This is the part of the whole thing that just stings the most. Complete deception on the part of DoubleFine.
-
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
This is the part of the whole thing that just stings the most. Complete deception on the part of DoubleFine.
Zomba13
Member
Psychonauts? Well received.
Brutal Legend? Controversial, but well received.
Stacking? Well received.
Iron Brigade? Well received.
Costume Quest? Well received.
Dropchord? Moderately well received.
Middle Manager of Justice? Moderately well received.
Broken Age? Controversial, but well received.
Happy Action Theatre/Kinect Party? Well received.
Once Upon a Monster? Well received.
According to this thread? Double Fine = untrustworthy shit-tier developer, avoid at all costs.
Games they asked for money for in advance:
Broken Age (had to be delayed, split into two and still waiting on that part two. Was supposed to be a nice, small, simple throwback point and click.)
Spacebase DF-9 (development cut short. Lots of planned features not making it into the game. Was given a sale on steam not too long before announcing they were pulling the plug).
Mighty Chalice (Seems to be coming along ok)
People aren't saying DF are untrustworth and should be approached with caution because of the quality of their past work but how they have dealt with crowd funded projects in recent times.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Stop strawmanning. Their games are niche, cult favorites at best but they also have some very real problems. Saying all those games are well-received is just ... glossing over so much - intentionally - just for the sake of White-Knighting a darling formerly-big-dev-gone-"indie"-because-publishers-stopped-trusting-them-with-moneyPsychonauts? Well received.
Brutal Legend? Controversial, but well received.
Stacking? Well received.
Iron Brigade? Well received.
Costume Quest? Well received.
Dropchord? Moderately well received.
Middle Manager of Justice? Moderately well received.
Broken Age? Controversial, but well received.
Happy Action Theatre/Kinect Party? Well received.
Once Upon a Monster? Well received.
According to this thread? Double Fine = untrustworthy shit-tier developer, avoid at all costs.
It didn't have to be delayed. They could have pocketed most of the money and made much smaller-scope game. That probably would have resulted in even more backlash.
exmachina64
Banned
Hack 'n' Slash, guys, Hack 'n' Slash. It was another Early Access game from Amnesia Fortnight 2012. Recently released, it has an 80 on Metacritic and mostly positive recs on Steam.
Stop white-knight strawmanning social justice warrior.
Let's be real here. DFA was never meant to be a "small, simple throwback point and click". People inferred that bit. They were always going to make the best game they could afford to make. As you say, things didn't go perfectly and I can understand people being wary as a result of that.
As for Spacebase, I'm not sure "planned features" is exactly fair (it seemed like more of a wishlist to me, with tons of features that would've looked extremely optimistic even for a big developer). I can understand that people are upset, though. I get it.
As you say, Massive Chalice seems to be going pretty well.
Thing is though, lots of people ARE saying Double Fine are untrustworthy. In this very thread a bunch of people are swearing off their games forever.
Strawmanning? White-Knighting? Did I stumble onto Tumblr?
The point of my post was to remind everyone that Double Fine aren't suddenly some shady, untrustworthy bunch of scammers because one or two of their games were negatively affected financially. A vast majority of their games have released like any other game, and most of them have achieved good reviews across the board.
Yup, another Double Fine game that arrived on time and reviewed well. It'd be surprising if that wasn't how things historically go for Double Fine.
Wiktor
Member
Well.. trust takes years to build, but only seconds to break.
I think most people here mean that Double Fine is untrustworthy dev with terrible managment of projects and one you should avoid giving money before they ship the project. Which is true. A lot of those games you've named were heavily delayed and went overbudget and their trackrecord with crowdfunding is pretty terrible.
The dev can make a great game, but they are definitely not trust worthy and believing their promises makes very little sense. In their cases it's best to waitfor the game to ship and then decide if it's worthy of purchase, which will often will. Supporting them before it ships is either foolish or hopelessly optimistic, one way or another..not based on logic.
This kind of deceptive attitude and development of games will lead to a class action lawsuit you mark my words. It will probably take forever to work it's way through the courts, but it will.
