Support NeoGAF

[Brerlappin]

I think the worst part of all this is that i dont think ive played any DF game that was genuinely great, or could be considered a classic.
They kinda epitomise "nice ideas, shame about the execution". I wish instead of having pretentious 'idea jams' and making games based on a few squiggles on a whiteboard like "how about a dolphin becomes president" or some shit, theyd just focus on one good idea, instead of a bunch of stupid ones that are burning their backers.
Theyre kinda living that John Romero rockstar game development thing, only instead of 'Rockstar' development, its 'Flights of Fancy arent we quirky' development. And its workign out about as well as Romero did so far

 

[LurkerPrime]

I find that Double Fine has difficulty reconciling their imagination with the gameplay they are able to make.

Psychonauts really suffered from this.

 

[Jb]

They kinda epitomise "nice ideas, shame about the execution". I wish instead of having pretentious 'idea jams' and making games based on a few squiggles on a whiteboard like "how about a dolphin becomes president" or some shit, theyd just focus on one good idea, instead of a bunch of stupid ones that are burning their backers.

I'm not sure they can afford, let alone want, to focus all their ressources on one project and take the risk that it could fail and put the company at risk financially. Their current model allows them to hedge their bets and diversify their portfolio in a market where success often seems to hinge on catching lighting in a bottle.
Plus if you remember even back when they were a 1 game at at time studio they still struggled to have its core gameplay be as compelling and polished as its art and narrative.

 

[spindoctor]

We do know these things because they're stated in the Broken Age documentary. Yes, Broken Age Episode 2 is entirely dependent on the sales of Episode 1.

I wasn't aware of this. I stopped watching the documentary around episode 15 when they stated it had spoilers for part one of the game and I'm waiting for both parts before I play it.

I also think this is pretty questionable. Completion of the game and it's quality is now entirely dependent on additional sales after they've gone through all the Kickstarter funds and extra money they raised. I consider myself a well wisher of DF but this is some shockingly poor project management on display.

 

[Azure Dream]

Isn't the basic gist of this that Spacebase was just not as fun they as they thought it would be in it's current state?

People didn't buy Minecraft because of future potential, they bought it because it was a fun game. Same with all the other successful EA games.

It seemed like word of mouth for Spacebase was that it had a lot of potential to be a Dwarf Fortress kind of game, but wasn't very fun in it's current state due to lack of depth. This should be an immediate red flag that the game should not have yet been released to EA. Sure some people will buy the game based on potential and developer pedigree, but the majority of gamers will only pay money when their friend/familly member/favorite youtuber says the game is a lot of fun.

Hopefully the people that got burned on this do some more research in the future as to what they are buying. If they are not interested in the game in it's current state, don't buy it. Only buy if you wish to support the developer and are ok with losing your money on a poorly made prototype.

Also I hope developers take note. If you expect people to fund your development by releasing on EA, make sure your game is fun to play in it's current released state. Not only that, but it has enough depth for people to play for more than 20 minutes without getting bored.

Exactly. They released it, had strong early sales based on their name and the promised concept, then the first batch of early adopters played it and told others, "There's not much here yet, wait until they've added a lot more content." So people waited. But the future of the game was based on sales of a product known to be significantly lacking in structure and features, when those interested who hadn't already bit the bullet blindly were waiting for it to be fleshed out. How could they expect success in this situation?

I know it's a bit hindsighty to say that, but they had to realize they were initially trying to sell a very expensive, very basic shell of what they were promising, and that was going to turn people off after the early rush.

 

[NervousXtian]

Someone else said it, but it's needs to be said again.

EA success isn't as much as about future potential, as it is about having a fun game to play now.

Well, sort of. There's different kinds of EA... but the basic 2 seem to be:

Work in progress releases where the dev build and the Steam build are roughly close to each other.. as in there's not whole parts of the game being held back for full release but the actual whole game that's in progress is available in the build.

The other is like Divinity.. where you really have a demo of the game in progress. One part of the game, not the whole thing. Wasteland did this.. Dead State, etc.

..but both really are only going to be successful longer term if the game state that you get with an EA purchase is worth playing.

DayZ, Rust, 7DtD, the Forest, Space Engineers, Kerbal.. Asseto Corso, Gang Beasts, Prison Architect, Project Zomboid, Next Car Game... there's more.. but in every instance these games are fun to play in their current state (or the consensus is that they are.. haven't played all of them.. but enough of them to feel good about this opinion.

The problem with SpaceBase was that it just wasn't that fun, not enough meat on the bones. At least that's what everything I'd read from when it launched.. and it's why I never bought it.. despite my sons pleas.

If Rust never goes gold.. I got my money's worth. Besides.. let's be honest.. in the survival game genre.. isn't going gold probably meaning that sales have dried up? I think most people who bought DayZ got their money's worth.. even with a buggy broken-ish game.

