Support NeoGAF

[Lord Panda]

Stoic stated that anyone who pledged over $50 will get all 3 chapters. I have no clue how much you pledged so you still might be missing out.

Yep just read that up on their Kickstarter FAQ. I pledged $50 luckily

 

[Boerseun]

So, Banner Saga was supposed be a single player campaign driven game and what do we get instead? A free to play microtransaction multiplayer game. ARRRRG!

Fuck kickstarter.

These are two different projects:

The Banner Saga -- single player, episodic adventure game.
The Banner Saga: Factions -- free to play strategy game.

This news is nothing new.

 

[Lothars]

From what I know of this kickstarter campaign they are doing exactly what they said.

If you didn't read and are complaining about not reading than its not kickstarters fault, its yours.

I didn't back it but its because I didn't have any interest in the singleplayer.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Maybe OP can get a personal refund?

 

[Haunted]

It's an amazing looking game and I've loved what I played from Factions. It looks like the SP game is still coming, so I'm good.

 

[mclem]

TI agree - I would never back a video game Kickstarter. People who have serious legal repercussions awaiting them should they not produce a video game often fuck up the process.

Er. Isn't that pretty much 95% of the entire games industry? Games are developed under legally-binding contracts, after all.


Personal stance: Fine with this. It's a turn-based strategy title; it's perfectly resonable for a multiplayer component to fall out after all's said and done, engine-wise it's just the single player with another person replacing the AI. That strikes me as an excellent tool with which to test the engine. If it leads to the SP not coming out, then yes, I'll have a problem with it, but I don't get that impression right now, just that it's earning them some revenue. I don't have a problem with them earning revenue; they're entitled to do so.

 

[Risible]

Er. Isn't that pretty much 95% of the entire games industry? Games are developed under legally-binding contracts, after all.

Yes, that was my point . They have severe consequences and still fuck it up. Now imagine giving someone a lot of money to make a game with very few consequences for fucking it up. That's Kickstarter.

 

[Zeliard]

Yes, that was my point . They have severe consequences and still fuck it up. Now imagine giving someone a lot of money to make a game with very few consequences for fucking it up. That's Kickstarter.

Your reputation is tarnished and your goodwill with consumers perhaps irreversibly damaged. That isn't a serious consequence?

 

[FACE]

One of the devs responded to this: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Alex...Kickstarterfunded_game_a_look_from_inside.php

 

[ghibli99]

The issues in this thread aside, this game looks really good. Had no idea it existed until today!

 

[Enduin]

I find the sporadic outrage over this since Factions released so bizarre. This is hardly an example of wrong doing by a Kickstarter project.

I don't have a much of any interest in Factions at all, I'm not an online competitive person, especially with TBS games, but you can tell from the development of this game so far and the way it feels and plays that they are putting a lot of heart and effort into it. It's not a money grab, despite the micro-transactions, but a finely crafted and well designed game.

They want this to be fantastic and I still believe in them and I avidly await the SP portion that I pledge 50 bucks towards. Until such time that they fail to deliver on that I see no reason to lambaste them and cry foul over the release of Factions, which they did mention in their campaign.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

One of the devs responded to this: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Alex...Kickstarterfunded_game_a_look_from_inside.php

Not too surprising that only 30% actually read anything about the project.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

I'm not mad or anything. In fact I feel kickstarter has been a very educational exercise. I have a better understanding of what publishers face all the time with developers. Even good developers.

They aren't been quite honest. The Multi-player wasn't even 3 seconds of the original 4 and a half minute pitch video. Easy to miss, easy to forget. When they started talking about Factions, it was called a free demo of both single player and multi-player parts of The Banner Saga. The updates were all single player, all the time until December. At some point between July and December, they switched all development resources to Factions while still maintaining that the single player was the focus and entering beta. In October they mentioned in an update that Factions was coming out any day and tried to down play it. It was the first hint that something wasn't right. February comes and we learn this demo is actually a separate fully released freeium product. All the kickstarter money raised for the purpose of developing a single player turn based rpg was spent developing a freeium multiplayer game instead. The point that seems to be loss on Stoic is most in not all of the money raised wasn't because The Banner Saga was so kick ass (and it isn't) or that we love the Stoic guys. It was raised because the backers want more single player rpgs with turn based combat. They have no idea why people are toxic to even the idea of a freeium multiplayer game. Especially since they have stated that some features promised at the $100,000 level are now being cut.

Now Stoic claims the single player is still coming. Late 2013, or 14. I just don't see that happening. Either Stoic will crash and burn if Factions isn't a hit and if factions is a hit, they are under no legal obligation to deliver the single player game. The money for the single player game is just gone.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

These are two different projects:

The Banner Saga -- single player, episodic adventure game.
The Banner Saga: Factions -- free to play strategy game.

This news is nothing new.

The money raised to make The Banner Saga went to making Factions instead and now this is no money to make the single player game. I don't see how everyone is fine with that.

 

[Azih]

The money raised to make The Banner Saga went to making Factions instead and now this is no money to make the single player game. I don't see how everyone is fine with that.

I don't see where you're getting the 'instead'. The combat they built with Factions is a core component of Saga. Where are you getting the idea that there's no 'money' for the single player?

 

[Hellsing321]

I was always under the impression that the single player game would come after the multiplayer one. Regardless games get delayed all the time. If they decided to cancel the single player game, I'd be right there with you with torches and pitchforks but the game is still coming.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I don't see where you're getting the 'instead'. The combat they built with Factions is a core component of Saga. Where are you getting the idea that there's no 'money' for the single player?

