(mini?) Update tomorrow / PE E3 stuff

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Wasn't it the same with South Park? There was a teaser but no gameplay footage for quite some time. I don't recall seeing gameplay footage for the game prior to release as any leaked footage always seemed to be pulled from youtube. Maybe this is how Obsidian is now operating, no gameplay footage until they feel it's ready to be shown. E3 being the exception.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Ffordesoon]

Personally, I find this sort of backer entitlement a bit silly. I'd like to see gameplay, yes, but I kind of don't care if someone else sees it before me, especially when it means orders of magnitude more exposure for PoE than it would otherwise.

[Bryy]

Wants to see gameplay ASAP.

But not publishers.

 

Wants the devs to give them specific things at the expense of everyone else's experience.

But not publishers.

 

Threaten to pull money.

But not publishers.

[bonarbill]

Blah, I can't update my other post.  Anyway, I'm not really a backer, but I just want to see gameplay.  I don't deserve any type of entitlement at all.  :D

[nipsen]

Wants to see gameplay ASAP.

But not publishers.

 

Wants the devs to give them specific things at the expense of everyone else's experience.

But not publishers.

 

Threaten to pull money.

But not publishers.

?

 

Make an fps with zombies and nazis, then.

 

Look. When I beta-tested for Sony games, we became inundated with the expectations people in PR have. It's not even commanded most of the time. It's more like an ultimately more benign, but less logical system compared to the one in North Korea. Where people in the system start to adopt a way of thinking that goes like this: If we start to have opinions that veer off to much from everyone else, we lose momentum, and we might lose our shot at greatness when it arrives. 

 

And apparently everyone in the system are really afraid of jumping ship, just in case the next nazi zombie shooter in space is a hit.

 

In the same way, the argument that the only way to make games go mainstream is to make a game a commercial hit, this is very common. So when a smash-hit comes along, and it sells enough games so that approximately 5% of all console-owners have the game -- then people make that out as being the only way to make games mainstream. And you see the ones echoing that thought being outside the actual marketing branches, because they genuinely believe that if we streamline all the games into what that one largest 5% niche is playing, then games will magically go mainstream and be respected forever.

 

So they make COD: Ghosts, some sort of right-wing gunpornographical cadaver discipline fantasy, where original thought is punished with disapproval from your all-powerful father-figure. It's sick. And that game is supposed to make games go mainstream. It's gospel, it is Truth.

 

Meanwhile, Gran Turismo sells more units over time without being advertised for. But somehow the same logic doesn't apply here, so that the entire world wants to just drive cars. And that good simulation games with relatively low intensity is where immersion is at.

 

But that's not how the world of the games-industry works - no, it has to be Probst and Kotick fighting over capturing the noisy **** brat factor. And practically all of the industry media follows up on that, echoing the sentiments or at the very least orienting their coverage around it -- because the companies are so invested in promoting those solutions. 

 

So it becomes a feedback loop, and it affects media coverage, it affects publishing choices, and ultimately it affects what games people are even attempting to make. I've talked to developers several times that I thought were sick and tired of the first person shooter rides, for example. Or devs who I was sure were grinding their teeth when making "popular" changes to core mechanics of their games. That they would know how badly that would affect the game for everyone who played it, etc.

 

But the truth is that a lot of devs simply see what works and they copy that. What makes money in our market? COD: Ghosts. Everyone says so. Even a brutal outsider success hit like Supergiantgames or Q-Games - they still don't actually make a lot of money, do they? So why even bother making creative stuff when huge companies are giving us money to make venomous, unimaginative power-trip fantasies for people who are going to be in jail by the time they turn 20?

 

For a lot of the devs, it's even come to the point where they're content as long as they don't sell out completely. They work within the system, like a guy in North Korea planting rice seeds in a slightly offensive pattern inside a huge field, where no one is ever going to see it.

