Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[a1s]

'Overfunded' may be the wrong term to use in relation with Spacebase, but then are we complaining about Broken Age instead now?

I was (I didn't buy DF9). But It's not hard to look up the fact that
a) Double Fine said DF9 needed $400k funding
b) which they got upfront (it's often claimed they were risking their own money, but it turns out they had fairly traditional investement, chiefly from IndieFund)
c) The game broke even on those $400k within the first 2 weeks.
d) I'm not 100% on what happened to the rest of the money, but they seem to be getting a good chunk of it.
hence it's another project that was "overfunded" (in quotes, since as we know they right term is "under-budgeted")

[a1s]

I'm not quite sure if you can call them irresponsible with money, I think they just don't have that much of it.

"Irresponsible" might be the the wrong term here. It's more that they "suck at planing expenses". This isn't uncommon in the Software world, but you expect it from inexperienced teams, rather than pros with over 2 decades in the business.

Actually, they scaled up the game a ton after they received the 10x funding.

Exactly. It's always tempting to do that, but unless you literally expect to lose unspent funds (for example if you're a government agency with leftover unappropriated budget), this will likelier than not end badly.

[Rez]

I don't think anyone here wishes ill on Tim Schafer and DF.  No one wants to drop money on a game by devs who have a track record of not finishing games.  That's all.  I don't, and I doubt others do, question their humanity; lots of people are totally incapable of managing even their own finance.  I'm sure they're all very nice people, but most of us don't have the money to donate to very nice people just 'cause.

Also, a couple years ago, before all the Kickstarter crap, Kotick explained how Schafer couldn't plan finances for Brutal Legend and kept asking for more and more, all the while missing deadlines repeatedly, hence why Activision dropped it. At the time, nobody gave a shit what Kotick said, being who he is, but right now it doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

I'm pretty sure I've said it in the KS goes wrong thread: publishers/producers exist (for a reason), because talent often isn't capable of raising or managing money well.  DF recent history reads like they thought they could fire the accountants and project managers and still get things done.  It's like they start work without any kind of schedule or plan for when things need to be done, so they always have cost overruns.  These are the people who would take Tim Schafer aside and say "We really do not have the money to do the stuff you're promising and we will deliver unfinished products when that happens".

[GobbieMarauder]

I'm not quite sure if you can call them irresponsible with money, I think they just don't have that much of it.

"Irresponsible" might be the the wrong term here. It's more that they "suck at planing expenses". This isn't uncommon in the Software world, but you expect it from inexperienced teams, rather than pros with over 2 decades in the business.

Actually, they scaled up the game a ton after they received the 10x funding.

Exactly. It's always tempting to do that, but unless you literally expect to lose unspent funds (for example if you're a government agency with leftover unappropriated budget), this will likelier than not end badly.

Let's be fair, this is different from feature creep. You have two camps of people on this - those that want the game to be improved in accordance to the amount of additional funding, and don't care about the additional time spent, and those that don't care if the project was overfunded, they just want the game they were promised when they were promised it. If DF instead just made the originally proposed game and did who-knows-what with the rest of the money, you would just be replacing the people complaining "Broken Age still isn't out!" with people complaining "Broken Age got 10x the funding, why didn't they make it better?!"

[penguinofhonor]

.

[a1s]

I'm not quite sure if you can call them irresponsible with money, I think they just don't have that much of it.

"Irresponsible" might be the the wrong term here. It's more that they "suck at planing expenses". This isn't uncommon in the Software world, but you expect it from inexperienced teams, rather than pros with over 2 decades in the business.

Actually, they scaled up the game a ton after they received the 10x funding.

Exactly. It's always tempting to do that, but unless you literally expect to lose unspent funds (for example if you're a government agency with leftover unappropriated budget), this will likelier than not end badly.

Let's be fair, this is different from feature creep.

I guess. However I've been in this situation before ("we got an extension, let's add this one easy thing to the project") and it never, not once, ended well (admittedly out of maybe half-a-dozen cases, so I might have just been unlucky.)

you would just be replacing the people complaining "Broken Age still isn't out!" with people complaining "Broken Age got 10x the funding, why didn't they make it better?!"

When did that ever happen? (I'm not really keeping up with gaming news)

[IronyOwl]

I regret bumping this thread.

I'm finding it educational, at least.

[Neonivek]

Look the ultimate issue is that a company cannot say die when it comes to a game. They couldn't just announce that DS9 was a failure and move on.

---

As for Massive Chalice

Honestly I think I should watch a letsplay, this has been, apperantly, in my watch list for quite some time. But after seeing screen shots it is like this game is like 50% what I imagined it.

It isn't immediately obvious that it is good or bad on surface details alone and doesn't have the usual "Obviously bad feature" that sometimes lets me avoid touching it.

