Release of Bloodstained. Would you enjoy it now or later?

I've always been a fan of staggered release. Just release the main game with a few of it's features when they're ready and roll out all the extras as they come. Otherwise we're waiting years upon years for this game. 

From Facebook

Juan
3 i think dlc would break the "retro feel" of the game. but i wouldn't be against it, if the devs would do it.

Sang
3 . Honestly I don't want to rush it

Morgan
I'm fine with 2 even though 3 is a selfish want.

Vance
Id say 2. We get it earlier and the updates will give it replayability

Alexis
Well, I wish we could go for #1 but it's probably not so easy. And considering how media is consumed rapidly and discarded just as rapidly, I don't think I'd have the attention span necessary to download the easter eggs, if they came after the main game. So if Q4 of next year means a complete and final product, I'd go for #3.

Dan
It depends on what you mean by finished. If it is a complete game with no bugs or immersion breaking problems I want it in Q2 and they will just release dlc and bonus content great . If they release it and they consistently have to patch it to make it playable I want to wait.
Enkeria
As finished as it could be, with no additional updates, unless you want them to fix those well-hidden bugs on a later date. DLC will not happen.
Dan
I want igas full vision the first time I play it. I don't mind if they add dlc new game plus stuff later. The only thing I can't stand is when they release a game dangle it in front of us and then say ooops it's not finished you have to wait until we patch it. Like a bunch of AAA games
Enkeria
He have stated before, no DLC. If you mean more content as a patch? Sure, but pay more money to actually get the whole story? Nope, will never happen.
Dan
That's good to hear. I want the finished game. I do not care how long it takes.

Adam
#3. Take your time and do it right.

Scott
#3 is Love for a Masterpiece

Andrew
3. If it's worth doing it is worth doing RIGHT.

Dan
We have waited over 16 years for this game whats another few months for perfection?

Matt
I'm not a fan of online updates that change something that is not part of the online experience. I want all the offline content complete, on disc or cart. #3.

Elk
3

Frank
well, 2 is the same as 3 but we get the game on the time they said. which will make the press say good things istead of pushing it back 6 months, and letting press be bad for the game for the 6 months before release

Kyle
3 all day every day. Fine tune and refine it to death. Make it run smooth like SOTN.

Craig
3.. Echoing what Kyle Collins said.

Sunraiser (yup, she is on facebook too!)
3. Don't rush perfection.

Kim
2

Why not both?

The dev may release the alpha build and keep on updating it with patches, then they will only release the game when it is ready.

If they take this approach, backers will be able to see the progress of the game, if the backers are happy with the progress, they will even agree to delay it to Q4. Other than that, the backers will get everything on the physical disk. I think this is the best solution

If we're talking about the main game (without the extra modes that kickstarter campaign added), then I'll go with 3.
Otherwise, 2, it might take too much time preparing all these extras, and it's not necessary to have all of them in the initial release. It's okay to release these extra modes as post-release updates or free DLCs IMO.

Imo, once the main game is complete, like both castles and endings they should release it.. everything else should be added on later like the other character modes, classic mode etc... 

This will even give them more time to polish the other modes while people are enjoying the main dish

There are two questions here, just under the surface...personal preference and viability...

I.) Me, personally, I'd probably like it released late 2018 or early 2019, where all of its content is complete and included. I've never been a big fan of DLC. To me, if at all feasible, that material should either be in the game proper or its resources moved toward a second original game. The focus on DLC sort of defeats some of the purpose of having a physical media game. Now, downloadable patches for errors or whatever, that's generally fine. But I don't need a ton of extra content taking up memory or developer resources when it could have been stored on the disc/cart or better baked into a potential sequel. Once Bloodstained was taken off the Wii U, all bets were off for me as to when I'd be playing it, so I'm in no rush and would prefer a more complete game that matches the developers' vision as close as possible. So, personally speaking, I'd say option "3" is all right, if the developers feel it will make the game the best it can be.

II.) The overall viability of Bloodstained probably requires it to be released no later that Q2 2018. I have warned about this before on these forums, but the argument made against it coming to Wii U will eventually, to an extent, be in place for Sony and Microsoft's consoles also. The saving grace is the install base for these machines, but if backers or retail buyers want it on the newest thing, because they don't want to be running multiple console generations at once, then this could become a problem for its long-term success. Wii U's life, while artificially shortened, was extended through 2017 by Zelda BoTW and its DLC (much as I think it will ultimately turn out to be fluff...). 2017 was originally part of the launch window for Bloodstained, which would have put it within the purview of Wii U. But Switch was pushed forward because of the Wii U's commercial failure; proof of this, if any is needed, is the the fact that two of the biggest games on Switch are merely ports of Wii U games (Zelda BoTW and Mario Kart 8). Now, analysts project that Playstation 5 (PS5) will be coming between late 2018 and 2019. (If that happens, Microsoft will likely make some moves as well). The half-steps of Playstation VR, Playstation 4 Pro, and XBox One X show a desire to move on from the current generation, but do so in a staggered way. It's like when Nintendo did Gameboy Color and then followed it up with Gameboy Advance not so long thereafter. They're simply stopgaps, and when you see measures like these, you know the end is in sight. If Bloodstained arrives on the bubble of this transition, as I noted above, there could be some hiccups toward its viability. Conversely...on the bright side, if ported up to PS5 and the like, it could mirror the success of Zelda BotW, and be seen a "next-gen launch title," when that was far from its purpose. (Though one would question what the cost would be to the game's budget.) Just something to keep in mind should the release date drift too far. Which is why, for viability's sake, I'd imagine choice "2" is the best option (in which I assume only the main game mode would be completed), as this timing gives it enough wiggle room like Shovel Knight to release future content and then, if successful, port up to the PS5 and such not too long after, if need be.

...Everything? Woah. Yeah, naw. I'd rather them wait until October 2018, which would give them ample time to iron out bugs and fix the visuals. All of those stretch goals and such can't be easy to implement.

I couldn't agree more. This has been the most disappointing aspect of games since the start of the PS3 generation. Before the PS3 generation, it was an extremely rare occurrence. But since, the majority of games that I've played crash/freeze at least a couple of times.