Sign in to follow this  
suejak

Twitter Tim: Amazing

Recommended Posts

lol, having just said "Kotick was right" in another thread on these very forums, I don't think extending one comment to a broad endorsement of his entire body of quotations is rational in any way :D

Anyway, one thing I've learned as I've aged is that Bobby Kotick said some smart shit -- shit that probably flies over the heads of most people. You've quoted a couple in this thread. He's a wise man, though not always the most fluffy or fun to work for, probably.

CEOs of multibillion-dollar companies are probably smarter than you. Just throwing that out there.

Being good at managing a shambling corporate presence doesn't require intelligence, just overwhelming greed and playing it as safe as you possibly can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My General stance is I won't blame anyone for being upset or disappointed with SBDF9 or for having higher expectations from Double Fine as I personally have but I do of course understand that if there is no money to develop it, it is very difficult to continue development...

But also most games 'run at a loss' during actual development considering the vast majority of games don't make money until they are actually finished and I am unsure of the idea of actually stopping development due to it running at a loss as the game if good and feature complete should sell after release and have a reasonably long tail and I am wondering exactly how long it has being running at a loss and if they really expected to being making a profit before release...

What I do know is if it wasn't Doublefine I'd probably be a lot less forgiving and I will remain somewhat sceptical in the future and only buy on full release from now on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My General stance is I won't blame anyone for being upset or disappointed with SBDF9 or for having higher expectations from Double Fine as I personally have but I do of course understand that if there is no money to develop it, it is very difficult to continue development...

But also most games 'run at a loss' during actual development considering the vast majority of games don't make money until they are actually finished and I am unsure of the idea of actually stopping development due to it running at a loss as the game if good and feature complete should sell after release and have a reasonably long tail and I am wondering exactly how long it has being running at a loss and if they really expected to being making a profit before release...

What I do know is if it wasn't Doublefine I'd probably be a lot less forgiving and I will remain somewhat sceptical in the future and only buy on full release from now on....

Alpha funding is not the same business model as that, though. It's the minecraft model - where features are added off the back of funds from people buying the early version.

This can only be sustained if the project has momentum and sales build as people see the game getting more interesting., so it's always a risk. With DF9, the game did get more interesting with each release, but apparently it wasn't enough to bring with it a steady influx of new players.

I'd hope that people getting games on Early Access would understand that risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My General stance is I won't blame anyone for being upset or disappointed with SBDF9 or for having higher expectations from Double Fine as I personally have but I do of course understand that if there is no money to develop it, it is very difficult to continue development...

But also most games 'run at a loss' during actual development considering the vast majority of games don't make money until they are actually finished and I am unsure of the idea of actually stopping development due to it running at a loss as the game if good and feature complete should sell after release and have a reasonably long tail and I am wondering exactly how long it has being running at a loss and if they really expected to being making a profit before release...

What I do know is if it wasn't Doublefine I'd probably be a lot less forgiving and I will remain somewhat sceptical in the future and only buy on full release from now on....

Alpha funding is not the same business model as that, though. It's the minecraft model - where features are added off the back of funds from people buying the early version.

This can only be sustained if the project has momentum and sales build as people see the game getting more interesting., so it's always a risk. With DF9, the game did get more interesting with each release, but apparently it wasn't enough to bring with it a steady influx of new players.

I'd hope that people getting games on Early Access would understand that risk.

I guess that is my problem with the Early Access system it isn't just buying incomplete games on the hope they will one day be finished it is the fact that if you and a certain number of others don't buy the incomplete game now there will never be a finished game for anyone...

I personally can't support a model that relies on other people doing the exact same thing as me or I will get burned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to agree to disagree about Kotick. I'm pretty sure most people who think they're smarter than Bobby Kotick could never get to where he got and do as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My General stance is I won't blame anyone for being upset or disappointed with SBDF9 or for having higher expectations from Double Fine as I personally have but I do of course understand that if there is no money to develop it, it is very difficult to continue development...

But also most games 'run at a loss' during actual development considering the vast majority of games don't make money until they are actually finished and I am unsure of the idea of actually stopping development due to it running at a loss as the game if good and feature complete should sell after release and have a reasonably long tail and I am wondering exactly how long it has being running at a loss and if they really expected to being making a profit before release...

What I do know is if it wasn't Doublefine I'd probably be a lot less forgiving and I will remain somewhat sceptical in the future and only buy on full release from now on....

Alpha funding is not the same business model as that, though. It's the minecraft model - where features are added off the back of funds from people buying the early version.

This can only be sustained if the project has momentum and sales build as people see the game getting more interesting., so it's always a risk. With DF9, the game did get more interesting with each release, but apparently it wasn't enough to bring with it a steady influx of new players.

I'd hope that people getting games on Early Access would understand that risk.

