Support NeoGAF

[Brad Grenz]

I don't preorder games. Ever.

FTL had the benefit of an extremely modest need (they were only asking for like 10K, right?) and a freely playable version through OnLive's IGF deal.

But what happens if Wasteland 2 finally comes out and it sucks? If you thought people were mad at the Mass Effect 3 ending, I promise you that will look like nothing compared the the outrage of the people who raised millions to get that game made.

How would a studio bounce back from that kind of a hit to the reputation? If they're owned by EA, with marketing and long term planning. If you're and indie at the mercy of your fan base for crowd funding, that would end you.

 

[MrBud360]

Yep, and while it's fine and it works, it's nothing to write home about.
In fact, the Onyx engine is probably better.

I'm not just saying about the Visuals. When i said WasteLand engine, i mean everything: Visuals, Camera, game mechanics, gameplay. It's possible that Obsidian will just take the Wasteland SDK and do a new game. Will be great because we know Wasteland will be old school hardcore stuff and Obsidian are the masters of western RPG stories.

 

[Fjordson]

I'm not angry about anything,

I just worry that the gold rush mentality surrounding Kickstarter, the literal investment of "fans" in games no one has ever played and the manipulations of the site by importers who are literally using it to flip preexisting products at a huge mark up will eventually lead to some epic, studio-destroying, backer-chilling scandals and melt downs.

And generally, as a rule, I don't like to spend money on things I won't get for 18 months of an unverifiable quality.

The second point is totally fair in my opinion.

I worry at times about that as well, but I just can't help getting hyped about some of these projects, even though it could burn me in the end. Like Shadowrun Returns, good lawd I want that game.

If something like that or Wasteland 2 ends up being shitty then I'll be absolutely crushed, but I'll have no one to blame but myself.

 

[RoboPlato]

A countdown to a Kickstarter seems really scummy to me. I'm all for Kickstarter but trying to raise hype for an announcement only for it to be "give us money" is a dick move.

 

[Lancehead]

Without kickstarter games like these wouldn't even see the light of day, so it's not like these projects failing makes any difference to publisher funded projects.

 

[MrBud360]

I don't preorder games. Ever.

FTL had the benefit of an extremely modest need (they were only asking for like 10K, right?) and a freely playable version through OnLive's IGF deal.

But what happens if Wasteland 2 finally comes out and it sucks? If you thought people were mad at the Mass Effect 3 ending, I promise you that will look like nothing compared the the outrage of the people who raised millions to get that game made.

How would a studio bounce back from that kind of a hit to the reputation? If they're owned by EA, with marketing a long term planning. If you're and indie at the mercy of your fan base for crowd funding, that would end you.

Usually they ask for a 10$ minimum. If you don't have 10 bucks to help a game that can be a really good game that we don't see anymore, you really need a better job.

 

[Alastor]

epic, studio-destroying scandals and melt downs.

We have these already, it's not going to be worse because of Kickstarter. I can change for the better, though.

 

[Pooya]

I just hope they have something to show, not just concept artworks and design documents.

 

[duckroll]

I don't preorder games. Ever.

FTL had the benefit of an extremely modest need (they were only asking for like 10K, right?) and a freely playable version through OnLive's IGF deal.

But what happens if Wasteland 2 finally comes out and it sucks? If you thought people were mad at the Mass Effect 3 ending, I promise you that will look like nothing compared the the outrage of the people who raised millions to get that game made.

How would a studio bounce back from that kind of a hit to the reputation? If they're owned by EA, with marketing and long term planning. If you're and indie at the mercy of your fan base for crowd funding, that would end you.

If Wasteland 2 sucks, then it sucks. Why do I care how a studio would bounce back if they made a shitty game?

 

[whalleywhat]

I don't preorder games. Ever.

FTL had the benefit of an extremely modest need (they were only asking for like 10K, right?) and a freely playable version through OnLive's IGF deal.

But what happens if Wasteland 2 finally comes out and it sucks? If you thought people were mad at the Mass Effect 3 ending, I promise you that will look like nothing compared the the outrage of the people who raised millions to get that game made.