[a1s]

Look the ultimate issue is that a company cannot say die when it comes to a game. They couldn't just announce that DS9 was a failure and move on.

Here's your time to shine, Neovinek. How do you resolve this situation (assume you have any skill a manager can be reasonably expected to posses. Maybe one or two tradesman skills too.):

• You are the head of a team.
• A project of yours has run out of funding (and the head office is being reluctant about giving you more)
• The project in question is technically not finished, but due to the way your contract is worded can be shipped to customers with low-to-nonexistent risk of lawsuit.
• Of course you're liable (in the moral, not legal sense) for any customer alienation you cause
• And finally, you've worked with your team for a year now, and you don't really want to fire them.

[Alg]

Let's be fair, this is different from feature creep. You have two camps of people on this - those that want the game to be improved in accordance to the amount of additional funding, and don't care about the additional time spent, and those that don't care if the project was overfunded, they just want the game they were promised when they were promised it. If DF instead just made the originally proposed game and did who-knows-what with the rest of the money, you would just be replacing the people complaining "Broken Age still isn't out!" with people complaining "Broken Age got 10x the funding, why didn't they make it better?!"

Well, Faster Than Light did exactly that, they got 2000% of what they asked, delivered exactly what they promised, and I didn't hear many complaining. Granted, that was a wildly different situation, as the game was already well advanced before they went to Kickstarter whereas DFA was more "Hey we kinda want to make an old-school adventure game and film ourselves doing it, anyone interested?".

Still, for me FTL is the ideal kickstarter success story because it didn't fall to the trap of making something different than what you promised because so many people were interested in it. It is also why I don't like stretch goals, especially the ones that are improvised during a successful Kickstarter.

That said, I'm actually pretty satisfied with DFA/Broken Age, part 1 was fun and I hope part 2 will be even better. Anyway, the documentary alone was worth it.

And to get back on Massive Chalice, I backed it too, got it recently and finished it in maybe 4-5 days (by playing quite a bit, I think I spent about 15h on it). It's a really fun game. It has some flaws, especially in the interface but once/if they're fixed it should be a really good game. Not a big title by any mean (it's seriously lacking in content for that) but still very worth its price.

[Zangi]

Look the ultimate issue is that a company cannot say die when it comes to a game. They couldn't just announce that DS9 was a failure and move on.

Sorry, but that is just... pretty durn idealistic.  Companies have killed games before, it is a thing that has happened and will continue to happen.  Cause they think it won't sell or they did not have the funds to keep paying people to work on it.
The only difference is that this one came out a decrypt shadow in the light of day. Rather then die alone in the dark.

[Neonivek]

Look the ultimate issue is that a company cannot say die when it comes to a game. They couldn't just announce that DS9 was a failure and move on.

Sorry, but that is just... pretty durn idealistic.  Companies have killed games before, it is a thing that has happened and will continue to happen.  Cause they think it won't sell or they did not have the funds to keep paying people to work on it.
The only difference is that this one came out a decrypt shadow in the light of day. Rather then die alone in the dark.

What I meant is... DS9 failed, it failed hard... but the situation couldn't be resolved because they couldn't say they failed.

It is like running someone over with your car. You cannot admit you did it, because until it is settled through court you cannot admit liability.

[Zangi]

Ah, yea, the context clears that up.

[EuchreJack]

As for Massive Chalice

Honestly I think I should watch a letsplay, this has been, apperantly, in my watch list for quite some time. But after seeing screen shots it is like this game is like 50% what I imagined it.

It isn't immediately obvious that it is good or bad on surface details alone and doesn't have the usual "Obviously bad feature" that sometimes lets me avoid touching it.

Well, I've been playing it for a bit.  Most fun and balanced in the beginning, like most games.  Seems to generally get pretty easy later on, like most games.  At least enemy progression keeps things interesting.

Graphics are rather mediocre, but considering the strain they put on my puny laptop, any better graphics would probably prevent me from playing it.

It is more simple than bad.  Only three classes of character (but at least the game has an explanation for it: These are the only hero types that can fight the evil, mortals would die immediately).  Only three class of building (but they are really all that is needed).  Three equipment types (weapon, armor, item), although you can equip two items on high-level alchemists with the right skill.

The mix is where the fun begins.  Also, the various character traits/personalities and manipulation thereof is where the game gets fun.  These modifiers to the characters are more fun than vital: They don't put a massive benefit/penalty on your characters, but they are nice enough to strive to achieve.  I found the game has enough give for my tactical/strategic abilities to be interesting.  Only five characters can go on each mission, but sometimes I haven't been able to field all five (I think three was the lowest).  Thankfully, three can usually win, although usually with someone dead due to sheer enemy number superiority.

With the Thanksgiving holiday coming up, I might try and LP the beginning game.  It would be more fun if names could be edited.

[IronyOwl]

It would be more fun if names could be edited.

The absence of little details like this makes me sad.