3 ms·

> Whether you finish the next release in 1 month or 2 is of no practical importance, except that it makes the manager look good. No, it also increases value to

> Whether you finish the next release in 1 month or 2 is of no practical importance, except that it makes the manager look good. No, it also increases value to the customer, and therefore price. It also helps you stay ahead of the competition, also increasing price. Can you elaborate on PUBG?

lj3 9y ago
> it also increases value to the customer, and therefore price Not always. Look at the most recent OS releases. Windows 8 and 10 had terrible adoption rates because they actually deliver a negative value for most users compared to what they already own (windows 7). > It also helps you stay ahead of the competition, also increasing price. Again, not always, for the same reasons mentioned above. > Can you elaborate on PUBG? From a technical point of view, PUBG is a train wreck. They had budgeted a 1 year development cycle, which for an online 3d FPS is ridiculously short. I think they initially launched it after a year and a half of development. But, from a sales point of view, PUBG has been very profitable. People are playing it despite the networking problems and relatively bad graphics because it fills a niche that hasn't been addressed by other game companies in years. But, there was no guarantee it would have been a hit. The condensed timeline and less than stellar graphics was their way of keeping development costs low. If the game hadn't been an instant hit, they could have still made a profit.
- brucephillips 9y ago
  PUBG is an example of how low quality releases can be profitable, not how "there's rarely a discernible difference in revenue between a high quality release and a buggy, low quality release"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - chickenfries 9y ago
    Go back and read the sentence you quoted, in it's entirety. > there's rarely a discernible difference in revenue between a high quality release and a buggy, low quality release, but the profit margin of the former can be (and often is) much lower. I think you agree with the OP...
    - brucephillips 9y ago
      No, I don't. I don't believe there's rarely a difference in revenue between a low quality release and a high quality release. Further, PUBG, at least as presented, doesn't support this assetion, since it doesn't show revenue failing to increase after a higher quality release.

lj3 9y ago

> it also increases value to the customer, and therefore price Not always. Look at the most recent OS releases. Windows 8 and 10 had terrible adoption rates because they actually deliver a negative value for most users compared to what they already own (windows 7). > It also helps you stay ahead of the competition, also increasing price. Again, not always, for the same reasons mentioned above. > Can you elaborate on PUBG? From a technical point of view, PUBG is a train wreck. They had budgeted a 1 year development cycle, which for an online 3d FPS is ridiculously short. I think they initially launched it after a year and a half of development. But, from a sales point of view, PUBG has been very profitable. People are playing it despite the networking problems and relatively bad graphics because it fills a niche that hasn't been addressed by other game companies in years. But, there was no guarantee it would have been a hit. The condensed timeline and less than stellar graphics was their way of keeping development costs low. If the game hadn't been an instant hit, they could have still made a profit.

brucephillips 9y ago
PUBG is an example of how low quality releases can be profitable, not how "there's rarely a discernible difference in revenue between a high quality release and a buggy, low quality release"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- chickenfries 9y ago
  Go back and read the sentence you quoted, in it's entirety. > there's rarely a discernible difference in revenue between a high quality release and a buggy, low quality release, but the profit margin of the former can be (and often is) much lower. I think you agree with the OP...
  - brucephillips 9y ago
    No, I don't. I don't believe there's rarely a difference in revenue between a low quality release and a high quality release. Further, PUBG, at least as presented, doesn't support this assetion, since it doesn't show revenue failing to increase after a higher quality release.