What is The Cost of an Early Release? 133
Everguide writes "Sony Online Entertainment recently announced that they would be releasing EverQuest 2 on November 8th, ahead of their main competition World of Warcraft (last predicted release date: Week of November 22). SOE is notorious for launching games with content that is not finished or buggy, and Blizzard is known for at times delaying a game just to work out minor bugs. Is it worth launching a game early, yet buggy, to grab market share from the competition? I know the Themis group thinks a poor launch can cost a company millions of dollars but will the benefit of launching early exceed the costs?"
I can't remember the author... (Score:5, Insightful)
A late game is only late until the moment it launches
A bad game is bad forever.
Games like Anarchy Online that ended up being decent games, suffered drastically at launch and word got around that the game had issues, wasn't worth trying, etc. and they no doubt lost a lot of potential customers over this.
Get the game right and then launch. You're always going to have isssues with someone who is using a 4 MB video card or only 64 MB of RAM on their mobo, or some other issue - that's going to happen - don't let the people who bothered to read the minimum requirements and have met them suffer because you wanted to get the game out first.
Re:I can't remember the author... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I can't remember the author... (Score:2)
Bottom line: you can be sure that i'll never buy a funcom game again, and that i'll
Re:I can't remember the author... (Score:1)
"When the money runs out, its time to launch!"
Too late can turn a good game bad (Score:1)
A late game is only late until the moment it launches
Unless it's, say, an N64-caliber game that gets delayed until well into the GameCube's life cycle. Look at Daikatana; had it been released when people were expecting it, its Quake 1-caliber graphics would have got the game some more respect than when it finally came out.
Re:I can't remember the author... (Score:1)
A bad game is bad forever.
Both of those games were just bad, period, no matter when they came out. :)
Depends (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, having a game out nets you short term cash, and long run you can eventually patch it.
However, if your company has a reputation for releaseing buggy games, gamers are going to just not buy them for a few patches (to get the bugs worked out) or not buy them at all because they have a limited budget.
I'm in favor of the wait until the game is finished approach.
I think... (Score:1, Interesting)
Rarely yes, often no (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes in the case of the Doom 3 vs Half-Life 2 argument. Doom 3 lacked polish when it went beyond single-player which hurt it badly (deathmatch only? fun, but lacks variety). But in anyway you look at it, Doom 3 put a dent in Half-Life 2's fanfare. Fancy graphics and physics? Doom 3 did that, so Half-Life 2 only has storyline and gameplay (arguably the two hardest things to implement in a game).
No in the case of EA Games's style of releasing buggy games. We KNOW they're pretty much the Microsoft of developing games, we KNOW they have a stranglehold on developers, we KNOW not to play a version 1.0 of any EA game now. In the case of EA Games, they need to stop putting these games out so quickly and just polish them up. We don't need a BF1942/Vietnam clone/sequel/expansion only to have it even more buggy than the previous one.
Re:Rarely yes, often no (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that at any given time the total number of people playing HL and it's various mods often exceeds the total number of people playing all other FPS games online is amazing. What's absolutely insane is that it's a game that's 5 years old. And it's still taking up retail shelf space and selling for near full value (granted that's a boxed version including various mods, expansions).
HL2 is shipping with an updated version of the single most popular multiplayer FPS. (while Doom3's is multiplayer is lacking) I'd be surprised if even with it's late start HL2 doesn't sell more total copies than Doom3 by Christmas.
Re:Rarely yes, often no (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny you mention that. DOOM III is already down to $27 [bensbargains.net].
Re:Rarely yes, often no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rarely yes, often no (Score:2)
Re:Rarely yes, often no (Score:1)
Re:Rarely yes, often no (Score:1)
I worked for a very wise man once (Score:5, Insightful)
A year from now no one will remember that it was a year late.
A year from now they will remember that it was completely useless - and never buy from you again.
This was business software so it had a slightly longer lifetime - but the principle still applies - if you have a reputation for bad software - it will follow you forever.
Re:I worked for a very wise man once (Score:2)
I was a huge fan of Black and White and Creature Isle (even though they were hugely flawed). So naturally I was excited about their first XBOX game.
