Shadow of the Eternals Studio Cancels Kickstarter

[Yopaz]

The trouble with your assertion is that prior to founding Precursor, both Caporicci and Jackson worked under Dyack at Silicon Knights - Caporicci as a programmer and assistant director and Jackson as a lead environment artist. Neither of those roles are even close to executive positions, and while it's possible that they simply decided to found their own company in the wake of the Silicon Knights debacle and Dyack went to work for them, it's also quite reasonable to think that the whole thing might be a Putin/Medvedev-style power swap, especially since SK was so thoroughly and expensively demolished by Epic in court. I'm not saying that's the case, but under the circumstances you really can't blame people for entertaining the possibility, and for being wary of anything Dyack is involved with.

Point is, the same parallel can easily be made with the Dyack/Capporicci-Jackson swap.Dyack has always been in charge and always in an executive position. Capporici and Jackson have no executive experience, so guess who their going to go the for advice on those manners?


Andy makes a damn good point here.

Thanks for the clarification. Now for my counter point: There already has been indications that they are flying in the face of what Dyack might of recommended. For instance, the Dyack apology video which Dyack specifically mentions that the video wasn't done because he wanted to do it but because Caporicci and Jackson told him to, that Dyack's view on the idea was to not to respond to the criticisms. It is theoretically possible that Dyack is acting as back-seat executive, however it is a criticism absolutely impossible to counter. Although it's not necessary due to the plausibility of it, but because to counter it would require mind-reading technology. It's almost akin to "how do we know Caporicci and Jackson didn't start the company after a magic mushroom experience where they were told by Mormon Jesus that they must make a games company that will be a precursor to the apocalypse to come; hence the name Precursor Games", and only slightly less crazy. It's just as impossible to disprove or prove.

Impossible to prove does not mean we should abandon scepticism. He might not have any say in the matter of what happens or it might be that he's actually in charge. The possibility is there, the cause to worry about it is there. Personally I don't want to risk money on someone being honest. It's easy to say what they think we want to hear.

 

[Kahani]

"Since we announced this Kickstarter campaign we have seen more support from our community than we had ever hoped for."

Getting only 10% of the funding needed is more support than they hoped for?

 

[Riobux]

Impossible to prove does not mean we should abandon scepticism. He might not have any say in the matter of what happens or it might be that he's actually in charge. The possibility is there, the cause to worry about it is there. Personally I don't want to risk money on someone being honest. It's easy to say what they think we want to hear.

The problem is the scepticism is going so far that anything they could say, do or show is ending with the knee-jerk reaction of "but Dyack's involved". Precursor Games hasn't been sitting back throwing darts into the ceiling. They've been producing in-game footage, concept art and talking about the creative process. However, the same knee-jerk reaction of "Dyack is involved though" is going off time and time again. If people decided to read between the lines of what is being said and done, that's fair. I do think it's a fair criticism that Precursor Games hasn't produced any games, and they were involved in a games company that hadn't produced a good game in over ten years. But the problem is people are judging it based on the involvement by one guy, and can't even put any effort into examining what is being said and done. It's not impossible to read between the lines, games journalism is built upon the ability to do so.

 

[Yopaz]

Impossible to prove does not mean we should abandon scepticism. He might not have any say in the matter of what happens or it might be that he's actually in charge. The possibility is there, the cause to worry about it is there. Personally I don't want to risk money on someone being honest. It's easy to say what they think we want to hear.

The problem is the scepticism is going so far that anything they could say, do or show is ending with the knee-jerk reaction of "but Dyack's involved". Precursor Games hasn't been sitting back throwing darts into the ceiling. They've been producing in-game footage, concept art and talking about the creative process. However, the same knee-jerk reaction of "Dyack is involved though" is going off time and time again. If people decided to read between the lines of what is being said and done, that's fair. I do think it's a fair criticism that Precursor Games hasn't produced any games, and they were involved in a games company that hadn't produced a good game in over ten years. But the problem is people are judging it based on the involvement by one guy, and can't even put any effort into examining what is being said and done. It's not impossible to read between the lines, games journalism is built upon the ability to do so.

You were the one to say it was impossible to prove or not, I based that entirely on your post. Are you dismissing that or have I misunderstood?

You're supposed to be skeptical when you're considering an investment and Kickstarter is considered an investment more than an actual product. Yes, they have made something to show off, but so did Gearbox with Aliens: Colonial Marines and I think both of us remember how that went. The fact that they can show us something that makes it impressive at an early stage in the development doesn't say anything for the final product. Add the fact that a person involved in several massive failures who might or might not be in charge and I see no reason to take any risks.

 

[Riobux]

You were the one to say it was impossible to prove or not, I based that entirely on your post. Are you dismissing that or have I misunderstood?

I did say it was impossible to include or exclude the possibility that Dyack has involvement, but I also said it was a shaky road to go down as evidence since you may as well consider the possibility that other figures have some involvement.