How would a studio bounce back from that kind of a hit to the reputation? If they're owned by EA, with marketing and long term planning. If you're and indie at the mercy of your fan base for crowd funding, that would end you.

A game sucking is highly subjective. I mean, plenty of people are unhappy with the direction Minecraft has taken since buying into the Beta, and plenty of people are happy with it. Unless it can be demonstrated that funds were in some way squandered or mishandled, people wouldn't really have anything legitimate to be mad about. Plenty of reviewers overrate AAA games because of all the hype and PR that surrounds them, so it's not as if something being funded by a publisher is going to help you avoid blowing money on a bad game.

I don't know why you think the amount of money raised makes any difference in crowd funding. If I give $20 to a $10,000 game or $20 to a million dollar game, I haven't 'helped raise' any more money in the second case.

A countdown to a Kickstarter seems really scummy to me. I'm all for Kickstarter but trying to raise hype for an announcement only for it to be "give us money" is a dick move.

When someone suggested that it could be a countdown to a Kickstarter, my initial thought was, "That might backfire," but then I pretty much immediately went back to being excited about the game.

 

[Perkel]

A countdown to a Kickstarter seems really scummy to me. I'm all for Kickstarter but trying to raise hype for an announcement only for it to be "give us money" is a dick move.

Why is it a dick move ?

Kickstarter idea is all about hype. Amount of money you can generate is connected directly to hype and creating drive.

Also this countdown could be countdown to kickstarter not for anoucement of anoucement of kickstarter which will go live in near future.

If i would be in place of Obsidian i would create drive before kickstarter starts.

 

[duckroll]

A countdown to a Kickstarter seems really scummy to me. I'm all for Kickstarter but trying to raise hype for an announcement only for it to be "give us money" is a dick move.

Really? Isn't that what all commercial countdowns are for? That's what I thought anyway. When Activision counts down to a Call of Duty unveil, what are they saying other than "give us money" to the CoD fanbase? Lol.

 

[Brad Grenz]

If Wasteland 2 sucks, then it sucks. Why do I care how a studio would bounce back if they made a shitty game?

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded? The negativity surrounding the title would be far greater than it is now. If Obsidian's name is mud across the internet, no one would support them through a new project, whether through crowd sourcing or a publisher. End result: Obsidian is out of business because Kickstarter created an unhealthy level of player investment.

 

[Herla]

That's how I read it, too.
It sounds pretty much "Let's take this excuse to talk about something that is totally unrelated to our secret announce".

I take it more as "here are my views on fantasy and what you should expect from me in case I make a game in that setting".

"Eternity", or whatever it will be called, might not be The Black Hound, but I'm pretty sure it will end up having various elements of it. And that makes me even more excited, to be honest.

 

[SparkTR]

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded? The negativity surrounding the title would be far greater than it is now. If Obsidian's name is mud across the internet, no one would support them through a new project, whether through crowd sourcing or a publisher. End result: Obsidian is out of business because Kickstarter created an unhealthy level of player investment.

A lot of people are supporting Kickstarter projects so developers can make the games they want and not the games publishers want. Dungeon Siege 3 was one of those games, it felt simplified and stripped down to reach a broader, more marketable audience and I suspect that's where a lot of the hate is coming from in regards to that particular title. So yeah, I'll be backing this so we don't get another DS3.

 

[Lancehead]

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded? The negativity surrounding the title would be far greater than it is now. If Obsidian's name is mud across the internet, no one would support them through a new project, whether through crowd sourcing or a publisher. End result: Obsidian is out of business because Kickstarter created an unhealthy level of player investment.

The key point is many believe Obsidian free from publisher shackles will deliver a great product i.e. there wouldn't have been a Dungeon Siege 3 if it were a kickstarter. If they fail to deliver a compelling product with kickstarter then yeah they'd deserve the criticism they get. Obsidian would be out of business because they failed to take a great (and their last) opportunity.

