This topic is in regards to the fanbois on this forum.

We aren't new to online gaming, mmorpgs aren't new and unique.

We don't have to deal with your crappy release anymore.  Yet the excuse that people still use "It's release, give it time to polish.  The other games weren't polished at release either"  Simply doesn't fly, and it's been proven OVER AND OVER.  Yet the fans still use it.

If you release a mmo, you have to be ready to go.  You have to be able to stand against the current mmo titans.  If you release space game you have to compete vs EVE, if you release a leveling quester, you have to compete with WoW.  If you release a PvP centric game, you have to compete with the pvp aspect of current mmos.

Not to just be something different, but vastly inferior(AoC and WAR).  And then hope to be able to compete with the main games in a few years.  Because in a few years, those games you might be FINALLY catching up to, have already moved ahead into bigger and better territory.

Why would anyone settle for a poorly released game, when they have the option to play ones which have already established themselves?  They wouldn't.

And us as gamers need to realize this, and stop letting developers believe this.

Halfway through development, a developer should have a clear idea of how much they will truely be able to get done by release.  The problem is they still TRY to get too much in. And nothing is truely remarkable and nothing really makes it stand out.

Give it a few months?  Maybe for some bugs

Give it a few years? Maybe to get extra content to last me after i experience the content in game for those years

Sorry, but there is no excuse for mmos to not come out on day 1 swinging.  If it's a buggy unbalanced, contentless, empty mess, then there is no excuse, the game simply isn't very good.

And it will die.

AoC and WAR both suffered the same fate, high box sales, TERRIBLE retention.  Tabula Rasa is going down in flames, HGL is going down. AA died, AC2 died. Vanguard, and MxO both would have died without SOE's life support.

Then theres the few which are still clinging onto hope but never really amounted to anything, PotBS, ryzom, shadowbane, swg, ww2o.

So what's your point?

WoW was all those things you described at release. Seems to be doing fine.

When WoW came out, it was stil lduring the mmo dark ages, there wasn't a million other choices, there were no mainstream mmos.  There simply was a few very small(in comparison) games, which were already in their own niche.  What could you compare WoW to?  Everquest? DAoC?  It was much more polished then either of these games when it comes to pure gameplay(disregarding server lag, due to the underestimated population boom).  It wasn't as unfriendly as EQ, and it Didn't have DAoCs... "Old" feeling.

Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)

IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.

Thats where the problem arises

The crutch known as "patching" is what keeps game quality down at release.

Look at console gaming. Until the PS3 and Xbox360 came about, developers HAD to get it right the first time. There were a few buggy games released across various consoles, and every one of them flopped from word of mouth quickly.

Now, with the inclusion of internet and the hard drive, it is more and more common to see games rushed to consoles with "patching" available at release.

Originally posted by Zorvan

The crutch known as "patching" is what keeps game quality down at release. 

QFT

Studios need to adapt to releasing a well polished game.  I mean c'mon ... who didn't get the memo that the HMS Potential set sail with Brad McQuaid?  Whether it's fair to compare newly released titles to WoW is immaterial; players want to play a fully fleshed-out, stable game on day one.

WAR didn't necessarily suffer from stability issues, it suffered from a poor decision to include those fooking community sucking scenarios and offering really nothing en liu of any other fantasy themepark.  Why EA didn't just create DAoC 2.0 is beyond me. 

Originally posted by Bladin

...

 

Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)

IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.

Thats where the problem arises

How was WoW ahead of its time? Let's compare-

WoW vs Ultima Online

UO Innovations:

Realtime collision detection

Indepth character development where you could be anything you wanted

Seamless worlds

Player Housing allows Players to impact the World DIRECTLY and Change it

Sailing in a boat

Dyes

Gear that had minor stats to them. Compare this to shallow WoW with its epix

Veteran and Newbie could team together and enjoy each others company

Animals dropped logically what you'd expect them to

WoW Innovations:

Heavy handed Quest system that in further drives a wedge in the community. Helped bring about single player gaming

Battlegrounds with its ridicilous Capture the Flag that should have stayed in FPS

Even worse, Arena season grinds

Did World of Warcraft even bring one thing to the table that was unique? One thing??? It was a polished game sure. Sure, it was more fun then EQ2 I'd give you that.

