The Possibility of a delayed (2015) release

[forgottenlor]

I just wanted to add late that my only experience with early access (for a finished game) is with Might and Magic X. I bought early access, was active on the forums, but did not play any of the three early access versions. The early access versions were in general poorly recieved. There was a lot of cursing, accusations of incompetence, and downright nastiness towards Limbic and Ubisoft. I was sure the game was going to be at best mediocre. The release version also had a number of problems, a few bugs, problems with the online saves and stability problems for some computers. I started the game about one month after release, and played most of it with the first post release patch (which meant I avoided most problems or they were already fixed) and quite honestly its one of my favorites from the last couple of years. Alot of the problems (such a movement speed) were improved directly do to people's complaints in early access. Of course since POE has an open beta, I'm not sure it needs early access, but I think early access can do a lot of positive things for a game,

Edited June 6, 2014 by forgottenlor

[Gnostic]

 

Yeah Obsidian, take as long as you want, I don't mind if it is released next year or the year after as long as your polish make the game shiny.

Like... Firefly universe "shiny"? Or just make the game have a metaphorical sheen, from the metaphorical polish?

 

 

I was think of a certain mephit that smith your armor and polish your weapons that is easily distracted and go oh shiny! When it find random things that interest it.

[BruceVC]

I just wanted to add late that my only experience with early access (for a finished game) is with Might and Magic X. I bought early access, was active on the forums, but did not play any of the three early access versions. The early access versions were in general poorly recieved. There was a lot of cursing, accusations of incompetence, and downright nastiness towards Limbic and Ubisoft. I was sure the game was going to be at best mediocre. The release version also had a number of problems, a few bugs, problems with the online saves and stability problems for some computers. I started the game about one month after release, and played most of it with the first post release patch (which meant I avoided most problems or they were already fixed) and quite honestly its one of my favorites from the last couple of years. Alot of the problems (such a movement speed) were improved directly do to people's complaints in early access. Of course since POE has an open beta, I'm not sure it needs early access, but I think early access can do a lot of positive things for a game,

For me I always admire people who want to play any anticipated or popular game in a beta. I never understand why people would want to play a game that has bugs and issues and also you will also know the narrative. So the surprise is ruined. I only play games 1 month after release when the first official patch is released

[DCParry]

For me, I'm still playing BG2 14 years on.

 

If a delay means the difference between a good game I play once and a great game I play thirty-or-more times over the next 2 decades, I think I can wait a little longer

 

Yes, but we must remember, a delay DOES NOT guarantee a better game. Perhaps it has a tendency to result in a better product, but there are too many people who assume always, 100% of the time that more time = better game. 

[PrimeJunta]

Delays are symptomatic of underlying problems. While any project can get delayed once, a repeatedly delayed project is likely to have other visible issues that will make it less than great.

[Endrosz]

Yes, but we must remember, a delay DOES NOT guarantee a better game. Perhaps it has a tendency to result in a better product, but there are too many people who assume always, 100% of the time that more time = better game.

 

Tru dat. If more time = better game were true in a strict mathematical sense, then Duke Nukem Forever and other games that stayed very long in development limbo would be the best games ever.

 

There are a lot of games that needed another 3-6 months before release to become well-polished. But there are a lot of other games that:

-- had a poor concept to begin with

-- suffered from bad design decisions

-- mismanaged in a hundred possible ways

 

No amount of delays would save such games.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Endrosz

[Lephys]

Yes, but we must remember, a delay DOES NOT guarantee a better game. Perhaps it has a tendency to result in a better product, but there are too many people who assume always, 100% of the time that more time = better game.

It doesn't, but it guarantees the potential for a better game.

 

Basically, so long as the given state of a game needs improvement (or could benefit greatly from improvement), more time allows for that improvement, whereas, no-delay guarantees that the game remains as-is and gets released.

