Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

DF9 doesnt seem to be nearly as failure as folks want it to be. They worked on, until it ran out of money. Which is exactly what they said they would do. They didnt even have a road map out. They had list of stuff they wanted to do, but werent able to. Broken Age may have been and probably was mismanage, but that doesn't mean DoubleFine is duplicitous. Its still one of the early crowd source games, and they failed to understand the extra work and cost of the stretch goals. Stretch goals for larger things now, are now preplanned.  Even Giant in the Playground ran into the same problem. They ran out of their crowd source money, and werent done with all their stretch goals either.

And then there issue where crowd source projects are disadvantage when trying to negotiate prices, as their capitcal is public. Its one of the few legit things that plauged the Ouya. It makes a lot of stuff more expensive then first figured.

At least double fine announced that DF9 closed down. A lot of early access game dont even do that. They just diappear.

[Reelya]

I love a lot of the games he's done since then. Most of them have been mentioned already. The man does know how to make a squad level turn based strategy game. But I think we've reached the point where he's got such a history that we simply won't find another team up like Microprose. The people who respect him for what he does won't tend to guide him away from what he wants to do to make any groundbreaking new combinations. (Or he won't tolerate working in such an environment anymore now that he's a celebrity of some note in the industry.)The people who would be able to break new ground don't see a dinosaur and honestly, sort of a one trick pony like him, as worth the trouble to get where they want.

I really don't know about that. Look at the games he released in the last 10 years. They include Chessmaster for XBox Live, an action game (Assassin's Creed III: Liberation) for PS Vita, and a Tom Clancy game for 3DS. He seems to have no problem collaborating on other people's IP and on games that aren't turn-based tactics games, either, and also on releasing things on a wide variety of different hardware.

What you're saying about his personality just sounds extremely unlikely for someone who was already a celebrity, but spent 10 years happily working on other people's games at a major studio. He's not some "celebrity-snob" "one-trick-pony" who only makes tactics games and doesn't work well with others, because he's too stuck in the mud to listen to their ideas. That's just not consistent with what we know about his track record.

[nenjin]

At least double fine announced that DF9 closed down. A lot of early access game dont even do that. They just diappear.

I wouldn't mistake being too well known to quietly fuck off for some moral obligation to be straight with backers. IIRC they only said DF9 was shutdown after going radio silent for a long time and people going "WTF is going on with this game, are you guys going to finish it or not."

I'd also accept "it was the early days of crowdfunding" for a first time developer who got in over their head. That is abso-fucking-lutely not Double Fine, who had been cranking out games in a publisher environment for years prior to Kickstarter. And when they start doing it, suddenly they don't understand budgets? BS. I think it was a test to see how much they could get out of crowd funding a loosely developed game and, shock, discovered people don't like it when they pay you for something you're only half-committed to finishing.

The fact they made DF9 then immediately turned around and birthed Fig tells me they learned how the market works in crowdfunding and decided it was way more profitable and less risky to be a facilitator than a creator.

[ZeroGravitas]

....yes, so what is exactly dumb about boycotting an unethical publisher? Same logic applies to any purchase decisions where the reputation of the company is tarnished. It is exactly the same as avoiding Nestle or Comcast or any other company with soiled reputation. That is how consumers are supposed to have an effect on the free market, duh.

how is fig unethical?

it's also not "the double fine guys". one of the three founders was from double fine. the other two aren't. their board is full of non-double fine people.

[nenjin]

I'd explain and link shit but you know what? I've done that multiple times in this thread. Read if you want to know.

[ZeroGravitas]

I'd explain and link shit but you know what? I've done that multiple times in this thread. Read if you want to know.

well, i didn't ask you, but since you've responded: you linked one youtube video back from the psychonauts 2 campaign, and whined that fig is not assuming any risk in publishing the game while standing to receive a cut of the sales. which of course is no different than any publisher; you use one person's money to fund a third person's game, and pay back the one person's money plus extra, keep some yourself, and hopefully there's some left over for the developer. it's not even really different than kickstarter: give a developer a platform to solicit donations/make pre-sales, and then keep a percentage for the privilege of hosting the fundraiser on kickstarter.

and it's not like Fig doesn't actually pay money out: https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profitable-game-equity-investment-kingdoms-and-castles

so again, what is the unique problem that Fig has that is somehow worse than kickstarter or any other publisher?

