who argued that it encouraged developers to
release unfinished games—Towns was perhaps
one of the most egregious examples of this. Three-
man dev outfit SMP confirmed upon release that
the game would continue to be updated, but that
didn’t stop players from review-bombing Towns’
Steam page, claiming it was a ‘buggy, barely-
playable mess’ that shouldn’t have been released.
Despite these warnings, Towns quickly sold over
200,000 copies at $15 apiece, resulting in an angry
player base of significant size. Lead developer Xavi
Canal announced in February 2014 (a year and a
half after the game’s release) that he was quitting
due to burnout, resulting in further vitriol from
those who had shelled out for Towns. Replacement
dev, Florian Frankenberger, took up the reins only
to end development completely four months later.
Frankenberger stated that development was
being halted due to a lack of ongoing purchases; to
put it simply, the game wasn’t profitable anymore.
This raised many questions about when a developer
should abandon support for a game, although most
hopeful Towns fans naturally didn’t see it that way.
Claims that the developers had ‘taken the money
and run’ were common, and the game still sits for
sale on Steam, forever unfinished with a Mostly
Negative user review score.ADMITTING DEFEAT
The debate on how long developers should be
expected to support their games is likely to rage on,
with disgruntled gamers expecting their favorite
titles to remain playable until the last player has
logged off. Of course, this isn’t practical, as game
publishers have to take other factors into account—
broadly speaking, there are three things that
developers and publishers must consider when the
question of ending support for a game arises.
The first is the most straightforward: money.
How much is it costing to keep the game running?
How much does the game earn in terms of sales,
subscriptions, or micro-transactions? As anyone
who has worked in the games industry will confirm,
money is almost always the driving force behind
any such decisions.The second and third factors are more nuanced;
what are the potential PR issues, and what would
any staff working on the game do once it has been
shut down? Even if a game isn’t as profitable as it
once was, a publisher might opt to sustain it if the
alternative could create a PR disaster—provided,
of course, that doing so won’t actively cost the
company money. Some publishers may hold off on
ending support for a game because of the potential
damage to their reputation.
Finally, development studios have limited
manpower and employees may be required to work
on other projects. If a game is ‘dying’ and the studio
needs to put out a new title on schedule (usually to
meet financial demands), it stands to reason that
staff can be pulled from supporting an old game to
complete an ongoing project on time.TROUBLE BREWING
In rare cases, unusual circumstances can bring
work on a game to a grinding halt. These are often
difficulties of a legal nature; disagreement between
media license holders and developers has forced
many a game adaptation into cancellation, such as
Disney opting not to renew its trademark for the
assumed-canceled Star Wars 1313 spin-off game.
One case of legal proceeding impinging ongoing
support for a game is that of Friday the 13th:
The Game, a multiplayer survival horror gameDespite big plans for content, EA ceased
all development on Anthem in 2021.Even software engineer Jorge Rodriguez
said Crucible ‘should have been canceled’.Prey 2 promised an
alien cyberpunk city
to explore, but was
eventually reborn as
a totally different
game under Arkane
Studios.left behind
44 MAXIMU MPC JUN 2022
© BIOWARE/EA, AMAZON GAME STUDIOS, BETHESDA