Flexible deadline for a more refined game?

[descalabro]

Seems to me many of us are expecting a relatively rich game with a lot of features that take time to develop. Also I've seen many warnings about possible bugs and a rough-edged final product.

 

I believe it's best to wait for a great final product and I think that April 2014 is a very short deadline to implement the features a game like this should have now that 10 years have passed since the last great isometric cRPG from these guys. Add-ons are ok, but they usually feel insufficient.

 

I think the deadline should be flexible if Obsidian reaches the budget of a large scale cRPG. I also think some of the stretch goals beyond 2.4million (or more, depending on the stretch goals already set) should be based on the most voted/replied topics of this forum. The base funding has already been reached, and there are already a lot of interesting and relevant polls that I hope Obsidian will address to.

[Sarog]

Considering how terribly some RPGs in recent years have suffered because of rushed development, I don't care about delays so long as the product isn't shipped in what appears to be Alpha stage.

[MReed]

I voted "Yes", but mostly on the general principal that if the game isn't ready it shouldn't be shipped rather than any expectation that they are going to break $5 million.

 

I already expect the release date to slip at least once, and probably by more than 6 months -- honestly, has any game come out any near its initial release date? And most games don't announce a release date until 2-3 months before the expected release date in any case.

[Cymelion]

Yes and No - A clear cutoff date stops feature creep otherwise we'd be waiting longer then Half Life 3 for this to turn up. It's great they will have the funding to make the game bigger and better with each dollar they get. But its also important they finish before the funding dries up paying for everything. Last thing I would want to see is the game being sold to a developer just so they could finish or bringing out the hat for another whip around.

[KenThomas]

I'm going to abstain from voting. I really hope they give themselves as long as it will take to finish the game in a polished way. As they've been adding on content as part of their stretch goals, I definitely have been thinking to myself that I hope they also add on extra time to "make it right" as Mike Holmes would say. Of course, perhaps they don't need extra time when they have extra money perhaps the extra staff thing takes care of it. That said I do think it's a very legitimate concern for them not to bring too many people onto the team. Too many rookies could definitely undermine the final product. They may reach a point where they either stop accepting donations or they push back the release date of the game to accomodate the time spent adding in the extra content.

 

Personally I'd rather see their strongest team methodically work their way through the content than hire on less talented people to add in a bunch of filler. Filler always feels like filler from my gameplay experience.

 

Also, with regards to the money invested:

 

I invested as much money as I felt like I could afford and what I wanted to contribute towards the idea. I personally don't care how much money that they get as long as they have enough money to do whatever is needed to get the final product they envision. I don't expect them to account for every single dollar past their goal. I hope they don't feel obligated to continue adding things to the game if it's going to compromise the final product. IMO if it's in danger of that either stop accepting donations or hold the money in some kind of operating expenses fund, because you never know what you're going to run into and we're their only source of funds. They'd have no way of getting more if they need it later in the process. If the product is finished and they still have extra, THEN they can figure out what to do with it. Personally I paid what I felt was right for me to contribute personally. If they end up with leftover money and its a great product, nobody is going to even care if they split it between them as a bonus.

Edited September 20, 2012 by KenThomas

[Zed]

A more flexible schedule should be one of the perks of flipping off publishers. But then again since they are running a business they probably want it out around the time they've stated (what was it, April 2014? 2013?).

[oldmanpaco]

If this game does not ship in April of 2014 there will be hell to pay.

 

By god will there be hell to pay.

[Djole]

A game is late until it's released. A bad game is forever.

[Elerond]

I think if project collects so much money that Obsidian can't use it sensibly to this project. They should add stress goal for expansion or sequel fund. Because if you start add unplanned features on your project and stress your timetable you usually only get a mess on your hands.

[Ieo]

I agree that having a target deadline helps with scheduling and overall project management, but it would be a good idea to consider particularly with the qualifier that the Kickstarter funds reach a certain level (and thus expectation of more content). At the moment and with the last interviews, the current funds are supposed to be fine for what they have on the table.

