Enough money to "make the game" - Multiplayer, modding, language support "open-ended"

[Starglider]

I'm more concerned with the impact of multiplayer on the schedule than the budget. Online co-op would be nice but it would be a huge amount of QA time (effectively do the entire QA process again but with multiple players present). Strongly recommend releasing the game first, then adding co-op as free DLC some months later if it is successful.

 

Presenting 'modding tools' as a binary choice is a bit of a false dilemma. Yes, the game should be at least as moddable as the Infinity Engine, in that dedicated modders prepared to mess arround with XML files, write scripts and draw their own maps should be able to make their own classes, NPCs, areas etc. No, the game does not need NWN style super-easy-to-use module building tools.

[alanschu]

Moddability might be a better term. And I'd be surprised if the game wasn't moddable in some way for the reasons you describe.

 

Spot on with the QA requirements skyrocketing with co-op.

[Lokamb]

you have no clue how business works, do you? they're digitally sending review samples all around the world so (online) game mags can score what they've done, not talking about buzz marketing. if there are no proper translations this will eventually result in worse sales numbers. we are talking about a text heavy game with tons of stuff to read and the majority of people, whose mother tongue ain't english, simply won't buy such a product because they would feel uncomfortable. you can't deny this... and it would be suicide to ignore those markets.

 

while gog.com only offers just a few games with native language support, steam offers even translated clients and easy to use language switching.

 

btw the only thing you do is ranting about localization without using arguments. why this hatred? if it's a stretched goal this won't burn budget which could have used somewhere else. if they don't reach the goal, fine - if they do, even better.

 

That's it, I already have played with some english games but I'm not feeling confortable with this one.

 

"You will engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party. �and you'll experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out."

 

I understood this topic but It's not so easy for someone who live in a country with people speaking french and Dutch.

(Dutch people are more confortable... I'm not Dutch).

 

I explain my position here :

 

http://forums.obsidi...s/#entry1190960

 

And also here about the money before the game is out :

 

http://forums.obsidi...40#entry1203546

 

When I haven't seen any reaction from Obsidian, I came here to explain myself

But I don't react very much because my knowledges are not so good in CRPG (just Fallout and some recent action rpg like the witcher) and I don't know very much english which is very disturbing to discuss.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Lokamb

[ButchinMelancholy]

Because they are interested in the game? If I only knew Spanish and had played the IE games and Obsidian's earlier titles in Spanish, I would come here and be angry that the game would not be available in Spanish so that I could play it. I don't think the Kickstarter is directed at people whose primary criterion for choosing games is the language the games is in, as opposed to the game itself, which seems to be what you're implying.

 

Your argument is totally fallacious. There is not only one criterion, but a whole set which includes, for many (clearly more than you're willing to look at), being able to decently understand the game, meaning in their native langage (except for the voice-acting, really no need) and preferably in the same conditions as the original version (which implies an official guidance to be sure it is consistent with the vision). Even in the present conditions, I don't think it is too much asked, and we're certainly here to benefit of a little commitment from the developers.

 

You guys need to think about how this game is sold. If we were talking about an AAA game that's sold on the shelves of stores, you would have gained from localizations of the game. This game is being distributed through gog.com and through Steam. gog.com, probably the preferred supplier of these two, usually only offers their games in English. If you don't know one iota of English you won't even know about the game. This is NOT some AAA game release which can afford marketing in several languages. Take a good long look at the "Where is everyone from?" poll. It's obvious that non- English speakers are a negligible force on the Internet. Non- English speakers will probably read their gaming magazines and look at the shelves in their stores, and they won't ever even hear about Project Eternity. Why should the game then be translated?

So, apart from the fact that you arbitrary grant GOG the dominance on the market when Steam is still obviously more popular and represents every kind of people around the globe with no discrimination, you're simply trying to make up some points to support your position based on nothing but disregarding assumptions. And one of them is that people having an English basis have to not be willing to play a deep and well/heavy-worded RPG in their native langage. There is a true need for translations, not for you, good for you, but don't overlook the others please, which are part of the backers too nevertheless.

 

 

The truth is out...

[...]

NO Multiple language support

What kind of truth? Do you seriously expect an English board to show some massive support for localization? And even with that, the poll is still favorable to it. Your comment is just a pointless expression of egocentrism.

