Broken Age Needs More Money
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really don't understand the anger about this. I mean, I do, because people love being angry about things, but I think people have entirely the wrong attitude about Kickstarters.
The point of Kickstarter is flexibility that publishers don't offer. This setback is something that fits squarely within the category of being flexible.
The thing that we should really be paying attention to is the fact that this game IS GETTING MADE. People in this thread keep saying "this is exactly what a publisher would go through." No it fucking isn't. A publisher would have canceled this by now. They wouldn't even have have picked it up.
A large budget 2D Adventure Game by Tim Schafer is something magical. Not rare, but impossible. It's like a Unicorn. The spirit of Kickstarter is precisely that. If someone is breeding a Unicorn and there are setbacks, you should quit complaining because SOMEONE IS BREEDING A GODDAMNED UNICORN. If you're really a Unicorn fan you should be happy it's happening at all. If not, then why did you back the Unicorn?
I understand holding developers accountable, and I recognize that Tim mishandled the budget. But when we rise up in anger over this stuff we are acting exactly like big publishers, and if the attitude flying around this was the deciding factor, Broken Age would be cancelled. This is why we can have Call of Gears of Bland IIX, but can't have Psychonauts 2. This is why we can't have nice things, because nice things come from artists and artists need patience and understanding. Anyone who is actually a backer can watch the documentary and see that Tim isn't smoking $100 bills and drinking cognac in an armchair. He's a geek with a huge vision, and instead of embracing all the bumps in the road people are yelling about things that barely effect them.
Christ, people JUST NOW stopped bitching about Reaper Bones...
The point of Kickstarter is flexibility that publishers don't offer. This setback is something that fits squarely within the category of being flexible.
The thing that we should really be paying attention to is the fact that this game IS GETTING MADE. People in this thread keep saying "this is exactly what a publisher would go through." No it fucking isn't. A publisher would have canceled this by now. They wouldn't even have have picked it up.
A large budget 2D Adventure Game by Tim Schafer is something magical. Not rare, but impossible. It's like a Unicorn. The spirit of Kickstarter is precisely that. If someone is breeding a Unicorn and there are setbacks, you should quit complaining because SOMEONE IS BREEDING A GODDAMNED UNICORN. If you're really a Unicorn fan you should be happy it's happening at all. If not, then why did you back the Unicorn?
I understand holding developers accountable, and I recognize that Tim mishandled the budget. But when we rise up in anger over this stuff we are acting exactly like big publishers, and if the attitude flying around this was the deciding factor, Broken Age would be cancelled. This is why we can have Call of Gears of Bland IIX, but can't have Psychonauts 2. This is why we can't have nice things, because nice things come from artists and artists need patience and understanding. Anyone who is actually a backer can watch the documentary and see that Tim isn't smoking $100 bills and drinking cognac in an armchair. He's a geek with a huge vision, and instead of embracing all the bumps in the road people are yelling about things that barely effect them.
Christ, people JUST NOW stopped bitching about Reaper Bones...
I love how everyone is acting like this is the first example of any piece of entertainment going over-budget in the history of mankind. Shit happens sometimes. I mean what's the alternative. I mean would you rather see a statement coming from double fine saying "Well we ended up going over budget so no one's getting the game at all." Honestly this is a much better alternative.
Two chapters, brilliant. They made the game that they could afford to make off the money we gave them and will use that to fund a sequel to it.
I honestly expected something like this but two chapters is an eloquent design since backers already bought the game so this is just getting revenue during the dev cycle. Smart smart smart.
I honestly expected something like this but two chapters is an eloquent design since backers already bought the game so this is just getting revenue during the dev cycle. Smart smart smart.
MasterProcrastinator said:
He had 800% more money than he requested for the game! If you cannot manage to deliver your promised product, which is clearly what people wanted, with a budget 8 times the size of what you thought you would need people SHOULD be mad! You're right it's great to want to make an improved game, but it is a very shitty thing to do when it means people essentially funded one half of the product they were promised. Essentially you will be paying for the same game twice and that's ok? Sorry, I don't see it that way.