[nenjin]

https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profitable-game-equity-investment-kingdoms-and-castles

So it took until last month before they had a Fig success story worth talking about? Well blllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww me down. The system clearly works. I wonder if they have any stats about how much money was pissed away on other projects that never showed a return, and how much money Fig made off their failure?

well, i didn't ask you, but since you've responded: you linked one youtube video back from the psychonauts 2 campaign, and whined that fig is not assuming any risk in publishing the game while standing to receive a cut of the sales. which of course is no different than any publisher; you use one person's money to fund a third person's game, and pay back the one person's money plus extra, keep some yourself, and hopefully there's some left over for the developer. it's not even really different than kickstarter: give a developer a platform to solicit donations/make pre-sales, and then keep a percentage for the privilege of hosting the fundraiser on kickstarter.

You forgot the fact the companies are structured so that literally overnight they could pull the plug and everyone, including developers, would be completely fucked.

so again, what is the unique problem that Fig has that is somehow worse than kickstarter or any other publisher?

Because Fig is a money making pyramid scheme dressing itself up as an advocate for indie developers. EA, Ubisoft, WB, they may all suck but at least you know where they stand. They're not selling you, indie game developer and minimum wage gamer, a pipe dream about becoming rich through your hobby or chosen profession. And with Kickstarter, they take a flat cut of the pledges and that's fucking it. The rest of it goes to the developer. No revenue sharing, no "minimum sales requirements on return." None. Of. That. Shit.

Let me put it another way though. Kickstarter asked you to gamble your money so you might get a fun game and some developer might earn a living. Fig is literally asking you to gamble your money to make money. I know these days people seem to think it's ok to pollute the entire entertainment sector with cash incentives for fucking everyone. To me, that's poisoning the well, by making it about something other than a good game.

[ZeroGravitas]

https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profitable-game-equity-investment-kingdoms-and-castles

So it took until literally last month before they had a Fig success story worth talking about? Well blllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww me down.

development takes years. unsurprising that a small city builder-type game was the first to release (the fundraising target was under $200k). the platform launched in 2015.

well, i didn't ask you, but since you've responded: you linked one youtube video back from the psychonauts 2 campaign, and whined that fig is not assuming any risk in publishing the game while standing to receive a cut of the sales. which of course is no different than any publisher; you use one person's money to fund a third person's game, and pay back the one person's money plus extra, keep some yourself, and hopefully there's some left over for the developer. it's not even really different than kickstarter: give a developer a platform to solicit donations/make pre-sales, and then keep a percentage for the privilege of hosting the fundraiser on kickstarter.

You forgot the fact the companies are structured so that literally overnight they could pull the plug and everyone, including developers, would be completely fucked.[/quote]

this isn't remotely true, but keep listening to your gator youtube videos.

so again, what is the unique problem that Fig has that is somehow worse than kickstarter or any other publisher?

Because Fig is a money making pyramid scheme dressing itself up as an advocate for indie developers. EA, Ubisoft, WB, they may all suck but at least you know where they stand. They're not selling you, indie game developer and minimum wage gamer, a pipe dream about becoming rich through your hobby or chosen profession. And with Kickstarter, they take a flat cut of the pledges and that's fucking it. The rest of it goes to the developer. No revenue sharing, no "minimum sales requirements on return." None. Of. That. Shit.

1) do you have any clue what a "pyramid scheme" is? they're not asking their backers to recruit other backers, who are then supposed to recruit other backers, etc. even if fig were a 100% scam, that's not what they're doing.

2) why exactly do you think they're selling pipe dreams? they're not offering anyone who isn't already a clearly established developer a chance to publish a game.

Let me put it another way though. Kickstarter asked you to gamble your money so you might get a fun game and some developer might earn a living. Fig is literally asking you to gamble your money to make money. I know these days people seem to think it's ok to pollute the entire entertainment sector with cash incentives for fucking everyone. To me, that's poisoning the well, by making it about something other than a good game.

so literally your objection is that when a normal AAA game is successful, some of the profits go to the AAA publisher (Ubisoft, WB, etc), wherewas when a fig game is successful, some of the profits go to the game's backers.

which is somehow "poisoning the well"

i guess all the kickstarter backers are so much happier to have t-shirts and their names in-game instead, huh

[nenjin]

development takes years. unsurprising that a small city builder-type game was the first to release (the fundraising target was under $200k). the platform launched in 2015.