"Fable" was supposed to be a massively complex RPG/Adventure game with a complex social system, hundreds of hours of game play, side quests... etc. The idea was to model a complex society where your interactions with people altered the way the game unfolded.
W
Re:I worked for a very wise man once (Score:1, Offtopic)
I hate bush too but are you seriously expecting empathy when you haven't found a job IN FOUR YEARS? Jesus Christ.
Re:I worked for a very wise man once (Score:3, Informative)
How do you figure that?
Fable has been one of the most successful games ever for Xbox. It netted lionhead a mint. Sure it didnt live up to expectations, but it was hardly a failure, and you could hardly suggest that it was rushed to market, OR that it was buggy.
Re:I worked for a very wise man once (Score:1)
Before I bought Fable, I'd have rushed out to buy anything and everything with Lionhead and/or Peter Molyneaux's name on it. I've been looking forward to Black and White 2, because I've heard about all the way it will beat the pants off Black and White 1, which was an excellent game in it's own right.
But now that I've played Fable, I'm not going to be so anxious to buy Black and White 2. For Fable, I was willing ot buy the hype, r
Re:I worked for a very wise man once (Score:2)
There's no way in hell I'm buying another Peter Molyneaux game without checking it out first
how do you figure that this action will "ruin Lionhead"?
only if they ever release crap games from now on.
Fable isn't a crap game even, its just not what you thought it would be based on early interviews. It is eminently playable and a fun time to be had doing so.
Peter is carving his original niche, doing brave games and the gaming world is far better off for him tryin to do so.
Perhaps he should do
"Lionhead
Re:I worked for a very wise man once (Score:2)
Re:I worked for a very wise man once (Score:2)
Hehehe... i just expect more from lionhead. Black & White was *gorgeous*.
I don't think anyone will mind. (Score:1)
The Cost is your Reputation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not, though. They're pushing themselves to release it in November. Recently they posted a rather large list of features that weren't gonna make release (things like hero classes, plus it looks like they are dropping any decent organized PvP) - a bunch of gamebreakers for me. I'm in the beta, but I'm not going to purchase WoW until they make the game massively better, which will probably be several months into 2005.
Have you played it? It's vaguely fun,
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:1)
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:4, Interesting)
Specifically, Sony is banking on their successes with EQ1 to bring them EQ2 customers. For all of it's flaws (believe me, I ranted and railed about EQ1 plenty), it was still one of the best-designed and successful MMORPGs to date. They still have a healthy population that trounces most other games even after all these years and expansions and competitors.
What most people don't realize, and what Sony hopes they don't realize until it's too late (e.g. already bought EQ2 retail box, and signed up for a few months, and maybe even got hooked on the shitty game) - is that the guys who built EQ1 are not building EQ2. Your SWG references are pefect, because in terms of development/release/gameplay talent, EQ2 has more in common with SWG than EQ1.
Designing a really good MMORPG is a very hard thing, and there's a very small pool of talent who can really do it right. They (Verant, Sony) has the right guys doing the right stuff when EQ1 was built. The EQ2 team is not the same guys.
Incidentally, some of those magically talented guys that brought EQ1 into this world are currently working on a new games at http://www.sigilgames.com [sigilgames.com]
Their new game is promising, if nothing else because of the guys behind it, but it's considerably behind the schedule of games like WoW and EQ2.
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:1)
I disagree with you there. People often forget about Battle.Net when it comes to Blizzard's portfolio. Battle.net is probably the worst multiplayer community/experience I've ever had (as well as all of my friends). Remember when they had deleted 112,000 Diablo II accounts [slashdot.org] (June 2003) due to hack and cheating programs? They patted themselves on the back in an effort to
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:2)
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:1)
Yeah. Pretty much. Why make a press release and a big ruckus to announce to the world that you've done a great justice to the community by deleting 112,000 accounts from your service for a game has been out for 3 years?! Only to admit that nearly their ENTIRE lineup of up games for the past 5-6 years are equally as buggy and delete nearly 4 times as many accounts within a 6 month period of time.
