Sony and Microsoft's Failed Releases Since E3 2014

SlappingOysters writes: Ahead of E3 2015, which begins next week, Grab It has undertaken an analysis of the games announced at the big E3 press conferences for Sony and Microsoft last year, and reveals — amongst other data — that 60% of Microsoft's announced titles remain unreleased a year later, and 50% of Sony's announced titles remain unreleased. The article then debates whether this is good enough for both companies as they fight for market share.

Comments

Great!

[ExekielS]

Great, maybe it means they are trying to ensure the games are quality and actually finished when released instead of the half assed unfinished shit that has been being released the past several years.

Re:Great!

[Xest]

Yes, the same is true of Nintendo also. In fact, you can stretch it all the way to companies like Valve on the PC too.

The fact is that 1st party console titles, and titles from top developers like Valve are of consistently higher quality than those from other publishers.

The fact they take their time and even cancel stuff that is sub-par should not be seen as a bad thing. This is probably one of the weakest attempts at console bashing to date on Slashdot, games like TF2 on the PC underwent countless cancellations, revisions, and restarts before they finally saw the light of day as decent and successful titles.

Worse, the article is even complaining that some titles that haven't come out yet aren't out yet, even though it was never once suggested they'd be out yet. Take Crackdown for example in the Microsoft article- Crackdown was never ever meant to be anything other than a 2016 release, so why is it a problem that it's not out yet?

This article seems to be complaining that some sections of the industry are actually taking their time and doing things properly, when those sections of the industry - MGS, Sony 1st party titles, Nintendo 1st party titles, Valve's own titles, Blizzards own titles and so forth where development takes a long time but the titles are consistently good are exactly what the industry needs more of, not less of.

These articles are exactly why we get broken games - because some 'tards think it's more important to have a completely forgettable broken game that fails to deliver now, instead of a great game that we'll remember fondly for years after it's released in two or three more years time.

Re:Great!

[rtb61]

How about that they are just pointing out that corporations routinely lie at press conferences. Corporate press conferences should not be considered as places to get the truth but simply to get a direct impression of the marketing and public relations that the corporation will be using for that season, as for the lies told, well, same old, same old.

Perhaps consider it a hint, that press organisations should stop attending press conferences and, the bigger conference, the more they should be avoided. Unless you just want your journalists to have some time off with friends in the industry and have the chance to pick up a bunch of free stuff. Although I would be reluctant to pay for travel and accommodation for those journalists as it has a whole lot less to do with news and a whole lot more to do with industry convention junkets and opportunities for corporations to actively corrupt large numbers of journalists.

Re:Great!

[Xest]

But the problem is it's not the corporations lying here, it's the people who wrote the article. As I pointed out, there was never any suggestion that most of those games would be out yet.

What lie have they told here exactly?

One by one, the games they're complaining about:

Dance Central Spotlight - Released
Ori and the Blind Forest - Released
Phantom Dust - Delayed because subcontracted developers failed to meet contract
Crackdown - Always a 2016 release, still on track
Scalebound - No release date ever given
Forza Horizon 2 - Released
Sunset Overdrive - Released
Project Spark - Released
Halo 5: Guardians - To be released on time in September
Fable Legends - No release date ever given

Entwined - Released
Bloodborne - Released
LittleBigPlanet 3 - Released
Abzu - No release date ever given
Let It Die - Delayed
Uncharted 4: A Thiefâ(TM)s End - Delayed
The Order: 1886 - Released
No Manâ(TM)s Sky - No release date ever given

There are actually only 3 broken promises in there, out of 18 titles. I don't think that's terribly bad and is far better than the industry norm.

I'd rather the journalists just stop lying for page hits above all else quite frankly. I think that's a far far bigger problem in the industry than absolutely anything else.

exclusive

[chill]

The summary forgot the word "exclusive" as in "exclusive to PlayStation" or "exclusive to Xbox".

multi-platform titles fared much better, but can't be used as a reason to buy one console over another.

So how are open source projects any better?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so software development schedules sometimes slip for big companies. But how is that news?

More importantly, how is open source software any better?

Here I am, using Firefox. It's an open source web browser. For years we've been promised that it will support using multiple processes, like Chrome has for so long, sometime "soon". But as the years go by, the hope for this critical functionality fades. While we can use a half-arsed attempt at this functionality with the nightly Firefox releases, it's not very stable. Meanwhile, the Firefox devs have trashed Firefox's UI, and infected it with stupid shit like a half-arsed communication system and ads.

Firefox isn't the only open source project that fails to deliver. GNOME 3 is another excellent example. They didn't just trash their UI, but the entire GNOME user experience was shot to hell years ago. We're still waiting for something usable to come out of the GNOME faction, yet we see absolutely nothing of value being produced.

