Editorial GameSpy on Troika and publishers

[EEVIAC]

Could it be because they couldn't stay within budget for their last two titles, or that they were buggy when shipped? I'd say that's a more likely reason.

I doubt publishers give a fuck about bugs beyond putting on a public face that they care about the consumer and the quality of their products. If they were really concerned they wouldn't release games like Streets Of LA or Driver 3 in the state they were. Half Life 2 had its fair share of bugs, both with the game and with Steam, and was over a year late (which in turn made BL late) but it sold. If Bloodlines had sold a quarter as many units, publishers wouldn't care about the bugs.

 

[dojoteef]

I doubt publishers give a fuck about bugs beyond putting on a public face that they care about the consumer and the quality of their products. If they were really concerned they wouldn't release games like Streets Of LA or Driver 3 in the state they were.

You are flat out wrong. If you read my thread about GDC you'd know that. I was at an all day tutorial about the publisher developer relationship and how developers can get the upper hand. The publishers, developers, and contract lawyers on the panel stated quite clearly that the most important aspect of getting another job is the fact that the game was completed on time, within the budget, and relatively bug free. I'm simply regurgitating that information, because it is very important to note, especially when people such as yourself state this bullshit. If a developer wants to stay in business that is what they need to do. The reason publisher release games like Streets of LA or Driver 3 has to do with the money they put into the game. If they fully fund a game, they are going to want to release it. They aren't going to say, we'll continue funding the game despite the fact that our contract with you is up. That's the way it is. It sucks that they release buggy shit like that, but they need to recoup some of their development cost. That's why they do it. Then again, those developers aren't going to be around in the future to fuck things up again because they'll never find work again.

 

[bgillisp]

Sounds like according to dototeef Troika then went out of business due to not being able to release bug-free games. That is what I gather from his post anyways.

BTW, I did not get Arcanum until 2003, and it was stable then. How bad was it when it first came out? Just wondering.

And, at whoever said FF was turn-based earlier, FFX is turn based (check it out if you doubt me), FF7 - FF9 are not. That shoudl solve that debate.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are flat out wrong. If you read my thread about GDC you'd know that. I was at an all day tutorial about the publisher developer relationship and how developers can get the upper hand. The publishers, developers, and contract lawyers on the panel stated quite clearly that the most important aspect of getting another job is the fact that the game was completed on time, within the budget, and relatively bug free.

That sounds like a lot of bulshit to me. I don't doubt that that's what's been said at GDC, but just because it's been said, doesn't mean it's true. Similarly, what they teach you at MBA is one thing, usually very abstract and wishful thinking-like, and real life business is something else. Same here.

The only thing publishers care about is money. You can do whatever you want, but if your game sells, you are a winner. If your game doesn't sell, who gives a fuck if you were on time and within a budget?

The best selling games were never completed on time, usually took a lot more money than planned, and often weren't bug-free. Blizzard is known for delaying games for months and years (that's their trademark basically), and every game they make is a heavy bestseller. HL2 is another example. Do you think that nobody will want to work with Valve again just because they took too long and too much, and fuck things up with STEAM? Think again.

I'm simply regurgitating that information, because it is very important to note, especially when people such as yourself state this bullshit.

Is there a need to call an opinion you disagree with bullshit? His opinon makes a lot more sense than all the "right things" you've heard at GDC.

 

[dojoteef]

Sounds like according to dototeef Troika then went out of business due to not being able to release bug-free games. That is what I gather from his post anyways.

Well yes and no. Troika wasn't able to secure another job. It could be because of releasing buggy games, thus publishers shied away from them, or it could be that they didn't persue getting a contract for their next project early enough. I don't think we'll ever know the truth on that one, but those are the only real options I see.



As for you Vault Dweller. You never ever seem to listen to reason. You think an independent developer on that panel is going to agree with the publishers just for the fun of it? You should have seen some of the animosity between them, especially when they did the mock negotiation at the end. Holy shit, you'd have thought they were actually doing a real deal. The fact that the developers in the room insist it's the way to secure more work, I can't imagine why you constantly seem intent on throwing common sense out the window.

It doesn't matter that an independent developer that can self fund their endeavors take as much time as they want for a release. If they want to spend all their money on the development and go bankrupt for it, the publishers couldn't give a shit. When you're using the publisher's money on the other hand, you better bet they are going to hold you to the contract.

