An argument to be made in favor of pre-orders?

[Semper]

PLEASE NOTE: THIS THREAD IS FOR GENUINE DISCUSSION, NOT TO START A FLAME/HATE WAR. KEEP REPLIES RESPECTFUL, OR I WILL SEE TO IT THAT YOUR POST IS REPORTED.

 

With the recent disastrous release of, yet another, very unpolished and unready PC port, something came to mind. I want to make it VERY clear that I have been adamantly against pre-orders for quite some time. I am guilty of a pre-order or two in my time, however the last time that has ever occurred for me was Call of Duty: World at War for the 360 (yes. I owned a console ). I have been an advocate against pre-ordering since then, however and was relieved when Totalbiscuit took it upon himself to make the initiative well known.

 

The aforementioned disaster that Warner Brothers has on their hands, currently (including their actions) has brought to light a thought from within me, and i'd like to see some insight from others. Does pre-ordering, or day-one purchasing potentially have a legitimately beneficial place in the world? Yes, I know what you're thinking, (and no, i'm not (completely) insane) but hear me out. Possibly look at it from a new angle. With valve's new refund policy, consumers have gained a very strong foothold in holding publishers responsible for their shortcomings. I'm sure, much like EA, with Battlefield 4 (Was Hardline any better?), Ubisoft, with nearly any title within the last five years, and many other publishers hoping to cash in on the hype of their game, Warner Brothers was hoping to laugh all the way to the bank knowing that (at least the PC version) the game was fundamentally broken. There is no argument to be made against this. The numbers were fudged, because problems like Arkham Knight is experiencing simply do not make it through QC/testing unless the numbers are... changed. What they got, however, was a VERY sullied reputation, and a VERY strong backlash from the PC community. With the ability to request a refund, many players have done so (to my understanding), which has let WB backpedaling, trying not to lose every last dollar they thought they had in the bank.

 

I feel that this has been a small victory for us, the consumers, in the war on receiving a polished product. Has pre-ordering pushed itself to a point that has turned against the very pockets with which it was designed to pad? With Arkham Knight being pulled, and focus having to be shifted to fixing what is essentially an unplayable mess, profit has been diminished because day-one and pre-order consumers pushed back, and exercised the ability that was recently better-implemented by Valve. WB has certainly lost revenue on this title as a result. They, much like Ubi, have also sullied their reputation.

 

Looking at it from that standpoint, is there an argument to be had in favor of pre-ordering now that we, the consumers, have a greater potential to hold publishers liable for their shortcomings directly? 

 

TL;DR: Are pre-orders more acceptable now that we can hold developers liable for their actions with valve's modified refund policy?

[Guest]

Just don't pre-order in the first place?

[Semper]

Just don't pre-order in the first place?

Did... you... even....read...?

[Guest]

Did... you... even....read...?

 

Yes. And there aren't any good things about pre-orders.

[Semper]

Yes. And there aren't any good things about pre-orders.

I believe there is an argument to be had against that. The simple fact is, is that offering pre-orders has negatively impacted Arkham Knight moreso than it has positively. Warner Brothers would, without a doubt, have been better off not taking pre-orders on this title. So, effectively, their practice has worked against them, and in favor of us.

[Leonard]

The only argument to be made in favor of a pre-order is that you are among the fist to get it and immediately after you are overwhelmed with the numerous arguments against pre-ordered games.

 

This has been so in the past, is so at present and will be so in the future. Since the time of the traveling sales man selling the "elixir of life" has it been so and even then after having the privilege to be among the first to get the "elixir of life" they realize they have been duped.

 

Pre-orders, in most cases, 99.99999% of the time is a bad idea.

[dragosudeki]

Still don't think pre-orders have any benefits. Developers/publishers are liable for their actions regardless of whether they implement a pre order system. Refund system is in place for people who don't understand the value of their money because they chose to pay for a incomplete game (That is what a preorder is regardless of how you look at it). They should be fine with their purchase, seeing as to how they chose to pay for a game in development anyways. The only difference now is that publishers/developers take advantage of early buyers and make them a part of their testing process.

 

Preorder = paying for a game in development, so it would make sense to let them suffer the experience of a game still in development. Not justifying broken releases, but you bought in knowing nothing about the end result anyway...

 

EDIT: I recently preordered Fallout 4, because I'm excited about what they showed. I'm prepared for any launch day problems because I feel like I will enjoy it anyway. I like what I see and made the choice to buy into what I have only seen and hopefully I will experience the fun.