 

So frankly -- some of us back projects like this in the hopes that the dev will if not become self-sufficient, that they will not have to rely exclusively on making AAA publisher title requests, or become dependent on having a PR department essentially earning the company's upkeep by constantly selling and changing the devs' pitches to conform with the "market needs". 

 

That's a very conscious choice. We back the project so that it will have the opportunity to avoid the industry rules. And we are specifically not backing the project so that Obsidian is going to have their own PR people scrambling to get to e3 in order to harvest "important" feedback from snarky "isn't this an outdated game" folks in the games-magazines.

 

We did not pay for that, in the same way that we for example did not pay for Charles Cecil to make another disappointingly badly written and badly programmed iOS project. That's something they can do on their own time, as they already have. It's not something you're going to drag kickstarter projects towards if you ever want to see that kind of support again.

 

Like I said - the feedback after e3, and the press that's going to follow it, is 100% predictable. And if you hedge your hopes for a good write up from people like Desslock, or anyone who has survived in the industry media for any length of time, I've got some huge plans for a ski resort in the Antarctica I'd like you to sponsor as well.

 

tl;dr:

1. Kickstarter projects by design should not appeal to anyone at e3. If they then are adjusted slightly to get the appeal as requested, it's not going to work. The IGN narrative is going to stand, like in the writeup above. It's a relic of a foregone era, and no one wants to play it.

Therefore:

2. Spending time or resources on selling such a game at e3 is at best a complete waste of time.

[Blarghagh]

Disclaimer: Obsidian is not responsible for the projections and expectations of people who decided Obsidian should change the world when all they said was "give us money and we'll make you one cool game".

 

As far PoE not appealing to anyone at E3, I think you were out of luck from the start. During the media coverage of the actual Kickstarter, a significant amount of industry journalists backed the project. They were just as excited about the game as you were - it appealed to them from the very beginning.

Edited June 16, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[nipsen]

Disclaimer: Obsidian is not responsible for the projections and expectations of people who decided Obsidian should change the world when all they said was "give us money and we'll make you one cool game".

Ah, here we go with the never doubt the Worm stick. Fantastic.

 

No, I'm not asking for that. I'm saying that without the kickstarter backing, the project would probably not have been started at all. So to think that a project like that should be in any way sold or adjusted to "market demands", and benefit from it, just doesn't make sense. Whether it's the pitch to the media or the actual features - it's not going to help sell the game. The opposite is probably true.

 

As far PoE not appealing to anyone at E3, I think you were out of luck from the start. During the media coverage of the actual Kickstarter, a significant amount of industry journalists backed the project. They were just as excited about the game as you were - it appealed to them from the very beginning.

And because of that, there's a need to appeal to the e3 crowd at the floor with this game..?

 

If they actually signed up, what does Obsidian need the e3 floor for? And why would you think these journalists are going to be able to write on the frontpage with "text-heavy rpg with complex class system makes HD comeback"? I know at least two writers who backed the game out of pity for Obsidian. I mean, that's my point, just as it is theirs - Obsidian can't rely on industry media for promoting the game. They rely on finding the people who actually like these types of games, not the ones who will skip the dialogue and think the fighting system is too slow.

 

And I know, and e3 journalists know, and publishers all round know -- that that demography does not read popular games media. Not any more, at any rate.

[Darji]

Disclaimer: Obsidian is not responsible for the projections and expectations of people who decided Obsidian should change the world when all they said was "give us money and we'll make you one cool game".

 

As far PoE not appealing to anyone at E3, I think you were out of luck from the start. During the media coverage of the actual Kickstarter, a significant amount of industry journalists backed the project. They were just as excited about the game as you were - it appealed to them from the very beginning.

Oh they will dig it and they will most likely write great previews of what they have seen. Problem is only that no one really cares about written previews anymore. Especially not AAA ones.  Like Jeff Gerstman from Giantbomb always says: The written games media is dying. No one reads previews or even reviews anymore when there is so much video reviews and previews out there. So many people streaming the games or do a let's play on YouTube. Even Big Publishers these days are giving games out early to people to play them.  Square for example does this a lot.  They releasing their trailers today first on Youtube while totally ignoring these press guys for non AAA games. 