Another universal theme that was discussed is, the publishers really do have all the control in the relationship. If you fuck up even in the smallest way, they can simply say you were in breach of the contract and can terminate it immediately leaving the developer out in the cold. That means if you miss a milestone by an hour, they can say you are in breach and terminate the contract. The whole purpose of mentioning this was to point out if you (the developer) need to reach for the contract in order to settle any dispute, you're already screwed. The way to go is to have a nice relationship with the publisher. Get your milestones completed on time, stay within the budget, and keep it relatively bug free.

EDIT: Removed some of the vehemence.

 

[Kuato]

Another universal theme that was discussed is, the publishers really do have all the control in the relationship. If you fuck up even in the smallest way, they can simply say you were in breach of the contract and can terminate it immediately leaving the developer out in the cold. That means if you miss a milestone by an hour, they can say you are in breach and terminate the contract. The whole purpose of mentioning this was to point out if you (the developer) need to reach for the contract in order to settle any dispute, you're already screwed. The way to go is to have a nice relationship with the publisher. Get your milestones completed on time, stay within the budget, and keep it relatively bug free.

This is exactly why the business model is flawed. Here you have a situation where there is loaded gun pointed at the developer at all times, The publisher can essentially demand any changes or revisions at any time or threaten to pull funding and cancel the project this can wreak havoc on company morale, existing schedules, core game design, introduce bugs and greatly increase tensions in the developer/publisher relationship especially when the direction from above is less on actual gameplay and more on percieved market appeal.

 

[dojoteef]

Unfortunately whoever holds the money holds the power. That's the way it is in all businesses. The important point to understand is both the developer and the publisher want a mutually beneficial deal, i.e. they both want to make some money. The publisher so they can appease their investors and the developer so they can stay in business and hopefully work on projects they want to work on.

Business is always about compromise and making people happy. That isn't something new; it's universal. Developers and publishers have to work together. Of course there might be differing opinions on how things should be run or what not, but they should be resolved amicably.

It's not all doom and gloom. There is a lot of leeway in the terms of the negotiation. The developer just has to be savvy enough to know what's going on. In my opinion that means hiring a contract lawyer that specializes in the gaming industry.


So you can go ahead and think that model is flawed, but I challenge you to come up with an honestly viable alternative.

 

[EEVIAC]

The publishers, developers, and contract lawyers on the panel stated quite clearly that the most important aspect of getting another job is the fact that the game was completed on time, within the budget, and relatively bug free. I'm simply regurgitating that information, because it is very important to note, especially when people such as yourself state this bullshit. If a developer wants to stay in business that is what they need to do.

Most important? So selling two million copies is less important than completing a project under budget and bug free. If this isn't your position, why were you so keen to refute Leon's "we didn't sell enough copies" statement?

I don't doubt that what you wrote in your GDC thread was actually said, but have you thought about why publishers are taking that stance? Good QA and developer support costs money, money that publishers would rather not spend. Basing contracts on whether a team can complete a project on time and bug free doesn't necessarilly benefit the game industry, but it certainly saves money for publishers. They're shifting the blame onto developers to diminish their own responsibility. This is why avenues of direct distribution are opening up for larger developers. If a publisher isn't going to support a developer and do good QA, they're about as usefull to a developer (and the industry as a whole) as tits on a bull.

By the bye, were Valve pilloried for HL2's tardiness by panelists at this big, professional conference? How about Blizzard for still trying to balance a game four years after release? How about Bioware's general and EAX sound issues in KOTOR? Could it be that these successfull, self-funded companies suffer from exactly the same problems as smaller developers like Larian and Nival? The only difference between them is in the sales figures.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Selling two million copies is meaningless if your game goes over the budget and fails to make a decent (read: PROJECTED) profit in spite of making two million sales. If a developer has a habit of making games that sell reasonably well but utterly fail to comply to contractual agreements by meeting their milestones or forcing the Publisher to take out loans just to support the game while they collapse, nobody is going to want to do business with you again, hit or no hit. Interplay failed to recognise this as a problem and was drained into bankruptcy by none other than Shiny Interactive.

