What Kind of Dev Are You?
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
It is why you should always see crowdfunding as charity or investments. If you see it as an investment you are basically hedging your money on getting a return later down the line, but as any venture capitalist will tell you that is never a given. It is why you should always be careful with what you crowd source and what your expectations are.CaitSeith said:
I've said this before but the problem I have with Double Fine is this:
Raise far more money then asked for, release part 1 of Broken age, take an entire year to release part 2, part 2 releases and makes me wonder what exactly they were doing that year, because making a good second part sure wasn't it.
Seriously, Tim, how long does it take you to write a script for half a game and create some decent puzzles? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like you spent a year on either.
I'm not even against the idea of things taking a little bit longer, because I have backed several projects that are episodic and are taking a while. But at least have a reason it's taking longer(other then "Jack Black ran out of cheerios and won't record anymore lines until we get him some more", which is probably as good of an explanation for the year-long delay as any).
Maybe I just had higher expectations considering TS's record with Lucasarts. I'm still not averse to buying psychonauts 2 either. I'm just not buying it until there's a completed game to judge(and the reviews are favorable).
Raise far more money then asked for, release part 1 of Broken age, take an entire year to release part 2, part 2 releases and makes me wonder what exactly they were doing that year, because making a good second part sure wasn't it.
Seriously, Tim, how long does it take you to write a script for half a game and create some decent puzzles? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like you spent a year on either.
I'm not even against the idea of things taking a little bit longer, because I have backed several projects that are episodic and are taking a while. But at least have a reason it's taking longer(other then "Jack Black ran out of cheerios and won't record anymore lines until we get him some more", which is probably as good of an explanation for the year-long delay as any).
Maybe I just had higher expectations considering TS's record with Lucasarts. I'm still not averse to buying psychonauts 2 either. I'm just not buying it until there's a completed game to judge(and the reviews are favorable).
1. Schaffer doesn't get any benefit of the doubt after DF-9, that was blatantly bait-and-switch level despicable (I didn't lose money on it, I just find it that appalling despite lack of investment)
2. I don't see what is shocking or even 'wrong' about this. Consumers don't care when someone else's money is at stake but do when theirs is? Well colour me surprised! Egocentric, perhaps, but not hypocritical. This is a market reacting to what the environment has conditioned it to believe, ie. that kickstarter devs will drive themselves (and the 'investment' said lynch mob has made) right over a cliff without a tight leash (And unlike in AAA published games, there's no going to a boss and conning them for just a bit more money because hey the publisher is in too deep now to just shelve it), while the existing triple AAA publishers have marched out an endless parade of uninspired poorly made non-functional garbage for years now.
2. I don't see what is shocking or even 'wrong' about this. Consumers don't care when someone else's money is at stake but do when theirs is? Well colour me surprised! Egocentric, perhaps, but not hypocritical. This is a market reacting to what the environment has conditioned it to believe, ie. that kickstarter devs will drive themselves (and the 'investment' said lynch mob has made) right over a cliff without a tight leash (And unlike in AAA published games, there's no going to a boss and conning them for just a bit more money because hey the publisher is in too deep now to just shelve it), while the existing triple AAA publishers have marched out an endless parade of uninspired poorly made non-functional garbage for years now.
The one on the left is being funded by a publisher run by suits that usually don't understand the game development process and don't know how much money is expected for a project. The one on the right is something made by designers and developers who should have a better understanding about game development and would know more about the costs involved in it. Yes, projects can change their vision and scope when going through development, thus resulting in budget changes, but as a developer I'd like to think you would expect this sort of thing and account for that when planning the budget and deadlines. A publisher doesn't know about this, so it makes sense that when development shifts focus and changes scope, devs usually find the budget given to them is inadequate to meet their needs.
This is where I have a problem with several Kickstarter projects. If you're trying to get funding for a project, I'd expect that you'd have much of the design of the project locked down, so the budget you put together will cover the development, even considering some changes in development. You set out with a goal in mind and sell it to your backers, who expect that goal to be completed as described. If you're suddenly moving deadlines further and further or making drastic changes to promised features, it makes it seem like you don't know what you're doing and makes users lose a lot of faith in your project. Then when you ask for even more money to complete a game even though you raised more than 6 times your original budget? You bet people are going to think something is going completely wrong on your end.
It also helps to not host large, open-house parties every year when you're a small development team located in one of the most expensive US cities to live in. Hiring Phil Fish to DJ might be very expensive.
