84 réponses à ce sujet

[GVulture]

But you're still effected by it.

Oh man. I upgraded my PC FOR Inquisition. Right after I ordered my parts they announced the delay. I might save up for a dual card come fall. We will see ((depending on Newegg's sales in November)).

[AtreiyaN7]

Three games being delayed do not constitute a trend. It's nice that they aren't pushing DA:I out the door before it's ready, but I don't feel that it's a sign that the industry as a whole is suddenly going to give every single game that sort of treatment. And as I always like to point out, you can have an incredibly long development period for a game and still end up with a piece of crap as the end result. *points at Duke Nukem Forever which was in development forever*

[KC_Prototype]

W3 was delayed? Damn. Gives me time to play the first two.

[Nightdragon8]

In all fairness, Witcher 3's delay does have an impact on Bioware as they're games that share many similarities and are likely going after the same market. It bolsters Dragon Age for the holiday season as opposed to it potentially losing a lot of its market solely based on the fact W3 was coming out. If the internet is any indication, they had a lot of people willing to buy W3 before DAI and if you comb the internet today, many are switching over to DAI simply because they do not want to wait in W3 to fill their RPG needs. I don't think it's necessarily poor logic especially since EA has shown in the past they will push a product out the door faster based on what their competition is doing. See Battlefield and Call of Duty. A W3 delay might contribute to EA pushing DAI out the door faster because they now have the potential to grab anyone who was on the fence between the 2 games.

 

(internet is probably very poor logic though )

all it really effects is day one sales, thats it. it should be overall sales that companies and shareholders should look at.

 

Cause I bought both, granted I waited till Witcher2 went on sale on Steam before I bought it.

 

But I bought DA2 before I bought Witcher, which then I bought DA:O

[Sanunes]

all it really effects is day one sales, thats it. it should be overall sales that companies and shareholders should look at.

 

Cause I bought both, granted I waited till Witcher2 went on sale on Steam before I bought it.

 

But I bought DA2 before I bought Witcher, which then I bought DA:O

 

its hard to see long term sales when the publisher declares a game like Tomb Raider 2013 to be a failure after six months and then after a full year its announced to be profitable.

[JeffZero]

No, it goes beyond the first day. Owning the holiday season like that is going to be a huge deal if it pans out. Sales will be strong for Inquisition for several weeks unless it's overly panned, because it will be the only big-name fantasy RPG offering during a phase in which anticipated Western merchandise moves units everyday without fail. People looking to purchase gifts will not stumble and guffaw as they try to figure out "which of the two fantasy RPGs that GameStop guy just told them about "fits Bob better than the other one." Instead they'll just remember that Bob likes that one Skyrim thing and reach for Dragon Age.

And it'll happen day in, day out, for a while. Granted, Day 1 is always the biggest mover and the Most Valuable Player, but that's the thing about holiday releases, is that three weeks in is still a big deal.

[JeffZero]

It's hard to take anything Square Enix says seriously, Sanunes.

[Farci Reprimer]

[JWvonGoethe]

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the DA team had been forced to release Inquisition during the original (Fall 2013?) release window...

 

What with the amount of work put into the game since then, would Bioware have even managed to make a playable game? Considering the first playable build of the game was made in Dec 2013 and as we know from dev posts featured tonnes of missing textures, non-existant animations and synthesised speech instead of actual voice acting, as well as masses of bugs such as NPC's eyes floating in front of their heads.

 

Of course Bioware managed to make DA2 in a year and a half, which is an incredible achievement in so short a space of time even if you don't like the game. But I just don't know if Bioware ever would have been capable of making DA:I release worthy by the autumn of 2013, considering that by all accounts it seems to have been so unfinished at that time.

 

^Funny picture by the way (but I think Inquisition will be better than TW3!)

[Quill74Pen]

I sure hope DAI isn't delayed again.

 

If issues arise, I'd prefer that EA opens the financial and creative resources spigots and directs the twin flows to whatever the DAI team needs to get its project done in time for a Fall 2014 release. After all, Fall 2014 is now Bioware's to own in terms of fantasy RPGs, what with W3 delayed to February 2015.

[Allan Schumacher]

its hard to see long term sales when the publisher declares a game like Tomb Raider 2013 to be a failure after six months and then after a full year its announced to be profitable.

 

It's important to note that "failure" and "profitable" are not exclusive, however.  Failure is simply failing to reach what one had planned to reach.

 

 

What with the amount of work put into the game since then, would Bioware have even managed to make a playable game? Considering the first playable build of the game was made in Dec 2013 and as we know from dev posts featured tonnes of missing textures, non-existant animations and synthesised speech instead of actual voice acting, as well as masses of bugs such as NPC's eyes floating in front of their heads.

 

The game's scope would probably been dialed back, we would have likely worked longer hours, and terms like playable and so forth are somewhat nebulous.

 

Changing the release date shifts our own goalposts and allows us to focus on different things, so it's not a straight up comparison to look at the timelines for when things became "playable."

[Sanunes]

It's important to note that "failure" and "profitable" are not exclusive, however.  Failure is simply failing to reach what one had planned to reach.

 

 

Thanks for the information. I guess that is what happens what information isn't meant for someone is misunderstood.

[puppy maclove]

I really don't mind a game been delayed ....  I'd rather wait a little while longer and have a more polished and deeper game experience that gets as close as possible to the developers "vision" for the game. 

 

So far it looks like BioWare are taking the time required to finish DA:I & I find that really encouraging. 

[Sanunes]

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the DA team had been forced to release Inquisition during the original (Fall 2013?) release window...

