安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
19 
举报此帖
If people refused to purchase 'unfinished games', there would be no market for them.
Since enough people agree to part with their money, though, it shows that there is evidently a viable business model and as such, will continue and be reproduced / adopted by others.
unless you name some examples its safe to say its not happening and you are just assuming
Also, creative projects are very, very difficult to manage.
I think these cases are largely more due to publishers placing extremely restrictive timescales, deadlines and launch schedules on their client developers.
When the devs are working 18 hour days for weeks in crunch, and the QA typically deem anything that doesn't competely prevent the game from starting as 'DO NOT FIX' because the late nights and increased pressure lead to more bugs than those being fixed.
I've said this a lot of times previously, but no harm in re-iterating it, I'm sure.
Game devs, whether programmers, artists, voice-actors, composers etc. you name it, are all in a creative industry. Whilst there's possibly a tiny handful of exceptions no doubt, as with any creative work, those who actually realise it do so with a passion for their talent. Just as Michaelangelo didn't want to do a ♥♥♥♥ job of the sistine chapel, creative people want their products to be a finished product they can be proud of.
Unfortunately, all too often, restrictions on resources which include time are controlled by the publishers who typically do not well appreciate the lead on videogames. (Or, perhaps more fairly and accurately, as videogames have grown in depth and complexity, and the amount of refinement increased exponentially between feature complete and polished (or even finished) the publishers have been lax to catch up or readily acknowledge a reasonable increment.
Whilst the vast number of developers I am sure would love to address certain issues with titles after release, but unless the publisher agrees to fund such work, allowing for a time todo so (remember, the devs will have other projects requiring their attention too) and the salary for their efforts (not a matter of greed, this is the vocation and the devs need to put food on their tables at home) but possibly most importantly, and an aspect so many people seem to disregard, is that devs simply ARE NOT ALLOWED by law to affect the product without the publishers' express permission.
Well, one might 'steal some source code and tap away at home and release a fixed version unofficially to the world, but then they'll get their arse sued and may never be hired again since security of IP is very, very serious in any field.
Instead, depending on the title and its lifetime expectancy, whether there are alternate strategies other than basic unit sale, for example: future 'pakage editions', plans for expansion package/DLC, monthly fees or more esoteric merchandising and spin-off sales. etc. then there is little motivation or support for any further interest in the product. At the very least, there is often an agreement for a limited period of requisite patches (helpful, but largely just a cop-out scheme for the pubs to sidestep criticism of their deadline and crunch antics) - where support may exist for some months post launch, especially where more major known issues identified by QA are acceptably not addressed by launch.
This processes, in my opinion, is largely insufficient, it does not convert wellfrom the corporate IT format that it has been adopted from whereby companies could request specific changes or requirements for their bespoke software from the developer representation that would then be produced and delivered accordingly, whereby bugs were mostly due to miscommunicaiton between the company misunderstanding implication of one request, or failing to communicate their request effectively. However, patches for those bugs could be made to order with the same stringent quality as any other software process by that vendor.
However, this is awkward and undersupported in many cases with the videogame industry, and is an other aspect which is exascerbated by the public/consumer acceptance and agreement to allow it to continue - the notion of 'ZeroDay' or Day One patching for example, has become almost a standard policy or expected for many.
In short, be wary of blanket blaming developers for the faults that they may not be responsible for.
"Art is never finished, it is abandoned."
Basically, an artist is never truly satisfied with their work. They always see things they want to fix or reiterate..but sooner or later the thing has to go out of the door.