emperor_nero

Members
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About emperor_nero

  • Rank
    Double Action Newbie
  1. The Future of Spacebase DF-9?

    I noticed he is supporting Zoe Quinn, so I won't be supporting him. I am not paying someone to keep someone up who makes a living being a professional victim. Since the whole GamersGate thing and the launch of this ridiculous Crash Override thing it seems to be easy to make money off being an alarmist on both sides. I guess I would profiteer off all that publicity too. Either way, that is way off topic. The game is dead, don't buy it.
  2. The Future of Spacebase DF-9?

    OP, as I am sure you have noticed, the forums are dead. The few people trying to mod the game are struggling because from what I hear the code is atrocious for what were supposed to be professionals. The game doesn't even have close to the amount of 'anticipated features' and you may get 1 -2 hours out of play before you literally run out of content because the game is essentially a skeleton. Double Fine found early investment to the tune of $400k and was able to pay that back in a very short period of time. The game was updated, rarely, over the course of a year with each patch being pretty content light. DF banked on their reputation to use the Steam Early Access program to essentially kickstart this game. It appears they made no plans beyond the initial $400k acquired from investors. As the final F-You they released the source code and told the fans to make their own game out what skeleton had been constructed in a year. My suggestion would be to try it, you might like it if you enjoy very little content and extremely annoying bugs. There is a game in development now that already contains most of the features promised by the devs and is still in early access for less than the initial (and current) price of SB DF-9. It is called The Spatials and it look extremely promising. It has base building, a large research tree, planetary missions, some minor RPG elements with characters, and is being actively developed - and by that I mean there are updates released fast and thick, not once every third month. The only people who come to these forums are those who hold Tim Schafer and DF as Gods. He made some funny adventure games in the 90's and a couple of mediocre but 'quirky' platformers. He never made simulations or base builders. But on the bright side due to Spacebase DF-9 and other dead-beat devs like them Valve has changed the early access policy to not be so consumer un-friendly. tl;dr: You got screwed, take it and go on.
  3. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    To be fair Massive Chalice isn't out yet, we can't buy it, and Broken Age was split in two parts (the second of which is still in development). Hack 'n Slash is the only technically complete product delivered in recent memory. That said Broken Age and Massive Chalice are the first and last games I tend to back. The latter post is correct. There is a gap between being successfully funded and being a successful game. Horribad games get funded on a daily basis now, sadly, but that doesn't mean they're goo games. It just means, like with Spacebase, whoever was doing it got enough sucker/fans to buy into their idea. Broken Age had to be broken into two parts. They raised something like, what, $3m for it and that wasn't enough to maintain the development of a complete point and click adventure game? I mean I am pretty certain Pillars of Eternity is a much larger scope game and hasn't had to dip back in. The problem is that you're blaming the victim here. DF wasn't doing a normal early access game and that has been established. This was their experiment and they didn't let us in on the idea that this was an experiment until they decided to not experiment anymore. We've all sadly been Schafer'd.
  4. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    To be fair most of the claims do stand up to scrutiny if you review the projects. Broken Age is the token example. Games with larger scopes with similar amounts funded (D:OS, cough cough) completed the entire game, not having to break it up to fund a second half with first half sales. I mean I played psychonauts and Grim Fandango, but unlike a lot of people I am not wrapped up in the Schafer cult of personality and the nostalgia - DF essentially rides on Schafers history of making creative games not his savvy business moves.
  5. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    Why does that become "normal" or more valid than any other interpretation? Given that that post also questions whether the game would have a "final" version, it seems a little like a counter-intuitive interpretation to me. Edit: It does totally suggest that there would be a longer development timeframe though. Because as TotalBiscuit said in his video, and anyone who buys games in this modern market has seen, a lot of devs are using the content update models. Looks at Terraria, I mean how long has it been out? It has got what, 3 updates that were pretty much expansions adding huge amounts of content for free. It isn't the only game that kept up active development post-launch. I mean it is a good tactic. You can drive more sales, more community interest, and therefore make more money. I believe that they thought they were going to get to work on the game for a long time, up until the long radio silence and then they knew that it was over. If the goals of the game as a 'Game Development Experiment' was made explicitly clear in the very beginning then things would be different. No where did it