Early and bugged or delayed and finished ?

[Damacles 0]

I'm finding it difficult to understand some of the annoyance/anger about the early German release and patch, so I thought it might be worth conducting a straw poll.

Given the complexity of modern computer games, and ArmA II is probably more complex than most because of it's open free running architecture, and the general impatience of the average gamer, would you prefer:

a) A delayed release, that is as perfect as possible that the developer then left with minimal support apart from major bug fixes (most games, most developers)

or

b) Getting your grubby little mits on it at the earliest opportunity, even though it's been released in an imperfect condition, (most if not all computer games) obviously with no absolute killer bugs, knowing that the developer will support and continue to put effort into developing the game.

Having asked the question, I suspect I already know the real answer. All you have to do is look at the number of leaked unofficial beta patches for games like IL2 that people were happy to install early and the excitement and buzz that surrounded their release.

[cm 0]

I think the OFP/Arma community is a little bit more picky than most, although there are extremes either side. People take their games way too seriously sometimes...

[stakex 0]

Personally I have no issues with a game being a bit bugged and released a little early... but its unexceptable if a game is as unplayable as say, ArmA1 when its was released. A game should have no MAJOR bugs and be compleatly playable when released.

The real problem with releaseing games early is it makes the developers look bad, and often results in future games not selling so well. Time will tell if BIS will suffer such fate.

[eble 3]

well I downloaded arma2 yesterday, it just will not install on my win xp 32, no matter what i do try, everyone other game inc 3 versions of arma1 run fine, yet arma2 refuses to work.

Yet the first time I tried to install arma2 on win7 64 it worked like a dream.

Southy

[Pathy 0]

Reading some of the initial reviews of the German version made me scratch my head and wonder why BIS hadn't learned the lessons of their past. First impressions are vital. You don't get second chance at magazine reviews. Finish it, then release it.

[stevevcb 3]

Developers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Release it early, but with bugs, and people while whine and say it should've been kept back a few weeks to get it perfect. Delay the release to fix the bugs, and people will whinge and sulk because it's been delayed.

Anyway, a lot of it comes down to publishers in the end, and publishers are almost always arseholes. They don't give a toss if a game's unfinished, they just want to get it out of the door so they can make some money. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the early German release of ArmA 2 basically down to Morphicon wanting to shaft the publishers releasing it in other areas?

[Sennacherib 0]

Reading some of the initial reviews of the German version made me scratch my head and wonder why BIS hadn't learned the lessons of their past. First impressions are vital. You don't get second chance at magazine reviews. Finish it, then release it.

useless, that I write my own reply. Pathy has the same feeling as me about Arma2:p

and a demo would be better, than a release of an unfinished game. why germans must be always the beta testers?

[kavoven 4]

That title isn't neutral enough. Its like "We could finish this, but we want you to enjoy some bugs while we're patching things in the next months"

I think everyone knows that its not BIs wish to produce a buggy game. The release date is a compromise out of many factors like

1) How much money does the developer have to pay his coders

2) How much money does the publisher have to pay his people

3) Are there other games out there that might be a challange for the own game or will our game still be special when it comes out?

4) Whats about dates we're bound to (like rented places in stores for advertisment)

5) What was the original release date and who told whom when the game would be finished / has to be finished

6) What are the bugs we know of and how will people react to them. (Considering that most people here are used to modded products that always have some flaws I guess we're much more tollerant)

And so on.

This whole story is not about about some evil people sitting in CZ and enjoying players anger about bugs.

Edited June 3, 2009 by kavoven

[Baff1 0]

Bugs demonstrate 1 of 2 things.

Either the programmers and managers are unable to do their jobs very well...

Or a basic disrespect for the customer.

Or perhaps a little of both.

[sanctuary 19]

Personnally and that's not related to ArmA but for every kind of software, i just never buy a product that is either unfinished, do not run on my current system in a satisfying way (never ever buy a software without a demo) or buggy.

Either i wait a year or more before reconsidering if the software has been updated enough to reach stability, or i just buy something else, but that is if i really need a "new product" , something very rare.

Because i am extremely rarely in need of "getting a new software", basically i am a customer that no merchant will appreciate as i am of those people that do not get bored of their old acquisitions with time :)

[cross 1]

ye have not all the cups in the cabinet !

[W0lle 1047]

I think we better close this before we end up with Developer bashing and Infraction levels going up.

Bugged or not, no one force you to buy the game.