Yes sure it's difficult to figure out if
Re:The Cost is your Reputation (Score:1)
As a matter of fact (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:As a matter of fact (Score:2)
Precisely! The complete lack of understanding allows them to make a decision that has no right answer. Of course, a Magic 8 ball or coin toss would be about as useful as well....
i'm in the beta (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems that the consensus among the beta testers is that the game is ready. there are no major known bugs that i've ever come across, and there are very few glitches to speak of. there are a few lag issues in key zones, but they've taken care of that in a way that i'm happy with.
the bad rep that SOE got was from SWG, and it was deserved in that case. that game still isn't ready for production, mainly because they're still altering the game design on a monthly basis. if they would just stop changing things they'd be doing okay.
Everquest 2 is a very good game, imho. I never played Everquest but I know that I like and enjoy EQ2 a lot.
in my opinion it is ready now. in 10 days when it is released, it will even be more ready. they're literally working 24/7 to get everything fixed before the release that they can, and i'm certain that you can expect a not-insignificant patch the first time you launch the client.
this is my honest opinion. I play it every day and I enjoy it every day. There are no showstopping bugs that I've come across and very few that I know about. Those are higher-level things and they'll have those fixed by the time anyone gets up to that level i'm sure.
so yeah i'm cool with the game as it is now.
and fyi, the game is huuuge. the lands are huge. the vocally active (read: speaking, as in you hear them) NPCs really add a lot more than I thought they would. the scenery is grand. on my pc (which is kinda wimpy -athlon 3000 @ 2.1ghz, 1.5gb ram, ati radeon 9800 pro 128mb) it runs at about 30fps, at 1600x1200, running at the setting just above "balanced." I forget what that setting is called now, but that's where I'm running. I have also turned on a few things like specular highlighting that aren't turned on in that performance profile.
the heroic opportunities are fun, and there are somewhat subtle visual clues, telling you what you need to do to continue the chain. the end of the chain is usually a "devastating blow" to your opponent, or sometimes it is a buff or a heal to yourself. so its not just a "double-click the enemy and wait until one of you dies" which is how I find a lot of mmorpg games. Meaning that if you want to fight anything above your own level you have to think about what you're doing before you even begin to engage the enemy. that's a kind of challenge that i enjoy in a game like this.
Everquest 2 is fun. I'll be buying it on release day and I'll be playing it that night. And I'll have a lot of fun doing it.
YOUR mileage may vary.
Re:i'm in the beta (Score:2, Insightful)
No the bad rep that SOE was from Everquest, back when they were known as Verant. Remember if you claimed that your account was hacked, they just deleted your account? They had a bad reputation to begin with, SWG just added to that weight.
Re:i'm in the beta (Score:2)
Re:i'm in the beta (Score:1)
Re:i'm in the beta (Score:1)
Then you have tons of posts on the EQ2 related item yesterday saying how this game is like 6 months away from release. Of course, no one ever says WHY. I wish they would, because
Re:i'm in the beta (Score:1)
So what's this 'glass ceiling' you talk about.
Really, I am curious. I'd rather not waste time on a MMORPG that has a lame end-game.
Examples people
Sounds unpolished (Score:3, Insightful)
there are a few lag issues in key zones, but they've taken care of that in a way that i'm happy with.
In a beta, if YOU the beta tester experience a 'few' lag issues, upon release the THOUSANDS of users will take lag issues like a bulldozer to a sand castle. Less than 20 people? Pfft, try 2000 people suddenly entering
Re:Sounds unpolished (Score:1)
I have been involved in several MMO betas, along with several non-MMO betas and this particular comment really makes me wonder. People always seem to forget that when games are in beta, the servers are typically running debug versions of the software. Thus the ga
Re:Sounds unpolished (Score:1)
You're not thinking on the macro level. Tell me this, if the game is laggy for you and your beta friends, how laggy do you think its gonna get when you
Re:Sounds unpolished (Score:1)
You've made the same point again. :) The beta is running debug code, which causes more overhead on the server, which induces lag into the client. Let's be clear here and say that lag is a slang word that is typically defined as slowdowns experienc
Re:Sounds unpolished (Score:2)
Check pricewatch [pricewatch.com].
Just be careful which vendors you choose.
Re:i'm in the beta (Score:2)
the bad rep that SOE got was from SWG, and it was deserved in that case. that game still isn't ready for production [...]