This is why I refuse to buy a game that is in early access, it's like putting money in the stock market, you might get a pay off or you might end up stuck with a boring game that feels less than half finished like DF-9.
I played this game on my roommates laptop for 1 hour and was already bored of it. He kept telling me how much better it was going to get when they finished adding everything to it.
This was last month. Good job Double Fine.
This is why I refuse to buy a game that is in early access, it's like putting money in the stock market, you might get a pay off or you might end up stuck with a boring game that feels less than half finished like DF-9.
I played this game on my roommates laptop for 1 hour and was already bored of it. He kept telling me how much better it was going to get when they finished adding everything to it.
This was last month. Good job Double Fine.
You're right, and the key point you've mentioned is one that I've been saying about Kickstarter (and similar things like Greenlight) since day one: you're not buying, you're investing. Do so with the knowledge and understanding of what that entails, or stay the hell away.
I can't be mad about Spacebase because I knew what I was getting into. Disappointed? Sure, I'd have loved a more fully-featured game. But this is how crowdfunding and early access programs sometimes go. It doesn't help DF's track record and people should be aware of that, but it also isn't an indelible black mark that will taint all further releases.
I don't think there'll be any lawsuits any time soon, but I think it'd be a mistake if that did happen. This whole early access/crowdfunding thing is still insanely young; consumers are still getting used to how it works just as much as developers are. The last thing we need is lawsuits to scare other developers away from trying to make it without big publishers.
As you say, yes, early access/crowdfunding is a risk. People need to understand that before they get involved. Double Fine goofed this one a bit, and it sucks. It doesn't mean we have to boycott future games; just that we need to be careful, informed consumers when we're dealing with any and all unfinished games.
That got changed as soon as they got way more money than they asked for. It became a big ambitious project after that.
What do people expect from Early Access and Kickstarter anyway? There's no guarantees with those things by definition. If you can't handle a possible project failure, don't support the project. Have some self-control.
Pretty much what a lot of us are pissed about, a list of features were promised and ultimately it was not delivered upon. We should get a refund, if requested, at least. This is unacceptable.
Seriously.
Honestly though it's probably not worth the effort trying to convince these guys. It's easier to bitch than admit that you didn't read the (not so) fine print.
Well, read the original pitch then or the interviews with JP LeBreton when the thing launched. Even if you ignore the "development plan", the game is not even close to what was originally intended and it's at least arguable that it offers enough content to be called 1.0 (a "complete" game) at this point.
Wiktor
Member
Indeed. It is a however an indelible black mark that will tain all their future Kickstarters and Early Access initatives. And it should be brought up whenever their attempt to do such things in the future, just to warn people about dangers of giving Double Fine money before they finish the product
I feel like you may be right.
I've been following the project since the Amnesia Fortnight prototype. I don't feel mislead.
Sure. I'd like to think we could do that without getting too hyperbolic, but I realise that's a bit of a vain hope.
CecilRousso
Member
They will not do another kickstarter before Broken Age Act 2 and Massive Chalice are finished, so we will have something to judge them on before that happens.
As for Early Access, if they do it in the form of what they did with Hack&Slash, there will most likely not any larger amount of backlash. They will not be able to do it in the barebones form of Spacebase anymore though.
Small point of pedantry: you're not really investing, either. Nor are you donating. You're engaging in an act of patronage, where you give money to someone in the hope that, with some artistic freedom, they'll create something you like.
These two things are the really bad things I take away from this. Halting development can happen when the circumstances aren't right to continue. But you have a certain responsibility with EA and part of that is to be open about where you are and where things are heading.
They not only failed big on that, but also outright lied about it and were deceiving about it respectively. This is not something that is out of control for Double Fine.
They knew perfectly well when the game would went on sale and that the game would be put on hold when they teased something new/big before the sale. Had they announced an 'end of development' sale and chose to be more open when things went south, the community would be a lot more understanding I guess.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Uh only Broken Age is a kickstarter game, and they changed their kickstarter promises by cutting a bunch of shit and then saying it's only half the game. Something like that.
