Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Delayed By Half A Year

Square Enix and Eidos-Montreal have announced this morning that they won't be compromising on quality. So in accordance with that, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is getting a delay.

A really big delay. Six months, to be exact.

In a post on their site, Eidos-Montreal said that in order to overcome the weight of expectations — both internal and external — for Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, the studio would be delaying the release of the open-world cyberpunk shooter to August 23.

"We’re confident and proud of the game so far. However, as we are now playing through the game in full we can see that it will require more time in post-production for tuning, iterations, and refinement to meet our high standards," studio head David Anfossi said. "In order to achieve this, we need to move the release of the game to August 23rd, 2016."

The last time I remember a game getting delayed by half a year was Watch Dogs. That doesn't mean Mankind Divided will be as sterile on release as Ubi's open-world hackathon was, but geez. Six months. That's an awfully long time.


Comments

    Happy to wait. Long as it's as good has DE: HR or better.

      Also happy to wait as long as it's bug-free and a complete game

    Watch dogs is one delayed game. Most Nintendo games also get shifted back and it doesn't tend to hurt their quality....

      Their “AAA” games get pushed back/ vanish, but these days they just release their other games polished but with watered down content.

      Eg. Splatoon launched with barely any content, Mario Level Maker without a game attached, Animal Crossing without 2/3rds of an Animal Crossing Game. IGN reviewed two WiiU First party games this morning (Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival and Mario Tennis) and gave them 5/10 and 4.8/10 respectively.

      They USED to push stuff back and release great games.

        This is why the idea of the NX being a hybrid is a good one - their teams are being spread too thinly trying to be the sole software provider for two systems

          That’s a very good point.

          It’ll be up to them to ensure that the games can compete with the other consoles in the home space though, which is where I have my doubts.

          If portability is sacrificed in favour of home console functionality, and they don’t make AAA games that a least occasionally make you want to play them at home instead of Xbone/ PS4 titles then it runs the risk of becoming a Frankenstein’s monster that pleases nobody.

          I love my 3DS, but it’s almost to the point now where Nintendo don’t even compete in the AAA home-title space. Everything’s a minor iteration from console to console, only releasing one title a generation for most franchises.

          I mean you can see the beating heart of a 17 year old OOT still at the centre of every AAA Zelda game, while other consoles are pumping out action RPG’s like the Witcher 3….. you can’t blame them for bailing on Zelda when you’ve got an expectation that it’ll be a 95%+ title, released 18 months after the Witcher and on old hardware. They just can’t hang in that space anymore.

            Yeah I bailed after the GameCube, when I played Grand Theft Auto for the first time I decided Nintendo was no longer the gatekeeper of the best game experiences

              Hehe, man you’re harsh!

              They released a couple (literally a couple) of very good games on the Wii, specifically Mario Galaxy and….. Mario Galaxy 2?
              Everything else was so close to formula that I had trouble getting really excited about it.

              This generation…. man the WiiU is devoid of new, expansive ideas.

                I actually have Mario Gakaxy now because a friend was getting rid of her Wii and I put my hand up (Wii for free as it were) but I think in the N64 era you could look at the 64 see a tonne of quality games then look at the PlayStation and see a tonne of crap (don't get me wrong PS1 had some great games but you had to wade through the flotsam.

                With the GameCube though there were great games but when you saw what companies were bringing out on PS2 and Xbox you knew you could no longer just get a Nintendo and ignore everything else

                When the Wii rolled around the divide between Nintendo and everything else seemed to deepen I waited till 2009 to decide on a 7th gen console but Wii's focus on simple games made the decision a lot easier

    If it prevents another Batman style debacle, then I'm all for it.
    6 months for tuning though is a long time, sounds like the problems could be a little deeper than that.

      Batman got a delay of 8 months before it launched in that state...

    One half of me is thinking: "Great, half a year to iron out all the bugs".
    The other half of me is thinking: "Great, half a year for them to program in all that Day 1 DLC while ignoring the rest of the game"

    Perhaps they will use this time to come up with a new and improved pre-order campaign.

    Can we please get into the habit of not announcing a game or at the very least its release date until like a month before it's done? Seems like it's the exception rather than the rule these days that games come out on their scheduled release date.

    Having said that, if the extra 6 months means a polished, well-oiled machine on launch that manages to out perform Human Revolution in mechanics and story, so be it.

      If you suggested a one month release window on the games industry the marketers would kill you.

      Nothing wrong with long announcement (or a short announcement-to-release thing like Fallout), both strategies work. And I think they were trying to hit their original release in good faith.

    Better, more finished games > rushed releases.

    Companies really should just announce a date when they go gold. I'd like that.

    I'm happy this has moved away from Mirror's Edge and Uncharted 4. Probably has made it more likely as a day-one purchase.

    It's either this, or they release a buggy mess a la AC: Unity/Arkham knight.

    I'd much rather wait. As for announcing a date, only to change it later, it's not like they announced that initial date knowing they'd have to shift it later. What would they have to gain from that? As someone said earlier, that first date would of been in good faith.

    Last edited 19/11/15 1:34 pm

    oh well. i am always happy to wait if it results in a better product.

    also i don't know if anyone has been paying attention but it is raining fantastic games at the moment, it will take me the 6 months to get through all the good games that are out right now.

    Call me a cynic but I can't help but feel that this sort of thing is becoming intentional.

    Announce unachievable release date -> Delay it, saying you "need time to perfect it" -> bathe in the praise of fans happy that you're not going to rush it out the door.

    I'm glad. Doesn't matter how good the game is any extra time spent on it is better for the end consumers. That's why I'm very much looking forward to Half-Life 3, it's going to be so darn polished after all this time.

    As much as I like to say take your time and make it good. It sure is happening to a lot of games. I guess I'll be playing Rise of Tomb Raider on PC for that month, unless that's also going to be delayed...

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now