[nipsen]

Like Jeff Gerstman from Giantbomb always says: The written games media is dying. No one reads previews or even reviews anymore when there is so much video reviews and previews out there. So many people streaming the games or do a let's play on YouTube. Even Big Publishers these days are giving games out early to people to play them.  Square for example does this a lot.  They releasing their trailers today first on Youtube while totally ignoring these press guys for non AAA games. 

Yes, that is basically how interesting it is to read for example Giantbomb texts. It's practically always more informative to just watch someone chew chips while playing the game.

[Blarghagh]

I think if mainstream gamers don't read written media anymore, and mainstream gamers don't play text-based, system heavy RPGs anymore, that leaves the door completely wide open as to how effectively this will work for Obsidian. A game like this, crowdfunded and built outside the system, has never been at E3 before. You simply cannot know how effective it will be. This is all new territory in an industry that's rapidly changing. Obsidian was going to E3 anyway for Armored Warfare. It's absurd to say Obsidian should have kept PoE away from it when they had an essentially free oppertunity to take it along and show off their baby for all the journalists and fellow developers to see: "hey, look at this cool stuff we made without dealing with all the publisher nonsense you guys have to deal with". If anything, that goes a much longer way into changing the industry than a 4 million kickstarter that barely registers as a blip on the radar for giant publishers dealing with 300 million budgets.

 

So frankly -- some of us back projects like this in the hopes that the dev will if not become self-sufficient, that they will not have to rely exclusively on making AAA publisher title requests, or become dependent on having a PR department essentially earning the company's upkeep by constantly selling and changing the devs' pitches to conform with the "market needs". 

 

That's a very conscious choice. We back the project so that it will have the opportunity to avoid the industry rules. And we are specifically not backing the project so that Obsidian is going to have their own PR people scrambling to get to e3 in order to harvest "important" feedback from snarky "isn't this an outdated game" folks in the games-magazines.

 

1. Kickstarter projects by design should not appeal to anyone at e3. If they then are adjusted slightly to get the appeal as requested, it's not going to work.

 

 

No, I'm not asking for that. I'm saying that without the kickstarter backing, the project would probably not have been started at all. So to think that a project like that should be in any way sold or adjusted to "market demands", and benefit from it, just doesn't make sense. Whether it's the pitch to the media or the actual features - it's not going to help sell the game. The opposite is probably true.

 

This is what I really have a problem with (well, other than the first post constantly replacing I and me with us and we). You keep saying Obsidian has changed or will change their vision of the game to appeal to the masses, to pander to the E3 crowd. There is absolutely no evidence of this. It's hipster nonsense about "selling out". The entire point of the Kickstarter for Obsidian was to make their artistic vision come to fruition and they have no publisher hanging over their head that can go "people at E3 disliked this part, you better change it". Obsidian is in full creative control. Like I said, Obsidian was going to E3 anyway, they took PoE with them because they wanted to show it off, not because they wanted to gauge journalist reactions. Obisidian knows who their audience is.

[Darji]

 

 

That they went to E3  and have shown the game to the press was not wrong. But that they did not even show only small clip from their 30 Minute Demo to backers or the public in general until now is what people are upset or better disappointed about. 

 

As for Outside of the system. What system? The system of a Publisher? Indy games do that a lot but the big difference is that they also show some stuff to the fans and actual people that watch these conferences or coverage. 

 

For example: A good move would have been to  show some stuff on one of the live shows via IGN or Gamespot for example.  Just 5 minutes or even 2 would have been fine.  Even saying that this is pretty early etc.  But they did not even that....

