Take-Two: Good Games Are the New Bad

Take-Two: Good Games Are the New Bad

image

Take-Two has indicated why it might have a policy of delaying games until they're considered perfect.

Take-Two is known for delaying games, with L.A. Noire the most recent example having been pushed into 2011. Analysts say these delays will prevent all but the most successful Take-Two games from turning a profit, but the publisher refutes the idea with CEO Ben Feder recently saying that if you don't make a great game, you've made a bad one.

At a recent investor's conference, Feder professed his belief that if a publisher only puts out a good game, it won't make it in today's economy. "Our industry more than ever is driven by hit products," he said. "Today, consumers are very careful with the way they spend their dollars."

He calls the current worldwide sales environment "challenging," but that doesn't mean that he thinks Take-Two should rush its games out the door. Once again championing the success of Red Dead Redemption, Feder pointed to it as an example of what consumers will spend their money on.

To Feder, good just isn't good enough. "Good games don't make it anymore," he said. "In fact, good is the new bad. Games have to be great, and there's no company like Take-Two to make the best games in the industry."

Take-Two's subsidiaries' constant delays could be related to a mandate from the top of the company that require they only put out products worth the price of admission, which will ideally show it to consumers with a high overall review average. I've got to say, this definitely makes Take-Two seem like one of the most gamer-friendly publishers, because it seems like it wants to earn money by putting out not just good games, but great games.

In the case of Take-Two subsidiary 2K Games publishing Gearbox's upcoming Duke Nukem Forever, I would make an exception to the mandate. That game doesn't need any more delays.

Source: IGN

Permalink

This can only be a good thing for gamers.

just hope they dont go out of buisness doing that, if they do it be bad, very bad

IF he brought up up Mafia 2 as an example, I'd really follow his confidence.

Because Mafia was perfect, with a stunning amount of content.

Oh...

Blizzard was always notorious for doing this as well. Diablo II took several years to complete until it was up to their standards.

I'd much rather a developer make me wait for a game while they take their time with it and make it right than them rush out a game before it's ready. We all know what happens in the latter case. The Total War series is a well-established, great series of quality games, but because of time constraints Creative Assembly released Empire: Total War as what seemed to be little more than a polished alpha version.

It's patience and willingness to take their time and money to make their games right that prevents that sort of thing from happening to our favorite series. It'd be terrible if that ever happened to a Rockstar game, but I think they know better than that. I also hope CA learned their lesson.

I'm fine with this if they manage to deliver more games like RDR. Here's hoping L.A. Noire follows suite, especially since I love film noir.

robinkom:
Blizzard was always notorious for doing this as well. Diablo II took several years to complete until it was up to their standards.

While diablo 3 is shaping up to be more like a wow clone with more blood and tits than a diablo sequel.

SEE SEE!!! I TOLD YOU ALL!!! ITS A PRANK!!! THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO RELEASE DN:F THEY ARE SETTING UP THE PIECES TO SAY "IT HAS BEING DELAYED!!!"

it wouldnt really surprize me after all.

I'd rather a game be delayed that be hastily released. Sure, gamers may bitch, but ultimately, the ones who do are impatient. Quality over quantity, my friends. Also, if they take their time, there is less of a chance of things being left out, or things being made into DLC because they couldn't finish it in time.

Daemascus:
This can only be a good thing for gamers.

Until those gre3at games start needing great budgets, and they have to be sold at grat prices (not great for us, the gamers).

Why bring up Red Dead Redemption as an example of a great game? Not that the game itself has problems, but it's really buggy; if that's their idea of quality control, we should be worried.

P.S. Thanks

Whoa...a strangely awesome POV from a game developer!

Covarr:
Why bring up Red Dead Redemption as an example of a great game? Not that the game itself has problems, but it's really buggy; if that's their idea of quality control, we should be worried.

P.S. Thanks

This^. Players played it for the concept/theme, not great game design. I once killed *most* of the enemies in a mission, but one was still alive. The game suddenly skipped to a cutscene. And during the cutscene, the one enemy who was still alive kept shooting at us. The guy I had been escorting, that I worked so hard to keep from dying, was killed during the cutscene. I still won the mission though. For those wondering, him dying is not normally part of the cutscene. Rather than normal cutscenes, the computer just took control of the NPC and me, teleported us to a specific location, and forced us to act in a certain way. NPC's could still shoot at us while we did this. Because the cutscene was triggered early, he died.

This was Pike's Basin Hideout.

Does this mean we may never see another "Earth Defence Force : 2017" ?!?!

I don't think I want to live in that world...

*starts slow clap*
Finally, someone other than Valve starts getting it. Delay as much as you have to Take-Two. If you keep releasing games like Red Dead: Redemption, you've got a fan in me.

I think he's on to something there. Even though you can patch games after release, if it's a buggy mess or whatever at launch, it's going to take a hit regardless of if you fix it later.

I just keep thinking of ModNation Racers right now and how even though they finally patched some of the crap up after months of the game being out, United Front Games has still trashed their reputation with me and I really don't want any more games by them in my library. Probably doesn't help that the game is still a pain in the ass even after their first patch...

Oh yeah and somebody will probably say it anyway so why not bring this up: "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." - Shigeru Miyamoto

What was it valves gab said, A game can be late for a while but will suck for ever...or something along those lines.

I would much rarther wait longer for a game and maybe even pay a little more (wait no i would still wait for it to come down to budget price but what ever) to get a good polished game with minimal flaws than a buggy game that is esentally no fun. Look at along in the dark for the 360 over the ps3, one had a little more time in development and is playable.

Um... okay. Good job guys... I guess? Aside from not getting games as soon I don't see anything bad to say about this. Developers want to make games better and are putting more time into them. Ugh... Slow clap, anyone?

