The Kickstarter Thread

[Aoyagi]

Oh lookie, first potential issues ahead http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2128128298/expeditions-conquistador/posts/413666#comments

[Hurlshort]

Oh lookie, first potential issues ahead http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2128128298/expeditions-conquistador/posts/413666#comments

 

I'm not sure how that's an issue, many of these kickstarters are going to be missing the release dates.

 

Seems to be a lot of baseless speculation from people who backed it minimally.  

[Keyrock]

 

Oh lookie, first potential issues ahead http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2128128298/expeditions-conquistador/posts/413666#comments

 

I'm not sure how that's an issue, many of these kickstarters are going to be missing the release dates.

 

Seems to be a lot of baseless speculation from people who backed it minimally.  

Yeah, if they're adding extra features above and beyond what was promised in the Kickstarter, I don't see how that's a bad thing.  As far as the release date goes, I've pledged to about a dozen Kickstarter projects, if not more, and I don't expect a single one of them to make the release date, Project: Eternity included.  Games missing release dates is pretty much the standard for the game industry as a whole, not just Kickstarter projects.

[AwesomeOcelot]

It's not fine for every project to miss its release date, they need to reassess their policy on release estimates. Obviously no one will mind a few weeks either side of a release date, but if you're not hitting the release in 3 months of the estimate you've failed somewhere. I get the impression that in the industry you don't get release dates in development, you get release windows, and the release date is left until pretty late, and they hit them with time to spare.

 

If Logic Artists have done what people are accusing them of then they're not going to be able to hide it. I'm going to wait for the facts but obviously from what they said it doesn't sound good, they should release the beta to all backers, distribution deals shouldn't effect their commitment to backers. Also developing stretch goals without stretch goal money backs up the concept that they're "bull****".

[Oner]

The problem isn't that release dates will be missed. It's that after getting 2-300% funding and reaching every stretch goal, development will likely stretch and they fail to point this out.

[TSBasilisk]

Projects get delayed for any number of reasons, much like any normal game studio. The difference here is that the release date set on their KS is seen as a promise to the funder, despite it only being an estimate. RPS did an article looking at how $100k+ successes on Kickstarter were doing with regards to release dates. Their biggest criticism was developers who didn't give themselves enough time to develop a game once the KS ended. Problems during development only compound the issue.

[Hurlshort]

It's not fine for every project to miss its release date, they need to reassess their policy on release estimates. Obviously no one will mind a few weeks either side of a release date, but if you're not hitting the release in 3 months of the estimate you've failed somewhere. I get the impression that in the industry you don't get release dates in development, you get release windows, and the release date is left until pretty late, and they hit them with time to spare.

 

If Logic Artists have done what people are accusing them of then they're not going to be able to hide it. I'm going to wait for the facts but obviously from what they said it doesn't sound good, they should release the beta to all backers, distribution deals shouldn't effect their commitment to backers. Also developing stretch goals without stretch goal money backs up the concept that they're "bull****".

 

They offered the beta to everyone who pledged enough to get in the beta.  Why should they send the beta out to people who pledged $15?  Those people will get the game when it is done, that is all they earned with their pledge.  

[alanschu]

But they added multiplayer (which is apparently clear evidence that there's some sort of publisher involved) and those that didn't want multiplayer would have taken their money elsewhere (or something).

[AwesomeOcelot]

They offered the beta to everyone who pledged enough to get in the beta.  Why should they send the beta out to people who pledged $15?  Those people will get the game when it is done, that is all they earned with their pledge.

They've already given those people a beta version before, so why should they offer a second beta? Under your logic. If they're delaying the game themselves, purposely, for reasons that don't seem to be about development, it's not about when it's done. Truth is a game is never done, it's only released. If they were going to release it until "distribution complications" came up, they should release it.

[alanschu]

How should they release it?

[AwesomeOcelot]

How should they release it?

They managed to get the beta out, there's lots of avenues they can choose.

[alanschu]

Do you know how was the beta released?  What sort of avenues are you talking about?

[AwesomeOcelot]

Do you know how was the beta released?  What sort of avenues are you talking about?

Seems to have been a private server. They could use a private server, if they have bandwidth limitations they could have a staggered release, and they could set up a torrent tracker, get willing backers to share the load a bit, which they would do. Steam has hosted beta and prototypes in the past. GoG maybe willing to do so if they plan to release it there.

[alanschu]

My point is more along the lines of "we don't know what the distribution complications are" in that it could literally be issues with getting the game deployed on something like Steam or even GoG.

 

Unless they have a storefront set up to utilize their private server, I can understand their reluctance to set things up the same for the full version of the game.

[Hurlshort]

Actually I read distribution complications as more of an issue with the physical good, but it is decidedly vague.  Which means it is ridiculous to speculate.  One of the problems could also be how to patch the game, there are bound to be issues.

[AwesomeOcelot]

My point is more along the lines of "we don't know what the distribution complications are" in that it could literally be issues with getting the game deployed on something like Steam or even GoG.

 

Unless they have a storefront set up to utilize their private server, I can understand their reluctance to set things up the same for the full version of the game.

Why would they be reluctant to fulfil their commitment to backers? If they're having problems with Steam or GoG, that shouldn't mean they have to delay rewards to their backers.

 

Giving backers beta access would be a sensible compromise, even though they would have released that version, calling it a beta, increasing the pool of testers before it goes on sale, it's a win-win.

Actually I read distribution complications as more of an issue with the physical good, but it is decidedly vague.  Which means it is ridiculous to speculate.  One of the problems could also be how to patch the game, there are bound to be issues.

Why should that be an issue with the digital version? They could just delay the physical version if there's problems.

[Hurlshort]

Uh, they aren't going to distribute the digital copies and shaft the people who paid more for physical copies.

[Gorth]

I didn't ask for no &^%$# multi player in my game dammit!

[Humanoid]

Uh, they aren't going to distribute the digital copies and shaft the people who paid more for physical copies.

Don't all physical tiers also get a digital copy anyway? A quick scroll through the options reads like that's the case to me.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Uh, they aren't going to distribute the digital copies and shaft the people who paid more for physical copies.

How is that shafting anyone? Because something was delayed then everyone has to wait, that's shafting people who got digital copies. And in terms of who paid more, a lot of the time in terms of funds digital provides more because they cost a lot less than physical. Edited February 27, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[BruceVC]

Actually I read distribution complications as more of an issue with the physical good, but it is decidedly vague.  Which means it is ridiculous to speculate.  One of the problems could also be how to patch the game, there are bound to be issues.

Nah, its never stopped us in the past. Lets speculate wildly.

 

Also isn't any speculation potentially ridiculous ? 

[Zoraptor]

Distribution troubles may well be in regards to its disappearance from greenlight as well. One reason to go via a distributor is that it can short circuit the (pretty stupid, as nearly everyone agrees) greenlight process, as well as being an 'easy' way to get any physical goods fabricated. But if you do that then it's a balance and you have to do the stuff the distributor wants in return.

That might be seen as a bit of sharp practice since the primary funding was kickstarter, and the implication there is that you avoid entanglements and don't go to a publisher afterwards.

[TSBasilisk]

Grump's Quest

Reminds me a bit of the Golem pitch in that they seem to be leveraging art before detailing the actual gameplay.

 

Fathom

Steampunk Ecco?

[Oner]

Matt Barton: Untitled

[Keyrock]

Matt Barton: Untitled