 

[dojoteef]

EEVIAC, you and Vault Dweller seem to be ignoring the fact that it wasn't just a panel of publishers. It was publishers, independent developers, and lawyers from both sides of the fence. I'd say you were correct, if it was just the publishers that were disseminating this information, but it's not. It was the whole panel that unanimously agreed on this point. They've been doing that panel for 8 years and each year they've surveyed the industry to ask what the most important aspects of getting a development contract with a publisher is. Last year was the first year that staying within budget and releasing on time was the number one issue. The same held this year as well.

I just don't see why you guys can't understand this. Any developer that can self fund a project can do whatever they want. Just take a look at 3DRealms for proof. It seems like they'll never release Duke Nukem Forever. Talking about Bioware, Valve, or a similar company completely skirts the point. Their dealings don't mean diddly shit for most developers. Most developers can't fund their own projects. They are dependent on cash flow from publishers. So in order to get a contract with a publisher they have to meet those criteria that I mentioned.

As for that comment about Leon and selling 2 million copies, what are you trying to say? Any developer that proves it can be massively profitable (which I assume selling 2 million copies would mean, though it obviously depends on their development budget) is more than likely able to self fund or broker a sweet deal with the next publisher. Of course sealling 2 million copies is quite a feat and is once again not the norm.

You guys just seem to get hung up on the rare cases and try to use that to generalize to the rest of the industry. That doesn't work.

 

[Kuato]

So you can go ahead and think that model is flawed, but I challenge you to come up with an honestly viable alternative.

self-funding a dev company but where the does money come from, well you set-up a small studio and at the beginning start small by taking outsourcing contracts you can handle in the next couple years there won't be any shortage of outsourcing work take on mostly content and some programming this is good for gathering the kind of talent you will need later on, reinvest profits from the outsourcing contracts back into the company and begin to devise schedules where you can split the teams time from contracts bringing in money to internal development of an original IP game. Its not going to be easy but at least the developer stands a better chance of making a much better game with out publisher entanglements during development the greatest benefit is that the developer actually stands to make a much larger profit and increase the value of the company somethin your not going to get with the flawed business model.

 

[Stark]

EEVIAC, you and Vault Dweller seem to be ignoring the fact that it wasn't just a panel of publishers. It was publishers, independent developers, and lawyers from both sides of the fence. I'd say you were correct, if it was just the publishers that were disseminating this information, but it's not. It was the whole panel that unanimously agreed on this point.

I agree with dojoteef on principle that publishers do not wish to release buggy games too. it is simply not in their interest to release buggy games. While an average joe may not know the different publishers (hence little to no repercussions to reputation for forcing a game out prematurely), releasing buggy games damages the game industry as a whole, and would damage publisher's bottomline in the end.

in the end, if a contract is signed, it is only fair for a publisher to expect to publish the game on the schedule. The developer should try their best to hit the dateline and leave enough time for QA.

 

[EEVIAC]

I'd say you were correct, if it was just the publishers that were disseminating this information, but it's not. It was the whole panel that unanimously agreed on this point.

Meaningless. Saying something on panel at an industry conference and putting that into practice over a three or four year, multi-million dollar development are completely different. It doesn't matter whether its Sid Meier or random marketing jerk saying it, its still meaningless. The fact remains that even the biggest, best selling games both miss their release dates and contain bugs. Its pervasive throughout the industry, whether you're talking about large, self-funded developers or small contract developers.

If publishers and developers really want to get together and hold hands and form a nude human pyramid over increasing the quality of games, then great. I'll believe it when I see it.

Talking about Bioware, Valve, or a similar company completely skirts the point. Their dealings don't mean diddly shit for most developers.

No, their dealings don't mean diddly shit because they don't support your argument. You've pretty much agreed that this rule or doctrine or whatever you want to call this on time/no bugs principle doesn't apply to developers that sell. If the rule can be applied discriminatorily to some developers but not others, and not at all to publishers, it lacks any sort of credibility.

 

[Volourn]

"Blizzard is known for delaying games for months and years (that's their trademark basically), and every game they make is a heavy bestseller."

You, McFly! Did you ever think that ebcause of Blizzard's success that they are the exception to the rule! They are not some two bit hoodlum dev trying to survive; they are Blizzard. For every rule there are exceptions. With the rule Dojo posted, Blizzard is the exception, and I'd wager at this time so is Bioware espicially since Bioware basically financies their games themselves. It's not like if a Bioware game is postponed a few months that somehow their publisher has give them more money.

