• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Perfect Dark Zero Not So Perfect?

by Chris Remo, Nov 17, 2005 2:25pm PST
Related Topics – Bungie, Bethesda

In what appears to be an unusual manufacturing tactic for Xbox/Xbox 360 software, Microsoft allowed Rare's Perfect Dark Zero (X360) to enter production about a week before the game actually passed certification. Console manufacturers require officially-licensed titles (that is, any of the games you'll see on store shelves) to undergo a certification process before the retail copies are pressed. This consists of various quality assurance phases, and is a process that can take weeks. However, it seems that development of Perfect Dark Zero, which has a lot to live up to as the sequel to Rare's widely-loved N64 shooter Perfect Dark, was simply cutting it too close to launch, and Microsoft decided to allow 700,000 final copies of the game to be made before it was actually certified.

When asked about the risks involved he said, "If the certification had not passed, we would have had hundreds of thousands of disks on our hands. It was us taking a risk to get the game there day one and there for launch." He said, "Typically you can take upwards of 12 to 14 days to go through certification. In this case we didn't have the time, so we said 'go for it'."
Various titles previously expected for the system's launch, such as Team NINJA's Dead or Alive 4 (X360) and Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (X360, PC), have been delayed, which makes Perfect Dark Zero's rush to market a bit surprising. Microsoft claims that the after-the-fact certification process was held to the same standards as it would have been in a more normal scenario. Given that Perfect Dark Zero is being published by Microsoft Game Studios and was developed by a Microsoft-owned studio, however, it's hard not to speculate that the completely internally produced game wasn't given some leeway. After all, Microsoft has been spending an incredible amount of money on the 360's launch, with what surely must be more free consoles thrown around than have ever been officially thrown around before, and software sales are going to be a big part of making that money back. Having to simply write off 700,000 worthless copies of a game seems like a risk that might have been perhaps a bit too risky. There's also the question of precedent. Of course, a console only launches once, so this situation may prove to be unique. Traditionally, consoles are seen as having less of the "ship it now, patch it later" mentality that can sometimes plague PC gaming. In that light, moves like this are slightly worrying. The 360 may not launch again, but Microsoft will certainly have more big launches within the system's life cycle. Surely, many remember the set-in-stone Halo 2 launch date brouhaha that Microsoft's Peter Moore immortalized with a (temporary) tattoo on his arm, and many have claimed that the game would have been much better served with some more development time, not an allegiance to that date--including many actual Bungie team members, if you watch the documentary on the game's development.


Read all the News


Comments

31 Threads | 182 Comments*
  • #179
    Refresh Thread
    By: agsilva x
    Reply
    Chris just meant that rushing things to meet marketing deadlines is bad for games and gamers, if not also potentially bad for business. Of course, many games have suffered sales-wise by missing their window of opportunity too. So there is that consideration to the overall health of the industry. He just chose to use a somewhat sensationalist headline to get attention as most media are wont to do. ;)

    Fact is we don't know what this really means for the quality of PD0 until it hits the marketplace. Maybe something slipped through that wouldn't have otherwise, maybe not. Only time will tell. I tend to think that nothing will come of this, but that doesn't make Chris's point any less valid. Pushing things out the door is not healthy, on the whole, for the games or gamers.
    Nov 18, 2005 6:14am PST
  • #126
    Refresh Thread
    By: armybob x
    Reply
    I'm suprised they took the risk but then again I have no idea how much it costs to manufacture 700k DVDs. Assuming it's a lot I guess they figured they trade off on getting it on launch wsa better then the cost loss associated with trashing the DVDs. I'm suprised becuase personally I figure just waiting a couple weeks or even a couple months doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things when the system itself will last 5 years and even if it shipped if Dec/Jan/Feb it still be way before the Revo/PS3.

    Then again i've seen people totally write off the entire console forever based off the launch titles alone (which I don't understand) so maybe i'm wrong.

    I'd be curious what the cost is assocated to manufacturing 700k DVDs though


    Nov 17, 2005 5:14pm PST
  • #118
    Refresh Thread
    By: bagofmice x
    Reply
    Chris, there are several misunderstandings about how this whole thing works implied in the article.

    First of all, why DOA 4 would get punted while a first person title would take this risk.

    By pre-duplicating, MS was taking a risk. However it was only possible because MS is the publisher AND the developer. MS needed this title on launch, and the only way it would hapen is if they started pressing now AND passed cert. It looks like they pulled it off. Team Ninja can't quite do this because if the cert fails, who winds up eating the duplication cost? MS for allowing it, or Team Ninja for not passing the Cert? That's a thorny question and one that is resolved by punting the release date.

    It's not that the cert process was given extra leeway, but more like MS took a gamble and won because the question of who would eat the loss was settled.

    And of course this has nothing to do with the ship-it-now-patch-it-later syndrome, but rather MS's notorious drive for shipping products. You don't make any destabilizing changes late in the game unless you absolutely have to. With an impending console deadline, you cut any features that are too buggy and you polish what's left with the time you gained from the cut features. PC games don't cut features so easily because of the patching syndrom. With read only media you don't really have that option.
    Nov 17, 2005 4:56pm PST