Developers holding back games?????

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This has been discussed in previous threads at some level. Not too surprising that developers are holding back games until the installed base is bigger (allows for more sales at the premium release price). In this case, it appear to be game developers in Europe for the Wii, though it's pretty obvious given the release schedule that it is happening elsewhere. Bill Harris wouldn't post this unless it was very good info.

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2...-nintendo.html

From a trusted source who wishes to remain anonymous:

I spoke to a developer friend on the weekend at a party and apparently, his company (who are making xxxxxxxxx) have been given a ton of dosh to polish their game by Nintendo. That's because Nintendo doesn't need to release any software right now as their system is still selling through the roof. They're doing this with other UK developers as well, apparently. Later in the year they're going to release a storm of uber-polished games.

Game identity removed, obviously, although the country is still readily apparent.

[st.cronin]

Dammit, Jim, just give us TCY 3 already.

[wade moore]

See, what Harris mentions here I don't see as pure "holding back"... To me "holding back" would mean it's sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting dust... I think this is a little different because they're saying "We've got a good thing going, we want to continue with quality... the system doesn't need a bump now, so rather than rush the game out go polish it up some more"..I wish MORE companies would do this.

[Pumpy Tudors]

While I don't particularly trust Bill Harris the way that a lot of people do, I don't find anything surprising about this. Heck, I thought that it was assumed that developers did this type of thing, and I would have guessed that it's been going on for many years and several console generations.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of a compelling reason that companies shouldn't hold back games in situations like this? I certainly can't come up with one.

[SackAttack]

Happens pretty routinely, Mizzou.

Sometimes it's for lack of installed base (see: PS2 and to an extent, PS3). If a game costs mucho bank to make, you don't want to expend its prime sales period at a time when there is no installed base unless you are certain that it will drive hardware sales *and* sell at basically a 1:1 rate.

Sometimes there are other reasons - holiday drive time, whatever. But the concept, as a concept, is sound.

[MJ4H]

Of course they do and should. I'm bewildered as to why this is news or surprising.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think this is a little different because they're saying "We've got a good thing going, we want to continue with quality... the system doesn't need a bump now, so rather than rush the game out go polish it up some more"..I wish MORE companies would do this.

I agree that I wish more companies would pursue quality in their games. However, let's not fool ourselves here. If they had their choice, they'd push out the game as quickly as they could. This decision is obviously not a quality-based decision. Nintendo just wants to milk the cow a bit further.

With that said, this could likely result in a big benefit for the consumers. If there are a lot of games that come out all at once, they're going to be fighting for the same consumer dollars and there's going to be a high competitive factor in the market. It could easily result in substantial price cuts on games by January or February after the holiday buying frenzy dies down and many of those games are left with underwhelming sales figures. They may be good games, but the market won't withstand that large of a glut of games. Somebody has to come out with the short end of the stick.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Happens pretty routinely, Mizzou.

Sometimes it's for lack of installed base (see: PS2 and to an extent, PS3). If a game costs mucho bank to make, you don't want to expend its prime sales period at a time when there is no installed base unless you are certain that it will drive hardware sales *and* sell at basically a 1:1 rate.

Sometimes there are other reasons - holiday drive time, whatever. But the concept, as a concept, is sound.

I agree with everything you've said. Several people were shocked in a previous thread that I would suggest that something like this happens regularly. You can always argue which way is best. At this point, it's hard to argue that it's not the best decision at this point.

[Cringer]

Uber-polished console games? Sounds pretty nice to me.

[albionmoonlight]

Does it make sense for, say, Sony or Microsoft to tell a third party that is holding back a system selling game, "Put your game on the market ASAP and if you sell less than X units in Y time, we will pay you Z?"

It puts the risk of low sales on the hardware maker, but it also lets them grab market share in a market where a lot of people seem to be sitting on the sidelines and waiting.

But, having no sense of the numbers involved, I have no idea if this is the stupidest idea in the world or not.

edit--this, of course, assumes that the game would be released exclusive to the one console.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Of course they do and should. I'm bewildered as to why this is news or surprising.

I think the word bewildered is funny. Thank you. I intend to use this in my conversations for the rest of the day.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Crim

I think the word bewildered is funny. Thank you. I intend to use this in my conversations for the rest of the day.

Graphic representation:

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Does it make sense for, say, Sony or Microsoft to tell a third party that is holding back a system selling game, "Put your game on the market ASAP and if you sell less than X units in Y time, we will pay you Z?"

It puts the risk of low sales on the hardware maker, but it also lets them grab market share in a market where a lot of people seem to be sitting on the sidelines and waiting.

But, having no sense of the numbers involved, I have no idea if this is the stupidest idea in the world or not.


edit--this, of course, assumes that the game would be released exclusive to the one console.

My assumption was that we're not talking about system sellers here... but maybe i'm wrong?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

My assumption was that we're not talking about system sellers here... but maybe i'm wrong?

That's my guess as well. I'm thinking that we're talking about third-party games that aren't labeled 'system sellers'.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Crim

I think the word bewildered is funny. Thank you. I intend to use this in my conversations for the rest of the day.

No problem!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of a compelling reason that companies shouldn't hold back games in situations like this? I certainly can't come up with one.

Because companies don't want their employees checks to bounce?

Every situation is different obviously, but there are situations where a company can't afford to hold off too long on releasing a game that is pretty much done because they need to start seeing revenue come in. Expenses don't stop while a game sits in limbo or is polished to a glossy sheen. I guess a company could lay off some of their staff while they wait to release their game at the optimum point, but that comes with it's own risks as well (lowering employee morale, hurting the reputation of the company within the industry making hiring more difficult, etc.)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of a compelling reason that companies shouldn't hold back games in situations like this? I certainly can't come up with one.

uhhhh, cuz people don't work for free and the companies need to generate revenue to make more games in the future.

Programmer Joe: Um, i didn't receive a paycheck this period.
Payroll: Yeah, that's because we're holding back on the release of our game that you've worked 72 hour work-weeks on. We'll be able to pay you in Q4 once it's released.
Programmer Joe: We're in Q4!
Payroll: Q4 of '08. Ok bye.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Because companies don't want their employees checks to bounce?

Every situation is different obviously, but there are situations where a company can't afford to hold off too long on releasing a game that is pretty much done because they need to start seeing revenue come in. Expenses don't stop while a game sits in limbo or is polished to a glossy sheen. I guess a company could lay off some of their staff while they wait to release their game at the optimum point, but that comes with it's own risks as well (lowering employee morale, hurting the reputation of the company within the industry making hiring more difficult, etc.)

uhhhh, wow. uncanny. same answer.

[Grammaticus]

Same as above,

Most companies are trying to make money and they have to release the product they just spent a year or two making, then turn and start making the next game, etc.

Releasing as soon as you can is more likely the goal. Especially when there is no guarantee that holding a product will even make it sell better.

[Richard Weed]

Wii Sports is a system seller, IMHO.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

uhhhh, wow. uncanny. same answer.

with a 5 and a half hour difference between the two?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

with a 5 and a half hour difference between the two?

well, i don't exactly read a whole thread *then* reply to the ones i want. i reply on the fly. it's the risk we take.

just find it funny that the general sentiment here (from people who clearly don't have a clue) is "well, of course that's how it's done! all the time!" as if companies don't have projections to hit or goals to meet that they can simply delay a game willy nilly.