And, what's this 2 million copy shit? None of BIoware's game have sold 2 million copies except for BG1 maybe and that was eyars after its intital release. Maybe KOTOR1 has as well. not sure. Obviously, a game doesn't need to sell 2 mil copies to be a success. Morons.

R00fles!


"The publisher can essentially demand any changes or revisions at any time or threaten to pull funding and cancel the project this can wreak havoc on company morale, existing schedules, core game design, introduce bugs and greatly increase tensions in the developer/publisher relationship especially when the direction from above is less on actual gameplay and more on percieved market appeal."

Waaa! of coruse they can! Afterall, it is the publisher who usually finances the game development. Perhaps, devs should try the Bioware modle of game devlopment where they self fiannce the game and just get the publisher to publisher. That way, the dveloper would have some power. Bah. Stupid weak developers deserve no mercy!

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I fucking hate you so much.

 

[Volourn]

"I fucking hate you so much."

I love you too.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Blizzard is known for delaying games for months and years (that's their trademark basically), and every game they make is a heavy bestseller."

You, McFly! Did you ever think that ebcause of Blizzard's success that they are the exception to the rule!

Yo, doofus! That was my point. As long as your games sell millions of copies who gives a flying fuck about rules. That's rule #1.

Obviously, a game doesn't need to sell 2 mil copies to be a success. Morons.

Do I really have to explain that 2 mil is just a random example, and that 800k is also a good number? Moron.

Perhaps, devs should try the Bioware modle of game devlopment where they self fiannce the game and just get the publisher to publisher. That way, the dveloper would have some power. Bah. Stupid weak developers deserve no mercy!

What an idiot you are! Didn't you mean something like: the bioware model of game development where they suck the money out of a company for 4 years, than sue them and dump them and take an almost ready game to another publisher?

PS. Hmm, I wonder why other publishers didn't say "OMG! Bio screwed a publisher! We shouldn't work with them anymore!"? Could it be because they smelled a lot of money to be made?

 

[dojoteef]

Meaningless. Saying something on panel at an industry conference and putting that into practice over a three or four year, multi-million dollar development are completely different.

Once again, you are living in your own little world. The average development time for a game is 18 months. That's only a year and a half. I've even talked to developers that released console games within 6 months. Only the rare few get to have three to four year development cycles. Another fact that you seem to be ignorant of is the fact that most developers finish their games on time! Oh no, how can that be? Well, the console market is a lot more strict and they make up the lion's share of the market. They tend to produce on time, within budget, and relatively bug free for the most part. So stop disseminating FUD.


Anyway, I'm tried of discussing this stuff. It's like talking to a two year old. I've been saying this stuff in the hopes that any RPG developers that come to this site might actually take the hint. I really don't want to see the next Troika go down for not taking the business side seriously enough. So flame on, just don't expect a reply.

 

[Volourn]

"doofus! That was my point. As long as your games sell millions of copies who gives a flying fuck about rules. That's rule #1."

I rest my case. Troika is not an exemptionm. Theya r ejust another devloepr. No one special. Blizzard is special. Troika loses. They go cry and go home.


"Do I really have to explain that 2 mil is just a random example"

Yes, you do. You make shit up and then pretend otherwise. Ther eis no rela magic number. Afterall, it depends on the developmen cost. Most games could be cosndiered a success with a few hudnred thosuand sold. If NWN had sold like 250k copies it likely would have been considred a bomb. Moron.


"What an idiot you are! Didn't you mean something like: the bioware model of game development where they suck the money out of a company for 4 years, than sue them and dump them and take an almost ready game to another publisher?"

Only an idiot like you would try to blame BIo for Interplay being in the wrong. Afterall, it was Interplay who was stealing money from BIO. Afterall, NWN may have gottne money from Interplay for 4 years; but it more than made that back. It ex[palins why BIO lives on while Interplay is crying currently.


