Print

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

[Greenbane]

But honestly, what were you guys expecting from a 15-dollar game?

I guess I expected honesty, integrity, and transparency.

Or are you saying that 15 dollar games can't be really fun?

Whether you find the game fun or not is ultimately subjective. Regardless of their work etiquette, what you pay for is a product. I didn't know game development was required to be transparent to the public. As for honesty or integrity, and the alleged lack thereof, well, whether they're significantly at fault with that is debatable.

But honestly, what were you guys expecting from a 15-dollar game?

I expected the game they advertised, the game they set out to make. So far I haven't seen it and regret buying, but that was back when I still did early access stuff which I don't any more, partly because of Starbound.

What is it that they advertised and wasn't or is not going to be delivered by 1.0? Is the problem that they're not delivering or that they're not delivering the content you expected in the form you were hoping for? Those are two different things.

But honestly, what were you guys expecting from a 15-dollar game?

"lol it's only $15 so it's okay that they fucked up the project, trolled their customers instead of working, and didn't deliver"

>til you can lie to someone for financial gain as long as it's not too much money from some random person's pov
>tfw terraria had the same pricing but delivered well for what it was
>tfw there are $5 games that are better-made and aligned with their original intent
>tfw there are free games in alpha or alpha-equivalent states that are massively better games than this
>tfw you have ancient shareware DOS games that are more interesting and have more replay value
>tfw someone tries to excuse shitty devs by belittling people for legitimate complaints

To say they fucked up the project is a bit of a stretch. A very subjective stretch.

[Darkmere]

I've mentioned this a few times in the years since, but one of my early posts in the old thread was along the lines of "if they make something kinda like Terraria in space, I'll be satisfied." I enjoyed Terraria for the building moreso than the min-max combat, so I'll probably at least partially enjoy 1.0.

It was obvious from the start given the mysterious falling out Tiy had with Redigit that there was something shady going on with him, and that Tiy couldn't handle working with a team that well. It's a question of managing your expectations and leaving them at a sane level, which for a brand new team with dubious pedigree should be pretty damn low. I do feel bad for the competent people that got roped into the company's PR debacles and had to leave quietly over the years, though.

At this point I also just don't have the fucks to give over $15 I knew was a gamble when I spent them 4 years ago. Life lesson, I guess - people lie sometimes and can be incompetent. They've still handled this much better than Towns ever did, by a country mile.

[Neonivek]

But honestly, what were you guys expecting from a 15-dollar game?

I guess I expected honesty, integrity, and transparency.

Or are you saying that 15 dollar games can't be really fun?

Whether you find the game fun or not is ultimately subjective. Regardless of their work etiquette, what you pay for is a product. I didn't know game development was required to be transparent to the public. As for honesty or integrity, and the alleged lack thereof, well, whether they're significantly at fault with that is debatable.

You can't back out of it that way. YOU gave the qualification that $15 dollars = insufficiency.

So if it isn't fun factor as you point out. Then what? Say what are you saying IS this great lack from a 15 dollar product?

As for "Debatable" no. They objectively cut and run and put a lesser team on staff in order to go to other projects (something they said they would only do once the game was finished if I remember correctly...). Debatable means that you could reasonably debate one way or another. Debatable doesn't mean "They did it! but you know... does it really matter?"

So for example... Trolling their own fanbase and then banning them when they reacted? It happened... That isn't debatable.

Whether or not someone should care whether or not they are trolls? That is debatable.

---

But as I said, I'd forgive it all if they just got their act together. I don't even care about the promises at this point.

Just fix the game first. The game is so... trivial and wonky.

[Trapezohedron]

Actually, they really did fuck up. Starbound was hyped and sold with the premise of the old changelog and update schedules, which is why people pre-ordered for it. Then Chucklefuck decided they would be using Starfunds in order to run a Publisher scheme instead. Now, there's barely any game they produce and they're off acting as a publisher for indie games, like Stardew Valley.

To say that's not a fuck up, when you promised to deliver an apple and you sent a rotten orange, then I don't know what is.

[GrayFox]

I am still interested in a list of features that didn't make it. If there was one, and it was only ever posted on their official forums, then that's pretty dumb. No one has a list like this somewhere?

The only thing I can think of is creative mode, which they claim will be added later, as far as I know? I'm sure there are some other things not (or not yet) in the game, but it seems like most things are getting done. It's just not in an amount of time that pleases most people.

I'm admittedly annoyed that it's taking so long, but I'm glad development continues. I haven't heard any plans of the game being scrapped or discontinued, or anything like that. As far as I know, most of the staff members are still there, with a few exceptions. However, I'm not sure who is working on what now anymore.

