Interplay. Kickstarter? It is...a mystery!

[Heresiarch]

I can hardly imagine how you can get more infamous than Interplay or Electronic Arts, but I suppose it's still possible. There's really no limit to greed, selfishness, and unscrupulousness. The only hope for consumers is making companies, using that sort of practices go out of business. So piracy is defending consumer's rights here. Quite ironic.

[Veeno]

My personal feeling is that companies that employ DRM aren't doing it to stop pirates. If pirates won't pay, then they'll charge their customers twice to recoup those losses. Those guys are paying money already, so they figure they'd pay again to play a game that they should technically own. Thus, when a game suddenly gets hacked or no longer works, they'll just have to buy the game again to play it. Suckers that they are, they probably do, thus paying once for the pirate and once for themselves.

 

Ah, so what you're saying is that DRM is a sort of stupidity tax?

 

I like it quite a bit more when you put it like that! :D

[Hormalakh]

It's why people continue to buy songs from iTunes even though there's been plenty of news about how you don't own the music you buy: you just own the "license" to listen to it until Apple says you can't.

 

Edit: Now that this thread has been completely derailed, I am done. Sorry about that OP.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Zoraptor]

I also would be quite pissed if any of my friends ever pirated this game, nor would I ever condone pirating this game. Why? Simple: I backed it and I actually like Obsidian as a company. They haven't screwed me over and listen to their fans. Why would I do anything that could possibly harm them by taking money away from them? These are the actual developers of the games, not some middleman trash that does nothing but destroy the games I love to play.

 

Seriously though, I really can't understand the "logic" behind DRM. I'm pretty sure that's because there simply isn't one.

Companies (and especially publicly traded ones) are at least theoretically obligated to take steps to protect copyrighted works. DRM won't work for anyone with a bit of technical knowledge but does work for the casual "just cut a copy to CD" types and it's something that a company can point to to its shareholders as "fighting piracy". Companies in general also love to have maximum control over their customers and drm is one tool that can influence this. At least in theory Blizzard has near complete control over Diablo 3, for example, including a captive marketplace and the like.

 

Note: I actually agree that drm is pointless and definitively so from a consumer's POV, but that is pretty much the rationale that would be used for it by companies. I rather doubt that most companies really want to eliminate piracy though, as once that is gone they have to explain why they aren't making money to shareholders without being able to point to x billion 'lost' dollars from pirates.

[Hormalakh]

"lost" bah! don't make me laugh. We never talk about money "gained" from people sampling your game. But if it's pirated, it's definitely a loss.

 

Anyway, don't steal this game people. support the devs. Pay them for this game.

[Veeno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLV08-uhm9Y

[Haerski]

My personal feeling is that companies that employ DRM aren't doing it to stop pirates. If pirates won't pay, then they'll charge their customers twice to recoup those losses. Those guys are paying money already, so they figure they'd pay again to play a game that they should technically own. Thus, when a game suddenly gets hacked or no longer works, they'll just have to buy the game again to play it. Suckers that they are, they probably do, thus paying once for the pirate and once for themselves.

Sad, but so true. And we Europeans pay much more. If you look at prices of coming SimCity: 60$ = 60€ for Limited Edition (Read: Less cut edition) 80$ = 80€ for Digital "Deluxe" Edition. (Full game with all cut content) And of course it requires Origin and internet connection every time you start the game. I'm happy to pay little more so they can include state of the art nazi-DRM which helps them to protect their IP couple of days longer. Well, NO! They can keep their copy. It just saddens me that it really looks great and I'm not going to be able to enjoy it while pirates will have their fun anyway. That's why I don't buy new games anymore and if I do, I consider really carefully who I want to support. I think the last game I bought full priced at release day was The Witcher 2.

 

But I'm seeing faint light at the end of the tunnel. Overall it seems this DRM-free movement, which Project Eternity is part of, is getting bigger and bigger all the time and hopefully soon it's big enough that these corporations can't marginalize it anymore. Part of the deal with Project Eternity for me was to support this kind of business model. Maybe we will see the day when EA, Activision and other publishers start once again compete in better quality games and not in who can feed most s*** for their customers and still keep sales and profits up.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Haerski

[FlintlockJazz]

I also would be quite pissed if any of my friends ever pirated this game, nor would I ever condone pirating this game. Why? Simple: I backed it and I actually like Obsidian as a company. They haven't screwed me over and listen to their fans. Why would I do anything that could possibly harm them by taking money away from them? These are the actual developers of the games, not some middleman trash that does nothing but destroy the games I love to play.