 

 

I simply agree with Semper overall.

[ravenshrike]

The only thing I want for them to do towards localization upon release is to make sure the text files are structured so that replacing english with translated text is straightforward with minimal breakage and maybe have a fan translation started for Russian and Polish.Then Spanish, German, Portuguese, Japanese, French, and Italian in terms of priority for maximum sales.

[Calax]

 

The addition of multiplayer means again more replay value added to the game, which means increased sales throughout the coming years, because of people inviting their friends who don't own PE to come play together, etc. Multiplayer also adds to the attractiveness of modding tools and more modding work gets done in order to meet the demand for multiplayer-oriented adventures. What is learned from the development of such adventures can often be applied to new single player content made by modders.

Yes... and no.

 

Project Eternity is shaping up to be a callback to the halcyon days of BG and BG2. And while developers have learned much since then about narrative and mechanics, you're still dealing with a fairly niche market. You probably aren't going to find many of your friends who play more fast paced games like ME or even Dragon Age will be that enthusiastic about buying a game that appears to be built around a slower more strategic style of play. And even then they'll feel like idiots because games like this tend to have MUCH more complicated combat systems than current RPG's.

 

As has been stated, Multiplayer takes time, money, and dev power. All of which will be drawn away from the single player experience. Instead of JE working on how to fine tune the Single Player system so that it's relatively balanced and no one single playstyle will outright murder everything in sight... He'll be stuck constructing p2p contact, the design for how servers will work, and basically building every little thing you need for the multiplayer aspect to be implemented. This doesn't include QA development, or the decision they'll make about dedicated servers or not. It can make the project insanely more complicated.

 

I forget where I heard it, maybe gameinformer, but recently I saw an article in which a dev outright stated that several publishers are forcing the companies to put in play a Multiplayer aspect because of how profitable it CAN be. This usually ends up showing itself most brutally in those games that are shorter, and not "Triple A" titles. And most people won't even use the multiplayer aspect in something like that... as an example, go look at the multiplayer sides of:

Homefront

Darkness

Ace Combat

Mass Effect 3

or Fable

 

 

How popular are they? How much do you think people said "OH SWEET! MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT! I GOTTA GET THAT!"? How much did they actually add to what you're doing? How relevant to the world did they seem? How did the world respond to the addition of a second player who knew wtf they were doing?

 

Also, think about this:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/29/spec-ops-lead-hits-out-at-tacked-on-multiplayer/

 

And consider the implications of what Obsidian is trying to do here. They're creating a project that no publisher would have chased at the conceptual stages. It's to different from the modern paradigm of games, and thus is to much of a chance for a publisher to have even looked at. It was only after the impressive success of the kickstarted that at least one publisher thought it might be worth something.

 

IF this game succeeds, and the Kickstarter manages to fully fund the game and it becomes commercially successful... Publishers will have to entirely rethink how they do business. They'll have to rethink how they choose projects, how they support projects, what a developer can do with their project, how it will interact with the player... because Obsidian will have shown that A) players will support a developer if the idea is good enough B) A developer would have succesfully ignored all the current "rules" of publishers and is getting the full profit potential, and C) that players don't want the "Safe" alternatives... they will support more risky projects, IF the game can be shown to have a good foundation. Also EA would probably reverse it's statement about making "Multiplayer Only" games.

 

Tacking on the time and QA and money required for the multiplayer to work properly, could jepordize the entire success of the project from a commercial standpoint because it could make the entire thing weaker as a whole.

[Sordel]

There's the tricky situation. The financiers of the game are the kickstarter people. Who is Obsidian more accountable to? If pledges aren't made specifically for multilanguage support, then why should funds be used for it?

 

They could do it post release too.

 

No, we're not the financiers of the game. No, Obsidian is not accountable to us.

 

This forum is called 'Speculation and Discussion', not 'Manage Your Investment' ... all your Kickstarter pledge buys you is your pledge reward, which Obsidian can fulfil in any way they please. They can develop the game with $100K if they please and pocket the rest, or they can spend $50 million on it and put in a load of stuff that you don't want or need: a pinball mini-game, an Angry Birds clone puzzle system, a My Little Pony race mode. Pleasing US should be a low priority because we are not future purchasers of the game ... Obsidian already has our money.