"PS. Hmm, I wonder why other publishers didn't say "OMG! Bio screwed a publisher! We shouldn't work with them anymore!"? Could it be because they smelled a lot of money to be made?"

a. Most publishers are not idiots like you and know that BIO didn't screw Interplay. Interplay screwed Interplay by trying to screw Bioware.

b. Most publishers are not idiots like you and know that BIO didn't screw Interplay. Interplay screwed Interplay by trying to screw Bioware.

c. Most publishers are not idiots like you and know that BIO didn't screw Interplay. Interplay screwed Interplay by trying to screw Bioware.

d. Most publishers are not idiots like you and know that BIO didn't screw Interplay. Interplay screwed Interplay by trying to screw Bioware.

e. Most publishers are not idiots like you and know that BIO didn't screw Interplay. Interplay screwed Interplay by trying to screw Bioware.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As for you Vault Dweller. You never ever seem to listen to reason.

And you, of course, are the self-proclaimed voice of reason? It's nice to finally meet you!

You think an independent developer on that panel is going to agree with the publishers just for the fun of it?

I don't know, and I'm not implying that they lied or tried to suck up. All I know is what I've told you - best selling games don't follow the pattern these people described. By enforcing the above mentioned rules, publishers limit potential sales right there and then, which is the main factor in getting another contract

The fact that the developers in the room insist it's the way to secure more work, I can't imagine why you constantly seem intent on throwing common sense out the window.

I rarely trust what people say and prefer to look at the facts (see above). Once again, I'm not saying it's a lie, but it's a very insignificant factor. There are two kind of people in this world: successful and not successful. The former group gets all the breaks, and the latter group could be fucked with just because. That's how it is. To be fair, I suppose that sticking with rules and sucking up to publishers help those in the second group to live longer.

Another universal theme that was discussed is, the publishers really do have all the control in the relationship. If you fuck up even in the smallest way, they can simply say you were in breach of the contract and can terminate it immediately leaving the developer out in the cold. That means if you miss a milestone by an hour, they can say you are in breach and terminate the contract. The whole purpose of mentioning this was to point out if you (the developer) need to reach for the contract in order to settle any dispute, you're already screwed. The way to go is to have a nice relationship with the publisher.

Exactly.

EEVIAC, you and Vault Dweller seem to be ignoring the fact that it wasn't just a panel of publishers. It was publishers, independent developers, and lawyers from both sides of the fence. I'd say you were correct, if it was just the publishers that were disseminating this information, but it's not. It was the whole panel that unanimously agreed on this point. They've been doing that panel for 8 years and each year they've surveyed the industry to ask what the most important aspects of getting a development contract with a publisher is

People tend to give the "right" and expected answers. For the same reasons, most business leaders say the secret is to work hard, not to be a backstabbing and ruthless cunt.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Do I really have to explain that 2 mil is just a random example"

Yes, you do. You make shit up and then pretend otherwise. Ther eis no rela magic number. Afterall, it depends on the developmen cost.

That's what "random example" means, moron.

Most games could be cosndiered a success with a few hudnred thosuand sold.

Is that a fact? Got any proof?

Afterall, NWN may have gottne money from Interplay for 4 years...

No shit

a. Most publishers are not idiots like you and know that BIO didn't screw Interplay. Interplay screwed Interplay by trying to screw Bioware.

Interplay did screw Interplay by giving Bio a reason and an opportunity to walk away, but the point is that what Interplay did is what other publishers constantly do. Yet nobody was concerned about that because of the sales potential.

 

[Volourn]

"Is that a fact? Got any proof?"

Fallout. It sold a few hundred thousand copies and managed to get a sequel, two offshoot games, and is now getting another sequel. That seems the epitome of success.

Game over.


"I rarely trust what people say and prefer to look at the facts (see above). Once again, I'm not saying it's a lie, but it's a very insignificant factor. There are two kind of people in this world: successful and not successful. The former group gets all the breaks, and the latter group could be fucked with just because. That's how it is. To be fair, I suppose that sticking with rules and sucking up to publishers help those in the second group to live longer."

You seem to have a toruble remembering that successful developers like Bioware and Blizzard weren't always big shots. They had to earn the right to be bi shots. How? By following the "rules" and doing what the publishers demanded. Basically, they played the game how is it meant to play. No whining, no cryining, just doing. And, now, that they are in a position of some worth they can make their own rules. If Troika had been run half intelligently, they would have done the same thing - the problem is Troika wnated to be everything right away - they wanted mega funds, they wanted to be a AAA developer, they wanted the accolades, they wanted the hardcore, they wanted the masses. They got too greedy for their own good. Once again, thank you for illustrating why it is 100% Troika's fault for Troika failing.

That is all. For now.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Is that a fact? Got any proof?"