 

I agree that people shouldn't see it as a guarantee, but that's also why most people generally say things like "IF you need more time, by all means, take the time." If time constraint is an issue, and resources allow, I'd much rather them take an extra 2 months than simply worry about getting the game out "on-time." It's conditional, not inherently absolute.

[Lord Gorchnik]

 

Yes, but we must remember, a delay DOES NOT guarantee a better game. Perhaps it has a tendency to result in a better product, but there are too many people who assume always, 100% of the time that more time = better game.

It doesn't, but it guarantees the potential for a better game.

 

Basically, so long as the given state of a game needs improvement (or could benefit greatly from improvement), more time allows for that improvement, whereas, no-delay guarantees that the game remains as-is and gets released.

 

I agree that people shouldn't see it as a guarantee, but that's also why most people generally say things like "IF you need more time, by all means, take the time." If time constraint is an issue, and resources allow, I'd much rather them take an extra 2 months than simply worry about getting the game out "on-time." It's conditional, not inherently absolute.

 

 

Blasphemy!  I demand buggy products that require multiple patches downloaded via my 28.8 modem so I can relive the "glory days" of 1995.

[Lephys]

Blasphemy!  I demand buggy products that require multiple patches downloaded via my 28.8 modem so I can relive the "glory days" of 1995.

28.8?!

 

Dear lord, man! You had one of the PREMIUM modems, didn't you...

 

Also, I demand that all patches be individual files that must be run within a DOS prompt, and in the proper order.

[Kjaamor]

It doesn't, but it guarantees the potential for a better game.

 

This is a cheap shot, I know, but it does also guarantee the potential for a worse game.

 

Practically, I agree that absolutes on the matter aren't particularly helpful but I do feel that one of the challenges for PoE and for kickstarted games generally is ensuring that they manage to create a good product whilst also balancing the books - part of which is ensuring you can run to a schedule.

 

To be even more practical, for that reason I doubt that Josh and the folks at the helm are going to worry too much about the outcome of threads like this.

[Lephys]

This is a cheap shot, I know, but it does also guarantee the potential for a worse game.

Nah, it's not a cheap shot. It's true. I mean, the point I was making was simply just that, if the state of your game nearing the planned completion date is definitively lacking in a way that nothing short of more time ironing things out will fix, then, at the very least, no delay = no improvement, and delay = maybe-improvement.

 

Again, it's all conditional, and there's not really any one thing that decides it. But, if you were to rate your game's quality on a scale of 1-10, and it's at 4, then the potential to get it to a 7 coupled with the potential for it to go down to a 3 is better than just leaving it where it is.

 

And while there isn't just one deciding factor, it IS heavily dependent upon the pre-production plan and the course the team is following. For example, if you're building a model, and you've got excellent plans, and you've figured out all great materials and quality assembly processes, and everything you've built so far is excellent, but you're only 3/4th of the way done with the model and you run out of time... well, the mere addition of more time isn't going to hinder anything. Some other factor would have to change to cause a negative effect at that point.

 

For something like a game, a good example would be "we've ironed out 20 of the 25 weapon types, and we could really use another couple months to finish the last 5." If they simply take the time to follow a legit plan, then it's going to be helpful. They're not going to end up with fewer polished weapon types in their combat system. Even if they end up with 21 and not 25, that's still an improvement. And even if the game sucks, really, that's still a relative improvement, most likely. Delay followed by bad game does not mean the delay didn't help. It just means it didn't pull the game out of the suck zone.

 

But, yeah... more often than not, the problematic delays are the "Okay, obviously our plan isn't working like intended. Let's spend 6 more months on this, and change our plan to come up with something that'll make this more fun/less problematic!" That's when you run into the gamble. You don't have all this prior support for whatever plan you've just come up with, and you have a lot less time in which to execute it, from conception to completion. SOMEtimes a team pulls that off just fine, but it's always a lot more likely when it was all planned from the get-go, and the time is basically just an extra bit of quantity of a resource necessary to get the game from unfinished to finished.

