Support NeoGAF

[NervousXtian]

I don't think it is necessarily foolish to go through that method, given other games in its genre have largely gone through the same early access method to fund development.

Granted, yes, the state of the game when they started to sell it was probably the foolish part.

It is foolish to consumers. This is a huge wake up call. Or at least should be to consumers.

If your goal is profit from EA and not profit from release. That's a problem.

DF and Tim's response are pretty sad. They never has a plan to finish the game. It seems a massive misuse of the EA system.

 

[SirPenguin]

uhhhh ok, Tim, if you say so

http://indie-fund.com/2013/11/spacebase-df-9-recoups-investment-in-two-weeks/

What a complete disaster their studio must be to lose money on a project that recouped its initial budget in two weeks. What the hell happened?

 

[ramuh]

What a complete disaster their studio must be to lose money on a project that recouped its initial budget in two weeks. What the hell happened?

Just remember in the future. That this studio is absolute trash and never support any Early Access title from them. Hopefully everyone will ignore them like the plague. Remember this is “the complete experience you’d expect of a non-Early Access game". Lol. I.E. You get a tutorial.

 

[PaulloDEC]

Just remember in the future. That this studio is absolute trash and never support any Early Access title from them. Hopefully everyone will ignore them like the plague. Remember this is “the complete experience you’d expect of a non-Early Access game". Lol. I.E. You get a tutorial.

Ignoring the plague seems like a bad idea. Just sayin'.

 

[ramuh]

Ignoring the plague seems like a bad idea. Just sayin'.

Hah. Good point.

Ok. Don't ignore them like the plague! Just be careful with buying their future access titles.

 

[PaulloDEC]

Hah. Good point.

Ok. Don't ignore them like the plague! Just be careful with buying their future access titles.

That makes more sense. Can't play any games if we're all dead from the plague!

 

[ramuh]

That makes more sense. Can't play any games if we're all dead from the plague!

Hehe too true. I will take extra caution when trying to convey extra caution.

 

[exmachina64]

uhhhh ok, Tim, if you say so

http://indie-fund.com/2013/11/spacebase-df-9-recoups-investment-in-two-weeks/

What a complete disaster their studio must be to lose money on a project that recouped its initial budget in two weeks. What the hell happened?

The intial budget was $400k, of which Double Fine put up none of its own money. I imagine that initial influx of revenue was used to pay back the investors listed at your link. Besides that, four Double Fine employees were on the project full-time for approximately a year. In San Francisco and with the amount of experience affecting pay, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume each employee makes ~$100k. With taxes, it would take ~$800k to keep those employees working on the game.

If other employees were on the game part-time or if they used outside consultants, that increases the cost. So in the best case scenario, they made back the initial budget of $400k that was used to launch the game in Early Access and then persistently low sales couldn't cover their operating costs. In the worst-case scenario, they made back the initial budget of $400k, had to pay that back immediately to their investors and then persistently low sales couldn't cover their operating costs.

 

[ab.aeterno]

uhhhh ok, Tim, if you say so

http://indie-fund.com/2013/11/spacebase-df-9-recoups-investment-in-two-weeks/

What a complete disaster their studio must be to lose money on a project that recouped its initial budget in two weeks. What the hell happened?

Uh, unless I'm reading it wrong, that article was posted last year, and is talking about their initial development budget before launch. It's been 8-9 months of development since then, which costs money. Do you think that didn't cost anything?

 

[benicillin]

This is disappointing since I thought the game had potential, but I'm not going to crucify them over it - early access is a risk and I'll just think twice or wait awhile before purchasing an early access title from Double Fine in the future.

 

[SirPenguin]

Uh, unless I'm reading it wrong, that article was posted last year, and is talking about their initial development budget before launch. It's been 8-9 months of development since then, which costs money. Do you think that didn't cost anything?

Did they take their game off of Steam after those 2 weeks?

DF-9 had a tiny team and recouped their initial budget in 2 weeks. They've since had several Steam sales and have been part of a many bundles.

All of that, and they won't even break even? I'm pretty confident that's total bullshit. If the answer really is "well the Bay Area is expensive", then move out of the Bay Area, you dummies!

