What Kind of Dev Are You?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

What Kind of Dev Are You?

I've spoken to corporate and it's time we cut you.

Read Full Article

Err its the same drawing at last time!

albino boo:
Err its the same drawing at last time!

This isn't just your computer, I'm seeing "The Long Con" as well.

Is it just me or did they upload the same comic again? (Hopefully by mistake...)

Souplex:

albino boo:
Err its the same drawing at last time!

This isn't just your computer, I'm seeing "The Long Con" as well.

I guess 'The Long Con' was a meta-joke on us.

Taking the title, follow-up text, and (mis)comic, I like to think that the Moira Kickstarted the Survival Guide, and had to rush out a final copy riddled with errors because she was tired of people calling her 'Star Citizen'.

On the topic of that blurb, though, there's a difference between a publisher doing yearly releases, and a Kickstarted project meeting deadlines. Both of them chose the time frame that they considered reasonable to complete the project. For EA, they clearly have picked a schedule that's too ambitious, and scaling back the volume of Assassin's Creed games would allow them to actually address bugs before the game gets to market (and even toy around with making entirely new aspects of the gameplay, instead of small variations on a theme).

For Kickstarted projects, they know that the consumer expects it within a certain window of handing the money over, and they almost always have a projected date when it will be ready. If you ask for X money, promise to use it to make Y product and have it to us by Z time, people get suspicious when you start changing those variables, because they get worried that the money they've already invested is never going to come back to them. I agree with the general stance that the best way to avoid that is only giving to Kickstarters for finished products.

Souplex:
This isn't just your computer, I'm seeing "The Long Con" as well.

Hartland:
Is it just me or did they upload the same comic again? (Hopefully by mistake...)

Glad it isn't just me. I believe this is an artistic representation of the current meeting between ffronw and Wooster
image

The Wooster:
What Kind of Dev Are You?

I've spoken to corporate and it's time we cut you.

Read Full Article

You put up the wrong comic.

YOU GUYS HAD ONE JOB.

Veldie:

The Wooster:
What Kind of Dev Are You?

I've spoken to corporate and it's time we cut you.

Read Full Article

You put up the wrong comic.

YOU GUYS HAD ONE JOB.

Don't worry, this is actually Konami's fault.

Don't you guys get it? The "What kind of Dev are you?" question mixed with using the same comic is obviously a stance on the blandification of our industry! AAA games just spitting out the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again while doing no real innovation! Open your eyes Sheeple!!!

#PoliticalCommentary
#Gamergate
#YouMadBro?
#MindBlown
#CardGamesonMotorcycles
#NoUnderpants
#BlameKross
#Getonmylevel
#JugglingCatswithChainsaws

EDIT: Now that the actual comic is up, that absolutely makes sense. Everyone's 100% on board with gambling away money when it's not their money that is being gambled...

tippy2k2:
Don't you guys get it? The "What kind of Dev are you?" question mixed with using the same comic is obviously a stance on the blandification of our industry! AAA games just spitting out the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again while doing no real innovation! Open your eyes Sheeple!!!

#PoliticalCommentary
#Gamergate
#YouMadBro?
#MindBlown
#CardGamesonMotorcycles
#NoUnderpants
#BlameKross
#Getonmylevel
#JugglingCatswithChainsaws

You forgot #FucKonami. :P

OT: Damn you! I NEED MY SILLY GAMING INDUSTRY COMMENTARY!

image

Edit: Yay! The actual comic is up now! Funny that this would be the topic as I just listened to Total Biscuit's podcast yesterday and they spend a good amount of time talking about how Tim Schafer is a fucking prick for exactly this reason: at best he's a monumental failure at money management. At worst he's an incompetent liar. :P

In case you didn't figure it out yet:

So basically Tim Schafer wasting Bobby Kotick's money vs. Tim Schafer wasting the backer's money? And as a consumer, I don't care about Kotick's money, but I do care about my own[1] ;)

[1] Disclaimer: I have not invested any money in Shafer's projects. I like my money too much to shovel it into a furnace that instead of delivering warmth only delivers disappointment.

Oh, damn, I actually never really saw how hypocritical that argument is...

I never got too upset whenever a KS game has pushed back it's deadline or asked for more money, but this really does put it in context, huh?

Thing is. I wasn't really that upset about Double Fine Adventure going over budget or past deadlines. I was upset that it wasn't a classic adventure game in the same vein as Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle. Instead we got the more watered down adventure game where puzzles are rather basic and just require you to use a limited out of items on everything you see, and the storyline is completely linear. And it all ended up in a lackluster ending with no real payoff for the effort and a final puzzle solution that was convoluted and unsatisfying.