[Trik'Stari]

I believe there is an argument to be had against that. The simple fact is, is that offering pre-orders has negatively impacted Arkham Knight moreso than it has positively. Warner Brothers would, without a doubt, have been better off not taking pre-orders on this title. So, effectively, their practice has worked against them, and in favor of us.

Not really. If they hadn't accepted pre-orders, people would still have bought it, still been angry, and still returned it.

 

Stop pre-ordering. It does nothing but harm the industry.

[Semper]

Not really. If they hadn't accepted pre-orders, people would still have bought it, still been angry, and still returned it.

 

Stop pre-ordering. It does nothing but harm the industry.

I won't deny this, however, as I said, has the practice of pre-ording turned against the company it was intended to profit?

I'm sure that someone high up gave the OK to pass the port through QC and "patch it after release", not expecting the backlash that they got.

 

Obviously that didn't work in their favor. WB was held responsible for fast-tracking the unfinished mess that we got, and it has cost them revenue. from a business standpoint, a business having the goal of getting as large a return as you can, for as little investment as possible (I.E. make profit), the act of offering pre-orders and delivering an unfinished product has worked against them.

 

I'm by no means a Business guru... but I do know that common sense tells me that if something backfires like this, next time, you do something different. You can make the argument that disastrous pre-order launches could push for what not pre-ordering aims to do. Having to invest more money into your product arguably has more of an impact than "losing" a pre-order.

[MEC-777]

@Semper

 

IMO, not pre-ordering and then having people find out after release that the game is junk is just as effective as having a ton of people ask for refunds, because those people will not have given the company a dime in the first place. 

 

Lack of sales or refunds. Both ways, the company is losing money because they made a craptastic game. I would actually argue that not pre-ordering is more effective and causes the company to lose more money, because some people who did pre-order will keep the game in the hopes it will be fixed via patches, where as those who didn't buy it will hold off until the game has actually been fixed. 

 

Not pre-ordering just saves a lot of headaches, for the customer and seller, for not having to deal with the mountain of refunds.  

[Semper]

@Semper

 

IMO, not pre-ordering and then having people find out after release that the game is junk is just as effective as having a ton of people ask for refunds, because those people will not have given the company a dime in the first place. 

 

Lack of sales or refunds. Both ways, the company is losing money because they made a craptastic game. I would actually argue that not pre-ordering is more effective and causes the company to lose more money, because some people who did pre-order will keep the game in the hopes it will be fixed via patches, where as those who didn't buy it will hold off until the game has actually been fixed. 

 

Not pre-ordering just saves a lot of headaches, for the customer and seller, for not having to deal with the mountain of refunds.  

I'll be the first to tell you that I've come to despise the birth of pre-ordering. as I said, I have been responsible of it in the past, thanks to Gamestop's "enticing" pre-orders (though, truth be told, the few titles that I have picked up on pre-order were going to be titles I picked up anyway, as they were titles that allowed me to connect to my younger cousins who lived out of state at the time.)

 

Perhaps what i'm getting at is this: Since pre-orders exist... and don't look to be going away any time soon for that matter... could embracing the practice and fighting back the way that has happened with Arkham Knight, a potentially viable alternative to fighting pre-orders? These may be the ramblings of a delusional man, as i've been awake for near 38 hours now, however my thought process in creating this topic went something like this: The simple act of offering pre-orders has negatively impacted the revenue that Arkham Knight could have had. Not only have resources had to be dedicated to shifting focus to fixing the game, but (assumedly) resources are also being expended in dealing with the refunds.

 

Yes, some people will keep the game in hopes that it will get better, and it likely will, but how many customers have they lost because the game was so broken at launch, and consumers were able to request a refund?

I didn't pre-order, or day-one purchase the title. I've had my eye on in, but I still maintain my stance of not pre-ordering. based off of this disastrous launch, i'll likely not be a paying customer for quite some time, either, if at all.

 

We live in a world where games have become so complex that it's simply not feasible, or realistically logical to be expected that a game will be shipped 100% bug free. Someone, somewhere, for some reason will find something in the game that wasn't intended. Launches like this, however, where the game works less than it doesn't work are simply unacceptable. What I believe has always been the goal of the stop-pre-ordering initiative, is to get games, our hobby, and industry for some, released in such a state that releasing a game that has no game-breaking bugs is more important than the bottom line, or a release date (in my opinion, launch dates shouldn't be given until a game has released aforementioned stable point). The ability to patch games was a revolution.... but it was used improperly abused. It should have always have been the intent for patching to fix minor bugs, make tweaks to balance, add features, and the similar, not make it viable to launch a broken game.