I disagree. He promised "Product X" and needed X amount of dollars to make it happen. He received eight(8!) times what he requested, and as a result of his poor planning, he is releasing "Product Y" to people who donated in expectation of "Product X." Essentially he didn't meet his end of the agreement. What he should have done is made "Product X" as it was originally pitched and then added on to it with his extra money, if he had any.Sutter Cane said:
Just like Sony Entertainment said to Naughty Dog when they pitched "The Last of Us." Except they fucking didn't and we are all better off for that. I honestly don't care about most of this either way due to my apathy towards adventure games, but your argument here makes absolutely no sense. If they come up with another game to pitch so that they don't have to cut members of their team, as long as that game is worth the effort, then that isn't bad financial planning, that is in fact very good financial planning, as that means they will maintain a talented staff and keep them all busy while increasing their production. It also means they aren't keeping all their eggs in one basket.CatBus said:
Now which is it? $crazyarms33 said:
400k was the scope of the "promised product"? You say, that people were promised a $400k game put together in 6 months, and he was only supposed to finish that?
At the same time, should be mad that they are only getting a $3 million game in January? And then a second, equally long story in July?
It seems to me that you are angry both about the game being too big, and it being too small.
Yes, because in this special case, "twice" only means "once". RTFA.crazyarms33 said:
You're assuming it'll get funded. As a Double Fine fan who didn't fund the Kickstarter, I'm also not buying into half the game in the hope that other people follow suit and buy in as well. I'm sorry, I'm paying for a finished product, I expect a finished product. This isn't a mod or fan project. This is a retail product.Nikolaz72 said:
First, no one will pay for the same game twice. Backers will receive the full game.crazyarms33 said:
Second, the game now in development is much bigger than it would be with the original 300k amount (100k was for the documentary). I'm sure if they had released a 300k flash game and pocketed the rest of the money a lot of people would be pissed.
Fair enough. They should have rough estimates of costs before doing anything, but yeah, shit happens - at least it will not turn out to be a disaster, and they had the guts to admit the problem before it escalated. At least thats how it looks to me.ClockworkUniverse said:
I'm trying to remain positive, but the bottom line is
* we may never see the second half of the game *
They need to convince more people -people who did not back in the first place- to buy the unfinished game, I don't think there are too many of those.
That would horrible for two reasons:
1) We paid, a lot, and would be getting half of what was promised
2) Adventure games would be definitely dead - stick a fork in it. No matter how passionate, or how many of us Adventure Game types are still around, we can't keep the genre alive. That saddens me.
I already made a comment about this. I think the amount of money they got was their undoing, he could no longer make a small, humble game. Everyone expected something big, but costs blow up, quickly, when the scope increases. I figure that a game that is 8 times bigger is at least 20 times more expensive to make.
I'm reminded of how uneasy Ron Gilbert appears on the first documentaries, maybe he was right.
* we may never see the second half of the game *
They need to convince more people -people who did not back in the first place- to buy the unfinished game, I don't think there are too many of those.
That would horrible for two reasons:
1) We paid, a lot, and would be getting half of what was promised
2) Adventure games would be definitely dead - stick a fork in it. No matter how passionate, or how many of us Adventure Game types are still around, we can't keep the genre alive. That saddens me.
I already made a comment about this. I think the amount of money they got was their undoing, he could no longer make a small, humble game. Everyone expected something big, but costs blow up, quickly, when the scope increases. I figure that a game that is 8 times bigger is at least 20 times more expensive to make.
I'm reminded of how uneasy Ron Gilbert appears on the first documentaries, maybe he was right.
They did have a rough estimate. In fact they had a very down to earth good budget set up. The project ended up costing, both in time and money, way more than they projected. Thus, actions needed to be taken. I don't see how they could have been more transparent. They've told us every step of the line what they've been doing with the 2pp documentary episode that comes out about once a month. They've talked about the money trouble before, and have solved it other ways (humble bundle and release of brutal legend on steam).neonit said:
How would you have gone forward if you where them? Copy paste the entire budget, staff salary, and workload onto kickstarter so your regular Joe could try to analyze it?
Well, I said when I backed it that I'd either get a game or a trainwreck, so looks like it's time to get out the popcorn and actually start watching those documentaryish updates.
