Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

because general consumer is stupid and will preorder whatever overhyped crap gets thrown at them

For video games.

Out of anything out there which isn't completely limited (pre-buying concert tickets or a newly built home a year out), how many products can you think of where people put down $60-70 a year out for something which will have tons of supply and most of the orders are at regular price with no perks? And there's no guarantee the game will even launch on that date.

Off the top of my head I can't think of one. Maybe iPhones? Do iPhones sell out so great Apple puts you on a waiting list? I don't know, I get a company phone.

 

[Furball]

Back in 2015 , When a complete game , minimal bug and creative like Xenoblade X got release , nobody give a shit , even got exclude from Award .

People praise a broken mess and full of bug like Witcher 3 as hall mark so yeah . It all karma

 

[JeloSWE]

I had such high regard ro CDPR, I even preordered CP77 but after this I will probably wait a couple of months for any future game releases befor purchasing so they have time to sort out the patches and even grab it at a lower price. I think I'll only buy stuff day one from developers that have shown to be trustworthy in the future.

 

[Kamina]

The problem isn‘t with the developers usually but the publishers.
From a Project Management point of view it is natural that delays can happen. If the delays during development eat up all planned buffers the Project Sponsors have to decide whether to move the release backwards, reduce the scope, or sometimes both. In an attempt not the endanger the new release date, scopes are often frozen at a certain stage to finish what has been started and not waste time with new things. This is were post release DLC is born (of course they are often planned too these days). Unfortunately QA is one of the the things that, due to its closely scheduled proximity to release, is also cut down to a minimum in worst case.
As for the reason why: money
They are planning with certain costs and revenues in a specific fiscal year and dont want delays, as those cost twice: once for the ongoing delayed project and once for the lost revenues.
Not trying to defend them or anything, it’s just the reason why they do it. Personally i believe there could be other solutions though.

 

[nkarafo]

Like i said before. The "digital future" is beneficial to the publishers. Having the ability to fix bugs and errors of a complete game was supposed to be beneficial to users, sure. But naturally, publishers had to go to the other extreme and twist the whole system so it serves them and only them. Because now they have the excuse to release broken, unfinished, untested code because "hey, at least we can patch it nowadays". Why would they spent more time and money on testing when they can simply use the consumers to test their games for them?

 

[Kerotan]

It's better then the release somewhat decent working game then break it with patches later approach many publishers take.

 

[tassletine]

Pretty sure what you're seeing isn't a result of capitalism but more a socialist 'share the burden' attitude by the developers.
I've spoken to a couple of people who work in companies like this and they seriously don't see anything wrong with it. Luckily it's not all developers that behave as badly as this.

 

[Kagey K]

The great thing about games (especially single player ones) is that there is no Zeitgeist.

You can buy it a year later for cheaper and play the better version of the game.

If your Fomo causes you to pay more for an inferior version, that’s on you. Not them.