I think it’s less that they intentionally under deliver, and more that how the actually run leads to bad products. The executives and consultants brought in try and run studios like they’re software companies. Which, yes, technically video games are software, but they’re more than that.
With a lot of software, a short turn around is important if you want to make sure your product isn’t outpaced by a competitor before it even launches. bugs can be patched out over time so shipping with a few bugs is fine so long as you’re getting to market as soon as possible. Breaking the project up in to lots of small items that can be independently worked on without interfering or relying on other items means you can expand the team easily to keep up with deadline.
On a video game, consumers care more about the experience of the released product and less about it being the most technically advanced. Huge bugs at release mutes any excitement, even if the issues are patched out later. Multiple teams working on a bunch of items in parallel will struggle to make a cohesive experience and the design guidelines put in place to make this possible will mute creativity. A handful of cohesive long quest lines makes for a better RPG than a 100 little independent quest scattered over the map.
Better to have smaller teams that work over longer time frames and release a product when it’s ready, 150 million dollars will make a much better product with a 100 person studio over 6 years than a 300 person studio in 2 years.
Halo: Combat Evolved sucks? That’s a hot take - been a few years, but I did enjoy playing it, massive controllers and all. Or did you have a specific one in mind?
I think it’s less that they intentionally under deliver, and more that how the actually run leads to bad products. The executives and consultants brought in try and run studios like they’re software companies. Which, yes, technically video games are software, but they’re more than that.
With a lot of software, a short turn around is important if you want to make sure your product isn’t outpaced by a competitor before it even launches. bugs can be patched out over time so shipping with a few bugs is fine so long as you’re getting to market as soon as possible. Breaking the project up in to lots of small items that can be independently worked on without interfering or relying on other items means you can expand the team easily to keep up with deadline.
On a video game, consumers care more about the experience of the released product and less about it being the most technically advanced. Huge bugs at release mutes any excitement, even if the issues are patched out later. Multiple teams working on a bunch of items in parallel will struggle to make a cohesive experience and the design guidelines put in place to make this possible will mute creativity. A handful of cohesive long quest lines makes for a better RPG than a 100 little independent quest scattered over the map.
Better to have smaller teams that work over longer time frames and release a product when it’s ready, 150 million dollars will make a much better product with a 100 person studio over 6 years than a 300 person studio in 2 years.
What about games that take 6 years and still suck? Like Halo?
Microsoft is just a small indie company, cut them some slack. More likely they just have no idea what they are doing and are just fumbling it all.
Halo: Combat Evolved sucks? That’s a hot take - been a few years, but I did enjoy playing it, massive controllers and all. Or did you have a specific one in mind?
No, the new Halos
They released a Halo 2?!
I hope they do a prequel!
I will not stand for this slander, Halo 2 is one of the greatest games of all time.