jediyoshi
Member
You could flip a coin as to whether this is a genuine comment or not.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Double Fine halting Spacebase DF-9 development
- Thread starter JaseC
- Start date
You could flip a coin as to whether this is a genuine comment or not.
Salvatron
Member
I agree wholeheartedly. You can't expect a majority of your consumer base to buy your new IP during development. Most people want a finished product and will hold on purchasing until it's released officially. I just hope enough people take mind to check the comments section before pulling the trigger on an unfinished '1.0'.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
To be fair, Wasteland 2 had a budget of around $5m with outside investors, Early Access, and slacker backers.
Haunted
Member
So it is as we initially expected, they simply ran out of money to finance the game's continued development.
Shame! But it happens.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
.... yeah, if you don't budget properly.
CecilRousso
Member
As I wrote, sites have been reporting it, but I'm glad that they haven't followed the hyperbole route that many in this thread has. And I did write in a previous post about two aspects of this EA game that should be questioned.
I'm just glad that we so far haven't seen any bullshit dramaqueen "never buy any DF game ever again in any form whatsoever" articles.
Considering that they have done one succesful EA game, and one unsuccesful, I don't see any problem with them going down the EA route again. They just need, as been said, to flesh out the game concept of their next more then Spacebase, so that even then initial released version is worthwhile to play and buy.
Haunted
Member
If they hadn't used early access in the way they did, there are two ways this could've gone:
1) You would've gotten spacebase df9 1.0, the final version, and it would've been in the state of its first release on early access, after the initial funding ran out.
2) DF would have internally decided that the game is not finished and ready to release in that state and the game would have never come out in any form after the initial funding ran out.
If you believe either of these scenarios are preferable to this one, where the game got a year of additional development financed by people who seemed to be into it and the genre, well then, we disagree.
Haunted
Member
It seems like they bit off more than they could chew with that proposed feature list, yes. It seems really...hopeful to achieve with a 4 people team.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Over 800% past the funding goal and it still happened, wow...
lol
By the way can someone explain to me what is the problem people have with Broken Age? I mean beyond the fact that they discounted it before backers received the full product. That I didn't like either.
Basically the whole project was a bit of a shambles, planning/management-wise. They didn't consider the possibility that they'd make as much money as they did, so when it all came rolling in they had to completely adjust the scope of the game. When the scope increased so did the workload, and it ultimately became clear that they were both spending more than they'd raised and they were going to need a lot longer to deliver a complete product that matched the production values of the portion they'd already completed.
So the project got split into two episodes, with the first raising additional funds to be used to complete the second (which still hasn't arrived).
It's all spelled out in great detail in the documentary series that accompanies the game. Probably the most insightful and honest account of the process of making a game ever produced, and well worth checking out if you can.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
In a nutshell:
- used up all the backer money well before the game was out
- told us this AFTER their second Kickstarter got funded
- split game up into two parts, with sales from BA1 (and others) supposed to be funding BA2
I did my part in leaving a negative review, theres no way the "finished" product is worth even half the price they're asking for it.
jakonovski
Member
Caveat emptor seems to be the rallying cry of the games industry today.
You mean something like this (pardon the aweful picture)?
That would be quite useful if made mandatory. I guess not every EA title can define every milestone until launch early on, but those should receive an extra warning from valve or mustn't be sold above a certain price.
It would be easy for a customer to see, if the development is coming along nicely and if not, the dev-team will surely put out an explanation and the customer has been warned.
You mean something like this (pardon the aweful picture)?
That would be quite useful if made mandatory. I guess not every EA title can define every milestone until launch early on, but those should receive an extra warning from valve or mustn't be sold above a certain price.
It would be easy for a customer to see, if the development is coming along nicely and if not, the dev-team will surely put out an explanation and the customer has been warned.
I don't know if that would work in practice. You can already see the history of updates. You should be able to find about how the game progresses from there.
People just have to use their best judgement when giving money to incomplete games.
Sure, but that gives no actual insight on what is planned and how it's coming along. Something like this with an explanation for each milestone forces the dev to be upfront about development troubles and to update regularly.
I also forces the customer to see if the game is coming along on first sight, without digging through posts and update history to compare what features did and didn't make it into the game by now. Ranting about being deceived if you are late to the game would be more problematic, because every information you'd need would be right there from the start.
And it would be more difficult for devs to abandon a game silently, because you could see the dev progress within a glance.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
So maybe people now learn: Don't buy Early Access games if you don't feel like the content that's available RIGHT NOW is worth the money you are paying.
I bought Invisible Inc. some time ago for 12. I looked at a bunch of YT videos and thought "Yes, this looks fun". I then bought it and played ~10 hours so far. If the game never comes out: Bummer cause it's really cool. But I played a fair amount of it, I'd be okay.
