Publishing has nothing to do with game development in its self. The only thing the publisher does is market the game, own the IP, get most of the money, and come up with the business model. The developer makes the game it's self, and hopes that the Publisher markets it faithfully. Unfortunately that's almost never the case, the publishers now a days usually over sell games so much it leads to hype burn out and disappointed fans.

It actually does. Look at Destiny for example: Activision had a plan on how to publish the game by cutting the game into bits, which lead to the main designer to leave Bungie. If it weren't for Activision, the game wouldn't be in a bad situation it currently is. Warner Brothers are also a good example when it comes to PC ports. Batman Arkham Night was handed over to Iron Galaxy (The same studio that toke over Double Helix's place to make the Killer Instinct game), they 🚫🔕🔇💉💢⚡ it up really bad. It also happened with MKX, High Voltage was responsible for the port (Keep in mind these are third party developers), the game is in a mess. And despite having impressive sales on Steam (Selling over half a million copies alone within the first year it was released), and the announcement of an improved netcode and online servers to be in the works (Which was something the PC version REALLY needed), WB has shut down further support on PC. My point is publishers are also a thing to consider when you're looking into buying into a new game. Tom Clancy games have been good for the most part, but Ubisoft is one of the other companies who have a bad rep with their games (I'm looking at you Assassin's Creed Unity).

How a game is cut up is part of the game's business model, I thought that was well known. And you are correct the publisher is in charge of Who makes the game as well. I just wanna say that Ubisoft is a very mixed bag when it comes to publishing. Sometimes they seem to do things right other times things turn out to be a mess. The fact Ubisoft let the Division get delayed is a good sign. Destiny certainly should have gotten a delay given what happen a year before its release. So far there's no evidence that content was cut to be put into DLC, in fact a developer stated in an interview that Brooklyn (the location everyone was worried about being made into DLC because we've seen it in trailers and gameplay) is not going to be paid DLC. Hopefully that wasn't a lie. As for the business model, I hope those monthly events that season pass users get are nothing more than double XP weekends or things of a similar vain. Otherwise many people will get pissed as all hell. In my opinion it's wise to be cautious of Ubisoft [b][i][u]Published[/u][/i][/b] games, given their track record of releasing both good and mediocre tittles.

That's a much better explanation. I agree with what you said. The open beta will be on Xbox on the 18th, so lets hope some of the things that are wrong with the beta get fixed at launch.