In a recent interview with GI.biz Sid Meier said the following "I really enjoy the luxury of changing my design and evolving over time. I'd be a little concerned with Kickstarter if I committed to X, Y and Z and I found out down the road that Z didn't work very well, I kind of promised to do this."

 

We've all heard a lot about cut features and ideas that just didn't make it to the final game, and Obsidian have a long track record of their reach exceeding their grasp with titles. Personally I'm fine with this, as long as Project Eternity is good and is in the style promised by the Kickstarter (no turning into a first person shooter!)

 

What do other people think? Do you see the Kickstarter pitch as a promise or as a general goal?

I go with the middle ground, although I'd rather have all the features in.

 

To me the most important thing is a straightforward communication and honesty. If they see there might be a big problem with some feature then I want to know it fairly early and I want to know their answers on: "how they are going to deal with the problem?" which came during brainstorming session before claiming that the feature probably won't make it into the game even though it was promised. If there is a financial limitation, then I'd go for "get more funds" option, if there is a serious technical,/gameplay limitation, then I am willing to accept a feature being simply cut.

If something ends up being cut, they'll have to communicate to their backers what and why. I'm satisfied that this would happen.

Personally I wouldn't mind. Things crop up in software development that means you must some times scale back, or end up with a with a half-baked feature, wasting time and money that could improve other areas.

 

They would have to be careful about communicating it to the backers, to minimize the backlash.

 

I could see a second round of funding, for a project on this scale, souring a good deal of the original backers (and more so if they approached a publisher), therefore I would rather avoid that option, but I could of course be misjudging the community.

I'm definitely on the side of allowing the developer's to make the decisions. That said, I would be pretty disappointed if they cut certain things. The big city, obviously would be really sad. Companion characters are one of my favorite parts of RPGs, so I really don't want them to cut one of those. I really don't care that much about player housing, and I wouldn't be *that* upset if crafting didn't make it in. I know there are people with the opposite preferences as me, though, so I have to consider all these goals as basically equal in value.

 

I'll just echo everyone else in this thread and say if they have to cut something, I'll understand, but I think they should communicate to the backers exactly what is being cut and why. 

Got to agree with other posters, I won't mind if they communicate effectively WHY it isn't in the final product.

 

I think they could also offset/mitigate disillusionment/disappointment at X feature being omitted by telling us about the other awesome things they have implemented that weren't necessarily in the original goals (of which I'm sure there will be plenty, even if they are just small things).

While I would understand, if they deviated from the pitch out of necessity, I really hope, they will not. That's not because the pitch is so perfect, that any alteration would inevitably ruin it, but because P:E is one of the paragons of kickstarter games and one of the spearheads of this genre at the same time. The more promises it fulfils, the better for future (Obsidian's) kickstarter projects of similar scale.

 

Sid Meier's worries are sound, if one commits to some very well defined design decisions - defined in enough detail to disallow flexibility. But I don't think that's the case P:E. P:E's pitch and stretch goals have been put broadly enough to allow a myriad of different approaches.

I´m on the "no" side not because I´ll rampage the forums, demand a refund or whatever but because all "goals" are a compromise from them to us. That is the reason why they left them mostly "open" and don't go for really wild stretch goals like 7 city's or 34 classes. (and common sense ofc xD)

 

The point is, while I trust Obsidian (and I know they wont do this), I don't trust or know every other kickstarter project and wont like Obsidian giving bad examples to them. Like the "old" and professional company they are, they should lead by example.

If something needs to be cut because it can damage the game (not enough resources to implement it or whatever) then yeah, sure, I'd be understanding as long as Obsidian is upfront, transparent, and addresses it on time rather than keeping it a secret until we're close to release. I'd hope not, but development is finnicky that way.

 

However, Sid Meier's objection specifically seems to be geared at features that aren't fun, don't work out as planned, and the risk of that doesn't seem very high with this project. Obsidian has promised mostly things that are either generic enough or that they have implemented more than once in previous games (strongholds for example), which hopefully gives them a solid understand of how to implement those elements and the budget required (as solid as that understanding can be in a changing environment with different tech, players having different expectations, etc.).