So don't just look at a game and say "Man, this could be cool some day, let's buy it!" or if you do that be aware that everything can crash and burn at every second.
Obviously DF did a really, really bad job at handeling this though, that must be said.
I bought Invisible Inc. some time ago for 12. I looked at a bunch of YT videos and thought "Yes, this looks fun". I then bought it and played ~10 hours so far. If the game never comes out: Bummer cause it's really cool. But I played a fair amount of it, I'd be okay.
So don't just look at a game and say "Man, this could be cool some day, let's buy it!" or if you do that be aware that everything can crash and burn at every second.
Obviously DF did a really, really bad job at handeling this though, that must be said.
More_Badass
Member
Of course it helps that Klei is like the poster child for Early Access done right, as proven by their endless support of Don't Starve pre- and post- release
Really that's one of the main reasons I decided to get Invisible Inc soon after it was available last year. Klei established that trust and confidence with how they handled Don't Starve.
Now Double Fine, on the other hand...
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
I also bought Vertiginous Golf for like 4 and played through it once. Fun game.
The thing is: I can completly understand DF. As a small dev you probably can't work on a game that doesn't seem to take off. Pulling the plug is pretty understandble.
But understanding, doesn't mean agreeing. The way they handled it is the worst possible. Putting it on sale mere days before announcing this, THAT is the scumy part of this whole disaster. That's what makes me distrust DF a little more.
You can't announce "We're gonna stop developing this game in 6 months or so!" cause at that point you might as well stop selling it. Who would buy the game knowing that? And the people that bought it are screwed anyway. In a way that would be even more disingenuous cause some people might not read the forum and just buy the damn thing. Truth is, there is no good way to deal with this. But they made it worse for themselves.
Did the same thing with Hack'n'Slash
Wiktor
Member
Sure. It's just that when writing about their new EA any gaming press/website worth a damn should mention the failed Spacebase and problems with Broken Age, just to give people a warning that Double Fine might have problems delivering with their new project.
CecilRousso
Member
Oh don't you worry about the press and people not talking about Broken Age, they do, and they will.
But there is the possibility that if Double Fine makes a new kickstarter, that we have two pretty sweet games in Broken Age (act 1 and 2) and Massive Chalice by that time?
And if they do a new early access game, then maybe we should mention Hack&Slash also?
And that's the point I've been trying to make for several pages now, that they should be judged on what they do. People should point to other projects, and let people decide based on that. We don't need any "don't ever buy any DF related things ever" signs, but we should of course always point people in the right direction to look up things.
I have very little sympathy for people jumping into crowdfunding games and then being completely over the top furious when everything didn't go smoothly.
Wiktor
Member
Sure. But let's not kid ourselves..this is a stain DF will never be able to wash out completely. They might be able to regain some of their reputation back, but anything crowdfunded/early access will always have to be aproached with caution. If developer can pull off something like this once, they might always do it again, even if they make 10 successful EA games later on. They will never be completely trustworthy again.
CecilRousso
Member
Of course not, the internet is like an elephant on steroids, that NEVER forgets. I mean, people are still bitching and moaning about Molyneux quotes from 12 years ago, like it's still hurting them.
But you can't really bother THAT much about what the internet says. If you did, you would never get anywhere. But if they do make a great second act of Broken Age, and Massive Chalice turns out good, they will be able to make another kickstarter, even if some people will still go "omg $3.3m and still delayed! And Spacebase!".
Despite not being the game Double Fine had envisioned, it's still a functional product with content. That being said, there's a case to be made for the price being lowered, however doing so would set in motion partial refund requests, which would be a headache for Valve. DF will likely just leave the game at $25.
oh, my bad. Apparently steam added that around february
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Then I guess 99% of the industry doesn't budget properly, looking at Square Enix, Capcom, SEGA, THQ, EA, Eidos, Ubisoft, and many more...
Turin Turambar
Member
People repeat this but I still wonder how the scope increased exactly. Do they just parrot what DF says without actually thinking that maybe that's a biased source?
Because the final product is pretty short 2d adventure game. That's it. That isn't exactly a "big scope" game. Some of the scenarios were kind of empty, there weren't involved and complicated puzzles, nor a lot of dialog. It isn't like the increased the scope to a 50 hours RPG game. The game was exactly what you could expect at first, an indie 2d adventure game kind of short, but with higher than average art.
I mean, what was the planned product before they got more money than initially planned? a 40 minute game perhaps?
I don't know what people are complaining about, it's a fully functional caravan. They knew the risks, yada yada.
Prime crotch
Banned
that kotick burn about schafer was probably on the mark
"He's late, he's missed every milestone, he's overspent the budget..."
project management is a bitch though
"He's late, he's missed every milestone, he's overspent the budget..."
project management is a bitch though
Turin Turambar
Member
Maybe they should have put a big warning on their steam page saying the development of the game would be funded with the money won as people bought the Early Access.
