I’m not sure how that makes sense to you, that it’s hard to maintain two versions, especially digitally. As far as the code, again fairly manageble. I worked at a place that managed dozens of forks of a product codebase. Here we’re talking about going from 2 (PC & PS) to 3.
Especially now that the game is basically done and done. No new content. At best maybe a couple of patches. And then it’s really a wrap.
It means you have to produce two binaries. Since they don't have the same features, they must be tested separately and with a different validation data set. Two binaries also mean different dependencies. They have to package two different deliverables. They basically have the same work as managing two separate products, so twice the work (but making sure they're properly synchronized on top of it).
You'll say they can simply do a quick hack, but that's not how those people work, especially in Japan - believe me; I've worked with them. Besides, a quick hack means people will as quickly work around it and rub it in their face.
I'm not even sure Steam allows for different binaries in function of the country, so they're probably up to more complications over there. Two separate Steam entries? Each limited to a number of countries? Separate statistics and scores? Oof. What about the mods; will they be compatible with both games? What about the DLCs; will they have to release them, test them, package them for both products?
I've worked in those different areas, and I can smell a lot of problems from what only looks like a simple difference. All that for what? Some more sales, and likely the same review bombs?
Their approach to broaden the number of countries is the right approach, IMO.
Also two versions on the same platform. Porting over to PC was a huge effort compared to that.
Yes, but it has nothing to do with it. They're distributed differently through different channels and to different people. They aim at two different segments of the gaming market: consoles and PCs, so it's worth the effort.
All to not sell a product that thoretically can have a huge tail of sales. 5-10 years from now it could still be selling.
Yes, I suppose that would bring some marginal extra sales in those countries, but if they're not ready, there's nothing for it. They seem to be working on the problem methodically rather than rushing it with a lot of potential complications for a little gain and likely risks.
The fact they wouldn't be able to play MP only in those countries is a major problem, too. That alone could justify not doing it. And imagine what happens once they are OK with some of those countries: what do they do with the Steam product? Do they give a code so the customers can now switch to the other MP-enabled product? More complications for the customer, this time.
I'm surprised by some of the countries on that list, though.
What I’m more surprised is in your optimism and vehemence that Sony management most definitely weighed out all the options and made the best decision for themselves. From the ineptitude and bad management decisions I’ve seen in a lot of companies, both having worked in and from outside, it wouldn’t be beyond expectation for a corporation to make such blundering mistakes.
There's no vehemence, nor any optimism. Quite the opposite.
I know you're quick to criticize corporations, but I prefer to try and understand their motives. I don't have any warm feelings for Sony; I rather despise their way of treating customers, and this situation is fucked up, but that doesn't mean they're complete idiots. Maybe my experience and the problems I saw in production and QA makes me see what isn't obvious to everyone, too.
