(calm video game music) - Hey y'all, Scott here.
It is laundry season.
Seems like everybody's cleaning their clothes these days.
I'm not one to go against trends.
I'll do it.
(scott coughs)
Okay, I did clean my pencils out with this,
so it might not be ideal for the gears.
Well, while I'm waiting for that to heal up,
why not tell a story to pass the time?
This is a story of a brown-haired white boy with glasses.
Guess who?
And one day,
he decided to talk about video game delays.
Wanna hear some useless (beep)?
Video games are funny.
They take 12 years to develop and they stink.
You ever announce a video game
and its release date of yesterday
when you only have like, 8 minutes of work done?
Well, you're a video game company.
Looks like you need a delay.
A cold hard fact every studio has to face at some point.
Nothing kills the mood more than that for fans,
but it's a necessity.
Rushing a game just means developers are gonna be scrambling
and the consumers are gonna get garbage.
It's almost always a good thing when a delay occurs,
even if it stings a bit.
But as somebody who watches
the video game industry like a hawk,
I can sense things.
My five senses are at dangerous levels.
You ever see me taste lemonade?
(scott screams)
If you pay attention enough,
you can always tell when a delay's about to happen,
if it just doesn't seem right
the game will come out that quick.
It's impossible.
Like, we've barely seen anything,
studios refuse to comment on the game's status,
the development building burned down.
Something's fishy here.
Now, there's a difference between games that get delayed
and games that languish in development hell.
Development hell is more so games that just take
forever to get made,
while games with numerous delays,
I mean, they take kind of long,
but come on, it isn't that bad.
Take, for example, "Mighty No. 9."
No!
This is a game notorious
for the amount of delays it experienced,
but when all was said and done,
I mean, it only took roughly two and a half years to release
from the initial announcement.
The way most people talk about it,
it implies it took forever to come out.
Well, in dog years, yeah.
Now, what really annoyed people
about "Mighty No. 9" was the amount of delays.
See, they started a crowdfunding campaign
for a spiritual successor to "Mega Man,"
and decided to offer players a whole country
if the game got funded,
plus a Wii U version.
Due to the sheer success of the campaign,
they kept offering stretch goals.
So, "If we reach this amount, we'll tuck you in,
"and if we reach this amount, we'll spit on your foot."
That made the game
more complicated than necessary to develop.
What once was a game
that was supposed to release in April of 2015,
became a game set to release in September 2015.
And then February 2016.
And then Spring 2016.
And finally, June 21 2016,
which is technically when Summer begins,
so it didn't even meet the Spring deadline.
You really couldn't have released it a day earlier?
In the end, "Mighty No. 9" was one of the
sloppiest looking games of the year.
Not living up to expectations
the numerous delays kept raising.
Well, I'm sure the delays made the game
better.
They were more so indicative of a troubled development,
rather than wanting more time to make the title
the best it could be.
I'd consider a game like
"The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild"
to be delayed for the latter reason
and it may have had troubled development,
we don't know,
somebody might have pissed themselves at the office,
but the numerous delays this game experienced
felt more so because
that was just what the project demanded.
This game did so much that required tons of research,
testing, it was no small game,
so the extra delays made sense.
This didn't.
"Breath of the Wild" was first talked about
in January of 2013.
Then shown for the first time in June of 2014,
ending with the projected release year of 2015.
Was that really necessary?
Did you just have to say, "Oh yeah, it's coming next year."
Wasn't the teaser enough?
And they were pretty adamant this would release in 2015,
even affirming it during a game play demo in December 2014.
But then that brought us to March 2015.
If you ever see Nintendo employees standing like this,
(beep) run.
To be fair, Eiji Aonuma stated here that,
while it was probably possible
for the game to be released in 2015,
that they just had so many new ideas
they wanted to cram into the game,
and preferred just not focusing
on trying to meet a 2015 release deadline.
The thing was,
they never said it was delayed,
they just were making a 2015 release their priority.
Well, that means there's still a chance, right?
Well yeah, but God hates Nintendo fans,
so it makes things tricky.
The entire year, we got nothing on the game,
until November 2015, where they said,
"Yep, in 2016, it's coming."
(beep)
Nintendo, stop typing, you're not good at it.
So, in 2016, we finally got substantial footage
and the official title,
and in January of 2017, we learned its official release date
of March 3rd 2017.
So, formally announced four years prior,
roughly two delays.
I mean, it's obvious these delays
were to add tremendously to the game,
and not 100% due to poor planning or management.
Sure, the delays hurt, but it didn't matter in the end.
You weren't playing "Breath of the Wild"
because "I'm so glad this released in 2015,"
you were playing it because it was "Breath of the Wild."
And that shows why delays are almost always good.
Like, would this game be that much better
if it released on January 26th compared to January 28th?
When I'm planning to die on the 27th, yes.
I think game delays are a big talking point,
because it's obviously a little embarrassing
for the game developers and publishers to go through that.
"Final Fantasy XV" had an entire event
dedicated to celebrating it finally getting a release date
of September 30th 2016.
Which made the delay to November that much funnier.
But that's only about two months' worth of a delay,
which that amount of time,
it's pretty crazy how much of a difference it can make.
Two months in game development time is almost nothing.
I think they noticed
they misspelled "Final" in the title screen
and had to delay.
But if two months is really that big of a deal to you,
you really need to reevaluate your priorities.
Look who told you that.
Don't get me wrong, some game delays can be stupid annoying,
which is why I like to rate my game delays
on the come the (beep) on-o-meter.
"Rayman Legends." Everybody loved "Rayman Origins."
Except for Shakers, I don't think they had a chance to play.
A sequel to one of the generation's defining 2D platformers
was announced as an exclusive for the Wii U in 2012
and was set to be a launch title.
It got delayed to February 2013.
So, one delay in, but it's no big deal.
The Wii U launched with "New Super Mario Bros. U,"
I want to throw up from my mouth,
but you got a very capable 2D platformer at launch
with that game already.
I think February suited "Rayman Legends" a bit more.
Come on, what else happened in February that year?
The Pope resigned?
A good time to release "Rayman."
But truly, before that release date,
Ubisoft announced they were delaying "Rayman Legends"
to September 2013 so they could make the game
not a Wii U exclusive,
and rather, release it on other consoles as well.
(slot machines beep)
Oh, come the (beep) on!
So Ubisoft decided it wasn't a good idea
to make "Rayman Legends" exclusive to the Wii U,
because their other exclusive Wii U title,
"Zombi U," under performed.
Listen, yeah, multi-platform's the way to go
for these developers, I get it,
but reconsidering if "Rayman Legends,"
a family friendly 2D platformer,
should be exclusive to the Wii U,
mainly because an M rated first-person survival horror game
didn't do as well as you wanted,
I feel is a little bit super (beep) stupid.
But then Ubisoft acted like
everybody loved when "Rayman Legends" was announced,
but when all these fellas heard it was Wii U exclusive,
man, the Playstation and Xbox gamers, they were sad!
We can't let them not have this game
they probably don't care about!
While the game was done in time
for the original February release date,
Ubisoft forced Wii U owners
to wait seven months to play this game,
just so Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 owners
could play it at the same time.
See, that wouldn't be so bad
if Ubisoft didn't constantly release games
during that era that came out for Xbox 360
and Playstation 3, but not the Wii U.
Oh, so when Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 owners
are disappointed that a Wii U game
is only coming out for the Wii U,
well, let's rip it away from Wii U fans
and give them what they want.
When Wii U owners are disappointed
a PS3 and 360 game isn't coming out for Wii U.
Well, what did they expect? They bought the Wii U.
They ended up releasing the game on September 3rd 2013
for PC, PS3, Xbox 360, Playstation Vita, and Wii U.
They had to delay the game
so you don't release it on a failed console,
to release it on two failed consoles.
It didn't do that well at launch,
and honestly, it makes total sense.
Wii U owners were ready for "Rayman Legends" in February.
I mean, there was nothing else to play
in the first half of 2013.
I think a good chunk of early adopters of the console
would have jumped on it if it released in February.
When you release it in September,
all these games were coming out,
not only for all platforms,
but on Wii U.
We had "Pikmin 3," "Wonderful 101,"
"Wind Waker HD," "Wii Party U."
"Rayman Legends" could have had a few months all to itself,
and I guarantee you,
it would have garnered more attention.
Instead, it sort of got lost in the shuffle
because they delayed it, which in my opinion,
is one of the few examples of a delay
sort of back firing.
I don't think it entirely did,
the game was great, it just released at a busy time.
I would've recommended releasing the Wii U version
on time in February,
then releasing the other platform versions at a later date.
There was speculation that Ubisoft couldn't do that
because Microsoft had a policy
where multi-platform games have to release the same day
or earlier on Xbox platforms.
Or just straight up can't release on Xbox at all.
I don't know, I've seen numerous examples
of that not occurring.
I don't really know why "Rayman Legends"
would have been treated differently like that.
I think it's ready.
Might as well test it out by cleaning some forks.
(washing machine explodes)
There are some studios that almost always delay their games.
If a release date seems too good to be true, it is.
Rockstar originally revealed that "Red Dead Redemption 2"
was coming in holiday 2017.
And then first half of 2018.
It released in October.
"Grand Theft Auto V" was delayed.
"Grand Theft Auto IV" was.
The original "Red Dead Redemption" was.
You'd think they'd learn not to set a date,
but it's almost a tradition
that certain studios and franchises delay their games.
Like with "Zelda."
It's almost like every single home console
major 3D "Zelda" title has been delayed
in some way, shape or form.
And then there's "Spore."
Don't be like "Spore."
Delays can infinitely raise expectations.
If the developers have so much more time,
this better be the best game it can possibly be.
I now have nothing to do in 2007, "Spore."
I think that's what happened with "Mighty No. 9."
I mean, all those delays, and this is what we got?
Crowdfunded indie games have it rough
in this department,
they almost always get the release dates pushed
because there's only like, what?
Four people working on them?
But because they're crowdfunded,
because they receive donations ahead of time,
there are loads of people
that expect the world from these games.
Well, sure, "Shovel Knight" received
over $300,000 and was delayed a few times,
and came out phenomenal,
but $300,000 isn't a lot for a game.
It's insane they were able to make it on that budget.
So for people to look at Kickstarter games
as if they're expected
to live up to being delayed numerous times.
I don't know.
I mean, we know what the budget is ahead of time.
If anything, that should set your expectations better.
But no, these games are often
scrutinized the most for delays.
But when "Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Remastered"
took two years to come out,
not as many people bitched.
I found that to be pitiful.
This is a remaster of a Gamecube game
announced in September 2018
that was set to be released a year later.
That's already sort of pathetic,
but it got delayed past January 2020
and finally released in August of 2020
and was dog (beep).
But of course, my favorite game delay
is "Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze."
It was announced for November 2013,
it got quietly delayed to December 2013,
and then Nintendo said they needed more development time,
so they delayed it to February 2014,
and the developer said,
"We don't know what they're talking about,
"the game's done."
It was obviously pushed because,
kind of like with "Rayman Legends,"
having "Donkey Kong" in February
gave it time to breathe
and be the only talk of the town.
I remember people acting like,
"Nintendo really (beep) up again,"
because "Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze"
was coming out in February.
You really thought Nintendo was doomed
because you couldn't play "Donkey Kong" in December?
Did you really think that was gonna push the Wii U
over the edge with the new Playstation and Xbox
launching around the same time?
"Yeah, this might have "Need for Speed,"
"but the Wii U has a "Donkey Kong" game
coming out in December.
"Any other month, I wouldn't give a (beep)."
I do believe many overreact to delays.
I think it's more than fair to be disappointed,
but there's obviously more good that comes from delays
most of the time.
Even when nearly all the examples I gave
(beep) stunk.
But come on, I mean, ooh, "Persona 5" was delayed a bunch.
"Doom Eternal," wasn't that supposed to come out
in November?
"Duke Nukem Forever," oh, shut up.
Video games require more work
than nearly any other form of entertainment.
And more problems pop up randomly.
Bugs, glitches, design flaws,
new ideas are too easy to not throw into a game
mid-way through development,
so developers are like, "Let's add this!"
The little will increase the development time
on the whole by a lot.
That doesn't happen nearly as much
with any other medium.
It just makes sense that games get delayed.
They're too complicate to not get delayed.
And yeah, the idea that you now
have to wait another month or two
to play a game you really wanna play,
it's kind of lame.
But that gives us more time to play
all the other games that released 30 years ago.
"Cyberpunk" got delayed?
I still have yet to play "DinoRiki."
I think while many artists strive
under having a deadline,
having too strict of a deadline
can obviously negatively effect the end product.
Most games can release at any point in time
and they'll be fine.
Of course, games like "Pokémon"
have to come out at a certain time
because of all this other merchandise
and media tie-ins releasing to coincide with it.
That makes delays hard to do.
But if you even have to entertain the idea of one,
it's probably in your best interest to do it.
Because "Family Feud" on Nintendo Switch really needed it.
Did you really have to release it when you did?
This is horrible.
Well, after numerous delays,
I've decided to cancel the laundry.
But don't you worry.
I think everything will work out just fine
for our brown-haired white friend.
Game delays are inevitable for all developers
and most of the time,
I think they're highly respectable.
It takes guts to admit,
"Hey, we need more time."
And sure, some are annoying,
most are definitely disappointing,
but in the end,
I think most delays are for the best.
It's not like real life
where pushing something off 'til later
will get you in deep trouble.
Huh.
Hey y'all, Scott here.
It is laundry season.
Seems like everybody's cleaning their clothes these days.
(upbeat music)