Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KestrelPi

Some misconceptions about the campaign I've heard

Recommended Posts

Weird part about changing the end date, speculating it was because things slowed down. Wasn't it changed very early in the campaign?

Yes, it was. It's been stated many times now that the original date was an error on Fig's part, and the added time was them rectifying their mistake (the article even shows a tweet that's basically saying this).

It's getting a little tiring, hearing people bringing this point up.

He makes a decent point that on the investment documents it mentions the 7th. But in the same breath he also points out that that date is supposed to be flexible.

In my mind, the fact that the dates of the social media campaign only make sense if the end date is the 12 is enough to prove that the date was supposed to be the 12th at the point that the campaign went live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird part about changing the end date, speculating it was because things slowed down. Wasn't it changed very early in the campaign?

Yes, it was. It's been stated many times now that the original date was an error on Fig's part, and the added time was them rectifying their mistake (the article even shows a tweet that's basically saying this).

It's getting a little tiring, hearing people bringing this point up.

I think the claim being made by those who are still grumbling about campaign length is that those statements are falsehoods made to cover their backsides. Like Kestrel Pi says though, there are other supporting things that demonstrate that there was an intention for the campaign to be longer.

The thing that I found confusing from the article was the question of reservations being framed to rip people off. If Fig aren't taking unaccredited investors' money at this point in time, and unaccredited investors have the opportunity to back out before after the campaign ends, I have no idea how people could be being ripped off. If anything, it seems like Fig/DF are more likely to be the ones losing out due to misunderstanding or changing situations (when prospective investors realise they're not in a country where they can invest from, or they realise they don't have the money hanging around when it's time to commit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like... Did no one else read the countless interviews with Tim and DF saying the entire reason it never got made, until now, was because most publishers found it to be too risky to back financially?

That's... absolutely fair.

Yes, that's true. It's one of the most annoying things about Spacebase backlash and I wish I'd had the space to talk about it in the first post.

I do consider Spacebase DF9 a failed project of kinds, but would rather see a huge systemic flaw in Early Access first and foremost. There were no promises made in that document, at all, to my knowledge, but damn DF was dreaming big in the fans' faces. Peter Molyneux times ten. That couldn't have ended well. I do understand exactly how and why it happened, of course. :(

Thanks! Btw, the editing of my comment was to fix a couple of grammatical nits and add some formatting - it's been too long since I posted last..! :)

I think you don't have to worry about the really crazy conspiracy people here... the "he edited his post because he accidentally said the truth" kind of people. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do consider Spacebase DF9 a failed project of kinds, but would rather see a huge systemic flaw in Early Access first and foremost.|

I agree with that. The good thing about it is that it caused both Double Fine and Steam to learn from the experience (not just from Spacebase DF-9 on Steam's end, as there were Early Access projects on Steam that failed to deliver a lot more than Spacebase). Steam now has rules in place to prevent Early Access being used as a funding model, and Double Fine has only used Early Access after it for releasing games that are completely playable, but lack polish (such as Hack 'n' Slash and Massive Chalice).

The thing that makes me mad about the whole thing is that I read comments from so many people who just derail threads about any Double Fine game with "f*** Tim Schafer", videos as mentioned here, and the Bobby Kotick nonsense about Tim not being able to manage a budget (people keep spreading that lie, which was started by a guy who was suing Double Fine as he was upset that they had gotten a publisher in EA after Activision dropped Brutal Legend - a real neutral party there - not to mention at this point Double Fine has shipped 20 games - hardly something that could be done by a studio that can't manage a budget).

The Telltale forums in particular seem hypocritical to me. Telltale had their own PR disaster with Jurassic Park, but people moved past that and won't with Double Fine. There's only two reasons for that. It's because Tim Schafer publicly posted that he supports Anita Sarkeesian and won't back down to the people who attack him, or it's because Double Fine hasn't gotten a massive hit on their hands which strangely always seems to cause people to look past things (like the

- he made Thriller. Thriller).

