How far ahead of launch do you like to hear about a new game?

[Rod Humble]

DennyA made a point in another thread about how far out gamers like to hear about games. I find that a very interesting topic.

Personally I like to hear about a game the day it launches so I can go buy it, but DennyA makes a good point that for many gamers prehype about a game is very important.

How far ahead of launch do you like to hear about a new game?

[DoomMunky]

3 months or so. Anything more is a cocktease. (Fallout 3)

[Vincent_GC]

Personally, about 6 months for me. Normally I get the impression that games that are hyped 1 year or more prior don't have all the design concepts worked out, and tend to overpromise on neat features that tend to get cut further down the line.

[Jab]

A few months in advance is good for me. Short enough that it won't feel like forever until its out, and long enough that I can start saving up money to buy it.

[MyNameIsWill]

6 months for AAA games, 3 months for other games

[Spect]

1 month or less. Pref less. Unless it's an MMO that I want to get into beta for. I hate, HATE pre-release hype. I rarely ever look at trailers, I read very few previews. If it's a game I'm interested in, based on a very small set of criteria, then I want to know that I can just go buy it or dl it now.

[Eric Majkut]

The less time the better, really. I mean, you're not going to play the game any sooner no matter when they announce it, so there's no point in sitting around getting all excited about something you can't have for another year.

Spore is a perfect example. I've been burning up inside wanting to play that game since I saw that first E3 video years ago. Here I am, still all hyper and excited about it whenever I sit down and start to think of the possibilities. I think the impact would've been a lot bigger had they done a press conference or something one day, explained how Spore works, and then released it a week or a month later. People will still be buzzing from the new hype as opposed to cynical over it because they've had to wait 3 years.

Meh.

[Sarkus]

Personally, about 6 months for me. Normally I get the impression that games that are hyped 1 year or more prior don't have all the design concepts worked out, and tend to overpromise on neat features that tend to get cut further down the line.

Excellent reasoning and I agree. Think of all the games that are announced years ahead of time and end up being something quite different (see STALKER as a recent example.)

However, I'm willing to live with a brief announcement about a game earlier than six months as long as they don't hype features until they are locked down. But even then they need to be very very confident of a release date.

[malkav11]

I want to hear about the game about a year and a half to two years *post*-release, so that I can go snag a copy for $20 or less. Unless it's a super-niche release of about 20 copies, in which case I want to know about it the day before release.

[Jason McCullough]

Like you Rod, I don't understand the pre-release obsession at all. Until I can actually play it I have zero interest.

[Sol Invictus]

I want to hear about the game at least 6 months to a year before its release. It gives me something to look forward to and ensures I don't buy a crappy game now when I could wait for a better game later.

It also allows the community to build a sizable following during that period of time, which really helps the game's popularity and subsequent post-release experience. There is very little point to announcing a game 1-3 months before its release, because it doesn't give you much time to absorb its impact. Games with no hype aren't games anyone looks forward to.

There's nothing worse than buying a game nobody knows about, because you'll have no one to play with.

[RickH]

10+ years.

Right, George?

[AaronSofaer]

2 weeks sounds about right to me.

[jim crawford]

I really enjoy looking forward to games. It's the journey, not the destination! On the other hand, fuck loading time and unskippable cutscenes. I'll let you know when I've figured out the difference.

[BobJustBob]

As soon as there's something to hear.

[roguefrog]

yeah, 2 week notice

[AaronSofaer]

To qualify my statement: If a company is willing and able to listen to the input of the community and any open Alpha/Beta, then it may come public with details about the game at the point at which they begin taking meaningful input about those details and features.

[Rob_Merritt]

I like to hear about a game about a year in advance.

[gordonrumble]

If a game is unveiled a month before launch, it wouldn't have time to permeate the gaming culture and sell well. It'd be bad marketing. If a game is unveiled six months before launch, then I personally think that it would hit right when hype hit the highest. Also heavily spend those marketing dollars all at once in a shorter period of time pre-launch (say two months), instead of thinly spreading them over a longer period. You also avoid pitfalls like screenshot battles, pre alpha hate fests, etc. Just let it be known that you are working on a game in genre x for platforms y, and push hard when you're near release. Just my opinion.

