• @MSids@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    347 months ago

    The subscription model is, in my opinion, dumb. If they need it to work, maybe they should buy games instead of studios. I can’t work out exactly how long term patching would work though, unless they kicked back a maintenance fee from sales and gamepass usage to the studio.

    • pacoboyd
      link
      fedilink
      English
      177 months ago

      Back in the day, devs used to not release games until they were done. Patches were bascially unheard of.

      • cassie 🐺
        link
        fedilink
        English
        76 months ago

        I will say, these days it’s more or less impossible to release a game that’ll run perfectly on every system and it’s a good thing we’re able to fix crashes and patch issues as they come up. This has naturally had its downsides as publishers squeeze devs for tighter releases, but outside of that it’s a very good thing for devs and players.

      • @sibannac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        It would be a bad look and there were anologue standards at play then. Digital releases and the capacity of storage mediums really pushed releasing unfinished games over the edge.

    • @SecretPancake@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 months ago

      I don’t know how the contracts look but games on Apple Arcade get support years after release. It does work somehow.

      • @MSids@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26 months ago

        It must work like the music streaming model where Apple kicks back a fee to the devs based on monthly installs or usage to the dev. It probably works better than Microsoft’s model of buying a developer, not committing resources to run them, then closing the studio.