Stardew Valley Creator Shuts Down Rumors Haunted Chocolatier 'Will Be Abandoned,' Insisting: 'It Will Come Out When It’s Ready' - IGN
-
I bet the music is gonna be bangin
-
He has already stated he comes and goes, to and from that project, and he will prioritize stardew valley still
I mean, he spent 4 years of 70-hour weeks making Stardew. I'd expect Haunted Chocolatier to take equally as long - actually longer, since he's still making Stardew releases, presumably taking some time for himself these days, has to approve any official merch or related stuff like the concert series, etc.
-
Will this game support modding, like stardew?
I think one of the reasons Stardew has had such a long life is the modding community: it's been ten years since it's release and I can't imagine playing it that long. I can, however, bring up Passerby Cemetery, East Scarp, Ridgeside, etc, and scratch my Stardew itch with new content every couple years.
I'm sure Eric knows this as well, and would include modding in HC.
-
As they say: "Let him cook."
-
Hm do you cook chocolate?
-
I can't see why not, but it's targeting a 2030 release so it's kind of early to be thinking about that sort of thing.
Devs need to think about modding from the very beginning.
-
Obviously, this is the only sane solution for a one-man team, but all game developers need to put their foot down and say “it’s ready when it’s ready.”
No marketing deadlines, no “crunch time,” make the game until the game is made, release it, maintain it, do it again if you think you have a good idea.
-
You're telling me chocolate isn't some natural pre-existing resource? Smh. Next you're going to tell me chocolate milk doesn't come from chocolate milk cows.
-
He has already stated he comes and goes, to and from that project, and he will prioritize stardew valley still
I think you just have to leave people like this to work on these projects as they feel inspired/motivated.
There’s no sense getting worked up about when it releases, this isn’t Winds of Winter where Stardew left us with a cliffhanger or any unresolved situation.
-
Obviously, this is the only sane solution for a one-man team, but all game developers need to put their foot down and say “it’s ready when it’s ready.”
No marketing deadlines, no “crunch time,” make the game until the game is made, release it, maintain it, do it again if you think you have a good idea.
That would be nice in a perfect world but bills need to be paid. I'm not defending crunch time, but not every project can afford to be "ready when it's ready". I don't think many companies would survive like that.
-
Obviously, this is the only sane solution for a one-man team, but all game developers need to put their foot down and say “it’s ready when it’s ready.”
No marketing deadlines, no “crunch time,” make the game until the game is made, release it, maintain it, do it again if you think you have a good idea.
While I generally agree, I think there is some value in imposing some kind of deadline or limit to a project. Nothing is ever going to be perfect. There will always be more work that could be done on something. If you let yourself just keep going until you think it’s done it might never come out.
But it’s a balance and when publishers push those kinds of deadlines they’re not really considering that.
-
That would be nice in a perfect world but bills need to be paid. I'm not defending crunch time, but not every project can afford to be "ready when it's ready". I don't think many companies would survive like that.
Concerned ape can afford to put this game out in 2035 lol.
-
Concerned ape can afford to put this game out in 2035 lol.
The above comments were talking about how this policy should apply to every game development project. Which is a nice thought, but not realistic for every situation.
-
While I generally agree, I think there is some value in imposing some kind of deadline or limit to a project. Nothing is ever going to be perfect. There will always be more work that could be done on something. If you let yourself just keep going until you think it’s done it might never come out.
But it’s a balance and when publishers push those kinds of deadlines they’re not really considering that.
Publishers are considering return on investment. In a model where they are providing the game budget to the studio, every delay means more money out of their pocket. Case by case it might be worth it, but just allowing developers to infinitely say it's "almost ready, just one more delay" isn't reasonable.
I know from the hard core gamer audience that discusses this stuff online there is often this vibe that nothing should be cut from games. People look at various interesting cut content and lament it for not getting enough time, but there is always going to be cut content.
If there isn't a lead on the development team putting their foot down to control the scope and focus the team, and a similar push for focus by a publisher you get a meandering unfocused project that goes over budget.
In the solo/small amateur team dev, self-publishing model that ROI pressure isn't coming externally from a separate publisher. It is means solo devs are making their first games usually on a budget of nothing, as a side project to their day jobs. In some cases like with Concerned Ape it turns out great. In many cases development comes out tediously slowly, like with Death Trash. In innumerable cases the games just die.
In cases like Wasteland 2 it was a full professional team working full time using crowdfunding. An alternate model, but still limited by budget pressure. There was no publisher to pay back, but when the crowd funding money was gone, it was gone. That game did come out and it was enjoyable, but clearly it wasn't "done when it's done" levels of polish by the team since they used the profits from the game to release a "Director's Cut" which was a whole polishing pass on the game they simply couldn't afford the first time.
-
The above comments were talking about how this policy should apply to every game development project. Which is a nice thought, but not realistic for every situation.
Oh yes, I'm sure all those billion dollar companies would have all shut down by now if they had to wait a few weeks to put out a game. Putting out buggy unplayable shit was an absolute necessity.
-
Devs need to think about modding from the very beginning.
it works if your games are fundamentally different like in this case. the cons about modding is that expectations of sequels are higher than normal because youre no longer comparing the game to the previous, but to the modded version of the previous.
for example, outside of performance reasons, City Skylines 2 had that fate.
-
Oh yes, I'm sure all those billion dollar companies would have all shut down by now if they had to wait a few weeks to put out a game. Putting out buggy unplayable shit was an absolute necessity.
Let's look at the initial comment in the chain:
all game developers need to put their foot down and say “it’s ready when it’s ready.”
No marketing deadlines, no “crunch time,” make the game until the game is made
It isn't saying publishers should be more flexible about deadline delays, it is saying there simply shouldn't be deadlines at all.
Shoveling infinite money at a developer who tells you it will be ready when it's ready is the Chris Roberts model of game development. While it certainly produces interesting results, it is unrealistic and undesirable to expect it as the standard.
Games that are developing well but need a little more time to fix issues should be given flexibility by publishers, but at the end of the day there are stretch ideas and content that has to be cut. Doing that cutting and keeping the project focused is what a lead on the dev team should be doing throughout the entire development. If a game has a realistic deadline given the expected scope and the dev team comes back and says they actually need another year of production, then it is worth looking into if that extra time is going to make the game a year's worth of investment better or not.
-
Let's look at the initial comment in the chain:
all game developers need to put their foot down and say “it’s ready when it’s ready.”
No marketing deadlines, no “crunch time,” make the game until the game is made
It isn't saying publishers should be more flexible about deadline delays, it is saying there simply shouldn't be deadlines at all.
Shoveling infinite money at a developer who tells you it will be ready when it's ready is the Chris Roberts model of game development. While it certainly produces interesting results, it is unrealistic and undesirable to expect it as the standard.
Games that are developing well but need a little more time to fix issues should be given flexibility by publishers, but at the end of the day there are stretch ideas and content that has to be cut. Doing that cutting and keeping the project focused is what a lead on the dev team should be doing throughout the entire development. If a game has a realistic deadline given the expected scope and the dev team comes back and says they actually need another year of production, then it is worth looking into if that extra time is going to make the game a year's worth of investment better or not.
Rather than choosing an arbitrary time, you should choose a state of the game to call finished. Limited time will always lead to crunch inevitably.
-
While I generally agree, I think there is some value in imposing some kind of deadline or limit to a project. Nothing is ever going to be perfect. There will always be more work that could be done on something. If you let yourself just keep going until you think it’s done it might never come out.
But it’s a balance and when publishers push those kinds of deadlines they’re not really considering that.
True, but this developer has done this before. Theres currently no reason not to have faith in them.