state, in explicit - not implied terms - that the game would only be in development if it funded it's own development. That's like turning the game into an indefinite Kickstarter. Terraria is an excellent example - it managed to get to where it is thanks to recieving a huge amount of excellent word of mouth that got people interested in a '2D Minecraft-but-not-quite.' And subsequent publisher support. If they hadn't recieved that kind of feedback then they wouldn't have sold enough copies to sustain 3 huge updates plus everything else they've added to the game. It is an excellent example of a game that has found success using this model, and if it hadn't been a success, then we wouldn't be talking about it now. Not every game succeeds at this approach. It's inherently high risk and if there's one thing that I do agree Double Fine could have been clearer about it is to emphasise the risks involved with this approach. They were clear enough to state that they don't know how much dev time they'll get and can't make any promises, but they could, I suppose have gone one step further and said: 'and alpha funding is always a high-risk approach which relies on the building of a strong active community to ensure continued development, so how far this game goes is dependent on how much the concept catches on.' I think this was very, vey strongly implied, in everything they put out about DF9 (after all, when they said 'we'll keep developing as long as there is interest and money' where were people thinking that this interest and money would be generated from if not early access itself?), but it could have been clearer. I don't think there was dishonesty involved, though. In the last few days I've done a lot of looking at what was said about the game when it first went into early access, and it all tallies with what they're saying now. It's just that what we're seeing now is on the more modest end of their ambitions for the game, and of course everyone wanted the big flashy one with all the bells and whistles. Of course they did. The problem is PR talk honestly. Colloquially we talk about early access games and things pop into our minds. Good examples are prison architect and minecraft and the bad like Towns and now this. Early Access to you average gamers isn't a funding model, it's a way to help development and throw the dev a bone to maybe speed things along. It isn't like that, and that is the disconnect between reality and the idealization of the model. What DF was trying to do here is unheard of really. As Blinky said in his blog it is ridiculous to think that this game could fund $40,000 a month to just pay the devs, if the $10,000 per dev number is correct and there is no way it could have sustained that for any amount of time at the state it was in. If they had updated weekly with new content and systems then things would have been different, but monthly updates led to 12 - 14 months with only 6 updates that compared to many game were fairly light. I mean look how far Rimworld has come. It already has a thriving modding scene and the game isn't even close to completion. I think we all agree, but I think we have differing viewpoints that reach the same conclusion. I don't see how that was all that unrealistic. N.B these are suuuuper ballpark figures, but I think they're instructive. Double fine were probably pessimistically making $10 off every sale of DF9 once you take off taxes, Steam fees, etc. I actually think it might be closer to $15, but I'm going to say $10, to incorporate sales and such, too. In order to generate $40k of revenue, they would have had to sell 4000 copies a month, although what would have been more likely is that sales started off stronger and then tapered off a bit for an average of 4000 copies a month. 4000 copies a month isn't insane to hope for. Steam has 75 million active users. There are TEN THOUSAND people playing Terraria at this -very moment-. There's plenty of room within those kinds of numbers for a game like Spacebase to hope to sell 4k a month. To use the most obviously extreme example. There was a time when Minecraft was making hundreds of thousands of dollars every DAY. If Spacebase had found a niche that was far less than one percent as successful as that, it could have made its numbers. $40k a month isn't a dream figure. It was just one they didn't manage to sustain for more than a year. Four thousand copies a month is a lot to ask for a game that can barely sustain an hour or so worth of play at a time. I mean I agree that it may not be completely unrealistic, but even then 40K would just be paying the devs, but then you have to add in all of the business over head you're probably adding another 20k a month - and granted this was all probably held up by the other projects the devs are working on. I just think there could have been better management of the project and then better communication. We know DF's history of poor money management so it isn't unreasonable to suspect those were there. Do I think they were attempting to mislead people? No, but I think they didn't have a real plan when setting out to begin with. People read and assumed it was like every other early access game when it was really more like they had this idea and wanted to see how far they could run with it. Again, as you've said, we don't really know behind the scenes so it hard to tell and at this point we are just projecting what our perception of it is on the project.