Edited June 16, 2014 by Darji

[Osvir]

@TrueNeutral: Just want to inform the tl;dr people about a most excellent point in your post that I didn't think about either. Thanks for bringing it to light

Quote: "Obsidian was going to E3 anyway for Armored Warfare. It's absurd to say Obsidian should have kept PoE away from it when they had an essentially free oppertunity to take it along and show off their baby for all the journalists and fellow developers to see"

[Blarghagh]

That they went to E3  and have shown the game to the press was not wrong. But that they did not even show only small clip from their 30 Minute Demo to backers or the public in general until now is what people are upset or better disappointed about. 

 

I have to admit I find the decision to not show stuff to backers to be questionable at best. Even when I google it I can't find any clear coverage of the E3 demo, as if backers aren't allowed to see it or anything related to it at all. I am aware Obsidian was concerned about spoilers, but any sort of preview for the backers would have been good.

 

EDIT:

 

I don't know if everyone has seen BAdler's response, so I wanted to post it again so everyone could see the reasoning behind the choice not to show it to backers. You may not agree with it, but it is what it is:

 

"Since this has grown into a contentious point, I wanted to address it.

 

We will not be showing a video of the demo. The footage has quite a few spoilers in it and it isn't ready to show to the backers yet. We want to show you guys something much more polished and we aim to do that sometime between now and our backer beta. Just so you guys are aware, it will likely be closer to the backer beta.

 

When we show you things, we want it to be the real deal - no hacked together footage or faked content. I can remember seeing the gameplay video for Shadowrun Returns and being hyped up over all of the cool stuff I was seeing... only to be let down when a lot of that stuff never made it into the final game. I want to make sure that from this point on, if we are showing something to you guys it is representative of how it will be in the game.

 

To do that means we have to focus a large amount of polish on a very specific area we want to show. This ends up hurting other areas in the game because they will tend to get less polish overall. We did have to do this for the E3 demo, but because we were showing off a few key areas, it is work we had to do anyways. Since we will show you something off of the critical path, it means we need to be much more careful over what get shown.

 

When we get more information about showing gameplay you will hear about it from us first. No need to speculate.

 

That said, I know that some of you are disappointed that we are showing gameplay to the press first. While you may not agree with our reasons for doing it, please know that we are showing to the press in this manner because we feel it is the best for the game. I will try to explain those reasons in more detail in the next update.

 

I know we sound like a bit of a broken record, but we truly do appreciate the support you guys have given us - in helping to fund the game and in giving us feedback. Thanks for everything."

 

- BAdler

Edited June 16, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I think it would've been good for Obsidian to have created an E3 trailer with some gameplay footage like the teaser from last year and showed us this trailer. That may have alleviated some of the outrage. And then show us a more polished extended video of the same game play footage in a couple of months.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Darji]

 

That they went to E3  and have shown the game to the press was not wrong. But that they did not even show only small clip from their 30 Minute Demo to backers or the public in general until now is what people are upset or better disappointed about. 

 

I have to admit I find the decision to not show stuff to backers to be questionable at best. Even when I google it I can't find any clear coverage of the E3 demo, as if backers aren't allowed to see it or anything related to it at all. I am aware Obsidian was concerned about spoilers, but any sort of preview for the backers would have been good.

 

EDIT:

 

I don't know if everyone has seen BAdler's response, so I wanted to post it again so everyone could see the reasoning behind the choice not to show it to backers. You may not agree with it, but it is what it is:

 

"Since this has grown into a contentious point, I wanted to address it.

 

We will not be showing a video of the demo. The footage has quite a few spoilers in it and it isn't ready to show to the backers yet. We want to show you guys something much more polished and we aim to do that sometime between now and our backer beta. Just so you guys are aware, it will likely be closer to the backer beta.

 

When we show you things, we want it to be the real deal - no hacked together footage or faked content. I can remember seeing the gameplay video for Shadowrun Returns and being hyped up over all of the cool stuff I was seeing... only to be let down when a lot of that stuff never made it into the final game. I want to make sure that from this point on, if we are showing something to you guys it is representative of how it will be in the game.

