Forums > Game Forums > Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark > why is there no developer on this?
Cavalary (11445) on 4/1/2018 1:37 AM · Permalink · Report
What the title says. Why doesn't any release info for this include the developer? I mean, it's not a compilation... But since there are several release info entries and all lack the developer, seems like someone took it as being one? Or is there some other reason?
Plok (211846) on 4/1/2018 7:44 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
It has been decided that expansions/DLC, special editions, and compilations can only have their developers stated if:
a) they are different to the base game (e.g. Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath)
b) we are talking about a standalone expansion (e.g. Company of Heroes: Tales of Valor)
c) we are talking about a compilation that marked the debut of the game on a platform (e.g. L.A. Noire: The Complete Edition for Windows)
Cavalary (11445) on 4/1/2018 10:10 AM · Permalink · Report
And you mean this isn't different from the base game?
Not that it seems right to not include developer for DLC of any sort, as somebody, well, developed it, whatever it is, but for full expansions? Come on! (And the others still have developer listed. Was how I spotted it, was missing from BioWare's list.)
Patrick Bregger (299943) on 4/1/2018 11:23 AM · Permalink · Report
That's because the others (at least according to our release information) were co-developed by another company. Also what we call "DLC" and "expansions" are fundamentally exactly the same thing (the only difference is the distribution method), so they need to be treated identically.
Cavalary (11445) on 4/1/2018 11:58 AM · Permalink · Report
Oh, that's what was meant by different from the base game.
Either way, all sorts of wrong. I mean, you don't have products on the sheets of those who actually produce them, but you have them on those of all those who just happen to sell them.
Plok (211846) on 4/1/2018 1:32 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Cavalary wrote--]Oh, that's what was meant by different from the base game.
Either way, all sorts of wrong. I mean, you don't have products on the sheets of those who actually produce them, but you have them on those of all those who just happen to sell them. [/Q --end Cavalary wrote--] Not the happiest solution by any means, but it's all supposedly meant to be linked to the base games once the site is upgraded. How the DLC will be attached to the developers, I don't know.
Foxhack (32100) on 4/1/2018 4:53 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Cavalary wrote--]Oh, that's what was meant by different from the base game.
Either way, all sorts of wrong. I mean, you don't have products on the sheets of those who actually produce them, but you have them on those of all those who just happen to sell them. [/Q --end Cavalary wrote--]You're not the only one who feels this is the wrong approach. I hate not being able to list devs on compilations. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaate. The devs should always be listed.
Cavalary (11445) on 4/1/2018 5:26 PM · Permalink · Report
True, developers are the most important and should always be there. But I can somewhat understand it for compilations with no content not available separately, as in that case the product was produced by the publisher, who decided what to bundle together, the developer didn't produce that, but only its elements, and those (should...) show up properly on their sheet. But for DLC/expansions, makes no sense.