Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #22: Q&A with Tim, Cooking?, and Avellone Trolls You!

[Mrowak]

It is not too much to ask to expect Obsidian to provide some kind of planned schedule for development, with deadlines by which time they hope to meet major developmental milestones. They are receiving free money from us to do so.

Ok, you've convinced me. Go ahead and ask them. Don't forget to add "or else..." to make them take you seriously.

derp. thanks bro. yes, i know that they can just lulz at it. but this is what project oversight is. if there is no oversight, then they can just blow the money on boondoggle bullshit.

kickstarter's make or break is oversight.

This. Except that should have been in place before the campaign even started.

 

[Infinitron]

Bottom line: if this way of gathering funds for AA games is to survive as a model, they should do much better job than what we are witnessing.

Says who? If an awesome game comes out at the end, nobody will give a fuck about transparency.

I don't understand how this isn't obvious to you.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Well I'm waiting for the $3m reached update, we are there and hopefully on to $3.5m. Also they really need to update the dungeon levels picture, maybe they did not expect to reach this far and have to improvise quickly. Will probably end up at 9 or 10 levels !

 

[Vault Dweller]

derp. thanks bro. yes, i know that they can just lulz at it. but this is what project oversight is. if there is no oversight, then they can just blow the money on boondoggle bullshit. kickstarter's make or break is oversight.

Which was exactly my point in the budget thread.

What you asked for (in the post above) isn't unreasonable. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable and makes a lot sense. Unfortunately, there are no mechanisms in place to demand accountability and transparency, and KS pitches are a fucking joke. "We need a million bucks to make an awesome RPG!" Why million bucks? Why not 3 mil or 750k? Where is the business plan? What makes you think that you can do this game in 18 months? How exactly selling 2 million bucks worth of extra features will fit into your original plan? How the fuck getting 3X more money will benefit the project? Will you hire 3 times more people? Is it good for the project? Will you extend the development time? How much time and manpower is allocated to each feature? Etc.

The pitches are vague as fuck, selling you a dream and giving as little details as possible - the very opposite of what you do when you ask a bank or a publisher for money, and as long as money keeps rolling in and dreams are being sold like hotcakes, there is not a thing you can do about it.

ps. aod is shit and i hate you

 

[Jasede]

There is going to be no oversight. You all know this. That's the point of Kickstarter. Duh!

* Dude asks for faith + money to make X
* People give him money
* Dude makes X or fails at making X

There are no checks and balances, no oversight. You're building on faith here. I don't know what to tell you. Have faith!
Besides, if there was oversight then it wouldn't be so different from going to a publisher in the first place. There's literally no difference in the backers saying "No, this isn't right. Remove Y and add X and skip dungeon Z." to the publisher saying something similar.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Says who? If an awesome game comes out at the end, nobody will give a fuck about transparency.

I don't understand how this isn't obvious to you.

It's a gamble. That's the problem.

 

[Jasede]

Yes, but...
Always bet on MCA.

 

[Mrowak]

Bottom line: if this way of gathering funds for AA games is to survive as a model, they should do much better job than what we are witnessing.

Says who? If an awesome game comes out at the end, nobody will give a fuck about transparency.
I don't understand how this isn't obvious to you.

Only until the first major project fails, Infiltron, only until then. And I can say here and now that it is *bound* to happen, because projects do require extra costs to maintain, and do require foresight, and even in spite of great amount of planning they do fail - which is something publisher takes into account when funding them. Project management is a very difficult art, bro. Here's a nice read for you Study: 68 percent of IT projects fail.

 

[Infinitron]

It's a gamble. That's the problem.

And yet the lottery is still going strong. Guess it's not that much of a problem.

Only until the first major project fails, Infiltron, only until then.

The failure of one project will not overshadow the projects that succeed. One failure does not prove the Kickstarter model is a failure, but it only takes one success to prove that it can produce successes.

 

[ironyuri]

It's a gamble. That's the problem.

And yet the lottery is still going strong. Guess it's not that much of a problem.