 

[Aaron]

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded? The negativity surrounding the title would be far greater than it is now. If Obsidian's name is mud across the internet, no one would support them through a new project, whether through crowd sourcing or a publisher. End result: Obsidian is out of business because Kickstarter created an unhealthy level of player investment.

So you would rather they go out of business now, instead of risking the possibility of going out of business in the future? Because for a developer to survive they need work, and the money has got to come from somewhere. Double Fine would have had to lay off a whole team if not for kickstarter. I'm sure Obsidian is the same or worse.

 

[MrBud360]

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded? The negativity surrounding the title would be far greater than it is now. If Obsidian's name is mud across the internet, no one would support them through a new project, whether through crowd sourcing or a publisher. End result: Obsidian is out of business because Kickstarter created an unhealthy level of player investment.

The game would had a better chance of success if its was crowd funding. It's a direct interaction between the gamers and the developers. The developers will do exactly what the gamers are expecting. Dungeon Siege 3 was lame because it tried to reach others gamers. This time will be a no error choice. They will be doing a old RPG game school. People will fund this because they want, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Kotor 2 back. Simple like that. Gamers will ask for the same mechanics, gameplay and etc....

 

[Vlodril]

I also think the whole idea of generating momentum before even starting is a great one.

I usually dislike announcements for announcements but in this case it works because that's how kickstarter works. Its based on hype so the sooner you get it going the better.

Beaten by Perkel.

 

[duckroll]

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded? The negativity surrounding the title would be far greater than it is now. If Obsidian's name is mud across the internet, no one would support them through a new project, whether through crowd sourcing or a publisher. End result: Obsidian is out of business because Kickstarter created an unhealthy level of player investment.

I would not have given a single cent to a Kickstarter for Obsidian to make an action RPG with loot in the Dungeon Siege universe because:

a) that's not what I want out of Obsidian
b) Dungeon Siege is a stupid series with a boring world
c) Obsidian sucks at action

Coincidentally, those are the same reasons why I think Dungeon Siege 3 wasn't very good at all.

Food for thought.

 

[Zeliard]

I'm trying to keep my hype for this in check but it's not going very well.

 

[Woo-Fu]

It would be interesting to see if Obsidian could produce a finished game on time/on budget when not pressured by a publisher. I mean, that is the perennial excuse for how buggy their games ship. Might be interesting to put money in the kickstarter just to learn that answer.

Dungeon Siege 3 was doomed to suck, btw, just because of the franchise. Even as a bland and boring game it was still better than the previous games, which admittedly isn't saying much.

 

[RoboPlato]

Really? Isn't that what all commercial countdowns are for? That's what I thought anyway. When Activision counts down to a Call of Duty unveil, what are they saying other than "give us money" to the CoD fanbase? Lol.

At least they'll have something to show. This is a countdown for something that may happen if they get enough money from fans.

 

[Minsc]

But what happens if Wasteland 2 finally comes out and it sucks?

Then it sucks. The alternative to it sucking (and hey, don't forget, it may just be great!) is it never coming out at all or being made to please a publisher instead of the actual people paying for the game to be made. Just knowingly removing that constraint is worthwhile enough for me in some cases.

 

[Lancehead]

At least they'll have something to show. This is a countdown for something that may happen if they get enough money from fans.

And that's exactly why they're hyping. So they may get enough money to make it happen.

I'm not sure why you're assuming they'll have nothing to show.

 

[Perkel]

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded? The negativity surrounding the title would be far greater than it is now. If Obsidian's name is mud across the internet, no one would support them through a new project, whether through crowd sourcing or a publisher. End result: Obsidian is out of business because Kickstarter created an unhealthy level of player investment.

No it will be out if they will release shitty games not unhealthy level of player investment.

edit:

I can understand people saying kickstarter projects are dangerous that is a feeling but when you start to think realistically and you try to understand gaming industry, there is simply no worse end to standard one. In many cases it is actually better for whole.