You're supposed to be skeptical when you're considering an investment and Kickstarter is considered an investment more than an actual product. Yes, they have made something to show off, but so did Gearbox with Aliens: Colonial Marines and I think both of us remember how that went. The fact that they can show us something that makes it impressive at an early stage in the development doesn't say anything for the final product. Add the fact that a person involved in several massive failures who might or might not be in charge and I see no reason to take any risks.

Using your logic, any Kickstarter is null and void. All words said just to coax money from your wallet. All footage, just early game footage that means nothing. Concept art? Useless. The problem with the scepticism I'm seeing is it seems to be a less review of the evidence at hand, and more akin to knee-jerk reaction. You said it yourself that Gearbox made early concept art for Aliens: Colonial Marines and it went badly, but you offer no real way Precursor Games can prove to others that the concept can work. This brand of scepticism seems less like scepticism and more of a witch-hunt for Dyack's head, at least scepticism can be swayed with evidence.

 

[Yopaz]

Using your logic, any Kickstarter is null and void. All words said just to coax money from your wallet. All footage, just early game footage that means nothing. Concept art? Useless. .

Not what I said. I said any investment is a risk, not that it's all a scam. There's a difference here, but you might not want to admit that. I said it's worthy of scepticism, not that it's not worth anytthing at all.

The problem with the scepticism I'm seeing is it seems to be a less review of the evidence at hand, and more akin to knee-jerk reaction. You said it yourself that Gearbox made early concept art for Aliens: Colonial Marines and it went badly, but you offer no real way Precursor Games can prove to others that the concept can work.

Again you missed my point completely. You said this:

Precursor Games hasn't been sitting back throwing darts into the ceiling. They've been producing in-game footage, concept art and talking about the creative process.

You present this as if it actually says something positive about the product. Gearbox had a lengthy demo presenting Aliens: Colonial Marines and have talked a lot about how awesome it's going to be and they are still not willing to admit that it's actually crappy. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust concept art, trailers or demos, I'm just saying that we aren't always given the truth. This happens even with companies such as Gearbox who has actually released games that weren't crappy. Now a group of people who is involved in nothing but crap counting for 5 years and counting. The demo looks fine, learning from history with Aliens: CM and the history of those involved I think there's reason to be sceptical.

This brand of scepticism seems less like scepticism and more of a witch-hunt for Dyack's head, at least scepticism can be swayed with evidence

Present any evidence you may have for your case. I'd love to see any. All you have presented is biased information. You might even notice that I haven't even criticized the game because I haven't played it. I have just pointed out that every investment is a risk and that trailers and developers/publishers aren't always giving us the full truth.

Disagree all you want, those three things are proven facts.

 

[Vivi22]

Pretty sure they were starting to see more interest generated than when they first started the kickstarter and decided to start it again to build up hype

I'm pretty sure by the time the kickstarter began, what hyp was there in the beginning was dying off quickly as soon as it came out Dyack was involved. Funding slowed to a veritable crawl very quickly once the Kotaku article started making the rounds. For a while there in the beginning it actually looked like they could reach their goal and that was just with their own crowd funding campaign.

 

[Riobux]

Using your logic, any Kickstarter is null and void. All words said just to coax money from your wallet. All footage, just early game footage that means nothing. Concept art? Useless. .

Not what I said. I said any investment is a risk, not that it's all a scam. There's a difference here, but you might not want to admit that. I said it's worthy of scepticism, not that it's not worth anytthing at all.

I never said people claimed it to be a scam. I said using your train of logic all evidence is useless because it could be not representative of the end-product at all.

You present this as if it actually says something positive about the product. Gearbox had a lengthy demo presenting Aliens: Colonial Marines and have talked a lot about how awesome it's going to be and they are still not willing to admit that it's actually crappy. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust concept art, trailers or demos, I'm just saying that we aren't always given the truth. This happens even with companies such as Gearbox who has actually released games that weren't crappy. Now a group of people who is involved in nothing but crap counting for 5 years and counting. The demo looks fine, learning from history with Aliens: CM and the history of those involved I think there's reason to be sceptical.

I actually am saying it says something positive about the product because there's something to actually examine. There's the demo, there's the videos of them talking about progress and so on. You can either decide to look through the data, or decide that data is useless because "Gearbox made Aliens: Colonial Marines". The latter conclusion is unhelpful in the realms of Kickstarter. I find this sentence weird: "I'm not saying you shouldn't trust concept art, trailers or demos, I'm just saying that we aren't always given the truth.". The sentence seems contradictory.

This brand of scepticism seems less like scepticism and more of a witch-hunt for Dyack's head, at least scepticism can be swayed with evidence

Present any evidence you may have for your case. I'd love to see any. All you have presented is biased information. You might even notice that I haven't even criticized the game because I haven't played it. I have just pointed out that every investment is a risk and that trailers and developers/publishers aren't always giving us the full truth.

Disagree all you want, those three things are proven facts.