I guess that is my problem with the Early Access system it isn't just buying incomplete games on the hope they will one day be finished it is the fact that if you and a certain number of others don't buy the incomplete game now there will never be a finished game for anyone...

I personally can't support a model that relies on other people doing the exact same thing as me or I will get burned...

Sure, and nobody has to support that model. It's inherently one of the riskier models. Especially because unlike Kickstarter, there's no threshold for success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how Tim feels deep down looking at Wasteland 2, which seems to be selling insanely well and getting good to great reviews all round, it seems that game has gone on to be the one that delivered on its promise when most people expected Double Fine to be the one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how Tim feels deep down looking at Wasteland 2, which seems to be selling insanely well and getting good to great reviews all round, it seems that game has gone on to be the one that delivered on its promise when most people expected Double Fine to be the one.

I expect he feels Broken Age has been and is delivering on its promise, and given the reaction of most backers most of the press, he's not the only one. I expect he's also mildly disappointed about the sales, but not distraught, since they are meeting the low-end targets.

I expect he's also excited about Massive Chalice, which has executed an exemplary Kickstarter campaign, is looking great, and isn't too far off from wrapping up (I'm guessing no later than Q2 2015, probably Q1.)

I expect he's frustrated at constantly being compared to other projects, developed under entirely different circumstances, with different teams, different goals and different funding requirements.

(Also, fun fact: it's early days, but currently Wasteland 2 is sitting a few points lower than Broken Age Act 1 on Metacritic. That doesn't mean much and the game looks great, but let's not pretend the response to W2 has been much better than BA. That's just not true.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how Tim feels deep down looking at Wasteland 2, which seems to be selling insanely well and getting good to great reviews all round, it seems that game has gone on to be the one that delivered on its promise when most people expected Double Fine to be the one.

I expect he feels Broken Age has been and is delivering on its promise, and given the reaction of most backers most of the press, he's not the only one. I expect he's also mildly disappointed about the sales, but not distraught, since they are meeting the low-end targets.

I expect he's also excited about Massive Chalice, which has executed an exemplary Kickstarter campaign, is looking great, and isn't too far off from wrapping up (I'm guessing no later than Q2 2015, probably Q1.)

I expect he's frustrated at constantly being compared to other projects, developed under entirely different circumstances, with different teams, different goals and different funding requirements.

Oh of course, but there must be a bit of a sting in there, when broken Age went out it got Average to Good reviews, a lot of people here liked it, but elsewhere people were not that swayed by it, Ironically complaining that the game felt dumbed down and that gameplay felt designed for iOS Devices, etc.

Both Broken Age and Wasteland 2 finished not far off from each other and finished with nearly around the same amount of money, of course we've seen Double Fine and Broken Age play out thanks to the amazing 2pp documentary, and yet, Wasteland 2 has only just shipped out, and in comparison to Broken Age, YES, people are going to make that connection, and Wasteland 2 has been much better received by gaming websites and the community in general compared to Wasteland 2, if Broken Age was the poster child for Kickstarter, then it's clear now Wasteland 2 has surpassed it, it's actually selling well and keeping steady, something which Broken Age didn't do which has lead on to further problems, it's being looked upon favourably, something Broken Age was only halfway seen as, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how Tim feels deep down looking at Wasteland 2, which seems to be selling insanely well and getting good to great reviews all round, it seems that game has gone on to be the one that delivered on its promise when most people expected Double Fine to be the one.

I expect he feels Broken Age has been and is delivering on its promise, and given the reaction of most backers most of the press, he's not the only one. I expect he's also mildly disappointed about the sales, but not distraught, since they are meeting the low-end targets.

I expect he's also excited about Massive Chalice, which has executed an exemplary Kickstarter campaign, is looking great, and isn't too far off from wrapping up (I'm guessing no later than Q2 2015, probably Q1.)

I expect he's frustrated at constantly being compared to other projects, developed under entirely different circumstances, with different teams, different goals and different funding requirements.

Oh of course, but there must be a bit of a sting in there, when broken Age went out it got Average to Good reviews, a lot of people here liked it, but elsewhere people were not that swayed by it, Ironically complaining that the game felt dumbed down and that gameplay felt designed for iOS Devices, etc.

Both Broken Age and Wasteland 2 finished not far off from each other and finished with nearly around the same amount of money, of course we've seen Double Fine and Broken Age play out thanks to the amazing 2pp documentary, and yet, Wasteland 2 has only just shipped out, and in comparison to Broken Age, YES, people are going to make that connection, and Wasteland 2 has been much better received by gaming websites and the community in general compared to Wasteland 2, if Broken Age was the poster child for Kickstarter, then it's clear now Wasteland 2 has surpassed it, it's actually selling well and keeping steady, something which Broken Age didn't do which has lead on to further problems, it's being looked upon favourably, something Broken Age was only halfway seen as, etc.