No, Tim Schafer really mishandles money.

The Wooster:

I generally don't give to Kickstarters that aren't simply final production costs for finished projects. Not because I dislike the system - I actually think its responsible for the niche-genre revival of the last couple of years - or because of TEH BIAS, but because I don't like to be invested, emotionally or financially in a story/game/product so long before its final release. I avoid early access games for similar reasons. I don't want to see your weird, greasy skeleton of a game, I want to see it when it's done.

That's why I don't see crowdfunding as an investment; but as charity. That money is as good as gone; and receiving a game for it at the end is a bonus, not a given. Of course, I won't give money if I don't trust they will actually use it for the project that they are presenting, or if the project isn't even feasible. The only crowdfunding I have participated is the OUYA's... oh, and Grey and Cory's Patreon.

Aww, what's the matter Grey? Still upset that Schafer proved Kotick right?

Besides the answer to both panels is "A self righteous prick who thinks that money should be given to him for "reasons", otherwise known as "a pitch to run away from really fast".

TheBigOne0305:
So basically Tim Schafer wasting Bobby Kotick's money vs. Tim Schafer wasting the backer's money? And as a consumer, I don't care about Kotick's money, but I do care about my own[1] ;)

This... You are comparing the consumer in two different roles for the scenarios. In one we are simply the consumer. We care about the finished product and most of the time will defend the Developer from the Publisher to get a good game rather than a game on time, money be damn.

The other we are the financial investors, we put X amount of dollars towards a project with the anticipation of Y in Z timeframe. When Y or Z start changing then that impacts X.

In reality, it should have bee more like:

Thought MatrixBacked by a PublisherBacked by Kickstarter
What Publishers Think:You're a Horrible DEV!Who are you again?
What Consumers Think:Screw Corp's Bottom lineYou're a Horrible DEV!
[1] Disclaimer: I have not invested any money in Shafer's projects. I like my money too much to shovel it into a furnace that instead of delivering warmth only delivers disappointment.

Anybody trying to sell that "Tim Schafer takes the time to get it right" slop ought to have a look at Space Base DF-9's Steam reviews.

I've been saying this for a while. I don't think Tim really did anything that wrong. He eventually delivered the game he promised, after all.

Nothing changed. Kickstarter simply removed the curtain hiding the creative process, revealing all the ugly grease and stains that go into making a game. Guess what, guys? The creative process is messy, and there's no guaranteed way to know how long it will take you to complete a project. That's why I was fine with Red Ash, and that's why I'm fine with psychonauts 2.

How many gold bars do you think you could throw into the ocean? I've got the arms of atrophied, alcoholic infant, so I reckon I could manage about a maximum of four before my arms flew in after them.

CaitSeith:

That's why I don't see crowdfunding as an investment; but as charity. That money is as good as gone; and receiving a game for it at the end is a bonus, not a given. Of course, I won't give money if I don't trust they will actually use it for the project that they are presenting, or if the project isn't even feasible. The only crowdfunding I have participated is the OUYA's... oh, and Grey and Cory's Patreon.

It is why you should always see crowdfunding as charity or investments. If you see it as an investment you are basically hedging your money on getting a return later down the line, but as any venture capitalist will tell you that is never a given. It is why you should always be careful with what you crowd source and what your expectations are.

I've said this before but the problem I have with Double Fine is this:
Raise far more money then asked for, release part 1 of Broken age, take an entire year to release part 2, part 2 releases and makes me wonder what exactly they were doing that year, because making a good second part sure wasn't it.

Seriously, Tim, how long does it take you to write a script for half a game and create some decent puzzles? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like you spent a year on either.

I'm not even against the idea of things taking a little bit longer, because I have backed several projects that are episodic and are taking a while. But at least have a reason it's taking longer(other then "Jack Black ran out of cheerios and won't record anymore lines until we get him some more", which is probably as good of an explanation for the year-long delay as any).

Maybe I just had higher expectations considering TS's record with Lucasarts. I'm still not averse to buying psychonauts 2 either. I'm just not buying it until there's a completed game to judge(and the reviews are favorable).

1. Schaffer doesn't get any benefit of the doubt after DF-9, that was blatantly bait-and-switch level despicable (I didn't lose money on it, I just find it that appalling despite lack of investment)

2. I don't see what is shocking or even 'wrong' about this. Consumers don't care when someone else's money is at stake but do when theirs is? Well colour me surprised! Egocentric, perhaps, but not hypocritical. This is a market reacting to what the environment has conditioned it to believe, ie. that kickstarter devs will drive themselves (and the 'investment' said lynch mob has made) right over a cliff without a tight leash (And unlike in AAA published games, there's no going to a boss and conning them for just a bit more money because hey the publisher is in too deep now to just shelve it), while the existing triple AAA publishers have marched out an endless parade of uninspired poorly made non-functional garbage for years now.