Double Scam is more like it nowadays when it comes to their crowdfunding.
CecilRousso
Member
Double Scam is more like it nowadays when it comes to their crowdfunding.[/QUOTE]
What did they cut? Can you be specific?
Wickerbasket
Member
I think people just feel like shmucks for donating money to Double Fine.
I've been a huge fan of Double Fine games for ages, and I figured they were an established developer who'd support the game to completion, so I bought into the early access.
The game feels very bare bones as is and for them to say that it's now basically complete makes me feel like a complete dumbass for supporting it.
I'm not annoyed at them, I'm only annoyed at myself for being so gullible; I won't be supporting any more early access stuff from them, and I would suggest other people avoid doing so as well.
ProfessorMoran
Member
For some reason whether the games are actually decent or whether the media just seems to like Tim Schafer that the goodwill is translating into good reviews, his games seem to review relatively well enough but nobody fucking buys them.Psychonauts? Well received.
Brutal Legend? Controversial, but well received.
Stacking? Well received.
Iron Brigade? Well received.
Costume Quest? Well received.
Dropchord? Moderately well received.
Middle Manager of Justice? Moderately well received.
Broken Age? Controversial, but well received.
Happy Action Theatre/Kinect Party? Well received.
Once Upon a Monster? Well received.
According to this thread? Double Fine = untrustworthy shit-tier developer, avoid at all costs.
Fair enough, I can go with that.
That isn't what happened at all, but okey dokey I guess.
Because Double Fine has always made the games they want to make, not the games they think will be popular with the mass market. It's the exact reason why they're now putting their energy into smaller, lower-budget games that don't need to sell 5 million units to break even.
LurkerPrime
Member
This right here is Double Fine's problem when it comes to Early Access games. They launch a personal project in Early Access, it fails to garner support, and then is promptly abandoned by Double Fine because they can't fund further development.
Making games that have an audience is an important part of development for any sane developer. Niche is fine, but targetting no audience is downright irresponsible, especially when the completion of the game hinges on its continued success. It is a bad practice that will only end up burning your loyal customers, as we have seen with Spacebase DF-9.
Really, if this is how Double Fine will always do things, it is a sign that absolutely no one should support their Early Access efforts.
Didn't Spacebase do quite well initially? I remember reading something suggesting they'd make back their investment in the project pretty quickly.
Additionally, I'm not sure it qualifies as a pet project with no audience; I mean, base builders have actually been pretty popular on Steam since the big indie boom.
Yeah, if the game was a fizzle entirely people would be less burned, but the game had a pretty damn good launch apparently, and it's not like Double Fine is shut down, they're just cutting and running in a way that makes people think highly less of them.
Azure Dream
Member
It's not very responsble for a developer to post a giant list of "These are things we'd really like in the game", many of them sounding like key features necessary to give a simulation game necessary depth, if it's nothing but a pie-in-the-sky list that they can't fully deliver on even half of those items. And it doesn't seem like equivalent features have taken their place to develop it into a robust title, given the reactions in this thread.
This is what transparency is, though. Gamers think they want it, but really they're only interested in hearing good news.
Transparency would be if they showed the sales since launch and said "we can't afford to actively develop this anymore but we'll come back to it if we can afford to do in the future" rather than changing the version to 1.0.
Also a good point.
Hell, they even could go the approach of Broken Age - anyone that bought it before release gets a free expansion, future sales don't get the expansion and have to buy it separately.
It's because of this creative spirit, along with their history of pulling back the curtain on game development warts and all and providing publishing support for even smaller developers with crazy ideas, that the good qualities of a studio like Double Fine easily outweighs the bad in my eyes. Yeah, their ambition will sometimes outsize their coffers and it's drawn them some ire - with publishers and the public - but if every developer with that problem deserved scorn I'm not sure who would survive the culling. Difference is for most, those tough decisions are made behind close doors without anyone knowing and under the cover of slick PR speak.
