What if? Or, how would you handle this?

L

lordxixor101

CAGiversary!
I was just reading that Halo 3 announced a rough release date (fall 2007), which was no shock, since everyone knew it was coming out this year anyway.

However, I was just thinking, and since many of us (me included) often believe that we are smarter than the gaming companies, and could run them better, what would you do IF this happened (I am in no way saying that it would happen).

What if you are running Microsoft's Xbox division. You've helped scope this company into a competitive posiiton (at least in the U.S, which is what I'm focusing on here). However, everything has been leading up to Halo 3 on the 360. This is a game that could help define if Microsoft is a success in this entire industry.

However, you receive a call from Bungie, it's bad news. There is no way Halo 3 will be completed for a Christmas 2007 release (say this is about April). You have one of 3 options.

1) Delay the launch
2) They can release about half of the game fully bug tested.
3) You can release the whole game, but it will likely be very buggy, crash often, and be unbalanced. Fixes can be made to this.

Either way it goes, it will likely be June 2008 until the "complete" game is ready. What would you do?

Points I could think of:

If you don't release the game, it's a huge PR hit. This is also the last year that the "advantage" to launching first last. By Christmas, the PS3 and Wii will be having games launch consistently, so this could be the last year. Without Halo 3, there is no way you'll win Christmas this year (the biggest Christmas story won't be any of the numerous great games you do have, it'll be on Halo being delayed.

However, do you risk killing the golden goose? If you launch a half of game here, will you get panned in reviews? People will buy anyway, but will you take a huge PR hit? You could release the whole thing, at least the story is there, if it's broken, it can be fixed later.

Nintendo's strategy is to delay, but would you?

My personal feeling, Microsoft must have Halo 3 out this year. Your entire strategy hinges on this, you must launch. You don't want to risk the reputation of the game, so I think you launch half the game, whatever is available, and then release the second half via Xbox Live for free when it's ready.

But, what would you do?
 
Some have argued that they have used Option #2 for the first two games.

You could also have another option: Repeat a hallway textures for 45 minutes and call it a level to artificially increase game time.

Just remember, the thing that really powers Halo's popularity is the multi player, not the single player. And nowadays multi player can be patched patched patched until its right.

I say they release it buggy as all hell.
 
Didn't they already do this with Halo 2? Release about half the game, very buggy, crashing often, with several things unbalanced?
 
They'd likely do #3. I don't know for sure what the PS3 has coming out this holiday season, but at the least they'll need to counter Mario/Metroid/SSBB/whatever Nintendo ends up releasing at the end of the year. Personally I'd go with #1, since no PR hit will stop those that were going to buy Halo in 07 from buying it in 08.
 
I'd delay it for sure. but in any case, I'd be more worried that people will play it and decide Gears of War is still better :lol:
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']Didn't they already do this with Halo 2? Release about half the game, very buggy, crashing often, with several things unbalanced?[/QUOTE]

Was Halo 2 though really half a game? I thought it was fair length compared to other FPS games. I really think the "half a game" argument for Halo 2 is really based on the open ended conclusion. But, really, is a movie that does the same thing (classic example is Empire Strikes Back) a half of a movie?

Though, for those that say delay, yes, those that want Halo will be there in 2008. But, will you lose the market for your console? You will be overshadowed this Christmas, so even if it doesn't kill Halo, does it kill the console?
 
all they need to do is push out another fairly good title at that time and/or release another version of the console with a price drop on the older one. i would not release an uncomplete version of the game. i believe they have lost a little of their fanbase because of halo 2 as it is, many people did not like that one nearly as much as the first. i'd say delay (more pre-orders, build up more hype), maybe add in a little bonus into the game since it got delayed and in 2008 they will take back whatever they lost for christmas. this will prevent a lot of ps3/wii sales for a while because of the halo name.
 
I'd say they better go with #1 and couple that with praying that they can find another development company to buy that can produce a AAA title on anything like a decent time line. Maybe throw buckets of cash at Konami or Squeenix to bring their heavy hitters to the 360.
 
I'd release it as a 2 disc set, shipping the first one for Christmas and the second one when the rest of the game is ready. If they did it for a reduced price, people would eat it up (and actually end up paying more for the game in the long run).
 