And development takes less than years, too, as we've seen plenty of times from Kickstarter.

this isn't remotely true, but keep listening to your gator youtube videos.

He did the research. He actually looked at their filings. You have done....what, that I should give more weight to your opinion than his factual information, exactly? Do you understand how shell companies and liability work?

1) do you have any clue what a "pyramid scheme" is? they're not asking their backers to recruit other backers, who are then supposed to recruit other backers, etc. even if fig were a 100% scam, that's not what they're doing.

You might not get how pyramid schemes work either. Fig sits at the top. They lure the developers. The developers, who don't want to front any of their cash, in turn recruit backers. And then the marketing campaign starts. So yes, I think fits the definition of a pyramid scheme quite well, where the people at the bottom fuel the success of the people at the top, and assume the risk. If the game is a flop or development tanks or something goes wrong, first it's the backers who lose out. Then the developers lose out. Fig? Fig and its owners and its board are completely insulated from any losses due to how they structured the companies that make up the operation.

2) why exactly do you think they're selling pipe dreams? they're not offering anyone who isn't already a clearly established developer a chance to publish a game.

I’m interested in using Fig for my game. Are you accepting pitches?
Yes, we’re always on the lookout for great new games and would be happy to review your pitch. If you’d like to submit your game for consideration, please email pitches@fig.co and tell us more about what you’re working on. Due to a high amount of interest, it may take up to a week for us to get back to you -- thanks in advance for your patience!

Yeah. They really look like they're only going for accredited and established developers, and not just casting a net for any fish with a dream. All the super professional outfits I know just have a general submission email for new business traffic. A game selling $1 million in its first two weeks, for indie games, is not normal. It's not the standard. That's the pipe dream they're selling, both to developers and to the people that are like "Well shit if I throw in $1000 I could make $1000 by this time next year!"

so literally your objection is that when a normal AAA game is successful, some of the profits go to the AAA publisher (Ubisoft, WB, etc), wherewas when a fig game is successful, some of the profits go to the game's backers.

which is somehow "poisoning the well"

i guess all the kickstarter backers are so much happier to have t-shirts and their names in-game instead, huh

Like I said. Some people like this brave new world where we talk games but everyone, including players, has a profit motivation. Some people don't see anything wrong with CS:GO gambling sites or gambling-esqe MTX in single player games, or any of that. I do. Kickstarter has already shown what happens when your devs are as hungry for sourcing money as they are making their game. We've seen what publicity does for these things: they either are stupidly successful beyond anyone's imagination or they publicly crash and burn in spectacular fashion. And that's before there's even a playable game.

I *like* a financial divide between the people that make the games and the people that play them. I don't like what money does to the relationship either out of game or in game between players and developers. There are too many opportunities for manipulation and straight up fraud when the people you're asking to be fans are also the ones funding your game and stand to make or lose money on it. It's only half about the game at that point, and I get too many half games already out of crowdfunded projects to want to see it become even more prevalent in the gaming space.

I like Kickstarter as a reasonable compromise. Dev studio asks for money to make a game, facilitator takes a small cut of just the pledge, and all the backer has to worry about is whether it gets finished and whether or not they'll like it. Christ, even without standing to profit from a game, Kickstarter backers are deeply concerned where the money goes and how it's spent. And that's already more than I want to be invested in most games.

In the end though, it's the fact they worked so hard to be allowed to deal with unaccredited investors. I.e. people who probably don't know shit about investing and may not be financially stable enough for it to be a good idea for them to invest, that pisses me off the most. Fig is targeting a vulnerable population and trying to get them to gamble their money so they can enrich themselves, all in the name of "indie" and "community!" and "games!"

[ZeroGravitas]

development takes years. unsurprising that a small city builder-type game was the first to release (the fundraising target was under $200k). the platform launched in 2015.

And development takes less than years, too, as we've seen plenty of times from Kickstarter.

That is exactly what I'm saying, genius. The Castles and Kingdoms campaign finished in January 2017. The OLDEST campaign on fig finished in september 2015. no fig game has even gone through "years" of development yet.

