- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 11,489
- Location
- The 90's
- NNID
- staindgrey
- 3DS FC
- 0130-1865-3216
- Switch FC
- SW 1248 1677 4696
Cutting corners on launch is bad for the very simple reason that consumers aren't always in the know. If a player buys every Smash game up until this one, and suddenly this one has less modes/characters/extras/etc., and just feels like a much smaller product than past iterations, they're likely to sell their copy and tell their friends not to bother. Online reactions to anything negative are quick and fierce. Why would you pay a full $60 for an unfinished product?Was SFV fully bugtested and functional on launch? I'm not sure. What was the blunder exactly? Was it the lack of single player? Well in that case, just have a few characters on launch with the single player adventure mode intact and work through the characters as free DLC over the months in order to increase hype. Obviously they can't do that now since we know literally every character that will return in the game, but in a hypothetical Smash 6, I can see this working out fine.
Just because SFV did something bad doesn't mean the idea of cutting corners in game launch is bad.
SFV nearly failed due to a multitude of reasons, including a lack of various modes, small cast, mediocre netcode, and a starting screen with a whole bunch of "coming soon" grayed out options on the homescreen. They released it unfinished so that it could be at EVO that year, and while competitors used it and it played well, casual players gave it terrible reviews and refunded their copies. It wasn't until the second season of DLC, when they finally added a single player campaign and arcade mode, fixed online play, majorly expanded the cast, etc., that people actually started playing it again.
But the point is, people are impatient, and "this game isn't finished yet but it will be later, we promise" isn't a great business tactic for anything but Early Access games.