[Flying Dice]

Actually, by my recollection pretty much all of their actual coders left. Which is probably part of why they fell into "lol look at this item i made this weekend" syndrome.

[GrayFox]

bartwe left. He was a coder. Rho left. She was an artist. I think everyone else is still there?

[Greenbane]

You can't back out of it that way. YOU gave the qualification that $15 dollars = insufficiency.

So if it isn't fun factor as you point out. Then what? Say what are you saying IS this great lack from a 15 dollar product?

As for "Debatable" no. They objectively cut and run and put a lesser team on staff in order to go to other projects (something they said they would only do once the game was finished if I remember correctly...). Debatable means that you could reasonably debate one way or another. Debatable doesn't mean "They did it! but you know... does it really matter?"

So for example... Trolling their own fanbase and then banning them when they reacted? It happened... That isn't debatable.

Whether or not someone should care whether or not they are trolls? That is debatable.

I made no such claim. My claim is a simple one: there's plenty of content in the game to justify the 15-dollar pricetag. It may not be the flawless masterpiece some blindly hoped it to be, but it's a pretty decent game. Maybe a 7/10.

If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna say it's the relevance of most of what you mentioned that is debatable: yeah, because I can't be arsed to do the research and investigate just what went supposedly wrong and verify whether or not Chucklefish is in fact the herald of the Apocalypse. Internal politics, blunders, who had a falling out with whom and whatever happened along the development process is irrelevant if said process kept chugging along. How they managed their official forums matters little. All that matters is the quality of the final product, from a customer's perspective.

You really have to ask yourself what'd you think of the game if you hadn't immersed yourself in all the rumours, gossip and forum raging, all of which has little bearing on the actual product. From a personal perspective, I believe it paid off to just forget about the game after it first came out and the forum rage and alleged questionable happenings took place. I was able to play subsequent stable versions, as sparsely as they were released, as an outsider, and found them to be decent upgrades. What the devs did or did not do with their company was of little consequence. Your experience might've been different: everyone has different expectations and preferences about any game, but that's normal.

And yeah, I'm also interested in a list of all the alleged promised features that didn't make it. So far all the responses I've gotten are something along the lines of "Chucklefish did this or that and they're the devil" and "they haven't fulfilled any of the million promises they made, and they deleted those (so I don't even know what I'm expecting they'll own up to)". I'm astounded by the amount of bile surrounding what's merely a game, often spewed by people who paid for it years ago, got dozens of hours of entertainment from it and still demand it to fulfill their mythical expectations.


PS: Coders leaving might've slowed development down, but if they weren't replaced in any way, the project would've screeched to a halt. You just can't make a game without coders, so I'll assume that's just an overstated rumour as opposed to a sign of the development process running on black magic fuelled by the weekly sacrifice of forum dissenters.

[Flying Dice]

bartwe left. He was a coder. Rho left. She was an artist. I think everyone else is still there?

So a third of their coders. Not counting the two modders they hired.

I mean granted, the point is kinda moot when I'm pretty sure none of they had ever worked on a game before, maybe barring small personal projects.

Meanwhile a look at their former team members it's basically all art people, sound people, and vague idea people. Three coders plus two modders they added later balanced against, what, just shy of 20 soft-work people? That right there is probably a decent explanation for part of their problems.

[GrayFox]

A couple of people left. They were not slaves. Then, they hired some new people. I don't see a gigantic controversy there.

[Neonivek]

I made no such claim. My claim is a simple one: there's plenty of content in the game to justify the 15-dollar pricetag. It may not be the flawless masterpiece some blindly hoped it to be, but it's a pretty decent game. Maybe a 7/10.

So... you didn't make the claim... but your making the claim.

[Greenbane]

I made no such claim. My claim is a simple one: there's plenty of content in the game to justify the 15-dollar pricetag. It may not be the flawless masterpiece some blindly hoped it to be, but it's a pretty decent game. Maybe a 7/10.

So... you didn't make the claim... but your making the claim.

I am? What is sufficient to you? Were you indeed expecting a flawless masterpiece from the developers? Clearly nothing short of that would do. Why is Starbound not allowed to be a 7/10?

[Neonivek]

I made no such claim. My claim is a simple one: there's plenty of content in the game to justify the 15-dollar pricetag. It may not be the flawless masterpiece some blindly hoped it to be, but it's a pretty decent game. Maybe a 7/10.

So... you didn't make the claim... but your making the claim.