 

[ramuh]

Uh, unless I'm reading it wrong, that article was posted last year, and is talking about their initial development budget before launch. It's been 8-9 months of development since then, which costs money. Do you think that didn't cost anything?

I guess you have to go to your own personal definition of Early Access. Is it a way to fund the game fully? Or is a way to access a game that is currently in development with the community involvement that would hopefully lead to a fully realized release? Sounds like DF doesn't have good Business planners of how to access cash or investors on how to fund a title correctly. To me early access is just a way to involve the community in the development of a title, not to fund it.

 

[exmachina64]

It is foolish to consumers. This is a huge wake up call. Or at least should be to consumers.

If your goal is profit from EA and not profit from release. That's a problem.

Their goal wasn't to profit from EA, it was to make enough money to pay for its continued development. They are losing money on the game each month because of how low sales are. They didn't have room in the company's budget to make the game with a traditional development process so they tried Early Access.

DF and Tim's response are pretty sad. They never has a plan to finish the game. It seems a massive misuse of the EA system.

They planned that they would be making enough money in sales to keep things going to (the original idea of) completion. Because this genre is popular currently, they hoped that it would be popular enough that the team could expand from four developers, which would address the complaints people have with the frequency of updates.

 

[Necromanti]

I guess you have to go to your own personal definition of Early Access. Is it a way to fund the game fully? Or is a way to access a game that is currently in development with the community involvement that would hopefully lead to a fully realized release? Sounds like DF doesn't have good Business planners of how to access cash or investors on how to fund a title correctly. To me early access is just a way to involve the community in the development of a title, not to fund it.

I wonder how many other developers are treating Early Access as some sort of crowdfunding model. It seems using their customers as investors didn't work out well for them, though.

 

[Munin]

Their goal wasn't to profit from EA, it was to make enough money to pay for its continued development. They are losing money on the game each month because of how low sales are. They didn't have room in the company's budget to make the game with a traditional development process so they tried Early Access.



They planned that they would be making enough money in sales to keep things going to (the original idea of) completion. Because this genre is popular currently, they hoped that it would be popular enough that the team could expand from four developers, which would address the complaints people have with the frequency of updates.

If the game's continued development to completion was dependent on its sales then they should have indicated that to the people who were about to buy it.

That's really the asshole-ish thing they did here. And that's where the difference lies to the way Early Access SHOULD be used - as an avenue to let people test and influence the gameplay, and yes, as an ADDITIONAL revenue stream but not as the sole one to fund the entire game itself.

 

[ab.aeterno]

Did they take their game off of Steam after those 2 weeks?

DF-9 had a tiny team and recouped their initial budget in 2 weeks. They've since had several Steam sales and have been part of a many bundles.

All of that, and they won't even break even? I'm pretty confident that's total bullshit. If the answer really is "well the Bay Area is expensive", then move out of the Bay Area, you dummies!

And? How many copies do you think they were selling per week? During sales? How much money did they get from bundles? Be specific with your estimates. You seem very confident that it was profitable based on pure conjecture.

 

[ramuh]

I wonder how many other developers are treating Early Access as some sort of crowdfunding model. It seems using their customers as investors didn't work out well for them, though.

You know I'm sure that based on some games/genres you can get away with using EA as a developmental budget to fund your game but in the end to me personally it seems a bastardization of what EA is suppose to be. Ya EA can help with a budget, but it shouldn't be the end all of your whole cycle of development on the title. Piss poor planning. EA isn't crowdfunding.

 

[SmellyHands]

Maybe they should do a kick starter to hire an economist.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

Maybe they should do a kick starter to hire an economist.

They have one, this might have lead to them ceasing active development on a game that was not making any money at all.

 

[exmachina64]

If the game's continued development to completion was dependent on its sales then they should have indicated that to the people who were about to buy it.

That's really the asshole-ish thing they did here.

I don't disagree this.

And that's where the difference lies to the way Early Access SHOULD be used - as an avenue to let people test and influence the gameplay, and yes, as an ADDITIONAL revenue stream but not as the sole one to fund the entire game itself.

I disagree with this. How many popular games wouldn't have existed if this was a rule?

I get it, you and other users believe that Early Access should be just that. Early access to games that are coming out anyway and ideally use user feedback during development to be better received upon release.

