Publishers and delaying games

I've just spent a bit of time reading State of Decay reviews and it got me thinking, why do publishers seem to rush sending games out? It's happened with ME: Andromeda/Sea of Thieves/No Man's Sky etc etc.

Are they too embarrassed to say 'You know what, let's just delay by 6 months, work a bit more and get things right?'. I guess there's probably underlying reasons that us people don't know regarding timeframes/budgets etc but surely it's worth waiting to get a better product?

Rockstar seem to do it regularly, and whilst I think how annoying it is, that passes after a very short time and then usually (key word here) we are treated to a more polished, complete game.

Costs money.

@goodzorr: It's defiantly better to hold off the game, than publish a unpolished turd. But I think its cause there under pressure from either stakeholders or even the masses. Homefront revolution is my prime example of this, Its an excellent game but due to a buggy release its did terrible. The gameplay is probably my favourite for an FPS.

@goodzorr: I don't think this reflects all games. Looking at some games I enjoy- Resident Evil 7, The Evil Within 2, Monster Hunter: World. They all got released less than a year after having official trailers. And while all these games had at least three years in development, rumor is Andromeda was in development for close to five years.

Delayed games are not always good as Duke Nukem Forever has taught many Gamers around the world.

What is needed; is a studio that has a realistic development plan, and sticks within those lines, and the Publishers to let stated developer work with as little outside influence as possible. Something both EA and Activision can't help themselves with.

Duke nukem's not a very good example, due to change of owner ship and game developers like 3 times. It came to the point where gearbox was like just let them have what we got. They had to publish due to the masses outrage over the amount of delays. it wasn't terrible but it wasn't great either.

@RSM-HQ: That's fair, I wasn't suggesting ALL games should delay, just maybe they need to do more in house testing before saying 'Yep, this is definitely ready for release.' It's a shame, because some have such good promise (like SoD2) and then I am immediately turned off from getting it. I'm glad I held off ME:A, it's now free on EA Access so instead of me wasting £40, I can play it for free. Which I did. And it was horrible haha.

Fair point. Don't really blame Gearbox for that one, more just the project itself. However; I'll use Mighty No. 9 then. A more practical example, heavily delayed, never reached expectations, not even close. Poor quality due to a lack of focus.

It's not that I don't see your point of view, one of my favorite games in recent years is Owlboy a game which spent a decade in development.

I just think with these bigger studios that plunder. Time isn't always the factor, but rather they're dipping in areas they have a lack or no experience in, handling funds poorly, and further team related issues. To delay further requires more funds, and if the developer is wasting those funds anyway it's a wasted investment.

ironic because anyone who follows Early Access trolls knows the favorite thing they like to say is

'why is it taking forever to release this game'