And to me, that's the important distinction. If you wait until your grand vision is done, it never will be. I think the optimum is to get something minimal but solid out ASAP, and then let your future d
Re:i'm in the beta (Score:2)
They did *exactly* the same thing with EQ; and I bet they do exactly the same thing with EQ2.
I thoroughly enjoyed EQ when I first started play
EQ 1 and Sony (Score:2)
It took them nearly a year to fix the most severe problems, and to this day much of the content introduced in the game remains incomplete.
Early release in a saturated market (Score:5, Informative)
What's more is that MMOGs are unplayable if you don't pay, and the result is that the $50 initial payment for the box game seems like wasted cash if the player decides the game isn't worth it. In this case, the better the beta experience, the better the sales, and from the various reports I've heard, Blizzard has that contest won hands-down.
WoW open beta will also likely begin before EQ2 goes live, and "free" will most definitely distract people from rushing out and buying SOE's latest offering, right up to the point where WoW goes live. An ingenious marketing tactic on Blizzard's part, if they don't drop the ball.
Re:Early release in a saturated market (Score:2)
Re:Early release in a saturated market (Score:1)
Re:Early release in a saturated market (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where Blizzard's reputation for well-executed, polished games (or more to the point, their massive, dedicated fan base) is going to help a ton. SOE may be targeting their current and past customers, but Blizzard's got a whole base of MMOG virgins that'll give WoW a try because they loved Craft and Diablo.
(Ad
Re:Early release in a saturated market (Score:1)
Running into the arms of another... (Score:1)
If the game is at all buggy and people get frustrated with it, WoW will have 1 superfantastic launch.
I believe people in general are getting tired of "testing" early released MMO and having to pay for them. WoW may be the bar that other companies need to set in order to deliver a MMO to market.
EQ (Score:2)
Today however, there's a different climate. This is arguably the third generation of 3d MMORPGs. A buggy release won't cut it. That being said I have no idea of the quality of EQ2, it may very well be ready. I gave up playing MMORPGs when I signed off of DAoC last
I think it's a good idea for SOE (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Huge Everquest installed base. As a whole, they've probably been marginally following WoW, but they are naturally going to be very aware of EQ2. If WoW were to come out first and start getting acclaim and siphoning users off of EQ before EQ2 had a chance to do the same, a lot of people who are currently only kinda aware of WoW would suddenly be -very- aware. By beating WoW to market, they get all the early natural transition people.
2) Long term hook associated with MMORPGs, changes the rules a bit. Unless EQ2 is also a massively sucking game, a lot of people are simply going to get hooked as long as it's at least somewhat better then EQ. Once hooked you don't really care so much if there is a better game, because all the stuff you've built up is there, so whatever is released first is going to have a long term advantage as a result. (.. obviously a problem EQ2 is going to have against itself?? I don't know how they are dealing with that )
3) Blizzard has the weird advantage that it seems like, at least from my perspective, that every gamer knows a few WoW beta testers. They are already totally hooked and play it basically as if it were a released game. There is this huge existing sentiment that EQ2 is going to suck relative to WoW no matter what, so what difference does it make if they wait to make it better?
Re:I think it's a good idea for SOE (Score:1)
It's a different game.
Re:I think it's a good idea for SOE (Score:1)
Haha! Yes, people who try a game and don't like it, always buy the sequel!! Haha!
Not to mention, most of the people that leave EQ, leave because it steals their fricking life away. EQ2 will probably be no different, or else it's not worth the subscription price.
Re:I think it's a good idea for SOE (Score:2)
What I've noticed with my old EQ guild is that most people are far more aware of what's happening in WoW, partly because of friends with beta accounts, partly because we've
Re:I think it's a good idea for SOE (Score:1)
I'm a tester for both, and I have 2 strong biases:
Those having been stated, I was extremely surpris
In all fairness to SOE (Score:3, Interesting)
WoW is most definitely not going to release at a 'finished' state, at least not by the conceptions of the developers. This list of things they plan to add in patches is fairly massive, and is growing as things that they wanted to include simply get pushed back by more important things.
That said, it seems to me that they're under quite a bit of pressure from Vivendi right now...I wonder if Blizzard has a say at all. Still, from what I've heard (mostly from biased people, I freely admit) WoW is more polished than EQ2 anyway.