Other people have different opinions and when a game that used EA to fund development fails, it will be cancelled and die. I'm okay with that. The market decided. A game not coming out isn't the worst thing that could happen. Caveat emptor with Early Access game. You also have the added benefit of proof that not enough people want a game in a certain genre when these kinds of EA titles fail.

 

[Munin]

The market decided.

No, this is ridiculous. The market decided that they didn't want to buy an incomplete game yet in which there's nothing to do at this point. It says nothing about the sales potential of the finished game, which in the case of Spacebase, would have sold like hotcakes. This is especially true for games like this: Open-ended games in a really early state merely driven by lots of promises.

proof that not enough people want a game in a certain genre when these kinds of EA titles fail.

Again, it's ridiculous to come to this conclusion because people just didn't want to buy an incomplete game yet. I, like many others ,was just waiting for DF to add some meat to the game. Other games in the genre do just fine on EA if they're in a state where they're fun and replayable already, just look at Prison Architect and Gnomoria.

And here's the really ironic thing, if DF had just been upfront about the whole project basically being run as a crowdfunding operation, or had put it on Kickstarter outright, it would have 100% been more successful.

 

[ramuh]

I disagree with this. How many popular games wouldn't have existed if this was a rule?

I get it, you and other users believe that Early Access should be just that. Early access to games that are coming out anyway and ideally use user feedback during development to be better received upon release.

Other people have different opinions and when a game that used EA to fund development fails, it will be cancelled and die. I'm okay with that. The market decided. A game not coming out isn't the worst thing that could happen. Caveat emptor with Early Access game. You also have the added benefit of proof that not enough people want a game in a certain genre when these kinds of EA titles fail.

To me the "market decided" argument doesn't exist in my mind in relation to EA until the supposed fully realized game is released. The title hasn't been released yet. You shouldn't as an EA proponent have to feel like an early investor on a project. You should be entitled to an early access to a game. Not to fund the damn thing. And you are right, being an early access person you do have certain risks that will involve the Company folding etc. But to say that because Sales didn't reach a certain milestone which equates to a EA title failing or not is wrong. That is the wrong answer to an EA title. EA is so different to crowdfunding campaigns in my mind. To me it's just a cool early way to look at a developmental title and maybe influence it. It if doesn't come to fruition based on other factors not including EA sales then that is life. But it shouldn't be the complete answer to a game.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Letting the public vote on pitches for Amnesia Fortnight might have been the tipping point. All those earlier titles came from years that Tim picked the titles and project leads for AF.

Well, I guess I would think that the actual AF itself is pretty irrelevant, it's that next step where they say take the two week demo and say "Yes, we need to make this into a game" or "No, no need to make a game, but we can learn XYZ from it as an experiment" where they seem to be having trouble.

 

[JaseC]

Good work on the OP, Jase. You're a vigilant OP.

Che-ears. <3

 

[unapersson]

I don't know the details of this project but the fact they're planning on releasing all the source code is a huge plus and something I think that should be written into the contracts of all early access / kickstarted games. Any failed games should be expected to release all their source code and design documentation that they are legally able to under a free software license.

The project should belong to the people who have paid for it and that would be the best way of giving them something for their money.

Why?

1. The code is out there so that anyone can learn from it. Aspiring developers can see how professionals structure code, work with libraries or APIs.
2. The community can start working on their own version of the game, adding new features and finishing it. It also allows different groups to fork it and take the base code in a completely different direction.
3. Code or assets can be borrowed for other open source game projects.
4. The game need only die if no one is interested in developing it further.
5. There is no time limit as to when any of these things need to be done as the code will always be available somewhere.

Is there any news anywhere about what they're planning with the source code release and what license they'll be using?

If you're not sure what free software/open source developers can achieve when given time then have a look at projects like Battle for Wesnoth, OpenTTD or ScummVM.

It's much better than this happen then allow the developers to disappear off into the night leaving a binary that has a definite shelf life.

 

[exmachina64]

It says nothing about the sales potential of the finished game, which in the case of Spacebase, would have sold like hotcakes.

You don't know that.