But innovative, wash out your mouth please. Correction, you said "ahead of its time"

What the----???? It's a regression. UO was way ahead of its time. Leaps and bounds ahead of its time.

Well you need to realize there is a real world outside of the gaming world.A lot of developers probably every single one of them will not meet there deadlines for there entire pre planned content.I would garner a bet that 100% of the games out there have removed some content in there initial releases.Another fact is that 100% of the games out there will have patches made up within the first two weeks,so they are also admitting there games need improvements.

You have to also realize that these developers have time lines and budgets to follow,you think they are just going to eat millions of dollars?Nope they will find some way to hasten there launch.Heck look no further than EQ2  and WOW releases,they were both battling each other to see who could release first,both moved up there launch dates dramatically.You think they all of a sudden they were ready?NO WAY they released there games because of marketing and the Christmas time line and competition with each other .

Like i already said,you can bet your ass that 100% of the games out are released unfinished or have removed content.This is why that one Blizzard rep stated they choose to tell there clients NOTHING,that avoids breaking promises,lies and people can't flame them for not releasing content they never knew existed.Then of course Blizzard as well as all the other developers will sneak there removed content into updates or even low ball us consumers by selling it to us in expansions.

Honestly,i think Square Enix bulls all the developers over.I have seen VERY FEW patches ever released to fix there game,only a patch to make it Vista useable[expected] and of course update patches for holiday events.There game FFXI was completely ready and update free on launch,of course that is the USA launch ,i guess it is a fair assumption that they probably already fixed issues in there JPN release one year earlier.However just watch every single game that comes out and you wil lsee the patches rolling in almost instantly,at least give the developers credit for doing it ,rather than sit idle on there product.

Originally posted by PatchDay

Originally posted by Bladin

...

 

Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)

IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.

Thats where the problem arises

 

How was WoW ahead of its time? Let's compare-

WoW vs Ultima Online

 

UO Innovations:

Realtime collision detection

Indepth character development where you could be anything you wanted

Seamless worlds

Player Housing allows Players to impact the World DIRECTLY and Change it

Sailing in a boat

Dyes

Gear that had minor stats to them. Compare this to shallow WoW with its epix

Veteran and Newbie could team together and enjoy each others company

Animals dropped logically what you'd expect them to

 

WoW Innovations:

Heavy handed Quest system that in further drives a wedge in the community. Helped bring about single player gaming

Battlegrounds with its ridicilous Capture the Flag that should have stayed in FPS

Even worse, Arena season grinds

 

 

Did World of Warcraft even bring one thing to the table that was unique? One thing??? It was a polished game sure. Sure, it was more fun then EQ2 I'd give you that.

 

But innovative, wash out your mouth please. Correction, you said "ahead of its time"

 

What the----???? It's a regression. UO was way ahead of its time. Leaps and bounds ahead of its time.

PatchDay,
 

Every single post that i've read of yours is arguing with something completely irrelavent.  The topic is how developers need to release a more solid product.  Stop writing a book in reply to one little sentence of Bladin's post, especially when that sentance has NOTHING to do with his overall argument.

You can bring up how WoW had no new innovations if it really helps YOUR argument (which is????), otherwise you're just nitpicking on something completely irrelavent to the topic at hand.

To the OP:

Well said, I'd have to agree.  Preach it brotha.  Hopefully some new games will come out that can prove to compete with the big dogs and be stable/bug-free at launch.

Originally posted by PatchDay

Originally posted by Bladin

...

 

Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)

IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.

Thats where the problem arises

 

How was WoW ahead of its time? Let's compare-

WoW vs Ultima Online

 

UO Innovations:

Realtime collision detection

it's a 2d movement grid that you can't go into the same location as someone else.  Very basic for 2d games.  

Indepth character development where you could be anything you wanted

No, you really couldn't.  There were limits to how many skills you could get.  And every single character option had less flavor then a wow class.  I'm sorry that you are stuck in nostalgia, but even though you could choose the skills to raise, all the skills were VERY VERY GENERIC!

Seamless worlds

WoW was seemless with a few exceptions, the instances(which are better pve experiences then anything uo had/has).

And the continents were seperate(seperate servers to alleviate lag and server burden)

Player Housing allows Players to impact the World DIRECTLY and Change it

Admittedly WoW doesn't have player housing.

Sailing in a boat

To travel to islands, wow doesn't have islands to travel to, hence no reason for boat travel.