Re:In all fairness to SOE (Score:2)
I've been playing WoW beta for about five months now. It's a great game, lots of fun; my favorite way of describing it is, "WoW is like EQ with all the stupid shit taken out." (And lots of cool stuff added.) EQ2, though, I knew nothing about until last weekend, when I was over at a friend's house. He showed me EQ2 and let me play around with it a little bit.
Before I describe what it was lik
Re:Blizzard's No Longer The Same Blizzard (Score:2)
Market Timing (Score:1)
Marketing, Not Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
To me the answer relies on the company's reputation. If I know a game is being released early, I will buy it on the earlier release date only if I have confidence in the software company. This all relies on previous experiences I have had with other game titles they have published. In the case of SOE, I would suggest staying away from EQ2 because of my experience with SWG. Another example is EA/DICE. They have released buggy games and up until recently, the early releases weren't a problem until Battlefield: Vietnam. After BFV, DICE's reputation dropped dramatically due to the intense game play inbalances in the game that had not been worked out. Next DICE game I buy now will not be until several months after the game release instead of the day of the release as I did with BF1942, Road To Rome, and Vietnam.
If a game, upon release, is fun to play with just a few issues, then the early release will be good for the company. If the game has just one major issue, word will get around, and the company's reputation will suffer and then consumers are much less likely to buy a game without hearing about it first (thus hurting sales). It's a big risk to have an early release, but if the company is good, it's a risk worth taking for them. It's all about management making a wise decision on how to market their product. We all know that game producers have made some pretty bad moves latetly, maybe EQ2 will be different.
Lineage (Score:2)
Re:Lineage (Score:1)
This is all well and good but.... (Score:1)
If you really like WoW you will hate EQ2 and if you like EQ2 you will hate WoW.
But that said MMOGs are different from normal games in regards to how much crap a player will put with in theri game of choice. As horrible as it is Anarchy Online still has players who have been playing since launch day. People started and stuck with r
Re:This is all well and good but.... (Score:2)
If you really like WoW you will hate EQ2 and if you like EQ2 you will hate WoW.
This is not a hard-and-fast rule as one of my friends who is a rabid EQ player loved the WoW beta, and is probably going to buy EQ2 as well...
Launch is Everything (But it Doesn't Have to Be) (Score:2)
As a former developer of Palm entertainment software [dejobaan.com], and current developer of Windows software [dejobaan.com], my perception is that the PDA market encouraged post-release support, whereas the desktop market strongly focuses on the initial "bang." The juciest press in desktop gaming are the previews and the initial review, (and in some cases, games are reviewed before they're released [aaltonen.us]). By comparison, lit
Re:Launch is Everything (But it Doesn't Have to Be (Score:2)
Still, a huge part of what creates fan loyalty, and hence increased sales for the next game, is their incredible post-release record. They patch bugs like no one else. They release expansion packs that revitalize their games, but are by no means mandatory to continue enjoying them. In the cases of StarCraf
WoW's release date is not official! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WoW's release date is not official! (Score:1)
"The game will actually launch a week after the company's other hot holiday title, "Half-Life 2," which debuts Nov. 16."
Re:WoW's release date is not official! (Score:2)
Re:WoW's release date is not official! (Score:1)
Re:WoW's release date is not official! (Score:1)
Hell, I pre-ordered Diablo 1,and if I remember correctly, it came out somewhere near the middle of the year over here.
Re:WoW's release date is not official! (Score:2)
Depends on how bad the bugs are (Score:3, Insightful)
No software is ever released with an empty list of bugs. There are always bugs. But will they affect major portions of the software? If no, then ship it. If so, then don't ship it. The hard part is determining what bugs are important and what bugs are not.
Take a look at City of Heroes (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like Cryptic looked at the previous MMORPGs and learned from other's mistakes, as CoH has been a pretty solid product since day one. Despite a few bugs here and there (and some major complaints from users about game difficulty after Issue 2 went live), the play experience is consistently pleasurable.
All this is to say that, if an upstart like Cryptic can release a quality product, then why not Blizzard and SoE, both of which have experience with this sort of thing? Maybe Cryptic had beginner's luck, or maybe I'm giving them more credit than they deserve.
Re:Take a look at City of Heroes (Score:2)
Contrast this with SWG that had crafting, housing, mining, pets, wide variety of character classes... and most everything was broken at launch.
