Nah you'll have an AI combing through multiple sources of social media to put together a "consensus" based on overall public opinion on various social media sources. I hope, or you know they'll just reference Facebook posts.
if it's like elder scrolls online I don't want anything to do with it. I was so excited for it because the only thing I wanted from Skyrim was multiplayer. but ... well .... you know the rest.
it's been 6 years since MP4 was announced. and it will be literally the only reason I buy a switch.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one of the last big releases on Switch.
We know that the Switch’s successor won’t be out until FY2024, so April 2024 at the earliest. There’s also some indication that Nintendo is going to build a bit of a stockpile before launching to reduce scalping. I think that fall 2024 is the earliest realistic launch window. Even then, it’s possible that Nintendo keeps releasing games for the Switch after the next console launch (as Sony has kept the PS4 going post-PS5).
Nintendo has a packed release schedule through November 2023 and then there’s nothing. The only confirmed games with no release date are Luigi’s Mansion 2, Metroid Prime 4, and the Princess Peach game. It’s possible that those all come out next year for the Switch.
I was about to say, Nintendo seems to already be doing this, having learned their lesson from the Metroid Prime 4 debacle.
After the MP4 reset, I think Tears of the Kingdom is the only Nintendo game that was announced more than a few months ahead of its release. They even started shadow-dropping games this year.
I honestly don't care if a publisher announces a game several years out. In some cases, such as game franchises, I see it fairly pertinent that they do announce them.
What would be a better trend is the gaming community embracing the practice of foregoing preorders. OR understanding what "buyer beware" means. Never trust a publisher to provide you the game they promise on Day 1. Never.
I don't really see what the big deal with "we plan to make another one" is. They didn't even give it a name, just said they planned to make it.
Starfield might have been unexpected, but the day you knew that was a thing best case for ES6 was 4-ish years later. That's what a Bethesda game takes.
Well I'm sure they announce it early because it's not for us, it's for the investors. But I think there is a downside, announcing it too early with like a CGI trailer puts it in the news and gets it talked about, but gamers develop an "vision" of how the game might be and you end up with a product that will definitely disappoint a lot of people. I'd say cyberpunk was one, due to the announcement time and what they actually showed it was hyped to the moon and back (people talk about games so they just started assuming).
If you look back on it now, people's expectations and ideas of what the game was going to be were very different than what the product ended up being (besides the bugs). I would rather get the game announced with real fucking gameplay.
I remember the original Cyberpunk announcement. It was so epic that I watched it on repeat (I was a teenager at the time). Then as the years went by I totally forgot about it except for the soundtrack, to the point where release date announcement came as a total surprise. And yet somehow I think the game came closer to that trailer than most do, although I played it a year or so after release. The thought was there for sure, and the trailer was a neat piece of media in its own right.
I think people really just need to vet who they get their games from better. There are quite a few publishers/developers I can absolutely rely on to provide a great product on day 1, and saying never to trust them that puts them in the same category as the shitty ones which is wrong.
I think people really just need to vet who they get their games from better.
Oh, I absolutely agree.
...saying never to trust them that puts them in the same category as the shitty ones which is wrong.
I've been playing games long enough to see so many publishers walk back on promises to the gaming community. Activision, Bethesda, Square, Ubisoft, EA, Capcom...and a lot more. I pre-order games as well, yet I know that if I'm disappointed with the studio then that's my fault. I bought the game...caveat emptor.
Never trusting a studio to fulfill their promises good advice to a gamer. Always understand that the relationship between the gamer and a studio is tenuous. It's only worth the studio's most recent release.
I agree, stop giving me hope. When I don't know something exists I don't miss it. If you announce a game years away from release my hype will be gone and replaced by frustration by release. Especially if the game doesn't deliver.
I really do not care how early or late a game gets announced. Plenty of great games have been announced early, plenty of shit games have been announced late. What matters is who's developing it and the situation around the development.
My main concern is that the game is good, complete and that there was no 'crunch time' involved. When they pop release dates up they instantly create crunch and it's unnecessary. Finish the game in the time it takes then release it. Fuck this idea of working people to death for entertainment.
As frustrating as it is, it’s a trend that’s unlikely to change in the gaming industry.
It mostly already has. Tons of big games this year were announced only several months before they released or intended to release, which is a huge bucking of the normal trends.
As many of the commenters pointed out, reveal trailers also aim to draw in investors as well as new developers, not just be a marketing tool for consumers.
Which is why this article is kind of pointless.
