KickStarter Lets dicsuss the trend of Enhanced Editions for Kickstarted games

[DramaticPopcorn]

So, there's been at least 3 major kickstarted RPG releases that have recieved (or going to recieve) an Enhanced Edition treatment:
- ShadowrunReturns (Dragonfall)
- Wasteland 2
and now, Divinity: OS

All devs state rather similar reasoning for it: roadblocks or financial boundries that prevented them from delievering intented (or promised, rather) product in full by the release date.

I don't really mind these updates, after all, developers are showing their commitment to the product by doing this...

But this sort of makes every kickstarter game even more of a gamble (well, futher than the whole concept is, as of now):
developers can intentionally lower the cost of development for some of the stretch goals and then not include them in the base game, first gauging financial rationality before ever starting to develop those features.

So, what do you think of this trend?

 

[Mustawd]

Personally, I think it's fine:

1.) Game you want/kickstarted still gets made. Which probably wouldn't happen in the normal publisher model
2.) At least in your examples, backers get the EE version for free. So there's no "gamble" from that perspective
3.) EE becoming the norm is a good thing as developers are expected to keep adding polish even after release.

I think the main problem is not that devs will intentionally scale back a game...after all this already happens as part of any development process. Rather, the issueis pushing out an unfinished, unpolished, buggy mess and calling that the "official release!". Then polishing for a few months and calling it the EE. (See Deadstate)

 

[CommanderBradbury]

I think it's a good thing. I've certainly been more pleased with the big KS projects right after release then I have been with any other traditionally published games lately, so the EEs are just a bonus as far as I'm concerned. Motivations seem to be a cross between wanting to prefect or expand something that had a limited budget and wanting to rake in some money from console gamers (for D:OS and Wasteland 2 anyway). Both are fine by me, unless they start changing the PC experience to accommodate the console version, such as by redesigning the D:OS interface for both console and PC instead of just using separate interfaces (we'll see how it turns out I guess).

 

[Cadmus]

It depends on the game. WL2 was kinda shit on release but it totally felt like a full and a complete game to me so I view the EE as a real bonus.
D:OS was great on release (+some small patch I think) so again I view the EE as a real added bonus to the already good game.
SR I didn't play the original release so no idea but from what I've heard, the DC was only a slight improvement so I guess that's fine.

Listen, these EEs range from a good expansion to a shit patch the game should've had in the first place but for these games, I think they are a net benefit to the player.
I don't mind some developer bashing but you can't possibly expect them to keep developing the game for 20 years so that when it's released, there would be no way in the world to add anything of any benefit to it.

I don't actually remember any EE that felt like it should have been in the game in the first place and the original release was only a public beta kind of scam.

My only problem is that it keeps me from playing the new games as they come out because an EE is almost guaranteed to be released later.

I think The Witcher games also had neat EEs. Really, so far nothing I could complain about.
Obviously, it can turn to shit real fast and result in everything being released in a beta state (just you wait for the new Bethesda game )

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

It's done soley to get more sales without much cost. You got a game already made, make some additions to it then resell it to people for a slight discount or no discount at all. It's a lot easier than making a whole new game.

 

[Infinitron]

Rampant Coyote article about the new EE generation: http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=8824

It's done soley to get more sales without much cost. You got a game already made, make some additions to it then resell it to people for a slight discount or no discount at all. It's a lot easier than making a whole new game.

They're free for owners; they're not reselling them.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

EE becoming the norm is a good thing as developers are expected to keep adding polish even after release.

This. Kickstarter developers feel obliged to support their games post release. So when they keep a small team anyway, why not add some new stuff and re-release as EE? Make sense.

 

[pippin]

I think it always help games, no matter how good or bad they could end up being. It's nice to have developers looking after their own creations in their own terms.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

While these EEs are free for people who bought original games I am absolutely fine with them. Free content is free content, free polish is free polish. I only wish that it were possible to obtain original games after EE release or, at least, to turn off all enhancements, 'cause, you know, not all EEs are good.