Only until the first major project fails, Infiltron, only until then.

The failure of one project will not be able to overshadow the joy derived from those projects that succeed.

You really love shitty analogies. Fuck bro. It's not like the fucking lottery. You fucking. I fucking. I can't even. You fuck.

 

[Jaesun]

 

[Infinitron]

You really love shitty analogies. Fuck bro. It's not like the fucking lottery. You fucking. I fucking. I can't even. You fuck.

How is that a shitty analogy? Because you're more psychologically invested in an oldschool RPG than you are in a lottery ticket? I guess that's your problem.

 

[Mrowak]

The failure of one project will not overshadow the projects that succeed. One failure does not prove the Kickstarter model is a failure, but it only takes one success to prove that it can produce successes.

How naive. It does not work this way. That one project is successful, doesn't automatically mean the other won't be. Especially if there is not planning done. Which should be.

 

[Infinitron]

The failure of one project will not overshadow the projects that succeed. One failure does not prove the Kickstarter model is a failure, but it only takes one success to prove that it can produce successes.

How naive. It does not work this way. That one project is successful, doesn't automatically mean the other won't be. Especially if there is not planning done. Which should be.

You're the one who's being naive. Humans are optimistic beings. If they know there's a system that might provide them with something they like, and has been shown to do so in the past, they'll keep on trying. That's why publishers keep gambling on creating the next WoW or the next Call of Duty. And yes, it's why we buy lottery tickets.

 

[ironyuri]

You really love shitty analogies. Fuck bro. It's not like the fucking lottery. You fucking. I fucking. I can't even. You fuck.

How is that a shitty analogy? Because you're more psychologically invested in an oldschool RPG than you are in a lottery ticket? I guess that's your problem.

No, when you buy a lottery ticket, you are investing money into the lottery fund. Every time you buy one, you have a chance to win an amount of the money collectively put into the fund by others.

Essentially you are buying chance. The lottery is a gamble.

This is not a gamble. The money is being invested in order to ensure the production of an actually existing end consumer product, which will not only be given to the investors as a gift, but sold on the mass market to further boost sales. This is fucking capital raising, you faggot.

The lottery is not fucking capital raising. The person who buys a lottery ticket doesn't hope to get some actual product out of it, he hopes to win, by chance (the chances are enormously against the individual and he knows it) a sum of money. Obsidian is promising a concrete fucking product and we are paying for its production. It is not the same fucking thing. You are unbelievably fucking ignorant.

Also, there are way too many fucking RandRoid Libertards on Codex, apparently, who have no idea what fucking oversight is. Capitalists are not friendly people who take your money and make you money, they are fucking Bernie Madoff and the producers of Kingdoms of Amalur. Give them free money without oversight, say good bye to your fucking money.

 

[Infinitron]

This is not a gamble. The money is being invested in order to ensure the production of an actually existing end consumer product, which will not only be given to the investors as a gift, but sold on the mass market to further boost sales. This is fucking capital raising, you faggot.

Tell that to Vault Dweller, not me. I personally think that the chances of success are too high for it to be considered a true "gamble", but some people here disagree.

 

[Infinitron]

Here's what I think - the vast majority of people don't really want oversight. What they want is the fantasy of inserting their coin in the slot and receiving a kickass game after x years. In other words, an experience that mimics that of preordering a publisher-backed game as closely as possible.

In fact, it's quite possible that some people might even be repelled if you gave them too much insight into the game development process. Too many things they don't understand, too many things they don't want to fuck around with. Just take our money and give us a game!

 

[Mrowak]

This is not a gamble. The money is being invested in order to ensure the production of an actually existing end consumer product, which will not only be given to the investors as a gift, but sold on the mass market to further boost sales. This is fucking capital raising, you faggot.

Tell that to Vault Dweller, not me. I personally think that the chances of success are too high for it to be considered a true "gamble", but some people here disagree.