He did the research. He actually looked at their filings. You have done....what, that I should give more weight to your opinion than his factual information, exactly? Do you understand how shell companies and liability work?

That's exactly it. I'm a tax lawyer. I couldn't do anything but roll my eyes through most of the video (especially starting around 10 minutes onwards) because all of it is true - but completely elementary and meaningless to anyone who has any clue how financing works. Everything outlined in the video is completely elementary - and not even particularly complex to someone who's cased delinquent taxpayers for years. There's nothing interesting to see there.

You might not get how pyramid schemes work either. Fig sits at the top. They lure the developers. The developers, who don't want to front any of their cash, in turn recruit backers. And then the marketing campaign starts. So yes, I think fits the definition of a pyramid scheme quite well, where the people at the bottom fuel the success of the people at the top, and assume the risk.

No. A pyramid scheme relies on each level recruiting yet another level. It's not like fig backers are encouraged to go out and recruit more backers and earn a cut of whomever they recruit. Fig has 3 well-defined and explicit levels, which, coincidentally, exactly match how the industry already works. The only difference is that you replace big corporate money and investors with crowdfunding.

(I was in a pyramid scheme once, in the late 1990s. I got a free ipod out of it.)

2) why exactly do you think they're selling pipe dreams? they're not offering anyone who isn't already a clearly established developer a chance to publish a game.

I’m interested in using Fig for my game. Are you accepting pitches?
Yes, we’re always on the lookout for great new games and would be happy to review your pitch. If you’d like to submit your game for consideration, please email pitches@fig.co and tell us more about what you’re working on. Due to a high amount of interest, it may take up to a week for us to get back to you -- thanks in advance for your patience!

Yeah. They really look like they're only going for accredited and established developers, and not just casting a net for any fish with a dream. All the super professional outfits I know just have a general submission email for new business traffic.

they do. for example paradox's is newgames@paradoxplaza.com

it's starting to seem like you really don't know much about any of this but watched an alarmist youtube video made by a guy who gets ad revenue exploiting your credulity

A game selling $1 million in its first two weeks, for indie games, is not normal. It's not the standard. That's the pipe dream they're selling, both to developers and to the people that are like "Well shit if I throw in $1000 I could make $1000 by this time next year!"

i'm not sure where you get this idea from. i think you watch too many youtube videos.

Like I said. Some people like this brave new world where we talk games but everyone, including players, has a profit motivation. Some people don't see anything wrong with CS:GO gambling sites or gambling-esqe MTX in single player games, or any of that. I do. Kickstarter has already shown what happens when your devs are as hungry for sourcing money as they are making their game. We've seen what publicity does for these things: they either are stupidly successful beyond anyone's imagination or they publicly crash and burn in spectacular fashion. And that's before there's even a playable game.

I *like* a financial divide between the people that make the games and the people that play them. I don't like what money does to the relationship either out of game or in game between players and developers. There are too many opportunities for manipulation and straight up fraud when the people you're asking to be fans are also the ones funding your game and stand to make or lose money on it. It's only half about the game at that point, and I get too many half games already out of crowdfunded projects to want to see it become even more prevalent in the gaming space.

I like Kickstarter as a reasonable compromise. Dev studio asks for money to make a game, facilitator takes a small cut of just the pledge, and all the backer has to worry about is whether it gets finished and whether or not they'll like it. Christ, even without standing to profit from a game, Kickstarter backers are deeply concerned where the money goes and how it's spent. And that's already more than I want to be invested in most games.

as i said once before in this thread, you're assuming that investing on fig is somebody trying to make money. it's just as fair to assume they're someone willing to get little or no return so that they can invest in a developer or idea they like. buying a $1000 fig share of a game instead of paying $1000 for an NPC named after you seems reasonable.

[nenjin]

That is exactly what I'm saying, genius. The Castles and Kingdoms campaign finished in January 2017. The OLDEST campaign on fig finished in september 2015. no fig game has even gone through "years" of development yet.

So if they've had one project go from campaign to release and sales in 6 months....where are any of the other success stories, or stories period, of how things have fared on Fig?

but completely elementary and meaningless to anyone who has any clue how financing works. Everything outlined in the video is completely elementary - and not even particularly complex to someone who's cased delinquent taxpayers for years. There's nothing interesting to see there.