Again, it's ridiculous to come to this conclusion because people just didn't want to buy an incomplete game yet. I, like many others ,was just waiting for DF to add some meat to the game. Other games in the genre do just fine on EA if they're in a state where they're fun and replayable already, just look at Prison Architect and Gnomoria.

Your assumption is that at some point Spacebase DF-9 would have more meat or be fun.

And here's the really ironic thing, if DF had just been upfront about the whole project basically being run as a crowdfunding operation, or had put it on Kickstarter outright, it would have 100% been more successful.

Again, I agree. Although with the comments in this thread and elsewhere, there's already plenty of resentment that Double Fine kickstarted Massive Chalice before Broken Age is finished and it took in $1.2 million versus Broken Age's $3.4 million, so a third Kickstarter game before the completion of Broken Age would have made people explode.

To me the "market decided" argument doesn't exist in my mind in relation to EA until the supposed fully realized game is released. The title hasn't been released yet.

Plenty of bland, generic or otherwise boring games have come through Early Access. In some cases, you can see this before the "final product" is released.

You shouldn't as an EA proponent have to feel like an early investor on a project. You should be entitled to an early access to a game. Not to fund the damn thing. And you are right, being an early access person you do have certain risks that will involve the Company folding etc. But to say that because Sales didn't reach a certain milestone which equates to a EA title failing or not is wrong. That is the wrong answer to an EA title.

I don't feel like an investor. If I felt like an investor, I'd want a share of the company's profits. I'd also choose better investments than a video games company.

EA is so different to crowdfunding campaigns in my mind. To me it's just a cool early way to look at a developmental title and maybe influence it. It if doesn't come to fruition based on other factors not including EA sales then that is life. But it shouldn't be the complete answer to a game.

I'm sorry, but we have fundamentally different views on the purpose of Early Access.

 

[R1CHO]

The intial budget was $400k, of which Double Fine put up none of its own money. I imagine that initial influx of revenue was used to pay back the investors listed at your link. Besides that, four Double Fine employees were on the project full-time for approximately a year. In San Francisco and with the amount of experience affecting pay, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume each employee makes ~$100k. With taxes, it would take ~$800k to keep those employees working on the game.

If other employees were on the game part-time or if they used outside consultants, that increases the cost. So in the best case scenario, they made back the initial budget of $400k that was used to launch the game in Early Access and then persistently low sales couldn't cover their operating costs. In the worst-case scenario, they made back the initial budget of $400k, had to pay that back immediately to their investors and then persistently low sales couldn't cover their operating costs.

According to Mr.Schafer himself the cost per developer to Double Fine is 10k$ a month, so 120k$ a year.

 

[ramuh]

Again, I agree. Although with the comments in this thread and elsewhere, there's already plenty of resentment that Double Fine kickstarted Massive Chalice before Broken Age is finished and it took in $1.2 million versus Broken Age's $3.4 million, so a third Kickstarter game before the completion of Broken Age would have made people explode.

Plenty of bland, generic or otherwise boring games have come through Early Access. In some cases, you can see this before the "final product" is released.

That is true. But what was supposed to be the "final product" what this game? Not what will be eveneutally released and never support outside a 1 month window for "bug fixes".

I don't feel like an investor. If I felt like an investor, I'd want a share of the company's profits. I'd also choose better investments than a video games company.

Still doesn't change my thoughts on "investing" in a game of EA.


I'm sorry, but we have fundamentally different views on the purpose of Early Access.

I go by what the official releases as to what EA is supposed to be.

http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access

That's all.

Point 2.
I would have rather them do another kickstarter that this shit. At least they could be more honest on the development instead of promising so much shit they will never implement.

Also an answer to this.

Plenty of bland, generic or otherwise boring games have come through Early Access. In some cases, you can see this before the "final product" is released.

That is true. But what was supposed to be the "final product" with this game? Not what will be eventually released and never support outside a 1 month window for "bug fixes".

 

[Last Hearth]

Using EA as a crowdfunding source is absurd, as much as I've state that Kickstarter is fundamentally anti-consumer, early access is even worse if it's used to fund the game. Because at least with KS you only pay out of pocket if there are enough people like you out there to fund the project to completion. Now you're still bearing the risk of the person who started the project not properly planning and budgeting the project, but at least some of the risk is mitigated.