Yes, because that is how businesses work! If I agree to have a project for you ready in X amount of months, within a budget of X dollars and I do not, then I have failed my business partner and they have every right to be mad! The anger comes from what people were TOLD they were going to get, and now they are not getting that. Regardless of if the developer wants a "better game", he still has to meet his ORIGINAL OBLIGATIONS in order to not look like he is screwing people over.Entitled said:
Or phrased another way: It would be the same as if you asked for a loan of $100 from a friend to fund a business and then he gave you $800 because he believed in it so much. You said you would pay him back in 6 months with a productive business and some unique stock options, and you two were agreed. Now at the end of the 6 months he comes to you and says "Oh hey, by the way. I can't pay you back yet. I only have half of the business set up, but its totally ok because I am gonna get you some super fresh new money in a second instance, that I will make from selling the unique stock options I told you about in the incomplete company!" The problem here is that your friend hasn't met what he and you agreed to, and now in order to fulfill his promise he has to market an incomplete(probably the wrong word here but it goes with the example) product and hope that people will buy in because if they don't, he will be stuck holding the bag. Which is the same thing as saying you are stuck holding the bag. And the bag is full of lies and broken promises.
You only get the second story if the first game sells well. Seems to me that if he promised one story, that's all he had to do. This is simple business. No need to go super over the top. Just meet your obligations and do it the maximum of your ability. Don't promise one thing and in this case, deliver 2 separate things. As the article says, "We will use the funds from the sales of Game 1 to make Game 2."Entitled said:
I hope I covered this or I misunderstood it so maybe you can clarify. If you weren't a backer you have to buy game 1. Then when game 2 is released, you have to buy it as well. That's two purchases if my understanding is correct. It's not a package deal for nonbackers in that when they buy Game 1 they automatically get Game 2 right? Or wrong?Entitled said:
There is no second part of the game if the first part doesn't sell well. It is entirely possible that the game could flop and people could be left wanting. Essentially if you really want the full game and it doesn't sell the backers are screwed because they only got half of what they were promised. And nonbackers are equally screwed in that they bought "Game 1" for lack of better words, will they have to buy "Game 2" to have the full experience of a product that originally promised 1 game? If so, then yes. They are paying twice. Does that make more sense?tautologico said:
and Schafer made it clear during the kickstarter that if they'd reach certain goals above the initial kickstarter goal he'd add in more features. They reached those goals. The more expensive game is the promised product, and even if you disagree there, honestly is there a better alternative for Double Fine right now. I mean hypothetically you find yourself in a situation where you've already sunk millions into the game and you're going overbudget, what course of action do you take? Or to put it in even a different way, if double fine had been able to raise the money to finish the game on their own without having to split it up, would anyone really care that much? If they had been able to release the game without making a big deal about it going overbudget, even though they had to secure additional funding, would people be freaking out like they are now? Somehow I doubt it.crazyarms33 said:
Moar like Broke Age amirite?
I kid, I kid. Let's hope this is a big success so that when the time comes to fund Psychonauts 2: What You Actually Wanted Tim To Make, even moar donation money comes in.
Seriously, think about it. Episodic Telltale-style Psychonauts. One, maybe two additional brains per Episode. Where's the kickstarter for THAT!?
I kid, I kid. Let's hope this is a big success so that when the time comes to fund Psychonauts 2: What You Actually Wanted Tim To Make, even moar donation money comes in.
Seriously, think about it. Episodic Telltale-style Psychonauts. One, maybe two additional brains per Episode. Where's the kickstarter for THAT!?
I covered this in my original post. He is free to add features AFTER he had gotten accomplished the minimum he wanted. The bottom line to me is he promised to deliver this game at a certain budget, received massively more than he requested and as a result he overextended without completing the original game people expected. I am all for him wanting to make a better game, but NOT at the expense of possibly never seeing part 2, since the development of that is dependent on the sales of part 1. If part one is a masterpiece but doesn't sell well, will part two come out? And if it does will people want it after part 1, knowing that part 2 won't be as good? It would be like having a super nice steak for lunch and then having mcdonalds for dinner instead of having the decent chicken that had been promised for both meals.Sutter Cane said: