Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

cwm9

DFA Backers
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cwm9

  • Rank
    Double Action Newbie
  1. I don't think you should do the release slowly. I think you should do it Weird Al style -- release one every day, starting on game release day. When you start releasing episodes, the internet and blogosphere will be abuzz about it every day for three weeks, and you will (I hope) sell games by the truckload as people are forced to wait for their daily documentary fix. If you really want to start the marketing now, start releasing trailer clips from the documentary with "one episode release per day starting xxx" end slates. The internet has a short attention span. Releasing one or two episodes a week is a recipe for losing public interest quickly. Manditory Fun became a runaway success, partially due to the quality of the album, but also partially to the marketing strategy Weird Al employed. Once the videos are public, people will be watching them for months after, so you'll get plenty of residual benefit. It's just hard for me to imagine the blogosphere bothering to write about the documentary for nine weeks straight if you release two episodes per week, and even harder for me to imagine that 'this weeks episode' will attract new purchasers if there's no media stir about what you are doing. On the other hand, I can easily see the media dedicating words to your efforts for 3 weeks if you keep feeding the beast on a daily basis.
  2. Not only should you release it, but you should use it as a marketing tool and do it Weird Al style. You should release 1 episode per day, with the first episode released 2-3 days before the street date of the game. That should build up interest in the game for a few days before it releases, then keep people talking about the game by hitting them with episode after episode while the game is available for purchase.
  3. How about creating making use of the fan base to expand the localization to more languages? It seems like that would be a pretty way to expand the potential market base. Any chance Chinese/Japanese gamers could be enticed into the world of adventure games?
  4. I noticed there hasn't been any real activity in a long, long, time. I was thinking we were going to get updates and video right to the end of Act 2, but then I realized the money for Act 2 is coming from the sales of Act 1. Is this goodbye?
  5. It's also important to remember that the iOS/Android versions haven't even been released yet. There is a large audience that only plays games on the portable devices, and they haven't even been given the opportunity to buy yet. Not everyone has or wants Steam. If the PC version on steam is able to completely pay for development and even a little profit, everything sold on Google Play and the iTunes store is going to be 100% profit.
  6. I did notice that Broken Age was #20 on Steam's Top Seller list today. I don't know if that's meaningful or not, but I sure hope it is.
  7. I think if you ask different people you will get different opinions about the difficulty issue. I like to play adventure games, not because I'm looking for Rubik's cube to solve, but because I want to be a part of a story for a few hours. To me the enjoyable portion is the exploring, the story, the characters, and, as Tim puts it, to "feel smart," after solving a modestly difficult puzzle every now and then. I have plenty of real world puzzles that need to be solved, and I hate getting stuck while playing an adventure game. This game needed to appeal to the masses. For there to be more adventure games after this one, it is critically important that a portion of the current casual gaming population be converted into lovers of adventure games. That means smart phone and tablet support is critical. Past experience has shown that, while hard-core enthusiasts might love hard-core challenges, casual gamers just want to play. For them, getting to play for 3 hours is better than playing for 3 hours and being stuck for 10, and lovers of adventure games will generally still love the game. Double-fine has spent a non-negligible fraction of this budget developing a brand new game engine and related series of development tools. Had these already been in place, the game would almost certainly have been larger in scale than it ended up being. If the game is financially successful, which again depends on hooking modern casual gamers, the next adventure game produced by Double Fine will not require that development and we can expect a series of games with ever-increasing complexity. If the engine is released to the world, then the adventure game community has already won. Adventure games as big-budget affairs might be dead, but adventure games as a genre was never truly abandoned. A fresh new engine and tool set will allow smaller independent game writers a platform on which to shine.
  8. Maybe this is a bad question due to advertising considerations, but, as part of the "sausage," do we get to know how many copies are selling? I'd love to know if this has been a home run or a squeaker. Home run, right? Right?
  9. So, obviously, the the question is... what's the next Double Fine Adventure game Kickstarter going live? It's not like you have to write an engine now... Time to start writing content for that engine. Got to strike while the iron is hot...