 

Seriously though, I really can't understand the "logic" behind DRM. I'm pretty sure that's because there simply isn't one.

Companies (and especially publicly traded ones) are at least theoretically obligated to take steps to protect copyrighted works. DRM won't work for anyone with a bit of technical knowledge but does work for the casual "just cut a copy to CD" types and it's something that a company can point to to its shareholders as "fighting piracy". Companies in general also love to have maximum control over their customers and drm is one tool that can influence this. At least in theory Blizzard has near complete control over Diablo 3, for example, including a captive marketplace and the like.

 

Note: I actually agree that drm is pointless and definitively so from a consumer's POV, but that is pretty much the rationale that would be used for it by companies. I rather doubt that most companies really want to eliminate piracy though, as once that is gone they have to explain why they aren't making money to shareholders without being able to point to x billion 'lost' dollars from pirates.

 

This is it. Witcher 2 had to have DRM on the physical copies sold through retailers at launch despite CD Project being opposed to it because the publisher insisted on it to appease their shareholders. Shareholders (and most management) don't really understand the industry any more than Joe Bloggs they are just after money, and when they see people using their products all they know is "that guy has stolen from!!!111"

Edited October 23, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Luridis]

Remember this quote about a month back?

 

“We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter,” Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart revealedin a Q&A on the Project Eternity Kickstarter page. “I said to them ‘So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for, using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don’t get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits.’ They said, ‘Yes’.”

 

 

The first time this happens, and it will; you know how greedy the suits are. The backlash will make the New York Times. If a studio states in their kickstarter that they're not looking to work with publishers and then do... Well, lets just say that Amazon is going to get slammed with thousands, or even tens of thousands of charge-backs. Consumers will state the studio violated their stated goals in the crowdfunding and pulled a bait and switch. Kickstarer themselves will end up with a pile of negative publicity and will find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to litigate against a project owner for the first time; or at least in the public spotlight. Should the publisher end up involved and documents be found proving intent to defraud on the part of the publisher and studio... Well that will just be messy, unless someone shoves that stuff in a paper shredder when it all starts.

 

This scenario is precisely the reason I am still very much on the fence about backing Star Citizen. There were 2 words I didn't like at all: microtransactions and investors. Add to that the odd behavior of how their campaign started. They completely ignored Kickstarter and setup their own campaign, only to turn around and start an actual Kickstarter project when the paypal funding appeared to slow down.

 

I have fond memories of Chris Roberts' games and I really don't want to believe he would knowingly participate in a scheme designed to allow some publisher to shirk the development costs. I may still end up backing the project, and I really do hope that I'm just being greedy-bastards paranoid. But, something about it makes me very uneasy, especially not knowing what entities these "investors" are.

[Rosveen]

This is it. Witcher 2 had to have DRM on the physical copies sold through retailers at launch despite CD Project being opposed to it because the publisher insisted on it to appease their shareholders. Shareholders (and most management) don't really understand the industry any more than Joe Bloggs they are just after money, and when they see people using their products all they know is "that guy has stolen from!!!111"

Then they offered a backup copy on GOG for everyone who bought the game Take that, publisher!

[norolim]

I agree with most of what was said here about DRM. It's not a means of fighting piracy. It's used to 1. please shareholders 2. have more control over how and when their games are played.

[Theobeau]

Only came across this thread today so while late to the party well spotted and well deduced Leferd!

 

The pieces certainly look like they make Interplay (did I get the italicised writing right?)

[WDeranged]

Not exactly a smoking gun but the cynic in me finds the idea very plausible.

[Osvir]

I've been hanging around the empty Interplay forums a little bit, not so much.. hardly at all.. but nonetheless.. I saw this and I'm wondering if it is a desperate attempt at getting some cash flow so that they can start funding Black Isle Studios game development:

http://www.gog.com/interplay/

 

$35 for 32 games, soundtrack etc... that's their entire collection which would cost... $190~ some? So you are saving $155~ some... it's a bargain.

They've sold 180k games thus far, $35'000 for 32'000 games... that should be something like $200k (GOG probably takes a cut of it too). I hope that Black Isle Studios start again though, I don't even know why... I just get a feeling that something dark will spawn out of it and engulf all of our roleplaying hearts and make us submit into slave labor and praying to the Dungeon Master Gods

Edited October 23, 2012 by Osvir

[Hiro Protagonist II]

A lot of gullible people on the internet if they believe the OP's ramblings.

[NOK222]

What are they trying to do? Hmmmn

[FlintlockJazz]

Aye, the OP's logic is fundamentally flawed as he presumes successful publishers wouldn't stoop so low. Doubt the birth of Fake Isle has anything to do with this.