Option 4: Release a demo for $10 that includes the first level and substantial taste of online. Follow this up with a new map every 2 weeks. Charge 5 bucks for every new map. Run another intensive ARG alongside all of this, and keep track of all stats online.

By the time the full game is ready for release, everyone will be ready for the online component, with clans and some stats already in a database. Not to mention you'll have strung them along with micropayments, thereby netting a pretty penny for yourself by shoveling recycled bullshit onto your loyal fanbase. You've also buffered your PR by running an ARG that has captured the public, and pulled in people who do not normally play Halo.

If more is required, have some people in decked out Master Chief costumes - perhaps modified from that one guy in Canada who made those super suits - walking around. Call it the "Spot the Chief" constest. Anyone who finds him in public gets a tshirt, decoder pen, and/or Halo chocolate bar. The chocolate bars have codes that can give you useless shit online like helmet decals.

This isn't hard to pull off. As some others have said, delaying it will create some bad PR...for about a week. After that all those millions of gamers are going to buy the damn thing anyway.
 
As a gamer, I'd want to see option 1, but from Bungie's perspective, Option 3 is the best choice... and it's what they did with the last two games anyway. Basically, with a name like Halo, people aren't going to give a shit whether or not it's actually playable or decent. The mass of consumers that'll buy the game anyway and convince themselves that they're enjoying the buggy mess that ensues will be more than enough for Bungie to fund 2 more Halo games.

And besides, they need something to combat stuff like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Devil May Cry 4, so MS cannot miss this opportunity.
 
[quote name='Strell']Option 4: Release a demo for $10 that includes the first level and substantial taste of online. Follow this up with a new map every 2 weeks. Charge 5 bucks for every new map. Run another intensive ARG alongside all of this, and keep track of all stats online.

By the time the full game is ready for release, everyone will be ready for the online component, with clans and some stats already in a database. Not to mention you'll have strung them along with micropayments, thereby netting a pretty penny for yourself by shoveling recycled bullshit onto your loyal fanbase. You've also buffered your PR by running an ARG that has captured the public, and pulled in people who do not normally play Halo.

If more is required, have some people in decked out Master Chief costumes - perhaps modified from that one guy in Canada who made those super suits - walking around. Call it the "Spot the Chief" constest. Anyone who finds him in public gets a tshirt, decoder pen, and/or Halo chocolate bar. The chocolate bars have codes that can give you useless shit online like helmet decals.

This isn't hard to pull off. As some others have said, delaying it will create some bad PR...for about a week. After that all those millions of gamers are going to buy the damn thing anyway.[/quote]

Id travel around the USA looking for the chief if it guaranteed me a shiny green chocolate in the shape of an assault rifle. :D


Option 1, even though missing a time like christmas would be kind of shitty for MS with a huge game like H3. It'd be nice to have the complete build since day one.. but we all know that won't happen.
 
Option 1, even though missing a time like christmas would be kind of shitty for MS with a huge game like H3. It'd be nice to have the complete build since day one.. but we all know that won't happen.[/QUOTE]

Well, the point isn't what you would want (I definitely, as a gamer, want option 1, let's delay it, heck to 2009 if neccessary). But, can Microsoft afford a delay?

I think it's an interesting idea to release it piecemeal. Halo would be an interesting test for that, since gamers would put up with it, being Halo. But, do you want your test subject for a contraversial move like this chosen just because it's going to miss a deadline? It's an interesting thought.
 
I think piecemeal will work as longer as the pieces are substantial enough and not too small so that people don't feel like you are stretching it out on purpose just to milk them... (I'm looking at you, Strell.)
 
the piecemeal method would suck all the ass there is to suck. Having to play the waiting game for the "next episode" would be awful. The release schedule would probably be wildly inconsistent, as they'd be working on the material in between releases. I'm not a huge halo fan to begin with, but I would definitely lose interest if I had to wait for each part of the game, as would a lot of people.