I am? What is sufficient to you? Were you indeed expecting a flawless masterpiece from the developers? Clearly nothing short of that would do. Why is Starbound not allowed to be a 7/10?

Fix up the platforming, make the combat a bit more technical, and fix the weapons... then I wouldn't be as cheesed.

Besides on my scale Starbound is a 5/10 which is basically a meh... because my scale doesn't start at 7.

I also don't give points to games that use up a lot of my time. Otherwise From the Depths and Borderlands would be 10s (I'd probably rate the first BLs a 6... Second and presequel a 7,  but the sort of 7 where sometimes it feels like an 8... Like it had its moments)

While from the depths I'd probably give a 6 or 5... But it is the sort of 6 or 5 I'd want to play. I don't play it because it is particularly good or fun.

But there are also "Strong" and "Weak" scores. A "weak" score like say Fallout 4 is a game that isn't as fun as I'd score it. Yet a "strong" score is a game like Drakengard which is kind of a bad game but is somehow more fun then it is bad or just a great game that is just fun.

[IronyOwl]

I made no such claim. My claim is a simple one: there's plenty of content in the game to justify the 15-dollar pricetag. It may not be the flawless masterpiece some blindly hoped it to be, but it's a pretty decent game. Maybe a 7/10.

If you ask me to explain why a $15 game MUST have the following features to not count as a fuckup and a scam, and I respond with a really eloquent explanation of what made original X-COM so enjoyable, I'm fucking up the conversation. I cannot then claim that, completely lacking context, the response I gave was well-written and enjoyable and therefore a valid response, because it's not. It might be if I were in a discussion about X-COM, but we weren't so I'm going off about nothing in particular. I'm giving a shit response, even if somebody jumping into the thread without any context thinks it's a pretty thoughtful piece, or who enjoys the derail anyway.

Similarly, you cannot market a game as one thing, then deliver whatever else you feel like and count on it "still being a good game" to cover the discrepancy. There are no doubt people who would have bought or backed the game either way or any way, and so for them the question of "was this a good $15?" still has the same answer. This does not invalidate those for whom the answer has changed, or those for whom the answer might have changed because that's their call to make, not the company's. And since everyone's answer might have changed, everyone has a right to call Chucklefish out for lying about the product they were selling.

You can personally decide that it all worked out okay for you personally, so no harm no foul, but that doesn't oblige anyone else to do the same.

If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna say it's the relevance of most of what you mentioned that is debatable: yeah, because I can't be arsed to do the research and investigate just what went supposedly wrong and verify whether or not Chucklefish is in fact the herald of the Apocalypse. Internal politics, blunders, who had a falling out with whom and whatever happened along the development process is irrelevant if said process kept chugging along. How they managed their official forums matters little. All that matters is the quality of the final product, from a customer's perspective.

You really have to ask yourself what'd you think of the game if you hadn't immersed yourself in all the rumours, gossip and forum raging, all of which has little bearing on the actual product. From a personal perspective, I believe it paid off to just forget about the game after it first came out and the forum rage and alleged questionable happenings took place. I was able to play subsequent stable versions, as sparsely as they were released, as an outsider, and found them to be decent upgrades. What the devs did or did not do with their company was of little consequence. Your experience might've been different: everyone has different expectations and preferences about any game, but that's normal.

So you have no idea what was or wasn't promised, but clearly anyone expecting anything but what they got was a gullible rube demanding the impossible? And you have no idea what Chucklefish did or didn't do, but anyone disliking or objecting to any of it is just being petty and irrelevant?

The mechanics of the company are incredibly relevant to the game, which is incredibly relevant to your status as a (potential) customer. If you want to just shrug and say "I'll be happy with anything!" then I guess it really doesn't matter for you personally, but that doesn't mean it's immaterial for everyone else.

And yeah, I'm also interested in a list of all the alleged promised features that didn't make it. So far all the responses I've gotten are something along the lines of "Chucklefish did this or that and they're the devil" and "they haven't fulfilled any of the million promises they made, and they deleted those (so I don't even know what I'm expecting they'll own up to)". I'm astounded by the amount of bile surrounding what's merely a game, often spewed by people who paid for it years ago, got dozens of hours of entertainment from it and still demand it to fulfill their mythical expectations.

So what, there's no such thing as a false promise so long as they remember to delete it at some point? Or are you suggesting that everyone who brings up those features is a liar or misremembering a suggestion thread?

[Skyrunner]

According to reddit, the 1.0 feature-complete release will be coming in roughly 6 months!