 

[Tacgnol]

On the one hand, I'm always happy to see post release support, especially when it's free. On the other hand, possibly with the exception of D:OS which I felt was quite polished at release, these enhanced editions always feel like how the game should have been on release.

I think overall it's a positive thing, but I wish devs would make things more polished at release.

 

[Zombra]

Developers can intentionally lower the cost of development for some of the stretch goals and then not include them in the base game, first gauging financial rationality before ever starting to develop those features.

That's a pretty cynical viewpoint. It's certainly possible that equally cynical devs might try this approach, and there have certainly been a few frauds out there, but most of the Kickstarters I've seen so far appear to have put forth a good faith effort to deliver quality the first time around. Besides, even if subpar releases do become standard practice, the dev houses that deliver quality will still make everyone else look bad - devs that want good reputations will still strive for excellence. I don't think the invisible hand fixes everything, but in this case the problem should be self-correcting.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Rampant Coyote article about the new EE generation: http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=8824

It's done soley to get more sales without much cost. You got a game already made, make some additions to it then resell it to people for a slight discount or no discount at all. It's a lot easier than making a whole new game.

They're free for owners; they're not reselling them.

Yet they are releasing a "new" game and it gets to be at the top of peoples minds again that missed it the first time. It's basically a second try to get all the missed consumers from the first run.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

Fallout 2, KotOR 2 and Arcanum weren't polished at all on release too. Roots of this problem are much deeper. EEs are incline. I wish there were official EEs (from BI, Obsidian and Troika) of these games.

Also I think it's good thing that EEs are usually released rather close to original games. Because in this case developers didn't have time to be changed too much, therefore they are able to be as close to their original vision as possible. Otherwise there are big chances that it will be lucasisation rather than EE.

 

[Mustawd]

Rampant Coyote article about the new EE generation: http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=8824

It's done soley to get more sales without much cost. You got a game already made, make some additions to it then resell it to people for a slight discount or no discount at all. It's a lot easier than making a whole new game.

They're free for owners; they're not reselling them.

Yet they are releasing a "new" game and it gets to be at the top of peoples minds again that missed it the first time. It's basically a second try to get all the missed consumers from the first run.

How is this different from launching an advertising campaign for the original game? Besides, I fail to see what the negative issue of them wanting to reach out to more consumers. At least in this way it's a win win win for devs, backers, and potential new consumers.

I, for example, have not purchased D:OS because I always wait for patches/mods/etc. of games if on release it's a bit unfinished. But I'll probably definitely buy the EE version sooner than I would have when waiting for the original.

 

[Cosmo]

So, what do you think of this trend?

EEs are a necessarily linked to kickstarter, for two reasons at least :

- we're talking about quite fragile companies, having trouble existing in the AAA ecology, and for that reason that need income entries relatively soon (even if RPGs are notoriously long to develop), even if that aspect is alleviated by the donations (hence not perfectly polished games) ;
- and on the donors end (people that aren't part of the business for the most part), there's the illusion that 2-4 million bucks is a lot ; they would be discomfited by middle-grad companies asking more i think, even if that's what they need.

I'd add that the guys at Harebrain Schemes have perfectly understood that link, that's why they took that iterative process of the EEs and instead applied it from short game to short game. And as HBS are partly self-funded now, i think you'll see those other companies will use the goodwill and good reputation fostered by those EEs and use it as a launchpad to progressively free themselves from kickstarter.

Well, at least that's what the general trend seems to be for now, what define those fragile companies is that their circumstances can change very quickly...

 

[Loriac]

Second effort

 

[Pegultagol]

I don't know about SR, but both D:OS and W2 EEs are the results of ongoing console port efforts to which they added some extra stuff to make the products stand out more after a year has passed since their release. I personally think it is pretty neat, and one of those things that are mutually beneficial, as the new coat of paint doesn't require a lot of effort compared to a new project as they expand their audience, and also keeps the existing supporters happy and more ready to chip in when the next kickstarter pitch rolls out. Also it is preferable to, say, how GTAV was released first on consoles, then to newer platforms, and using the development on these platforms to finally release one on the PC. Just a bird chirping in my ear, but I think it is easier to move to more restricted platforms after having laid down foundations and built standalone on a more open one, rather than the other way around.