 

I don't care about language support or modding, but Obsidian will have their own ideas about both, and I certainly don't object to either. I voted against multiplayer because when I see the word multiplayer I think of PvP, which means that they have to spend masses of development time on class balance. I actually don't mind so much if we're talking about PvE multiplayer ... could be cool.

[ohmygodsquad]

Exactly. We backed the kickstarter so Obsidian could make a game without publishers demands. Don't become the publishers and start forcing features down their throats.

[corentintilde]

At most indifferent about multiplayer, even coop, I don't believe that the pace of this kind of game is suited for multiplayer (lot of text reading, non real time combat...).

Modding can be good, but I am rather a BG than a NWN fan.

Multilingual however is important to me, even though I already backed the project. I am a native french speaker, and I enjoy reading stuff in my language rather than english, for obvious comfort reasons. Moreover so far the stretch goals are unexciting, to the least. (more money = more game, orly ?)

[dragonlore31]

I don't understand why some people tell no at "

Would you like multiple language support as a stretch goal, since it's been confirmed there are enough funds to "make the game"?"

 

 

I don't know if ti's jealousy or stupidity.

 

I can understand that some people don't care about multiple language support.

Edited September 24, 2012 by dragonlore31

[alanschu]

There's the tricky situation. The financiers of the game are the kickstarter people. Who is Obsidian more accountable to? If pledges aren't made specifically for multilanguage support, then why should funds be used for it?

 

They could do it post release too.

 

No, we're not the financiers of the game. No, Obsidian is not accountable to us.

 

This forum is called 'Speculation and Discussion', not 'Manage Your Investment' ... all your Kickstarter pledge buys you is your pledge reward, which Obsidian can fulfil in any way they please. They can develop the game with $100K if they please and pocket the rest, or they can spend $50 million on it and put in a load of stuff that you don't want or need: a pinball mini-game, an Angry Birds clone puzzle system, a My Little Pony race mode. Pleasing US should be a low priority because we are not future purchasers of the game ... Obsidian already has our money.

 

Wrong. If this game and other games doesn't deliver what the Kickstarter contributors want, Kickstarter dies as a medium for financing games. I'm sure you'd be tickled pink to find out that Obsidian decided to make some Facebook game with the money they requested.

 

They put up stretch goals signifying what is or is not going to go into the game to encourage contributions. They would be flipping the proverbial bird to those that made this entire project possible if they didn't attempt to deliver on what they set out to deliver.

 

Pleasing us is the top priority unless they wish to undermine the effectiveness of Kickstarter for every other developer that doesn't want publisher influence. Chris Avellone doesn't post a picture of a Kickstarter saying "No pressure" to him if they just feel this is a ball of money and that they aren't in some way accountable to the people that provided it. It's a measure of their integrity.

 

You are right, though, that people have no recourse. They could make some **** game and run with the money. Anyone lacking in integrity would be the ones that do that.

 

Deciding that they "already have our money" and shouldn't do anything to please us is exactly what people do NOT like about the big publishers. The thing is, this game could sell zero copies, but as long as the kickstarter contributors are satisfied, Obsidian has a way to stay in business and make the RPGs that they want to make.

 

 

Exactly. We backed the kickstarter so Obsidian could make a game without publishers demands. Don't become the publishers and start forcing features down their throats.

 

No one is forcing features down their throats. But their list of things to put into the game is going to be measured against what they committed to doing via the stretch goals and so forth. If they want to put in something like localization, it should come either as an explicit stretch goal, or after all stretch goals have been satisfied (and quite literally be a "stretch goal" for their development, in that if they have the resources available to do so, then they should).

[OldRPG'sAreGood]

Don't really care about any of those, with the exception of multiplayer. If the single player portion is done and it seems that there's little to nothing worthwhile to add to it, well, make co-op, I'll use it. But I still think that single player should go miles ahead of multiplayer in the list of priorities.

[monsen]

To me, Multiplayer is the single most important feature beyond the actual game itself.

 

I've had countless hours of fun playing the campaigns from Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, etc co-op multiplayer with my friends. What is important to me is that the multi-player is co-op, playing the exaxct same campaign as in single-player, no seperate multiplayer part or other changes. And I don't care if the story still resolves around a single hero, I am more than willing to play one of the hero's companions (like in BG multiplayer), no reason to change the story to accomodate multiple protagonists. Obsidian have already stated this game will be party-based, so having different people take control of various party members (Like it worked in BG) instead of everyone controlled by one player should make minimal impact on the game story/balance-wise, while still allowing people to enjoy the game with their friends.