Though, for those that say delay, yes, those that want Halo will be there in 2008. But, will you lose the market for your console? You will be overshadowed this Christmas, so even if it doesn't kill Halo, does it kill the console?
Click to expand...

they wouldn't lose the market at all. I don't think the situation would be too complicated to deflect, but they'd have to spend some $$$ to start a distraction campaign to promote their other games--throw out some crazy good deals, perhaps a new 360 bundle with games and extra accessories, stuff like that. Another smart move would be to release a multiplayer demo to keep the uproar to a minimum.


what would (will?) MS do? release it while it's all buggy and patch it up post-release, like they've been doing with all the other 360 games :roll:
 
[quote name='lordxixor101']I was just reading that Halo 3 announced a rough release date (fall 2007), which was no shock, since everyone knew it was coming out this year anyway.

However, I was just thinking, and since many of us (me included) often believe that we are smarter than the gaming companies, and could run them better, what would you do IF this happened (I am in no way saying that it would happen).

What if you are running Microsoft's Xbox division. You've helped scope this company into a competitive posiiton (at least in the U.S, which is what I'm focusing on here). However, everything has been leading up to Halo 3 on the 360. This is a game that could help define if Microsoft is a success in this entire industry.

However, you receive a call from Bungie, it's bad news. There is no way Halo 3 will be completed for a Christmas 2007 release (say this is about April). You have one of 3 options.

1) Delay the launch
2) They can release about half of the game fully bug tested.
3) You can release the whole game, but it will likely be very buggy, crash often, and be unbalanced. Fixes can be made to this.

Either way it goes, it will likely be June 2008 until the "complete" game is ready. What would you do?

Points I could think of:

If you don't release the game, it's a huge PR hit. This is also the last year that the "advantage" to launching first last. By Christmas, the PS3 and Wii will be having games launch consistently, so this could be the last year. Without Halo 3, there is no way you'll win Christmas this year (the biggest Christmas story won't be any of the numerous great games you do have, it'll be on Halo being delayed.

However, do you risk killing the golden goose? If you launch a half of game here, will you get panned in reviews? People will buy anyway, but will you take a huge PR hit? You could release the whole thing, at least the story is there, if it's broken, it can be fixed later.

Nintendo's strategy is to delay, but would you?

My personal feeling, Microsoft must have Halo 3 out this year. Your entire strategy hinges on this, you must launch. You don't want to risk the reputation of the game, so I think you launch half the game, whatever is available, and then release the second half via Xbox Live for free when it's ready.

But, what would you do?[/QUOTE]
Unless it's totally screwed, I would repurpose assets and staff around Microsoft Games Studios to help tow the weight. Add a few dozen more programmers/artists and hope it gets back up to speed. Maybe take some people off the multiplayer, with promises of free downloadable maps and maybe even game types ASAP after release. It's a lot easier to add to multiplayer later than single-player.

I disagree that Xbox 360 will lose if they don't put out Halo 3 this holiday (though I'm quite confident it'll come out). What's PS3 doing that 360 isn't? GTA will likely sell just as well,and have achievements and probably better online. I doubt MGS 4 will be out. If there's a new Ratchet or Jak, I don't think they'll make a huge difference. As for Wii, not much besides Smash Bros and Metroid. Even if Super Smash is a system-seller, there aren't many must-have games besides Zelda. Xbox 360 has a big lead, and I don't see anything getting in its way until '08.
 
Violent, I disagree with you.

Nintendo is what Nintendo is. They aren't going to have 10-12 must have games come out a year. They have never been that way. What they bring out since the SNES era is 1-4 really great games that you that most gamers really want to play. So, they'll have their next system selling type game out in 2008. Nintendo doesn't try to be the top system, though I think they have some hype with the Wii, I won't be shocked if they get some casual gamers to buy into their model.

The PS3 has a few things going for it. It'll be out a year this Christmas, so it should have some big games out for the holidays. I don't know what they are off hand (I try not to get too informed this early on systems that I don't own, nor plan to own this year).

But, what will the 460 have? GTA is going to be one of the biggest games, but the PS3 and 360 have it. But, if you have that, if you are on the fence, will you buy it on the 360 or on the PS3?

I think there are tons of gamers that love Sony from the PS1 and PS2 eras, that are going to want to, all things being equal, buy the Sony system. Halo is one of those big games that could get them to buy the 360 instead, and get all of their 3rd party games on that system (for those gamers that mainly play Madden and GTA).

Among gamers, you may be right. But, the more casual gamers, the ones that make the difference between winning or losing the console war (and the ones that the Wii is already reaching out to with their revamped controller). I think Halo is that huge game. To just ignore it because Sony isn't doing anything huge would be wrong, in my opinion.