Dyes

WoW uses a different gear system, they don't allow dyes, because that same model is used for one of the other 10000000000 other items and thats what makes them different.  The dye system could easily be added, they just choose not to.

Gear that had minor stats to them. Compare this to shallow WoW with its epix

How is this a good thing for UO?  It was for roleplayers, it wasn't a real game.

Veteran and Newbie could team together and enjoy each others company

The way wow works, a high level can go down and do low level content with a low level, and not recieve anything(but have fun, and this does happen.  A lot).  And if low levels went up and did high level content, they'd do that level ranges content before they got there.

WoW simply wasn't designed for this.

Animals dropped logically what you'd expect them to

 This has been laughed at about wow forever, and it is sorta funny to get plate items etc from their corpses, but it's hardly game defining.

WoW Innovations:

Heavy handed Quest system that in further drives a wedge in the community. Helped bring about single player gaming

You obviously missed the memo, 90% of all players hated forced grouping, and enjoyed soloing with optional grouping.  IT's why wow succeeded. It's why FFXI's major complaint was finding groups, etc etc.

This was a step forward in a big way.

Battlegrounds with its ridicilous Capture the Flag that should have stayed in FPS

I've always felt that it was kinda silly to have minigame style PvP.  But the fact is, they are fun, they are quick, and they brought about a decent competition between both sides.  Real world pvp slowly died away, but the system eventually changed to be more open rvr friendly.  Why didn't people resume?  Because people realized they didn't really want to do it since it's not that much fun.  It was simply their only option and they enjoyed it.

Check out the new Bg and the new PvP zone, pretty good systems.

Even worse, Arena season grinds

 I'm not a big fan of arena, but being higher rated in arena required way more skill then UO did in it's pvp, there's not even a comparison.  Try reaching 2200, go for it.  I dare you.  You can say "I don't want to grind"  People LOVE arena, they LOVE the competition, the fighting, and the work they put in.

 

Did World of Warcraft even bring one thing to the table that was unique? One thing??? It was a polished game sure. Sure, it was more fun then EQ2 I'd give you that.

 Let's see

Solo content, that was fun accessable, and required little-no preparation time.

Group content, that was easy to get into, and offered rewards, and didn't require you to stop playing the game and wait to do.

Smoother gameplay and combat.

A lot of ease of life features.

Just a overall good mmorpg

But innovative, wash out your mouth please. Correction, you said "ahead of its time"

 IT was innovative, since it saved the mmo genre.  You can argue this all you want.  I'll bet you cash, right here, right now, that if WoW would not have come out.  The genre would not have seen many of the games that came out afterwards, we'd be living with EQ2 being the top dog mmo.  It pushed the idea of forced grouping, roleplay or boredom out of the window. 

Darkfail might have actually been the most hyped, anticipated non-trolled mmo ever, since we wouldn't have anything to compare it to.

What the----???? It's a regression. UO was way ahead of its time. Leaps and bounds ahead of its time.

UO was very simplistic, it had a lot of elements which were very very basic, they just allowed freedom. 

But it was also not regarded as being that perfect.  Do you fans honestly think that the game pre trammel was universely loved?  Heck no, they didn't change it just because THEY felt like it, they changed it because the PEOPLE were hating on it for what it was.

It was great for being one of the first games to jump into the mmo genre.  But that's about it.

Never going to happen as no game designer can match or should we say better a game such as WoW that already has it right for that crowd, and has over 4 years worth of content to boot.  Using your criteria no game will ever match up and I guess you'll have to play whatever your playing now or just forget about any new MMO. 

Originally posted by Wizardry

Well you need to realize there is a real world outside of the gaming world.A lot of developers probably every single one of them will not meet there deadlines for there entire pre planned content.I would garner a bet that 100% of the games out there have removed some content in there initial releases.Another fact is that 100% of the games out there will have patches made up within the first two weeks,so they are also admitting there games need improvements.

Yes, this is true.

You have to also realize that these developers have time lines and budgets to follow,you think they are just going to eat millions of dollars?Nope they will find some way to hasten there launch.Heck look no further than EQ2  and WOW releases,they were both battling each other to see who could release first,both moved up there launch dates dramatically.You think they all of a sudden they were ready?NO WAY they released there games because of marketing and the Christmas time line and competition with each other .