This is where I have a problem with several Kickstarter projects. If you're trying to get funding for a project, I'd expect that you'd have much of the design of the project locked down, so the budget you put together will cover the development, even considering some changes in development. You set out with a goal in mind and sell it to your backers, who expect that goal to be completed as described. If you're suddenly moving deadlines further and further or making drastic changes to promised features, it makes it seem like you don't know what you're doing and makes users lose a lot of faith in your project. Then when you ask for even more money to complete a game even though you raised more than 6 times your original budget? You bet people are going to think something is going completely wrong on your end.
It also helps to not host large, open-house parties every year when you're a small development team located in one of the most expensive US cities to live in. Hiring Phil Fish to DJ might be very expensive.
Well, better a dev studio burn through their publisher's money than mine straight out of my bank account.
When someone with an MBA but not five minutes in a computer science class says "the game will be out by Christmas", there's a decent chance they're extrapolating on the basis of factors they don't really understand. ("Ten years ago, single programmers put out a game in three months! What's wrong with you people? This would never have flown when I was running a kitchen appliance wholesaler, let me tell you...")
When the people making the game say that it will be out by Christmas, they don't really have anyone to blame but themselves.
Corporations are basically heat-dispersion units for blame and guilt. When you cease to be part of a big blame-dispersing entity, you take your the bitter with the sweet, and that includes taking your own licks for when your projections prove to be bullshit.
When the people making the game say that it will be out by Christmas, they don't really have anyone to blame but themselves.
Corporations are basically heat-dispersion units for blame and guilt. When you cease to be part of a big blame-dispersing entity, you take your the bitter with the sweet, and that includes taking your own licks for when your projections prove to be bullshit.
I don't get the joke on why the panel was reused.... does that make me a Normie??
Also when does accountability, open betas, and community interaction come into play?
Gamers are constantly bitching about bad publichers regardless of TripleA or Indie, but when was the last time you saw a featured Article or even a thread saying "Hey guys come check out this Developer! ...their systems Designers are actually answering questions on their Forum and they're directly taking accountability for the state their game is in!"
...you just don't see that... ANYWHERE. All you see year after year, is gamers saying "shuttup and take my money!" because they liked the Theme or Character designs or the MEMEs of a game and never because the Studio itself was actively engaging in transparency every step of the way. There hasn't been a single studio to date that's had a huge outpouring of support or public rally around it for a transparent development process. Until that changes in our culture...gamers as a whole are just continuing to say "Rape my Wallet, PLEASE".
Also when does accountability, open betas, and community interaction come into play?
Gamers are constantly bitching about bad publichers regardless of TripleA or Indie, but when was the last time you saw a featured Article or even a thread saying "Hey guys come check out this Developer! ...their systems Designers are actually answering questions on their Forum and they're directly taking accountability for the state their game is in!"
...you just don't see that... ANYWHERE. All you see year after year, is gamers saying "shuttup and take my money!" because they liked the Theme or Character designs or the MEMEs of a game and never because the Studio itself was actively engaging in transparency every step of the way. There hasn't been a single studio to date that's had a huge outpouring of support or public rally around it for a transparent development process. Until that changes in our culture...gamers as a whole are just continuing to say "Rape my Wallet, PLEASE".
Yeah, I don't get the complaint here. KS is essentially the ultimate form of pre-ordering, right down to order bonuses. I know it wasn't intended to be, but that ship sailed very quickly. When no cash has changed hands, people can be open to waiting, but now money's on the table, and they act like any other investor wanting a return, only their return is a finished product. Even those of us not invested can look at the model with concern (probably why we don't contribute) as it's a "cash up front with (until recently) no guarantee of any payback" model almost destined to bite you. Given some high profile delays and return for more money, it's understandable to see that model as something easy to abuse.
People are angry when you waste their money, what a shocker.
And oh yeah, Tim Schafer, since this is a whinestrip about him specifically is at this point nothing but a scammer, he did not deliver a complete, polished product since, well, Psychonauts, and even that one is debatable. He's living entirely off his net cred, rather than actual merits and somehow gets away with stunning bullshit, see the spacebase fiasco.
And oh yeah, Tim Schafer, since this is a whinestrip about him specifically is at this point nothing but a scammer, he did not deliver a complete, polished product since, well, Psychonauts, and even that one is debatable. He's living entirely off his net cred, rather than actual merits and somehow gets away with stunning bullshit, see the spacebase fiasco.
I think a big difference is when a major developer is pushing a game back nobody has bought it and if anyone's pre-ordered it they will still get their money back if the games cancelled. In kickstarter it's if they say well we need more or the games cancelled or the whole studio goes under your shit out of luck.
So while I've never supported any kickstarter I can totally understand why people are more critical of something or someone they've actually given money they won't get back as opposed to a dev who they hope makes a good game but if it sucks they just don't buy it.