 

I love playing Baldur's Gate single player, but I love it even more playing it together with my friends.

 

As for multiple language support, I voted no. This is because I am NOT a native english-speaker, but I absolutelay hate when gaming companies spend resources translating the game into my language.

[Sordel]

Wrong. If this game and other games doesn't deliver what the Kickstarter contributors want, Kickstarter dies as a medium for financing games. I'm sure you'd be tickled pink to find out that Obsidian decided to make some Facebook game with the money they requested.

 

No one wants to see Kickstarter fail, but the gaming gold rush is going to stall, whatever Obsidian does. I don't think people are really ready to wait years to see their games developed: I think we'll see a reality check, especially when it turns out that some of the Kickstarter-funded games are not as good as their backers hoped. Moreover, I don't think that games companies are really to blame for this, since backers like to believe that their pet projects are awash with cash, when that simply isn't true. Not everything in every Kickstarter game is going to be funded as the developers would like; even games companies such as Blizzard that could afford to make any game they wanted to can't get everything right.

 

Now, I agree that Obsidian is not going to take the money and not deliver anything on the pledges. (I think that has more to do with its reputation in the marketplace than because it cares massively about Kickstarter's future but, whatever, doesn't matter.) But I also think that Obsidian will want to create a viable market product. I don't think they got together to devote a couple of years to a hobbyist game here, so they will definitely want to have their mind on the wider market rather than just the Kickstarter backers.

 

People say 'this isn't a AAA game" and of course, that's true. It doesn't have a mass marketing budget, or a license etc. and its sales are capped to the people who care about a traditional RPG. But, there's a huge distance between a game that's AAA and a game that has no marketing spend and only costs $3 million to develop. Moreover, marketing spend is not lost money: you can pretty much guarantee a level of sales based on marketing, which is why Bethesda spent a fortune on advertising Skyrim despite the fact that it already had massive market awareness.

 

My view is that you have to trust the devs and let them run with the ball. Personally, I don't want this to go down in history as a successful example of crowd-funding ... I want it to go down as the game so successful in the open marketplace that every other major developer started work on a traditional RPG off the back of it.

[alanschu]

No one wants to see Kickstarter fail, but the gaming gold rush is going to stall, whatever Obsidian does. I don't think people are really ready to wait years to see their games developed: I think we'll see a reality check, especially when it turns out that some of the Kickstarter-funded games are not as good as their backers hoped. Moreover, I don't think that games companies are really to blame for this, since backers like to believe that their pet projects are awash with cash, when that simply isn't true. Not everything in every Kickstarter game is going to be funded as the developers would like; even games companies such as Blizzard that could afford to make any game they wanted to can't get everything right.

 

Agreed. No sense tossing a stick of dynamite on it. Even when the gold rush dies though, if Obsidian and inXile deliver on the games they want to make, the avenue is still open to them.

 

THere's an important thing to consider is that the contributors are people that are often willing to pay much, much more than the cost of an actual project. If Obsidian's game isn't a runaway success and the contributors feel cheated, Obsidian is pretty much done unless they want to make whatever games publishers want them to make (and even then that might be unlikely).

 

They can't (and won't) listen to every request, but if they decide to add localization support instead of one of their stretch goals, I think it will only backfire. Especially since there's nothing stopping them from localizing the game once they are getting revenues from actual sales. Localization isn't a cheap process, and deciding to do it instead of taking those resources and putting them into the core product is a huge risk.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that Obsidian is on the record stating they hope to never need to use something like Kickstarter again, but I'm sure they'd rather not burn any bridges and frankly seem like the types that wouldn't want to help burn that bridge for anyone else either.

Edited September 24, 2012 by alanschu

[sesobebo]

Project Eternity is shaping up to be a callback to the halcyon days of BG and BG2. And while developers have learned much since then about narrative and mechanics, you're still dealing with a fairly niche market. You probably aren't going to find many of your friends who play more fast paced games like ME or even Dragon Age will be that enthusiastic about buying a game that appears to be built around a slower more strategic style of play. And even then they'll feel like idiots because games like this tend to have MUCH more complicated combat systems than current RPG's.