[scotthal]

10 days before availability: Release 5-10 screenshots and 1 video, all gameplay, no fakery.
5 days before availability: Lift review embargo. Release demo.
Day of availability: Release on Steam.

That would be the optimal launch process for me. One thing you need to realize about an aging gamer population is that our memories are becoming worse by the day. I don't remember anything that you told me longer ago than last weekend, so the week of release you're going to have to start from scratch with the hype machine, anyway.

[Squee]

A year would be alright with me. Gives 'em time to possibly adjust the game based on feedback, and gives me time to build up a nice game-wanting froth.

'course, I don't know how many places actually do anything based on feedback, so in those cases where they aren't going to, I'd say 3-6 months.

[Kunikos]

All I know is that it's been hell waiting for more news about Dragon Age.

[Aeon221]

I dunno, I find out about games on here. Sooo, whatever makes the people who find out about this stuff elsewhere happy I guess.

If I were running the show, I probably wouldn't start talking about my game until it was being stuffed into boxes.

[CaseyRobinson]

2 weeks, tops.

I'd prefer to spend my limited time playing games, instead of thinking about playing a game in the future that I imagine will be awesome but, lets face it, probably won't be.

[Gendal]

2-3 days. I love finding some new title I haven't heard about that's already available. That's far too rare of an occurrence.

[Tom Chick]

Hmm, I wonder if Rod has something to tell us? Everyone vote for "2 years or more!"

-Tom

[tromik]

I live in the now, I guess. I generally don't get excited about anything until I try a demo or hear how great it is (ie. how great qt3 thinks it is) once it's out.

[triggercut]

I keep meaning to thank Rod for showing up at my house right after I moved in, bringing me that kickass computer that plays The Sims 3.

I always buy a computer right when I move in, so that sure does save me some cash.

[krise madsen]

It depends. You see, there are games and then there are games.

With most games, I don't need to know about it until after release, since I'm not going to buy it on release day anyway (and go through day 1 patches and clogged up activation servers? Do I have idiot tatooed on my forehead?).

Should I know in advance about Betas? Why? These days, betas are prizes given for pre-ordering or buying another game from the same publisher, not a tool for ironing out bugs and glitches. Why should I care? I'm far too old for the "yay I played it first" hoolabaloo.

And since the game features are pretty much locked down by the time anyone hear about it, what's the point in discussing it? Are you going to make any substantial changes to the game before release, based on what gamers say? Of course not. So why bother? (to say nothing of the fact that post-release feedback is far too often pointless as well).

Hey, it may be a really great game, but I don't really need to know in advance. That's just marketing. Or, as DoomMunky so eloquently put it, cocktease. But then, as long as people are falling over themselves to pre-order and stand in line on release day, then the industry will of course cater to them. Why turn away the lemmings when they're throwing cash at you? I wouldn't.

But then there are games. Niche games and indie games, where community interaction is an integral part of the process. Games where profitability is a byproduct of the game rather than the other way around.

Like Blackfoot Studios. I've been on their forums for well over a year now, providing input, talking to the developes and discussing the particulars with other forum members. And the damn game hasn't even been officially announced yet. When the forums opened, Blackfoot offered nothing but a promise to develop an old-school tactical-realism first person shooter (so natually it attracted old-school tactical gamers). But they also made an unspoken deal with the community: When we talk, they listen. And when they talk it's straight-up talk, not uselss PR dribble.

So for the right game, I want to know the sooner the better. For all the other games some time after release is soon enough.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Kareem]

About 6 months is fine for me. I like being suitably hyped about a new title and have the information trickle in. But 1 year makes a new title fall gradually from "I want this!" to "I guess I'm interested" to "I'll wait for the word of mouth" and I stop being particularly interested in first looks and short gameplay videos.

[moromete]

I voted 1 year. Which mean that an announcement could come at that point, followed by silence and then more news as the 6 months to release landmark with previews 1 month before...

[MattKeil]

With most games, I don't need to know about it until after release, since I'm not going to buy it on release day anyway (and go through day 1 patches and clogged up activation servers? Do I have idiot tatooed on my forehead?).

No, I think it says "PC Gamer."

I didn't pick an option in the poll because (and this may be the first time I realized this) I don't care. I'm happy to hear about something 5 years or 5 minutes before it comes out. Anticipating a big release is fun, and so is suddenly realizing something awesome is available right now that I didn't even know about.

