Support NeoGAF

[Ghost of Caelid]

This quote from the legendary Shigeru Miyamoto is often a go back to quote for why games need to be release in their best state and to justify delays. I do think that a game should be released in its best state but in the year 2021 this quote isn't as relevant as it once was considering the on going creation of video games in today. Examples of games that isn't "forever bad"...

ESO
Fortnite
No Mans Sky
Fallout 76
Rainbow 6 siege
The division

and many more.

 

[elliot5]

It hasn't been true for like a decade

 

[R6Rider]

 

[Sophist]

it is still true in some sense because the experience you had when you played the game before the updates will remain forever bad.

 

[Umbasaborne]

A delayed game is delayed because publishers announce false early release dates to bolster pre orders

 

[AV]

it is still true in some sense because the experience you had when you played the game before the updates will remain forever bad.

This is how I take it. I played Cyberpunk 2077 on a decent PC at launch and it was okay. No amount of work is going to get me to replay it, I know what happens in that story and that's why you play Cyberpunk 2077. My impression of it will always be the good story in an incredibly undercooked game.

 

[Ezquimacore]

It's mostly true if the developers know what they're doing. Miyamoto said that in a time where every game needed to be 100% polished because updates were not a thing (At least for Nintendo)

 

[SomeGit]

If they took years to get to a decent state, then they were effectively delayed. But yes, the quote was said at a time where the gold master meant the end of the developer's work on the game.

 

[Kiddo Cabbusses]

it is still true in some sense because the experience you had when you played the game before the updates will remain forever bad.

There's also the aspect of reputation recovery. Even if No Man's Sky and Fallout 76 are better now, their initial incarnations were bad enough (and publicly documented enough) that the tarnished goodwill would take more than just "fixing" the next release post-launch to bring back.

 

[llLeonhart]

All of these games are live service meant to be played over a long time.

Still doesn't mean much. First impressions stick. specially on single player games. I still think fallout 76 is a POS and I am not willing to try it out again because I was burned so badly by it. Same with Cyberpunk 2077. Barring some kind of a miracle, I'll steer clear from it. And the speed by which the hype of it has fallen speaks for itself, you barely even hear about this game anymore.

 

[BusierDonkey]

It is still true though. A game that releases broken and shitty but gets fixed over the course of a year is a very, very bad thing. People championing the practice is also a very bad thing. It's like you're telling the developer to go ahead and release shit, we'll gobble it up and you can worry about making it good after you see if enough people bought it to make it worthwhile. I think developers that release games in this state should have it shoved in their face at every turn, not praised in retrospect for such a shady practice.

Master Chief Collection - This one took years to fix multiplayer.
Sea of Thieves - Absolutely nothing to do for months after launch and a ton of bugs. Fuck you early adopters.
Fallout 76 - I refuse to buy it on PC out of principle because for the early adopters it was a broken, empty $60 pile of shit.
No Man's Sky - I was in EBGames the day this released and there was a line of people there for this game which was nothing like what had been promoted. That's a lot of disappointment incoming.
etc...

While new players can have a decent time playing the games in their current states, the people that cared enough to jump in on day one got burned.

 

[The Eradicator]

This is correct. I've been saying this for years, every time someone uses this quote. It simply does not apply to the current state of the industry.

 

[Elbow Identity Shallow]

Shigeru Miyamoto:
People really like that quote! [laughs] I think I really meant to say was that when I make a game, and if I rush to get it out on time but it’s still not done the way that I want it to be and I put it out in a state that I’m not satisfied with, I’ll never be able to take it back and I will regret it for a very long time. I never had an intention of telling anybody that they’ve made a bad game, and that it will always be bad.

 

[MiguelItUp]

I personally feel it's still very true. We've just had exceptions. But there have been plenty of games that SHOULD'VE been delayed, and were released with a pop and a fizz. When they could've been much more than that.

When it comes to an impressive turnaround, it really depends on the developer, the project, and a number of other variables.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Personally i'm fully supportive of early access models.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

It depends. Most of those games in the OP are multiplayer games. Games that are always getting updates for years to come.

That quote was said in a time game updates weren't a thing, and online games weren't what they are now.

On the other hand, look at Cyberpunk's release and everything that followed. Look at The Avengers and how hard that team is working to bring some life into the game.
Games that are mainly single player, if you release it in a bad state, they very rarely recover tbh.

 

[Ezekiel_]

That original experience, without all the patches and DLC, will forever be bad.

