Stardew Valley Creator Shuts Down Rumors Haunted Chocolatier 'Will Be Abandoned,' Insisting: 'It Will Come Out When It’s Ready' - IGN
-
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.
-
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.
When it reaches the "good/mostly done but not perfect/could still be better" stage, it's time to pre-release it for alpha/beta testing while you work out the kinks and add features.
I remember playing Minecraft in alpha version before it even switched to beta. It was fine.
Even full releases can have updates and expansions to add new features, it's totally fine. But the core development of the game shouldn't be rushed just to get it published.
-
People need to chill out. patience is a fuckin virtue
-
Let the man cook
-
Dude came out with a FREE update to stardew valley while in the middle of making chocolatier. I doubt any serious stardew fan is thinking this.
-
Sums up gaming industry. Lots of crap and insane fanboys.
-
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.
You got to harvest the chocolate milk from a river with a bunch of workers. It's all how chocolate and candy is made. There is a movie based on it.
-
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.
I recently launched a business as a solo dev / founder. It was agonizing trying to get all the last details done and be happy enough to finally say, this is what I'm going to release.
I could have gone on forever if I'd let myself. Oh they need this, oh they need that! This other thing can be better!
Now that it's out, that pressure is gone, and I can just do smaller updates now which are focused more heavily on the feedback I'm getting from customers.
I probably could have released 3-4 months earlier had I been better about it.
-
Dude came out with a FREE update to stardew valley while in the middle of making chocolatier. I doubt any serious stardew fan is thinking this.
Two free (major) updates: 1.5 and 1.6 both came out after Haunted Chocolatier was announced.
-
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.
there is always going to be cut content
Or said another way, not having cut content means they released their first rough draft instead of editing and refining it.
-
Presumably if he uses the same or similar engine then much of the groundwork is already done, so I would imagine it wouldn't take quite as long. But I could be wrong.
-
Idk what it is about players now, but if there is an announcement, they want the game out immediately. Another game I follow is being made by a small dev team, and they give somewhat regular updates. Multiple a year, generally timed to monthly, but like Dec got skipped for holidays. It's almost daily someone is claiming the game isn't coming out, it's a scam, the game doesn't exist, etc. And this wouldn't have anywhere near the fan base ConcernedApe is dealing with. Just shut up and let people make the game...they don't owe you a game, or updates about the game.
Maybe it's cause GTA6 and TES6 are in dev hell and it's become a meme that they aren't releasing, but still. It's top-shelf annoying behavior.
-
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.
It's not targeted for 2030, it's a case of "it's ready when it's ready"
-
Idk what it is about players now, but if there is an announcement, they want the game out immediately. Another game I follow is being made by a small dev team, and they give somewhat regular updates. Multiple a year, generally timed to monthly, but like Dec got skipped for holidays. It's almost daily someone is claiming the game isn't coming out, it's a scam, the game doesn't exist, etc. And this wouldn't have anywhere near the fan base ConcernedApe is dealing with. Just shut up and let people make the game...they don't owe you a game, or updates about the game.
Maybe it's cause GTA6 and TES6 are in dev hell and it's become a meme that they aren't releasing, but still. It's top-shelf annoying behavior.
We're burned by promised titles never appearing.
Where's by Elder Scrolls 6, Bethesda?
-
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.
In a publisher fronting money to developer situation, without a fixed time limit (or money limit, which functionally translates to a time limit) is the publisher just infinitely on the hook to pay for dev time "until it's done"?
-
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.
Beware Star Citizen.
-
Just to compliment the creator, I have molded SV and the code is beautiful. Rarely do you go into a cold base and have little to complain about.