[Brendan]

I miss the old days when you possibly saw a single preview or magazine ad a few weeks before release and decided a game looked cool. When you got a game you knew practically nothing about it and the whole experience was new. Back then word-of-mouth shipped units. I look back on the days of buying Master Of Magic on the strength of the box art and an ad in CGW with great fondness.

I know that that approach is unrealistic these days with games costing what they do to make.

[Hans Lauring]

No, I think it says "PC Gamer."

I didn't pick an option in the poll because (and this may be the first time I realized this) I don't care. I'm happy to hear about something 5 years or 5 minutes before it comes out. Anticipating a big release is fun, and so is suddenly realizing something awesome is available right now that I didn't even know about.


I'm with Matt.

It's not something I give a lot of thought... if it's a game that interests me, I wouldn't mind hearing about it when the first designer gets the first idea (or when the first person on the team has something actually new and interesting to say) and if it's something I don't care about, then the PR machine can keep talking and I won't notice.

But anticipation is fun and so is nice surprises.

[Brendan]

Also, enough with the "Listen to the community" drivel. The community knows nothing about game design. Listening to the most vocal forumites is the worst kind of design by comittee because often the most vocal people are the ones who know the least.

[Brian Seiler]

Well, if I had my druthers, I'd find out about games maybe the month before they ship, which will help with preventing me from getting my hopes up. At this point in my life, I only wish that I had never heard of Too Human and its supposed 4-player co-op, because if I hadn't, I might be able to churn up some enthusiasm for the title. Almost universally, games that I've bought because of before-release hype have ended up in my Stack of Unspeakable Hatred and Disappointment. As a business matter, though, I accept that that sort of approach will never, ever work, so instead I'm a jaded, bitter cynic who tries not to believe anything he's told.

[krise madsen]

No, I think it says "PC Gamer."

Damn straight it does! Look, I'm not saying there is only one proper way of doing things. It depends on the game, the platform, whether it's a known/established gametype, a niche game vs. mainstream e.c.t.

Imagine asking the general gamer and/or Star Wars fan population what they'd want from a Star Wars game, and you'd probably get every answer imaginable. I'm sure the LucasArts people were clever enough to stick to their own ideas on that one. And while a million gamers (including me) undoubtedly thought "Light Saber Fight" the second they heard about the Wiimote, but I'm sure the people at LucasArts did the same, since they're not total morons.

And hey, don't mind talking about games well in advance, but I don't really, I mean really, care when it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.


Also, enough with the "Listen to the community" drivel. The community knows nothing about game design. Listening to the most vocal forumites is the worst kind of design by comittee because often the most vocal people are the ones who know the least.

Seriously, has anyone ever done that? Or even considered it? I should hope not. Anyway, listening to the community is not the same as enslaving yourself to their every whim.

But sometimes you have to wonder if the design decisions are informed decisions. Like when a AAA FPS (which shall remain unnamed) is released with three (three!) co-op missions. I can tell you exactly what gamers would have said if asked in advance: "Hey Mr. Developer, either you make a proper co-op element (like the campagin playable as co-op) or you don't include co-op at all. 3 co-op missions is just taking the piss". Instead they got all the bad will and bad PR post release.

Seriously, you should take a look at the Blackfoot forums. You might be surprised at the quality of the discussions. I certainly wouldn't want those forum monkeys (which includes me) to make the decisions, but I do want Blackfoot Studios to make the decision based on the best availible information.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Bill Dungsroman]

Jeez, one month or less? I can't even clear my "current games being played" buffer in a month in order to put a new game in in that short amount of time!


EDIT: On second thought, I'm not entirely certain what Rod means by his poll question. Does he mean "hear about a game in-depth" or "at all?" I mean, I want to know a game exists around 6 months out, but I don't really want any real in-depth info on it until maybe a week prior to release.

[Mordrak]

For me, a year to 6-months is about right. I don't buy many games, so that information is useful. It also generates plenty of discussions, so I'd say announce with a teaser about a year in advance and then increase the coverage every three months until it's released.

[tromik]

Jeez, one month or less? I can't even clear my "current games being played" buffer in a month in order to put a new game in in that short amount of time!
Nevermind three year old games from infinitely expanding backlogs.

