"Not now. Later. Gotta polish it till perfection."

[derozio]

Been noticing a kind of trend lately. Lot of games get delayed. And delayed not just by a month or two, by five to six months! Silent Hill: Downpour, Max Payne 3 and now the latest victim to this 'fad' is Bioshock: Infinite (which, as you may already know, will now release in Feb 2013).

So yeah, what do you think? Do these delays frustrate you? Does it make you feel "Oh, they got more time to polish it to perfection. That's awesome"? Or is it "Eh, I don't care. I'll get the game; that's all I know". And yeah, any game you were reeeally looking forward to but got delayed and you're kinda disappointed?

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

I have the distinct feeling in my waters that Paper Mario for the 3DS is going to be delayed severely. For one, the release date still says 'Summer 2012'' on Wikipedia, and with summer approaching thick and fast, I highly doubt that date will hold true. Given that the sources for the original date are magazines and not press releases from Nintendo - added to the fact that the game hasn't been mentioned at any recent press showing by Nintendo - this also doesn't fill be with high hopes for a speedy release.

However, it's not the end of the world if a game gets delayed. I'd much rather play a really good game that has had time to iron out all of its kinks than a game that is forced to cut corners to meet its ill-advised release date. Having said that, there comes a point where enough is enough: if a developer is spending months on end simply dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's, as opposed to using that time to correct major flaws, then that's not as good a use of time, and could definitely test the consumers' patience.

 

[Alice]

I'd much rather wait an extra year and get a good game than get it now and have it be so broken that it's not fun to play.

 

[Sydian]

If delaying is what it takes to get the game as perfect as possible, I can wait. However I will be upset if B2W2 are delayed. :(

 

[Joshawott]

I've never experienced this personally, but if I did it'd most definitely prefer waiting, merely because the game ought to be much better.

 

[Legobricks]

I think developers (or their publishers) set deadlines that are too hasty. Games take longer to make than they used to — a notion which at least marketing departments evidently still fail to understand, as many are bug-ridden on release and often remain so (looking at you, Bethesda). In this respect, delays are a positive thing, as they bring games closer to having the time spent on them that they should have. That said, some are due to legal or financial issues and ultimately herald a game never to be...

 

[Mr. Magius]

For me, I'm happy as long as I get the game. Just think about the actual amount of content the development team can add within 5-6 months... it's insane. I'm content with getting a little more than originally planned, or having them polish it to perfection, even if I have to wait a while. There are tons of games that I can play in the meantime.

... Buut sometimes I prefer getting a less-than-perfect early release, then having patches/updates come out in the future. Even polished games get patched somehow.

 

[kuzronk]

I would rather wait for a few months instead of them putting new things in as paid DLC

 

[Archer]

Half Life 3.
ETA: the end of time itself.

For the most part, I don't mind postponing a game to make it better, but in some cases, it's just to get it out the door - they're not "polished", just less broken than they were at the original release date.

Eg. Batman: Arkham City - don't get me wrong, it was a good game, but they postponed the PC launch by a month, announcing it just a few days before the intended release. Turns out the PC-exclusive Direct11 mode didn't even work properly on release, so I'd love to know what they did with that extra month.

Crysis 2 - while not delayed, it's an example of a game that SHOULD HAVE been pushed back. The original release was buggy as hell, didn't support DX11 (this only came in months later...) and was a clear console port. Now if they'd taken a month after the console release to fix these issues, I wouldn't have minded.

 

[Captain Fabio]

/le sigh

I know exactly what you mean by this and it does annoy me. There are two sides to it for me.
One side, I don't mind if it is delayed because I know they are at least working on it a bit more. Bugs can really kill a games flow and mood and it is the last thing you want to run into.
On the other hand, they have milestones that they should keep to, because that is there job.

But, if it is worth it, I am on the developers side.​

​

 

[Cherrim]

I think developers (or their publishers) set deadlines that are too hasty. Games take longer to make than they used to — a notion which at least marketing departments evidently still fail to understand, as many are bug-ridden on release and often remain so (looking at you, Bethesda). In this respect, delays are a positive thing, as they bring games closer to having the time spent on them that they should have. That said, some are due to legal or financial issues and ultimately herald a game never to be...

This is how I feel about it too.

I mean, it's disappointing when a game you've really been looking forward to is delayed, but I find usually the delays are announced well enough in advance that the hype hasn't really built up enough yet, so it's not too bad to wait the extra few months or however long until the game comes out. It usually means less bugs and more polish which is always a good thing in my book.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

A delayed game will eventually be good (ideally). A bad game is bad forever.

Publishers and marketers come with their initial dates to cover a need. Do they want this big name sequel out this holiday season or next? What does the competition have coming out and when? Can we sell more than them that week? Holidays? Leap years? Lots of variables go into picking that sweet spot date. They have a hole in their release calendar they need to fill.

Unfortunately, games actually take time to conceive and develop.

 

[Palkia]

I think we can all agree that the longer a game is developed, the more chance it will be good. Then again, development hell can be awful for games, so developing a game for too long only to find out it was not suspenseful leaves almost all game companies at risk.

And of course you've got to take in the fact that game companies need to make a PROFIT with the games they publish.

 

[Goblinaro]

Crysis 2 - while not delayed, it's an example of a game that SHOULD HAVE been pushed back. The original release was buggy as hell, didn't support DX11 (this only came in months later...) and was a clear console port. Now if they'd taken a month after the console release to fix these issues, I wouldn't have minded.

I could not agree more. I play this a lot and patch 1.9 screwed everything up. 1.8 was pretty efficient, but 1.9 ruined it. Plus the game has/had horrible anit-cheat measures. And the lag in multiplayer....orbitals are absolutely horrible...

 

[Klippy]

TRIFORCE basically said what I feel. A delayed game can eventually be good. A bad game is bad always. I would rather wait an extra year for a game to come out if it means the difference between a great game and a terrible one.