With EA you don't even get that, you're out of the money you put in with no guarantee that they will ever get enough money to complete the project. The person gets your money work on it for as long as the money lasts, and is willing to bear no risk.

If the game developer has this little faith in his game and concept that he wants the consumer to bear all the risk, then maybe he should just not make the game at all.

 

[Smash88]

I don't claim to know how sales are scheduled on Steam, but if they deliberately placed a sale after they knew development was winding down then you're right, it's slimy. I'd like to think it was more a case of oversight or steam sales just not working that way, but you never can tell I guess.

They weren't really anticipating that kind of success though. Just hoping for it. They're nothing if not optimists at Double Fine.

It is getting a bit annoying that you are such an avid defender of Double Fine, that you are willing to overlook any and all terrible decisions that DF has made on this game - essentially pushing it to the side. Please just stop.

They were anticipating the success, it says so in the Q&A - they were hoping for it to last 5 years, instead, due to their failures to properly assess their investments into the project, they have failed to deliver not only a quality product, but a half-baked one as well. These responses are essentially just pandering to the masses - we as supporters do not care that you have mismanaged your projections and funds on this title, you promised features, you must deliver on all, if not most of the ideas set forth.

Oh and by the way, hoping and anticipating are synonyms, there is no difference. Your staunch position on such lazy developers (in terms of this title), is honestly mind-boggling.

As for myself, knowing how DF cannot properly handle their own Kickstarters and Early Access titles, I'll be staying away. This has left a sour taste in my mouth with these developers, despite my love of all old Tim Schafer games.

And that assumption is based on the feature list published by DF and repeated comments of development not being abandoned. This is misleading at least or downright fraudulent at worst. Nobody would have bought the game on Early Access without that feature list / roadmap published. As the game was being funded on EA sales alone, this is equivalent to a Kickstarter not delivering a finished product.

Well said.

 

[Munin]

You don't know that.



Your assumption is that at some point Spacebase DF-9 would have more meat or be fun.

And that assumption is based on the feature list published by DF and repeated comments of development not being abandoned. This is misleading at least or downright fraudulent at worst. Nobody would have bought the game on Early Access without that feature list / roadmap published. As the game was being funded on EA sales alone, this is equivalent to a Kickstarter not delivering a finished product.

 

[Wiktor]

I guess the key difference here is that a lot of people on GAF think the game in its current form sucks and is irredeemable, whereas the developers don't. Opinions and all that.

No, developers also think it's shell of the game. If it wasn't, it would have been at least in beta for some time. Instead the existing version was designeted by developers as alpha. This tells you how they really feel about the state the game is, instead of their feeble attempts at damage control.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

This is why I only buy games that are actually complete.

well, spacebase df-9 is going to be complete pretty soon - looks like you will finally be able to buy it!

 

[CecilRousso]

No, developers also think it's shell of the game. If it wasn't, it would have been at least in beta for some time. Instead the existing version was designeted by developers as alpha. This tells you how they really feel about the state the game is, instead of their feeble attempts at damage control.

As Tim said, it*s hard to use the old alpha/beta definitions on games like these. If you stick to the old beta definition saying that it means feature complete but still in need of testing and bug fixing, how do you apply that on games that are intended to be in continuous development?

Alpha 6, which the game is in now, doesn't really mean anything more then it being the sixth version of a Work in Progress Game. They could have called this one the beta version, since they're now focusing pretty much only on bug fixing, and followed the old definitions by that. But it wouldn't actually have changed anything other then it sounding better in some peoples ears.

 

[Wiktor]

As Tim said, it*s hard to use the old alpha/beta definitions on games like these. If you stick to the old beta definition saying that it means feature complete but still in need of testing and bug fixing, how do you apply that on games that are intended to be in continuous development?

Alpha 6, which the game is in now, doesn't really mean anything more then it being the sixth version of a Work in Progress Game. They could have called this one the beta version, since they're now focusing pretty much only on bug fixing, and followed the old definitions by that. But it wouldn't actually have changed anything other then it sounding better in some peoples ears.

You're talking about objective state of the game. I'm talking about how developers percieve it themselves. They are the ones who called it alpha. So in their estimation it's far from being done.