Personally, I'd prefer it if the game industry was similarly as open as the movie industry, where you can easily find what they're making every step of the way, even if it gets cancelled.
Personally, I'd prefer it if the game industry was similarly as open as the movie industry, where you can easily find what they're making every step of the way, even if it gets cancelled.
Agreed and I think this greatly highlights what the actual issue is. Publishers will often announce these games years in advance, provide very little insight into what's actually being worked on, then deliver a product that may or (often) may not meet the expectations they've set for the game.
I really like the idea of transparency similar to the film industry where there's often interviews on site with relations to the film's production. I know some developers and publishers will have a blog dedicated to game updates, but that's just not as engaging to me as an actual interview with developer or individual(s) actively working on the game. At least then we could form our own opinion of a game's development state instead of taking the publishers word at face value and being let down in 5 years when the expectations set aren't met once again.
PR in a AAA company will always limit who can be interviewed. So you would still get a heavily filtered interview.
But if I was working on something and had a detailed vision of what the final product was going to be. I'd kind of resent and hate having to share that vision once a month and have fans complain about each idea and demand other options, features, redesigns of gameplay.
It would be even worse it a producer read those comments and required those changes. It would be disruptive and chaotic.
A good example of how fans of Marvel and DC Comics react to the decisions made behind the camera.
It would feel like most people hate my vision and don't want to play it. There are already hard designs decisions happening behind the scenes with the team and even that small group won't agree on everything.
You may want it but it would make the developers miserable and the game suffer.
PR in a AAA company will always limit who can be interviewed. So you would still get a heavily filtered interview.
The same is true for the film industry and production companies. In addition, it's very common for such production companies or PR teams to have a set of topics that staff aren't permitted to discuss. Yet despite this, we still get plenty of good interviews related to the actual production and progress of the media.
But if I was working on something and had a detailed vision of what the final product was going to be. I'd kind of resent and hate having to share that vision once a month and have fans complain about each idea and demand other options, features, redesigns of gameplay.
I understand this is just your opinion, but film directors encounter this all the time. Revealing information about any sort of media with a large fanbase or hype around it is always going to invite fan opinions about the content and direction. This isn't a new thing and yet we still get plenty of well-received films that very much so live up to the director or author's vision (See Dune, Parasite, Jo Jo Rabbit, Nomadland, etc.). Somehow all these directors are able to stick to their vision and produce a well-received work without redesigning pieces of their media to appease fans.
A good example of how fans of Marvel and DC Comics react to the decisions made behind the camera. It would feel like most people hate my vision and don't want to play it. There are already hard designs decisions happening behind the scenes with the team and even that small group won't agree on everything.
I think sources would help provide context for this claim, but just going off what you've stated here I don't see how this would make interviews with developers worse. Unless it's a fan Q&A, fans are not involved in the interview process and actors/developers/producers are never required to ingest feedback related to an interview in the first place.
You may want it but it would make the developers miserable and the game suffer.
Overall it seems like your gripe with this idea is that introducing interviews like this would seemingly force developers or companies to pivot their direction and start producing games that strictly appease fans. That's been proven multiple times to be untrue, but to each his own.
Movie interviews from crew are typically only good and interesting several years after the movie is released. The few I've seen during or right at the release are just constantly praising the actors or directors. It gets old fast.
Game marketing is a bit like when someone tells you they're going to quit smoking. Okay buddy, I'll believe it when I see it. No no, I'm sure you think you're going to quit, I'm not saying you're a liar, but also I absolutely won't believe it will happen until I see it.
Under rated comment... Gamers could quit simping and throwing money away on shit products. You know that's how free market capitalism should work. But here we are...
I guess we can't ask what is now mostly adult population to behave as a reasonable market participant.... Order too tall, must simp for checks notes Todd and his latest shit stain product
How much was cyberpunk hyped... Cdpr ain't ur normal studio... How did that work out for us boys and girls?
i get a press release that basically says "were working on it give us time." but i dont need a elder scroll 6 like announcement well before any real progress is made.
I guess announcing a game early is partly to attract developers. “Hey, come work with us! You have the chance to work on the next big entry in our popular franchise right now.”
Another part might be to attract investors. “Hey, look how much hype this trailer generated! Please invest in us.”
I guess I'm in the minority that are glad that Bethesda is being open about their development for ES6. If they hadn't told us it is in the works but on hold until Starfield is finished then we would be seeing constant speculation about a new Elder Scrolls game followed by inevitable disappointment when they don't say anything.
How do you know they are not different groups of people? You seem quite certain it’s the very same people. I’m just curious as to why you would think that.
Add comment