 

To do that means we have to focus a large amount of polish on a very specific area we want to show. This ends up hurting other areas in the game because they will tend to get less polish overall. We did have to do this for the E3 demo, but because we were showing off a few key areas, it is work we had to do anyways. Since we will show you something off of the critical path, it means we need to be much more careful over what get shown.

 

When we get more information about showing gameplay you will hear about it from us first. No need to speculate.

 

That said, I know that some of you are disappointed that we are showing gameplay to the press first. While you may not agree with our reasons for doing it, please know that we are showing to the press in this manner because we feel it is the best for the game. I will try to explain those reasons in more detail in the next update.

 

I know we sound like a bit of a broken record, but we truly do appreciate the support you guys have given us - in helping to fund the game and in giving us feedback. Thanks for everything."

 

- BAdler

 

What does this even mean? We are basically founders and backers. We are not the public. We are the people who are highly invested in the game.  The relationship between Obsidian and backers should be a bit different then the normal public. Again make it a Backers only video if you are that concerned about it.  Backers understand the difference between Alpha, Beta and full retail release version.  Many people who backed various games have seen unfinished stuff and they were totally fine with it. Hell even praised people for A showing stuff 

Edited June 16, 2014 by Darji

[nipsen]

This is what I really have a problem with (well, other than the first post constantly replacing I and me with us and we). You keep saying Obsidian has changed or will change their vision of the game to appeal to the masses, to pander to the E3 crowd. There is absolutely no evidence of this. It's hipster nonsense about "selling out".

You're not really reading what I'm writing, now are you. I'm asking how getting a "pity pitch" to dominate any note or article about PoE is going to help sell it. Odds are that it's not going to generate visibility at all. I'm also not accusing Obsidian of kneefalling to industry demands just because they went to e3 with the game. You just made that up. I have absolutely no grounds to make any sort of assement on that one way or the other - I haven't seen the game, I haven't talked to any devs, I've no idea what they're doing.

 

But I'm asking what they were hoping to accomplish by presenting it there. And suggesting that simply not presenting it might have been a better option. That what they're saying is that "here is a game no publisher wanted to make, but here it is anyway!" - to people who are extremely sensitive to what "publishers" around the world actually want to see.

 

So are they hoping that writer boys and girls are going to go back to their editor and gush about how they should abandon their bylines and go and cover hardcore rpgs instead? That they're going to convince them that writing to people who demonstrably want nothing to do with their magazine is a good idea? Is that something you would think is likely within even the nearby parallel realms of existence..?

 

Aside from that, there are other places they could spend effort promoting the game. That is guaranteed to reach people who at least are marginally interested. So why wouldn't they go for that instead? Why not make that sandbox scenario for testing out the dialogue, fighting and character build systems, and distribute it? That would also give Obsidian feedback about where people actually would be interested, so they could target them better in the future.

 

So I'm questioning their use of resources, if it took some effort to get a build out. Not in the grand mission of saving the world - but when it comes to selling the game to people who actually want to buy it.

 

Like I said - we've already established that no publisher wants anything to do with the game. PoE is a game that represents all about gaming that has been phased out by the industry. So why is e3 a focus? Why show the gameplay to people you already know are going to have reservations about writing in any depth about it, even if they actually love it?

 

Take No Man's Sky as a brilliant example of how this works. It looks great. It has been presented before and gotten some awards. But when you see coverage of it from e3, you really can't tell what in the world it's about. There's just a big question mark about how this is going to appeal to anyone. "It looks beautiful, but I've no idea what I'm supposed to be doing". You see someone throw out "procedural generation" as if it explains everything, while referring to how repetitive "rogue likes" are, and noting some misgivings about whether it's even possible to make (apparently not noticing that they have the system up and running, and haven't shown of a concept video like their peers tend to do, while describing it themselves as "captured on the console itself", etc).