Both of those reasons are truly awful. Especially since people are furiously attacking a developer that really is still an indie (people can't seem to fathom that project income and disposable income are two different things). The fact that Double Fine lacked enough disposable income after the Broken Age kickstarter to qualify as a publisher on Xbox shows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telltale is an interesting case actually.

Because there's lots ot complain about with Telltale, for example the length of time between some of their episodic releases and sometimes seeming far too long between to sustain interest.

But nobody ever frames that as Telltale being unable to manage their projects properly, or whatever. They just get annoyed about the fact they're having to wait.

Whenever DF gets criticised there's always an extra layer of personal on it. Tim/DF can't manage budgets, etc. It's always people being armchair developers who seem to think they have gained some special insight into how DF do things.

But they're constantly wrong. And not even on small things, on things that are easy to research. In the past couple of years I've had to correct people who have claimed:

* DF did two kickstarters for Broken Age or otherwise asked backers for more money.

* DF haven't released any of their crowdfunded games

* Broken Age Act 2 isn't out yet.

* Hack and Slash was never released

* Spacebase DF-9 is the only time they've used early access

* Spacebase DF-9 was kickstarted

* Broken Age was on Early Access (okay, this one I can understand as that's how it was initially announced)

* DF poured money from other projects into Broken Age.

And so on. Not even small stuff.

Do we have anyone here with good video editing skills? Since these people seem to like YouTube so much as a source of facts, perhaps we could work on our own video detailing the top misconceptions about double fine and backing it up with well sourced facts.

The ones I'd like to address most are:

1) Double Fine have a terrible track record in managing budgets.

2) Double Fine ran out of money for Broken Age

3) Spacebase DF-9 was released with many promised features missing.

4) The various misconceptions around the use of fig.

5) The idea that the initial 400k goal of Broken Age matters in any way when discussing the 3.3 million.

I'm sure there are more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good idea actually. I'll get a video made up tonight so that it can be linked at the reddit tomorrow (I have a feeling that the anti-Double Fine YouTube videos are going to get a lot of linkage during that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good idea actually. I'll get a video made up tonight so that it can be linked at the reddit tomorrow (I have a feeling that the anti-Double Fine YouTube videos are going to get a lot of linkage during that).

Wow, that's a fast turnaround. Just make sure that all the claims in the video are backed up on-screen by sources and if you want a second pair of eyes on the script/fact checking side of things, I tend to have had a close eye on this stuff over the years :)

I think also we shouldn't sugar coat anything. Let's acknowledge the failures where they exist, talk about the areas where there is room for doubt while dispelling the most commonly spread lies.

1) Double Fine have a terrible track record in managing budgets.

I'd make a list of all the games Double Fine has released that never had any known budget issues, and also draw attention to the fact that despite having never had a huge hit in 15 years of activity, they've only once had to have major redundancies, after an unannounced was very unexpectedly cancelled by the publisher.

2) Double Fine ran out of money for Broken Age

The usual points. I'd refer to the fact that in the documentary videos there's footage of discussions about how to manage the budget many many months before the point where they would actually run out of money, and that what they're doing is what happens with most games of a certain size in development: reviewing the budget as they go, deciding if cuts need to be made while also seeing if there's any way they can make the existing money go further or get more. The unusual bit is the approach they took - they decided it'd be better for the game if instead of making additional cuts, they extended the budget by releasing in two parts - partially paying for Act 2 through Act 1 sales and also partially through various other sources they now had access to (I'd be very specific about this)

3) Spacebase DF-9 was released with many promised features missing.

Obviously can directly quote the old website here.

4) The various misconceptions around the use of fig.

Lots of material about this around, by now.

5) The idea that the initial 400k goal of Broken Age matters in any way when discussing the 3.3 million.