[slightlyjaded]

While preordering (and kickstarter...same thing if you think about it) Has it's place in the modern world, it's very much in favour of the developer, especially with early acess/indie games (more on that later)

 

With a AAA title from a major studio, their markup is always going to be better with console games, while they still have to pay a portion to the console companies themselves, they make more money on the sales with a larger player base. After all does anyone have a computer capable of playing arkham knight? That PS4 is a beast of a machine /s.

 

For a company the slightly lesser money made with presale discounts is more than offset but streamlining it's distribution.....You didn't get the latest AAA title on release from your local store? well you should have pre-ordered it. not our fault we gave you plenty of warning, we have to restock, and we'll put you on the list for new copies...would you like to leave a deposit? Therte is one more advantage to companies with pre-orders that most don't consider....Pre-orders are day-1 sales, and as such are reported in the shareholders meeting, making company execs look far better to their bosses, so what if they had to refund 90% of the sales, they had the most successful day-1 sale ever....

 

With indie companies there is a different advantage, and the reason so many go on early access. These are companies that will struggle with cashflow problems, and the money from pre-orders/early access might actually be the difference between the game getting finished, and released before it should be cause they can't afford to delay. Also the extra cash can be used for advertising, giving them a wider release base. Of course like in the case of spintires it might pay for the publishers brand new lambo before he runs away with all the money.

 

While I don't support pre-orders they will always be a judgement call. Star citizen never would have been made without pre-orders. Shen mue on the other hand will never be made just on the kickstarter backing, and it's another case of a major studio using kickstarter to gauge consumer interest before they put their checkbooks on the line. Kickstarter backers are never going to get a piece of the pie, no matter how much they invest, and as such are just going to get screwed, no matter how awesome the game winds up being.

 

In the end it comes down to trust. If I ever pre-order a ubisoft game it'll be a decade down the road after a dozen back to back games that work on release, and I won't forget the past few years. Someone like CDProjektRED, who have a history of caring about their reputation, I might give the benifit of the doubt.

[MEC-777]

-snip-

 

There are two game I pre-ordered within the last year. Assetto Corsa and GTA V. 

 

Assetto Corsa was early-access, so people could play it before hand and see if it was good. The feedback on it was overwhelmingly positive and me, being a racing sim junkie, I bought into it (on sale, mind you) only after reading feedback and knowing it was good, even at this early stage. It has since been released, has had multiple content and improvement updates and I have no regrets buying into it.

 

GTA V was more of a risk, but again, there was some thought put into my decision. 1) A bunch of my friends also pre-ordered, and 2) Rockstar had spent a significant amount of time on perfecting the port to PC, several times pushing it back until it was done right. This gave me the impression they really cared about the PC version and wanted to make sure it would be good. Still a risk, but less of a risk than other games, IMO. I bought it a few days before launch (again, on sale) so I could pre-download it and play on day one. That turned out to be a great game. 

 

My point is, these are the only two I've pre-ordered and I did so with some good reasons and knowledge prior to jumping in. I really wanted to pre-order The Witcher 3, but I held off until a week or so after launch. There was no prior indication of how this game would run on PC so I didn't risk it. I also wanted to wait for it to go on sale. (GMG sales ftw! )

 

So IMO, it all depends on the game, the situation and how much we know about the game before launch. If very little is actually known, then I would say DO NOT pre-order.  

 

If people pre-order a game and it turns out to be junk, some will want a refund and some will keep it. If nobody pre-orders and it turns out to be junk, some will still buy on day one, but more people would not buy the game at all. This would result in a greater loss to the company and be more effective at showing them their game sucks. 

 

I think people need to be better educated on what they're spending their money on. Pre-ordering can make sense, but only in the right situation and when you know a lot more about the game beforehand. If we really have no idea how a game will run on PC, then nobody should pre-order, IMO. 

[Briggsy]

pre-ordering makes sense when there is limited quantities of a product to begin with, and you want to make sure you get something day one. For certain products -like new game consoles- it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, where there are millions available day 1, but because everyone is pre-ordering, you have to pre-order just to have a chance. 

 

One heinous practice that isn't solved is pre-order bonuses. Publishers are still going to offer them, and who knows, they might try to add in some clause that prevents refunds if a bonus is tied to your account (simply by launching the game for example). Companies make far too much coin on pre-orders to give them up, and I'm sure they will find a way around the refund policy of steam, instead of fixing their sh** before they push the launch of a game.