Agreed

Like i already said,you can bet your ass that 100% of the games out are released unfinished or have removed content.This is why that one Blizzard rep stated they choose to tell there clients NOTHING,that avoids breaking promises,lies and people can't flame them for not releasing content they never knew existed.Then of course Blizzard as well as all the other developers will sneak there removed content into updates or even low ball us consumers by selling it to us in expansions.

If they remove the content because it wasn't done, then I don't see how you can call it lowballing and sneaking it in.  Blizz always wanted hero classes, and siege weapons, and they've been working on them since release, does that mean since they added one and them in wotlk that it's somehow less of a addition?

But was wow hurting for lack of these @ release?  not really.

Honestly,i think Square Enix bulls all the developers over.I have seen VERY FEW patches ever released to fix there game,only a patch to make it Vista useable[expected] and of course update patches for holiday events.There game FFXI was completely ready and update free on launch,of course that is the USA launch ,i guess it is a fair assumption that they probably already fixed issues in there JPN release one year earlier.However just watch every single game that comes out and you wil lsee the patches rolling in almost instantly,at least give the developers credit for doing it ,rather than sit idle on there product.

Heres the thing.  Theres a big difference between having a few bugs, and being broken/empty.

Let's look at wow.

Servers were overcrowded, not a issue with the game

The server system wasn't setup for that many people, a issue with the servers.

A few bugged quests, to be expected

A few bugged abilities, again to be expected.

Then let's look at AoC

Servers crashed a lot, but since they instanced zones each instance crashed seperately hence leaving a illusion of solidarity.  It's a release problem.

Completely worthless classes, and almost every feat in the "talent trees" broken.  Not acceptable.

BArren levels which required grinding to get through.

COMPLETELY UNTESTED/BALANCED CRAFTING SYSTEM.

Utterly trashy and shitty itemization system.

Bugged instances

Terrible respawn times on quest mobs.

No PvP systems in place(acceptable with wow, since it had a decent pve system).  But AoCs PvE was terrible and broken also.

Terrible world design.

Huge Memory leaks.

Can you honestly say that AoC was okay to release like that? Just because of patches.

It's understandable to release with some bugs, perhaps server issues.  But the game itself should be whole and playable, with the majority in and working.(as wow was, again judging by the current mmorpg population, nobody expected wow to be as big of a hit as it was).

I'll say it again.

Us as gamers don't have to accept crappy releases, and poor games.  If developers can't cut the game on their budget.  It's not our fault, and they deserve to fail.

We don't NEED to put up with it.  And look at WAR and AoCs floundering,  Vanguards failure, etc etc.  It's all proof of this.

Originally posted by buegur

Never going to happen as no game designer can match or should we say better a game such as WoW that already has it right for that crowd, and has over 4 years worth of content to boot.  Using your criteria no game will ever match up and I guess you'll have to play whatever your playing now or just forget about any new MMO. 

No.

It's not that complicated, it doesn't have to have more content than wow.

It has to work, and have enough content for itself.

If say, Sword of Truth online came out(random example). And it wasn't buggy, it had it's fair share of issues, and it was well designed and played well, and had enough content to last for a few months and proceeded on a good patching schedule it would work.

What i'm saying is, we as gamers don't/won't/can't ACCEPT utter failures of releases. It's been proven over and over.

Developers aren't realizing this.  And fans are still making excuses.  It's a double edged sword.

Most developers know their game is going to flop hard after people have played it for awhile.  And guess what?  They still hype, since they want ot recoup their base costs.

Our posts will get super long so I have to reply to sections:

" Let's see

Solo content, that was fun accessable, and required little-no preparation time.

Group content, that was easy to get into, and offered rewards, and didn't require you to stop playing the game and wait to do.

Smoother gameplay and combat.

A lot of ease of life features.

Just a overall good mmorpg"

WoW didn't bring soloing to MMO genre. City of Heroes already had solo content. You can enter an instance and set the difficulty. you know this right you're a CoX player. And I believe it predates WoW.

Group content was even easier in EQ2 at launch. You didnt have to stand around LFG in town. You went to the dungeon and just gradually added on party members. The entire dungeon was non-instanced except the bosses. I guess what you mean is WoW added the Warlock Teleports? Nope. City of Heroes already had "Teleport Friend"

"The way wow works, a high level can go down and do low level content with a low level, and not recieve anything(but have fun, and this does happen. A lot). And if low levels went up and did high level content, they'd do that level ranges content before they got there."