Sorry bro but the fanboy spirit is strong in you. It is a gamble in the sense that we don't have enough facts to say "it will succeed". It is all hope that maybe they know what they are doing (vs. all deeply flawed games by Obsidian). There isn't any plan, budget or anything that could say to me: "man, these guys surely know their job. It's risky but I see that they are prepared."

If there was a plan available to see for everyone which would prove that they know what they do, then it wouldn't be a gamble at all - but a real project. Alas they went for the marketing route and obscured the true state of their endeavour. Who needs facts and hard numbers? Marketing and its promises has never failed us, right lads? What can possibly go wrong?

 

[Mrowak]

Here's what I think - the vast majority of people don't really want oversight. What they want is the fantasy of inserting their coin in the slot and receiving a kickass game after x years. In other words, an experience that mimics that of preordering a publisher-backed game as closely as possible.

Which is why the campaign is successful. The same applies to say pre-orders of Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2. What amazing games they were!

Since when what people *want* is considered to be always good for them?

In fact, it's quite possible that some people might even be repelled if you gave them too much insight into the game development process. Too many things they don't understand, too many things they don't want to fuck around with. Just take our money and give us a game!

Those would not care. I admit though that greater transparency would weaken their marketing campaign, because they would actually have to make effort to generate buzz and be much clearer about basic features of the project. In the longer run, when the product is ready they will be held accountable exactly for what they promised and nothing else. Plus with proper budget in place they would generate more credibilty, which in turn would attract higher profile backers, such as VD and other authority figures to spread the word around the net.

But in this case marketing overshadowed content. This can't get wrong, right bro?

 

[Vault Dweller]

And yet the lottery is still going strong. Guess it's not that much of a problem.

The analogy doesn't work at all.

A bunch of people throwing in a few bucks, hoping to be one of the lucky winners of the pot isn't the same as a bunch of people sponsoring development, hoping to get a decent game.

Take PE, for example. It can be a truly great RPG - a game we've been waiting for. It can also be a decent game, flawed but good. It can also be a rushed clusterfuck. That's the gamble and until companies start treating it as business (vs charity), trying to convince potential backers rather than throwing more goodies at them (like beads to the natives), it will remain a gamble.

This isn't about letting the backers have a say in development. It's about expecting companies to treat it like a proper business venture.

The failure of one project will not overshadow the projects that succeed. One failure does not prove the Kickstarter model is a failure, but it only takes one success to prove that it can produce successes.

One out of how many?

You give 100 people money, some of them will do something decent with them. Does it prove anything about the system? No. It will only show that some people had the ability to do something with the money. A good business model it's not.

 

[ironyuri]

Here's what I think - the vast majority of people don't really want oversight. What they want is the fantasy of inserting their coin in the slot and receiving a kickass game after x years. In other words, an experience that mimics that of preordering a publisher-backed game as closely as possible.

In fact, it's quite possible that some people might even be repelled if you gave them too much insight into the game development process. Too many things they don't understand, too many things they don't want to fuck around with. Just take our money and give us a game!

 

[Infinitron]

Since when what people *want* is considered to be always good for them?

No shit. Look, I'd live to live in a world populated solely by rational actors who have unlimited time to inform themselves, but it's just not like that. The reason publishers exist is because most people don't want to be publishers. Not even the relatively elite few who pledge towards Kickstarters.

I still agree that the Kickstarter ecosystem could fail if the first few major Kickstarted games turn out to be turds. But if they turn out okay, it should be resilient afterwards, having proven itself as a viable way to create good games. Oversight or no oversight.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Here's what I think - the vast majority of people don't really want oversight. What they want is the fantasy of inserting their coin in the slot and receiving a kickass game after x years. !

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Zed]

Quick morning #ProjectEternity PayPal update: $79,946
codex, sorcerers, gb ~ 10 000
ks at 3m 22 000

so 388 000 to go.

 

[Infinitron]

You give 100 people money, some of them will do something decent with them. Does it prove anything about the system? No. It will only show that some people had the ability to do something with the money. A good business model it's not.

Good business model? Maybe not. A business model that people will immediately abandon in rage if one project fails? Definitely not.