At least Microsoft and Sony achieve 40% to 50% of what they say they're going to do. That's a lot better than the 0% that we see from so many open source projects. Heck, if we could how Firefox and GNOME have gotten so much worse over time, their accomplishment rate is more in the vicinity of -70%! That's right, by trying to accomplish things they've actually set themselves further back than they were when they started!

Re:So how are open source projects any better?

[radarskiy]

"how is open source software any better?"

Failing to set a development schedule in the first place is much more efficient.

Re:So how are open source projects any better?

[Idou]

"How are open source projects any better"

Obviously, the difference is that you can add features yourself (or pay someone to do so), if you really need those features. This is incredibly important if you are providing a product or service that has dependencies on external tools.

However, if you are a "whiny consumer" type user who feels entitled to software (without contributing anything yourself), I agree there is little difference between closed and open source to you. Your sense of self entitlement and ability to only consume and not contribute anything means you will never be able to take responsibility for your own experience with software. Accordingly, your experience with software will always be a poor one.

Re:So how are open source projects any better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Full of yourself, much? I particularly liked how you equate open source with some juvenile responsibility for a software experience. Let me give you an example:

Blender. I use Blender. I could use Maya, if I could afford it, but since it costs nearly $15,000 for a single seat licence in my country that just won't happen. The same for 3DS Max.

So, I use Blender, because Maya isn't worth 20 months of my wages (without spending on living). If Autodesk's New Zealand reseller won't compete with a perfectly adequate free product, why the hell should I pay a fee that's been hiked up largely "Because we can," then?

But then you go on to contribution. You seem to be equating contribution in some manner (source code, documentation, user interface design?) with paying for something. You foolishly assume that everyone can contribute.

I can't.

I have a neurological injury that means my ability to develop code is effectively nothing. Can't learn the maths behind it, either. For the same reason, I can't develop (or learn the principles to allow me to assist) with interface development.

In fact, all I can do is use the software, and seed torrents for the software I use.

Re:So how are open source projects any better?

[Idou]

Sorry, I do not read Anon replies. . .

That's why developers don't have time for Wii U

[OOSCARR]

Nintendo instead announced less and released less, they even announced years ahead http://www.ign.com/blogs/bprec...

Good (insert "Good" cat meme image here)

[ArcadeMan]

Announcing upcoming games? Great!

Announcing upcoming games with a godamn release date from the marketing department that will all but insure that the developers won't have time to code and test everything properly? Extremely bad!

Re:Good (insert "Good" cat meme image here)

[antdude]

Yep. I prefer "when it's done" release date, but don't take too long like this company!

Do one thing and do it well

[xarragon]

"Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent,"

My favorite Jobs quote (though I would never buy an Apple product myself). Some projects should perhaps die. In the software realm a lot of projects live unnaturally long lives; stagnating into maintenance with cosmetic rather than functional innovation.

It feels like a lot of projects, FOSS or commercial, has forgotten how to build better mousetraps and now focuses solely on mousetraps with rounded corners or some cloud tie-in service.

In the case of Mozilla I have no idea what they are doing now. It gained traction because the existing monoculture was stagnating. Remember the days when people got excited about tabbed browsing? Innovation by window management in an application. Then came the adblockers. They were all innovations that benefitted both developers and users alike. Better mousetraps.

The last round of "innovation" has only helped to line the pockets of the foundation itself, integrating advertisement and third-party proprietary stuff into the browser.

"Choose your enemies well, for it is them you will most come to resemble."

I guess Firefox chose Chrome and Google.

Re:Do one thing and do it well

[cleara]

Well they did do something quite well. They put on glitzy press conferences. That is the one thing.

3 of the 5 titles for MS & 'rusted on'?

[shoor]

I actually read the first 3 or 4 paragraphs of the Microsoft link. That 60% is 60% of 5 exclusive games, which doesn't sound all that statistically significant.

There was a line "Whether you're a rusted on fan or still on the fence looking to make a purchase decision" (italics mine). Is 'rusted on' a new expression or was that a typo for 'trusted on' (which doesn't even sound as good as 'rusted on' to me)?

Surprised?

[lennier1]

Firing talents at Sony Online Entertainment by the hundreds probably didn't help.

It's called vaporware ..

[nickweller]

"60% of Microsoft's announced titles remain unreleased a year later, and 50% of Sony's announced titles remain unreleased"

It's called vaporware, as in you pre-announce non-existant product to a) get a mention in the tech press and to b) dissuade your competitors bringing out a rival product and/or to dissuade your customer base from buying same while they await your more innovative PRODUC~1 :)

The Top 15 Vaporware Products of All Time