 

So, is that kind of coverage really going to help promote the game? There's no escaping the fact that places like IGN sets the tone for coverage elsewhere as well. So I'm asking what they were hoping to accomplish with it, other than sabotaging themselves.

Edited June 16, 2014 by nipsen

[Darji]

 

 

Take No Man's Sky as a brilliant example of how this works. It looks great. It has been presented before and gotten some awards. But when you see coverage of it from e3, you really can't tell what in the world it's about. There's just a big question mark about how this is going to appeal to anyone. "It looks beautiful, but I've no idea what I'm supposed to be doing". You see someone throw out "procedural generation" as if it explains everything, while referring to how repetitive "rogue likes" are, and noting some misgivings about whether it's even possible to make (apparently not noticing that they have the system up and running, and haven't shown of a concept video like their peers tend to do, while describing it themselves as "captured on the console itself", etc).

 

So, is that kind of coverage really going to help promote the game? There's no escaping the fact that places like IGN sets the tone for coverage elsewhere as well. So I'm asking what they were hoping to accomplish with it, other than sabotaging themselves.

 

 That game generated a huge load of fuzz during this years E3. Why? Because it was presented and shown to the public. Even the Press does not really know how it or even if it works.  That is why these people presented it behind closed doors.. However they also made people outside these presentations very curious about the game. This is still a very audio visual industry and trailer like that  are great for the public.  No visual  media at all however is really really bad and no one will care about previews later  this week except maybe backers. 

 

But even I who is really excited about this game  does not care about words written by some journalist I do not know or care for. 

[nipsen]

That game generated a huge load of fuzz during this years E3. Why? Because it was presented and shown to the public. Even the Press does not really know how it or even if it works.  That is why these people presented it behind closed doors.. However they also made people outside these presentations very curious about the game. This is still a very audio visual industry and trailer like that  are great for the public.  No visual  media at all however is really really bad and no one will care about previews later  this week except maybe backers. 

 

But even I who is really excited about this game  does not care about words written by some journalist I do not know or care for. 

 

It was presented the first time at VGX. Same story then. Nice trailer. And no follow-up, because not a soul who gets paid to write for games knows the first thing about programming, design, etc.

 

So the same question again - how is anyone actually served by showing a game at e3. That the public won't see anything from. That will generate previews no one reads, and at least not remember past a week. For a game no editor of any major games-media site will spend any space on their pages for.

 

It's like you say indirectly - a closed showing probably achieves nothing. And unless the video they're showing off isn't stunning, why would anyone outside of the inner circle care?

 

Either way, it's just not going to help sell the game.

[Darji]

 

That game generated a huge load of fuzz during this years E3. Why? Because it was presented and shown to the public. Even the Press does not really know how it or even if it works.  That is why these people presented it behind closed doors.. However they also made people outside these presentations very curious about the game. This is still a very audio visual industry and trailer like that  are great for the public.  No visual  media at all however is really really bad and no one will care about previews later  this week except maybe backers. 

 

But even I who is really excited about this game  does not care about words written by some journalist I do not know or care for. 

 

It was presented the first time at VGX. Same story then. Nice trailer. And no follow-up, because not a soul who gets paid to write for games knows the first thing about programming, design, etc.

 

So the same question again - how is anyone actually served by showing a game at e3. That the public won't see anything from. That will generate previews no one reads, and at least not remember past a week. For a game no editor of any major games-media site will spend any space on their pages for.

 

It's like you say indirectly - a closed showing probably achieves nothing. And unless the video they're showing off isn't stunning, why would anyone outside of the inner circle care?

 

Either way, it's just not going to help sell the game.

 

oh I totally agree with that. Closed E3 stuff pointless. I was really upset about Bloodborne only getting a CG trailer for the fans while the press again got 30 minutes of gameplay. Same with MGSV even though Kojima teased gameplay on twitter and on his weekly show. And we got like 30 seconds of ofscreen during some interview.  

