4 réponses à ce sujet

[Haristo]

 
SOURCE


What... The... **** ! :sick:

Modifié par Haristo, 03 juin 2011 - 02:52 .

[Brenon Holmes]

Just as a quick comment... I'm not going to speak directly to the "Kinect" thing because that's a rumor... and we don't comment on those.

Regarding the sentiment that a lot of people are expressing though... Development teams are made up of a lot of different people doing a lot of different types of work, saying that the addition or removal of *any* feature directly results in the addition or loss of something in a different area of the game is taking a very simplistic view of a rather complicated set of dependencies.

You can't say something like... If we cut two guns, we get more dialogue options! It doesn't really work that way. It'd be nice if it did... it would probably make a lot of the production guys' jobs easier. :happy:

Modifié par Brenon Holmes, 02 juin 2011 - 05:06 .

[Brenon Holmes]

vader da slayer wrote...

love it when a developer makes people put their foot in their mouth

Be nice. :happy:

There's no problem with people expressing concern. I think it simply demonstrates that they care a lot about the game. As someone working on it, that's something that I find rather gratifying...
 

[Brenon Holmes]

Terror_K wrote...

I think most of us realise this. We know that different departments and teams deal with different aspects of the game, etc. But in the end doesn't each department still have to dip into the same overall budget that's funding it? If --for example-- 5% of the games' budget gets allocated towards Kinect support and nothing else, isn't that 5% still a portion of the overall pool that realistically could have been allocated somewhere else and to another department?

Unless of course any costs related to adding Kinect support (theoretically, of couse... ) came from a completely separate source and wouldn't have existed otherwise.

Sort of. Budget is usually allocated via personnel. So you have X dudes for a period of time. But it normally doesn't break down as a cost per feature. It's easier to think of it as a simple time cost (that's how we normally deal with it).

Programmer X implements a feature and it takes 6 weeks... that just means they now have 6 weeks less time they can spend on other things. :happy: There isn't really a global project budget though that gets deducted whenever we do a feature (you might be able to think about it like that... but it'll just get confusing in the end).

And yes, sometimes there are ways to defray costs. We might have somebody implementing something for a different project that we can steal, or other factors.

[Brenon Holmes]

I think we're done here... the level of acidity is rising, and the civil discussion pretty much vacated the area a while back.