 

If Obsidian had promised something like, say, a totally innovative reactivity system that dynamically crafts responses based on the characters' procedurally generated personalities, NPC schedules or stuff like that, I'd be more worried.

If something ends up being cut, they'll have to communicate to their backers what and why. I'm satisfied that this would happen.

+1

I pledged for original concept they had on Kickstarter site and I'm completely fine if some stretch goals get dropped for good reasons. Of course they have to tell us exactly why that is, cause that's nature of crowdfunding, but I won't get angry if we don't get all extra races, classes or if The Endless Paths doesn't have all 13 levels, as long as reasons for those cuts are acceptable. If Obsidian decides to use last million of funding to fly whole team to Bahamas for launch party and that would mean no Big City 2 for us, then I would be pretty pissed.

I consider stretch goals to fall somewhere between promises and extras.

 

Obsidian promised a party-based, isometric RPG and on that score they so very have to deliver because that's why I gave them my money in the first place. I did not give them money just for the promised stretch goals - they are nice to have, but not my primary concern.

 

So when it comes to stuff lke the Stronghold and the second city and whatnot... I won't like it if they end up cut, but if the reasons for it are good I'll accept it. I do expect them to deliver on their stretch goals, but I can be grudingly forgiving if not all of them are met.

I like to think their main promise to deliver a quality cRPG supercedes their promises to put specific components into it.

 

It's kind of like this: If I say, "I promise I'll give you some ice cream." Then, it turns out that you've got some kind of health condition you didn't previously know about, and ice cream, though delicious, would actually kill you. Then, I decide not to give you ice cream. I wouldn't expect you to say "BUT YOU PROMISED! I WANT THE ICE CREAM!"

 

We're all limited, as humans, by the existence of the unknown. Once the unknown becomes known, sometimes this causes plans to change. Understandably so. Demanding that they don't when it only makes sense that they should isn't very reasonable. Nor is demanding that we know the unknown before we find it out.

 

So, I say, if they need to not deliver on some promise, for a good reason, then that's fine by me.

 

If they were to, for some reason, simply say "To hell with you backers! We just decided we don't want that in the game, because it makes us happier to not put it in, and we don't care that we told you we'd do it," then that would be maximum uncoolness. But, I don't see that happening. 8P

This is an interesting question and tough call, especially in an era where producers and developers have been increasingly seen (I am stressing the appearance, the actuality of the charge is neither here nor there, especially on the internet) in failing to keep either expressed or implied promises to players. Of course, it all depends how attached I am to a particular feature as well. 

 

I would have to say I would be upset, but I would also be more willing to cut Obsidian slack, then say a big publisher backed studio. The communication has been fairly good here and I think that any problems would be presented to the backers in a relatively honest way. 

I like to think their main promise to deliver a quality cRPG supercedes their promises to put specific components into it.

 

It's kind of like this: If I say, "I promise I'll give you some ice cream." Then, it turns out that you've got some kind of health condition you didn't previously know about, and ice cream, though delicious, would actually kill you. Then, I decide not to give you ice cream. I wouldn't expect you to say "BUT YOU PROMISED! I WANT THE ICE CREAM!"

 

We're all limited, as humans, by the existence of the unknown. Once the unknown becomes known, sometimes this causes plans to change. Understandably so. Demanding that they don't when it only makes sense that they should isn't very reasonable. Nor is demanding that we know the unknown before we find it out.

 

So, I say, if they need to not deliver on some promise, for a good reason, then that's fine by me.

 

If they were to, for some reason, simply say "To hell with you backers! We just decided we don't want that in the game, because it makes us happier to not put it in, and we don't care that we told you we'd do it," then that would be maximum uncoolness. But, I don't see that happening. 8P

 

 

Its FAR more like: you (the devs) THINK it can give the other (users) a "stomach-ache" (or will make the game "worse")... Its an assumption. It could give you the stomach-ache but you really don't know for certain even if it is probable. What is a fact is that you promised something and you don't feel like delivering it. In a normal relation it can be fixed easier: You go and talk with the  other explaining the problem and come to an agreement. But here we have thousands of "customers" and even a good explanation + a survey wont fix it 100%. Some people would just want to take the risk cause for them it IS a "core" reason why they pledged (maybe you don't care about the frotress, isometric camera, having more than 1 class/race or whatever is the problem but surely others do). That is why its a tough decision: promises are the reason you put money into the project. And that's why promises were delivered so "scarcely" and in an open way: Obsidian is no fool.

