Support NeoGAF

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

The development studio behind a newly released Tintin game has told players it’s not good enough yet.

Tintin Reporter: Cigars of the Pharaoh was released on Tuesday and is a retelling of the fourth story in the comic book adventures of the young reporter by Belgian cartoonist Hergé.

However, Spanish developer Pendulo Studios posted a tweet just hours after release, telling players it doesn’t consider the game to be of an acceptable quality yet.

“Hello everyone, we want to share important information about our current release, Tintin Reporter: Cigars of the Pharaoh,” the tweet reads.

“Despite our best efforts, those who play the game at launch won’t be able to enjoy the experience as we intended it to be.

“We are committed to fixing this situation in a promptly manner – we will deliver the necessary patches in the coming weeks while keeping all our channels at your disposal for any issue you want to report to us directly.

“This is our most ambitious project ever, and we’re putting our heart into it. We are devoted to paying the best tribute to the famous reporter and delighting you as a player, and we won’t stop until we reach our goal. Thank you for your support and patience.”

Although it’s not known why the game wasn’t delayed given Pendulo clearly doesn’t think it should have been released in its current state, it’s likely that the planned release date was out of the studio’s control.

A likely exacerbating factor is that the game was also released physically, as both a standard edition and a £169 Collector’s Edition inclding an art book and an original figurine of Tintin.

Publisher Microids has retweeted the studio’s message, but has yet to provide a statement of its own. VGC has reached out for a statement, and will update this story should one be provided.

Tintin Reporter: Cigars of the Pharaoh is out now on PS5, Xbox Series X/S, PS4 and PC, and is coming to Switch in 2024

Tintin studio posts a message on release day saying it’s not good enough, will take weeks to patch | VGC

Those who play the game at launch won't be able to enjoy the experience as we intended"

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[The Cockatrice]

 

[yurinka]

I know these guys, they're a small, hardworking and talented team who made good adventure games.

Maybe their publisher didn't give them enough time to release it polished enough. I understand they'll fix all they can asap.

 

[N30RYU]

 

[cireza]

Common sense prevailed once again.

 

[alstrike]

The same thing happened to Blacksad a few years back and guess who the publisher for that game was…

 

[YCoCg]

I have to admire the balls on them for this, just outright telling people "No, don't buy this shit yet, even we don't want it out there". It'll probably damage their chances with publishers in the future but respect to them for this.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

I feel sorry for the guys who have to say that.

Quite some insight from Video Games Chronicle, with a wild stab in the dark that the release date was out of the developer's control.

Tbh, this is so common now I don't take it for granted that games will be ready at launch. Perhaps studios and publishers ought to be more realistic about how much time it takes to make a polished game, as opposed to one that will be "Ok, as long as absolutely nothing unforseen happens and everything goes perfectly."

Given that no game wouldn't benefit from more time, perhaps some games could just build that time in - put all the patching and fixing time BEFORE the release date, not after.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

Imagine having an entire team of people working to create a game for years, and your publisher just decides to dump it on the marketplace when you are 90% finished.

 

[crackajack]

Hardly an ideal situation. I guess maybe similar to the Gollum disaster, the license did cost something and postponing into another year, paying a bonus extension fee, would make reaching a return of investment harder, with adventure games being thin on profit usually anyway. I am not seeing the publisher as a truly bad guy, without knowing more. Having a physical release with some dates to adhere to once set and an expiring license to manage is probably not as flexible as a self published digital only, new IP could be. I guess risking bad reviews and lower sales now might be the more feasable way for the dev and publisher.
They probably knew the deadline months in advance and while wanting to do stuff great is okay, but if you have a date you better aim for that and not some idealistic dream. A deadline is not given for shits and giggles. I kinda never see the publisher alone in the wrong.

Anyway, makes me wonder if license games are really wise for small(er) studios. Robocop being okay to really good is kinda more the exception than the rule. A name with some pull factor seems often more risky and costly than trying your luck with an original title, that can easily be inspired by an IP anyway, and maybe be changed last minute to be a license game if it fits, just some assets changed, without pressuring yourself from the start.

 

[Beer Baelly]

 

[Lucifers Beard]

This sounds like it was pushed on them to release by the publisher. Honestly, publishers are the fucking worst in most cases.

 

[buenoblue]

What a crock of shit. If the game ain't ready do t fucking sell it. Simple.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

I always hated the TinTin comics. Always preferred Asterix

 

[ReBurn]

The same thing happened to Blacksad a few years back and guess who the publisher for that game was…

Somebody's mom. It's gotta be.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

This sounds like it was pushed on them to release by the publisher. Honestly, publishers are the fucking worst in most cases.

Don't be a child. Publishers need cash flow too and if they are locked into ad buys, they might not be able to afford a delay. Especially when you're a much smaller publisher.

This is almost certainly all on the developers for not hitting deadlines with their sprints. Combination of bad development and bad management.

Wonder how many weeks away they are from being able to "fix" the game.

If the game releases today, which it has, let's say it's a 65 average on Metacritic and after fixes, it would have been a 68. Is that worth it for the publisher to lose millions of dollars? Are they going to recover the lost sales over a bump of 3 points? Is the game buggy or is it fundamentally broken? We'll see from the reviews.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Let's say your development company is 80 people and their average salary is 90K per year and then you consider the cost of running the publishing company. Let's say 40 people with an average cost of 60K per year. Not even getting into the cost of building rent and utilities, and health care costs and other benefits...

