View Single Post
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,988
# 17
02-14-2013, 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by thissler View Post
PVP on the otherhand is INSANELY cheap to implement, and get the same results.
I'm very skeptical of this and my skepticism boils down partly to economies of scale.

Scenario A: You have 300 devs, having 40%-60% of your budget on PvP is cost effective and more cost effective per dev than further PvE development.

Scenario B: If you have 25 devs or 50, you're up against a wall because you need a minimum number of artists/producers/technicians. This forces you into a part of the cost curve where PvE is a more cost effective use of labor.

If you under-staff PvE, you get the same results, only slower. If you under-staff PvP, you get an unsustainable product. A real PvP focus might require things like biweekly buff/nerf patches, for example. Which might involve a workflow 50 people can't do.

And if say you need a minimum of 15 people doing non-systems, non-content tasks, you have less devs for PvE or PvP. And, like I say, understaffed PvE probably has less obstacles (ie. people may quit and come back when content eventually gets released) than understaffed PvP (people don't come back when imbalances persist).