Your examples are interesting, because they are all multiplayer/GaaS type games. Those games could clearly label themselves "work in progress" in order to be judged differently then your typical single player game. The term "Beta" can be used, but then the challenge for publishers would be how to sell full priced betas to consumers... I liked how Subnautica approached the issue by selling the "early unfinished release" at lower MSRP than the finished 1.00 game release.

Games are an interesting medium for having the ability to change incrementally over a long period of time. Most products that we consume don't evolve as much.

Take, for example, movies. Sure you have occasional directors cuts and extended cuts, but most movies don't evolve. A bad movie will stay bad, a good movie will stay good.

I think the advent of "patches" was simultaneously an advantage and disadvantage for gamers : patching can dramatically increase the value of a product during its life span, but can make publishers greedy and basically release unfinished/buggy products to be fixed at a later date.

 

[Vaelka]

I think that it's usually true but there are exceptions to it.
But that's what they are, exceptions.

Edit: Also I'd say that it applies far more to singleplayer games.
If you release a rushed singleplayer game it's not as easy to '' fix '' later.

 

[ethomaz]

I get your point.

But the sales were already lost… no matter what most of people that avoided NMS won’t buy it in the future even if it become a perfect game.

The first impression matters a lot.

Cyberpunk probably lost millions of sales that won’t go back even if the game becomes a masterpiece in the follow years.

In simples terms the damage is already done and you can do just much to try to minimize it but never fully fix.

 

[MikeM]

The idea that publishers want consumers to pay full price for essentially half the content is a slap in the face and should not be supported, especially when the longer you wait, the cheaper the game gets but with more content. Its just ass-backwards.

But then publishers will say an IP didn't sell well and want to shelve it because first week sales were shit, without acknowledging that the game isn't anywhere near complete.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Legendary games have legacies, today developers deal with product placement, give gamers multiple game modes, blow up screens with visuals, releasing a game early (Socom Confrontation) is a mistake, but it’s not better to extend a game’s development because you’ll never get it on store shelves and you’re getting rid of hype you have to prepare for a LAUNCH DATE and respect that LAUNCH. The reality is a game has a launch like a space ship and you realize during that ships launch issues will arise, measuring fuel, feeling bumps during the launch’s ride.

 

[Ezquimacore]

Imagine if breath of the wild on switch was a broken mess, they could fix the game via updates, true. But also the switch would've been a mess. Look at cyberpunk and assassin's Creed unity, the games will have bad reputation forever. If horizon zero dawn was a broken mess the franchise would be dead. Look at no man sky, yeah it's fixed now with A LOT of hard work, but that's now after years and not every developer has the determination to do that. Even today that quote is relevant.

 

[Poop!]

It was said before patches. When the game you released was in that state for the rest of time.

 

[Warnen]

Even great games benefit from waiting to be played. Look how much the great Witcher 3 improved over the following months. Waiting is worth it if u can.

 

[AmuroChan]

Even for games that weren't rushed or released broken, your experience playing a game 1 year after release vs playing it on day 1 is 99% of the time going to be better.

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

I don't think Shiggy imagined a world where unfinished service games are released to market knowing that customers will play the game and provide enough money in microtransactions to allow the developer to eventually improve the game over time. So the statement is still true, it just depends on the game.

 

[SafeOrAlone]

A delayed game is delayed because publishers announce false early release dates to bolster pre orders

And when you call it out, prepare for a tidal wave of:
A. "Crunch is BAD."
B. "Find something else to do. Can't you wait for a videogame?"

Neither of which tackle the point. Just saying, it can get ignorant out there. Especially when people are wary of every comment being an assault on their platform of choice.

 

[saintjules]

It hasn't been true for like a decade

Agree. It's become more annoying whenever people share that quote.

 

[Aion002]

Too many games to play...

 

[Saber]

Read the meaning of delaying a game , then you should know.

Why game X is delayed?
Because its not quite done to be released. Either because bugs or visuals aren't attracting. So in a sense, the reason is to give polishment.

But what if the delay reasoning was something unrelated? Like delaying a game because the release date is no favorable to the sales?

 

[zeorhymer]

I always thought Miamoto was talking about single player games or one and done games. Not the live service games like MMOs or multi-player games where the revenue stream is constant year over year.

 

[MacReady13]

I actually wish it was still true because we wouldn't have shit rushed to release with constant patches to "fix" these games. Release them when they are complete! There was nothing like buying Metroid Dread on day 1 and playing it through without the need for updates to fix anything!

 

[Wildebeest]

The Cathedral and the Bazaar was published in 1999. This isn't news for software development.

