Wasteland 3 Funded in Just Three Days, Stretch Goals Added

Wasteland 3 Funded in Just Three Days, Stretch Goals Added

wasteland-3-320

inXile raised $2.75 million in just three days for Wasteland 3.

Wasteland 3 kicked off its crowdfunding campaign on Wednesday of last week. Three days later, on Saturday, Wasteland 3 hit its goal of $2.75 million. inXile posted an update celebrating the news, and also revealed some new stretch goals to shoot for.

Speaking to backers in the update, inXile wrote, "Without you, we would simply not be able to maintain our independence and keep fully true to our visions for great RPGs that you love. We also cannot fail to mention those who have chosen to invest in the financial performance of the game - their contributions have also been invaluable. Your trust and support means the world to us. So kick back, put your red boots up, and have some squeezins to celebrate."

Here are the stretch goals added to the campaign:

  • $2.85M: 37 Pieces of Flair - We unlock further Ranger customization, which could include multiple body types, more heads, and more hairstyles. Plus we'll show items that your Ranger has equipped (gear like shovels, binoculars, etc) on their models.
  • $3M: Car Companion (Codename: Morningstar) - We add a talking car companion! Morningstar is an AI built to serve President Reagan, but he'll help you both in your travels and during combat, plus he'll give you well-timed advice on how to wipe out all the dirty commies out there. See more on him below!
  • $3.1M: Customizable Ranger Squad Insignia - At the start of the game, you get to customize a Ranger Squad insignia for your team, which will show up on your Ranger Base as well as elsewhere in the game (on flags, for example).

Wasteland 3 has raised over $2.85 million at time of writing, so the first stretch goal has already been unlocked. They've also added a CrowdOx option to allow backers to use PayPal. The campaign ends in 24 days, on November 3.

Keep in mind that the project isn't set to launch in Q4 of 2019, so if you're at all hesitant about throwing down your money, you should be aware that the game is still a ways off. You can find all the information that you need on the crowdfunding campaign on the game's page on Fig.

Permalink

Ok...uh...how about you just make the game now? If you're funded...you shouldnt need more money.

Saelune:
Ok...uh...how about you just make the game now? If you're funded...you shouldnt need more money.

They've probably long since started making the game with all the models and screenshots they've showed, from what I've heard a lot of their profits from wasteland 2 went into 3. Hopefully this additional money is enough for them to add everything they wanted to, I for one am extremely excited about this game

Kreett:

Saelune:
Ok...uh...how about you just make the game now? If you're funded...you shouldnt need more money.

They've probably long since started making the game with all the models and screenshots they've showed, from what I've heard a lot of their profits from wasteland 2 went into 3. Hopefully this additional money is enough for them to add everything they wanted to, I for one am extremely excited about this game

I know, but this "We got too much money...ADD GOALS!" thing seems detrimental. Worry about making the game you promised first. Maybe spend a bit more on things you would have been more frugal about otherwise, but dont punish yourself for people liking the idea.

Saelune:

Kreett:

Saelune:
Ok...uh...how about you just make the game now? If you're funded...you shouldnt need more money.

They've probably long since started making the game with all the models and screenshots they've showed, from what I've heard a lot of their profits from wasteland 2 went into 3. Hopefully this additional money is enough for them to add everything they wanted to, I for one am extremely excited about this game

I know, but this "We got too much money...ADD GOALS!" thing seems detrimental. Worry about making the game you promised first. Maybe spend a bit more on things you would have been more frugal about otherwise, but dont punish yourself for people liking the idea.

They did well with Wasteland 2. Incredibly well as a matter of fact. So personally with all the good faith they built up with Wasteland 2, I don't think anyone is worried about them delivering on their promises.

The Enquirer:

Saelune:

Kreett:
They've probably long since started making the game with all the models and screenshots they've showed, from what I've heard a lot of their profits from wasteland 2 went into 3. Hopefully this additional money is enough for them to add everything they wanted to, I for one am extremely excited about this game

I know, but this "We got too much money...ADD GOALS!" thing seems detrimental. Worry about making the game you promised first. Maybe spend a bit more on things you would have been more frugal about otherwise, but dont punish yourself for people liking the idea.

They did well with Wasteland 2. Incredibly well as a matter of fact. So personally with all the good faith they built up with Wasteland 2, I don't think anyone is worried about them delivering on their promises.