Seriously what lowbies welcome high levels? They totally destroy the mob XP. Sure you can just focus on quest XP. But this is horribly broken. City of Heroes at least had sidekicking and UO was even better

" IT was innovative, since it saved the mmo genre. You can argue this all you want. I'll bet you cash, right here, right now, that if WoW would not have come out. The genre would not have seen many of the games that came out afterwards, we'd be living with EQ2 being the top dog mmo. It pushed the idea of forced grouping, roleplay or boredom out of the window."

Let's see. SWG pre-CU would still be here. Many newer mmorpgs may actually have been original. MMORPGs would have been more complex, like UO/Meridian 59/AC1 were. More experimentation would have been tried. Many experts agree WoW changed everything and has been so successful publishers have no choice but to try to emulate it

Originally posted by Bladin

Heres the thing.  Theres a big difference between having a few bugs, and being broken/empty.

Let's look at wow.

Servers were overcrowded, not a issue with the game

The server system wasn't setup for that many people, a issue with the servers.

A few bugged quests, to be expected

A few bugged abilities, again to be expected.

 

Then let's look at AoC

Servers crashed a lot, but since they instanced zones each instance crashed seperately hence leaving a illusion of solidarity.  It's a release problem.

Completely worthless classes, and almost every feat in the "talent trees" broken.  Not acceptable.

BArren levels which required grinding to get through.

COMPLETELY UNTESTED/BALANCED CRAFTING SYSTEM.

Utterly trashy and shitty itemization system.

Bugged instances

Terrible respawn times on quest mobs.

No PvP systems in place(acceptable with wow, since it had a decent pve system).  But AoCs PvE was terrible and broken also.

Terrible world design.

Huge Memory leaks.

 

Can you honestly say that AoC was okay to release like that? Just because of patches.

It's understandable to release with some bugs, perhaps server issues.  But the game itself should be whole and playable, with the majority in and working.(as wow was, again judging by the current mmorpg population, nobody expected wow to be as big of a hit as it was).

 

I'll say it again.

Us as gamers don't have to accept crappy releases, and poor games.  If developers can't cut the game on their budget.  It's not our fault, and they deserve to fail.

We don't NEED to put up with it.  And look at WAR and AoCs floundering,  Vanguards failure, etc etc.  It's all proof of this.

I agree with absolutely everything written, except the part about WAR "floundering", thats simply a fabrication of facts. It is far from "floundering" as you put it.

If you wish to show me some numbers that prove otherwise, feel free. Until then, it remains a personal opinion with no facts to back up said opinion.

The numbers they have released for current subs are solid, and are NOT formed based on people that no longer sub, but once did. So that argument goes right down the crapper.

Originally posted by Bladin

Heres the thing.  Theres a big difference between having a few bugs, and being broken/empty.

Let's look at wow.

Servers were overcrowded, not a issue with the game

The server system wasn't setup for that many people, a issue with the servers.

A few bugged quests, to be expected

A few bugged abilities, again to be expected.

 

Then let's look at AoC

Servers crashed a lot, but since they instanced zones each instance crashed seperately hence leaving a illusion of solidarity.  It's a release problem.

Completely worthless classes, and almost every feat in the "talent trees" broken.  Not acceptable.

BArren levels which required grinding to get through.

COMPLETELY UNTESTED/BALANCED CRAFTING SYSTEM.

Utterly trashy and shitty itemization system.

Bugged instances

Terrible respawn times on quest mobs.

No PvP systems in place(acceptable with wow, since it had a decent pve system).  But AoCs PvE was terrible and broken also.

Terrible world design.

Huge Memory leaks.

 

Can you honestly say that AoC was okay to release like that? Just because of patches.

It's understandable to release with some bugs, perhaps server issues.  But the game itself should be whole and playable, with the majority in and working.(as wow was, again judging by the current mmorpg population, nobody expected wow to be as big of a hit as it was).

 

I'll say it again.

Us as gamers don't have to accept crappy releases, and poor games.  If developers can't cut the game on their budget.  It's not our fault, and they deserve to fail.

We don't NEED to put up with it.  And look at WAR and AoCs floundering,  Vanguards failure, etc etc.  It's all proof of this.