[Pod]

Like you Rod, I don't understand the pre-release obsession at all. Until I can actually play it I have zero interest.

Yes. "This".
Infact, you missed out a "On the release day or even AFTER the release day" option, which is what I would pick. I like to be suprised, see?

[Alan Au]

I suspect pre-release hype is to blame for not-quite-done products shipped out the door, so I'm not entirely thrilled with the notion of fixed release dates, especially when they're set more than 3 months out. Of course, it's nice to have official confirmation that a game is in the works, so I'd like something along these lines:

-1 year: "in development" announcement, concept art
-3 months: screenshots, invite-only beta
-1 month: marketing push (e.g. promo events, gameplay trailers)
0 days: doesn't require a patch

- Alan

[Rob_Merritt]

Keep in mind not all PR is aimed at end consumers. Take Alan Wake. First it was thrown out there just to get a publisher interested. Then it was used to get people interested in the 360. I don't think the marketing push for the actual game is even on the drawing boards yet.

[Rod Humble]

Bill: Yeah I meant "hear about it at all". I didnt really put that much thought into the the poll, I should have added more options.

Tom: I am trying to figure out when to announce Simcity 9 and Sims 6. I figure the early bird catches the worm :)

Triggercut: You are welcome. That wasnt my idea and to be honest it makes me squirm, the team rather enjoys that though and took great delight in mocking me for it. Still the Sims community events of "how to kill rod humble" and "touch rod humbles ass" are the gifts that keep on giving.

[Tyjenks]

I picked 3 months, but 3-6 sounds like a good range. Some anticipation is fun, but early announcements coupled with release delays are torture and hve mde me jaded and cynical about any game ever being what is promised initially.

Does it matter? Are there still game companies that actually wait until 3 to 6 months pre-release to make an announcement? Or does my vote include an avoidance cushion where I actively shy away from any sorts of previews or press releases a year out?

[Pod]

Bill: Yeah I meant "hear about it at all". I didnt really put that much thought into the the poll, I should have added more options.

Tom: I am trying to figure out when to announce Simcity 9 and Sims 6. I figure the early bird catches the worm :)

Triggercut: You are welcome. That wasnt my idea and to be honest it makes me squirm, the team rather enjoys that though and took great delight in mocking me for it. Still the Sims community events of "how to kill rod humble" and "touch rod humbles ass" are the gifts that keep on giving.

Surely it's the Sims 99 and Simcity 6? (or did I miss a few of those?)

[Joe M.]

3 months is about right for me. Just long enough for me to convince all my gaming buddies that they have to buy that game, and generally the game is finished enough there's some substance to the pre-release trailers.

[KieronGillen]

For me, there's a difference about hear about something and HEARING about something. I don't mind knowing that a game's in development, but serious heavy magazine-cover PR several years before a game comes out is ludicrous, and hopefully we grow out of.

KG

[unbongwah]

I'd say six months is my limit: I like knowing what to look forward to; but any longer than that and I either lose interest or resent the developer for making me wait so long (*cough* Dragon Age *cough*).

EDIT: oh, but if we're talking heavy PR blitz rather than just announcements like Kieron mentioned, I'd go with "1-3 months."

[Kael]

I dont know that I have ever been dissapointed by early information on a game. Spore was announced forever ago and thats fine. I could use a little info on Diablo 3 even if its nopt going to be around for a while it would be nice to know it is being worked on and get glimpses.

I think its all good from a marketing persepctive. The only thing thats I see thats negative about early release information is giving that information to your competitors. Early features that are hyped 2 years before release can easly find their way into other games before your game releases. Making your game seem like shallow ripoff of some game that you inspired.

[steve]

The industry needs to move to the "give out less information about your game so players can discover things while they play" model. I hated writing previews because I find games so much more interesting when I know less about them going in... and I'd like to be surprised from time-to-time. (Imagine what it would be like playing Spore, thinking it was a game about growing creatures, and then discovering the whole "space strategy game" aspect on your own.)

That said, announce your game's existence about a year out, add a bit more info at about the six month mark, then market the fuck out of it for the last 6-8 weeks before release. You can't wait too long, because people need to budget for game releases... and you need to make sure they're going to pick your game instead of one released a week or two earlier or later.

