Dont be a Witch - Launch the Game all over the world!

[12agnar0k]

The game releases 21st to the US.
And 24th world wide I believe.

It's a shame the US gets it 3 days early, their is no reason for this other than to maybe cut down the number of downloads coming in at one time.

Meh, i've waited months, 3 more days won't hurt too much.

 

[...behind you!]

I've seen it with a lot of games and I assume it has to do with the fact that games are mostly digitaly released? That's quite a lot of servers smoking if every country gets released on the same day. Even with regional releases the servers sometime slow down to a crawl, especially if it is a popular and large game.

 

[Dale]

Except that argument is bunk as Steam will allow pre-download and only unlock on release day. This avoids the day zero server squeeze.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Except that argument is bunk as Steam will allow pre-download and only unlock on release day. This avoids the day zero server squeeze.

Have you got a source for that info? It has not yet been confirmed the game can be downloaded before release, to my knowledge.

 

[Schuesseled]

Order it online and pay for shipping? Beats paying 2000 USD for a ticket...

Yes exactly, i wouldn't fly to the moon to pick up some mon rock, i'd have some requested from the next moon landing i wouldnt be paying for.

 

[lietkynes]

Exactly, just buy on steam.

He said he can't because his internet access is too slow.

 

[...behind you!]

Except that argument is bunk as Steam will allow pre-download and only unlock on release day. This avoids the day zero server squeeze.

That's not always the case and I have yet to see it confirmed for Civ V. I've seen several games released without pre-download and it isn't a pretty sight. I hope they will allow this, but so far I haven't heard a thing about it.

 

[CoolLizy]

That's not always the case and I have yet to see it confirmed for Civ V.

"This game will unlock in approximately 2 months, 1 week, 2 days and 4 hours" says Steam. Interpret it how you will.

 

[12agnar0k]

Unlocking means when you get to play it, it will remain locked i.e no install/play options in your library till the release day.
Not always but usually you will be able to pre-load the game prior to this date whereby you download 99% of the game, it saves you from spending all day waiting to download a 30GB file on release. The only reason this won't be allowed prior to release is if the game hasnt been finished yet, or someone doesn't want to release the data just yet.

 

[andrewlt]

Not every game sells as much as a Blizzard game, though. Worldwide releases aren't really feasible for most companies. There's a ton of stupid laws out there and if your market isn't big enough, there's no point in companies delaying their games elsewhere.

This argument never fails to come up with contests as well. Whenever a company like Blizzard announces one, some states like Maryland and New Mexico and provinces like Quebec, I think, always get excluded and people blame the company.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

21st in NORTH AMERICA, so the canadians get it to, maybe the Mexicans but i don't think they count as north america, the poor Hawaiians will have to wait three days. Also I assume y'all would be angry if I gloated about it when I get it on the 21st.

 

[deanej]

Having different release dates is archaic and unnecessary. A country shouldn't be able to say "you must release games on this day of the week". The retailers shouldn't even get to say that. The only person who should have that power is the publisher, and even then there is no good reason to release on different days.

As for steam being able to make stores go out of business if they sell cheaper, that's what's supposed to happen in a free market system. If you can't compete in the market, go die. But true free market capitalism hasn't existed for over a century now.

 

[CoolLizy]

As for steam being able to make stores go out of business if they sell cheaper, that's what's supposed to happen in a free market system. If you can't compete in the market, go die.

Alternatively...

1. Sell the game for less via digital distribution than in stores
2. All brick-and-mortar stores refuse to sell your game
3. You are only able to sell a fraction of what you were hoping for because you can't reach the legions of traditional brick-and-mortar customers
4. Lower Sales + Lower Price Per Unit = Lower Income
5. Realize you can't ever reach those traditional customers you shunned ever again because all the brick-and-mortar retailers they patronize refuse to sell any of your games now
6. Close down the studio that made the game because you couldn't make back its production and marketing budgets
7. Get voted out by a special meeting of the board of directors and shareholders

I'd say that's a plan for success.

 

[deanej]

The brick and mortar stores are exaggerating their fears. The infrastructure and culture just isn't ready for exclusive digital distribution. There are legions of people here who would prefer (and are willing to pay extra for) a boxed copy. Until recently, my Internet access at home was way too slow to download a game, and it's still on the slow side; at college, it's impossible (everyone shares the same cable connection). As for brick and mortar stores, abusing power by refusing to sell a game is against the free market because it makes it impossible for game developers to easily enter and leave the market at will (this is a requirement of a free market that nobody talks about).

 

[Shurdus]

The brick and mortar stores are exaggerating their fears. The infrastructure and culture just isn't ready for exclusive digital distribution. There are legions of people here who would prefer (and are willing to pay extra for) a boxed copy. Until recently, my Internet access at home was way too slow to download a game, and it's still on the slow side; at college, it's impossible (everyone shares the same cable connection). As for brick and mortar stores, abusing power by refusing to sell a game is against the free market because it makes it impossible for game developers to easily enter and leave the market at will (this is a requirement of a free market that nobody talks about).

They are free to enter the market. Just because stores have a position where they can make demands is a practical issue, not one that directly interferes with the principle of the free market.

Is it also not a principle of the free market that the B&M stores can make demands on what they keep in stock and what not? That can ask money and such for shelf space, and if a company is not willing to pay that, then you operate at a disadvantage.

 

[deanej]

Really? Free to enter the market?

By your logic, if I, a complete unknown, were to make a game and try to get it sold, I could easily get in the stores, and if the game is good, make a lot of money. But that doesn't happen in real life. So you can't enter the market at will, which is a requirement for a true free market (which has perfect competition).

A true free market also requires that someone easily leave the market. If EA or 2K were to leave the market, they can't without having a major impact on the market, so that isn't happening either.