  6. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    Why does that become "normal" or more valid than any other interpretation? Given that that post also questions whether the game would have a "final" version, it seems a little like a counter-intuitive interpretation to me. Edit: It does totally suggest that there would be a longer development timeframe though. Because as TotalBiscuit said in his video, and anyone who buys games in this modern market has seen, a lot of devs are using the content update models. Looks at Terraria, I mean how long has it been out? It has got what, 3 updates that were pretty much expansions adding huge amounts of content for free. It isn't the only game that kept up active development post-launch. I mean it is a good tactic. You can drive more sales, more community interest, and therefore make more money. I believe that they thought they were going to get to work on the game for a long time, up until the long radio silence and then they knew that it was over. If the goals of the game as a 'Game Development Experiment' was made explicitly clear in the very beginning then things would be different. No where did it state, in explicit - not implied terms - that the game would only be in development if it funded it's own development. That's like turning the game into an indefinite Kickstarter. Terraria is an excellent example - it managed to get to where it is thanks to recieving a huge amount of excellent word of mouth that got people interested in a '2D Minecraft-but-not-quite.' And subsequent publisher support. If they hadn't recieved that kind of feedback then they wouldn't have sold enough copies to sustain 3 huge updates plus everything else they've added to the game. It is an excellent example of a game that has found success using this model, and if it hadn't been a success, then we wouldn't be talking about it now. Not every game succeeds at this approach. It's inherently high risk and if there's one thing that I do agree Double Fine could have been clearer about it is to emphasise the risks involved with this approach. They were clear enough to state that they don't know how much dev time they'll get and can't make any promises, but they could, I suppose have gone one step further and said: 'and alpha funding is always a high-risk approach which relies on the building of a strong active community to ensure continued development, so how far this game goes is dependent on how much the concept catches on.' I think this was very, vey strongly implied, in everything they put out about DF9 (after all, when they said 'we'll keep developing as long as there is interest and money' where were people thinking that this interest and money would be generated from if not early access itself?), but it could have been clearer. I don't think there was dishonesty involved, though. In the last few days I've done a lot of looking at what was said about the game when it first went into early access, and it all tallies with what they're saying now. It's just that what we're seeing now is on the more modest end of their ambitions for the game, and of course everyone wanted the big flashy one with all the bells and whistles. Of course they did. The problem is PR talk honestly. Colloquially we talk about early access games and things pop into our minds. Good examples are prison architect and minecraft and the bad like Towns and now this. Early Access to you average gamers isn't a funding model, it's a way to help development and throw the dev a bone to maybe speed things along. It isn't like that, and that is the disconnect between reality and the idealization of the model. What DF was trying to do here is unheard of really. As Blinky said in his blog it is ridiculous to think that this game could fund $40,000 a month to just pay the devs, if the $10,000 per dev number is correct and there is no way it could have sustained that for any amount of time at the state it was in. If they had updated weekly with new content and systems then things would have been different, but monthly updates led to 12 - 14 months with only 6 updates that compared to many game were fairly light. I mean look how far Rimworld has come. It already has a thriving modding scene and the game isn't even close to completion. I think we all agree, but I think we have differing viewpoints that reach the same conclusion.
  7. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    Why does that become "normal" or more valid than any other interpretation? Given that that post also questions whether the game would have a "final" version, it seems a little like a counter-intuitive interpretation to me. Edit: It does totally suggest that there would be a longer development timeframe though. Because as TotalBiscuit said in his video, and anyone who buys games in this modern market has seen, a lot of devs are using the content update models. Looks at Terraria, I mean how long has it been out? It has got what, 3 updates that were pretty much expansions adding huge amounts of content for free. It isn't the only game that kept up active development post-launch. I mean it is a good tactic. You can drive more sales, more community interest, and therefore make more money. I believe that they thought they were going to get to work on the game for a long time, up until the long radio silence and then they knew that it was over. If the goals of the game as a 'Game Development Experiment' was made explicitly clear in the very beginning then things would be different. No where did it state, in explicit - not implied terms - that the game would only be in development if it funded it's own development. That's like turning the game into an indefinite Kickstarter.
  8. Press, dev opinions, and other interesting takes

