We've all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection and a couple of years later the publisher decided they're done with it and shut it down leaving you with a broken game. Annoying.
I don’t care your own word meanings. Your original comment is just wrong. Even if you mean the development studio it is still Ubisoft executives. The company hierarchy doesn’t matter.
My own words…? It’s literally a term used to describe a studio that develops software. It’s an industry term…
Even if you mean the development studio it is still Ubisoft executives. The company hierarchy doesn’t matter.
It’s the development studio, the hierarchy does matter. Since it changes from the publisher who controls sales, to the development studio, who controls the development and service. A developer can always choose to use their own funds to keep a game alive, it’s just never worth the cost, so why would even the employees want to burn money on that, since they know it’s a waste of a paycheck in the end? Good employee developers would inform upper management that it’s not a wise decision, if they didn’t, well that’s on them still now isn’t it?
I don’t care your own word meanings. Your original comment is just wrong. Even if you mean the development studio it is still Ubisoft executives. The company hierarchy doesn’t matter.
My own words…? It’s literally a term used to describe a studio that develops software. It’s an industry term…
It’s the development studio, the hierarchy does matter. Since it changes from the publisher who controls sales, to the development studio, who controls the development and service. A developer can always choose to use their own funds to keep a game alive, it’s just never worth the cost, so why would even the employees want to burn money on that, since they know it’s a waste of a paycheck in the end? Good employee developers would inform upper management that it’s not a wise decision, if they didn’t, well that’s on them still now isn’t it?