The only qualm, if any, that I can bring up is that your experience with a certain game is not the definitive one with EE around the corner, and it'd require early adopters to play again in order to get the full breadth of what the developer intended. In case with W2, the tail end of that game didn't feel complete to me, so it wouldn't be so bad to replay the game in extended format but it would still take time and effort to get there and time is not so disposable nowadays. But this is a first world problem through and through.

 

[Mustawd]

The only qualm, if any, that I can bring up is that your experience with a certain game is not the definitive one with EE around the corner, and it'd require early adopters to play again in order to get the full breadth of what the developer intended. In case with W2, the tail end of that game didn't feel complete to me, so it wouldn't be so bad to replay the game in extended format but it would still take time and effort to get there and time is not so disposable nowadays. But this is a first world problem through and through.

I agree with this. It's definitely annoying. But at least with D:OS there are two completely different games. You can always choose to stay with the classic.

 

[Roguey]

Rampant Coyote article about the new EE generation: http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=8824

Roguey said,

I’m just here to say that Pillars of Eternity sucks so bad that even an enhanced edition couldn’t make it good.

Someone got trolled hard.

 

[AetherVagrant]

whatever gives me an excuse to read and bitch about gamez more than play them is :kwafuckyeah: in my book.

 

[Ellef]

It doesn't really change anything. If you play the game within 6 months of release, you're playing a beta.

 

[MilesBeyond]

It doesn't really change anything. If you play the game within 6 months of release, you're playing a beta.

Yup. Pretty much. Like others have pointed out, this is the way it's always been. Only thing that's changed is how easy it is for devs to fix that after the fact (I don't like everything about the state of gaming today but I sure like being able to download updates rather than having to get them on floppy disks through mail order). I guess I'm not totally clear on what the difference is between an EE and a glorified patch, but so long as the EE's free, I don't care.

 

[Xathrodox86]

I think it always help games, no matter how good or bad they could end up being. It's nice to have developers looking after their own creations in their own terms.

I agree. It always feels as if a game is more polished that way. I may be biased tough, since I always try to get my hands on enhanced editions.

 

[Rivmusique]

I don't like that the devs essentially say "well this is all the stuff we wanted to put in, the things you didn't like we were also unhappy with when we released it". That feels like shit as someone who played release. Even though I really enjoyed all my time with D:OS, it's not great that when EE time comes along we get the devs saying they weren't too happy with release, things weren't where they intended them to be, but thanks for playing the incomplete edition. I suppose it's a pretty minor issue, if the language was more "we thought it was in a great place, feedback has shown our audience wanted more difficulty/variety towards the end, a more serious story (? is this what they're doing? I don't know) etc. and we are adding more quests because we have time" then I wouldn't have a problem.

I am happy to see them continue to improve on a game I enjoy, I just don't like the distancing from what they released as a full, complete game. Of course a release is going to have things that were cut for time, but they should get it to a point where they think it's enjoyable before releasing, never "oh it's bad but completable here, we'll keep working on it and have it properly sorted with a patch/EE sometime after release". I hope I never experience it going to an extreme of barely playable, broken, unfinished shit - release, actual game as intended - EE.

 

[thesheeep]

I agree with most here.
There are some downsides and potential risks with EEs, but from a dev's perspective, games are never fully complete when someone decides that they must be released now (except Grimoire, maybe).
There is always something you want to fix or implement, and additionally something fans want to be fixed or implemented.
While small changes fit into patches easily and can still make a huge difference, EEs offer possibility for larger changes and - kinda important - a "second" release, which usually boosts sales.

In general, yes, it shows that people expect most games to receive more polish post release. And that is a good thing no doubt.