Bethesda Softworks, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Todd Howard, Pete Hines, call on line 2. Something about Elder Scrolls 5...

I was going to say this is a good way to do business, but then I realized it is the only way to do business. Unless you're a massive behemoth like EA or Activision that has a bunch of sports franchises grazing in your backyard to take the hit for your own IP's it's only the really awesome games that'll turn up a profit. And eventually not even them.

Daemascus:
This can only be a good thing for gamers.

Amen. Yet, longer production times means we are stuck for a year or two. But I am glad some companies produce the games I want in the mean time.

Why aim for acceptable mediocrity when you could aim for phenomenal success?

Straying Bullet:

Daemascus:
This can only be a good thing for gamers.

Amen. Yet, longer production times means we are stuck for a year or two. But I am glad some companies produce the games I want in the mean time.

A great game would circumvent this logic; it would make it so that people who play video games don't need to have a new flavor for their fix every month; one would be able to tie them over until the next thing comes out.

The demand for many games fast probably was/is the driving reason why they lacked quality, which diminished longevity of the game's enjoyability, making a destructive cycle.

So, will Take Two join the ranks of Blizzard and Valve? That would be nice.

Anarchemitis:

A great game would circumvent this logic; it would make it so that people who play video games don't need to have a new flavor for their fix every month; one would be able to tie them over until the next thing comes out.

The demand for many games fast probably was/is the driving reason why they lacked quality, which diminished longevity of the game's enjoyability, making a destructive cycle.

While I agree this is better, it may not be a superior business model. I would like more quality than quantity, but people love having a "new" game, even if it's the old game with roster updates, minor tweaks, etc. Not to mention, most delayed games aren't worth the wait. And since RDR is an example, I'm worried. It's a pretty, cinematic experience with shallow flawed gameplay.

Zachary Amaranth:

Anarchemitis:

A great game would circumvent this logic; it would make it so that people who play video games don't need to have a new flavor for their fix every month; one would be able to tie them over until the next thing comes out.

The demand for many games fast probably was/is the driving reason why they lacked quality, which diminished longevity of the game's enjoyability, making a destructive cycle.

While I agree this is better, it may not be a superior business model. I would like more quality than quantity, but people love having a "new" game, even if it's the old game with roster updates, minor tweaks, etc. Not to mention, most delayed games aren't worth the wait. And since RDR is an example, I'm worried. It's a pretty, cinematic experience with shallow flawed gameplay.

I retract implying it was a superior business model. But you gotta admit, sooner or later, people are going to Follow the Leader of Valve's success.

I, obviously, can't speak for anyone else, let alone a majority, but I, personally, avoid spending money on most games because of the deluge of bad games rather than the rarity of great games.

If all or most games released were worth playing, I'd be much more likely to drop money into my collection. The overwhelming abundance of shovelware makes me reluctant.

Anarchemitis:
[quote="Zachary Amaranth" post="7.232547.8183310"]
I retract implying it was a superior business model. But you gotta admit, sooner or later, people are going to Follow the Leader of Valve's success.

Well, I have to admit someone will try, but I don't think it will catch on. Why?

Valve is also Steam. Steam allows them to waste plenty of time between releases. If you have a major cash cow you can operate without significant development, you can afford to take more time on developing the games. It's one of the reasons they can afford free content for TF2: It's a great marketing point for Steam. Few companies will have the resources to compete with Steam on that level; fewer will want to/be able to take on a virtual monopoly.

Yeah, seems fair enough to me.

Tom Goldman:
In the case of Take-Two subsidiary 2K Games publishing Gearbox's upcoming Duke Nukem Forever, I would make an exception to the mandate. That game doesn't need any more delays.

On the other hand, speaking of Gearbox, their previous game could've used some delays, at least for the PC version. It was pretty clearly unfinished when it was released, and while they did eventually (after far, far too long) patch some stuff, as far as I know there's still stuff unfixed from launch day. That combined with them using RDR as their example of a great game, which could've used several more months to fix up properly before release (my friend who works at a different Rockstar studio but was called in to help them at least get something playable rushed out for the release date had some...interesting things to say about it in the last month or two they were working on it, and his entire team was very unimpressed by the way the whole situation was handled), is not terribly reassuring. I like the words coming out of their mouth, but I'm not going to believe them unless they change their actions, too.

Zachary Amaranth:

Anarchemitis:
[quote="Zachary Amaranth" post="7.232547.8183310"]
I retract implying it was a superior business model. But you gotta admit, sooner or later, people are going to Follow the Leader of Valve's success.

Well, I have to admit someone will try, but I don't think it will catch on. Why?

Valve is also Steam. Steam allows them to waste plenty of time between releases. If you have a major cash cow you can operate without significant development, you can afford to take more time on developing the games. It's one of the reasons they can afford free content for TF2: It's a great marketing point for Steam. Few companies will have the resources to compete with Steam on that level; fewer will want to/be able to take on a virtual monopoly.

Also the reason why Valve [a successful company] rejects microinvesting [a successful company that rejects an idea, therefore other companies follow suit.]
Microinvesting I think is the term that describes when people contribute small amounts of funds to a Game Company in order to assist with the initial developments, and are rewarded with the game coming out sooner, and cheaper to those investors.

SimuLord:
Bethesda Softworks, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Todd Howard, Pete Hines, call on line 2. Something about Elder Scrolls 5...

DUDE, you just won.

not the internet, nor my life. Or a cookie.

No, you simply won.

He's got my number. If a game is only good, I'll rent it. Games are expensive now and I only buy one if it's really worth keeping for the long haul.
While this does give me greater hope for future Take Two games, I don't know how accurate the statement is overall.
Hell, a lot of people bought No More Heroes and that wasn't even good.
Then there are a lot of half-decent games that sell purely on hype.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here