Still, if they return to the Early Access well without a really good reason they'll deserve the flack they get. I'm wary of the concept in general, and even if Spacebase seemed like an ok fit for the model they did not communicate adequately with the audience leading up to this point and the final game is going to fall short of what a lot of people that paid money had every reason to expect. Oddly enough their other two Early Access titles (Broken Age, Hack n' Slash) I felt were more egregious since the games themselves didn't seem appropriate, but they turned out to be some of my favorites of the year.
UnnecessaryTodd
Member
I've always been a big fan of Double Fine but I just have issues with Early Access and I think that it's a bad idea. I was quite excited about SpaceBase but I wasn't going to consider getting it until a full release. I'm really hoping and praying that this gets a good community surrounding it that are able to fill in the gaps that Double Fine weren't able to do on their own.
I think the people who are saying that Double Fine are scumbags are just taking it too far. This is a problem with the Early Access model and also probably a case of them stretching themselves too far. They've still put a lot of effort/time/money into releasing what they could so far, and there's been some pretty amazing things come from the modding communtiies of other games so even though it's really crappy that we aren't able to get these features from Double Fine itself I'm just hoping that a good game comes from it anyway. Hopefully down the line there'll be a lot of the stuff that they wanted to include made by us.
I'm sad by this news and disappointed, especially for the people who put money into this expecting so much more but DF releasing the code is a step towards this still being an amazing game with enough passion behind it.
I think the people who are saying that Double Fine are scumbags are just taking it too far. This is a problem with the Early Access model and also probably a case of them stretching themselves too far. They've still put a lot of effort/time/money into releasing what they could so far, and there's been some pretty amazing things come from the modding communtiies of other games so even though it's really crappy that we aren't able to get these features from Double Fine itself I'm just hoping that a good game comes from it anyway. Hopefully down the line there'll be a lot of the stuff that they wanted to include made by us.
I'm sad by this news and disappointed, especially for the people who put money into this expecting so much more but DF releasing the code is a step towards this still being an amazing game with enough passion behind it.
Why should the community finish the game for them? So that Double Fine can benefit from doing something shitty?
We're not talking about a good release that can use fan made content to stay alive for years to come. DF9 is a hollow, unfinished game (significantly so) that would need serious work done to it in order to approach the original vision.
Promised to an extent. Sure some things may get cut, but when a list as detailed as the one deleted is completely nixxed that's more than just a "promise", that's just being lazy and inconsiderate. There is being promised, and then there is releasing a game that is essentially incomplete - many of those ideas deleted were, IMO, essential to core gameplay.
LOL... okay, maybe if you used your brain for two seconds to realize this isn't a little idea cut here and there, because the game took a different direction, or they felt it was done, this is getting rid of core gameplay ideas, because they wanted to push it out the door and be done with it. That's just being a lazy dev.
skullmuffins
Banned
Right, because the only options are to never buy a Double Fine game ever again or to blindly buy their games regardless of quality. Or, you know, if you don't like what's happened with their crowdfunded and early access games, stop buying their games before they're finished! Wait until they're done and then decide if it's worth a purchase. Delays, budget problems, and cut features are a reality of game development. They may be bad at managing things, but they're not intentionally trying to scam anyone.
ebullientprism
Member
This is extra scummy. Bet someone will try to defend this too.
They could have just waited till the announcement but nope, had to squeeze some unsuspecting people a little bit more.
LurkerPrime
Member
I think the core problem I have is that Double Fine should have known better. They are an old developer with years of experience. They should know that games aren't guaranteed to strike gold, especially when they're released in an unfinished state. They certainly shouldn't sell a product to their fans when their fans alone won't be enough to sustain it; it's irresponsible, and all but guarantees that the product will end up incomplete, rushed, half-baked, or outright abandoned. This does more than hurt themself, it also hurts their most loyal fans.
The worst part is that when Double Fine could have come out and admitted that they were winding down development they instead chose to stay quiet and deceive the customers. It went beyond "let's all help Double Fine make a neat thing" and into a very self-concerned, "don't sabotage sales" area. Instead of winding down development honestly and openly, they quietly and deceptively modified the development roadmap to meet their new goals.
