3 ms·

>>Are you going to try to tell me that The Witcher 3 was developed by having everyone work a standard 8 hour day and that the team was given as much time as the

>>Are you going to try to tell me that The Witcher 3 was developed by having everyone work a standard 8 hour day and that the team was given as much time as they felt was needed to produce it? Are you going to tell me that The Witcher 3 was a success because it was released May 19th 2015 instead of October 24th 2015 or even May 19th 2016?

3a2d29 5y ago
I think you are missing what the comments point was. Cyberpunk could have been delayed again, but it still would have been bad. The Witcher 3 could have had less crunch and released a year later and been as much of a success, but the studio would lose way more money. Labor is extremely expensive and a year more of labor isn't worth it, so they rush. It just worked that time.
Kranar 5y ago
In retrospect no, The Witcher 3 would have been a success even if it were delayed by a year. But consider that CD Projekt almost went bankrupt over the development of Witcher 2 due to costs and delays and that video games are an incredibly risky business. There's a saying that businesses don't fail because they're unprofitable, they fail due to cash flow issues. Development costs only go up, so the longer a game takes the more expensive every single day of development ends up costing. Even if the game would ultimately prove to be successful, the huge risk that comes from having to fund its continued development for an extended period of time can put a company in jeopardy. That The Witcher 3 ended up being a massive success is great but it was never a guarantee.
lumost 5y ago
While I agree on the sentiment, what would have happened if it had gone out on Jan 2017 or 2018? Development cost at least doubles, the graphics would start to look dated relative to other titles. Competition with other open world action rpgs increases. The people responsible for making it the game that it is would have moved on, and other ideas would have come into the dev cycle.
greggman3 5y ago
I'm not saying there should be crunch but there is limited money (no idea for The Witcher). If you get funding for X amount of money you calculate your salaries plus overhead and you have a deadline. Miss the deadline then you renegotiate for more funding but at some point the funders will just pull the plug and your team are out of jobs. It's unrealistic to believe there's no reason for deadlines. For a FAANG company, sure, they're making so much money they can -- mostly -- afford to do things without deadlines but few video game studios are at a level of funding that they can spend another 3, 6, 12, months. The internet claims Cyberpunk 2077 had 500 to 5000 people working on it. I'm sure that 5000 number is not full time but it's not hard to believe the 500 number. Just paying 500 people $15 an hour, 40 hours a week $1.2 million a month, not counting rent/power/taxes etc... And of course some large percent of those people are probably getting closer or $30 per hour $60k yearly salary) to $60 per hour ($120k a year salary) Witcher3 claims 150-250 employees so your delay, shipping October instead of May is easily $4 million needed and I suspect that number is low. $12 million if it took an extra year as you suggested and that's a low-ball estimate.

3a2d29 5y ago

I think you are missing what the comments point was. Cyberpunk could have been delayed again, but it still would have been bad. The Witcher 3 could have had less crunch and released a year later and been as much of a success, but the studio would lose way more money. Labor is extremely expensive and a year more of labor isn't worth it, so they rush. It just worked that time.

Kranar 5y ago

In retrospect no, The Witcher 3 would have been a success even if it were delayed by a year. But consider that CD Projekt almost went bankrupt over the development of Witcher 2 due to costs and delays and that video games are an incredibly risky business. There's a saying that businesses don't fail because they're unprofitable, they fail due to cash flow issues. Development costs only go up, so the longer a game takes the more expensive every single day of development ends up costing. Even if the game would ultimately prove to be successful, the huge risk that comes from having to fund its continued development for an extended period of time can put a company in jeopardy. That The Witcher 3 ended up being a massive success is great but it was never a guarantee.

lumost 5y ago

While I agree on the sentiment, what would have happened if it had gone out on Jan 2017 or 2018? Development cost at least doubles, the graphics would start to look dated relative to other titles. Competition with other open world action rpgs increases. The people responsible for making it the game that it is would have moved on, and other ideas would have come into the dev cycle.

greggman3 5y ago

I'm not saying there should be crunch but there is limited money (no idea for The Witcher). If you get funding for X amount of money you calculate your salaries plus overhead and you have a deadline. Miss the deadline then you renegotiate for more funding but at some point the funders will just pull the plug and your team are out of jobs. It's unrealistic to believe there's no reason for deadlines. For a FAANG company, sure, they're making so much money they can -- mostly -- afford to do things without deadlines but few video game studios are at a level of funding that they can spend another 3, 6, 12, months. The internet claims Cyberpunk 2077 had 500 to 5000 people working on it. I'm sure that 5000 number is not full time but it's not hard to believe the 500 number. Just paying 500 people $15 an hour, 40 hours a week $1.2 million a month, not counting rent/power/taxes etc... And of course some large percent of those people are probably getting closer or $30 per hour $60k yearly salary) to $60 per hour ($120k a year salary) Witcher3 claims 150-250 employees so your delay, shipping October instead of May is easily $4 million needed and I suspect that number is low. $12 million if it took an extra year as you suggested and that's a low-ball estimate.