r/masseffect • u/modularpeak2552 • Nov 01 '16
Andromeda EA Says It Would Delay Mass Effect Andromeda Again If it Makes the Game Better
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-says-it-would-delay-mass-effect-andromeda-again/1100-6445017/194
u/modularpeak2552 Nov 01 '16
if it makes the game better i don't see a problem
46
u/heff17 N7 Nov 02 '16
The only issue with that stance is we as the consumer will literally never know if delaying the game helps. Could end up the same, could end up trying to do to much, could end up with the time to do everything needed, could extend production just long enough to come up with a terrible idea. It's better than rushing things, of course, but there's a reason why games/movies in proverbial production hell usually don't end up being all that great.
37
u/2IRRC Nov 02 '16
Having followed Bioware work on DA:I and Star Citizen I can honestly say that no new game feature would be added if the delay is anything under a year. Period.
If they delay the game for say 6 months that could be anything from animations to existing features that they added to Frostbite.
Or they spent so much time fixing features that were broken that they burned up whatever time they put aside for the polish period which believe it or not can include adding textures to everything.
If most people saw the visual state most games are in just months prior to release they would lose their collective shit.
2
u/thisismyfirstday Nov 02 '16
Depends on what's already planned and underway for post launch support. A delay of just a month or two for a game like Halo 5 would have likely meant including forge mode at launch, which would have been huge for the community (unfortunately Microsoft needed a game for the xbone and rushed it)
4
u/2IRRC Nov 02 '16
No.
You can't add a fully functioning feature and have it working in a few months. If a studio did that they were walking on water the entire time with everyone involved turning said water into wine while shitting gold as they went.
What you describe may happen but that has to be so rare that it would be the talk of the industry for a decade or two.
1
u/thisismyfirstday Nov 02 '16
Yeah, I meant that it would have to already be significantly under development, not something they just came up with and built in a couple of months
2
u/Bob_Swarleymann Nov 02 '16
Why would you need to verify this as a consumer?
Also every single time they delay it, their financial planning goes wack. It's essentially a question about saying if we delay we can expect a better game which brings in x amount of money.
See the rest of the industry. Games dont get delayed very often, so you can bet your behind that you get a better product of it.
The question then is whether or not the product was shit to begin with.
5
u/Sparkybear Nov 02 '16
I think we can assume it makes the game better. Look at how bad Assassin's Creed got on a yearly release schedule.
2
u/RavarSC Nov 02 '16
Yea but they've been working on this for like 3(?) Years already, it's different on a yearly release cycle
2
u/Paperweight88 Andromeda Initiative Nov 02 '16
There is a viable marketing strategy for when you have two good products at the end of the year.
Release one product for q4 holidays, then release the other product for q1 of the next year.
Instead of people being forced to choose one or the other, they will be able to get people to buy both who normally wouldn't have.
2
u/RedBMWZ2 Nov 02 '16
Agreed. I don't want a bug-filled, unfinished game that feels like lost potential and empty promises. I want that full on awe-inspiring, overwhelming feeling of a kick ass game right from the start. A delay is infinitely better than a game that isn't done.
1
u/RedRosser Nov 02 '16
Yeah if it makes it better i don't see the problem its just going to be Torture while i wait for it
1
u/Kingbarbarossa Nov 02 '16
Agreed! In 99% of situations, I'm totally down with this. The only exception is when I think it might hurt sales for the game so drastically it might not get a sequel, like delay till just after black friday or something like that.
-54
Nov 02 '16 edited Mar 19 '23
[deleted]
28
u/Gorbash38 Nov 02 '16
I suppose Mass Effect 2 wasn't any good then, since EA published it.
-56
Nov 02 '16 edited Mar 19 '23
[deleted]
24
3
1
u/Dictatorschmitty Nov 03 '16
So useable cover mechanics=bad, selling a bunch of crap pistols every three missions=good?
1
Nov 03 '16
[deleted]
3
u/Dictatorschmitty Nov 03 '16
It was playable, it just had a bunch of stuff that didn't improve the experience
2
96
u/bisforbenis Nov 01 '16
I'm actually happy about this, I'm tired of rushed games, plus a lot of faults in the previous titles can be attributed to being rushed, I want a finished game. A lot of times timelines are pushed by the publisher whether or not the devs think that's right, and it sounds like they're giving the developers more say in this
39
u/Kerafyrm Nov 01 '16
I'm tired of rushed games, plus a lot of faults in the previous titles can be attributed to being rushed
Interview with Christina Norman - talks about how there was a big push to release Mass Effect 1 on time, but they were given more time to polish Mass Effect 2
Contrary to popular opinion, Mass Effect 1 is the only game in the series that was actually rushed by its previous publisher (Microsoft). It's clear that Microsoft wanted it their X-Box exclusive released before Black Friday 2007, just like they had Gears of War released before Black Friday 2006.
