Christmas

Stop it with Christmas releases already. I know, I know, everyone is broke in January and nobody outside of California, Georgia and the Gulf of Mexico states is stupid enough to voluntarily step outside in February, but releasing a shitty game in time for Christmas doesn't change the fact that it's a shitty game. Yes, it's difficult to accept, but the laws of physics and people's attitudes generally remain the same throughout the year. Exceptions can be made for New Year's Eve and St. Patrick's Day, of course.

You are doing yourself quite a disservice by rushing a game out into the glut of Christmas products in the hopes that the aforementioned lobotomized crack baby on a week-long Vegas bender will pick it up at random as a gift. I don't care what your marketing department says. They're tools. You're doing yourself irreparable harm with Christmas Crap releases. The franchise suffers, the developer name suffers and most obviously, the publisher's name suffers since they are the ones that ultimately sign off on a game.

Take a look at id, Blizzard and BioWare, for example. People will buy their games based on the company name alone. Yes, I understand that not every developer can be like them, otherwise the "elite" status loses its significance, but if you're a publisher, wouldn't you like to help build at least one of your in-house or contracted developers up to that level?

In fact, it's almost inevitable that a publisher will release good and bad games, like a movie studio will release good and bad movies. On the other hand, people trust certain actors and directors to make good movies. A great a game then, when attached to a regular publisher name, it will sell very well. However, a great game attached to an elite developer name, will sell far, far better. It's just how people go to see Steven Spielberg movies, no matter what studio makes them.

The three months from December to March really aren't that long, and shortly after that the E3 boom happens. Just imagine the extra polish that can go into a game in that period, and consider if it's not worth delaying it. Maybe - just maybe - it won't sell as well, but at least it will develop some loyal fans.

Right now, the PC industry is too competitive and stretched thin, publishers are intent on driving each other out of business but hurting gaming on the PC in the long run. A somewhat more responsible "when it's done" attitude would help. I understand it's not as feasible for games with smaller target audiences, or if a developer keeps missing milestones, but if that's the situation, a cancellation may be in order. Trinity was canned, SiN 2 wasn't picked up and Blizzard cancelled WarCraft Adventures. We, as gamers, will never know what we missed out on, but it's also quite possible that we could be grateful for this.

None of this excuses us, the gamers, from our rather conservative attitudes. We'd rather buy the decent games with a lot of hype around them, rather than the good games with small marketing budgets. At best we ignore, at worst we mock and ridicule those games like Tribes, Allegiance, Sacrifice, Battlezone, and Torment that dare to be different. Then, years later, we go around on forums complaining about how publishers won't make innovative games. Well, no shit Sherlock, when the only reason many gamers know about those games is because they pirated them 2 years after the fact after reading an article on GameSpy about the "Top 10 Games You Never Played", don't be surprised that publishers will take fewer risks.

Yes, marketing departments need to learn to spend more time on unorthodox games, but it's only because we gamers are so hesitant to try something new. It's like listening to the radio all day, buying the same songs you hear on the radio and complaining that music is getting stale.

Bah, forget it, like anything's ever going to change.

Comments? Questions? Login to the forums with your standard FS login and discuss, before you suck, dammit.