(also, for the record, I am assuming that you can't just throw money at this problem to fix it, that this is something that additional people won't be able to fix, since it's hypothetical).
 
I don't understand people's beef with Halo 2. From what I can tell, most people just bitch about the ending, which I will agree was a complete sham. However, I felt I was cheated simply because I wanted to keep playing! I love the Halo story and the universe that Bungie has created, so when they ended it so abruptly, it simply sucked.

Other than that tho, I'm not sure what people are complaining about. I thoroughly enjoyed the campaign (though it did get boring at a few points) and I LOVE Halo 2 online. People say its broken or whatever, but really, I just think its because they couldn't adapt from Halo 1 to Halo 2. Instead of a 3-shot pistol kill you now have the 4-shot BR kill. Big whoop.

One thing I will agree with that IS broken in H2's online play is the lag. The host advantage is pretty ridiculous, especially on larger maps where bullet-lag plays a huge factor.
 
Well, they've all but come out and directly said that they launched Halo 2 too early. I have a feeling they wouldn't make the same mistake again.

That having been said, despite their firm claims that the Halo 3 is a beta and not a demo, I think its going to end up being pretty damn far along for a beta. I'm also fairly certain the game is about 90% finished and they're spending the next 8 months or so polishing it and allowing for time to fix bugs that may come out of the beta.
 
[quote name='lordxixor101']Violent, I disagree with you.

Nintendo is what Nintendo is. They aren't going to have 10-12 must have games come out a year. They have never been that way. What they bring out since the SNES era is 1-4 really great games that you that most gamers really want to play. So, they'll have their next system selling type game out in 2008. Nintendo doesn't try to be the top system, though I think they have some hype with the Wii, I won't be shocked if they get some casual gamers to buy into their model.

The PS3 has a few things going for it. It'll be out a year this Christmas, so it should have some big games out for the holidays. I don't know what they are off hand (I try not to get too informed this early on systems that I don't own, nor plan to own this year).

But, what will the 460 have? GTA is going to be one of the biggest games, but the PS3 and 360 have it. But, if you have that, if you are on the fence, will you buy it on the 360 or on the PS3?

I think there are tons of gamers that love Sony from the PS1 and PS2 eras, that are going to want to, all things being equal, buy the Sony system. Halo is one of those big games that could get them to buy the 360 instead, and get all of their 3rd party games on that system (for those gamers that mainly play Madden and GTA).

Among gamers, you may be right. But, the more casual gamers, the ones that make the difference between winning or losing the console war (and the ones that the Wii is already reaching out to with their revamped controller). I think Halo is that huge game. To just ignore it because Sony isn't doing anything huge would be wrong, in my opinion.

(also, for the record, I am assuming that you can't just throw money at this problem to fix it, that this is something that additional people won't be able to fix, since it's hypothetical).[/QUOTE]
We're getting off-topic a little bit, into broader and oft-treaded ground -- and I don't want to turn this into a console debate. Opinions differ, of course, but all of this speculation would be dependent on Halo 3 not coming out this Christmas -- which I seriously doubt will happen.
 
id take the time to make sure the game is flawless and in the meantime tweak what can be tweaked and add in some online and offline extras to make the wait worthwhile. too often games get rushed out and they suffer for it when if theyd only waited and put in the extra time it could have been a perfect game. but the reality is with fans whining about relase dates being pushed back and the company wanting to make money off of a sure seller that wouldnt happen.


more than anything game companies shouldnt post release dates until theyre sure they nailed out all the bugs and the games been tested enough times.
 
I would delay the game the time that it's needed. People are gonna buy it no matter what.


However, I would also change the (somewhat) limited multi-player beta to be full open beta. Let everyone and their mom download it for free and play until about 3 days before the actual game launches. This would counter the bad PR, while letting you get more reports about what's blowing up.
 
[quote name='Logain8955']I would delay the game the time that it's needed. People are gonna buy it no matter what.


However, I would also change the (somewhat) limited multi-player beta to be full open beta. Let everyone and their mom download it for free and play until about 3 days before the actual game launches. This would counter the bad PR, while letting you get more reports about what's blowing up.[/QUOTE]
What bad PR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top