  10. The music segment was fucking amazing. Watching the music getting created was inspiring. I am so glad that the game is headed the way that it is. I hope the rest of the world loves the game as much as I know I will.
  11. I think the idea is fine. If the backers had to wait until 2015 I think they'd survive. The question isn't really so much what the hard core backers think -- that money has been long spent, and you don't need to convince them to open their wallets. The real question is, how can you finish the game properly? It's important to remember that what backers bought into was the game development process -- watching sausage get made and all, remember? This decision is part of that sausage. Seeing the anguish that goes into deciding how to bring in more money to finish a game is a part of what we paid for. We all know what needs to happen for the game to be all it can be. More money has to be brought in. So bring it in. Bring in fresh blood. Get a new group of people interested via the Steam "Early Access" system. The backers shouldn't look at this like it's some sort of compromise -- this is the game getting made, right before your eyes. This is how you make ends meet when you run out of options.
  12. While I do get warm fuzzies for the title, "Worlds Apart," and while it is the current poll leader, I think it would be wise to consider the marketing implications of such a choice. If you Google "worlds apart" you come back with 5,060,000 hits, the third one down of which is worldsapart.com. For anyone looking to find a review, '"worlds apart" review' will nab them 10,600,000 results, mostly pointing them to the episode of Fringe by that name, an impossible search adversary. "The Divide" is pretty much on par with 6,510,000 hits due to the 2011 movie of the same name. It should not surprise you that tacking on the word 'review' only narrows this to 3,010,000. "Small Offerings" has just 47,400 hits while "Broken Age" fares best at 7,930. Sadly, neither of these titles gives me any warm fuzzies. "Broken Age" sounds too much like a dungeon crawl, and "Small Offerings" seems to girl-story-centric in addition to having other connotations that aren't related. But then, I doubt I could do better. All I could come up with was, "The Abrogates," referring to their mutual rejection, or abrogation, of their respective societal norms. So I guess "Broken Age" it is...
  13. I would agree with you if the game were held hostage to additional funding. But that's not what's going on, and I think your viewpoint is incorrect. As I said originally, we have the oportunity to define what it means to be crowd funded right now. A second kickstarter is not a failure, it's a vote. Originally, Double File said, "we want to make game 'x'." Then along came massive overfunding, and they said, "that's awsome! Instead of making game 'x', we're going to make you game 'y'." Halfway through game 'y' they said, "we're heading toward game 'z', but we know we can't afford it, so we're trimming back to game 'y'." Now, in the traditional sense, we could say, "we paid for game 'x', and now you are off on game 'z', get your act together!" But this is not traditional funding. If those giving the money prefer game 'z' over game 'y', why is it wrong to let them pay for it? This is not a case of holding game 'y' hostage over additional funding. This is a case of letting us choose: would we rather have the less expensive game 'y' and pay nothing more, or the more expensive game 'z' and pay some extra? I'd rather have game 'z'. Judging from the response of many posters, so would many other people. If you offer a kickstarter and say, "oops, we screwed up, give us more money," then of course there will be backlash. If you offer a kickstarter and say, "we're on course to deliver game 'y', but many of you have seen hints of game 'z' and are interested in seeing that happen -- here's your chance", then I fail to see where the negativity would come from.
  14. "We're the poster child." We, all of us, are that poster child, and we all get to define what crowd sourcing is. You hear the many voices saying they want to support you, right? Let us have our moment to choose! Make a second kickstarter with a $200,000 goal with NO new rewards and let the backers choose if that is an acceptable thing to do. Why is it your right to say that it's not "ok"? If they don't fund it, fine! Consider it a vote to cut until it fits. But let us vote. Give us the chance to make the game be what we want. Sure, I could slacker back again, but having another kickstarter makes it a team effort where we either do it together, or we don't do it. Please, it's not failure to ask for more money. Why can't it be, 'we see where this is headed and we like what we see so we're gonna double down?" Maybe this is how crowd funding *needs* to be. Maybe in the future we half fund projects until we like what we see and only then finish funding them. I'm telling you, I have cash in my pocket that is burning a hole there just waiting for you to ask for it. And how many times have I ever said that in my life about anything else? -repost
×
×
  • Create New...