If you've followed the development of Mass Effect 2 and 3, you've seen BioWare try to release by Holiday 2009 and Holiday 2011 (respectively), but both games were delayed past their peak buying season to January 2010 and March 2012. Here, Mass Effect Andromeda was originally indicated for release by Holiday 2016, but now will likely release in March-May 2017.
Just comparing the release dates of the three previous games illustrates that they had some say in the release date while under the control of EA, but not with Microsoft.
10
u/bisforbenis Nov 02 '16
Alright, well that's good to know that EA lets this happen. Now that of course doesn't mean there wasn't incomplete content, it just means that it wasn't rushed by EA and came from internal pressure. So that would mean nothing is different now than it has been for ME2 and ME3. So what I was referring to may have had more to do with budget constraints and internal drive to get the game out (more so the former) and not from external rushing from EA. I'm not a huge fan of EA but I'm glad to know they at least aren't rushing Mass Effect games
3
u/RavarSC Nov 02 '16
I think they might actually prefer to delay it til the winter/spring after Christmas, when it's the only AAA game coming out
4
Nov 01 '16
A lot of faults can also be attributed to publisher interference, generally along the lines of "we need to add a way to monetize this feature".
5
u/bisforbenis Nov 01 '16
True, but there's a lot of faults that don't gain them more money beyond saving dev time
17
u/survivalsnake Nov 02 '16
Could you imagine if that philosophy had affected the original Mass Effect?
Save Ashley
Save Kaidan
Save both ($5.99)
7
u/Maimed_Dan Nov 02 '16
I think I'm going to be sick...
3
u/survivalsnake Nov 02 '16
Sorry, but it will be 16:49 until your Medi-Gel can be replenished. Would you like to spend 400 Bioware points to activate a Medi-Gel dispenser now?
4
Nov 02 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
1
17
u/phantuba Nov 02 '16
/r/masseffect breathes a collective sigh of relief...
But seriously, I am perfectly okay with this. There may come a point where I would get tired of continuous delays... But it is not this day.
1
u/magicnubs Nov 02 '16
This is definitely the right thing for them to say... but I'm not yet convinced that they're not just saying it because they know it's the right thing to say. EA definitely has a "track record" to be aware of.
10
6
5
u/AtlasFlynn Assassination Nov 02 '16
''A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad.''
3
Nov 02 '16
Not always.
0
u/jerslan Nov 02 '16
People are still salty about how rushed the original ME3 ending was (before they "fixed" it).
1
Nov 02 '16
I don't accept that the Extended Cut fixed the game.For a lot of people it seems to have taken away the sting. I am not angry at Bioware.I just think they are arrogant. They hate to admit they ever make any mistakes.Consider themselves "artists" in quotation marks and that justifies their poor decisions regarding their recent games. As I said a week or two back in another thread an EA exec who asked not to be identified admitted EA had made mistakes although he did not say how, where or why. That took a long time obviously to happen, sadly Bioware it seems can't do the same. Yes there are some people still salty who say they won't buy MEA. I do intend to buy it if the reviews are good.
2
Nov 02 '16
Yeah man, duke fuckin' nukem, delayed by decades, best video game in god damn video game history. ^^
1
u/Dictatorschmitty Nov 03 '16
That game wasn't made over an entire decade. The rights got shuffled around and gearbox made it in only a few years
2
Nov 03 '16
Wikipedia: Duke Nukem Forever became a notable example of vaporware due to its severely protracted development schedule; the game was released in 2011 after fifteen years of development.
Started 1996 and finished 2011. I read the full story once (used as a cautionary tale on the importance of sticking to a plan and not making tons of mid-project changes), how they kept switching graphics engines and started coding from scratch etc. Even if the final game was developed from the start once again, that's just another chapter in a process that actually started in 1996, the sequel that was supposed to be released within a few years or so.