But unless the industry moves to a very different promotional model all at once, it'll be hard to overcome the "ohmy, everyone knows more about Game X than ours because they're releasing a screenshot every week" type of fear. And that's what leads to blanket coverage of games that are a year or more away.

This is an even bigger problem today because there are sites tracking this kind of information and ranking games by "interest." If you're not in the Top X at all times, some people get really panicky. Once again, the tendency to reduce abstract concepts like "interest" or "quality" into a single, quantifiable number that can be compared to others does more to hurt than to help.

[Rod Humble]

Surely it's the Sims 99 and Simcity 6? (or did I miss a few of those?)


I picked silly high integers just on the exceedingly remote chance someone thought I was being serious :)

Btw really interesting answers everyone. As a player I just want it now, but as a game maker I have seen the power of a longer build. I still wish HL2 had shipped when it was originally announced it would (before the code leak pushed it out). I think that would have been a great test to see what happens when you do a short ramp with a massive title.

[greg wak]

All I know is that it's been hell waiting for more news about Dragon Age.

+1. I hate waiting for a game to come out when I really want to play it. Especially now when not much is being released.

[MattKeil]

(Imagine what it would be like playing Spore, thinking it was a game about growing creatures, and then discovering the whole "space strategy game" aspect on your own.)

This doesn't remotely make sense to me. Imagine how many sales they might have lost from people who would have been interested in that aspect of the game but never knew it was there. It's a mass-market entertainment medium, not Christmas morning.

[Shadarr]

I voted "1 month or less" but what I really want is post-release. All the information you get pre-release is worthless PR hype; GTA IV made that abundantly clear. I want to hear about games that are out and people are playing, to find out what's really good and bad. Having heard about Fallout 3 for years I will be far more disappointed if it sucks than if I hadn't heard anything prior to release, even if I don't play it.

[Pod]

I picked silly high integers just on the exceedingly remote chance someone thought I was being serious :)

Btw really interesting answers everyone. As a player I just want it now, but as a game maker I have seen the power of a longer build. I still wish HL2 had shipped when it was originally announced it would (before the code leak pushed it out). I think that would have been a great test to see what happens when you do a short ramp with a massive title.

Half life itself had a short ramp, didi it not?
Though it was hardly "a massive title". In my opinion, aside from the very first TF2, Valve usually get the "alert time" just right i.e., I didn't have a clue what the orange box was until about a month until its release..... but then again, I have my head in the sand.

[malkav11]

I think pre-release PR hype more often than not winds up being detrimental, anyway. Look at all the shit Fable took because it wasn't God's gift to the RPG genre like the previews made it out to be. Me? I went in knowing that it was a silly, light, fun little game and enjoyed what I played quite a bit.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Bill: Yeah I meant "hear about it at all". I didnt really put that much thought into the the poll, I should have added more options.

OK, well that was what I assumed when I answered.

[Disconnected]

DennyA made a point in another thread about how far out gamers like to hear about games. I find that a very interesting topic.

Personally I like to hear about a game the day it launches so I can go buy it, but DennyA makes a good point that for many gamers prehype about a game is very important.

How far ahead of launch do you like to hear about a new game?I'd like to be fairly well informed about games in development, so.. As early as possible, I guess.

On the other hand, I hate reading an interesting preview only to find out 2 months later it had absolutely no basis in the actual game, so.. No previews, please. They're nothing but misleading hype and a waste of time (and sometimes my money).

It'd be cool if the ads and the previews could be separate.

[intruder]

Personally I don't care how long in advance since I have a huge backlog and will buy games that interest me whenever they are out.

However I wonder if releasing some information about a work in project 1-2 years before is considered a "testing water" for some developers / publishers. So if the game receives a "meh. Same old." from the internet audience maybe it's still time to scratch it whereas 6 months before release most projects are too far to really by getting axed (amount of money spent on it)?
Any ideas about that?

[MikeSolita]

Anything longer than a year is just irritating. It's at the point now where most of the titles on my radar have been cooking for two to three years. Which is basically half a console's lifespan. Which is ridiculous.

A year of hype gives you plenty of time to build up interest, gauge whether it's something worth getting excited about, and obviously get into rampant flame wars on gaming boards to either hype the living hell out of it or make fun of people hyping tripe. That's half the fun of being a gamer right there. :P