Towns Developer Officially Abandons The Game
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
If there's a silver lining for me, at least I know I can actually go ahead and play it. I bought it cheap at some point, but wanted to wait until it was "complete". Like Minecraft, it's hard to say when something like that is complete. So, I'll probably play around with it for awhile. I'm sure I can get my $5 out of it.
And then we found out that technically the console version mostly had repaints of some PC content, then PC users bitched for a while until they got even more bonus content, content that didn't make it to consoles for a long while and even then it still puts one over them so really the whiners got more than the people who settled for what was given to them, that speaks leaps and bounds of the communities as a whole, not in the good sense either.ColaWarVeteran said:
No having a dev like GB didn't do the Publisher or the franchise itself any favours, Sega funded Gearbox and they siphoned the cash for 6 years into their own project, people massively miss that little tid bit of information along with the usual lies, it wasn't the Publisher that did much wrong it was GB more than anything.MazokuRanma said:
It doesn't matter, though. The developer can screw up every way under the sun and we should absolutely blame them. But it doesn't absolve the publisher of all responsibility. There are only two scenarios here: Either Sega didn't bother to review the game prior to release, which is negligent and deserving of blame, or they reviewed it and opted to ship it anyway, which is also negligent and deserving of blame. You can't just say Gearbox screwed up and absolve everyone else, the publisher still bears responsibility for the released game. If they were truly committed to ensuring the best possible experience they would have either shifted development to a new studio, or simply cancelled the project. Instead they opted to release that mess of a game in the hopes of tricking people into buying it and recovering part of their money. I'm well aware of the stories surrounding this game and the rumors that Gearbox siphoned funds (And yes, they're just rumors right now, we can't prove anything and it it's up to Sega to pursue the matter at this point if they choose to do so), but Sega doesn't get a free pass just because the dev screwed up.Shadow-Phoenix said:
So really it's just "rumours" and yet we're still pinning most of the blame on the publisher and you;re still going to use the Aliens game as more of a scapegoat to use as your reasons against a Publisher?, instead of gearbox who were the man and the tools, yes I'm well aware what Sega could have done, but were Sega the tools in the game creation?, no that was gearbox, the damage gearbox had done should outweigh the money Sega had given them, it was a contract they were legally binded to, Gearbox decided to just screw everyone else yet trying their best to tip toe with that contract so that they didn't break it so that Sega would then have no actual choice but to sue, of course Sega can still peruse GB but let me ask, what will that accomplish now?, because I can tell you now it's not going to give them 6 years worth of money back and it;s certainly not going to undo the mess that was mostly made by gearbox.MazokuRanma said:
To say it's a completely even 50/50 fault is mostly false, one provides a contract and money, the other has to abide said contract and use said money in order to accomplish the creation and completion of what the contract stated.
I'm not saying Sega should get the free pass here at all, what I'm trying to say is that a Publisher can still help and isn't always the sole cause and gets all the blame by default, the user you quoted was implying that a publisher can help, you mentioned the A:CM incident and acted on that as if it was only Sega's fault and that the users opinion was flat out wrong and false, we have evidence from all sorts of sources, the game failed, tanked even, we know what's true, we don't need some court to tell us the truth when we've got so many sources that provide us the missing pieces as to why something became broken from 6 years worth of money and work.
So he's not going to bother finishing his game because everyone dumb enough to buy the unfinished unpolished mess currently available already has (myself included), and he's going to basically bundle all his improvements into a "sequel" and make everyone pay for it again instead of finishing the game he already sold.
What a piece of shit.
What a piece of shit.
Actually I do primarily blame the publisher. Not because the game was terrible, that fault lies entirely with the developer. However, the publisher always has the option to either shift development or not ship a game, so the fact that it was shipped in such a terrible state is Sega's fault. The blame isn't shared 50/50, it's simply different blame for different issues. Sega chose to ship a broken game as a means of recouping some of the development costs, which is absolutely their prerogative, but it also then becomes their responsibility, and in exchange they pay the price of good will from the customer base. It was still likely worth it overall to them, it's not like anyone remembers and/or cares enough about the issue now to affect Sega's bottom line for the future. In that sense, it was absolutely the right move. It was still a crappy thing to do, though.Shadow-Phoenix said:
Also, you read way too much into my original post. The only point was to show that having a publisher doesn't guarantee a game will ship in a finished and polished state. No matter who you choose to assign blame to, A:CM proves that to be true.
My mom got cancer and it didn't bankrupt us. And we made under 15k a year at the time. I guess the type of cancer matters? All I know is we weren't raking in video game dev money. Sharing a 2 bedroom apartment....
Um, IMO if you start a game and put it up for sale, and people pay for it, you have a responsibility to finish that game. If you don't, IMO, don't be surprised if people don't buy your games anymore, ESPECIALLY NOT SEQUELS TO SAID UNFINISHED GAME.
Um, IMO if you start a game and put it up for sale, and people pay for it, you have a responsibility to finish that game. If you don't, IMO, don't be surprised if people don't buy your games anymore, ESPECIALLY NOT SEQUELS TO SAID UNFINISHED GAME.
I honestly don't understand how people can complain after they willfully bought an "unfinished game still in development" and got several hours of enjoyment out of it. You are crowdsourcing a product in a day and age where there is NO guarantee that said product will ever fully come to fruition. It just takes one issue for projects to derail, never to recover and yet people are routinely surprised and upset when it happens. I understand getting excited over a game and its potential (as I have beet alpha/beta testing games for more than 15 years), but, in my opinion, unless you are paying monthly into the development of a game, it doesn't benefit anyone to troll/grab pitchforks and torches over a game that cost you ten bucks or less.
You get what you pay for-even more so since games cost so MUCH nowadays.
You get what you pay for-even more so since games cost so MUCH nowadays.