[–] Disappointed 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Depends on the type of game and the budget of the developer. I'm much more forgiving of bugs in massive RPG's where you have ten thousand quest lines for example. What I don't like is this new trend of releasing unfinished games for sale on places like steam and calling it bullshit like early access. Often the games go for full price too.

[–] o0shad0o 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Also depends on whether the game in its broken form would spoil future game play.

[–] drakesdoom 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

If you are a small developer and you admit it isn't perfect and continue to work on it that's ok.

If you release it claiming it is perfect and everything you wanted, fuck off.

[–] Project2501 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I feel like there is an argument to be made about games that are broken, but have genuinely good fundamentals, for lack of a better term. I am talking like KOTOR 2 that was broken in the sense it was incomplete, or Fallout New Vegas, that was notoriously buggy on release, mods helped fix. The writing, the music, the characters, the underlying mechanics, etc, are all there. Just broken in some spots. But a broken game that bricks machines, that is completely unplayable, will stick with a developer, whereas no game is forgotten.

So I guess my answer is that on average, better to release a broken game, but a broken game has the potential to be worse.

[–] 2nddammit 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Excellent point. Some games (especially RPGs) are flawed on release, but developer or even user patches let the writing and/or mechanics shine. Then there are games that pretty much work properly on release, but the writing and/or mechanics just aren't good (cough::Bethesda::cough).

[–] Its_Just_A_Ride 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Depends, I guess. If its the same experience with a slightly lower frame rate, I say release it. But when you talk about all those alpha-release steam games, those are often scams that should never have been allowed to be marketed (sold) as a finished product.

[–] OniNoHanzo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It is worse to not release it at all. Sell a broken game on steam for 1 dollar and people will buy it just to get the playing cards to sell (which you get a cut of). If you are trying to be an honest publisher you do not want to be known for poor programming.

[–] sakuramboo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What do you mean by "behind other platforms?"

[–] AnxiousInfusion [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Missing non-essential features, graphical goodies, releasing months or years behind Mac and Windows. The usual.

[–] Men13 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Lower graphics / missing graphics "goodies", but it's the same game - as long as you are upfront about it, I'll buy it.

See civ 5 games for example.