I agree with this post in it's context. Now, I'm not picking on Wizardry I liked his post too. But I like ths post.

And I agree the games need to be at least stable right. At least WAR was stable at release along with LOTRO and some others.

Not sure how WAR fits into your OP though

Despite how much sense the OP makes, there are still people trying to refute his point. Gamers need to stop settling for crappy games just because they have a big name behind them. Whether or not the game will be great in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years is not the point, if it is not ready at launch, dont expect us to shell out 60 bucks and wait patiently for you patch the game up to an acceptable state.

And the only reason they get away with it is, there are far too many people willing to accept this nonsense, by defending it , just read some of the replies to this thread, One person who isnt on the payroll defending this crap is far to many, but it seems we have even more then that actually vocally defending this nonsense.

"If say, Sword of Truth online came out(random example). And it wasn't buggy, it had it's fair share of issues, and it was well designed and played well, and had enough content to last for a few months and proceeded on a good patching schedule it would work.

What i'm saying is, we as gamers don't/won't/can't ACCEPT utter failures of releases. It's been proven over and over.
 

The problem with that is it's subjective, I say War is as good as it gets, while others say it's total trash.  I wanted a game where I can level doing RvR and not have to do quests while others just want to group and do high level raids.  We gamers all have our own ideas on what makes a game good and want the said game to be that game.  War is an example of a good release and maybe it does or doesn't meet your expectations but it is a good game for the RvR crowd.  It had no major flaws unlike AoC which released flawed, so lumping games like those two is just plain wrong in my opinion.  Many on this forum really should not play a game at release as they are always disappointed, wait a few months and than read what the game is about and decide if it's worth your money.

Originally posted by buegur

"If say, Sword of Truth online came out(random example). And it wasn't buggy, it had it's fair share of issues, and it was well designed and played well, and had enough content to last for a few months and proceeded on a good patching schedule it would work.

 

What i'm saying is, we as gamers don't/won't/can't ACCEPT utter failures of releases. It's been proven over and over.
 

 

The problem with that is it's subjective, I say War is as good as it gets, while others say it's total trash.  I wanted a game where I can level doing RvR and not have to do quests while others just want to group and do high level raids.  We gamers all have our own ideas on what makes a game good and want the said game to be that game.  War is an example of a good release and maybe it does or doesn't meet your expectations but it is a good game for the RvR crowd.  It had no major flaws unlike AoC which released flawed, so lumping games like those two is just plain wrong in my opinion.  Many on this forum really should not play a game at release as they are always disappointed, wait a few months and than read what the game is about and decide if it's worth your money.

 

Problem with war is, it is unfinished, the fact that it announced the classes it cut as new content prooves that fact.

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Despite how much sense the OP makes, there are still people trying to refute his point. Gamers need to stop settling for crappy games just because they have a big name behind them. Whether or not the game will be great in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years is not the point, if it is not ready at launch, dont expect us to shell out 60 bucks and wait patiently for you patch the game up to an acceptable state.

 

And the only reason they get away with it is, there are far too many people willing to accept this nonsense, by defending it , just read some of the replies to this thread, One person who isnt on the payroll defending this crap is far to many, but it seems we have even more then that actually vocally defending this nonsense.

I think that's a bit naive though if you are suggesting fanbois are the reason why games are released early. Oh how I wish we had the much influence!

No--- the bottom line rests with the investors. They know when they sign up a game how much they are willing to pour into it. At somepoint, once development costs sky rockets and delays occur way too much you either pull the plug or push it out. Period

They know they're products ain't ready. They have in-house testers for peet's sake. They also test on a wide margin of computers. they have low specs and mid range and high specs

Time and time again guys THINK/

What happened to AoC? It got delayed again and again. Finally, FUNCOM pushed it out. Whole time testers said it wasn't ready. Has NDA been lifted for us closed testers to talk about that fiasco???

Vanguard. Think. What happened?  It was canceled by Microsoft. Sony made them release.

You think the testers were all saying "RELEASE!!! RELEASE!"

Nooo. They ran out of money

Wizardry was spot on. It's cold hard $$$. Sure as customers we all have a say. But bottom line they just broke. Blizzard, is filthy rich. Always has been. They always been known to cancel something no matter how far along if the feel is wrong. Starcraft Ghost anyone?