[FussyZeus]

I agree, and as a consumer of games I find crunch stupid and unnecessary. If a game needs another week just DELAY IT A WEEK. This idea that once marketing sets a date of completion that it's a total must-make is complete nonsense.

[ludamad]

Except it isn't. An entire company could be jeopardized for missing eg a holiday deadline.

[FussyZeus]

That's quite possibly true now, though I'd argue that is largely because game publishers killed the goose that laid the golden egg by shipping tons of totally broken games and ruining the idea of pre-ordering. Likewise I think that process could be reversed by showing fans that the company brass actually gives a damn about their product enough to delay it when it needs more time.

Nintendo is a fantastic example of this, I would say this happens to a good chunk of their titles, Zelda especially. Yes it's always a bummer, but Nintendo also hasn't had an Arkham City or a Division where the game comes out half finished, full of bugs, with the promise of "we'll patch it later."

[ry_ry]

On the other hand, Star Citizen.

It's wild profits undermine my point slightly, granted, but games like duke nukem forever suffered hugely from When It's Ready, poor expectation management, and final products ultimately not living upto the hype.

[FussyZeus]

Duke Nukem wasn't a case of crunch though, it was a case of severe mismanagement and lack of any real direction. Crunch would not have saved it. The vast majority of titles given a delay of two weeks or even a month or two in extreme cases would not undermine sales.