 

[r1chard]

Coming in late to the discussion, but I'm just going to say as an early purchaser of this game that I'm glad it's dead. It was a dull, pointless game, and needed a heck of a lot of work to make it fun, and DF clearly aren't in a position to fund that sort of development. Better that they stick to games they're more comfortable developing.

 

[itxaka]

I bougth it and played it for some time. Sucks that they ended it but i dont really care to be honest. I wanted that game so I invested in it to see it finished but the market said otherwise. That is his the gaming world works.


Also I'm a big fan of double fine so I'm probably biased.

 

[PaulloDEC]

It is getting a bit annoying that you are such an avid defender of Double Fine, that you are willing to overlook any and all terrible decisions that DF has made on this game - essentially pushing it to the side. Please just stop.

If you want me to admit that they goofed, no problem. They goofed. They should've had a better plan in place to get the game finished, or they should've done a better job of communicating what they were facing.

I'm not as bothered as others here because I understand what I'm doing when I put money down for early access products. That attitude extends to all early access/crowdfunded products, not just those made by Double Fine.

Oh and by the way, hoping and anticipating are synonyms, there is no difference. Your staunch position on such lazy developers (in terms of this title), is honestly mind-boggling.

Hope
"Want something to happen or be the case."

Anticipate
"Regard as probable; expect or predict."

I'd also love to hear why you think the developers are lazy.

 

[Wiktor]

GOG should be cruel and organize Startopia and Space Colony sales in celebration of Double Fine's failure
Seems like big opportunity, or maybe they're waiting for Spacebase 1.0 premiere

 

[exmachina64]

And that assumption is based on the feature list published by DF and repeated comments of development not being abandoned. This is misleading at least or downright fraudulent at worst. Nobody would have bought the game on Early Access without that feature list / roadmap published.

Yeah, I can agree with that. I wasn't aware of the feature list until this thread. I didn't find the AF prototype fun, but I own most DF games and picked up the EA version during the most recent sale. I don't find the current version enjoyable either, but after looking through the feature list again, I don't know how some of them could be practically implemented (like the friend features being dependent on both users being online at the same time).

I go by what the official releases as to what EA is supposed to be.

http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access

That's all.

I can see where you're coming from, I don't see anything from Valve specifically barring developers from depending on EA sales to fund the game though.

I've purchased titles that depended on EA and turned out great and others that died. The worst situations are the developers who are hobbyists and don't have any money for development. Whatever money they make helps them do updates in the beginning, then their progress gradually slows down.

Point 2.
I would have rather them do another kickstarter that this shit. At least they could be more honest on the development instead of promising so much shit they will never implement.

Yeah, I'd love more transparency from all the developers I follow though. Specifically with EA, I would prefer updates to be pushed out as changes are made, bugs be damned, instead of big weekly or monthly releases.

Also an answer to this.
That is true. But what was supposed to be the "final product" with this game? Not what will be eventually released and never support outside a 1 month window for "bug fixes".

Also agreed. Hopefully the community can shore up its shortcomings. Although for that specific comment, I was speaking more generally to EA as a whole. I perceived you as saying you reserve judgment (at least partially) until release and I was saying that you can see plenty of bad EA games that never turn out well.

 

[dex3108]

After reading DF responses i can say this:

- DF doesn't know what is EA and what EA represents. They treated EA like crowdsourcing feature that will finance development and EA is not that. EA is way to include your fans/customers in game development and offer constant communication between devs and customers. Also using sale numbers from EA to dictate product future is ridiculous. So dear DF don't start any other EA project without having funds to finance development.

- DF is company that needs heavy management overhaul because their money management is awful.

- And third thing is really important one, finish your product before starting 10 new ones!

Also i am really surprised that journalists didn't bashed DF for this. If it was some other small dev team we would heard about it on every corner. I have feeling that this is swept under the rug by news sites.

 

[Fuz]

I love them. They're smart, have tons of ideas and a great humour and they released one of my favourite games ever: Psychonauts.
But they're really, really, really bad at handling money and schedules.
Still love them... but they won't see my money on a kickstarter again (I don't use steam so Early Access is not a issue for me).