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by Naurgalen

Its FAR more like: you (the devs) THINK it can give the other (users) a "stomach-ache" (or will make the game "worse")... Its an assumption. It could give you the stomach-ache but you really don't know for certain even if it is probable. What is a fact is that you promised something and you don't feel like delivering it. In a normal relation it can be fixed easier: You go and talk with the  other explaining the problem and come to an agreement. But here we have thousands of "customers" and even a good explanation + a survey wont fix it 100%. Some people would just want to take the risk cause for them it IS a "core" reason why they pledged (maybe you don't care about the frotress, isometric camera, having more than 1 class/race or whatever is the problem but surely others do). That is why its a tough decision: promises are the reason you put money into the project. And that's why promises were delivered so "scarcely" and in an open way: Obsidian is no fool.

I understand. I think it's pretty good that they did do it that way, though. It's more like showing off your fighting prowess, then promising that betting on you will be backed by your all being given in the next fight. Obsidian basically said "I promise that, if we get this much money, we're going to put in a soundtrack." So, putting money in for a soundtrack, at that point, is an investment in what you perceive as Obsidian's skill and style at soundtrack production. It's when they say things like "Guys, we really inteded to make this soundtrack like 15 songs, but now it's only gonna be 10, sadly," and people freak out, that my brain hurts.

 

But, I don't really foresee anything from a stretch goal being PULLED from the game. However, I could see something being proposed, along the lines of the Endless Dungeon having fewer floors than stated, simply because they've had a design epiphany regarding the way in which they can design each floor to make it that much better per floor. If they were to pitch something very particular and well-laid-out like that, I wouldn't just immediately say "WAIT A MINUTE! YOU SAID IT WOULD BE 15 FLOORS, NOT 10!" and refuse to listen to their proposal.

 

Basically, I don't think anyone said "Hmm... I couldn't care less that there's an Endless Dungeon, but MAN THAT 15TH FLOOR OF THAT DUNGEON I DON'T CARE ABOUT LOOKS REALLY GREAT! *pledge*". The most important part of a stretch goal is the very idea behind that stretch goal. The details might undergo reasonable changes.

 

There's a certain amount of unpredictability that goes on in game development, and it would be folly to hold to extremely specific expectations from the start, with no consideration for reasonable adaptations as the project goes. That's all I'm getting at. Granted, the developer really shouldn't make a promise they can't keep. As in, don't promise a whole additional race, then later say "Oh, we're actually not gonna get to do that race." Or don't promise 1000 different pieces of equipment if you can only do like 700. You give people a good idea of the kind of equipment variance and plentifulness you're going for, then you promise to allocate a certain amount of funding specifically to that if you generate enough investment/backing. Again, now they've invested in YOU, and not a number of weapons.

As stated, there are no requirements set in to stone for the goals. So, as the poll specifically asked for Obsidian and PE goals:

 

I would be seriously pissed off if anything will be discarded.

 

a) We are not talking about newbies here, implementing their very first game. If they make a goal, I expect them to know that it actually is possible.

b) There is enough freedom in the goals to have them implemented.

 

I just say: Duke Nukem.

Edited May 19, 201312 yr by Iyanga

I think I'd go with the "Kickstarter is not a shop" argument. The pitch just explains what they want to do, not what they will do.

But it's tricky. What are stretch goals? Are they promises? I don't think so, but they are more than just vague ideas too. And while I would say that they're not technically obligated to do implement them the way they described them, I couldn't say that they didn't deserve the backlash of such a change of plans.

 

I'm not a games developer, but I imagine that if you make a pitch to a publisher, you just kind of hope to convince them to fund you. The publisher has to be excited, but what you actually do afterwards doesn't matter, as long as the game sells in the end. And if the publisher isn't pleased, find a new one... and you can't do that on Kickstarter, because that funding comes from the people who actually buy the game. You can't switch your fanbase. So it really is in their best interest to implement the stretch goals as described.