[Sensuki]

I don't think they're going to do a Steam Early Access anymore.

[Zwiebelchen]

A delayed release practically results from two things:

1) an unexpected problem arised that requires remaking some content from scratch. That could be anything from art assets to even core systems

2) poor planning and impossible milestones

 

The former is a result of bad execution. The latter is a result of bad management.

 

The more experienced your programmers, content and art creators are, the less likely is issue number 1. The better you know your workers and their workflow, the less likely is issue number 2. PoE developement is kind of in a perfect position here:

 

There's only a few people working on this project, which makes management and communication much easier. Those people also are experienced from various previous (both successful and not-so-successful) projects, so they know which problems they can expect and how to deal with them. Having only 1 or 2 people working on each department that you know exactly what they are capable of makes planning a project easy and predictable. You can tell from experience how much time a 3D artist takes roughly to create a creature model. You can also tell how much content X a quest designer can do in Y weeks, etc..

 

So do I expect PoE to be shipped in time? No. After all, there's some stuff that they don't have experience with from their previous work. Basicly everything the publisher dealt with in the past. But do I expect a significant delay? Another 'No' here.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[Sensuki]

Well my original post was about banking in on the Kickstarter style early access. It's clear that other games such as Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin have *needed* that extra money, whereas PE obviously doesn't need it.

[CBuckey]

Personally I don't mind a delay if it makes the game better.

[Arcoss]

They said that winter 2014 is when the money is going to run out

 

watch from 19:10

 

Edited June 20, 2014 by Arcoss

[Karkarov]

Also just to throw it out there but they have now told basically half the worlds games media it will be winter 2014 at E3.  Pushing the release date after straight out announcing it as publicly as they have now... this close to their announced date... would probably reflect poorly on them.  That coupled with Arcoss's great point from the video, it isn't going to be delayed.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Karkarov

[Blarghagh]

Does anybody really still care about missed release dates? With the kind of things Blizzard and Valve have been pulling for years now?

[Malekith]

Does anybody really still care about missed release dates? With the kind of things Blizzard and Valve have been pulling for years now?

Not really, but Sawyer has said many times that he doesn't give dates unless he knows what he is talking about and not quess. For them to say all over the place that the game will come Winter 2014, it means it is sceduled to come then. If there is a delay, it will be something unforeseen, and propably will be a one- two at most- month delay. From Octomber-November to December 2014. January 2015 is the most they will make it and that only if they can't help it.

The estimates by some people that the game will be delayed for months and it will be released Spring-Summer 2015 are completely off base

[PrimeJunta]

I care. I just made a wager. Which I'm going to win.

[Gnostic]

I care. I just made a wager. Which I'm going to win.

Then good for you

[BruceVC]

I care. I just made a wager. Which I'm going to win.

 

 

 

I care. I just made a wager. Which I'm going to win.

Then good for you

 

 

I also care because I have an investment in the outcome of this bet

[Failion]

a delayed release for a infinity engine like game? I doubt it. All you got to do is design a bunch of maps. Just pop up unity rpg maker 2014 edition and git gud. 

[Bryy]

They said that winter 2014 is when the money is going to run out

 

watch from 19:10

 

 

Personally I don't mind a delay if it makes the game better.

It's about the money. Right now, they have the cushion of extra funding.

 

a delayed release for a infinity engine like game? I doubt it. All you got to do is design a bunch of maps. Just pop up unity rpg maker 2014 edition and git gud. 

Not sure if serious.

[redneckdevil]

Actually i guess im one of the few that thought the 60 dollar wasteland 2 price was very honorable. The only reason it was that price was so that it was just a lil higher than if someone backed it in kickstarter. They were not trying to disrespect those people who helped with their wallet when nothing was offered against someone who comes along who didnt back it and make it possible and charge them the same price or less.

The 60 dollar pricetag wasnt there to slap in the face of the person who bought the early release, it was that price not to slap in the face the people who backed it in kickstarter.

 

Be very very careful with early access though.