Because MP always takes resources away from the SP.

Regardless of things like budget.

Always.

(jk, obviously)

 

[EviLore]

OP is poorly written and juvenile, but it doesn't sit well with me either. I won't be backing any of their subsequent projects.

 

[Lime]

OP is poorly written and juvenile, but it doesn't sit well with me either. I won't be backing any of their subsequent projects.

Did you read the clarification on Gamasutra? It seems more like a problem of miscommunication or -interpretation rather than condemnable behaviour.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Does bum me out that they appear to be spending so much effort and resources on what was supposed to be a sidenote, which has ended up pushing back the thing I did pledge towards.

I don't care about that. The game could come out in 2088 for all I care if they're honestly working on it.

I care about if they're using kickstarter money to push a concept - f2p & microtransactions - that I despise. I wouldn't have backed the project if I knew about this. If they said this would happen, fair enough, thats me fault for not reading their pitch closely enough, but I sure as hell don't remember anything about this.

That too.

edit
Will read the Gamasutra article now.

 

[Unstoppable Lionheart]

The money raised to make The Banner Saga went to making Factions instead and now this is no money to make the single player game. I don't see how everyone is fine with that.

Because everything used to make faction is required for the base game as well.

They had to make combat for the base game to begin with.

All that happened is that they did that and used it to make a little side money maker.

The single player game benefits from beta testing of the combat for perfection and it doesn't suffer at all.

I can't see any problems with this.

 

[Deleted member 102362]

The money raised to make The Banner Saga went to making Factions instead and now this is no money to make the single player game. I don't see how everyone is fine with that.

The amount of misinformation regarding TBS is just depressing.

Others have already replied to your post and corrected you, so what I will say is that if people had actually taken the time to watch the pitch video and read the updates (and that Gamasutra article), they would discover that most of their anger is based on their own ignorance of the development of the project.

The one area I can see people getting understandably upset at is that of microtransactions, but even then, Alex explained some of that in the Gamasutra article:

Many were fuming that the game must be “pay to win”, despite the fact that you only get matched against opponents with equal teams, regardless of how you earned them. Within the game itself, the term “pay to lose” had started to appear, since paying money would only serve to get you matched against players with vastly more play time under their belts.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

The amount of misinformation regarding TBS is just depressing.

Others have already replied to your post and corrected you, so what I will say is that if people had actually taken the time to watch the pitch video and read the updates (and that Gamasutra article), they would discover that most of their anger is based on their own ignorance of the development of the project.

If you took the time to read my post, you would know I'm not angry and I addressed the pitch video and the Kickstarter updates. It isn't that big of a deal. Its just an interesting experience from my perspective.

The only kickstarter I'm somewhat upset about is Star Command but as the programmers start arguing with the backers of their two kickstarters, it has become high comedy.

 

[Tobor]

I'd say this sums it up nicely:

At the end of the day, I think 20,000 emotionally invested backers is just... a lot of people. You’ve now got a monstrous publisher of epic bi-polar proportions, with 20,000 different wants and desires, 20,000 different ideas about what your game is, a huge gulf between those who care and don’t care about what you’re doing, and a lot of wildly different expectations to fill, some of which don’t make any sense at all.

Nature of the beast.

 

[Htown]

OP is poorly written and juvenile, but it doesn't sit well with me either. I won't be backing any of their subsequent projects.

So you didn't pay attention to what they said they were gonna do either?

 

[Lach]

I pledged quite a lot (120$) and am not interested in factions at all. As long as the single player game is coming I'm still happy. If factions generate more income to stoic that flows into the funding of the singleplayer game I'm happy. Most of the content of Factions can and will be used in the singleplayer anyway so it's not wasted money.

I see a pledge on Kickstarter as an investment and not a preorder. Projects can be delayed, projects can be cancled and projects can change (I'd rather see them changed than cancled).

 

[Beautifully Shaped Monsters]

I feel the lack of multiplatform for Factions being a huge Bait and Switch. They never made it clear during the Kickstarter that Factions would be Windows only.

I pledged $50 and I'm a bit on the fence about it. On the one hand, it looks like the single player game will be good once it releases, on the other hand, I would probably have wanted to pledge less if I had known the full details.

 

[inky]

Did you read the clarification on Gamasutra? It seems more like a problem of miscommunication or -interpretation rather than condemnable behaviour.

Their F2P model seems to be condemnable enough, but at least they are aware of that.

They said they wanted to have microtrasactions to have "living expenses" covered, but wasn't that the whole point of the KS money? Even including the "free" MP portion.

I'm still looking forward to the SP game, but like I've said in another thread, that specific part of the development didn't sit well with me either. Whatever way their matchmaking system works, selling renown (equivalent to borh exp and in-game gold) is something I would never have backed.

 

[Joe Molotov]

The one area I can see people getting understandably upset at is that of microtransactions, but even then, Alex explained some of that in the Gamasutra article:

Many were fuming that the game must be “pay to win”, despite the fact that you only get matched against opponents with equal teams, regardless of how you earned them. Within the game itself, the term “pay to lose” had started to appear, since paying money would only serve to get you matched against players with vastly more play time under their belts.

So now people that want a pure multiplayer experience AND people that want to pay to win can both hate it! Sounds like a marvelous lose-lose.