this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
156 points (98.1% liked)

PC Gaming

8507 readers
567 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm fine with this, honestly. I'd prefer more devs do this instead of pushing back releases at the last minute or forcing their teams to crunch.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Why not just push back the release until it's actually ready? No one is going to die if a game gets pushed back a month or two

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I totally agree with you, but the issue is that often times it's hard to justify a delay when you're working with publishers or external investors. What I find unhealthy in the industry is that, oftentimes, companies simply can't afford to delay the release because they've signed documents that lock in that date, or that could affect the companies income during the delay. This obviously isn't universal, but it's something that I've seen first-hand, having worked in the videogames industry.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Too many managers just rollover instead of actually fighting for what's best for their employees and it's annoying to say the least.

What's worse: shipping an unfinished, buggy game harming your companies image forever or having investors wait another three weeks until they start seeing their cash flow? Oh no, heaven forbid.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe not but devs nowadays are getting death threats because of stuff like this

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah... That's an issue with the community.

I think my original point still stands but happy to rephrase it if it's unclear.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Or just release it as early access with a 5€ discount or something. That way people who don't give a shit about the optimization can get it early while the rest gets the full release (Baldur's Gate 3 was in Early Access for a long while for example)

Although I think in this case it's a bit more complicated. The marketing campaign was rather large so I think they thought they could deliver on time but ultimately were unable to do so. This is likely also why we are hearing only now about mods, they were still working on it with the hopes of making it in time and had to make a judgement call last minute - in this case to delay the modding tools until after release.