Hey, guys. If any of y’all have been following the news of gaming, you’d know that Watch Dogs got delayed… This leaves a lot of room for discussion, especially considering Ubisoft’s history of long dev cycles and delays. So… discuss onwards!
This really sucks. The only real reason I was getting a console this holiday was for this game. Not much else really interests me until next spring, when a huge lineup (Watch Dogs, unfortunately; Destiny; The Division; Titanfall; etc) is coming on for the One (Titanfall, duh).
I’ll let you self-regulate and come up with a better title for the thread.
As for the delay, that’s extremely disappointing as the game looks like it’ll be extremely interesting!
Whether or not it will spark long term worries who knows, I mean, GTA V was delayed for a while. These things happen and it would probably be too costly to protract the development process for a relatively highly anticipated game!
Waiting for Diablo… 2 just about killed both me and my dad. We became great friends (note: it might have been a one-sided friendship) with the guys at the EBX near his office, because we’d go in and ask after news about it every week. For years.
That said, working in software has given me a completely new perspective on what it means to have a product and make the trade-offs between quality and timeliness. I’m honestly curious, because I think personal preference plays a big part: would you rather have a buggy game sooner, or a perfect game later? Would you rather have new content drip in via DLC, or have the whole game, all at once? Would you rather not hear about a game until right before it comes out, or do you savor the anticipation?
For me that depends upon what the game is designed for. For a console game I would expect a relatively perfect game (bug wise) for release, early buggy releases don’t really seem to fit into the model.
In terms of PC games, especially for indie games, it seems like it’s now an accepted part of ‘indie game’ culture for access to early buggy releases, and that these bugs are acceptable as you know that they will at some point be patched out. I have no problem with this model in any way, it seems to provide constant excitement.
Personally I am happy to get my hands on an early release with bugs, but if the time taken from that initial release to bug fixes/ content patches is a relatively long one then my interest wanes. It can also be frustrating to have to restart a game every patch/ update, but again, it’s a justified restart.
For me it’s exciting to get content dripping into the game. I have absolutely no qualms with DLC/ new content as long as it is handled right. Going back to console games there has to be a certain level of ‘game’ to begin with. There’s nothing more infuriating than playing a relatively shallow game that is then padded out with DLC. Get a strong, fun, interesting game in to my hands and I will have no issue with getting DLC.
The model that Minecraft seems to have inspired (apologies if there was one before it) having an ongoing development cycle with new content coming out is a really really exciting prospect as you know that you will get to experience new things in a game that you enjoy.
i am a big fan of the rapid release cycle… given that i’ve been involved in rappid application development for so long, i just enjoy the iterative process… assuming you have a vocal (yet levelheaded) user base, you can quickly adapt an application to your users needs…
long winded reply, i would be perfectly happy with a buggy release, that saw iterative updates… certainly is the norm in indie development these days…
mixed bag here… i would love to hear about a game (in advance), assuming i didnt have too long to wait to either experience it first hand, or be able to live vicariously through other peoples experiences…
but i also enjoy the anticipation that comes from seeing the product come together, knowing i’ll have a fulfilling experience of my own eventually…
No problems with DLC as long as you don’t go all BioWare on the issue. Having DLCs ready at game release and just holding them back for later profit is not cool. Free content over time however, is sweet. I’d rather call it content updates than DLCs though.
Regarding the delay of Watch Dogs:
I think this is more of a strategic holdback of Watch Dogs, by ubisoft, to not have it in competing against Assassin’s Creed 4. Releasing one game at the time is the smartest. For profit. Because the guys at the top don’t necessarily care much for videogames, they care for profit.
My preferred style is the Minecraft way (so far), seeing as owning the game gives us access to the entire game, even if the game becomes something much, much more. In other words, free updates FTW.
The whole idea of continuing development has been around for years with free and open-source games, of course I’m not sure how well it applies to big budget commercial games but it should apply fairly well. Particularly the open world games where they essentially start with a small core and constantly expand, have parts as paid dlc and it even keeps money coming in.
The question then comes to though what about the games that aren’t open world rpg-ish things? It’s still possible to add content to all kinds of games but some just don’t suit it as well. Take something like TF2, it gets semi-regular updates but they don’t really add anything because they can’t really add anything, a new class would be nigh-impossible and everything is mostly minor buffs and cosmetics. That’s the case for a lot of games, something like puzzle games or open world games suit it particularly well because they allow for it better in how they work, more interesting levels/places to complete will generally be more interesting. So here’s a question then as a supplement.
Would you rather have new content drip in via DLC, or have the whole game, all at once?
For an rts? For a puzzle game? For a mp shooter? For a tbs? For a non-open world rpg? For an open world one? For a sandbox game?
Ti decide think of an example of that type of game that you liked and decide if you would have rather got for example 40% of the game a year/year and a half early and then had the other 60% of the content come in over the next year/year and half? Or do you think it was better to have gotten it all at once but had to wait? Just trying to point out that it’s a fairly complex issue and that what it is affects things like that.
Surely the DLC method means you get the full game (in the sense that it has the same content that full release would, more could be added later of course) a bit later than if you just got the whole game. Radiant mentioned that they didn’t want to release an Alpha because they’d have to clean up a lot of bugs and it was quite distracting and time-consuming and I’d assume the same applies to DLCs, even if not so much as the Alpha. I don’t know how much this would affect the date that it has as much content as a full release, but I would think it does delay it.
For alpha and beta I have a buggy game rather sooner then later. For full release I rather want a bug-free one.
I dont mind DLC, as long it is not day-1 DLC. And if the DLC is prized right. It has to add content to justify the prize, not paid bug-fixes.
I savor the anticipation, but sometimes I wish I only hear about it when it comes out