The truth of the matter is that Spacebase DF-9 is not finished; it shouldn't have left Early Access. But, to align with Double Fine's new goals, it has hit 1.0. Why? Because abandoning the project would be grounds for removing it from Steam, so it's better to leave early acess to guarantee that one last boost of sales.
Can companies sell their soul? Nah... but they can certainly sell their reputation.
The worst part is that when Double Fine could have come out and admitted that they were winding down development they instead chose to stay quiet and deceive the customers. It went beyond "let's all help Double Fine make a neat thing" and into a very self-concerned, "don't sabotage sales" area. Instead of winding down development honestly and openly, they quietly and deceptively modified the development roadmap to meet their new goals.
The truth of the matter is that Spacebase DF-9 is not finished; it shouldn't have left Early Access. But, to align with Double Fine's new goals, it has hit 1.0. Why? Because abandoning the project would be grounds for removing it from Steam, so it's better to leave early acess to guarantee that one last boost of sales.
Can companies sell their soul? Nah... but they can certainly sell their reputation.
spindoctor
Member
That's... not the approach of Broken Age at all. They're not offering a 'free expansion' to early buyers. They are selling half a game with a promise of the other half at some unknown point in the future.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "promise" stuff. When I read the line "not set in stone", I assume that everything is up for grabs and when I click "buy" on an early access game, I assume that anything can happen.
As for the cut features being core to gameplay, can I ask how much Spacebase you've played? I've put in a few dozen hours throughout the release, and I've found the core gameplay to be totally fine, despite the lack of depth and features. It isn't a deep simulation I guess, but there's still fun to be had.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I mean, on the one hand, it's clear SB DF-9 didn't sell enough to justify continuing to have 4 people working on it full time. So I can't blame them. If Minecraft hadn't taken off, Notch would have dropped it at some point. No one is going to work on things indefinitely while losing money. And it's pretty clear SB DF-9 isn't going to happen. They've tried promotions and discounts and there's not much interest and no one who is playing seems very enthused. It seems like an appropriate project to fold.
But on the other hand, the resulting game is clearly a disappointment to maybe 90% of buyers and there's no way that's what they set out to achieve and it doesn't bode well for their reputation or brand to leave a project in that kind of state. It also suggests that perhaps they should have shouldered additional risk iterating on the game BEFORE consumers got their hands on it. The initial Early Access was clearly too early. I don't think Early Access should be for the first build, I think it should be for something that's really quite playable on its own and just requires further iteration. I've played a lot of great early access stuff and even as a Double Fine fan, I didn't pick this up because it never seemed like it was very far along. And the initial pricepoint was bananas; even if they finished the game it's not clear its scope or production values would have been in the $25-30 bracket rather than the $15-20 type bracket.
Finally, their rollout of this announcements has been really poor. Their "well the game is done, enjoy" statement is transparently false; everyone immediately concluded the game was being abandoned. So the attempt at framing did not work. As a result, would it have hurt them to be honest? By saying that the game's sales and development haven't lived up to expectations, and while they're happy with what they've accomplished, they know it could have been more but they won't be able to take it there. I guess this is made more difficult by the fact that Indie-Fund had bragged about the game's runaway success. I would have also expected them to compensate people for project failure in a way beyond releasing the source; for example, by offering backers codes for other DF games, DF swag, partial refunds, transparency about the budget and sales figures, etc. I have no idea how doable these things are and I recognize that it's difficult to offer a refund after spending the money, but I feel like the rollout of this process has been pretty poor. They disappeared for a while, updated to say that major stuff was coming, and then updated to say the game was done. That to me suggests they either mislead people to begin with, or that the cancellation of the project was sudden for even the team; if it's the latter, hey, it happens, but again honesty would be valuable.
