast]

A game developed in 1 year might have people saying it’s not ready.

 

[The Shepard]

Just ask FFXIV v1.0 and Cyberpunk. The launch damage was done, only one recovered. The game can become forever tainted, making it forever bad. Even if it turns around like FFXIV, which is the anomaly and not the norm.

The quote itself goes much deeper than how a game eventually turns out.

Cyberpunk could have a second life with the next gen releases, so never say never on that one, I was always waiting on this version myself. FF14 is the biggest comeback in video game history, the game all the disasters should inspire to be.

 

[supernova8]

I'm torn because I think Sean Murray is a dick for putting out NMS with no content whatsoever, but I enjoy BF4 to this day even if it was fucked at first.

 

[SF Kosmo]

It's still good advice, at least. While a rushed game CAN come back, most don't, and even if they do, they do they usually have a hard time overcoming the reputational damage. Games like No Man's Sky and FF14 might be exceptions but even in those cases it's hard to argue they did themselves any favors by releasing half baked.

Where this might not apply as much is like, early access titles, where the unfinished state is clearly telegraphed. That model has its own plusses and minuses but it let's devs have it both ways to some extent.

 

[Fbh]

IMO It only really holds true if a studio has a very big financial backing allowing them to afford delaying it.

Also, it's mostly related to the technical side of things. Some games just have bad/boring core gameplay not because they ran out of time but simply because they were poorly designed. You can polish them up to run at 4K120fps with zero bugs, but they'll still be boring.

 

[demigod]

Sure didn’t work for Crackdown 3.

 

[Excess]

It's pretty clear that Cyberpunk 2077 suffered from mismanagement. If a game is in development for 7+ years, you need to project that so your can get a return on investment when the release date reaches maturity.

It's clear this was a case of management at odds with the developers, who also deserve the blame.

>development asks for more time
>management grants it
>development asks for more time again
>management reluctantly approves
>development insists it still needs more time
>management asks how finished the game is
>development gives a percentage
>management forces development to wrap it up, recoup on the current investment, and directs development to fix the bugs through new releases and fixes
>CFO can breathe a sigh a relief
>entropy exposes that development is far less finished than anticipated
>CEO panics

 

[blastprocessor]

Just look at Cyberpunk 2077 and you have your answer.

 

[Warnen]

Sadly we are beyond this point. Just about ever game from Cyber Punk to Returnal have been busted at release. Best we can hope for these days is a speedy fix and a generous refund process.

 

[Africa's Toto]

A rushed game has no guarantee of being bad. Likewise, there is no guarantee a delayed game will be good. This has always and will always be true

I think this is a gross oversimplification of current-day videogame development.

Delay is no sign of quality by default, just as "forever bad" is a non-applicable definitive statement considering patches and hotfixes are common good now.

Yeah, I think Miyamoto equated "bad" to "broken, buggy, and unstable" to "needed more time, should have been delayed" when in reality, bad covers way more and is just one of possible flaws a game could have.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

I need an example of a rush game being good.

 

[Kamina]

Even delayed games have day one patches these days, so i dont think this quote is as relevant anymore as it used to be.

I need an example of a rush game being good.

Everyone these days acts like the opposite of delayed is rushed.
Finishing a game on time isnt rushing it unless the whole project management or development process was garbage from the start.

 

[reinking]

There are examples of rushed games that corrected issues but never fully recovered. No Man's Sky, Fallout 76, etc. I applaud the devs/publishers for sticking with it in some cases but if a game is released broken it can gave a long-term effect even if it does not outright kill the game. I voted it depends....

 

[xellos2099alpha]

Sadly we are beyond this point. Just about ever game from Cyber Punk to Returnal have been busted at release. Best we can hope for these days is a speedy fix and a generous refund process.

I through Returnal have pretty good review

 

[Warnen]

I through Returnal have pretty good review

Yeah but had major bugs

 

[TheMan]

if the issues are mostly technical then no that statement hasn't been true in like 20 years, at least on PC

As for core gameplay issues? I would say the statement is largely still true. There aren't many example of games receiving massive overhauls to fix a poorly received initial release.

 

[Danjin44]

I need an example of a rush game being good.

Well currently the only game I can think of is MHRise, when the game got released the story was unfinished and still is until 3.0 update comes in. But that didn't stop the game from being really good and highly addictive and barely any bugs or performance issues.

 

[TGO]

A lot of delayed games have turned out to be turds and no amount of delays or updates will change that, and a lot rushed games have been fixed after release and have been great
I think it goes both ways
You can't polish a turd.

 

[Africa's Toto]

I was going to make a thread about what the 'acceptable/preferred standard' is for games at launch, since we are starting to take into consideration the complexity of modern game development and say (some of us) it's okay for some games to release in certain shit states but it isn't for others.

I mean, No man's sky and Cyberpunk both oversold, dialed back, and eventually failed to reach their marketing and our general quality standards, and yet some fellow PC players seem to think one game was fine because it was playable for them and the other a shitshow at launch.
Both of the above games were "fine" for me at launch on PC because I never bought into the hype, but saying nothing was wrong with one but roasting the other at launch is doubleminded at best.

 

[Clear]

You can't polish a turd.

With code, you can.

Its just a matter of revision, and the time/labour investment required.

 

[Africa's Toto]

I was going to make a thread about what the 'acceptable/preferred standard' is for games at launch

I decided not to because my most recent threads have all basically been about fud regarding the games industry.

Distracting from the many great games being released, including the very ones I've been playing.

 

[twerkouting]

Yes. Also gamers aren't exactly known for their patience.

 

[zeorhymer]

More like: A delayed game may be good, but a rushed game will leave a sour taste and won't sell even though they fixed it through patches.

 

[Isleofsancroy]

This was before we were all involuntarily hired via unpaid internship to be game testers. After 2 or 5 revisions we eventually get the completed game.



In most cases.

The consumers remember, and the shape your games are in at launch shapes the perception of your brand, and your IP, and what you can sell games for.

Tell that to Bethesda after Fallout76. Got off scott free in the end.

 

[ShadowNate]

An already delayed game can still be rushed to release.

If at release time (or at the time of the final release date decision) the dev team and / or the creator still feel the game is rushed / unfinished, then you have a problem.

Plus, you cannot delay a release perpetually (people will lose interest, money will run out, even the developers may get demotivated or exhausted).

And as others pointed out, delays many times may indicate development hell or serious management issues, both of which will most likely lead to a shitty product.

So, I'd go with a rushed game will probably be terrible but delays would not necessarily have fixed its issues.

 

[Spukc]

"A delayed game takes longer to bring in cash. A rushed game gives us money right now. The tools will buy them them anyway, fuck em"