 

To hide only makes people and fans upset and what happens then? Just like with Bloodborne someone leaked a very old trailer,  which was nowhere near the level people have seen it behind closed doors. And now this counts as first gameplay footage instead of the real deal.  Presenting Media is a very important job in this industry. Either you do it or some controlled form or  other people will leak it and then your messages can not be controlled anymore which could be really really bad.  With Kickstarter doing closed presentations is the worst thing you could do in my opinion. To hide it for fans is a really dumb decision. 

[nipsen]

Oh, there are plenty of good reasons to hide the internal details from fans.

 

"So here's something we're proud of, and it's not quite finished yet, but you can see where we're goi...."

-"IT'S COMPLETELY BROWN AND IT SUCKS ASS WHAT IS GOING ON I'M FEELING SO BETRAYED, OBSIDIAN IS DEAD TO ME!!!!"

 

What I'm saying is that instead of leaving the marketing details to Paradox, or to put up a funny face and a booth underneath it at E3, Obsidian should be more direct. Make a target, such as a playable screen with an example of how the dialogue and the combat works, for example. Present it as a "press-demo", put it in a "press-kit" tab, include bullet-point lists with features to encourage conformity on the terminology, add some artwork, put up some quotes, do the usual thing - except just make it public, rather than propose and kneefall to the magazines. That's one option.

 

Another would be to push out gameplay video footage on the kickstarter page or the forums, face, and so on - we have people here who would volunteer to spread it around if it's any good and actually shows some sort of scenario, or something happening. The more unedited the better, because then we can talk about what it actually is, rather than what we believe Obsidian wants us to see. And then show that same footage, or a slightly better edited one, in the marketing blurbs. 300k views on youtube, perhaps? /Then/, it'll compound, and people might be likely to go: "Oh, my goodness gracious, this is the thing I saw those youngsters voice their enthusiasm of on the Digital Internet, is it not, Lawrence? -Why, yes, Robert, I do believe it is, let me just put down my beer-glasses so I can have a better look!". 

 

Otherwise - f'n bs waste of time. In my humble opinon, obviously.

[talharbash]

I think it would've been good for Obsidian to have created an E3 trailer with some gameplay footage like the teaser from last year and showed us this trailer. That may have alleviated some of the outrage. And then show us a more polished extended video of the same game play footage in a couple of months.

 

This is a very good point. Even if it meant taking someone off from real work for a week to prepare it for an E3 backer update.

 

What I find interesting is 99% of people who follow E3 do it off the gaming media sites. We don't actually go to E3 (it's largely an industry thing anyway). An E3 backer update would have been in much better taste.

 

Ayway, horse beaten to death. This will be my last post on the topic. I just wanted to express my frustration with this decision.

[Bryy]

 

Wants to see gameplay ASAP.

But not publishers.

 

Wants the devs to give them specific things at the expense of everyone else's experience.

But not publishers.

 

Threaten to pull money.

But not publishers.

?

 

Your "us vs. them" attitude is quite fascinating.

[Mor]

It is going to be a loong two weeks until the next update, when should we expect to see the post e3 interviews arriving? Sensuki mention a press embargo date somewhere, but don't recall what it is

[Darji]

It is going to be a loong two weeks until the next update, when should we expect to see the post e3 interviews arriving? Sensuki mention a press embargo date somewhere, but don't recall what it is

thursday

[Sensuki]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2362964/the-most-exciting-pc-games-we-saw-at-e3-2014.html

 

Pillars of Eternity

 

I can’t talk about what I saw of Pillars of Eternity at the show just yet, but I can say Obsidian’s spiritual successor to the old Infinity Engine games (Baldur’s Gate, Planescape: Torment) is right near the top of my most-anticipated list. --Hayden

 

Seconded. Look for more details on PCWorld soon. --Brad