Looks like the game got canned because of corporate priorities and not because it was going to be massively controversial, which is unfortunate because I think it would have been quite fun.
Looks like the game got canned because of corporate priorities and not because it was going to be massively controversial, which is unfortunate because I think it would have been quite fun.
Oh absolutely! I didn't want to editorialise the title but the article feels very much more about corporate inteference and priority-shifting than the game itself being too risque. Honestly i was...
Oh absolutely! I didn't want to editorialise the title but the article feels very much more about corporate inteference and priority-shifting than the game itself being too risque.
Honestly i was shocked that they managed to sink 20 million dollars into a project and still think losing that sort of money was better than releasing it.
That is what shocked me more than anything else. How can they sink so much time and resources into something and just dump it? Maybe there should be a new sort of release type, complimentary to...
That is what shocked me more than anything else. How can they sink so much time and resources into something and just dump it?
Maybe there should be a new sort of release type, complimentary to Steam Greenlight/Early Access but for end-of-life games. Like a game museum or mortuary! Pay a fraction of the normal release title price, and get a glimpse of what could have been. With enough interest a studio or producer could even pick it back up again.
With games, the source code is just a small part of the whole, without the release of the assets it would be close to useless. Add to that the fact that many games share engines (think Unity,...
With games, the source code is just a small part of the whole, without the release of the assets it would be close to useless. Add to that the fact that many games share engines (think Unity, Unreal, etc) make it kind of infeasible.
Looks like the game got canned because of corporate priorities and not because it was going to be massively controversial, which is unfortunate because I think it would have been quite fun.
If anything, I'd like to have seen it at least released. Visceral made decent games, when they could make what they wanted to.
Oh absolutely! I didn't want to editorialise the title but the article feels very much more about corporate inteference and priority-shifting than the game itself being too risque.
Honestly i was shocked that they managed to sink 20 million dollars into a project and still think losing that sort of money was better than releasing it.
That is what shocked me more than anything else. How can they sink so much time and resources into something and just dump it?
Maybe there should be a new sort of release type, complimentary to Steam Greenlight/Early Access but for end-of-life games. Like a game museum or mortuary! Pay a fraction of the normal release title price, and get a glimpse of what could have been. With enough interest a studio or producer could even pick it back up again.
With games, the source code is just a small part of the whole, without the release of the assets it would be close to useless. Add to that the fact that many games share engines (think Unity, Unreal, etc) make it kind of infeasible.