 

IWDs and BGs had multiplayer. for me, some of the most fun playthroughs of these games were with a couple of friends over lan (some never playes d&d before).

 

also: spectacularly speculating Yourself into patronizng a great heap of players there!

 

 

Instead of JE working on how to fine tune the Single Player system so that it's relatively balanced and no one single playstyle will outright murder everything in sight... He'll be stuck constructing p2p contact, the design for how servers will work, and basically building every little thing you need for the multiplayer aspect to be implemented.

 

JE mos certainly will not have been the one writing net code.

 

also: i'm fairly sure unity comes with pre-built server-client mechanics to choose from.

 

 

I forget where I heard it, maybe gameinformer, but recently I saw an article in which a dev outright stated that several publishers are forcing the companies to put in play a Multiplayer aspect because of how profitable it CAN be. This usually ends up showing itself most brutally in those games that are shorter, and not "Triple A" titles. And most people won't even use the multiplayer aspect in something like that... as an example, go look at the multiplayer sides of:

Homefront

Darkness

Ace Combat

Mass Effect 3

or Fable

 

 

How popular are they? How much do you think people said "OH SWEET! MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT! I GOTTA GET THAT!"? How much did they actually add to what you're doing? How relevant to the world did they seem? How did the world respond to the addition of a second player who knew wtf they were doing?

 

i don't see how 'publishers are forcing developers to add multiplayer to games' has any relevance. i thought that one of the prime perks of kicksarter is that no one can force anybody to do anything they don't wan to do.

 

also: colour me peculiar, but i've acually bought me3 because of how fun the multiplayer thingie is.

 

 

And consider the implications of what Obsidian is trying to do here. They're creating a project that no publisher would have chased at the conceptual stages. It's to different from the modern paradigm of games, and thus is to much of a chance for a publisher to have even looked at. It was only after the impressive success of the kickstarted that at least one publisher thought it might be worth something.

 

IF this game succeeds, and the Kickstarter manages to fully fund the game and it becomes commercially successful... Publishers will have to entirely rethink how they do business. They'll have to rethink how they choose projects, how they support projects, what a developer can do with their project, how it will interact with the player... because Obsidian will have shown that A) players will support a developer if the idea is good enough B) A developer would have succesfully ignored all the current "rules" of publishers and is getting the full profit potential, and C) that players don't want the "Safe" alternatives... they will support more risky projects, IF the game can be shown to have a good foundation. Also EA would probably reverse it's statement about making "Multiplayer Only" games.

 

what Obsidian is trying to do here is a fun game. trying to make a game for any other reason (eg trying to make the game so it can be different! ) is plain stupid.

 

and i'm willing to bet You that publishers will not 'entirely rethink how they do business'. they publish games where the logo on the box alone guarantees You several hundreds of thousands of sold copies. projects like eternity and wasteland will have had to return several times the money gathered by this kickstarter to make the profit comparable.

 

 

...publishers are forcing the companies to put in play a Multiplayer aspect because of how profitable it CAN be.

 

Tacking on the time and QA and money required for the multiplayer to work properly, COULD jepordize the entire success of the project from a commercial standpoint...

 

cans and coulds are funny words

 

 

 

personaly, i don't care that much for the multiplayer. i had heaps of fun co-oping through Icewind Dales, but i know i would have none playing multiplayer Planescape: Torment.

 

localization for other prominent languages would most certainly be nice and a decent thing to provide.

 

modding tools are a must!

[Carlitus]

...

 

personaly, i don't care that much for the multiplayer. i had heaps of fun co-oping through Icewind Dales, but i know i would have none playing multiplayer Planescape: Torment.

 

localization for other prominent languages would most certainly be nice and a decent thing to provide.

 

modding tools are a must!

 

Yes, i agree.

 

I wish EFIGS localisation. But it's preferable modding options than direct localisations, so fans can made them! Of course, it will allow more content added by users.

 

I don't care about multiplayer, unless it implies vary the single player experience.

[veldom]

I hope very much that the multiplayer version will be implemented: playing RPGs with friends is always an amazing experience.

 

I don't think it will ruin the solo game experience (if you have enough resources to develop it) but it should be different from the solo game, i.e. with specific/modified quest.