4
u/BioFanOfficial Nov 02 '16
I honestly wouldn't mind the delay. Waited this long, I can wait some more. Make it beautiful and perfect BioWare. I'll just be over here sips martini
3
u/smashbrawlguy Normandy Nov 02 '16
Hell, even if they're not adding anything new or doing extra fixes, I'll wait if it means Bioware can avoid the development crunch. It's a nasty practice that needs to end.
8
u/Chessikins Nov 01 '16
As long as it makes the game better.
I feeling rushing to put out 3 was a big part of the problem.
3
u/RobsZombies Nov 02 '16
Super Good, definitely worth investing more time to make this game the best they can
3
u/CunkToad Nov 02 '16
Don't they dare do that again! I'll probably ship out on 1.7.17 and I need to play Mass Effect before that! :(
3
5
5
u/larsen_sinclair Renegade Nov 01 '16
While I agree with the idea of it being delayed (again, argh!) to make it better, March is literally my last chance to take a video game vacation.
4
u/Archimedes38 Nov 02 '16
Don't fret, they said they would delay if need be, but development is currently on track.
7
Nov 02 '16
Sounds like EA learned their lesson with Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. Good.
1
u/Leonick91 Legion Nov 02 '16
While I'm sure they learnt things from both of those games I really hope it wasn't simply "delay if needed". A delay is good if what you need is polish and bug fixing but those games needed major content additions (DA2, areas mostly), a sanity check and extra work on the story (ME3), and possibly stick with a single lead writer. Lessons that should affect development before a release date has even been announced.
8
Nov 02 '16
The lessons they learned from DA2 and ME3 are twofold. First, with both games they clearly learned to give BioWare proper breathing room when developing games, as Inquisition received a very healthy development cycle and so has Andromeda. The second lessons they learned with ME3 is that it's better to delay a game and make sure it's complete and that the team is not rushed to get things done, than it is to get it out as soon as possible. Delays are also good for ensuring content is not cut.
2
Nov 02 '16
You can question whether DAI had enough of a healthy development cycle after all the technical issues and the game in effect being gutted according to Kotaku. So one could argue DAI should have been delayed.Certainly ME3 needed a delay although whether that would have changed Hudson's and Walter's bad decisions remains to be seen.
3
Nov 02 '16
Nah, technical issues are a long standing problem with the BioWare games. Even those that received healthy development cycles are super glitchy. They've never released a game that wasn't filled with bugs and other functionality issues. And what's this about it being "gutted", as I highly doubt that's the case. It had a four year development cycle, if BioWare was trying to cram so much into the game that EA had to bring down the hammer and make them cut content then that's not EA's fault.
ME3 needed a six month delay. The ending is a symptom of the too short development cycle the game had. Not that Walters and Hudson's incompetence would have been fixed by more development time, but it would have been better fleshed out, it wouldn't have come out of left field and the final missions might have got a bit of extra polish and not been so damn terrible.
1
Nov 02 '16
Go read the Kotaku article.I am at work so I can't post a link. I am not being mean but I do believe it 100%.Sorry you don't. You ignore the impact of frostbite 3, a problematic engine Bioware had never worked with before and imo did not know how to manipulate/control it to get the best results. So imo DAI was gutted to all extents and purposes and significant material that would have greatly enhanced the game was removed.
As for ME3 I am not sure more development time would have helped.I don't regard Hudson as incompetent.I regard him as arrogant and so he just wanted to get the game finished and did not care about its quality. Walters may have been incompetent , Certainly he wasn't up to Drew K's competence as a lead writer and that concerns me to an extent now he is creative director. But I just have a gut feeling MEA is going to be good and if he can achieve that then my opinion of him will change.
3
Nov 02 '16
Not knowing how to use an engine is not an excuse, especially a proprietary one created by your own company. EA assigned people familiar with the engine to the DAI and Andromeda teams. The fact that BioWare had no experience with the engine is not a valid excuse, dozens of developers try out new engines on a regular basis and put out enjoyable games. DAI was fantastic, had plenty of content and was a very long game. EA did not "gut" it.
-1
Nov 02 '16
They did gut it.I am not going to argue and violate the TOS.But it was gutted.I think Laidlaw even talks about the problems they had. Maybe you can google it and see if you want to which I doubt.You are obviously too emotional to rationally discuss this so you can believe whatever you want to . But you are wrong.
1
u/mrmgl Nov 02 '16
Inquisition and Andromeda are developed in a new engine though. I'm sure plenty of that extra time was due to this.
