We've all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection and a couple of years later the publisher decided they're done with it and shut it down leaving you with a broken game. Annoying.
What are you basing this on? Publishers fund development, and that funding dictates where development time is spent. Publishers also absolutely can decide when support ends, see WB getting ready to delist a bunch of games adult swim games published from steam. The devs have no say over that.
Not every game needs funding and lots are self published.
And how many of those devs have made their own effort to get their games back out there? Lots. Publishers only control where the game is sold. It would make zero sense for these devs to spend the money to republish on their own since they would never recoup the costs. That’s why they have been listing them for free or providing a link to download them for free. They couldn’t before since the publisher controlled sales and they could t just give it away either.
Unless the dev sold the rights to the game, the can choose to spend their own money on continuing it, why would they need external funding for that?
Yes, obviously games without publishers aren’t controlled by publishers. Even in those situations funding dictates development, because devs have to eat.
So even with funding a dev studio should have profits coming in, they can either choose to pocket all of that, or save some for literally saving their game.
So it’s the publishers fault the devs spent it all instead of using some to protect their IP? I think you’ve just shot your argument in its foot with that last comment.
So even with funding a dev studio should have profits coming in
No, the dev should have revenue coming in, revenue that pays salaries that allows them to survive. If those salaries aren’t put towards efforts that will bring in more revenue then the revenue will stop and the business will no longer be sustainable.
And if the studio doesn’t profit and have a slush fund they won’t be able to spend a little money to protect their game with their own funds… don’t spend every cent, and you would be able to use some for this good will everyone expects.
This is a circular argument that’s not going to go anywhere, everyone can be an asshole, but it’s the devs that decide if they can support the game or not. They always have a way, whether they thought ahead or not is another story entirely….
Just to make sure I’m on the same page with you, when trying to understand what you’re saying, when you use the words ‘dev’ or ‘developers’, do you mean the computer programmers who write the games, or their business managers (all of which work at the same development studio)?
Who do you believe is responsible for the decision to add to the game the ‘always connected to the Internet’ functionality, as well as to discontinue the game servers/support, the computer programmers, or the business managers?
Please answer without using the word ‘dev’ or ‘developers’ in your answer. Thanks.
Please don’t be invasive, I’m being honest with you in my inquiry.
I’m asking you to define a subset of people inside of a development studio. Can you do that for me?
Are you speaking of the computer programmers/coders, or the business managers, inside of the development studio, when you use the words ‘dev’ and or ‘developers’?
What are you basing this on? Publishers fund development, and that funding dictates where development time is spent. Publishers also absolutely can decide when support ends, see WB getting ready to delist a bunch of games adult swim games published from steam. The devs have no say over that.
Not every game needs funding and lots are self published.
And how many of those devs have made their own effort to get their games back out there? Lots. Publishers only control where the game is sold. It would make zero sense for these devs to spend the money to republish on their own since they would never recoup the costs. That’s why they have been listing them for free or providing a link to download them for free. They couldn’t before since the publisher controlled sales and they could t just give it away either.
Unless the dev sold the rights to the game, the can choose to spend their own money on continuing it, why would they need external funding for that?
Yes, obviously games without publishers aren’t controlled by publishers. Even in those situations funding dictates development, because devs have to eat.
So even with funding a dev studio should have profits coming in, they can either choose to pocket all of that, or save some for literally saving their game.
So it’s the publishers fault the devs spent it all instead of using some to protect their IP? I think you’ve just shot your argument in its foot with that last comment.
No, the dev should have revenue coming in, revenue that pays salaries that allows them to survive. If those salaries aren’t put towards efforts that will bring in more revenue then the revenue will stop and the business will no longer be sustainable.
And if the studio doesn’t profit and have a slush fund they won’t be able to spend a little money to protect their game with their own funds… don’t spend every cent, and you would be able to use some for this good will everyone expects.
This is a circular argument that’s not going to go anywhere, everyone can be an asshole, but it’s the devs that decide if they can support the game or not. They always have a way, whether they thought ahead or not is another story entirely….
Just to make sure I’m on the same page with you, when trying to understand what you’re saying, when you use the words ‘dev’ or ‘developers’, do you mean the computer programmers who write the games, or their business managers (all of which work at the same development studio)?
Who do you believe is responsible for the decision to add to the game the ‘always connected to the Internet’ functionality, as well as to discontinue the game servers/support, the computer programmers, or the business managers?
Please answer without using the word ‘dev’ or ‘developers’ in your answer. Thanks.
Just to make sure, you are asking me to specify if my comments specifically talking about development studios are about development studios…?
Please don’t be invasive, I’m being honest with you in my inquiry.
I’m asking you to define a subset of people inside of a development studio. Can you do that for me?
Are you speaking of the computer programmers/coders, or the business managers, inside of the development studio, when you use the words ‘dev’ and or ‘developers’?