Edited September 24, 2012 by veldom

[Orchomene]

As far as I remember, every Interplay game had localization. If it's only text translation, the cost shouldn't be that important. After all, the budget of PST and IWD wheren't that big if you compare it to "modern" games. YEt, PST had a very well done french translation with slang well translated in "argot" (french slang).

After that, it demands on what you want for PE and Obsidian.

For me, it's pretty simple : I gave my money to have a gmae I love, but I also gave my money so that PE could become a commercial success, to show that there is a demand in video game market for mature games that focus more on the story and intelligent interactivity than only focus on action. I also wish that Obsidian would benefit from a commercial success so that they have a strong IP, so that they can have funds for other risky projects of their own.

Thus, not having localization at release would lower the sales, the first month sales. When you look on the market of mature and tactical video games, you can see that Europe and Asia are not small markets at all. For RPG, you can't forget that Germany is one of the only market where nobody thought that RPG was a dead genre. Look at all the RPG dev companies that are in western or eastern Europe. Look at the number of backers here that are from Europe.

Then consider that for each backer in Europe, there are a lot of potential customers that are not backers because they don't follow english news boards, kickstarter or even if they now that are anxious to get an only english written game. Those gamers had the luck to be able to enjoy all these IE games in their native language so they totally know what they can expect from PE.

 

For me, not having at least EFIGS + polish and russian would be a strategical mistake. And even if I play most of my games in english and don't matter if the game has no localization from a gamers perspective, I'm not only a gamer here. I'm a backer. I consider involved in the project and want the best for it. I want it to be a success. I want to see big smiles on the Obsidian teams faces when they will see that the game is loved and sales worldly well.

 

I just understand at all how a backer would consider that localization would not be good for the project. Ok, not for themself directly, but come on. It's not only about ourself, is it ?

[Lady Evenstar]

Generally, these are things that wouldn't benefit me personally (except modding support) and that I'd rather remain internal goals rather than "if we get x dollars" promises to fans. I'm not opposed to them implementing BG-style multiplayer--which would also benefit folks who want to create multiple party members--or language versions, but I'd rather they retain more flexibility in allocating resources. If things go well, and they're able to add these features, great! Let them come as happy surprises to those who want them. Making something a stretch goal means that resources need to be reserved off the top. For that reason I'd prefer such goals to remain pretty general.

[Calax]

Project Eternity is shaping up to be a callback to the halcyon days of BG and BG2. And while developers have learned much since then about narrative and mechanics, you're still dealing with a fairly niche market. You probably aren't going to find many of your friends who play more fast paced games like ME or even Dragon Age will be that enthusiastic about buying a game that appears to be built around a slower more strategic style of play. And even then they'll feel like idiots because games like this tend to have MUCH more complicated combat systems than current RPG's.

 

IWDs and BGs had multiplayer. for me, some of the most fun playthroughs of these games were with a couple of friends over lan (some never playes d&d before).

 

also: spectacularly speculating Yourself into patronizng a great heap of players there!

Have you ever watched somebody who grew up on todays games try to play something like BG or Tie Fighter, or Deus Ex? BG just becomes so complicated with the rest system, the dice rolling, the dozens of spells, that they end up throwing in the towel, while the other two just hurt their eyes to even look at. I'm not making the speculation that ALL gamers will refuse to join a game, but the current generation/next generation probably would make for a hard sell.

Instead of JE working on how to fine tune the Single Player system so that it's relatively balanced and no one single playstyle will outright murder everything in sight... He'll be stuck constructing p2p contact, the design for how servers will work, and basically building every little thing you need for the multiplayer aspect to be implemented.

 

JE mos certainly will not have been the one writing net code.

 

also: i'm fairly sure unity comes with pre-built server-client mechanics to choose from.

He'd still have to be balancing the world around the possibility of extra players. I don't know what Unity comes with, but there's still a LOT that would need to be done to get Multiplayer in the game, which means that that's time and energy taken away from other parts of the process.

I forget where I heard it, maybe gameinformer, but recently I saw an article in which a dev outright stated that several publishers are forcing the companies to put in play a Multiplayer aspect because of how profitable it CAN be. This usually ends up showing itself most brutally in those games that are shorter, and not "Triple A" titles. And most people won't even use the multiplayer aspect in something like that... as an example, go look at the multiplayer sides of:

Homefront

Darkness

Ace Combat

Mass Effect 3

or Fable

 

 

How popular are they? How much do you think people said "OH SWEET! MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT! I GOTTA GET THAT!"? How much did they actually add to what you're doing? How relevant to the world did they seem? How did the world respond to the addition of a second player who knew wtf they were doing?