Re:Take a look at City of Heroes (Score:2)
The reason CoH works, I think, is because they
having never played an MMORPG... (Score:1)
I also know that SOE has had some pretty rough launches in the past.
On the other hand, I know that every game that Blizzard has made in the last ten years has been excellent and beyond.
I also know that battle.net is rock solid and can handle the stress.
Bottom line, if I buy one MMO game this year it will be WoW.
If I was an MMO player beforehand though, I would most likely end up buying both games.
What is the cost of an early release? (Score:5, Funny)
What is the cost of an early release?
The respect of your girlfriend?
Re:What is the cost of an early release? (Score:4, Funny)
The respect of your girlfriend?
Respect of your, umm, girlfriend?
I looked this one up. As I realize most readers will be confused, too, I provide the link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriend [wikipedia.org]
Seems to be a kind of a buddy, but more female. Strange idea.
That's easy! (Score:3, Funny)
The cost is... (Score:2)
I'm not buying that. Here's the cost of your early SWG release, SOE.
Let's define loss of money (Score:1)
wow not quite ready either (Score:3, Informative)
Without a doubt wow is the more polished game, however it is not really ready. More explicitly, class balance, PVP, class talents, racial abilities, and more are incomplete.
While many people will say "MMOs are never complete" those of us playing WOW every day know that the game feels like it needs 1-2 more months and then it truly would be done.
Releasing Nov 22nd is a business decision, and it's probably the right one, but WOW isn't truly done.
I think both Everquest 2 and WOW have a great chance at success. The reason is that while EQ2 is far far far less polished than WOW, EQ2 gameplay appeals more to hard core gamers, the kind who obsessed over Everquest 1 and played the game for 3+ years.
Currently there is a lot of debate over WOW's ability to retain players for more than one year. The game is very easy, and the basic concern is that because it's so easy the player base won't be able to handle difficult challenges, Blizzard's content production team won't be able to keep up, and people will become bored and move on to other games.
People talk extensively about how much they hate the grind of EQ2, but it may be the case that grind is the secret ingredient to EQ2's long term success. After all, Sony doesn't need to be popular, they just need to get $15/month from as many people as possible.
Launch Comparisons (Score:1)
Everquest: Wow! Check out these locations! The gnomish cities, the dwarven statues, the elven city in the trees! But where are all the features they talked about. Smart mobs that call for help or circle around to flank you? Seems like a few reporters
Re:Launch Comparisons (Score:2)
If you don't have that second character to buff you RvR will be quickly over.
WoW is being rushed, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus, World of Warcraft will be released earlier than Blizzard prefers.
Not to worry, though - it will still be n times more polished and stable and fun than almost any other online game.
I've had the chance to play some WoW beta. I can tell you it will definitely be the first online game I'll buy, and will probably be the only one I buy for a good long while.
(Although, "City of Heroes" looks like a lot of fun, too!!)
WoW Will Win (Score:2, Interesting)
WoW will win. If EQ2 worked well without any issues then yes, an earlier release date would greatly benefit them. However, I seriously doubt that EQ2 will be bug free while Blizzard has an impeccable reputation in that regard.
With that being said, WoW has (already) an extremely loyal following who will glad
SOE go down the drain (Score:1)
Themis group studies this shit for a LIVING, you think SOE knows more than the Themis group and I'll get the "SOE Fanboi" cattle prod out for yo
The Zero-Sum Fallacy (Score:1)
The truth is that the market for games is not anywhere close to reaching the limits of the pie-tin. The hope of an early release is you'll steal the thunder from the competition, which is actually true. The competition loses business when you release a produ
It's unnecessary to "release early" do open beta (Score:1)
Late releases are a godsend (Score:1)
Seriously though, it's cold in Montana.
From personal opinion (Score:2)
Releasing a game early is fine. Releasing a game prematurely (as in, not properly tested) ensure that the extra time between $now and $proper_release_date gives lots of people
Re:Diablo II launch anyone? (Score:1)
I had no lag issues or any major bugs, bar the obvious character balancing.
But then again, the Asia realm wasn't inherited with as many idiots as the American servers.
Re:Diablo II launch anyone? (Score:1)