So I guess we'll assume that everyone who is planning on using Fig is as educated and well informed as a tax lawyer? Because I didn't know any of this and when I did, it made my decision for me not to use Fig. Interesting to a tax lawyer. Gee I guess not. Interesting to the rest of us rubes? Yeah, I'd say so.

It's not like fig backers are encouraged to go out and recruit more backers and earn a cut of whomever they recruit.

What exactly do you call exhorting backers to spread the word, get more backers, to get the game they have a financial interest in to get more money, so it can potentially sell better and make them more money back? Because that sounds like recruitment to me. I've also worked in a pyramid scheme before. Only I saw it for what it was in orientation and walked out.

The only difference is that you replace big corporate money and investors with crowdfunding.

That isn't the only difference. Another difference is in how they sell you on who they are. EA, Ubisoft, big publishers are faceless. They're monolithic. This is the good old "hey, we're people just like you who love games! We're not greedy and self-serving like the ebil publishers. We're about community! And definitely not bending you over as fast as EA or anyone else for a buck." Another difference is EA isn't courting unaccredited investors to fund their games. They damn well would if they could, and after Fig got permission I wouldn't doubt if they're exploring their own avenues of offloading development costs directly on consumers.

it's starting to seem like you really don't know much about any of this but watched an alarmist youtube video made by a guy who gets ad revenue exploiting your credulity

And you seem like you've got horseblinders on with a Fig logo on them. Gee isn't it fun when we both pillory each other? Or how about we just drop the snide personal attacks like anyone is winning points here.

i'm not sure where you get this idea from. i think you watch too many youtube videos.

I read industry news, from developers, who talk about their profits and what's likely versus not likely in the indie space. $1 million in two weeks is not normal, or even average. $10,000 in a couple weeks for your garden variety indie game is much closer to the mark.

it's just as fair to assume they're someone willing to get little or no return so that they can invest in a developer or idea they like. buying a $1000 fig share of a game instead of paying $1000 for an NPC named after you seems reasonable.

If someone wants to donate just out of the goodness of their heart or for a t-shirt, why would they seek the profit option at all? By definition you have a profit motivation if you seek the for-profit option. Ergo, your focus is not just on supporting the developer or the game, you've got an ulterior motive of personal enrichment as well.

[Rince Wind]

It would be interesting to know if many people use the profit option.
When you are just a regular backer there is no difference for you compared with kickstarter. You pay your money and pray to the gods of gaming that there will be a game at the end that you like playing.

[Draignean]

So, is there any discussion of a game here, or just a bunch of stiffies quivering with oh-so-righteous anger?

Personally, the dev-logs are a bit... I don't know, worrying. It's a personal thing, but I kinda dislike it when a game continuously defines itself in relation to other games. Realistic Ballistics also kinda makes my eyebrows levitate spontaneously, particularly considering the videos already shown. I get what they're doing, and I like it, I just think they're overselling a wee bit. I'm going to be interested to see how cover will actually work out, considering that I really like the idea of what they're doing, but it has the potential to make a couple of things really... wonk.

[nenjin]

For the record I'm still only at half-mast.

[IronyOwl]

It's a personal thing, but I kinda dislike it when a game continuously defines itself in relation to other games.

This is concerning in general, but what worries me more is the idea that the exploration phase is inspired by Stellaris and that's something they want to brag about. Like... you've got your mystery boxes, usually there's nothing in them, often there's goodies you can build harvesters over if you control the area, and sometimes there's boxes inside the boxes which you can then open again for immediate goodies or goodies to build harvesters over if you control the area. That's Stellaris exploration, at least, so unless you're amassing society research I'm not sure why "our map has grey question marks on it" warranted pointing at a particular precedent.

Realistic Ballistics also kinda makes my eyebrows levitate spontaneously, particularly considering the videos already shown. I get what they're doing, and I like it, I just think they're overselling a wee bit. I'm going to be interested to see how cover will actually work out, considering that I really like the idea of what they're doing, but it has the potential to make a couple of things really... wonk.

Every part of this sounds wonky and awful. FPS aiming to get around boxes on top of Fallout-style limb targeting? I don't see how that's going to work without making you wish it hadn't.