I'd just go by analogy. If you ask someone for $10 to make a cake, and they give you $100 instead and you say, 'Great, I'll make a FANCY cake," then the initial $10 is no longer relevant. Even if you end up having to split it into two cakes, and end up spending $200 on the cakes, the initial $10 you asked for is irrelevant. That would have been a different cake, a smaller cake with cheaper ingredients. And if they'd come back with that cake and pocketed the $90, that would have seemed pretty wrong. So saying Double Fine went overbudget EVEN THOUGH they got nearly ten times more than they asked for is a meaningless statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with that. The good thing about it is that it caused both Double Fine and Steam to learn from the experience (not just from Spacebase DF-9 on Steam's end, as there were Early Access projects on Steam that failed to deliver a lot more than Spacebase). Steam now has rules in place to prevent Early Access being used as a funding model, and Double Fine has only used Early Access after it for releasing games that are completely playable, but lack polish (such as Hack 'n' Slash and Massive Chalice).

That you learn and do what you can to not repeat failures is really the only thing you can ask from anyone, and that goes for everyone of us, who have done things that has been less than satisfactory, both when it comes to work and in private life.

The one thing I tend to ask when I see that project being mentioned as a warning flag for the company is to ask what they want to happen, when they shout about it. If there's a path to redemption in their eyes, or if there never will be. The ones who answer the latter are people you just dismiss as incapable of being adults about it, and for the former, Double Fine has in most cases already done what they suggest.

The one suggestion they haven't fullfilled is usually a full refund for everyone, which of course have all kinds of practical complications, and is also something that no other developer who ended early access periods early have done, as far as I know.

That not all people are capable of moving on from it not suprising, since most doesn't think very far about the issues, but is a dissapointment that there are some sites and "journalists" who aren't capable of it, despite their profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that's a fast turnaround. Just make sure that all the claims in the video are backed up on-screen by sources and if you want a second pair of eyes on the script/fact checking side of things, I tend to have had a close eye on this stuff over the years :)

Thanks, I'll send you the script when I'm done, definitely. That way you can double check to make sure that I got everything right, and make sure that I didn't miss anything important too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5) The idea that the initial 400k goal of Broken Age matters in any way when discussing the 3.3 million.

I'd just go by analogy. If you ask someone for $10 to make a cake, and they give you $100 instead and you say, 'Great, I'll make a FANCY cake," then the initial $10 is no longer relevant. Even if you end up having to split it into two cakes, and end up spending $200 on the cakes, the initial $10 you asked for is irrelevant. That would have been a different cake, a smaller cake with cheaper ingredients. And if they'd come back with that cake and pocketed the $90, that would have seemed pretty wrong. So saying Double Fine went overbudget EVEN THOUGH they got nearly ten times more than they asked for is a meaningless statement.

That's an astonishingly good analogy. Kudos!

...you should totally use that, Jenni. Get pictures of cakes and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's might be worth pointing out that Double Fine really are not alone in using additional funds, despite getting well over the target. It's in fact the most common case, since kickstarter is about bringing a project to reality, and not neccessarly funding it completely (even though you are required to be able to complete a product with the target funding).

I would look at Wasteland 2, Elite: Dangerous and Dreamfall Chapters as examples, but there are many many more. Those are three exampes that I think it's funny that the developers have been more criticized for how they have handled their projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good idea actually. I'll get a video made up tonight so that it can be linked at the reddit tomorrow (I have a feeling that the anti-Double Fine YouTube videos are going to get a lot of linkage during that).

Wow, that's a fast turnaround. Just make sure that all the claims in the video are backed up on-screen by sources and if you want a second pair of eyes on the script/fact checking side of things, I tend to have had a close eye on this stuff over the years :)

I think also we shouldn't sugar coat anything. Let's acknowledge the failures where they exist, talk about the areas where there is room for doubt while dispelling the most commonly spread lies.

...

Great idea that nothing should be sugarcoated. Admit to failures. When it comes to Spacebase, lack of communication should be mentioned. Broken age was overscoped yes, but they never asked backers for extra money etc. And definitely link all the sources and quotes. Screenshost from the private DFA forums would be nice. Are they still locked for other people?

