What would you rather have:

A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is really smooth to play and looks good with wonderful core mechanics, which causes a lot of buys and thus more funding for more features?

Or

A game with everything in but since it was all rushed it is buggy as hell, crashes a lot, no one buys it so there is no funding to fix it?

Hm?

How about a game with a modest set of fully supported features, and continued development throughout the lifespan of the game?

And I fail to see what this has to do with Age of Conan.

Easily, the first one.

Originally posted by gamedever

What would you rather have:

A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is really smooth to play and looks good with wonderful core mechanics, which causes a lot of buys and thus more funding for more features?

 

Or

 

A game with everything in but since it was all rushed it is buggy as hell, crashes a lot, no one buys it so there is no funding to fix it?

 

Hm?

Both are unacceptable states for the release of a game.

first choice ..build from a good core.

and you made the second choice really really bad..i'm sure there is something in between.

and eeh..tantus games? go finish your website:)

Originally posted by gamedever

What would you rather have:

A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is really smooth to play and looks good with wonderful core mechanics, which causes a lot of buys and thus more funding for more features?

 

Or

 

A game with everything in but since it was all rushed it is buggy as hell, crashes a lot, no one buys it so there is no funding to fix it?

 

Hm?

you act like that 1st option is already in the bag...

I think only LOTRo came with a smooth launch..YES belive it or not WoW was far from it,none of your options are a good choice,what everyone wants is different to what can be delievered..

A game with a decent launch i.e you can see how the game should work and how classes maybe should handle(like WoW)and with the chance and team to build it into the final product.

These days every player wants a final product on day 1,well guess what that aint a MMo,so either play off line games or get used to it.

Yes, both are extremes, but you'll notice both are the presumed states of the game right now from different parties. As a fellow developer I would hope and strive for as close to finished as possible, but I also realize the risk of biting off more than I can chew, which is why projects scale back.

As for me, I played the Beta and personally had a blast, so my *opinion* is the game should be good.

Gamedever, these are two points on the same continuum, but NOT two extremes.

Two extremes would be "a game which releases incredibly smoothly but has no/nearly no features beyond the core gameplay mechanics" and "a game which releases absolutely laden with bugs and crashes and with little/no support, but which is packed full of all kinds of amazing features".

The question of which a person would rather have is a little less clear cut when you actually present two extremes.

When presented with a question of actual extremes and which I would prefer, personally I would rather deal with a buggy game that has infinite potential than a vanilla game that runs well. Everyone and their brother can put out a remake of EQ or WoW or whatever that runs well... but who gives a crap? I want to see something new, something truly innovative and, dare I say, revolutionary, no matter the opportunity cost.

You forgot the 3rd option which Age of Conan will fall into:

 A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is rushed, buggy as hell, and  crashes a lot.

It's a question we Devs have to ask ourselves. 'Do we release the product ontime with cut features we had no budget/time for, or do we delay and go over time/budget and hopefully get those features working?

I beleive that Funcom ran out of extra time, and decided to get the core mechanics as smooth as possible so the base product sells well so they can patch those final features in.

Originally posted by gamedever

It's a question we Devs have to ask ourselves. 'Do we release the product ontime with cut features we had no budget/time for, or do we delay and go over time/budget and hopefully get those features working?

 

I beleive that Funcom ran out of extra time, and decided to get the core mechanics as smooth as possible so the base product sells well so they can patch those final features in.

Oh, and the first one.

I'm a dev, *smiles*same industry so we do relate.

This question is as obvious as:

What would you rather have:

A. Giant Chocolate Cake Covered with Delicious Frosting!  orrr..

B. A 400 pound gorilla jumping up and down on your balls what smacking you in the face with your left arm?

O.o XD What a mental image! Make it stop! Make it stopppp!

first one is the better choice cuz if ur game crashes like a biznitch, ull get less and less players, meaning ur future updates/ideas/implementations will have no one to care about it.

Originally posted by gamedever

I'm a dev, *smiles*same industry so we do relate.

Oh, and the gorilla thing was a sick image

Originally posted by gamedever

It's a question we Devs have to ask ourselves. 'Do we release the product ontime with cut features we had no budget/time for, or do we delay and go over time/budget and hopefully get those features working?

 

I beleive that Funcom ran out of extra time, and decided to get the core mechanics as smooth as possible so the base product sells well so they can patch those final features in.

1. it's finished.

2. outta money.

Originally posted by URMAKER

 

Originally posted by gamedever

It's a question we Devs have to ask ourselves. 'Do we release the product ontime with cut features we had no budget/time for, or do we delay and go over time/budget and hopefully get those features working?

 

I beleive that Funcom ran out of extra time, and decided to get the core mechanics as smooth as possible so the base product sells well so they can patch those final features in.

games are released for two reasons

 

1. it's finished.

2. outta money.

Or in this case

3.  To release before WAR

Originally posted by gamedever

I'm a dev, *smiles*same industry so we do relate.

Not to sound argumentative, but kids with RPGmaker make games also. Does this make them "relate" to Funcom as well?