6 ms·
Most games do not change, is the leading principle. But bear this scenario in mind: A game is released, receives post launch support and then the developer pos
by Kwolok 19d ago
Most games do not change, is the leading principle. But bear this scenario in mind: A game is released, receives post launch support and then the developer posts a blog post stating "This was the final update, thanks for playing my game, there will be no more updates". The system reads that, makes the anaylsis and we mark it done. Then three years later the developre comes back and goes "PSYCHE! HERE IS AN AWESOME NEW UPDATE". Well we can't account for that, so the system will see the update and change it from done to not yet.
This is an imperfect system because its trying to assess a situation that has no actual contract. But for 90% of titles or more, when a game is flipped to done it won't suddenly be revived at a later date. The Witcher 3 being hte exception not the rule.
- Martinussen 19d ago> "This was the final update, thanks for playing my game, there will be no more updates" So you're only going to call abandoned and/or end-of-support games "done"? Even if they were abandoned because there wasn't more that needed fixing/balancing, you're still using a definition I have never seen any other human being use. If it would be done at a given version if the dev just left, isn't any game that provides access to run any version better than "done"? (Minecraft, for example.) For any multiplayer game this seems to just favour yearly release slop over actually good games with good teams behind them.