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.
Then why make the distinction when A can often be B? People like to paint a picture of the little guy being bullied by the big guy into making a decision that players didn’t like, but we’ve seen plenty of times that developers will be the ones making the decisions we didn’t like. If there’s an incentive to do the bad thing, developers will do it without being told to.
That’s a strawman argument, sorry. You’re arguing as if all developers are publishers. You just said it “A can often be B,” but A is not always B.
Publishers do this bullshit. Period. And in small shops, developers are the publishers, sure. But when they make those decisions, they don’t make them in their roles of developers. They do so in their roles of publishers. And also, not all publishers and not all developers-turned-publishers are dicks.
But I understand what you’re saying. When they are dicks, they are dicks.
Developers can and have made this decision on their own even when they’ve got a publisher, because publishing deals come in all sizes, and online connection requirements that inevitably lead to a game’s death are pervasive in the industry right now.
No, not really. You just said it, man. “Publishing deals come in all sizes.” Publishing. Publishing. So, it’s the publishers who make those decisions. Not developers. That developers must accept them is one thing. But the publishers made the decision.
In that case, the developers are the publishers.
Then why make the distinction when A can often be B? People like to paint a picture of the little guy being bullied by the big guy into making a decision that players didn’t like, but we’ve seen plenty of times that developers will be the ones making the decisions we didn’t like. If there’s an incentive to do the bad thing, developers will do it without being told to.
That’s a strawman argument, sorry. You’re arguing as if all developers are publishers. You just said it “A can often be B,” but A is not always B.
Publishers do this bullshit. Period. And in small shops, developers are the publishers, sure. But when they make those decisions, they don’t make them in their roles of developers. They do so in their roles of publishers. And also, not all publishers and not all developers-turned-publishers are dicks.
But I understand what you’re saying. When they are dicks, they are dicks.
Developers can and have made this decision on their own even when they’ve got a publisher, because publishing deals come in all sizes, and online connection requirements that inevitably lead to a game’s death are pervasive in the industry right now.
No, not really. You just said it, man. “Publishing deals come in all sizes.” Publishing. Publishing. So, it’s the publishers who make those decisions. Not developers. That developers must accept them is one thing. But the publishers made the decision.
All sizes meaning that those deals also come with the absence of that decision, leaving it up to the developers.
If developers make those decisions, then they’re the publishers.
Are we going to continue going round this circle?
No, because your axiom is false, and I’m not going to argue with that.
It is not false, but if that’s what you want to believe, go ahead. Have a nice day.