 

i don't see how 'publishers are forcing developers to add multiplayer to games' has any relevance. i thought that one of the prime perks of kicksarter is that no one can force anybody to do anything they don't wan to do.

 

also: colour me peculiar, but i've acually bought me3 because of how fun the multiplayer thingie is.

The publisher forcing devs to put in multiplayer ties into my point below, and ties in here. If there is enough kickstarter pressure then they'd throw in multiplayer to get the money.

 

And yes, you are peculiar for using that word and for the fact you purchased ME3 for it's multiplayer component.

And consider the implications of what Obsidian is trying to do here. They're creating a project that no publisher would have chased at the conceptual stages. It's to different from the modern paradigm of games, and thus is to much of a chance for a publisher to have even looked at. It was only after the impressive success of the kickstarted that at least one publisher thought it might be worth something.

 

IF this game succeeds, and the Kickstarter manages to fully fund the game and it becomes commercially successful... Publishers will have to entirely rethink how they do business. They'll have to rethink how they choose projects, how they support projects, what a developer can do with their project, how it will interact with the player... because Obsidian will have shown that A) players will support a developer if the idea is good enough B) A developer would have succesfully ignored all the current "rules" of publishers and is getting the full profit potential, and C) that players don't want the "Safe" alternatives... they will support more risky projects, IF the game can be shown to have a good foundation. Also EA would probably reverse it's statement about making "Multiplayer Only" games.

 

what Obsidian is trying to do here is a fun game. trying to make a game for any other reason (eg trying to make the game so it can be different! ) is plain stupid.

 

and i'm willing to bet You that publishers will not 'entirely rethink how they do business'. they publish games where the logo on the box alone guarantees You several hundreds of thousands of sold copies. projects like eternity and wasteland will have had to return several times the money gathered by this kickstarter to make the profit comparable.

Yes, they are... but consider these two things. One, the age of the Triple A game is dying. The budgets for what are being released are starting to shrink, and player's aren't making as many purchases as they were before. Right now, anything Obsidian does could still be considered a profit because they're 2 million up from where they were a week ago. And yes, they are trying to make a fun game, but they've also been frustrated by the publishers restrictions and deadlines, so they went entirely kickstarter for this.

 

I mean, recently we've seen Bioshock and Assassins Creed pop up as popular names, because the initial games were actually fairly good. But both of those games were massive chances taken by 2k and Ubisoft, and were quickly taken advantage of by their publishers to spawn larger franchises. Eternity has the chance to re-vitalize the RPG genre, but it won't work if they can't devote the time they want to the player's experience.

...publishers are forcing the companies to put in play a Multiplayer aspect because of how profitable it CAN be.

 

Tacking on the time and QA and money required for the multiplayer to work properly, COULD jepordize the entire success of the project from a commercial standpoint...

 

cans and coulds are funny words

 

personaly, i don't care that much for the multiplayer. i had heaps of fun co-oping through Icewind Dales, but i know i would have none playing multiplayer Planescape: Torment.

 

localization for other prominent languages would most certainly be nice and a decent thing to provide.

 

modding tools are a must!

You know what else is funny? Divorcing a sentence from the rest of it's context. My entire point was that the publishers were making games have a multiplayer mode because they look at other FPS's and see the multiplayer aspects as what keeps gamers playing... not realizing that those games (battlefield, Call of Duty and those other hot properties) are almost entirely based on their Multiplayer rather than their single player aspect (Battlefield is one of the more rediculous versions, where the Single Player campaign is buggier than a flea ridden dog), and a game like this or Spec Ops would be single player first, with Multiplayer being the backup.

[Kleisthenes]

I would love to see multi-player if money can be spared for it. It would be great to get another platform to RP online with, besides NWN 2.

[Zverd]

On french forum, I've seen some people waiting for a french translation confirmation before pledging. Even if someone do know english as second language, it doesn't mean they fully playing a video games full of text in english in it.

[ButchinMelancholy]

In any case, Obsidian doesn't really have to spend much money on the translation, if the community's behind. They would just need to choose adequate people within the crowd and supervise the task to meet the quality standards and desired integrity regarding the vision. And I don't think anyone's expecting them to hire any foreign voice-acting team, so the costs for localization really doesn't appear to be much of a problem.