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/22/tim-schafer-spacebase-df-9/ Second RPS article.
  9. Press, dev opinions, and other interesting takes

    One thing that greatly irks me is that Tim is answering more questions on the Steam forums than he is on his own forums: http://steamcommunity.com/app/246090/discussions/0/613936673464943075/#p3 probably one of the funniest quotes I read from someone was: "When you and Bobby Kotick are mentioned in the same sentence and Kotick sounds like the rational person - something is wrong."
  10. So this isn't just a complaint thread, this is a thread that is going to have links to several articles, blog posts, and videos that are covering this fiasco: Blinky - Project Zomboid Dev (look in the comments section for Lemmy, another Dev on PZ, opinon) - theindiestone.com/binky/2014/09/21/alpha-funding-early-access-is-not-an-alternative/ A small piece of Blinky's blog post that I'd like to highlight: Total Biscuit - Game commentator - www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAd8Ls8Mwl4 RockPaperShotgun - Be sure to check the comment section - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/18/double-fine-early-access-spacebase-df9/ /r/indiegaming thread - http://www.reddit.com/r/IndieGaming/comments/2h13ty/tim_schafer_speaks_on_the_spacebasedf_9_early/ /r/PcGaming thread - http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/2h17ga/tb_discusses_double_fine_situation_on_spacebase/ /r/cynicalbrit - http://www.reddit.com/r/Cynicalbrit/comments/2h15cj/content_patch_182_double_fine_spacebase_df9_under/ Here is a post from /r/cynicalbrit from lemmy, one of the devs on Project Zomboid: So, take some time to read and digest. This isn't small time. This has become a large issue in the PC gaming community.
  11. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    Check the date. oh that date , editing post now I thought you were just making a joke. Either way I may not like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter and I may think they're vile humans but that doesn't make them any less of a wide heard voice. They have a large fan base, as does TB and don't even get started in on #GamerGate. Reddit is having a huge discussion over numerous subreddits about this announcement. This is more than just a little mistake people will forget about in a week or two. I think it is fair to give them until 1.0 drops and to reserve judgement, but it's hard when you have lost faith in the project and feel exploited. I guess it's about time to shut up and watch from the shadows again. I've had my say alot. We shall see what happens. Can you give me some links to the discussions? I like to read those very much ^^ I'm on my phone so I can't. Just look on the indie gaming and pc gaming subreddits.
  12. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    Check the date. oh that date , editing post now I thought you were just making a joke. Either way I may not like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter and I may think they're vile humans but that doesn't make them any less of a wide heard voice. They have a large fan base, as does TB and don't even get started in on #GamerGate. Reddit is having a huge discussion over numerous subreddits about this announcement. This is more than just a little mistake people will forget about in a week or two. I think it is fair to give them until 1.0 drops and to reserve judgement, but it's hard when you have lost faith in the project and feel exploited. I guess it's about time to shut up and watch from the shadows again. I've had my say alot. We shall see what happens.
  13. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    TotalBiscuit has a loud voice, here is his take on it:
  14. lets talk about moderators

    Hey, hey now. No need to be overly negative here. (I hear they're banning for that these days.) At the start of this thread I didn't see a point to it. As it has moved on I see more and more reasons for this thread to exist. DF needs to really review their standards for modding. Instead of letting anons from around the web police the forums during a tumultuous time Justin should have been here to begin with. It's hard to lay responsibility on ethereal 'voluntarily' representatives that may (or more likely) may not have any experience in community management. I recognize that maybe things have happened inside of the company to change community management, but the way the mods have been handled is hugely reflective of the mismanagement of the game itself. So I mean even the poor management seeps down to how the forums are ran and policed. It's sad.
  15. Tim answers questions on v1.0

    As I've stated on two separate occasions I suppose my view of developer screw ups have been colored by Brad Wardell and Stardock. Brad communicated with the community actively, got in on threads and discussed what we were feeling, and was just a great dev in general. I bought the first Elemental game and it was absolutely terrible, but Stardock and Brad was like 'Yeah, we know and we're going to do something because we forced it out' they did something similar. They had to push the game out to die due to the lack of funds, but instead of trying to play it off like it was something to behold and releasing it was a service to those who bought it they recognized their shortcomings and came back and made a game that was good. In beta testing of Fallen Enchantress I got easily 40 hours of gameplay, and probably 20 more after 1.0. So the point of my story is that compared to a similar sized and styled dev I feel like to DF I was part of this 'experiment' and as such it's too bad. Didn't work? Thanks for your money, try again next time. Releasing the source code is no compensation for a failed game. I don't have the knowledge to program or the time to learn to make the game what it should be when released at 1.0. I suppose I agree with whoever said that the game should be pulled. The steam forum, tags, and review section I know shows the extreme amount of anger and disappointment that the fans are showing for being the financiers of an 'experiment'. If I thought that in anyway DF was taking my money in a part of an experiment I wouldn't have bought into it. I assumed that an established dev who had run the community funding route would know better. I don't plan to buy any other DF games, complete or otherwise. I will highly recommend through my means that other people don't, especially early access titles. Fans and buyers should not be treated as financiers for an experiment in game developing unless the devs are transparent about it up front by saying 'if this game doesn't sale, we won't continue development.' Buying into it then is my gamble even more so than buying into any other early access game. Anyway, I do apologize if I was harsh at any point in these forums. I don't apologize for my honest critique of the DF, the devs, and the game itself. Maybe the 1.0 will have a huge amount of content that has been held back, but I don't see it happening.