[Leferd]

Aye, the OP's logic is fundamentally flawed as he presumes successful publishers wouldn't stoop so low. Doubt the birth of Fake Isle has anything to do with this.

 

Well, considering that Avellone has many times stated that crowd funding and the kickstarter model goes beneath the notice of the big publishers because it's outside their business model.

 

EA, Activision, Take Two, are after big blockbusters and AAA development. They are not interested in niche games that may turn a small profit. It's not how they do business. Smaller publishers on the other hand, especially those in dire straits may see this as an opportunity, with little cost to themselves, especially if the pitch was similar to how Feargus presented it.

 

Please explain my logical fallacy.

[FlintlockJazz]

Aye, the OP's logic is fundamentally flawed as he presumes successful publishers wouldn't stoop so low. Doubt the birth of Fake Isle has anything to do with this.

 

Well, considering that Avellone has many times stated that crowd funding and the kickstarter model goes beneath the notice of the big publishers because it's outside their business model.

 

EA, Activision, Take Two, are after big blockbusters and AAA development. They are not interested in niche games that may turn a small profit. It's not how they do business. Smaller publishers on the other hand, especially those in dire straits may see this as an opportunity, with little cost to themselves, especially if the pitch was similar to how Feargus presented it.

 

Please explain my logical fallacy.

 

Did you or did you not state that the big publishers would not 'stoop that level'? As they have done alot worse you are therefore wrong in that part of your assertation. As to your current assertation that those publishers would not bother because they are not interested in any less than AAA games again you are false, Take 2 for instance publishes Tropico, a franchise that is not a AAA game series, and more importantly you seem tohave missed the key point: the publisher was trying to acquire the rights to the game. The problem that publishers have is that new franchises are risky, and AAA development costly, so if they can acquire the rights to a KS developed game before it is released for free they can then see how well it does, if it does well they produce a AAA game (without the original developers) if not they lost nothing (as opposed to the developers and backers).

 

Plus, what company will turn their nose up at free money?

[RTWAP]

Not sure if serious...

Just think about it, if EA was publishing, we could get a 9th companion character in day one dlc, and a 10th a few months later!

 

No. If EA was publishing we could get a 7th companion character in day one DLC, and an 8th companion if we pre-ordered through their preferred retail partner.

[QuartzEye]

 

 

I have fond memories of Chris Roberts' games and I really don't want to believe he would knowingly participate in a scheme designed to allow some publisher to shirk the development costs. I may still end up backing the project, and I really do hope that I'm just being greedy-bastards paranoid. But, something about it makes me very uneasy, especially not knowing what entities these "investors" are.

 

Chris Roberts appears to be being amazingly upfront about Star Citizen so far.

 

Although the idea of investors is somewhat off-putting, Chris has expressly stated that there will be no publishers involved.

[bobobo878]

Not sure if serious...

Just think about it, if EA was publishing, we could get a 9th companion character in day one dlc, and a 10th a few months later!

No. If EA was publishing we could get a 7th companion character in day one DLC, and an 8th companion if we pre-ordered through their preferred retail partner.

Oh, don't be so negative.

[cdx]

I remember reading this thread a while back and it seemed quite possible the OP was right.

 

After seeing this pile of incompetence and arrogance there's no room for any doubt: http://www.blackisle.com/

[Farbautisonn]

Not sure if serious...

Just think about it, if EA was publishing, we could get a 9th companion character in day one dlc, and a 10th a few months later!

No. If EA was publishing we could get a 7th companion character in day one DLC, and an 8th companion if we pre-ordered through their preferred retail partner.

Oh, don't be so negative.

 

And the 10th companion would be Darth Maul. If we bought the latest DLC AND the "Extra special 3D extended directors cut hyper version" of "Return of the Midiclorians"... ermn.. Sith.

[Ieo]

I remember reading this thread a while back and it seemed quite possible the OP was right.

 

After seeing this pile of incompetence and arrogance there's no room for any doubt: http://www.blackisle.com/

 

?

 

??????

?

 

What the woof?

 

I kept checking the URL to see if it was misspelled and then checking the calendar to see if it was the wrong month.

 

I don't even...

 

(Oh, and an elaboration: http://www.escapistm...aising-Campaign )

 

NO.

 

(Edit: To elaborate pink disagreement, "The money raised will go toward the development of a 'proof of concept' prototype, which will then be used to attract further investment required to finish the game." from the article. Uhh, no. The monies should into the actual product. :/ Are there really KSes for mere prototypes? I haven't heard of such a thing. Hmph.)

Edited December 21, 2012 by Ieo