Did you read my previous post regarding IP rights? I was providing some information on IP rights which does not excuse Firaxis from the flaws in Civ5, even if it's an "implementation" issue.
Also, from what I understand about software development, a developer is akin to a service provider, while the publisher is akin to the client. The client set the budget and the deadlines, and other marketing terms, perhaps even the integration with Steam, but the client cannot dictate how to design or implement the product, as long as the terms initially agred upon has been fulfilled. That is not to say that the client has no way to influence the development cycle, but the main control lies with the developer, SO IS the responsibility.
Although many people simply perceived that T2 outright owns Firaxis, and that may be the case depends on how you look at it, but T2 has nothing to gain by having a half-baked product from Firaxis. If my understand of publishers remain valid today, they are all about profit. That means the development cycle must comform to their deadline and budget. That most often than not has an unhealthy influence on the game development cycle, as developer instinctively has the impression that they are under tight budget and short deadline.
However, that said, it is still the developer responsibility to deliver a reasonable product (and no, Civ5 is not a reasonable product), and come'on, do you believe T2 actually is responsible for bad design call like having maintenance for road for aesthetic reason or having "mysterious" diplomacy?
And in response to your other statement about another developer working on a civilization game, it is a real possibility, but it will not be branded as a civilization game. T2 will most likely take the code base, give it to another game studio, and rebrand the product, and we'll never know it is from the same code base if they don't tell us.
Also, from what I understand about software development, a developer is akin to a service provider, while the publisher is akin to the client. The client set the budget and the deadlines, and other marketing terms, perhaps even the integration with Steam, but the client cannot dictate how to design or implement the product, as long as the terms initially agred upon has been fulfilled. That is not to say that the client has no way to influence the development cycle, but the main control lies with the developer, SO IS the responsibility.
Although many people simply perceived that T2 outright owns Firaxis, and that may be the case depends on how you look at it, but T2 has nothing to gain by having a half-baked product from Firaxis. If my understand of publishers remain valid today, they are all about profit. That means the development cycle must comform to their deadline and budget. That most often than not has an unhealthy influence on the game development cycle, as developer instinctively has the impression that they are under tight budget and short deadline.
However, that said, it is still the developer responsibility to deliver a reasonable product (and no, Civ5 is not a reasonable product), and come'on, do you believe T2 actually is responsible for bad design call like having maintenance for road for aesthetic reason or having "mysterious" diplomacy?
And in response to your other statement about another developer working on a civilization game, it is a real possibility, but it will not be branded as a civilization game. T2 will most likely take the code base, give it to another game studio, and rebrand the product, and we'll never know it is from the same code base if they don't tell us.