What I've presented is evidence contrary to yours, not bias. What I've talked about is people need to examine what evidence Precursor Games has offered that the product will work, as well as examine the evidence against. Not just have a knee-jerk reaction of "Dyack's a dick". I have also pointed out that with your brand of scepticism, you offer two problems:
1. No redemption for Dyack. He's made shitty games as a developer head, therefore he can't even be part of a company in a non-executive role.
2. Don't consider the evidence by Precursor Games, because it could be lies. Which creates a problem where you have to disregard Kickstarter evidence generally, because all companies could lie. This disregards a core thing: If the company produces even one bad game, they're finished as a developer. Same with any other company. Gearbox has such as a poor reputation because they flat-out lied to their consumers. However, you're assuming Precursor Games will produce footage that will lie to the consumer, ignoring that even they're aware that if they make even one bad game, they're finished as a developer. Do I mind throwing in £20 to fund this product? Not at all, especially because if it goes south the developer is hung.

 

[Yopaz]

Using your logic, any Kickstarter is null and void. All words said just to coax money from your wallet. All footage, just early game footage that means nothing. Concept art? Useless. .

Not what I said. I said any investment is a risk, not that it's all a scam. There's a difference here, but you might not want to admit that. I said it's worthy of scepticism, not that it's not worth anytthing at all.

I never said people claimed it to be a scam. I said using your train of logic all evidence is useless because it could be not representative of the end-product at all.

You present this as if it actually says something positive about the product. Gearbox had a lengthy demo presenting Aliens: Colonial Marines and have talked a lot about how awesome it's going to be and they are still not willing to admit that it's actually crappy. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust concept art, trailers or demos, I'm just saying that we aren't always given the truth. This happens even with companies such as Gearbox who has actually released games that weren't crappy. Now a group of people who is involved in nothing but crap counting for 5 years and counting. The demo looks fine, learning from history with Aliens: CM and the history of those involved I think there's reason to be sceptical.

I actually am saying it says something positive about the product because there's something to actually examine. There's the demo, there's the videos of them talking about progress and so on. You can either decide to look through the data, or decide that data is useless because "Gearbox made Aliens: Colonial Marines". The latter conclusion is unhelpful in the realms of Kickstarter. I find this sentence weird: "I'm not saying you shouldn't trust concept art, trailers or demos, I'm just saying that we aren't always given the truth.". The sentence seems contradictory.

This brand of scepticism seems less like scepticism and more of a witch-hunt for Dyack's head, at least scepticism can be swayed with evidence

Present any evidence you may have for your case. I'd love to see any. All you have presented is biased information. You might even notice that I haven't even criticized the game because I haven't played it. I have just pointed out that every investment is a risk and that trailers and developers/publishers aren't always giving us the full truth.

Disagree all you want, those three things are proven facts.

What I've presented is evidence contrary to yours, not bias. What I've talked about is people need to examine what evidence Precursor Games has offered that the product will work, as well as examine the evidence against. Not just have a knee-jerk reaction of "Dyack's a dick". I have also pointed out that with your brand of scepticism, you offer two problems:
1. No redemption for Dyack. He's made shitty games as a developer head, therefore he can't even be part of a company in a non-executive role.
2. Don't consider the evidence by Precursor Games, because it could be lies. Which creates a problem where you have to disregard Kickstarter evidence generally, because all companies could lie. This disregards a core thing: If the company produces even one bad game, they're finished as a developer. Same with any other company. Gearbox has such as a poor reputation because they flat-out lied to their consumers. However, you're assuming Precursor Games will produce footage that will lie to the consumer, ignoring that even they're aware that if they make even one bad game, they're finished as a developer. Do I mind throwing in £20 to fund this product? Not at all, especially because if it goes south the developer is hung.

Please read my post again. You haven't understood as much as a single point and if you can't actually try to understand and just defend your stance for all eternity without knowing what you're arguing against then a chat robot would be just as useful as me in this. You make arguments using"my train of logic", but don't actually know even the first or the last station of aforementioned train. If you can't make the effort to understand what I am trying to say then I wont make the effort of trying to explain.

 

[Riobux]

Please read my post again. You haven't understood as much as a single point and if you can't actually try to understand and just defend your stance for all eternity without knowing what you're arguing against then a chat robot would be just as useful as me in this. You make arguments using"my train of logic", but don't actually know even the first or the last station of aforementioned train. If you can't make the effort to understand what I am trying to say then I wont make the effort of trying to explain.

Without clarification, you may as well just call your post a "+1 post count" post.

 

[MetalMagpie]

I'm gonna call it: Nintendo Bought the game outright, so they don't even need a Kickstarter anymore.

But then if so, why are they relaunching the Kickstarter? Is it somehow possible for them to receive the necessary funding from a publisher but still ask for some extra help via crowdfunding efforts?

There's nothing to stop them using Kickstarter to basically take preorders and build up interest, even if the game has already been pretty much fully funded by a publisher. All they need to do is claim the Kickstarter money is for a feature not funded by the publisher (e.g. multiplayer).