Entitled said:
No, maybe it's all a conspiracy to pretend that everyone will get the full game for one payment, right until the last minute.
No need to get snarky. Further the guy actually didn't know, which is why I asked the question, because I didn't either.
Entitled said:
Then again, if Double Fine would want to decieve you, they would only need to declare the first half of the story to be a finished game (that happens to end with a cliffhanger for "artistic reasons"), and then spend the next two years finishing the other half as "Broken Age 2" the slow way, or even start a new Kickstarter justified by how they "delivered their promise releasing a $3 million game, and now they want to do it again".
The only reason why you even have a chance complain that they might possibly only give you "half a game", is because they were open enough to disclose that they ended up thinking in much bigger than what they are ready to release. There are plenty of games, that cut huge amounts of unfinished material. That doesn't mean that they are all "less than a full game".
The knowledge that at one point during the development they had even bigger plans, doesn't harm you in any way.
I covered this in my last post.
All he had to do was hint at this and there is no problem. Let me try explaining one last time, because if this doesn't make it clear I don't think you and I are understanding each other at all.
Bob donated $10 to Joe in expectation of getting a game. Bob told lots of other people because Joe's idea was really good. Joe said he needed $400. But because Joe's idea is so good, he ended up with $3,200. Joe now has some options.
1.)He can make a crappy game that is below his actual budget($3,200) and risk the ire of his donors by pocketing the extra $2800.
2.) He can realize his budget has significantly increased and as result he needs to make a higher quality game in order to feel like he didn't let anyone down. He modifies his original concept to be a deeper experience and still able to be delivered on time on or under budget. The product is released and Joe is happy as is Bob.
3.)He can realize his budget has significantly increased and as result he needs to make a higher quality game in order to feel like he didn't let anyone down. Instead of figuring out a way to maximize his available resources, he let's the budget go his head and ends up having to alter the initial premise of the agreement.
I prefer option 2, but he chose option 3. Whatever, it's his choice but now his actions have consequences(as they should) In literally almost
any other profession(and even within game design) people have been fired or reprimanded by their company and the public for the failure(Peter Molyneaux anyone?)to not meet expectations. In this case, the expectation was
ONE game to be released in X amount of time. What we have now is
two games being released, one of which is already over budget necessitating high sales of game 1 to make game 2 a viable option. Further complicating this is the general public's "Eh, it's a kickstarter project. What did you expect?" attitude. I may be crazy(highly likely) but when I am told by anyone I have given money to, I expect them to hold up their end. The issue for me is
NOT that they have found a workable solution to make it viable, the issue for me is that due to horrid mismanagement they are unable to deliver the artist's original vision. You may substitute developer's product if that helps.
In a larger publisher I would understand but with this, but from what I have read, it was HIS PROJECT. If the project head is unable to accurately manage an enormously larger budget that doesn't meets his original end goal(one game, delivered on a set date with potential for more if wanted/needed),
something is wrong. You correctly pointed out that development is not like other businesses, but imagine if this scenario was played out in the business world. Heads would roll and oversight committees would be swooping down trying to find out where the excess money went. Maybe I am too grounded in that, and that is the problem, but ultimately companies sell games to make money. If it makes you feel better you can assume I am angry about his project manager's failures, or his budget committee's failures but that is ultimately what this is to me...a failure to up hold the agreement he originally made. What I don't know if I have made clear is that he changed(to my way of thinking) the bargain and now he wants everyone to be ok with it because he was so blown away by the budget he got carried away. Now again, I am not saying him making a better game is a problem. I actually approve of him doing that given his budget increase. What I
am saying is that altering the original deal rubs me the wrong way and people should be upset about it. Again, if Joe thinks he can make a good game for $400 and ends up with $3200, what exactly, is preventing him from making a game that is $2800 better on time? Aside from hubris. Or even if he had to announce that due to people's largess, he has to push back the product in order to make it better? Instead we get well here is a game that is going to be "better" than a $3200 game, but that's still not enough to complete where I wanted it to go, so have part A(Story, game, whichever term you like) and based on how well Part A does, we may get Part B which completes my original intent.
Sorry about the length, but I was really trying to make it clear.
" That is what I took out of it, and I am surprised that not that many people are angry. Even more surprised that people were okay with that. Remember the whole thing we all talked about of working within the limits so that production costs don't get bloated as AAA games do? Yeah, the guy kinda missed that memo.