[sqwidee]

I only preorder Atlus or Nintendo games because, unlike the rest of the industry, their games work at launch.

 

I'm still unlikely to ever preorder AAA games or PC games because they're stupidly expensive and you can get shafted by a bad port. At least you can refund now.

 

I still don't like the idea of preorders in 99% of cases. I only preorder from devs that I trust. In any other case I just wait until after launch so people can get baited before I do and I'll just check reviews before buying.

[Guest]

TL;DR 

 

Only good point i can come up with, is freebies. 

 

Other than that, there's really no need to pre-order... Physical copies? Meh, i mean if it's a massive blockbuster game then i guess you're the first to have and avoid queuing in-case it goes out of stock; even then though it's likely it'll be a day before it's back in stock. 

[MEC-777]

pre-ordering makes sense when there is limited quantities of a product to begin with, and you want to make sure you get something day one. For certain products -like new game consoles- it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, where there are millions available day 1, but because everyone is pre-ordering, you have to pre-order just to have a chance. 

 

One heinous practice that isn't solved is pre-order bonuses. Publishers are still going to offer them, and who knows, they might try to add in some clause that prevents refunds if a bonus is tied to your account (simply by launching the game for example). Companies make far too much coin on pre-orders to give them up, and I'm sure they will find a way around the refund policy of steam, instead of fixing their sh** before they push the launch of a game.

 

A console is very different from a game. One is physical and the other is digital. There is typically no limit on how many digital copies of a game they can sell, so there's no risk of not getting one on day one or later.

 

Pre-ordering a console, I can understand. However, on that same token, I would still hold off until in-depth reviews of said console have surfaced to give us a better idea of what you're getting for your hard-earned dollars.  

 

The pre-order bonus bs needs to stop. If people stop pre-ordering, they will stop with the bonuses. But, people will not stop pre-ordering, unfortunately. And as long as people keep pre-ordering, we will keep seeing unfinished, half-baked games on release day.  :mellow:

[Semper]

While preordering (and kickstarter...same thing if you think about it) Has it's place in the modern world, it's very much in favour of the developer, especially with early acess/indie games (more on that later)

 

With a AAA title from a major studio, their markup is always going to be better with console games, while they still have to pay a portion to the console companies themselves, they make more money on the sales with a larger player base. After all does anyone have a computer capable of playing arkham knight? That PS4 is a beast of a machine /s.

 

For a company the slightly lesser money made with presale discounts is more than offset but streamlining it's distribution.....You didn't get the latest AAA title on release from your local store? well you should have pre-ordered it. not our fault we gave you plenty of warning, we have to restock, and we'll put you on the list for new copies...would you like to leave a deposit? Therte is one more advantage to companies with pre-orders that most don't consider....Pre-orders are day-1 sales, and as such are reported in the shareholders meeting, making company execs look far better to their bosses, so what if they had to refund 90% of the sales, they had the most successful day-1 sale ever....

 

With indie companies there is a different advantage, and the reason so many go on early access. These are companies that will struggle with cashflow problems, and the money from pre-orders/early access might actually be the difference between the game getting finished, and released before it should be cause they can't afford to delay. Also the extra cash can be used for advertising, giving them a wider release base. Of course like in the case of spintires it might pay for the publishers brand new lambo before he runs away with all the money.

 

While I don't support pre-orders they will always be a judgement call. Star citizen never would have been made without pre-orders. Shen mue on the other hand will never be made just on the kickstarter backing, and it's another case of a major studio using kickstarter to gauge consumer interest before they put their checkbooks on the line. Kickstarter backers are never going to get a piece of the pie, no matter how much they invest, and as such are just going to get screwed, no matter how awesome the game winds up being.

 

In the end it comes down to trust. If I ever pre-order a ubisoft game it'll be a decade down the road after a dozen back to back games that work on release, and I won't forget the past few years. Someone like CDProjektRED, who have a history of caring about their reputation, I might give the benifit of the doubt.

I never took th the whole crowdfunding system. I've never been a fan of it simply for this fact. That said, I don't know a whole lot about it, are you even guaranteed some form of a final product?

 

AS I said, i'm not a business guru, I don't know the first thing about prospective outlooks, shareholders, etc... but one has to assume that the mass exodus of profit from refunds surely has a negative impact on that positive outlook, no?