 

Wasteland 2 supported many langages from the start, and there's also a topic where people are signing in as volunteers for the translations, so there is apparently no reason that this couldn't happen here too.

 

 

If some people truly vote against localization because they fear the game will miss that additionnal lame dog and a jar, or because they're upset about the usual quality of translations, I see no reason to give their opinion a credit, as in the first case it is obvious egocentrism and for the other, you can always install the game in the original version, as you wish...

[sesobebo]

Have you ever watched somebody who grew up on todays games try to play something like BG or Tie Fighter, or Deus Ex? BG just becomes so complicated with the rest system, the dice rolling, the dozens of spells, that they end up throwing in the towel, while the other two just hurt their eyes to even look at. I'm not making the speculation that ALL gamers will refuse to join a game, but the current generation/next generation probably would make for a hard sell.

 

i haven't.

that's why i only speak for myself, think only about myself and of my wishes, and judge others through my views and experiences.

i'm kind of egocentric like that. (:

 

so if i were to speculate, why BGs Tie Fighters and Deus Exes are hard to get into today, i'd say that UI, OS compatibility and graphics are to blame, and not the fact that some things need to be read, berfore other things can make sense. that could be true. probably. maybe?

 

 

He'd still have to be balancing the world around the possibility of extra players. I don't know what Unity comes with, but there's still a LOT that would need to be done to get Multiplayer in the game, which means that that's time and energy taken away from other parts of the process.

 

BGs and NWN2s had no such optimizations. it workd just fine there. If the game takes into consideration that it can be soloed, content designer's job is done, as far as i'm concerned.

 

 

The publisher forcing devs to put in multiplayer ties into my point below, and ties in here. If there is enough kickstarter pressure then they'd throw in multiplayer to get the money.

 

but if there's an actual demand for multiplayer (not some publisher's research department's guesswork - which i don't mean to discredit), and obsidian decides to put multiplayer in, because the funding for making the whole unadulturated experience had already been gathered (see the name of this thread in which these speculations are being made), and they collect even more backing for this, what's the problem?

 

 

And yes, you are peculiar for using that word and for the fact you purchased ME3 for it's multiplayer component.

 

all i wanted to hear (:

 

 

Yes, they are... but consider these two things. One, the age of the Triple A game is dying. The budgets for what are being released are starting to shrink, and player's aren't making as many purchases as they were before. Right now, anything Obsidian does could still be considered a profit because they're 2 million up from where they were a week ago. And yes, they are trying to make a fun game, but they've also been frustrated by the publishers restrictions and deadlines, so they went entirely kickstarter for this.

 

I mean, recently we've seen Bioshock and Assassins Creed pop up as popular names, because the initial games were actually fairly good. But both of those games were massive chances taken by 2k and Ubisoft, and were quickly taken advantage of by their publishers to spawn larger franchises. Eternity has the chance to re-vitalize the RPG genre, but it won't work if they can't devote the time they want to the player's experience.

 

i guess i'll have to take Your word for it, beacuse i don't see any links to data, and bugger me if i'm gonna be the one to search for them.

 

kickstarter is not profit. it's covering the expenses of game making for the next 1,5-2 years. they're not self-publishing this and we're not tossing them charity. we are publishing the game that they have promised to make.

obsidian will start making profit only when the game is made and in the stores.

 

big games and big publishers are way ot of my field, but the bet is still on. q:

games like eternity (and i guess assassins creed1 and bioshock1) come way to sparsely to make the money loaners "entirely rethink how they do business'.

 

 

You know what else is funny? Divorcing a sentence from the rest of it's context. My entire point was that the publishers were making games have a multiplayer mode because they look at other FPS's and see the multiplayer aspects as what keeps gamers playing... not realizing that those games (battlefield, Call of Duty and those other hot properties) are almost entirely based on their Multiplayer rather than their single player aspect (Battlefield is one of the more rediculous versions, where the Single Player campaign is buggier than a flea ridden dog), and a game like this or Spec Ops would be single player first, with Multiplayer being the backup.

 

no context necessary. publishers are making [educated] guesses that multiplayers is a good gamble, You were making an [educated] guess that multiplayer is not a good gamble. i found it funny.