Relevance? You can seek perfection while ignoring sunk costs.
Avoiding the fallacy just means you compare the costs of reaching "perfection" from your current position to the value of reaching perfection. The cost you ignore is the cost you've spent to reach your current position, because that cost was incurred regardless of your decisions now.
On how to deal with sunk costs, Seth Godin once said [1]
"Everything you own, all the clothing in your closet, your academic achievements and beyond is simply a gift. It is a gift that your past self is giving to your present self, and it’s up to you to decide whether you want that gift today.
It is as simple as that–you owe your past self nothing, other than the consideration of whether these gifts are helpful in the here and now."
I use this way of framing business decisions a lot nowadays. It's a very effective way of removing the emotional baggage that sunk costs come with, and focus on the actual goals you should be achieving.
Kinda sounds like it needed a performant reimplementation, period. This is what the game looks like. There's just a flat isometric plane of squares with animated sprites in it.
The Vita and the PSP both have a lot of tactical RPGs that are a lot higher in complexity, with actual 3D environments as well as randomly generated ones (much harder to handle than pre-made hard-coded ones).
Throwing out code is easy, throwing out hours you've spent investing into something is hard (e.g. learning, promoting, developing, money, etc).
These aren't technical issues with technical solutions, these are issues relating to people's egos and their willingness to throw out acquired skills and effort.
For one example, you could go from being the biggest expert in that area to being behind others just by turning against a technology you've helped spearhead. I've seen it happen (and people resist it who knew they'd gone down a dead end).