Where DF fucked up is releasing a game without any idea how to make the game fun after a year... that's on them.. not the consumers.. and them deflecting that back to the consumers as not supporting it is pretty BS.

 

[CecilRousso]

and them deflecting that back to the consumers as not supporting it is pretty BS.

What was the choice if the game didn't sell? What they should have done before or at the release is open for discussion, but at this point? Playing Captain Hindsight doesn't really help with a situation that you have now.

 

[NervousXtian]

What was the choice if the game didn't sell? What they should have done before or at the release is open for discussion, but at this point? Playing Captain Hindsight doesn't really help with a situation that you have now.

Playing Captain Hindsight is really about what this is about. Isn't this really a discussion on what got us to this point.

It's about the choices DF made from first EA release until now. It's about them never making a compelling product that COULD make this type of funding method work.

It's about them not being honest from the get-go about how the game was being funded.

What should they have done? They should have continued to work on the game to make it a compelling product. Unless we all want to agree it's a broken idea for a game.. which I don't think it is. Just they had the wrong people working on it, or not enough people. Either way, they could have tried a last ditch effort to make the product worthwhile.

Instead, they are saying.. done.

 

[exmachina64]

Playing Captain Hindsight is really about what this is about. Isn't this really a discussion on what got us to this point.

It's about the choices DF made from first EA release until now. It's about them never making a compelling product that COULD make this type of funding method work.

It's about them not being honest from the get-go about how the game was being funded.

What should they have done? They should have continued to work on the game to make it a compelling product. Unless we all want to agree it's a broken idea for a game.. which I don't think it is. Just they had the wrong people working on it, or not enough people. Either way, they could have tried a last ditch effort to make the product worthwhile.

Instead, they are saying.. done.

The answer to this is that Spacebase DF-9 was never fun. It was the worst Amnesia Fortnight prototype of its year and there was no point to it.

I wasn't aware of this. I stopped watching the documentary around episode 15 when they stated it had spoilers for part one of the game and I'm waiting for both parts before I play it.

I also think this is pretty questionable. Completion of the game and it's quality is now entirely dependent on additional sales after they've gone through all the Kickstarter funds and extra money they raised. I consider myself a well wisher of DF but this is some shockingly poor project management on display.

I can understand that you want to play the game as a complete whole, but there's no point to doing that.

Here's a spoiler-free spoiler:

Spoiler

Episode 1 ends on a cliffhanger and is meant to be experienced chronologically separately from Episode 2, like a season of TV or taking a break between the episodes of Alan Wake.

Meanwhile, the documentary has some compelling content you're missing out on. It'd be better financially if the scope was smaller and the game was shorter, but it's enjoyable for what it is.

I'm not sure they can afford, let alone want, to focus all their ressources on one project and take the risk that it could fail and put the company at risk financially. Their current model allows them to hedge their bets and diversify their portfolio in a market where success often seems to hinge on catching lightning in a bottle.
Plus if you remember even back when they were a 1 game at at time studio they still struggled to have its core gameplay be as compelling and polished as its art and narrative.

This probably also needs to be restated periodically so people remember. Brutal Legend was the largest game the company ever worked on and it almost bankrupted the company financially and emotionally. The company almost didn't survive, so they decided to focus on smaller games, as Jb said.

 

[CecilRousso]

What should they have done? They should have continued to work on the game to make it a compelling product. Unless we all want to agree it's a broken idea for a game.. which I don't think it is. Just they had the wrong people working on it, or not enough people. Either way, they could have tried a last ditch effort to make the product worthwhile.

Instead, they are saying.. done.

The idea might not be broken, but when you reach a certain point in a project, you can't just restart it. Unless you have shitloads of money. It is what it is, and to keep spending money when the future is bleak for the project would just be irresponsible. That would require money being taken from other projects, and that's hardly something that going to please the crowd.

That people aren't satisfied with a purchased project, that happens all the time, for games of all kinds and sizes.

They shouldn't have released the game as barebones as it was, and they should have communicated things better, but to just keep going now would be dumb.

 

[Parsnip]

It's about them not being honest from the get-go about how the game was being funded.

Weren't they though?

Spacebase is intended to be developed as long as the community shows enthusiasm and it keeps selling, so it's hard to say exactly when it will be "done," because ideally we'll keep adding to it for a while.

I mean, that's pretty cut and dry, isn't it?

Their FAQ "How long do you plan to continue developing this game?" used to say more or less the same thing, but it looks like it's one more thing they decided to edit since it now talks about the upcoming 1.0 release.

 

[mattiewheels]

I just hope Doublefine can have a healthy future. So many things from the last few years make it seem like they're constantly having to switch gears.