Also get ready for downvotes of the video and troll comments etc. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it's might be worth pointing out that Double Fine really are not alone in using additional funds, despite getting well over the target. It's in fact the most common case, since kickstarter is about bringing a project to reality, and not neccessarly funding it completely (even though you are required to be able to complete a product with the target funding).

I would look at Wasteland 2, Elite: Dangerous and Dreamfall Chapters as examples, but there are many many more. Those are three exampes that I think it's funny that the developers have been more criticized for how they have handled their projects.

Very worthwhile, and it's also worth pointing out that when other projects need more funds, they often do it by getting a publishing partner. It was always an important principle of DFA to make a game without a publisher, so using their own resources to do it meant sticking to their principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you guys :) I hope you can finish that video until tomorrow.

I would like to add one remark about "DF is not good in Managing Budgets and Projects"

This topic is quite hard to defend, because there are many perspectives on it. For example Broken Age: DF had a budget of roughly 2,4 Million. They come up with an idea, a story and how to do things, but they realized too late that it was not possible with the given budget. If you just look into that the statement is not truly wrong. Especially if you take into account for how many platforms they wanted to release it, that they developed an engine from almost scratch, put in a lot of animation, which causes lots of extra work or that they had a resource issue with Nathan Stapley. I personally think that DF or Tim definitely had problems with Project Management and budgeting.

For me that is not an big issue, because I assume many studios have exactly the same problems. Its quite normal in this industry. In general I think thats a typical issue of many Projects in each kind of industry. Everybody who ever worked on a Project knows that.

Anyhow I think that DF learnt alot during the development of Broken Age regarding budgeting and Project Management and much more . You can definitely see the progress on that with Massive Chalice, for example or how they now setting up whole Psychonauts 2 campaign. They dont make the mistakes twice. Maybe its better to focus on how much better DF is doing their Job now than in the past. Besides that Doublefine always delivered except of Spacebase DF-9*. And that’s what at the end counts. Sometimes everything is going wrong, but you have to find a way to make it work and they did! I assume most of the critics are not able to do exactly that!!!

Furthermore one of the main issues is, that DF was so open to grant so many people the insight in making a video game. Funny thing is that this is the Point where it gets totally crazy. They gave everyone the chance to see (probably not all) how to develop a video game and whats going on during the process. With this and their absolute truth they made themselves vulnerable and for that they get this Shitnado by random people, which doesnt seem to stop at all.

I have no idea what those random people have in mind, but definitely most of them just have no clue at all. They get played every day by all the big companies in the world and never do are say anything about it. Maybe DF is just the outlet for those issues and there is a Chance to get more direct contact or hit people personally than the big companies.... Not sure whats the fun out of this. Especially as its so unimportant to other things going on in the world.

Just my two thoughts. Sorry i got a little bit distracted, but i hope you understood my points 

*(for me personally I would have expected that DF will probably still support the project and bring in some enhancements after they have some time. But not sure if this happened, but on a ethical level would this be the right thing to do, maybe they supported the MOD developer or so? )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One famous example would be Shenmue 3. This is for sure not only done with the Kickstarter Money....

none made a gib fuzz that some big Publisher is just using the People to not spent there own Money...

Also Mighty No. 9 is an example issues during the production. But why would we care about that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JUSTIN!!!! Great to see you.

Nice to see you too! :)

Btw - My big concern is that I might not get any payments due to changes in law. What are the chances of this happening? Is Fig holding off collecting money until it's decided? That's too big of a gamble to take for me -- the chance of losing money because of an external factor like that.

Totally understandable, but if this did occur, it could have a large affect on other companies too. Since the whole idea of the JOBS act is to remove barriers, I think such a law would go against that motive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good on you guys :) I hope you can finish that video until tomorrow.

I would like to add one remark about "DF is not good in Managing Budgets and Projects"

This topic is quite hard to defend, because there are many perspectives on it. For example Broken Age: DF had a budget of roughly 2,4 Million. They come up with an idea, a story and how to do things, but they realized too late that it was not possible with the given budget. If you just look into that the statement is not truly wrong.