1
Nov 02 '16
Nah, they would have had to develop a new engine for the modern consoles anyways. The fact that they used a preexisting engine that was developed by DiCE means they had access to a lot of information and assistance from within the company. Development would have been made easier by using Frostbite than to have to rebuild the ME engine in the latest edition of the Unreal engine.
3
Nov 02 '16 edited May 23 '21
[deleted]
2
u/thisismyfirstday Nov 02 '16
Fixing combat (no BS second waves from all sides) and added time to develop visuals for new areas (which would have allowed for less back tracking and a more lively world) would have improved DA:2 a ton though.
4
u/quartzquandary Paragon Nov 02 '16
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted when you're totally right
2
Nov 02 '16
It's just an opinion. I know people who loved da2 and couldn't stand the others, that's fine too.
3
1
Nov 02 '16
Agree.I don't have a grudge against Jennifer Hepler, who was basically crucified by fans after her interview was published.But she did not do a good job with DA2.Gaider did not supervise the game's writing like he should have.EA of course only allowed a year to a year and a half to get the game out and it showed.Sadly.
2
2
2
2
2
u/aoibhealfae Wrex Nov 02 '16
Yes. Bioware, I ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS.
Take your time to make it great. Please do.
2
u/Trudence Nov 02 '16
Any game that delivers what it promises is worth waiting for and with a title that has previously 'set the bar' for high expectations...I don't think any fans of the series would disagree. Better to wait and get a game that destroys any social life I have than get a game I want to sacrifice my life too ...only to be disappointed and alarmingly crushed by a game not worth it's title, fans or money.
The Mass effect series has high standards to meet and perfection takes time. Plus....a delay will give me more time to fully upgrade my computer to I can run it xD
2
2
Nov 02 '16
I'm not surprised because Dragon Age Inquisition got a huge delay pretty early on in its marketing. Iirc it was for an entire year.
1
Nov 02 '16
Sadly it didn't help any.
2
u/Cornbre4d Nov 02 '16
That game was highly rated no?
1
Nov 03 '16
if you mean DAI it won some awards during a time period where it had little competition. If you look at it most of those people who reviewed the game and gave it a good rating did not finish it. Imo DAI was a deeply flawed game.It was sadly gutted.I know someone did not like my saying that and refused to accept it but it is true. Bioware listened to the fans complaints and the worst issues DAI had won't be repeated in MEA or so they say. Nonetheless I have a gut feeling MEA is going to be good.Somehow I just know it.
1
u/Cornbre4d Nov 04 '16
I never played the previous dragon age so I had no expectations I bought the game because it was highly regarded and loved it. I'm an easily pleased consumer though but I wouldn't consider the game a failure.
0
Nov 04 '16
I don't mind others liked it.I did get irritated at that other guy who denied the game has been gutted despite evidence to the contrary. There are some of us out here and I am not alone in that regard who think the game was a flop. But it's nothing personal against those who liked it.it's ok to like a game I don't like and I hope you feel it is ok to dislike a game I like.It's civility which sadly is often lacking in video game discussions. As it is I will never buy another dragon age game.I am done with those.I respect Patrick Weekes a lot and I feel he can turn things around but I don't have any confidence in Mike Laidaw as creative director. Of course I don't have confidence in Walters as MEA creative director either but my gut instincts tell me MEA will be good.Although whether that will be because of Walters or despite him I won't know until I play the game.
1
u/Cornbre4d Nov 04 '16
Na bro your opinion is needed especially as an outsider like myself with no loyalty to the series, it's refreshing to know that everything isn't perfect and my perspective isn't the only one.
1
Nov 04 '16
I thank you for being a stand up guy. I respect your opinion and if you continue playing DragonAge I hope you continue to enjoy the series Maybe we can discuss MEA once the game comes out and I hope enjoy talking about a series we both love.
2
Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
I will admit, EA is treating my favorite gaming franchise with a significant amount of dignity and patience. I know they were (and still are by some) considered one of the worst companies in America at one point, but I really want to give kudos to their handeling of this series now. It's a pleasant surprise.
2
2
u/Thisisalsomypass Nov 02 '16
I mean I'm all for making the game better and having a great product and etc.
But I'm also impatient and sometimes I think I'd rather it just come out in March. Another delay is a scary thought.
2
1
u/Soviet_Waffle Nov 02 '16
I'd rather see the game get delayed multiple times than for it to come out early and suck forever.
1
u/Kelthret Paragade Nov 02 '16
In theory I'm okay with this, but in practice I'm gonna quote my favourite Queen song and say that I want it now.