Then people wouldn't be able to complain.
Except, of course, they didn't because they knew they would haven sold less that way.
Was them quitting half way through cause they got bored a risk?
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Man, I totally forgot about that:
I mentally assigned most of the blame to activision, because...they're activision, but looking back now...
You mean something like this (pardon the aweful picture)?
That would be quite useful if made mandatory. I guess not every EA title can define every milestone until launch early on, but those should receive an extra warning from valve or mustn't be sold above a certain price.
It would be easy for a customer to see, if the development is coming along nicely and if not, the dev-team will surely put out an explanation and the customer has been warned.
No I meaned more like:
"Hello. We are making the most awesome game ever called supergame. EA build is Alpa 0.8 and is all we have for now. We are going to add features 1-5 later in developement as the game goes on. Here is our milestone list.
alpha.08 50%
Feature1 60% New UI
Feature 2 70% Gravity
Feature 3 75% Stones
Feature 4 80% Targets for stones
Feature 5 100% Throwing the stones
And we plan to continue developement of the final game after release to expand our sales."
So if supergame was 10$ EA they would get 3.5$ (50% of 10$-30% valvecut) initialy from sale and if the game has 1000 copies sold when it hits feature 1 they would get 700$ from the earlier sales and then get 4.2$ going onward from every sale.
This basicly means the dev can determine how complet they feel the EA first build is of the game, then how important they feel the promised features are and at what featurepoint they feel the game is 100% ready and they may promise to do more but want to get 100% money before adding those features to extend the games lifetime after release. If the game project would be cancelled/ended before 100% the rest of the % would be returned to customers steamwallets. Making it smaller risk for customers, and less hasle for steam.
This way we avoid DF-9 Situation what would probaly launch with 0-2 feature goals taking them up to 95% and then having load of goals after that. So we could see that theyre not confident in having the money/resources to fund the game longer before needing the money out of steam. So we could more easily see the risk curve.
This method would not force the developers to do milestones like for publishers what they hate, but would more easily show customers how commited they are hitting those features. There would be no timegoals set.
The point was that they had to find ways to spend all the money they made. They're not allowed to give some back, or keep whatever was left over. When the budget got bigger, maybe they figured they'd spend some more of the budget on more detailed art. More detailed art might require more detailed animation. More detailed animation might need more complex animation tools. More complex animation tools might need a more flexible engine. Suddenly there's a situation where increasing the scope of one area, the look of the game, has had a knock-on effect on almost every other aspect of the game. Every feature you decide to make better with the extra money causes ripples that reach back to every other aspect of the process.
And this is probably a good example of why Double Fine aren't well-suited to the world of big publishers. I doubt they think of themselves as an efficient machine for producing video games, and I suspect you kinda need to to some extent to be really successful in that world.
Maintenance
Member
Heh, never thought I would agree with Kotick and TB of all people.
I'll be more careful on games with huge features like these.
I'll be more careful on games with huge features like these.
HamSandwich
Member
Agree, but I imagine many folks in this thread held DF to a higher standard.
I just watched that TB vid.
The biggest problem I have is that $400K of EA money went into the pockets of Indie Game Fund and other initial investors, that's BS on so many levels.
Imo EA needs some stricter rules so that funds go into development and not used as a safety net for investors. Did the investors make a profit from DS-9? It wouldn't surprise me.
The biggest problem I have is that $400K of EA money went into the pockets of Indie Game Fund and other initial investors, that's BS on so many levels.
Imo EA needs some stricter rules so that funds go into development and not used as a safety net for investors. Did the investors make a profit from DS-9? It wouldn't surprise me.
ebullientprism
Member
Hopefully, its not already posted. Project Zomboid Developer's take on the whole situation. Understandably, he is a lot less forgiving than the gaming press at the moment.
http://theindiestone.com/binky/2014/09/21/alpha-funding-early-access-is-not-an-alternative/
http://theindiestone.com/binky/2014/09/21/alpha-funding-early-access-is-not-an-alternative/
stump sock
Member
I think if anyone is uniquely qualified to talk about the trials and tribulations of early access, it's probably those dudes. Also it looks like they're still plugging away, adding more content to PZ, good on them. I haven't played that thing in almost two years at this point?
I assume that's the same location that was broken into and burgled too. PZ is a game I'd love to read a post mortem on.
UnnecessaryTodd
Member
We're not obligated to but from an idealistic point of view... you can do some really cool stuff and so should we NOT take the opportunity just out of spite?
ShinMaruku
Member
Can't get too mad at this, never did early access due to developers being bad with budgets. However you should know there is a risk with this. Double Fine obviously needs a proper producer in the money place, so you fund at your own risk. Also Early access is just that you get the game early, I'd rather wait for a complete project. And if the project never finishes, I just move on.