I think it comes down to the sort of stretch goals you're talking about. If it was an issue of running out of time before launch I'd rather the game be delayed a bit longer or just have the content patched in at a later date. If it doesn't work for game balance then it should be cut but perhaps replaced with a bit of similar content. If that can't be done then yes by all means cut the stretch goal for the sake of the game.

Mainly I think this is an issue of developers needing to promise stretch goals that make sense and are vague enough that they can be made tweaked enough to not upset game balance. The stronghold for example could take many forms. You only need to look at all the various stronghold suggestion threads on this forum to see that. If they were low on time or money they cold implement it simply. If the intended design was somehow damaging to the game they could simply change it to something else but still have it and fulfill their stretch goal.

I don't think RTS kickstarters should be putting in specific units before the game is complete and balance testing can be done properly. Just like I'm not sure how I feel about the Hex MMO CCG kickstarter promising so many specific cards. They could find later in development that those cards are too strong or too weak and need to be tweaked. Especially in the latter case as those aren't even stretch goals but rather part of the pledge rewards. People may not care much about a card getting a buff but I imagine they'll be a bit miffed to see a card they were promised get nerfed. Instead things should be kept vague enough to be adjusted so as to not upset your fans. Because I don't think a little * disclaimer that things might be changed for balance reasons will appease everyone if you don't include something or completely change something you promised to include.

Depends on the goal.  If the time table gets tight and things are getting tense am I going to care if one or two floors gets dropped from "The Endless Paths"?  No.

 

But if you are talking like "We promised a Barbarian class but in testing it just didn't work so we cut it.", then my answer is... Yes, I am going to care even if I have no intention of using the class.

 

Truthfully I think Obsidian is pretty crafty and not saying they did this... but if I were running a kickstarter for an RPG and I were coming up with stretch goals I would never put in anything that I didn't already plan to at least try to do regardless.  That way it gives motivation for those wanting stretch goals... but also means if the funding isn't met but I was doing it anyway I can surprise people with the final product and say something like "We love you guys so much we found a way to do it!".  It also minimizes the risk of promising a stretch goal you can't deliver.

While I'd still be interested in supporting the game and such, I feel that it is a professional developer's responsibility to stay true to stretch goals. Ultimately there should be sufficient planning that such goals shouldn't be offered in the first place if they weren't feasible.

Edited May 19, 201312 yr by mcmanusaur

I think I would be incredibly disappointed if some of the stretch goals were discarded. Probably mostly because stretch goals are an implicit promise of sorts. KSers and PP backers often specifically donate more because they want to see these things in the game. They expect that if they put out extra funds they'll get to see some of those extra features although I hope we all understand that developing anything on a large scale is a financial risk. Costs change, some features don't pan out the way they're conceived in the planning stage (not fun, feasible, practical), and time constraints interfere. We can hope that everything was properly evaluated in advance to reduce waste and loss of any features anyone was anticipating but at the very least, if there's no other choice but to start cutting content, we should have a voice in which content gets cut.

 

But we should have faith, the team seems to have an impressive track record and they've been very transparent and open with us so far.

Was there anyone who really donated because of stretch goals? I didn't donate because of them, I donated because I wanted a cRPG from Obsidian. If that's the end result, that's all that matters.

Edited May 20, 201312 yr by AGX-17

Not all features are created equal of course, so my disdain would be proportionate to the degree of changes. As a general rule though, I do not approve of this kind of behavior when money has been solicited. Being acceptance of it sets a poor precedent that tells companies can dismiss and abuse the trust placed in them.

 

Caveat Emptor, naturally. I gave my money to Obsidian because I trust them as a company, and share the general ideas they espoused with their ambitions for Project: Eternity. I funded a concept, an ideal. I prefer they risk their wings melting, personally. Especially in the modern state of the internet--there are few mistakes that cannot be undone or improved with patching and community modding so long as the core structure of the game provides the means.

Since they used stretch goals as an incentive to get more money it would be pretty messed up if they then didn't deliver.  I don't think it's an acceptable practice for any Kickstarter, let alone Obsidian.