 

I am all for supporting the indie developer, but at the same time, I am also wary. I suppose if you include early access games in the presale list, I fully back a title called 7 days to die. It is VERY broken. It's had builds that were stable, some that were fairly buggy, and some that simply aren't playable, but it's a title i've enjoyed none the less, shows great promise, and has already given me my money's worth of entertainment at this point, which is still in alpha. Minecraft was the same way. I adopted it in early alpha as I was a fan of what was going on, what was available, and the plans it had. These are the only two "early access" titles i've ever taken a bite of. Star Citizen is another example of this. essentially, by buying the packages or ships, or whatever it is they sell (I don't know much about the game as flight sims aren't a genre I can play as they give me massive headaches) is essentially receiving a gift for funding the game. So far as I understand, SC is an incredibly ambitious project, but it has give it's audience tangible sustenance of the final plan.

 

There are two game I pre-ordered within the last year. Assetto Corsa and GTA V. 

 

Assetto Corsa was early-access, so people could play it before hand and see if it was good. The feedback on it was overwhelmingly positive and me, being a racing sim junkie, I bought into it (on sale, mind you) only after reading feedback and knowing it was good, even at this early stage. It has since been released, has had multiple content and improvement updates and I have no regrets buying into it.

 

GTA V was more of a risk, but again, there was some thought put into my decision. 1) A bunch of my friends also pre-ordered, and 2) Rockstar had spent a significant amount of time on perfecting the port to PC, several times pushing it back until it was done right. This gave me the impression they really cared about the PC version and wanted to make sure it would be good. Still a risk, but less of a risk than other games, IMO. I bought it a few days before launch (again, on sale) so I could pre-download it and play on day one. That turned out to be a great game. 

 

My point is, these are the only two I've pre-ordered and I did so with some good reasons and knowledge prior to jumping in. I really wanted to pre-order The Witcher 3, but I held off until a week or so after launch. There was no prior indication of how this game would run on PC so I didn't risk it. I also wanted to wait for it to go on sale. (GMG sales ftw! )

 

So IMO, it all depends on the game, the situation and how much we know about the game before launch. If very little is actually known, then I would say DO NOT pre-order.  

 

If people pre-order a game and it turns out to be junk, some will want a refund and some will keep it. If nobody pre-orders and it turns out to be junk, some will still buy on day one, but more people would not buy the game at all. This would result in a greater loss to the company and be more effective at showing them their game sucks. 

 

I think people need to be better educated on what they're spending their money on. Pre-ordering can make sense, but only in the right situation and when you know a lot more about the game beforehand. If we really have no idea how a game will run on PC, then nobody should pre-order, IMO. 

Better educating consumers on what they're buying is what the whole fighting pre-orders initiative is about. you literally have no idea as to what you're purchasing. Be it from a reputable publisher/developer, a no-name indie, or anything inbetween.

 

My stance here, either way you look at it is to either rid the industry of pre-sales or significantly alter the way publishers approach them. The incentives essentially are paywalls that block sensible consumers from some content, be it time constraints, or availability (Such as the way with GTA on PC, and the cash pre-order bonus giving you a potential advantage early game, timed exclusives where pre-orders might get to play "x" map or "Y" level early, or get "Z" item faster/sooner gain an (potential) advantage over others. or in the case of pre-order exclusives, you are denied access to a piece of content that was developed pre-launch, and your purchase supports part of that development)

[Paralectic]

Unless it's a big price reductions I don't see any reason to.

[slightlyjaded]

I never took th the whole crowdfunding system. I've never been a fan of it simply for this fact. That said, I don't know a whole lot about it, are you even guaranteed some form of a final product?

 

AS I said, i'm not a business guru, I don't know the first thing about prospective outlooks, shareholders, etc... but one has to assume that the mass exodus of profit from refunds surely has a negative impact on that positive outlook, no?

 

I am all for supporting the indie developer, but at the same time, I am also wary. I suppose if you include early access games in the presale list, I fully back a title called 7 days to die. It is VERY broken. It's had builds that were stable, some that were fairly buggy, and some that simply aren't playable, but it's a title i've enjoyed none the less, shows great promise, and has already given me my money's worth of entertainment at this point, which is still in alpha. Minecraft was the same way. I adopted it in early alpha as I was a fan of what was going on, what was available, and the plans it had. These are the only two "early access" titles i've ever taken a bite of. Star Citizen is another example of this. essentially, by buying the packages or ships, or whatever it is they sell (I don't know much about the game as flight sims aren't a genre I can play as they give me massive headaches) is essentially receiving a gift for funding the game. So far as I understand, SC is an incredibly ambitious project, but it has give it's audience tangible sustenance of the final plan.