Player investment also give them opportunity to alpha-beta test game. Developers can also thanks to that skip a lot of internal QA meaning game will be more refined.
Various concepts can be added and tested before even game will be released.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The Ouroboros could also relate to Torment if we want:

That's not really a stretch. They symbol of torment was a broken Ouroboros. The pain of the worm that stops eating it's own tail representing the pain of the main characters.

 

[Himself]

Awesome. The fact that it is possibly going kickstarter may mean that the game is something too interesting/risky for a big publisher to take on and that Obsidian will have free reign to do whatever they please.

I'm so in.

 

[duckroll]

Something like Kickstarter is only "dangerous" in the same way petroleum is "dangerous" or Government services and Social Welfare is "dangerous". The only inherent danger is the perceived ones created by people who are actively looking for reasons to shoot down a concept which they simply don't like for whatever personal reason.

It's okay to not like something, just say so. There's no need to create extra reasons to try and warn people away from something.

 

[Brad Grenz]

A lot of people are supporting Kickstarter projects so developers can make the games they want and not the games publishers want. Dungeon Siege 3 was one of those games, it felt simplified and stripped down to reach a broader, more marketable audience and I suspect that's where a lot of the hate is coming from in regards to that particular title. So yeah, I'll be backing this so we don't get another DS3.

The key point is many believe Obsidian free from publisher shackles will deliver a great product i.e. there wouldn't have been a Dungeon Siege 3 if it were a kickstarter. If they fail to deliver a compelling product with kickstarter then yeah they'd deserve the criticism they get. Obsidian would be out of business because they failed to take a great (and their last) opportunity.

The game would had a better chance of success if its was crowd funding. It's a direct interaction between the gamers and the developers. The developers will do exactly what the gamers are expecting. Dungeon Siege 3 was lame because it tried to reach others gamers. This time will be a no error choice. They will be doing a old RPG game school. People will fund this because they want, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Kotor 2 back. Simple like that. Gamers will ask for the same mechanics, gameplay and etc....

I would not have given a single cent to a Kickstarter for Obsidian to make an action RPG with loot in the Dungeon Siege universe because:

a) that's not what I want out of Obsidian
b) Dungeon Siege is a stupid series with a boring world
c) Obsidian sucks at action

Coincidentally, those are the same reasons why I think Dungeon Siege 3 wasn't very good at all.

Food for thought.

You guys are fixating way too specifically on Dungeon Siege. It was just an example of Obsidian putting out what many people considered a dud. Duds happen. Things don't work out, you scale back, shift focus, try and reinvent and hope for the best, but duds happen. Here you guys are acting like Kickstarter will make Obsidian dud-proof and that's exactly the kind of magical thinking I'm worried by.

 

[duckroll]

You guys are fixating way too specifically on Dungeon Siege. It was just an example of Obsidian putting out what many people considered a dud. Duds happen. Things don't work out, you scale back, shift focus, try and reinvent and hope for the best, but duds happen. Here you guys are acting like Kickstarter will make Obsidian dud-proof and that's exactly the kind of magical thinking I'm worried by.

You brought up Dungeon Siege 3, not us. We are not fixating on anything other than the example you gave. If you feel it was a bad example, then the fault lies on you for using a poor one. Dungeon Siege 3 is a poorly conceived game which most people were negative on from the day it was announced. I fail to see how backpedaling on this example makes you look good at all. DS3 is not a dud which seemed promising, and then just failed to live up to expectations. It was Obsidian wasting their time and talent on something they weren't suited for, and most fans had low expectations from the start because it looked so bland.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

mmmmm I think the games that Osidian is used to can't be funded by kickstarter.
Even if it was an AMAZING game they can't get like 20 mil from kickstarter.

Will see maybe its a much smaller game than.

 

[duckroll]

Because I like to make fun of people with terrible debating skills:

Look at it this way: a lot of people in this thread think Dungeon Siege 3 was lame. What if it had been crowd funded?

Here your entire post was telling people to look at this example, and consider what would have happened if Dungeon Siege 3 was crowd funded.