Sure, Tim is obviously disappointed, in the last episode that Broken Age didn't sell as well as he dreamed of, but I just think you're overestimating the negative reaction to Broken Age. It's very overwhelmingly been well recieved (again, from above, so far it's actually reviewed a bit better than Wasteland 2.) I had a twitter feed open with a search for 'Broken Age' around the time of the release, and I followed it for several weeks closely because I wanted to see how non-forum posters were reacting to the game, and it was very close to 100% positive, even before the general release (i.e. when it was still Backers Only). I talked about it at the time, when some forum commenters were arguing that a large percentage of people were dissatisfied.

Even now, when some Tim Schafer controversy has brought some haters out of the woodwork, the majority of stuff I see on Broken Age is people excited for Act 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, he got a insane big budget for an adventure, lots of love from adventure/DF/... gamers, lots of friendly press, all the excitement which was involved in the early days of Kickstarter. These were very positive preconditions but somehow he ended up making a bland game for ... , dunno, not for me and the friends i have who also like adventures.

Anyway, even after the game was released too early/divided into two parts/spying on you and the communication and transparency was going down he received a rather good press. Not because the game was so good in the first place but due to that a large part of the press wanted him to succeed, they liked Schafer/DF, so, a number of reviews featured this bonus which games from other companies otherwise wouldn't have received. If you can't sell enough copies in order not to be disappointed even then, well, it could be time to reflect about yourself and the project.

Let's assume the game would have been great. I guess sales would have been better, not like 13 times better but significantly better nonetheless (also don't forget about the importance for future projects). At least we would have received one awesome adventure after so many years.

This makes me thinking of parallel universes. I enjoy the idea that you search/google for a universe where Schafer decided to make a great adventure, also with some taste and style for the title, grab yourself a copy, enjoy the game more than just once and when you're browsing through the forum here, enjoy yourself how some people are trying to turn water into wine over and over again, whilst you're nipping from the real stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can hop off into your parallel universes where everything is perfect and made for you. I'm loving it here and intend to stay and enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, he got a insane big budget for an adventure, lots of love from adventure/DF/... gamers, lots of friendly press, all the excitement which was involved in the early days of Kickstarter. These were very positive preconditions but somehow he ended up making a bland game for ... , dunno, not for me and the friends i have who also like adventure games.

Anyway, even after the game was released, too early/divided into two parts/spying on you/communication and transparency was going down/etc. he received a rather good press. Not because the game was so good in the first place but due to that a large part of the press wanted him to succeed, they like Schafer/DF, so, a number of reviews featured this bonus which games from other companies wouldn't have received. If you even can't sell enough copies in order not to be disappointed then, well, it could be time to reflect about yourself and the project.

Lets assume the game would have been great. I guess sales would have been better but not like 10 times better but significantly better nonetheless (also don't forget about the impact on future projects). At least we would have received an awesome adventure after so many years.

This makes me thinking of parallel universes. I enjoy the idea of that you can search/google for a universe where Schafer decided making a real adventure, also with some taste and style for the title, grab yourself a copy, enjoy the game more than just once and when you're browsing through the DF here, enjoy yourself how some people are trying to turn water into wine over and over again whilst you're nipping from the real stuff.

Or it could just be that lots of people really liked the game, and Tim stands by it. Because that's certainly my experience of the reaction to the game, both in and out of the press.

I grow tremendously tired of people dismissing the positive experience of so many people, while at the same time throwing out untestable hypothetical guesswork about how well the game would have done if it had been what -they- wanted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, i made the opposite experiences, the majority of the people i know don't like the game this much. It doesn't receive a lot of love in adventure forums, it's not a good game by objective measurements in a number of aspects as well, ... i don't know how all this transforms into absolute numbers but i doubt that you're using the term majority in an unbiased way with some fundament beneath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how Tim feels deep down looking at Wasteland 2, which seems to be selling insanely well and getting good to great reviews all round, it seems that game has gone on to be the one that delivered on its promise when most people expected Double Fine to be the one.

I expect he feels Broken Age has been and is delivering on its promise, and given the reaction of most backers most of the press, he's not the only one. I expect he's also mildly disappointed about the sales, but not distraught, since they are meeting the low-end targets.

I expect he's also excited about Massive Chalice, which has executed an exemplary Kickstarter campaign, is looking great, and isn't too far off from wrapping up (I'm guessing no later than Q2 2015, probably Q1.)

I expect he's frustrated at constantly being compared to other projects, developed under entirely different circumstances, with different teams, different goals and different funding requirements.

(Also, fun fact: it's early days, but currently Wasteland 2 is sitting a few points lower than Broken Age Act 1 on Metacritic. That doesn't mean much and the game looks great, but let's not pretend the response to W2 has been much better than BA. That's just not true.)