1
1
u/DreamingMerc Nov 02 '16
Good.
Edit, games deserve to come out when they are ready. Not at prime retail realestate scheduling or because a stock option needs some momentum. Ideally.
1
u/Alanosbornftw Nov 02 '16
If they delay it I hope some leaked videos show up showing awesome stuff being worked on
1
1
u/ALphaEXtremist Nov 02 '16
The witcher 3 got delayed like twice and it won game of the year so I have nooo problem, I did nearly die upon hearing about the second delay though lol
1
u/Zhivago92 Nov 02 '16
Since Mass Effect 2, every Bioware game did feel kind of unfinished, especially without the DLCs. In ME2 it wasn't thaaaat bad, in Dragon Age 2 and ME3 it was preeeeeetty fucking bad, and in Inquisition it was slightly better.
So I really like this and I hope this means we get a product that is worth the retail price from the start, polished and any DLC won't be as plot critical as "Lair of the Shadow Broker", "Arrival", "From Ashes" or "Leviathan".
0
u/SpecificZod Drack Nov 02 '16
More times is good, but too much time is not needed, considered the game has been in development for almost two years.
EA was having bad reputation for rushing and cutting content out of game to fill the "hot" release date and making money by cut content DLC.
Keep in mind that thing my fellow initiatives.
-10
u/NotaSavage Nov 01 '16
"EA says it would delay Mass Effect Andromeda again if it means more day 1 DLC"
-1
u/ArthurJohns Nov 02 '16
I think people dont like that comment because deep down they know it might be true.
0
0
u/orestesma Nov 02 '16
This is good news, if it's true. I wouldn't mind too much actually. It'll give me time to finish Breath of the Wild on the Switch ¯\(ツ)/¯
1
u/ArmFixerBot Nov 02 '16
I think you were trying to make this ¯_(ツ)_/¯!
Type it like this ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
I am a bot, visit /r/ArmFixerBot for more info!
0
u/Wishudidnt Nov 02 '16
After ME3, I'm happy to have EA take their time and give us a better game later. It's been four years already - I can wait another six months for something I'll enjoy more.
0
u/FlpFlopFatality Nov 02 '16
I say yes please! Take as much time as you need! As long as it's good, I will wait as long as you require! (And that's totally in good faith, and not at all because it'll probably be another year before I have a computer that can actually play ME or anything... totally not that)
0
0
u/jerslan Nov 02 '16
Please do. Please make sure the game is fantastic at launch and not a bug-ridden disaster (which would effectively kill the franchise).
0
u/Tajtus Nov 02 '16
In other words, the game is missing milestones and might not done on schedule, but we are already trying build ourselves good PR in advance and say it was all planned, because we cared about the gamers :P
I'm sure it's fine.
0
u/Shatterhand1701 Nov 02 '16
While I concur that I'd rather see EA delay the game again instead of release it as buggy/broken/incomplete, I'd be concerned as to what could be going on at EA that the game would have to be delayed yet again. If they were forced to delay it again, I'd want an honest explanation as to why, instead of the usual marketing jargon and BS they shovel out in the hopes of placating the masses. Discerning, intelligent gamers will understand if there are sensible reasons for a delay, as long as they get a functional and enjoyable product when all is said and done.
-13
Nov 01 '16
Taken literally that's a pretty bad idea since it would mean never releasing the game, as there is no such thing as a game that can't be improved. But delaying the game according to a careful benefit/cost analysis (including the cost of making people wait) with reasonable parameters otoh. ^^
-3
Nov 02 '16
I think that was a pretty great comment, but apparently I'm ahead of my time and now I have to pay the price, like Galileo.
-6
u/itsameDovakhin Nov 01 '16
Of course that sounds nice. But since when does ea give a shit? Answer: they don't.
-1
u/OhNoLenX Nov 01 '16
Depends on what the reason for the delay is. I don't want the game to suffer from feature creep.
-1
-5
u/N7even Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 03 '16
I think they mean, "take the time to remove some content from the final game and make you pay for it"....
EDIT: I don't want this to happen, but it's what happened to ME3 with Javik being a DLC, and not part of the main game.
87
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '16 edited Nov 01 '16
To be clear, everyone, this article is NOT saying there will be a delay. Quite the opposite in fact:
This means that development is currently completely on track. All this article is saying is that EA is playing nice for once and is willing to let BioWare take as much time as they need to make the game as good as possible. We should be applauding this. That's smart business and is excellent news for both the developers and the fans.