WRT Kickstarter, which has nothing to do with Early Access, the "Broken Age was a failure because it took longer and I don't like the game and also how do you run out of 3 million when you only asked for fifteen bucks and a case of beer? Also I heard that Tim Schafer is a feminist and mumble mumble cheated on her ex and Leigh Alexander who wrote an article about gamers was drunk on Giant Bombcast and Giant Bomb formed from ex-Gamespot refugees and Gamespot gave Twilight Princess an 8.8 and it's clearly at least a 9.1 and in summary FUCK KICKSTARTER AND IOS" angle isn't really worth dignifying with a response. Major, $75k+ Kickstarters are by and large quite successful, most release in a reasonable timeframe, and most of those that are delayed are fairly communicative and show signs of progress. Failures are rare and when they occur tend to be from projects with major warning signs at the beginning, and successes are common and notable.
On a broader level, it seems to me like SBDF-9, Hack and Slash, and Autonomous have not panned out the way they hoped. I'm not sure if it's a case of resource starvation coming from smaller teams or too many projects and not enough management bandwidth, or something about their iterative process that doesn't separate interesting experiments from worthwhile full games at an early enough stage. In contrast to Costume Quest, Stacking, Iron Brigade, and Sesame Street, all of which ended up quite fully formed and workable as games.
But on the other hand, the resulting game is clearly a disappointment to maybe 90% of buyers and there's no way that's what they set out to achieve and it doesn't bode well for their reputation or brand to leave a project in that kind of state. It also suggests that perhaps they should have shouldered additional risk iterating on the game BEFORE consumers got their hands on it. The initial Early Access was clearly too early. I don't think Early Access should be for the first build, I think it should be for something that's really quite playable on its own and just requires further iteration. I've played a lot of great early access stuff and even as a Double Fine fan, I didn't pick this up because it never seemed like it was very far along. And the initial pricepoint was bananas; even if they finished the game it's not clear its scope or production values would have been in the $25-30 bracket rather than the $15-20 type bracket.
Finally, their rollout of this announcements has been really poor. Their "well the game is done, enjoy" statement is transparently false; everyone immediately concluded the game was being abandoned. So the attempt at framing did not work. As a result, would it have hurt them to be honest? By saying that the game's sales and development haven't lived up to expectations, and while they're happy with what they've accomplished, they know it could have been more but they won't be able to take it there. I guess this is made more difficult by the fact that Indie-Fund had bragged about the game's runaway success. I would have also expected them to compensate people for project failure in a way beyond releasing the source; for example, by offering backers codes for other DF games, DF swag, partial refunds, transparency about the budget and sales figures, etc. I have no idea how doable these things are and I recognize that it's difficult to offer a refund after spending the money, but I feel like the rollout of this process has been pretty poor. They disappeared for a while, updated to say that major stuff was coming, and then updated to say the game was done. That to me suggests they either mislead people to begin with, or that the cancellation of the project was sudden for even the team; if it's the latter, hey, it happens, but again honesty would be valuable.
WRT Kickstarter, which has nothing to do with Early Access, the "Broken Age was a failure because it took longer and I don't like the game and also how do you run out of 3 million when you only asked for fifteen bucks and a case of beer? Also I heard that Tim Schafer is a feminist and mumble mumble cheated on her ex and Leigh Alexander who wrote an article about gamers was drunk on Giant Bombcast and Giant Bomb formed from ex-Gamespot refugees and Gamespot gave Twilight Princess an 8.8 and it's clearly at least a 9.1 and in summary FUCK KICKSTARTER AND IOS" angle isn't really worth dignifying with a response. Major, $75k+ Kickstarters are by and large quite successful, most release in a reasonable timeframe, and most of those that are delayed are fairly communicative and show signs of progress. Failures are rare and when they occur tend to be from projects with major warning signs at the beginning, and successes are common and notable.
On a broader level, it seems to me like SBDF-9, Hack and Slash, and Autonomous have not panned out the way they hoped. I'm not sure if it's a case of resource starvation coming from smaller teams or too many projects and not enough management bandwidth, or something about their iterative process that doesn't separate interesting experiments from worthwhile full games at an early enough stage. In contrast to Costume Quest, Stacking, Iron Brigade, and Sesame Street, all of which ended up quite fully formed and workable as games.
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.