No, they didn't realise too late it was not possible with the given budget and that's easy to see when you follow the documentary.

They were well aware of the budget issues only a couple of months into full production, and immediately started to take steps to mitigate it.

When these steps weren't doing enough, they immediately realised this, too, and realised they would either have to cut the game by quite a significant amount, or take another approach to getting it done. And then they came up with the idea to split the game.

That is realising exactly on time, and then coming up with a plan.

What realising too late would have looked like is this:

Come the end of the first year of full production, they would have noticed that they had way more game to make than the final few months of development they've budgeted for would allow. Unable to do anything about it now as they'd already invested most of the money in a way that wouldn't allow them to change tack, they instead realise that the only course of action is to hurriedly plug the holes, cut whatever can be possibly cut and drastically reduce the scope of what couldn't be cut. Then they'd somehow try to cobble together a complete game out of it, release it, hope nobody notice all the problems and how buggy it is.

You may recognise this approach from some games you have played. Arguably, something similar happened with Spacebase, although that one's a bit different because the model meant that it was in a playable state quite early on, so deciding what to cut and what to include was probably a simpler matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it was. It's been stated many times now that the original date was an error on Fig's part, and the added time was them rectifying their mistake (the article even shows a tweet that's basically saying this).

It's getting a little tiring, hearing people bringing this point up.

Probably worth a little more transparency on this since it keeps coming up. Jan 7th was tentatively set as the end date to the campaign before it started. I actually reached out to DF prior to the campaign starting suggesting it was better to make it Jan 12th, because I didn't want the campaign to get lost in the New Year shuffle.

It was agree by DF and us, it was changed in the tool, but we had a refresh problem that over wrote it. I caught it 30 minutes prior to the campaign starting, but because it was right before the VGAs, I decided to leave it rather than take a chance right before 100,000+ people hit our site.

DF updated the date during the campaign tool and pushed it live without Fig's knowledge (this has since been locked down so devs can't do this anymore). What should have happened is that DF and Fig issued a proactive statement before changing it rather than being reactive, so mistakes were made on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it was. It's been stated many times now that the original date was an error on Fig's part, and the added time was them rectifying their mistake (the article even shows a tweet that's basically saying this).

It's getting a little tiring, hearing people bringing this point up.

Probably worth a little more transparency on this since it keeps coming up. Jan 7th was tentatively set as the end date to the campaign before it started. I actually reached out to DF prior to the campaign starting suggesting it was better to make it Jan 12th, because I didn't want the campaign to get lost in the New Year shuffle.

It was agree by DF and us, it was changed in the tool, but we had a refresh problem that over wrote it. I caught it 30 minutes prior to the campaign starting, but because it was right before the VGAs, I decided to leave it rather than take a chance right before 100,000+ people hit our site.

DF updated the date during the campaign tool and pushed it live without Fig's knowledge (this has since been locked down so devs can't do this anymore). What should have happened is that DF and Fig issued a proactive statement before changing it rather than being reactive, so mistakes were made on both sides.

So this is exactly what I suggested was the case when that article on Techraptor was written. I'll confirm it over on the comments there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very worthwhile, and it's also worth pointing out that when other projects need more funds, they often do it by getting a publishing partner. It was always an important principle of DFA to make a game without a publisher, so using their own resources to do it meant sticking to their principles.

I'm not so sure about publishing partners, but I guess that's part of the solution sometimes. Early Access is also widely used. I'm trying to find Brian Fargo's quotes about the additional funds used for Wasteland 2.

And then it can be more drastic. Jon Schafer, who's making At the Gates, sold his house and car to continue fund his game. But that's one more extreme case, and for a smaller kickstarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5) The idea that the initial 400k goal of Broken Age matters in any way when discussing the 3.3 million.