Its a criticism of shitty kickstarter practices that needs to be dealt with. Too many projects fail because...they got -too much- money.

Saelune:

Kreett:

Saelune:
Ok...uh...how about you just make the game now? If you're funded...you shouldnt need more money.

They've probably long since started making the game with all the models and screenshots they've showed, from what I've heard a lot of their profits from wasteland 2 went into 3. Hopefully this additional money is enough for them to add everything they wanted to, I for one am extremely excited about this game

I know, but this "We got too much money...ADD GOALS!" thing seems detrimental. Worry about making the game you promised first. Maybe spend a bit more on things you would have been more frugal about otherwise, but dont punish yourself for people liking the idea.

I'm not really worried - the development studio in question is made up of veterans that have a reputation pretty damn near untarnished in the gaming industry. And with Wasteland II, they not only met expected goals, but produced a game way over the quality that they originally portrayed.

This is one of those rare cases, where it's hard to be legitimately pessimistic over intentions.

GarouxBloodline:

Saelune:

Kreett:
They've probably long since started making the game with all the models and screenshots they've showed, from what I've heard a lot of their profits from wasteland 2 went into 3. Hopefully this additional money is enough for them to add everything they wanted to, I for one am extremely excited about this game

I know, but this "We got too much money...ADD GOALS!" thing seems detrimental. Worry about making the game you promised first. Maybe spend a bit more on things you would have been more frugal about otherwise, but dont punish yourself for people liking the idea.

I'm not really worried - the development studio in question is made up of veterans that have a reputation pretty damn near untarnished in the gaming industry. And with Wasteland II, they not only met expected goals, but produced a game way over the quality that they originally portrayed.

This is one of those rare cases, where it's hard to be legitimately pessimistic over intentions.

I really dont care if they happen to be the exception. My point remains, its a bad idea. Im not going to excuse a bad idea just because sometimes they dont fall into the hole.

Saelune:

GarouxBloodline:

Saelune:
I know, but this "We got too much money...ADD GOALS!" thing seems detrimental. Worry about making the game you promised first. Maybe spend a bit more on things you would have been more frugal about otherwise, but dont punish yourself for people liking the idea.

I'm not really worried - the development studio in question is made up of veterans that have a reputation pretty damn near untarnished in the gaming industry. And with Wasteland II, they not only met expected goals, but produced a game way over the quality that they originally portrayed.

This is one of those rare cases, where it's hard to be legitimately pessimistic over intentions.

I really dont care if they happen to be the exception. My point remains, its a bad idea. Im not going to excuse a bad idea just because sometimes they dont fall into the hole.

I fail to see how it's a bad idea. Backers get the game for cheaper than its actual worth - and this way, the developers get money in advance to pile on with the money made from Wasteland II. It's not like the money being "Donated" is going into a blackhole. It is an actual net-gain for investors, and an incentivized one at that.

As for stretch goals, they can definitely be a bad idea. For underdeveloped development studios, and for studios that actually need crowdfunding to even start making a game. But neither of those are the case here, and so I fail to see how investing money can be considered a bad idea in what can very easily be seen as proven grounds.

I dunno. There is the ability to understand when a concept is flawed, and how said concept can be improved upon, and then there is the utter contempt seen in throwing the baby out with the bath by condemning the concept wholly.

GarouxBloodline:

Saelune:

GarouxBloodline:

I'm not really worried - the development studio in question is made up of veterans that have a reputation pretty damn near untarnished in the gaming industry. And with Wasteland II, they not only met expected goals, but produced a game way over the quality that they originally portrayed.

This is one of those rare cases, where it's hard to be legitimately pessimistic over intentions.

I really dont care if they happen to be the exception. My point remains, its a bad idea. Im not going to excuse a bad idea just because sometimes they dont fall into the hole.

I fail to see how it's a bad idea. Backers get the game for cheaper than its actual worth - and this way, the developers get money in advance to pile on with the money made from Wasteland II. They obviously know their limits, and their current goals, as they already had a working prototype in place before the crowdfunding was ever even suspected.

Stretch goals can be a bad idea. For underdeveloped development studios, and for studios that actually need crowdfunding to even start making a game. But neither of those are the case here, and so I fail to see how investing money can be considered a bad idea in what can very easily be seen as proven grounds.

