alanschu

It would work out relatively well. There's nothing inherently wrong with a Publisher doing a kickstarter. It would permit them to gamble on an edgy idea while minimizing risk and maximizing potential. From a Gamer's perspective, it'd just be a cheap pre-order. The Publisher's could toss out innovative, or "Niche" ideas, and if they fly, their team is paid for and gamers get diversity. The problem is: This assumes Publishers are interested in making great games. Which they're sadly not. Publishers today are interested only in bringing the next Call of Duty to market. Even if today's Publishers did try this, there'd be abyssmal QA and the bare minimum in gameplay. This event though, this is different. It's a lecherous Publisher wanting Obsidian to be a level of misdirection for them, without offering anything at all in return of significance. $5 says that by the end of 2014, we see most Publishers doing Kickstarters while bleeding money due to their inability to adapt to the market. Do you really think that if, say, EA were to put out a Kickstarter for a game like this, it'd do as well? I am not sure. As for the QA, is there any innate reason why a big publisher would do any different than, say, Obsidian?

You explained magical happy land. You're saying "Hey CDProjekt, I bought this game through Steam. Valve has some money, but you should let me download it because I'd really like a DRM free version."

Curious how it would work if a big publishers tried to use a kickstarter.

Well, not all publishers are publicly traded. Though I'm very curious to see how the kickstarter stuff starts panning out if/when studios start slipping on their deadlines and ultimately need to start putting in their own money to see the product through. It's all very exciting, but as Avellone shared with that comic, there's no shortage of pressure on Obsidian to not just deliver, but deliver on budget and in a timely manner. It doesn't provide an ounce of additional protection since no publisher has a case. There's no libel here. It'd be a waste of any publisher that tried to pursue litigation.

I find it hard to believe that the publisher wasn't offering anything (i.e. more sales through increased distribution or translating or marketing etc.). Maybe they just thought adding their name to it would provide benefits? I suspect the conversation didn't go just as described, even if that's the way Obsidian saw it (which is a valid way to see it). IIRC Fargo had similar offers from publishers once Wasteland went live.

Are you honestly telling me that the IP holder/game creator are the ones not allowing Valve/Steam to integrate purchases from other digital distributors (or even boxed copies) I don't think you really understand the process if you really think Steam doesn't have to do anything. And it's irrelevant which company you really choose. Because by extension you're also saying that Good Old Games should allow people to download this game when the game has been purchased through Steam. You're telling CDProjekt to offer their services without any sort of compensation.

Then why doesn't Steam do it for every game that is available through different distrubtors? After all it would get everyone to use Steam. You have to understand you're literally telling Valve/Steam to equally support a game purchased through, say, Good Old Games, at no compensation for themselves.

This is Steam's prerogative to do this though. It's also not something that is just done willynilly and for free. There's a reason why I can register my boxed copy of UT2k4 on Steam but not my GamersGate copy of Crusader Kings 2. Also, you do know you can add non-Steam games to Steam right? That gets you most of the benefits anyways...

Have you actually played New Vegas' DLC? It's a bit presumptuous to tell another person that I am or am not getting value for my dollar. Do you not think that they are going to sell additional copies? Who do you think will profit the most if the game sells another 100k units? The game will sell, and they'll have already invested money into ideas both content and feature wise which are sunk costs. You're making the assumption that the only thing that they can do post release is do another kickstarter. Ideally, they won't even need to do a kickstarter because this game will be such a huge runaway success that they'll have made millions on profits to do with what they want.

Stuff is going to get cut regardless. It's inevitable. I'd bet all my money on it being a guarantee. Because quality content is quality content? I actually rarely even buy DLC, but for example I did pick up all the DLC for New Vegas because they are great and Sawyer released a mod that made them even MORE great.

So basically you're saying "don't use Steam or GOG, use something else?" As for Steam "allowing" some games to be "registered" on it, are you referring to games that use, say, Steamworks?

How long of a wait is long enough? Though a huge advantage is that complete lack of needing to submit anything to a cert process (although the cert process is a level of quality control for the game itself)

You don't think so? Maybe the question should be looked at differently: Why should CDProjekt and GOG provide you a copy of the game just because you have access to it via Steam?

So they shouldn't make DLC like Lair of the Shadow Broker? Ah, but if they "withhold" it and put it in an "expansion pack" that's A-OK right?

Simply HAVING a Linux distrubtion will garner more pledges because Linux users will support it even if they aren't particularly interested in the game.

For turn-based maybe. But with RTwP an AI with at least moderate awareness is a good thing to have, or you'll end up playing in the "P" part forever. This isn't how people played the IE games? I hated dealing with the scripts myself.

Keep in mind that the stretch goals involve things like a new companion and a new race. We don't know all that that means, but much of the dollars will go into creating stuff that, while adding a lot to the game, may not add a lot to the actual length.

Context is important. In the context of this thread's topic, I'd argue that "mature" means both handling topics in an adult, reasonable, rational and thoughtful way as well as topics that are a bit more cerebral, more graphic, or more controversial. It's the combination of those two - you could have a mature conversation about bunnies or playing hopscotch, and you could have a very immature exploitation of sex, drugs and violence. So, to sum up - mature examinations of mature topics. A considered and grown-up inclusion of subject matter that is considered not suitable for minors and juveniles (the not-adults, or immature.) I guess. It's just I knew right away that there were going to be suggestions for things like rape, incest, and basically anything that is kind of considered taboo. The most maturing thing that ever happened to me in life was the death of my brother when I was 13 years old. Yet death of someone you care about isn't mentioned. Or at the very least, death of someone that a character in the game cares about, since many of the people will be like "i want to not care about things if I don't want to." The other thing I'm wondering is, does it really just boil down to escape vs interpretive writing?

What does THAT mean though? I think it's safe to say it's made by adults. What does it mean to be made FOR adults?

I was just thinking of Ultima myself, though it could get bit unorganized/hard to find things with the way items could overlap. Ah, food hoarding. Hmm, didn't Betrayal at Krondor have a bit of inventory tetris too? Anyway, the IE way is fine with me, though I do like having different bags for ammunition, scrolls and potions. There's nothing stopping improvements on the Ultima system though. You can make it text based really. Or add a grid so that you can still easily find unique items and so forth.

What exactly makes something mature?

I'm fine with a system that takes into account item size (as a property) and item weight, and ensuring that the player has the space to carry it. Ultima VII was like this. I couldn't put a Two handed sword into a tiny bag, nor could I carry something if I was already over burdened.

Or rotate around so you can look from the other side, or a host of other things. As long as it keeps that top-down from an angle perspective, no one will really mind. Unless an isometric camera means something different to you.

Regardless, when people talk about an isometric camera they are referring more to the top down view at a slight angle, which does not prevent a mobile camera. If you want to split hairs with terminology, a "fixed" camera at ground level would still be "isometric" but people would be pissed.

No, middleware stuff is often licensed. It can also be why toolsets don't get released as a result.