I'd just go by analogy. If you ask someone for $10 to make a cake, and they give you $100 instead and you say, 'Great, I'll make a FANCY cake," then the initial $10 is no longer relevant. Even if you end up having to split it into two cakes, and end up spending $200 on the cakes, the initial $10 you asked for is irrelevant. That would have been a different cake, a smaller cake with cheaper ingredients. And if they'd come back with that cake and pocketed the $90, that would have seemed pretty wrong. So saying Double Fine went overbudget EVEN THOUGH they got nearly ten times more than they asked for is a meaningless statement.

That's an astonishingly good analogy. Kudos!

...you should totally use that, Jenni. Get pictures of cakes and everything.

I dunno. I'd go with a car analogy, because everyone knows the cake is a lie.

*sound of crickets chirping*

Oh c'mon people, it was a joke! But seriously, the car from Grim Fandango would be an awesome pic. Glottis is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that's a fast turnaround. Just make sure that all the claims in the video are backed up on-screen by sources and if you want a second pair of eyes on the script/fact checking side of things, I tend to have had a close eye on this stuff over the years :)

Thanks, I'll send you the script when I'm done, definitely. That way you can double check to make sure that I got everything right, and make sure that I didn't miss anything important too.

And if you need to put together any infographics I've got experience with that stuff, and can help out in other graphic design ways if you want. It's astonishing how ugly all the hater jpgs always are, we should do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The episode of the documentary where they first discussed going over budget was #7: "We'll Handle It (DFAF,

(starts with a team meeting around 21:50, then the meeting with Justin and Isa)). Then there was the Broken Age release plan forum post written by Tim, which was leaked and turned into several click bait stories in the press. I think there were some updates about the budget and funding closer to release of the first act too...?
Maybe it's might be worth pointing out that Double Fine really are not alone in using additional funds, despite getting well over the target. It's in fact the most common case, since kickstarter is about bringing a project to reality, and not neccessarly funding it completely (even though you are required to be able to complete a product with the target funding).

I would look at Wasteland 2, Elite: Dangerous and Dreamfall Chapters as examples, but there are many many more. Those are three exampes that I think it's funny that the developers have been more criticized for how they have handled their projects.

This is absolutely true, and I know I've read articles about many other crowdfunded games that went over budget. Eurogamer posted an interview with Brian Fargo a while back, where he said about Wasteland 2:

What a lot of people don't know is we put in twice as much money into this game than we raised from Kickstarter

Dreamfall Chapters has received a total of 4.5m NOK (~$507k) in grants from the Norwegian Film Institute (in Norwegian), in addition to the $1.5m they raised on Kickstarter.

This old article on Kotaku is also interesting, since it's clear that many still don't realize that it takes a lot of money to make games.

Charles Cecil has said that Broken Sword cost at least three times as much as the $771k they raised on Kickstarter. (Sources: mcvuk.com, gamewatcher.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamfall Chapters has received a total of 4.5m NOK (~$507k) in grants from the Norwegian Film Institute (in Norwegian), in addition to the $1.5m they raised on Kickstarter.

That's an interesting case that kickstarter. With that money, they raised about $1.2m more than the goal of $850k, and yet they had to split the game into five chapters because of budgetary reasons, and they recently posted an article about how a Unity engine upgrade almost killed them. And yet, they have vivid supporters at RPS, one of the gaming sites that's being most critical about Double Fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The episode of the documentary where they first discussed going over budget was #7: "We'll Handle It (DFAF,
(starts with a team meeting around 21:50, then the meeting with Justin and Isa)). Then there was the Broken Age release plan forum post written by Tim, which was leaked and turned into several click bait stories in the press. I think there were some updates about the budget and funding closer to release of the first act too...?

Yes, and worth mentioning the 'We'll handle it' episode was several months before they split the game, and in that time they had already managed to raise a lot of their own money towards the game budget. The decision to split the game was made as a process of budget/scope adjustments that started right near the beginning of production.