The one on the left is being funded by a publisher run by suits that usually don't understand the game development process and don't know how much money is expected for a project. The one on the right is something made by designers and developers who should have a better understanding about game development and would know more about the costs involved in it. Yes, projects can change their vision and scope when going through development, thus resulting in budget changes, but as a developer I'd like to think you would expect this sort of thing and account for that when planning the budget and deadlines. A publisher doesn't know about this, so it makes sense that when development shifts focus and changes scope, devs usually find the budget given to them is inadequate to meet their needs.

This is where I have a problem with several Kickstarter projects. If you're trying to get funding for a project, I'd expect that you'd have much of the design of the project locked down, so the budget you put together will cover the development, even considering some changes in development. You set out with a goal in mind and sell it to your backers, who expect that goal to be completed as described. If you're suddenly moving deadlines further and further or making drastic changes to promised features, it makes it seem like you don't know what you're doing and makes users lose a lot of faith in your project. Then when you ask for even more money to complete a game even though you raised more than 6 times your original budget? You bet people are going to think something is going completely wrong on your end.

It also helps to not host large, open-house parties every year when you're a small development team located in one of the most expensive US cities to live in. Hiring Phil Fish to DJ might be very expensive.

Well, better a dev studio burn through their publisher's money than mine straight out of my bank account.

When someone with an MBA but not five minutes in a computer science class says "the game will be out by Christmas", there's a decent chance they're extrapolating on the basis of factors they don't really understand. ("Ten years ago, single programmers put out a game in three months! What's wrong with you people? This would never have flown when I was running a kitchen appliance wholesaler, let me tell you...")

When the people making the game say that it will be out by Christmas, they don't really have anyone to blame but themselves.

Corporations are basically heat-dispersion units for blame and guilt. When you cease to be part of a big blame-dispersing entity, you take your the bitter with the sweet, and that includes taking your own licks for when your projections prove to be bullshit.

I don't get the joke on why the panel was reused.... does that make me a Normie??

Also when does accountability, open betas, and community interaction come into play?
Gamers are constantly bitching about bad publichers regardless of TripleA or Indie, but when was the last time you saw a featured Article or even a thread saying "Hey guys come check out this Developer! ...their systems Designers are actually answering questions on their Forum and they're directly taking accountability for the state their game is in!"

...you just don't see that... ANYWHERE. All you see year after year, is gamers saying "shuttup and take my money!" because they liked the Theme or Character designs or the MEMEs of a game and never because the Studio itself was actively engaging in transparency every step of the way. There hasn't been a single studio to date that's had a huge outpouring of support or public rally around it for a transparent development process. Until that changes in our culture...gamers as a whole are just continuing to say "Rape my Wallet, PLEASE".

iller3:
I don't get the joke on why the panel was reused.... does that make me a Normie??

Earlier in the morning, they had the Fallout 4 "Long Con" comic linked rather than the actual comic you now see.

Yeah, I don't get the complaint here. KS is essentially the ultimate form of pre-ordering, right down to order bonuses. I know it wasn't intended to be, but that ship sailed very quickly. When no cash has changed hands, people can be open to waiting, but now money's on the table, and they act like any other investor wanting a return, only their return is a finished product. Even those of us not invested can look at the model with concern (probably why we don't contribute) as it's a "cash up front with (until recently) no guarantee of any payback" model almost destined to bite you. Given some high profile delays and return for more money, it's understandable to see that model as something easy to abuse.

People are angry when you waste their money, what a shocker.

And oh yeah, Tim Schafer, since this is a whinestrip about him specifically is at this point nothing but a scammer, he did not deliver a complete, polished product since, well, Psychonauts, and even that one is debatable. He's living entirely off his net cred, rather than actual merits and somehow gets away with stunning bullshit, see the spacebase fiasco.

This I can't help but feels is frighteningly true with peoples perception.

I have to do a double-take every single time I look at that second panel because no matter how many times I look, before I take that second look, my eyes are convinced the dev is shoveling babies into that furnace.

I think a big difference is when a major developer is pushing a game back nobody has bought it and if anyone's pre-ordered it they will still get their money back if the games cancelled. In kickstarter it's if they say well we need more or the games cancelled or the whole studio goes under your shit out of luck.

So while I've never supported any kickstarter I can totally understand why people are more critical of something or someone they've actually given money they won't get back as opposed to a dev who they hope makes a good game but if it sucks they just don't buy it.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here