安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
此主題的作者已將一篇留言標為問題解答。
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
There's a number of answers here. If you're talking about bedroom coders and one-man type indie companies (or even the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ non-games on Steam) then it's pretty straightforward. They either didn't do as well as imagined, or it wasn't an experience they wanted to continue with.
Money ain't everything of course, nor is fame or success. If it was soul-destroying or mentally draining, plenty of people walk away and change jobs.
But as far as general success goes, that's something YOU can't assess really. Because what YOU see as a success might be completly different to what the devs and publishers might see as success.
Look at some triple A examples in more recent years. Dead Space 3, Resident Evil 6 and quite a few others. Sold gangbusters, but because of the stupid development or promotional costs, even though they sold records amount they still didn't break even.
So in short, yes you are missing a number of things.
Amongst other things they tried to address a huge problem back then that plagued all gamers.
OpenGL. Direct X. Source. ID Tech.
Intel and Ati. Very nasty point in time.
Updates and driver stuff.
We were lucky to run anything back then.
They aimed to make that easier.
The rest was demanded by us… probably :)
They didn’t just create the odd game they created Source.
Back then you were either Source or ID Tech. Again more incompatibilities.
Both went on to support many a fine game.
You could literally go on and in filling in the gaps, that alone would spawn many opportunities and continued support, much continued support.
This ship is far from sinking.
For something that you or I would purchase for $15-60 on the store and complete in 1-30 days took a developer probably months or (most likely) years to create. Most new developers end up nearly going bankrupt and hedging bets on their creation being the next
Minecraft, Fallout, GTA, DOTA, et al.
They've got the option of going solo but have it take years and years to make at a reasonable cost or jump into the deep end and bring together a team and pray that the time and expense is paid back in sales and exposure.
Then there's the option of going fully paid (most titles), DLC black hole (Anything Dovetail games make), or Free-to-Play with a billion microtransactions (Fortnite).
Should the stars align and they end up with a hit game (Minecraft) they'll then need more of the same time, money, and effort to make a sequel (Kerbal Space Program 2). Moreso if they are looking to make an entirely new IP.
The developer could also just go down the route of endlessly polishing their game (7 Days to Die) and never release a sequel. Some just enjoy sitting on profits from a single title.
edit:
One factor that plays a major part in a developer making a lot more games is being bought by a studio. Essentially what occurred with many great teams that got sucked into Electronic Arts or Ubisoft.
The negative effect of which is that team could get dissolved into other teams or the IP just gets bought and then they cease to exist.
So don't despair if you see only a single title on the store from a developer - they're either extremely proud of that single title, gone broke and can't make another, in the process of making another, or they're just happy with a one-and-done approach.
TO be fair, 7 Days to Die are not endlessly polishing their game. They're making regular continual additions. It's a bit different.
Though I agree with your sentiment.
They are making regular additions but I'm tired of seeing 'Alpha 1X.X' on my library updates for their game. That's a discussion for that forum though, don't want to derail from OP question.
Ah now, naming conventions are daft. I'm with you there.
But that doesn't mean it's as you say. If it were polish, nothing of real merit would be added, it'd be just ever decreasing amounts of adjustment. And that just isn't the case.
I mean I get it, they are slow, but they've had to go through some real challenges, and they are a small team. So credit where it's due I guess.
They're a small team indeed. Great example of why it takes time to make a game. They could have spent this entire time developing and not releasing anything but instead went early access as that's what it is for. Props where it's due though, they also managed to reach consoles with an early access title. That's impressive and also terrifying at the same time.
It's a great example for why developers end up going down a certain path. They could have stopped 15 Alpha releases ago and just left it there as a full title. Would they still see the same engagement and activity? Probably not.
Inside a bubble they have developed a fantastic game but reality is that we're too accustomed to a polished and/or finished title in a reasonable period of time. Keeping the 'Alpha' and 'Early Access' association can eventually harm a developer more than help them.
edit - I will say though, I will always take early access, alpha, or long drawn out update cycles over devs that decide splitting up their game into hundreds of DLC purchases.
Defo agree with that. I think it's just symptom of new things. We ain't used to how this is happening. Maybe in a few years after it all settles down, we'll look back and think "wasn't it funny when this used to annoy us or freak us out?"
And no, they don't always continue making games. People often enough realise that creating a game is loads of work, not exactly fun and want to do something else with their life.
They use FREE assets or assets that cost a few euro's, play with that, develop it a little bit, throw it on Steam and call it 'a game'. But some just do it because they want experience regarding developing and see it as a fun hobby thing.
Which is a shame because having played the first you want them to have made more as they were so good.
Darwinia is a good example, they never made a follow up because they didn't want to rehash it, they also made Prison Architect which is much bigger but not much interest to me.
I follow some indie developers waiting for their next game as they are so inventive.
Viscera Cleanup is another, disappointed they made a F2P multiplayer as their next game.
Small team, maybe even one person, they can only be so creative.