It's impossible to overstate this, because the thing about 'ran out of money' makes it seem like one day they noticed the cupboard was bare - when in fact they noticed early on and addressed it months before it had a chance to become a real problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamfall Chapters has received a total of 4.5m NOK (~$507k) in grants from the Norwegian Film Institute (in Norwegian), in addition to the $1.5m they raised on Kickstarter.

That's an interesting case that kickstarter. With that money, they raised about $1.2m more than the goal of $850k, and yet they had to split the game into five chapters because of budgetary reasons, and they recently posted an article about how a Unity engine upgrade almost killed them. And yet, they have vivid supporters at RPS, one of the gaming sites that's being most critical about Double Fine.

Just to clarify, they had acquired that grant before launching the kickstarter and used it for the preproduction phase of Dreamfall Chapters and to actually start their company (Red Thread Games). I think in this case the kickstarter stretch goals were a big part of the problem and, like DFA, it has been a case of dreaming a bit too big. They also received quite a bit of flak over their decision to release the game in episodes, primarily on social media I believe. A big difference with DFA, however, seems to be that there isn't a standard narrative in which news about the game is framed. RPS has been pretty consistent with their narrative on Broken Age (needed more money, ended up being awful). One reason that this isn't the case with Dreamfall Chapters probably has to do with the fact that HRH John Walker doesn't write about that game as he's a good friend of Ragnar Tornquist (creator of The Longest Journey), and the other contributors to RPS are a bit more nuanced in their opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The episode of the documentary where they first discussed going over budget was #7: "We'll Handle It (DFAF,
(starts with a team meeting around 21:50, then the meeting with Justin and Isa)).

Thanks so much for that link. I was going to ask where I could find it so I could use it in the video. I'm done with the script and I'm sending it off to KestrelPi for proofing and improving.

Then the fun part can start. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamfall Chapters has received a total of 4.5m NOK (~$507k) in grants from the Norwegian Film Institute (in Norwegian), in addition to the $1.5m they raised on Kickstarter.

That's an interesting case that kickstarter. With that money, they raised about $1.2m more than the goal of $850k, and yet they had to split the game into five chapters because of budgetary reasons, and they recently posted an article about how a Unity engine upgrade almost killed them. And yet, they have vivid supporters at RPS, one of the gaming sites that's being most critical about Double Fine.

To be fair on RPS, which is a website I have found to be occasionally insightful but often rather too grumpy for its own good, most of the criticism levelled at RPS by the staff is on the quality of the games. John Walker hated Act 2 and then just kept going on about it because other people didn't hate it as much, and a lot of the times he reports news on Double Fine it seems to be of a sort of skeptical bent about their ability to deliver quality and he just seems to have some sort of bee in his bonnet. But largely I haven't seen a ton of misreporting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamfall Chapters has received a total of 4.5m NOK (~$507k) in grants from the Norwegian Film Institute (in Norwegian), in addition to the $1.5m they raised on Kickstarter.

That's an interesting case that kickstarter. With that money, they raised about $1.2m more than the goal of $850k, and yet they had to split the game into five chapters because of budgetary reasons, and they recently posted an article about how a Unity engine upgrade almost killed them. And yet, they have vivid supporters at RPS, one of the gaming sites that's being most critical about Double Fine.

To be fair on RPS, which is a website I have found to be occasionally insightful but often rather too grumpy for its own good, most of the criticism levelled at RPS by the staff is on the quality of the games. John Walker hated Act 2 and then just kept going on about it because other people didn't hate it as much, and a lot of the times he reports news on Double Fine it seems to be of a sort of skeptical bent about their ability to deliver quality and he just seems to have some sort of bee in his bonnet. But largely I haven't seen a ton of misreporting there.

I still check RPS fairly regularly. The only problem I have with RPS is John Walker. 'A bee in his bonnet' is a mostly accurate but much too kind way of describing his attitude toward anything DF-related, which seems not so much grumpy as downright malicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Walker's hatred of Act Two was founded completely in his own misinterpretation/misremberance of Act One. A very frustrating read.

He seemed to have similar irrational hatred for TellTale's output at times, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...