2.4 million to run the publisher annually and 7.2 million to run the developer. That's 10 million a year and nearly a million dollars every month.

Let's say the game has been in development for 4 years... you're looking at almost 30 million just to develop the game, not adding the publisher's costs because they're publishing other games.

Let's say the game sells 250K copies across platforms. Mind you the game is a 40-dollar game. That's 10 million in REVENUE. The game needs to sell 750K copies just to break even at full price and I think I'm being pretty conservative with the development team size and salaries. And again, that's just revenue, not even accounting for platform holder royalties and advertising costs... The real break-even number assuming game sales is probably closer to 1.25-1.5 million copies.

At some point, the publisher has to call it a loss.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Speed around this video and ask yourself if the publisher should give them more time.

 

[digdug2]

Speed around this video and ask yourself if the publisher should give them more time.

I think that the reveal trailer was trying to sell a completely different game than what was released. This is a glorified walking simulator, and I feel bad for anyone who shelled out money for this, just to be told by the developers that it isn't finished yet and that they still need more time. Such is the 2023 release cycle though.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Another massive miss for Microids... albeit with a franchise that gamers don't particularly care about, so I guess it's not that big of a deal.

I know the team over there. Nice dudes. I don't know what pressures are leading them to launching stuff they know is half-baked.

 

[Loomy]

Then why fucking sell it?

 

[MiguelItUp]

Honestly, I respect this. I'm sure the publisher pressured them to release without delaying, so they're doing what they can by promising it'll get better.

 

[Games of Today]

why, Why, WHY do these studios have such shitty deadlines. Literally ZERO games come out in an acceptable state anymore.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

And one more to the collection, that's ridiculous and pathetic.

Talented or not, it's lame and I'm really tired of these half finished games, by buying them, you support these shitty publishers/devs practices. They know perfectly when it's not ready but just rely on internet "Let's patch it later".

Do you see Nintendo release a game and then a statment asking for forgiveness because it's not finished ?

Also, can I buy your game and pay you later my hard earned money too ?

/rant

 

[FeralEcho]

What a crock of shit. If the game ain't ready do t fucking sell it. Simple.

Not their decision clearly as the publisher decides.The devs seem to know this aint ready which is why its warning players.The publisher that pushed through with the release can eat a bag of dicks.More exactly the CEO of said publisher can do that.

 

[nush]

Do you see Nintendo release a game and then a statment asking for forgiveness because it's not finished ?

Wii U wasn't finished....

Nintendo apologizes for lack of Wii U software

President Satoru Iwata says desire to meet quality standards has led to delays, promises more new games beginning in March.

www.gamespot.com

 

[Kadve]

Do you see Nintendo release a game and then a statment asking for forgiveness because it's not finished ?

Yokoi stated multiple times that it was not ready but Nintendo released it anyway as they didn't want it to take resources away from the Ultra 64.

I don't think they apologised though. More like they just washed their hands of the whole affair.

Anyway. Feels really bad for Pendulo. Pretty much the only studio in Spain with some legacy.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Yokoi stated multiple times that it was not ready but Nintendo released it anyway as they didn't want it to take resources away from the Ultra 64.

I don't think they apologised though. More like they just washed their hands of the whole affair.

Anyway. Feels really bad for Pendulo. Pretty much the only studio in Spain with some legacy.

Wow, you digged deep.

Comparing an almost 30 years hardware device from a period without internet to today almost standard shitty software practices is not what I would call really a "fair" comparison. Also, it was in a time where "social apologize" wasn't even a thing, not sure what would you expect
We can add so many hardware from many manufacturers then if we go this way.

Anyway, today is about unfinished software, but I hear you, and they learned, see today, none of their games needs a mandatory patch or is in "we'll fix it later" state: their games are polished, I think we all can admit that (avoid all puns please).

 

[MiguelItUp]

Not their decision clearly as the publisher decides.The devs seem to know this aint ready which is why its warning players.The publisher that pushed through with the release can eat a bag of dicks.More exactly the CEO of said publisher can do that.

Exactly! This happens more than a lot may think, and it's not always the dev to blame, but the publisher.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

This sounds like it was pushed on them to release by the publisher. Honestly, publishers are the fucking worst in most cases.

I think that might be unfair. The publishers are the people paying to make the game. If the developers tell them they can do it by the launch day, the publishers build their schedule around it and the developers don't deliver, why are the publishers the bad guys? Perhaps the developers were unrealistic about what they could get done in the agreed development window. Perhaps the publishers just don't have enough money to bankroll another 6 months of development.

 

[Kadve]

I think that might be unfair. The publishers are the people paying to make the game. If the developers tell them they can do it by the launch day, the publishers build their schedule around it and the developers don't deliver, why are the publishers the bad guys? Perhaps the developers were unrealistic about what they could get done in the agreed development window. Perhaps the publishers just don't have enough money to bankroll another 6 months of development.

Yea reminds me of what happened to Stig Asmussen following God of War 3. The guy spent like 100 million dollars on a game he rebooted no less than three times that in the end would pretty much be a Destiny Clone. So no wonder Sony's patience ran out and they cancelled the whole thing.

 

[Jack Videogames]

A small European dev known by their quality point and click adventure games takes on a beloved franchise with "their biggest project ever" and it's a shitshow on release day... I feel I've seen this not long ago...