So while I've never supported any kickstarter I can totally understand why people are more critical of something or someone they've actually given money they won't get back as opposed to a dev who they hope makes a good game but if it sucks they just don't buy it.
A lot of people get the idea wrong when it comes to Kickstarter. They sell you on the idea that this is an investment in an "indie" production, or a way to make sure something you love gets made "right".
It's preordering a product that often hasn't even been started yet, outside of enough concept art to sell the idea.
The difference is, when an "auteur" dev delays a Publisher-funded game, they are delaying the Publisher being compensated for the time and budget being used. When we hear people like Billy Kotick complaining about it, we imagine a corporate pig who just wants his money.
In Kickstarter, the dev is now the Publisher. Except, and this is important, he's already been compensated. With a lot of these projects, the majority of people who'd buy it at launch have already backed the project. He's been paid for the project, in essence, and gotten the majority of the return on investment he can expect. At this point (unless the FTC creates more stringent guidelines), the only real reason the dev has to finish the project is community good will, likely to ensure the next project gets funded higher than the current one.
All of that said; yes, I know there are Kickstarter projects and creators who do work hard. Devs who do deliver on their rewards and projects, and do so with skill and speed. There's also ones who keep in contact with the backers to let them know of changes in the schedule and keep them updated about the progress. This is wholly in response to the basic question posed in the comic: "what's the difference".
It's preordering a product that often hasn't even been started yet, outside of enough concept art to sell the idea.
The difference is, when an "auteur" dev delays a Publisher-funded game, they are delaying the Publisher being compensated for the time and budget being used. When we hear people like Billy Kotick complaining about it, we imagine a corporate pig who just wants his money.
In Kickstarter, the dev is now the Publisher. Except, and this is important, he's already been compensated. With a lot of these projects, the majority of people who'd buy it at launch have already backed the project. He's been paid for the project, in essence, and gotten the majority of the return on investment he can expect. At this point (unless the FTC creates more stringent guidelines), the only real reason the dev has to finish the project is community good will, likely to ensure the next project gets funded higher than the current one.
All of that said; yes, I know there are Kickstarter projects and creators who do work hard. Devs who do deliver on their rewards and projects, and do so with skill and speed. There's also ones who keep in contact with the backers to let them know of changes in the schedule and keep them updated about the progress. This is wholly in response to the basic question posed in the comic: "what's the difference".
Someone's been playing and reloading a certain quest in Witcher3 alot I assume...JimB said:
OT:
I don't think I've ever seen either extreme really presented in this comic. I mean, everyone bitches constantly about the publisher in scenario Left(with little talked about the dev coming into play beyond being under the soulless yoke of AAA), and scenario Right is often where you get Star Citizen's fanbase from.
And hell, people don't complain about publishers because that's what they've come to expect. It's alot more apathetic than understanding and acceptance. But when you come into town on promises and past glory, people expect more out of you when you ask for money(and rightly so, at least with AAA you have the guarantee at a playable game eventually, Kickstarter you have a chance at getting a sticker if you're lucky half the time, not to mention it's a set price of one time you don't have to add more onto to get the full game, most of the time.)
That's the point of the video, there is no key difference. If a developer doesn't deliver for a publisher that publisher won't get their money back anymore than a backer on kickstarter. If a project takes longer to deliver a publisher will need to wait to have a chance to get their return on investment just like a kickstart backer.Hawk eye1466 said:
The big difference is that a publisher can actually go bankrupt due to this, while at most you're out fifty bucks. So yeah, if you're going to gripe out kickstarter developers not delivering you need to stop complaining when publishers can projects they think won't pan out.
...but there is a difference between mishandling kickstarter money and overspending money provided by companies because:
Publishers stand to make a profit on the finished product
AND have the ultimate ownership over the final product and its IP
AND have project oversight as their job so they share responsibility for mismanagement
AND the developers are answerable to them so they can fire individuals or even hand over to another development team if they want to.
I agree that the "Tim Schafer/ Peter Molyneux are evil now" argument is over the top. The real thing that kickstarter fuck-ups have shown is that most auteurs shouldn't be their own bosses.
Publishers stand to make a profit on the finished product
AND have the ultimate ownership over the final product and its IP
AND have project oversight as their job so they share responsibility for mismanagement
AND the developers are answerable to them so they can fire individuals or even hand over to another development team if they want to.
I agree that the "Tim Schafer/ Peter Molyneux are evil now" argument is over the top. The real thing that kickstarter fuck-ups have shown is that most auteurs shouldn't be their own bosses.