"Release early. Release often. Listen to your customers."

 

[Azelover]

It isn't because the format has changed. But to be honest, it should.

I think before shipping, the game should be completed. The fact that isn't true anymore annoys the heck out of me. I don't wanna buy the game and then wait for them to finish it.

If it is on sale, it should be done.

 

[palpabl_purpura]

This quote from the legendary Shigeru Miyamoto is often a go back to quote for why games need to be release in their best state and to justify delays. I do think that a game should be released in its best state but in the year 2021 this quote isn't as relevant as it once was considering the on going creation of video games in today. Examples of games that isn't "forever bad"...

I sure he meant if a game made by him is delayed, it will eventually be good. Too many average to below average developers using this as an excuse.

 

[Rickyiez]

Let's be real some of those games are over promised instead rushed

 

[CuNi]

Not my experience since I generally have a very "toxic" view on every new game as my friends like to say, but a friend of mine got NMS day one because she was hyped and well we all know how that game was back then.
Yes, it looks nearly like a completely different game nowadays, but she hasn't played it since and is way more cautious with new games in generell since that day.
I think it's like trying out a new type of food or a new activity. No matter what friends tell you, your first experience will leave a impression on you, even long after you actually had it. So I think yes, that statement still is true depending on how you look at it.

 

[Bakkus]

Do you really think you're being original by pointing this out? I've seen this exact post on this forum countless times were the likes of No Man's Sky is always made as a counter argument. Or the fact that there are multiple counter examples for this when ignoring patched games

Search results for query: "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad."

www.neogaf.com

 

[StateofMajora]

It absolutely is still true and your game examples show that.

 

[ANDS]

Hard disagree. NMS, FO76 and games of it's ilk may have rebounded to a point where people can enjoy them (no idea why THE DIVISION is on that list), but they still have the stink of horrific launches (FO76 still performs like absolute dogshit while BETHESDA is busy messing about with battleroyales and private servers instead of fixing the game so that it performs appropriately on a wide variety of hardware) hanging around their necks (and Steam user reviews).

. . .CP77 (a game whose performance on last-gen consoles will forever tarnish a game that ran as well as any open world game for me on a modest PC) is a good example of how this thesis just isn't true.

 

[justiceiro]

Probably, but no matter how much patches you apply, you can only have one first impression ever.

 

[Fuz]

Are you guys really excusing botched releases just because they can be fixed later with patches?


My money were good now and I'm playing the game now.

 

[SF Kosmo]

The lesson is still true though. Games that launch in bad shape always suffer for it. And while some can come back, they invariably lose a lot of sales and hype compared to what they could have had.

The exception here, perhaps, is live service games with a soft launch; games that people expect to grow overtime and which aren't asking $60 entry fees. Minecraft, Fortnite, Among Us. These games didn't launch as bad games but they grew over time. But they were supposed to.

 

[Keihart]

Yeah, it wasn't even true when it was made, lots of games suffered from development hell.
Sometimes more time is not the solution, sometimes it's either launch or can it before making it worse.

 

[Laptop1991]

Never been true really, just a statement to hide the real issues, no point delaying a game if it's still not fixed/better etc.

 

[Edgelord79]

I believe the quote is not really meant as an absolute even though it's written as such. Obviously there will be examples to the contrary.

 

[Deerock71]

No Man's Sky still looks like someone barfed their 20 gallon sherbet binge everywhere.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I believe the quote is not really meant as an absolute even though it's written as such. Obviously there will be examples to the contrary.

Miyamoto's also the dude who released Super Mario World, a famously rushed launch title that was worse than its last-gen predecessor and put Nintendo behind Sega for the first time ever.

We all like to pretend that game was good for some reason, but it's really not.

See also Super Mario Bros 2J/Lost Levels.

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

Look what happened to DriveClub and Days Gone. Those were eventually fixed, but the multiplayer issues from DriveClub, made Sony shut down Evolution Studios and not enough people bought Days Gone to warrant a sequel due to the numerous bugs and bad frame rate (especially on base PS4). Had these games been delayed and released correctly, then maybe Evolution would still be pumping out amazing games and maybe Days Gone 2 would be announced by now.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Miyamoto's quote is from a bygone era and probably about single player games. There is some truth to it still, release a broken game, press and consumers will rip it apart. Fix it and make it great, but the damage has largely been done already.

But on the other hand there are games that get delayed and delayed, and once they're finally out they've lost their appeal and hype or worse there is already a much better similar looking game to buy.