What on earth makes you think most consumers believe that Broken Age delivered on its promise? Even the backer poll in the backer forum showed that most respondents were disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how Tim feels deep down looking at Wasteland 2, which seems to be selling insanely well and getting good to great reviews all round, it seems that game has gone on to be the one that delivered on its promise when most people expected Double Fine to be the one.

Wasteland 2? It has a lower metacritic score then Broken Age, took much longer to develop then what was first announced, had to use a lot of additional funding, and went through a hell of a lot of critique for how it used early access, and a lof of people are dismissing it for now being enough like the old Fallout games.

I'm a $100 backer of both games, and happy with what I have gotten from them. Well done Tim Schafer, well done Brian Fargo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth makes you think most consumers believe that Broken Age delivered on its promise? Even the backer poll in the backer forum showed that most respondents were disappointed.

The smaller the sample, the higher the bias.

If you went to daily sewing thread on sewing for grandmas, you could also come to conclusion that no one knows what Broken Age is, and that no one bought it.

I don't think any game can live up to the games backers have in their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasteland 2 isn't at Fallout 2 levels of detail from what I've seen... but at the same time, I'm not sure there's any way it could be. it's a completely different type of story, where you are part of an organization and have a central Hub. Fallout was about being a nobody sent on a vague impossible quest and getting involved in other missions on the way so that people would tell you important pieces of information.

Having said that, nothing you did was necessary for even that, because you could still just wander around the wasteland until you found something interesting, which itself would be an adventure.

I'll have to start a new playthrough of Wasteland 2 and see what happens if I just totally ignore the guys back at base and go off in the opposite direction that they tell me to see whether this is a game where you can go off the rails like that or not. Somehow... I don't think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth makes you think most consumers believe that Broken Age delivered on its promise? Even the backer poll in the backer forum showed that most respondents were disappointed.

The smaller the sample, the higher the bias.

If you went to daily sewing thread on sewing for grandmas, you could also come to conclusion that no one knows what Broken Age is, and that no one bought it.

I don't think any game can live up to the games backers have in their mind.

Exactly. And another important rule of the internet to remember is that more people go on the internet to complain than go on the internet to share compliments and say happy things.

The reason so few people responded to that poll in a positive way is because the people who are happy with BA don't know about it or care about it, nor are they interested in it. They are a 42 year old father and his grade school daughter. They don't care who Tim Schafer is. They don't have opinions about what a "true" point-and-click adventure should be like. They don't know what things were cut due to time or money. They aren't going to go on the internet to tell the world how they feel about Broken Age, because why would they? Who cares?

That poll was likely created by a dissatisfied person with the goal of getting other dissatisfied people to vote in agreement and give him a number to look at and feel more righteous as it grew. A person who likes a game would never create a poll titled "Are you satisfied with [game]?" Because they don't care if other people like it. THEY like it. Only bitter people want to accumulate other bitter people to prove their bitterness is "correct" by numbers.

When you are angry about something and go on the internet to find people who agree with you, and roll around with your biker gang of like-minded people who are angry about something on the internet, you may start to get the feeling that MOST people are angry about it.

I've heard some negative criticisms of Broken Age, but mostly I've heard people being pleased with it. Granted, I haven't heard anyone saying it is the best thing that ever happened to video games, that it is some kind of game changer, that it blew their mind, that it was so good they wanted to have sex with it, etc. But the majority of what I've heard is along the lines of "it's nice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if it's the poll that I think you're talking about, it was created in the beta period before the game was released and a number of bug fixes and interface improvements have gone in since. I myself rated BA lower at that time ("something missing", IIRC) than I would have after the launch: http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/12360/P100/#323922

Also, note that the majority of people on that poll are still mostly satisfied with how the game turned out.

Also also, note that most people (289 from 325) would still back another adventure game by Schafer: http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/12963/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if it's the poll that I think you're talking about, it was created in the beta period before the game was released and a number of bug fixes and interface improvements have gone in since. I myself rated BA lower at that time ("something missing", IIRC) than I would have after the launch: http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/12360/P100/#323922

Also, note that the majority of people on that poll are still mostly satisfied with how the game turned out.

Note also, though, that OP is a person who was not satisfied with the game (review his post history to verify) and the way he words the OP:

Please post your vote along with your thoughts, on where the game failed to meet your expectation.

Regardless of how the poll turned out, this is exactly my point. He was not satisfied with the game and he created the poll in some sort of effort to document that people agree with him. I'm glad that a lot of people showed up to indicate they were satisfied, but that will not mean anything to people who were not satisfied. They will just ignore that data point and look for the next thing that confirms what they already believe (i.e., the game is bad, Tim is not good at his job, most people don't like it, etc).

You can't argue with confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm always wary of polls where the participants are self selecting.

What you want are the polls where the pollsters call up a random selection of people of varying ages and walks of life and pester them until they answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this