As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

I understand a game like Destiny requiring an announcement so far ahead. You have partnerships and deals and stuff that need to fall into place. For instance, the red bull codes, deals for PS4 exclusivity, toys, T-Shirts, etc. So those other companies need to know well ahead of time to plan their promotions.

But No Man's Sky?

…

Though generally you have a reasonable point, its their reveal that even led the game to get developed. They'd just suffered a flood in their office that set them back quite a bit. They had already lined up their reveal, however, and they were encouraged to go through with the reveal anyway. The positive response from that reveal was a major factor in the team deciding to soldier on.

As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

To be fair, when they announced the game at E3 2013, they said it would be available in January of 2014. The game has been delayed many, many times over. At one point Hello Games' office flooded and all of their computers fried. They had to re-write everything from notes they'd taken using old backups as their framework. There's also Sony's involvement. My professional experience tells me that the original game didn't even have the survival or crafting elements, and Sony stepped in and said "you can't sell a tech demo as a game" which forced longer delays while they figured out systems for actually interacting with the world(s) they'd developed. I have zero evidence to support this, just a strong feeling that comes from having spent my 10,000 hours in the industry.

This whole debacle does quite a bit for me to highlight why Bungie is no longer the open developer we used to love, and is now seen by many in the general audience as just another tight-lipped, money-hungry company.

I mean, they definitely are tight lipped. Not that that's inherently a problem (Im actually of the opinion that they cmunicate fairly well, apart from the nightmare that was the Exotic Shard debacle.)

As for money-hungry... Well, you know how I feel about microtransactions. And the Taken King Collector's Edition. And Playstation Exclusivity.

D:

As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

IIRC, Bethesda is pretty good about this. Fallout 4 was announced six months before release and I think it was very much done.

Also, "holy crap only 3-6 months to wait!!" generates its own kind of hype.

As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

I understand a game like Destiny requiring an announcement so far ahead. You have partnerships and deals and stuff that need to fall into place. For instance, the red bull codes, deals for PS4 exclusivity, toys, T-Shirts, etc. So those other companies need to know well ahead of time to plan their promotions.

But No Man's Sky?

…

But, as Cody is so willing to point out, procedural generation can only take you so far. Each planet seems unique upon first sight, but it doesn't take long for it to lose it's magic (for me, obviously) when you just encounter the same four or five buildings over and over again. Heck, even the "puzzles" you solve to unlock the computers in those buildings repeat after less than ten encounters.

This is kind of what I was getting at in the Speaking for Itself post. Once you are over the initial marvel of procedural generation, what is left? Your enjoyment of the game came from that marvel, not from the game itself.

As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

All I can think of is "if you see a mountain in the distance, you can go there."

I always just think of people getting to other side of the big lake on Regret in Halo 2 for some reason.

All I can think of is "if you see a mountain in the distance, you can go there." That sentence got me so hyped for Destiny, and the final product was incredibly disappointing in that respect. It's hardly an open world at all. No Man's Sky, on the other hand, is an open GALAXY. How can people not be completely flabbergasted by the scale of the thing?

Opening the star map, flying around in it, and realizing what that means still blows my mind.

I really find myself in a very middle-of-the-road position on No Man's Sky. I enjoyed it immensely for 15 or 20 hours, then I completely abandoned it. I don't regret buying it or playing it. I had a blast. But, as Cody is so willing to point out, procedural generation can only take you so far. Each planet seems unique upon first sight, but it doesn't take long for it to lose it's magic (for me, obviously) when you just encounter the same four or five buildings over and over again. Heck, even the "puzzles" you solve to unlock the computers in those buildings repeat after less than ten encounters. It desperately needs some unique, hand-crafted elements or at least something more interesting to do in order to pull me back in again. And if that happens, I'll be totally down to jump back in. If it doesn't, I won't be mad or disappointed--I had my fun with the game, and I'm okay with letting it go.

This is one of times where I can totally, completely understand both sides of the argument. I think No Man's Sky is incredible for it's technical achievement alone, but I also see how folks can play it and be totally underwhelmed compared to what we were shown and told about it in advertisements.

At the end of the day, all I can really do is shrug my shoulders, say "meh," move on, and keep an eye on how the game develops from here.

Over at Vice Gaming, Patrick wrote a story about the backlash surrounding the game, with a particular focus on the subreddit and a thread that was posted there a few days ago that compiled an entire list of things that were advertised at one point, but never appeared in the game.

This whole debacle does quite a bit for me to highlight why Bungie is no longer the open developer we used to love, and is now seen by many in the general audience as just another tight-lipped, money-hungry company.

All I can think of is "if you see a mountain in the distance, you can go there." That sentence got me so hyped for Destiny, and the final product was incredibly disappointing in that respect. It's hardly an open world at all. No Man's Sky, on the other hand, is an open GALAXY. How can people not be completely flabbergasted by the scale of the thing?

This whole debacle does quite a bit for me to highlight why Bungie is no longer the open developer we used to love, and is now seen by many in the general audience as just another tight-lipped, money-hungry company.