 

Sorry, damn grammar. With shen mue, that 2 million or so they're trying to raise is just to gauge interest, and I'm sure some backer levels do include a finished version of the game. However the studio will provide the rest of the money, and pocket ALL of the profit.

 

Star citizen is a different idea. Almost all of the money is coming from kickstarter, and honestly I don't begrudge RSI from pocketing the profits, as they're doing this in large part as fan service to all of us who loved wing commander/privateer........................ Different situations.

 

With the day one reporting/refund scene. I'm not suggesting a CEO would lie to his shareholders, but I'm open to the idea that he might report certain facts a little later than others....especially after they've been assigned any quarterly/ end of year bonus.

 

RSI (star citizen) is one end of the indie spectrum, and trust me, despite the names involved they are an indie studio ATM, they have no one except their fans backing them (it's just a lot of fans) Spintires is the other end. A good game, with a passionate developer....However, the money went direct to the publisher who was supposed to forward the money on. As far as I can see shortly after the publisher shut up shop, and did a runner with all of the money from the early access rollout, the developer released the latest build and called it quits. (I don't play the game, but was following it up till this happened, anyone know if it's been updated since?) This is an abandoned title, that was just released as is, because the dev through no fault of their own ran out of money.

[Trik'Stari]

I won't deny this, however, as I said, has the practice of pre-ording turned against the company it was intended to profit?

I'm sure that someone high up gave the OK to pass the port through QC and "patch it after release", not expecting the backlash that they got.

 

Obviously that didn't work in their favor. WB was held responsible for fast-tracking the unfinished mess that we got, and it has cost them revenue. from a business standpoint, a business having the goal of getting as large a return as you can, for as little investment as possible (I.E. make profit), the act of offering pre-orders and delivering an unfinished product has worked against them.

 

I'm by no means a Business guru... but I do know that common sense tells me that if something backfires like this, next time, you do something different. You can make the argument that disastrous pre-order launches could push for what not pre-ordering aims to do. Having to invest more money into your product arguably has more of an impact than "losing" a pre-order.

Not really. The end result is the same either way.

[MEC-777]

Would just like to note that there is a difference between "blind" pre-ordering and early-access. If Early access is available, I wouldn't necessarily suggest people go buy it so they can play it early (there is always the risk the dev will grab the cash and run as has happened a number of times) but rather use the early-access feedback from others to better judge whether you think you'll really enjoy the game of not. If an early access game is cheap enough, it can be worth it, but that will be up to the individual to decide. 

 

But ultimately I still say; don't pre-order and don't buy early access unless you know enough about it to make the right decision. As it stands, there is FAR too much of this "blind" pre-ordering going on and that's what needs to stop.

[MEC-777]

Not really. The end result is the same either way.

 

Pretty much. Tons of refunds or just plain lack of sales. Either way, they're losing money. 

[Trik'Stari]

Pretty much. Tons of refunds or just plain lack of sales. Either way, they're losing money. 

Yep. I think what he's suggesting is that the number of pre-orders encouraged them to release a broken port. What really should happen, is that companies should view the pre-orders as sales, and say "well, we're making money now, lets slow down and make sure we do a good job.

 

Then again, I'm one of those weird people that thinks business should be about common sense and offering a good product/service to make money, not lies and profit margins. One of the many reasons that if I ever owned a business, I would NEVER go public and end up with shareholders. They just ruin everything.

[LamboLaddy]

Yep. I think what he's suggesting is that the number of pre-orders encouraged them to release a broken port. What really should happen, is that companies should view the pre-orders as sales, and say "well, we're making money now, lets slow down and make sure we do a good job.

 

Then again, I'm one of those weird people that thinks business should be about common sense and offering a good product/service to make money, not lies and profit margins. One of the many reasons that if I ever owned a business, I would NEVER go public and end up with shareholders. They just ruin everything.

I know a lot of people who pre ordered GTA V, and boy, were they mad when it kept getting delayed again and again, but I didn't hear them complaining when the game came out and ran freakin great on pretty much any hardware setup day 1.

I think there can be something said about pre ordering when the company behind the game is reputable, Ubi, EA, Activision/Blizzard and WB are all in our doghouse right now due to their money grubbing, but I don't think I'd be alone in saying that companies like Valve, Bethesda (wow, those are the only two off the top of my head) that consumers still have enough faith in to put a bit of cash up in the air.

 

I know I'm guilty of pre ordering both the Steam version of Fallout 4 and the PipBoy edition for a PS4 I don't even own.