 

[CecilRousso]

Also i am really surprised that journalists didn't bashed DF for this. If it was some other small dev team we would heard about it on every corner. I have feeling that this is swept under the rug by news sites.

Shouldn't we be grateful that the news sites aren't drama queens about this?

Rock, Paper, Shotgun posted this article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/18/double-fine-early-access-spacebase-df9/

An article where they take the views of those who bought the game, but still asks the question "maybe everything about this issue isn't that easy that we can put out bold statements right now?".

You're talking about objective state of the game. I'm talking about how developers percieve it themselves. They are the ones who called it alpha. So in their estimation it's far from being done.

Yes, they're calling it alpha, and they admit they didn't manage to go as far they wanted. But both objectively and subjectively, beta phases for games like this aren't as meaningful as some makes it out to be.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

You realize you're getting the other half when its done right

You do realize that this is basically why they are upset with Broken Age, right?

 

[Wiktor]

Shouldn't we be grateful that the news sites aren't drama queens about this?

No. We shouldn't be. THis is a big and likable dev. So the more shit is raised for it the better for all the future gamers who might get the wrong idea about how trustworthy Double Fine is.

 

[Sendou]

You do realize that this is basically why they are upset with Broken Age, right?

Not only that but the fact that the game has seen notable discounts before it is even completely out. Whether it is Early Access or Kickstarer developers should think twice before discounting unfinished game when there's early adopters still waiting for the product they paid more for.

Of course I realize developing Broken Age or Spacebase DF-9 wasn't easy. It's just that saying "it's hard" is not good enough. There's certain understanding between you and the developer when you buy an Early Access game. You have to be able to trust the developer to finish the game to match the vision they painted. Of course determining whether a game is finished or not is always subjective. Then again maybe if there's many people unsatisfied with the outcome then with this specific case DF could have done something better. It's just going to come around and hurt them which is a shame because I think DF is a brilliant creator.

 

[CecilRousso]

No. We shouldn't be. THis is a big and likable dev. So the more shit is raised for it the better for all the future gamers who might get the wrong idea about how trustworthy Double Fine is.

Yeah, ok, if you're so certain that your idea about how trustworthy they are is the one right idea. I don't share your views, so I'm glad the sites haven't followed it.

DF certainly didn't do everything right with this game, and they should be asked questions about their 1.0 announcement, or if the game really was ready for early access, but there's way too much hyperbole in this threads with strange ideas about promises and words like con artists and scams.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

No. We shouldn't be. THis is a big and likable dev. So the more shit is raised for it the better for all the future gamers who might get the wrong idea about how trustworthy Double Fine is.

Double Fine has, I'm sorry, but they have the most gullible fanbase. Not just altruistic. Downright ignorant.

DF must be counting their blessings that their comments are 90% "oh, it's okay you spent all our money, at least you are not chained down by a big, bad publisher. Here, take ten years if you need to" and only 10% "... um, guys?".

They've made some good games, but to act like how they handled both Broken Age and Spacebase is anything less than ridiculous is... well, ridiculous.

 

[Wiktor]

Yeah, ok, if you're so certain that your idea about how trustworthy they are is the one right idea. I don't share your views, so I'm glad the sites haven't followed it.

.

Are you hoping DF might be able to dupe more people into another EA game some time from now? Because I don't see how else you would be "glad that the sites haven't followed it".

I like this developer and enjoyed most of their games. But they clearly have shown you shouldn't trust them with your money before their game is done.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

I can't say I'm that surprised by this. Double Fine give off the impression of being pretty terrible at management. They got $3.3M to make an adventure game and ran out of money half way, and had to break the game in two to have something to sell to fund the second half.

Meanwhile InXile got $2.9M to make an RPG and it's out and fulfilled all the goals of the kickstarter.

Game development is expensive, but at the end of the day you've got to live within your budget, and DF don't seem to be able to to do that. I've not gotten involved in this SDF-9 stuff, but a lot of people are saying that a year in it's still not really a fun game yet, which is kinda necessary to sell it to people outside of your core fanbase.

I think the worst part of all this is the spin DF tried to put on it for the 1.0 release. They should have just apologised to the people that believed in it and supported on early access, but as always, "Sorry" seems to be the hardest word.