You guys are fixating way too specifically on Dungeon Siege.

Here you are telling people that by actually considering what would have happened if Dungeon Siege 3 was crowd funded, they are fixating way too specifically on Dungeon Siege.

Please make up your mind good sir.

 

[Brad Grenz]

You brought up Dungeon Siege 3, not us. We are not fixating on anything other than the example you gave. If you feel it was a bad example, then the fault lies on you for using a poor one. Dungeon Siege 3 is a poorly conceived game which most people were negative on from the day it was announced. I fail to see how backpedaling on this example makes you look good at all. DS3 is not a dud which seemed promising, and then just failed to live up to expectations. It was Obsidian wasting their time and talent on something they weren't suited for, and most fans had low expectations from the start because it looked so bland.

My argument was about what happens if a project is poorly received, not about the quality of Dungeon Siege 3 which is what all the responses were about. Imagine I used the words "Project Y" instead, a game which you know nothing about and can offer no critique of. All you know is it came out after being crowd funded and people were disappointed, often hysterically so. If the fans have turned on them and the publishers have deemed them untouchable, how does Obsidian recover from that?

 

[duckroll]

My argument was about what happens if a project is poorly received, not about the quality of Dungeon Siege 3 which is what all the responses were about. Imagine I used the words "Project Y" instead, a game which you know nothing about and can offer no critique of. All you know is it came out after being crowd funded and people were disappointed, often hysterically so. If the fans have turned on them and the publishers have deemed them untouchable, how does Obsidian recover from that?

That's a straw man argument. You're just making up stuff to attack because there is no basis for your actual fundamental point. Admit it. You picked Dungeon Siege 3 because it's a poorly received game from Obsidian. But you exposed that you didn't really know or care why it was poorly received after the facts came out. So now you're saying that it doesn't matter and it could be a "Project Y" instead? What is Project Y? What is attractive about it? Why would I put 50 bucks into it? Or 100 bucks? Or 200 bucks? Your statements all fall apart.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Admit what? That you don't understand how to parse hypotheticals and become fixated on extraneous details in an effort to disguise your ignorance and "win points" in a debate no one is having?

 

[Lancehead]

My argument was about what happens if a project is poorly received, not about the quality of Dungeon Siege 3 which is what all the responses were about. Imagine I used the words "Project Y" instead, a game which you know nothing about and can offer no critique of. All you know is it came out after being crowd funded and people were disappointed, often hysterically so. If the fans have turned on them and the publishers have deemed them untouchable, how does Obsidian recover from that?

Your argument is based on the circumstance that Obsidian promises something and delivers something completely different. Setting aside the unlikely-ness of it, since kickstarter is a very involved process for backers and developers, if it indeed happens then they probably deserve the consequences of their actions. If they're also untouchable by publishers then they'd have wasted a great opportunity. That would be tantamount to suicidal.

In all of that I don't see how kickstarter is dangerous, which was your original argument. All I see is a studio being wasteful and careless and possibly lacking the talent to deliver something good.

 

[duckroll]

Admit what? That you don't understand how to parse hypotheticals and become fixated on extraneous details in an effort to disguise your ignorance and "win points" in a debate no one is having?

The only person here who seems to be unable to properly parse hypotheticals is you. It seems like you refuse to accept that people who support Kickstarters actually research what they're funding, and instead you want to create this imaginary scenario where we're all a bunch of crazy fans who know nothing about anything, put money to invest in something which could turn out to be shit and then go insane when it turns out to be bad because we're all irrational. Or something like that.

 

[Trigger]

So the reveal should be tomorrow, right?

 

[Perkel]

The only person here who seems to be unable to properly parse hypotheticals is you. It seems like you refuse to accept that people who support Kickstarters actually research what they're funding, and instead you want to create this imaginary scenario where we're all a bunch of crazy fans who know nothing about anything, put money to invest in something which could turn out to be shit and then go insane when it turns out to be bad because we're all irrational. Or something like that.

Well said.