Fallout. It sold a few hundred thousand copies and managed to get a sequel, two offshoot games, and is now getting another sequel. That seems the epitome of success.

lol Are you truly that stupid?

You seem to have a toruble remembering that successful developers like Bioware and Blizzard weren't always big shots. They had to earn the right to be bi shots. How? By following the "rules" and doing what the publishers demanded.

Riiight. More bullshit. Ok, if you are done, I'll present the facts now:

1) Blizzard was in a unique situation since early 90's when Vivendi bought them. Bill Roper said many times that Vivendi never interfered with game development and never pushed the titles out of the door before they were ready. Blizzard had all the time to figure out what they want, what works, and a chance to start from scratch if they wanted it. Do you think SC would have been a hit if it was released in its "orcs in space" mode?

2) Ray: we also had support on our first game, Shattered Steel, from a bunch of great folks at a partner company called Pyroteck
http://www.bioware.com/10years/10_years_of_bioware.html

If Troika had been run half intelligently, they would have done the same thing - the problem is Troika wnated to be everything right away - they wanted mega funds, they wanted to be a AAA developer, they wanted the accolades, they wanted the hardcore, they wanted the masses. They got too greedy for their own good.

Either back it up or shut the fuck up.

 

[Volourn]

"lol Are you truly that stupid?"

Perhaps; but at least i can take comfort that I'll never be as stupid as you. LOLOLOLOLLIPOP


"Riiight. More bullshit. Ok, if you are done, I'll present the facts now:

1) Blizzard was in a unique situation since early 90's when Vivendi bought them. Bill Roper said many times that Vivendi never interfered with game development and never pushed the titles out of the door before they were ready. Blizzard had all the time to figure out what they want, what works, and a chance to start from scratch if they wanted it. Do you think SC would have been a hit if it was released in its "orcs in space" mode?

2) Ray: we also had support on our first game, Shattered Steel, from a bunch of great folks at a partner company called Pyroteck
http://www.bioware.com/10years/10_years_of_bioware.html"

Irrelevant bullshit. They still had to follow the rules of the publishers just like any other newbie developer. But, keep up with the bullshit lies. Afterall, Troika got helped when they started out as well. Afterall, someone had to take a chance on publishing their first game and did so because of Troika's founders' past accomplishments. Keep crying though.


"Either back it up or shut the fuck up."

I alreayd have with your own words. As far as shutting up; you don't like what you are reading you can always 'shut me up' with a press of the button.

You simply can't handle the truth.

Troika screwed Troika.

Period.

 

[EEVIAC]

Once again, you are living in your own little world. The average development time for a game is 18 months. That's only a year and a half. I've even talked to developers that released console games within 6 months. Only the rare few get to have three to four year development cycles.

And yet some of these games with long development cycles do well. What does that tell you about what publishers know about the actual creation of games, hmm? Could it be that games need longer than 18 month development cycles?

Another fact that you seem to be ignorant of is the fact that most developers finish their games on time!

In console platformers, maybe. In RPG's, not likely. Bethsoft, Bioware, Blizzard all take a long time to make their games (and they still had bugs.) Compare that to Black Isle's one year development cycles and you start to see a strong trend.

Oh no, how can that be? Well, the console market is a lot more strict and they make up the lion's share of the market. They tend to produce on time, within budget, and relatively bug free for the most part.

Who's living in their own little world now? Streets of LA and Driv3r both sold well, both had lots of bugs. KOTOR 2 had a multitude of bugs and still topped the charts. Same publishers, often different developers, same shitty QA. Consoles are in no way a paragon of quality. I have as many lock-ups on my XBox as I do on my PC.

I've been saying this stuff in the hopes that any RPG developers that come to this site might actually take the hint. I really don't want to see the next Troika go down for not taking the business side seriously enough.

How wonderfully benevolent of you! All this time I was getting an education and I thought I was listening to the pathetic, self-righteous mewlings of a kid who took some random piece of conference crap as lore. You've based a lot of your argument on this one seminar while failing to take into account all the other vagaries that go into publisher/developer relations. No game is the same (except Armies Of Exigo,) no developer or publisher is the same, and yet you (and the industry (shit for) brains, apparently) use a basic rule to extrapolate and explain every outcome.

So flame on, just don't expect a reply.

I look forward to you not replying.