Quote:
Originally Posted by banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSix
Probably still have to clarify a few things about the standard geymdeve in general:
1) The publishers do not like to spend money on "poslereliznoe" service problem projects. If the game fails, it is much cheaper than all instantly shut down and disband the team.
2) release of patches for the troubled project, which means the contents of the command is usually only possible through the advance allocation of money for new development. In fact, correcting the previous project "eaten through" money allocated to the next. There is next - it means there will be no patches for the previous one, bye.
Given the above, the decision to finish the first full release of the past usually means instant death.
Also, all of the above applies to the gaming industry in general and do not necessarily reflect the situation within 1C.
|
that usually applies to big developers/publishers and even for them, mostly for standalone games.
when it comes about game series, even the big developers/publishers have problems if the previous game from the series is not made/working right, as it would reflect in the sales of the next title. two (maximum three for a very very big developer/publisher and a largely successful series) bad in a row, and the series is dead.
small publishers don't have this luxury, and one failure is enough to stop the cash flow mechanism for them. that's why they are putting out more solid releases and that's why they are offering continuous support for them way after their product's launch.
I'm afraid that for MG (as small developers, half-heatedly backed up by a not so major & wealthy publisher, and aiming at a niche market), not having CoD working equals end of the cash flow, as the next title will fall down in flames right from the start.