Mayority of people funding kickstarters are fans of those people. Involvement is completely optional.
If they are not fans they know something and they have will to risk some money for promise of game concept and then full game which they may like.

If you don't want to pay for it you can simply wait and buy it when game gets reviewed. There is no risk in that option.

Second side of this problem is if dev will release shitty game they won't have more chances so they must to do it right.

 

[Parham]

So the reveal should be tomorrow, right?

Yes.

 

[robin2]

Seems like a kickstarter for the fabled Torment successor..

..but shouldn't Obsidian focus on trying to establish an AAA IP? I mean, aren't they a 100+ people AAA studio? They're working on South Park but after that would a kickstarted 3~M$ project be enough to sustain them?

 

[Minsc]

Funny, though self-fulfilling I suppose, how the people who are most against the idea of crowd-sourced games are also:

- the people with the least likeliness to spend money on it
- often the least amount of experience / knowledge of the process (being unwilling to participate in them)
- arguments involve those that do spend money on it
- frame spending a normally trivial amount of money like the price of a drink or movie ticket as if it was the most important decision of their lives

Meanwhile, those who are spending the money crowd-sourcing games and are generally more familiar with the process involved are the ones who are:

- the clueless victims

 

[Minsc]

Talk about generalizations.

I wish I was wrong, but I assure you, I'm not. The majority of kickstarters threads when they started were plagued with those types of people, it got very bad. A few still pop out once and a while.

 

[dude]

People who are against Kickstarters... I just don't get you. Just don't fund the game and if it's good buy it when it's ready. No one is forcing you to give these games money, and the game is still sold through conventional means.

 

[Perkel]

Ok people now we must focus on a actual project.

How are you bids ?

I think it will be around 4 to 5 mln$ They currently have top RPG devs of golden era. If CHRIS would alone do kickstarter he would get his game funded. Now add Tim Cain and J Sawyer and you have amazing nostalgia drive of prooven devs .

 

[Trigger]

Ok people now we must focus on a actual project.

How are you bids ?

I think it will be around 4 to 5 mln$ They currently have top RPG devs of golden era. If CHRIS would alone do kickstarter he would get his game funded. Now add Tim Cain and J Sawyer and you have amazing nostalgia drive of prooven devs .

I don't see more than 3 million with just concept art and lore alone. If they have something to show (like a prototype) then maybe 4 million. 5 milli is reaching IMO.

 

[Famassu]

Now I am less excited. Kickstarter means that whatever it is, is not even in development, or not for real.

I'm pretty sure they've said that they don't want to start their Kickstarter project with just promises of how awesome their game will be. So at the very least I'm sure they've done a lot of pre-development stuff & have a more or less detailed plans of what they are going to do. That's why it's taken this long for them to jump on the Kickstarter-wagon, even though people have been glamouring for one ever since Double Fine did what they did.

I mean, if this is a Kickstarter, the whole countdown site would suggest they have something big to announce, and I'm not sure if just initializing a "Obsidian RPG" Kickstarter project warrants this kind of hype. I think it HAS to be something a lot more concrete.

 

[Herla]

Ok people now we must focus on a actual project.

How are you bids ?

I think it will be around 4 to 5 mln$ They currently have top RPG devs of golden era. If CHRIS would alone do kickstarter he would get his game funded. Now add Tim Cain and J Sawyer and you have amazing nostalgia drive of prooven devs .

It has the potential of making more than Wasteland 2, but kickstarter fatigue plus Wasteland itself (I bet for many pledging for that one was enough) make me think it will have about the same success.

Without licensing issues (contrary to inXile, they do have an engine) it will be more than enough.

 

[duckroll]

It has the potential of making more than Wasteland 2, but kickstarter fatigue plus Wasteland itself (I bet for many pledging for that one was enough) make me think it will have about the same success.

Without licensing issues (contrary to inXile, they do have an engine) it will be more than enough.

I think a lot of the potential has to do with what they show on Friday. The more appealing the concept, and the more pre-production they've done on it, the more likely it will get stronger media support and word of mouth.