How do you feel about pre-ordering games?

[remydat]

ME3 was definitely rushed. Er, at least forced to release rather than getting pushed back like should have happened.

Pushing it back would not have changed any of the main complaints that people had with the game imo. Aside from the ending, there were the people complaining about sacrificing some of the open world aspects in single player so that multiplayer could be included and making Javik day 1 DLC instead of part of the core game. Those things would have happened whether it was pushed back or not as those are core EA practices that Bioware had to implement regardless of release date.

So what in particular do you think would have benefited from the game being pushed back?

 

[botfly10]

The rumor is that they were still deciding between ideas for the end and even pitching new ideas and would not budge on deliverable dates and pushed hard for an ending that was quick to develop and did not require bringing voice actors back in.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the game and was more or less satisfied by the end. Just seems like more EA intrusion tho.

 

[Crystallas]

My rules for pre-orders.

1) Do I get a better price than just buying it after it has been vetted with reviews and criticisms and/or necessary patches.
2) Does it come with bonus material/DLC exclusive(that I'm interested in) for pre-order.
3) Do I have time to play it right away, otherwise I just wait for price drops/steam sales.

 

[remydat]

The rumor is that they were still deciding between ideas for the end and even pitching new ideas and would not budge on deliverable dates and pushed hard for an ending that was quick to develop and did not require bringing voice actors back in.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the game and was more or less satisfied by the end. Just seems like more EA intrusion tho.

Having been on the bioware Mass Effect forums since ME2, I only started hearing that rumour when people finished the game and didn't like the end. A lot of conspiracy theories were thrown out regarding stuff like that. I honestly don't recall hearing any of that before the game came out but again just based on my experience on bioware forums.

There was definitely EA intrusion but that was more the multiplayer which they generally want in all their games and the DLC stuff.

 

[botfly10]

I definitely read about how the ending was in like a constant state of re-write while making the game and then EA stepped in.

 

[remydat]

It was announced in May 2011 that ME3 would be delayed until Q1 of 2012. I don't see how that's being rushed. If EA was as intrusive as the internet claimed, there is no way they would allow Bioware to announce a delay that fare in advance. They would have told them they have a solid 6 or 7 months to get that shit released in time for Christmas so they better get that shit done.

Not saying you didn't read what you did. Just saying that just sounds like normal development stuff to me and nothing sinister.

http://www.cnet.com/news/mass-effect-3-delayed-to-q1-2012/#!

 

[ijustposthere]

It was announced in May 2011 that ME3 would be delayed until Q1 of 2012. I don't see how that's being rushed. If EA was as intrusive as the internet claimed, there is no way they would allow Bioware to announce a delay that fare in advance. They would have told them they have a solid 6 or 7 months to get that shit released in time for Christmas so they better get that shit done.

Not saying you didn't read what you did. Just saying that just sounds like normal development stuff to me and nothing sinister.

http://www.cnet.com/news/mass-effect-3-delayed-to-q1-2012/#!

I have hardly ever seen EA push back a game. That may be part of the reason their product has gone down as far as it has.

 

[ijustposthere]

I went ahead and pre-ordered a fair amount of games to test if they are more buggy, or incomplete, at release and improve over time. I was getting them all anyway, and I wanted to build my PS4 catalog quick. All are from different developers.

 

[remydat]

I have hardly ever seen EA push back a game. That may be part of the reason their product has gone down as far as it has.

The only franchise of theirs I would say has gone downhill is Madden. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, FIFA, and Battlefield are all great franchises IMO.

 

[botfly10]

lol battlefield. yeah, that game didn't need more time at all. Or DA2, sim city, sims... no problem!

Anyway, not implying anything "sinister". Just conflicts between the publisher and the art/dev team. I tend to prefer the art/dev teams win those conflicts and don't really give a shit if it means delayed release.

 

[botfly10]

[video=youtube;Mh3FN3YCwYk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3FN3YCwYk[/video]

 

[ijustposthere]

The only franchise of theirs I would say has gone downhill is Madden. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, FIFA, and Battlefield are all great franchises IMO.

They are constantly near the bottom of publishers/developers in game informer, until this past year. If they have a good game, they tend to rush out a 2nd for a cash grab, like they did with the reboot of Medal of Honor. They tend to hit on Need For Speed though, and I'm not saying they're the worst, but they definitely seem to care more about the money than the product.

 

[remydat]

lol battlefield. yeah, that game didn't need more time at all. Or DA2, sim city, sims... no problem!

Anyway, not implying anything "sinister". Just conflicts between the publisher and the art/dev team. I tend to prefer the art/dev teams win those conflicts and don't really give a shit if it means delayed release.

I wasn't saying those games didn't need more time. I was responding to ijph's point about EA going downhill. Separate point. The Madden series kinda sucks IMO but the other series I mentioned were good despite whatever flaws they had.

The only game I was specifically saying didn't seem rushed or buggy to me was ME3. However, I know they have plenty of buggy games but that doesn't mean those games are bad as again, I personally don't mind get a buggy game provided it's actually good.