 

What with the amount of work put into the game since then, would Bioware have even managed to make a playable game? Considering the first playable build of the game was made in Dec 2013 and as we know from dev posts featured tonnes of missing textures, non-existant animations and synthesised speech instead of actual voice acting, as well as masses of bugs such as NPC's eyes floating in front of their heads.

 

Of course Bioware managed to make DA2 in a year and a half, which is an incredible achievement in so short a space of time even if you don't like the game. But I just don't know if Bioware ever would have been capable of making DA:I release worthy by the autumn of 2013, considering that by all accounts it seems to have been so unfinished at that time.

 

^Funny picture by the way (but I think Inquisition will be better than TW3!)

 

My guess is the most noticeable thing for us right is now would have been the loss of the choice of player race.  I would think other mechanics and missions would be gone as well, but since BioWare as done a very good job so far keeping information limited its really hard to guess.

[Laughing_Man]

From the buyer point of view, delay is good.

 

Sure, some might go all "waaahhhh I want dat game nao", but playing a game that had enough time in development, has relatively low amount of bugs (trying to be realistic here), and that recieved some finishing touches from its developers - is much more enjoyable than playing a game like DA:2.

 

Even from the company's perspective a delay might not be so bad, considering that DA:I may bring back disgruntled customers that were disappointed with previous games - depending on how impressive and enjoyable it's going to be of course.

[Dutchess]

Aww, too bad Witcher got delayed. I'm really looking forward to it, and I would not have minded some strong competition for DAI. I don't think DA will be delayed again, though I suppose anything is possible. 

[Sanunes]

Aww, too bad Witcher got delayed. I'm really looking forward to it, and I would not have minded some strong competition for DAI. I don't think DA will be delayed again, though I suppose anything is possible. 

 

It is a shame that it was delayed, but I really think its best for both games to have different release windows so people like me don't have to pick one over the other.

[Thunderfox]

Thanks for the information. I guess that is what happens what information isn't meant for someone is misunderstood.

Yeah If I remember rightly, when they came out Square was expecting something like 5 million sold, when it had only been 3 IIRC. Which is still a respectable number

[Nightdragon8]

It's important to note that "failure" and "profitable" are not exclusive, however.  Failure is simply failing to reach what one had planned to reach.

 

 

 

 

 

The game's scope would probably been dialed back, we would have likely worked longer hours, and terms like playable and so forth are somewhat nebulous.

 

Changing the release date shifts our own goalposts and allows us to focus on different things, so it's not a straight up comparison to look at the timelines for when things became "playable."

Playable is seriously a loose term... cause even E.T. and Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing are "Playable" wither or not its any good is another matter.

[spinachdiaper]

My prediction is than DAI's earliest launch date is November 2014 and it's latest is November 2015. Likely caused by avoiding competitors' games and technical delays.  

[Mockingword]

One delay may be regarded as a misfortune. Two seems like carelessness.

 

I appreciate wanting your product to be 'the best it possibly can be', but I only accept that excuse from developers once per title, and DA:I was already postponed for a year. When a product has multiple delays, especially lengthy delays, that tells me that the studio has very poor time management skills.

 

Such an excuse wouldn't fly even once in other industries, it doesn't even work in school.

 

But I don't think DA:I is going to be delayed again.

[Allan Schumacher]

One delay may be regarded as a misfortune. Two seems like carelessness.

 

I appreciate wanting your product to be 'the best it possibly can be', but I only accept that excuse from developers once per title, and DA:I was already postponed for a year. When a product has multiple delays, especially lengthy delays, that tells me that the studio has very poor time management skills.

 

Such an excuse wouldn't fly even once in other industries, it doesn't even work in school.

 

But I don't think DA:I is going to be delayed again.

 

The difference with school and a lot of other stuff is that it's not like delays don't come with a cost (it's not cheap to delay a title).

 

Plenty of other industries have multiples delays too.  The issue comes with whether or not, when it comes time to delay, if it's deemed worth it to spend more money.  If it's concluded that spending more money will result in a net increase in revenues to cover the further expenditure, it's useful to do it.  Note, that even if it's been a financial mess up until the point and you've sunk million and millions of dollars into it, if you think that an extra $100k will net you $500k in revenue, you should delay.

 

The issue is that frequent delays say "we have low confidence that our assessments will be accurate."  This creates a risk.

 

 

With regards to video games, the customer honestly shouldn't care, in my opinion, about delays.  The only thing that matters to me as a gamer is whether or not the released product is something that I enjoy.  While a game that takes a long time in development is not a guarantee that the game's quality will be good, I will take a slightly altered perspective:  any game that is delayed is probably better served by being delayed than released at its current state.  Even a game like Duke Nukem Forever, which took a looooooong time, likely doesn't provide a superior experience if it was released any time before its eventual release.  The only way an earlier release date for DNF would make for a better game is if they were also able to change other aspects of production.  That's the kicker, and that's the real issue for a game being subpar.  Unfortunately, by the time you release the game is subpar, you've already spent that time in production on something that is subpar.... you can do one of three things at that point:  delay and assume the risks that come with that; release the game as it is; cancel the game outright.

 

But if a developer feels the game isn't even good enough to release yet, I'm skeptical that me demanding that they actually release it would be an advantage.  Canceling the game is no impact (I'm not currently playing the game anyways), and delaying the game simply means that I may play it in the future... it's not suddenly stopping me from playing the game.

[Quill74Pen]

I really should just avoid threads like this. They make me a nervous wreck every time I enter them. 

[Nashiktal]

I would hate a delay for dragon age. I mostly would hate it as I am already starving for a good "bioware" style RPG game. Games like the Witcher just don't do it for me. Not that others games are "bad" per se, they just don't scratch that specific itch. In the witchers case I don't like the protagonist.