 

If Obsidian may need more time--larger team with more complex project management, for example--at a certain target level, the possibility of an extended deadline should be explicit on that stretch goal tier.

[descalabro]

I think if project collects so much money that Obsidian can't use it sensibly to this project. They should add stress goal for expansion or sequel fund. Because if you start add unplanned features on your project and stress your timetable you usually only get a mess on your hands.

 

Well, they are all experienced game developers, so I expect them to know how to organize future goals. They mention 2.4million and beyond so I think they already have some plans concerning this matter. That's why hope they'll start addressing polls on this forum as soon as they have enough funding for some of the goals many of us crave for.

[Cymelion]

I think if project collects so much money that Obsidian can't use it sensibly to this project. They should add stress goal for expansion or sequel fund. Because if you start add unplanned features on your project and stress your timetable you usually only get a mess on your hands.

 

I agree I would rather the extra get invested into DLC/Expansion especially free DLC/Expansion depending how much they get from launch since most investing will get the game for their pledge.

[silvercross]

I voted yes, but the deadline should be fairly reasonable. Maybe delay it 6 months or maybe even a year. (Hell, I'll even take a 2 year delay with the right lengthy press release), but something like 5+ years delay is ridiculous. Granted, I don't know what goes into game development, but at that point in the development, I don't really think the game would actually be getting any better, it's just developers getting carried away.

Edited September 20, 2012 by silvercross

[descalabro]

(...) especially free DLC/Expansion depending how much they get from launch since most investing will get the game for their pledge.

 

This sounds more like it.

[metiman]

They aren't as limited by their promises as they are by their finances. When the money is gone it's gone. The more money they get the longer they can continue to work on the game before the money runs out. The math of annual salaries x number of devs is not very forgiving. Having said that most of the truly great cRPGs took at least 2-3 years to make. Making one in only 18 months would be extraordinary. Presumably they can still make a great game if they limit the scale.

[Rostere]

A game is late until it's released. A bad game is forever.

This.

[Grimlorn]

I think it should be flexible even if it doesn't hit 5 million. Let them iron out all the kinks and put as much into it as they want.

[Shades]

I never have a problem with games being delayed (unless it's a really really long delay of 10 years or something, but as long as I know the game is going to be completed... ), because it means in the end I'll be getting a better product because of it.

 

I'm not sure if their current release date will be enough time for the type of game that a lot of us seem to be expecting, so I certainly wouldn't mind and may even be happy if they decided to delay it by 6 months or even a year regardless of what funding goals they're able to reach.

[limaxophobiacq]

In the unlikely event the funding reaches beyond 5 million I'll be too happy to care.

Edited September 20, 2012 by limaxophobiacq

[Bos_hybrid]

Honestly, this should be done anyway. No need to rush it through, it's not like a publisher is breathing down Obs neck. Of course money does become a factor and profit from releasing the game might be needed sooner rather than later.

 

No Kotor 2 though Obs.

[GhostofAnakin]

I think a deadline is good, because otherwise the project loses focus. But I do think that a "soft" deadline is the better approach, with a target date that is aimed for but that can be extended if the game needs more polishing.

[Yst]

Time is money, so there are realistic limits in any case. That having said, I hope Obsidian takes as long as is necessary and practicable. We've waited ten years for a successor to our favourite IE games (the tenth anniversary of the last of them having recently passed). The world isn't going to implode if we don't have a game tomorrow.

[Nakia]

I think the date of release should be flexible. I do not want a buggy game. I want the developers to do the game right and not be pressured to meet some set in stone release date. Obsidian has given us an estimated date. Stress on estimated.

[Labadal]

I'd say that around 4-6 extra months would be ok. For me personally, I just want a polished game, and if it means that some extra time is needed, then go ahead and take your time. Worst case scenario is that I spoil myself with the beta.

[Lucas]

I have no problem with a flexible deadline, as opposed to a rushed release. From a development point of view, even though I don't have any experience about it, I think it's no less important to keep focus and have a precise goal and coordination within the team, also to avoid the "too many cooks" syndrome (with the project draggin' on and on...)