 

[remydat]

They are constantly near the bottom of publishers/developers in game informer, until this past year. If they have a good game, they tend to rush out a 2nd for a cash grab, like they did with the reboot of Medal of Honor. They tend to hit on Need For Speed though, and I'm not saying they're the worst, but they definitely seem to care more about the money than the product.

I don't disagree with that at all. I avoid a lot of their games because they are in fact crap. I am only speaking about the games of theirs I actually mentioned not all of their games.

 

[ijustposthere]

I don't disagree with that at all. I avoid a lot of their games because they are in fact crap. I am only speaking about the games of theirs I actually mentioned not all of their games.

Medal of Honor had a real good opportunity for a solid franchise reboot. Instead, they rush out the 2nd one due to the success of the first and it flops. Now the series is in limbo altogether because of bad sales. They just seem shortsighted in their business model.

 

[MassHavoc]

Pre-ording is the worst. It's no longer needed, especially in the day and age of digital download. There are so many more reasons not to pre-order than to pre-order that it's just getting insane. They try to temp you with shitty gear that you can only get from pre-ordering, exclusive areas, all that bs, but in reality all that pre-ordering seems to get you is an unfinished game with a huge day one download patch that doesn't fix it. Fallout New Vegas literally fucking my PS3 before all the real patches could come out. it's just not worth it to me any more, there are too many good games out there that I buy them delayed when the price drops and all the shit has been fixed. That way I always have new games to buy and save a lot of money. That means that I treat people who pre-order as my beta testers. hah.

 

[Ares]

Mass Effect 3 wasn't rushed or buggy though. The main complaint of the game was the ending. So it's a completely unrelated issue of fans disagreeing with the artistic vision of the developers. I can't recall a single bug or anything in that game that felt rushed.

So you (speaking generally for remainder of the post) want a bug free game. Let's say that version of the game is available June 30. Let's say a substantially complete version is available on January 30. You basically want EA to wait 5 months to release the game and I am saying to you why? I am fine with getting a substantially complete version on Jan 30 so why shouldn't EA give that to me? If you aren't fine then wait until June 30 which is when you would have received the game anyways or go buy Rocksteady or Naughty Boy games if their philosophy on games is consistent with yours. The only thing that is changed is I get to play the game for 5 months and it seems the people content to wait are somehow upset that I get to play it before them. If not then just wait 6 months later and you get a bug free game for like 39 or 49 bucks so how are you harmed?

This is like any market. There are companies like Rocksteady and Naughty Boy that perhaps cater to the market that want high quality bug free games the day of release. Then there are other companies like say EA that cater to the market that want the games as soon as it is substantially complete and they are fine with EA working out the kinks over the next few months. To each his/her own.

My complaint with Mass Effect 3 is the precedent it sets.... its ok to **** up the first time around cause you can just fill in the gaps later with some DLC.

And **** you, the ending they originally did was shit, it was the same thing in 3 different colors and it simplified 3 games worth of "choices" to Red, Blue, or Green.

They admitted they fucked up by releasing DLC to try to appease the fans that were pissed.

And I am not asking for bug-free games, but DLC is allowing developers to essentially sell you half a game in whatever condition it is in and then finish it later using you as their testers and they can make you pay for the DLC to get the game to 100%. This is more or less what was done for Rome II Total War and I don't like the trend.

EA rushes everything out the door now at stages where games are sometimes barely playable.

 

[MassHavoc]

My complaint with Mass Effect 3 is the precedent it sets.... its ok to **** up the first time around cause you can just fill in the gaps later with some DLC.

And **** you, the ending they originally did was shit, it was the same thing in 3 different colors and it simplified 3 games worth of "choices" to Red, Blue, or Green.

They admitted they fucked up by releasing DLC to try to appease the fans that were pissed.

And I am not asking for bug-free games, but DLC is allowing developers to essentially sell you half a game in whatever condition it is in and then finish it later using you as their testers and they can make you pay for the DLC to get the game to 100%. This is more or less what was done for Rome II Total War and I don't like the trend.

EA rushes everything out the door now at stages where games are sometimes barely playable.

It doesn't matter how many times you **** up because you can just put the game in a new triology package and all is forgiven as people rush to blindly buy every version of the same game for now reason. I bought the trilogy and played through all 3 games consecutively at the suggestion of a friend a while back and it was still missing some of the content that came out and not long after a new one was released with slightly more of the content and on and on. it's quite the milk job they do.

 

[Ares]

It doesn't matter how many times you **** up because you can just put the game in a new triology package and all is forgiven as people rush to blindly buy every version of the same game for now reason. I bought the trilogy and played through all 3 games consecutively at the suggestion of a friend a while back and it was still missing some of the content that came out and not long after a new one was released with slightly more of the content and on and on. it's quite the milk job they do.

Yes it is.... its kind of becoming like the Free To Play model, except its Pay To Play then Pay Moar to Play.

Pay me for the base of the game that I strip down as much as I can, then pay me more for "extra" content I release over the next 24 months.

If they get you to buy all the DLC they can basically get you to pay double for 1 game.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Maybe this is the subconscious reason I very rarely buy DLC