I dunno. There is the ability to understand when a concept is flawed, and how said concept can be improved upon, and then there is the utter contempt seen in throwing the baby out with the bath by condemning the concept wholly.

"We need x amount of money to make y game", ok, well, you got x+z money, but just make y game. Worry about adding a z's worth of more game after you got the y down.

Personally, Im fine if they just deliver y game and pocket the extra cash. If I was going to back a game, Id probably not bother if they reached their goal and rather put it to something that hasnt yet reached its goal.

My issue is worrying about the bells and whistles when you havent finished what you're putting them onto.

Saelune:

GarouxBloodline:

Saelune:
I really dont care if they happen to be the exception. My point remains, its a bad idea. Im not going to excuse a bad idea just because sometimes they dont fall into the hole.

I fail to see how it's a bad idea. Backers get the game for cheaper than its actual worth - and this way, the developers get money in advance to pile on with the money made from Wasteland II. They obviously know their limits, and their current goals, as they already had a working prototype in place before the crowdfunding was ever even suspected.

Stretch goals can be a bad idea. For underdeveloped development studios, and for studios that actually need crowdfunding to even start making a game. But neither of those are the case here, and so I fail to see how investing money can be considered a bad idea in what can very easily be seen as proven grounds.

I dunno. There is the ability to understand when a concept is flawed, and how said concept can be improved upon, and then there is the utter contempt seen in throwing the baby out with the bath by condemning the concept wholly.

"We need x amount of money to make y game", ok, well, you got x+z money, but just make y game. Worry about adding a z's worth of more game after you got the y down.

Personally, Im fine if they just deliver y game and pocket the extra cash. If I was going to back a game, Id probably not bother if they reached their goal and rather put it to something that hasnt yet reached its goal.

My issue is worrying about the bells and whistles when you havent finished what you're putting them onto.

I s'pose I can understand that.

I think, really, it's just the popular thing to do right now, even amidst the rising controversy with such a semi-established platform. It's... simply easier to attract the right amount of positive attention needed this way, granted the right reputation(s) is/are at line.

That being said, the (z) content could very easily be released as free-content patches, as was seen in the Witcher III, which is, as I feel it to be, a much more respectable approach towards the concept. Maybe we will start seeing more of that - especially as independent studios and more niche studios are gaining a better foothold in the industry.

GarouxBloodline:

Saelune:

GarouxBloodline:

I fail to see how it's a bad idea. Backers get the game for cheaper than its actual worth - and this way, the developers get money in advance to pile on with the money made from Wasteland II. They obviously know their limits, and their current goals, as they already had a working prototype in place before the crowdfunding was ever even suspected.

Stretch goals can be a bad idea. For underdeveloped development studios, and for studios that actually need crowdfunding to even start making a game. But neither of those are the case here, and so I fail to see how investing money can be considered a bad idea in what can very easily be seen as proven grounds.

I dunno. There is the ability to understand when a concept is flawed, and how said concept can be improved upon, and then there is the utter contempt seen in throwing the baby out with the bath by condemning the concept wholly.

"We need x amount of money to make y game", ok, well, you got x+z money, but just make y game. Worry about adding a z's worth of more game after you got the y down.

Personally, Im fine if they just deliver y game and pocket the extra cash. If I was going to back a game, Id probably not bother if they reached their goal and rather put it to something that hasnt yet reached its goal.

My issue is worrying about the bells and whistles when you havent finished what you're putting them onto.

I s'pose I can understand that.

I think, really, it's just the popular thing to do right now, even amidst the rising controversy with such a semi-established platform. It's... simply easier to attract the right amount of positive attention needed this way, granted the right reputation(s) is/are at line.

That being said, the (z) content could very easily be released as free-content patches, as was seen in the Witcher III, which is, as I feel it to be, a much more respectable approach towards the concept. Maybe we will start seeing more of that - especially as independent studios and more niche studios are gaining a better foothold in the industry.

If they want to turn it into FREE Day 1 DLC, thats fine. I HATE paid Day 1 DLC, cause it is BS. But not everyone is surprisingly moral like CDProjekt Red, nor as capable.

I just see too many bad practices, whether its out of malice, over-ambition, or just stupidity. Im not going to support it, flat out, cause if I wont condone it there, why should I condone it here?

