4 ms·

Any feedback on the ideas I present in this article? I'm especially interested in the opinions of game developers, particularly the drawbacks associated with th

Any feedback on the ideas I present in this article? I'm especially interested in the opinions of game developers, particularly the drawbacks associated with this kind of strategy

soup10 15y ago
The drawback is that for many games the most exposure and sales is going to be when it's released, so you want to polish and perfect it as much as possible to maximize that. I think the strategy works better for games that are intended for longevity and re-playability, like free to play games and multiplayer games. If it's the type of game that people are only going to play through a couple times, then it doesn't really work. Another thing is that it's easier to get all the bugs out for a single release than to have to QA again for every release(how much of an issue this is depends on the platform/type of game). Also "controlling the experience" is a big deal. Many games are just not going to be good or worth playing until they are far into development and polished.
- davidtyleryork 15y ago
  Great reply. My counter to this argument would be that you can launch the game as a MVG in an unbranded, low-fi way that wouldn't jeopardize your actual game's launch. Instead, you'd just have a crappy game that people would test, and then you'd kill it and launch the new game without any association to the test game at all.
- evincarofautumn 15y ago
  Exactly. I hate to drag Minecraft into this, but thanks to its multiplayer nature, the release strategy was perfect. The open alpha basically said “I know this game isn’t the greatest, but hey, it’s fun, and you guys can help me make it better”. Not to mention the classic “get a discount if you buy now” manoeuvre. But most games, especially with any kind of narrative, are easier and safer to release as a whole. Still, I’d like to make a game with new levels released weekly as episodes in an ongoing narrative. Maybe after I gain some ground with my current project…stupid reality.

Any feedback on the ideas I present in this article? I'm especially interested in the opinions of game developers, particularly the drawbacks associated with this kind of strategy

soup10 15y ago

The drawback is that for many games the most exposure and sales is going to be when it's released, so you want to polish and perfect it as much as possible to maximize that. I think the strategy works better for games that are intended for longevity and re-playability, like free to play games and multiplayer games. If it's the type of game that people are only going to play through a couple times, then it doesn't really work. Another thing is that it's easier to get all the bugs out for a single release than to have to QA again for every release(how much of an issue this is depends on the platform/type of game). Also "controlling the experience" is a big deal. Many games are just not going to be good or worth playing until they are far into development and polished.

davidtyleryork 15y ago
Great reply. My counter to this argument would be that you can launch the game as a MVG in an unbranded, low-fi way that wouldn't jeopardize your actual game's launch. Instead, you'd just have a crappy game that people would test, and then you'd kill it and launch the new game without any association to the test game at all.
evincarofautumn 15y ago
Exactly. I hate to drag Minecraft into this, but thanks to its multiplayer nature, the release strategy was perfect. The open alpha basically said “I know this game isn’t the greatest, but hey, it’s fun, and you guys can help me make it better”. Not to mention the classic “get a discount if you buy now” manoeuvre. But most games, especially with any kind of narrative, are easier and safer to release as a whole. Still, I’d like to make a game with new levels released weekly as episodes in an ongoing narrative. Maybe after I gain some ground with my current project…stupid reality.