Saelune:
I just see too many bad practices, whether its out of malice, over-ambition, or just stupidity. Im not going to support it, flat out, cause if I wont condone it there, why should I condone it here?

Then don't. inXile has an excellent track record that you can find with minimal effort. If that's not enough for you, just leave.

Denamic:

Saelune:
I just see too many bad practices, whether its out of malice, over-ambition, or just stupidity. Im not going to support it, flat out, cause if I wont condone it there, why should I condone it here?

Then don't. inXile has an excellent track record that you can find with minimal effort. If that's not enough for you, just leave.

*looks around* Leave what?

From this we can gather that Wasteland 2 was well received. Otherwise they wouldn't have been funded.

The Wasteland 2 kickstarter had an estimated date of delivery of October 2013; it's actual release date was September 19 2014. Something to bear in mind if one considers backing.

... They couldn't have made little assets on models before? I'm talking about the equipment.

I haven't played Wasteland 2, yet, but I tested it for 5 minutes to see how it performs. So, I assume this isn't in Wasteland 2, too, right?

This better not be on Unity again. In Wasteland 2 they basically couldn't even implement armour showing up when equipped. Which was kinda a big eh? Though I suppose Unity has improved since.

Hope they streamline the skill system and balance weapons better. Don't want to have to spec into Alarm Disarming, Demolitions and Lockpicking/Safecracking/Computer Science just to open random loot boxes containing handfuls of bullets and junk.

"Keep in mind that the project isn't set to launch in Q4 of 2019"... so when is it set to launch? :)

Denamic:

Saelune:

Denamic:

Then don't. inXile has an excellent track record that you can find with minimal effort. If that's not enough for you, just leave.

*looks around* Leave what?

Leave the conversation, the community around the games in question. Be quit of the situation.

Why should they? They are free to say and you are free not to listen (or read as the case maybe)

Also, how about these stretch goal:

1. A good story
2. Choices that matter. Fallout 3 had more impactful choices. In facts, Wasteland 2 choices are on par with ESO. I.e. They don't matter. At least ESO is an MMO and has some sort of excuse.
3. Characters. Like some more than "I seek revenge for the one I Loved" or "me a scientist. Look at my glasses they make me smart
4. If there are different teams in the Rangers, why am I the only one doing something, like in the first mission you can only save one place. Why can't a team go to the other one and ho,d line at least until I turn up.
5. Can I choose not to be a Ranger. They are boring, Imagine if you could join that other group of cops (Skorpions if I remember correctly) be wise the Rangers weren't doing their job.
6. There seem to be only one way to achieve success in each area. Fallout 3 once again did it better. And if your using F3 as your baseline you should probably go back to the drawing board.
7. Can I just go where I want and ring interesting places without you (the game) forcing me to go where you want me to.

That'll do for a start

Denamic:

Saelune:

Denamic:

Then don't. inXile has an excellent track record that you can find with minimal effort. If that's not enough for you, just leave.

*looks around* Leave what?

Leave the conversation, the community around the games in question. Be quit of the situation.

Nah. I have just as much right to voice my complaints in the News Section of a Public Forum, just as you have all the right to disagree with me. Disagree with me, go ahead. I debate regularly on here, I am not afraid to argue differing opinions. Dont be afraid of it either.

My point really had nothing to do with the specific company. -Any- company could have done this and Id literally write the same response. Feel free to personally cite reasons why this company might be exceptions to the rule, why they might prove to do it right. Though fair warning, my rebuttal will likely be the exception doesnt disprove the rule.

o0

I don't get it, did everyone play a different version of Wasteland 2 then I did? Cus it was one of the biggest gaming disappointments in rpg on my side right alongside Pillars of Eternity (albeit for very different reasons).

And yet, those 2 games are massive hits apparently and both getting sequels (along with a card game and other extra material in the case of PoE), whilst vastly superior old skol throwback rpgs such as Age of Decadence or Underrail which came out in the same time frame, haven't been critical successes, ain't getting sequels and i certainly never see people on this site talk about them or praise them in any way.. Makes me truly wonder if i'm insane or not, or maybe my tastes are just so warped i just can't tell what a good rpg is anymore.

I'm a little surprised that people are still giving them money after the half-hearted soggy fart that was Wasteland 2.

 

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