Codex Preview RPG Codex Report: Expeditions: Conquistador, Logic Artists and Kickstarter

Adding multiplayer to a game is a cool thing I wish we were able to add it to LoE. But hopefully, sometime in the future we will. What exactly did they say about it earlier?

 

If they'd released beta to all backers though, they would have risked angering the backers who pledged for beta since now they're not special.

 

Update 19.

 

What conspiracy? Now, maybe I didn't get all my facts straight, but it seems very straight forward:

The game was ready to be released 2 months ago but got held back because of a last-minute publishing deal which required some changes, like MP. If it didn't require any changes, why the delay?

Why? Wouldn't you say that my impressions were fairly positive and I've never said a bad word about the game or developers? Why would I want to make something up now?

And why should the backers care about it again? They gave them a lot of money (relatively) to make a game and deliver it to them when it's ready. The game is ready yet it hasn't been delivered. In kindergarten's terms, it's wrong.

Saying "but it will them even make successful!" is a road to hell paved with good intentions. This is what fucked up the industry in the first place.

 

You don't have your facts straight. The addition of multiplayer came before the contract and was, as far as we know and have been told, something the devs chose to add. Anything beyond that is pure speculation pretty much unique to a few posters here. You've been duped.

The delay is, again as far we know, for the purposes of securing distribution. Apparantly they're more likely to get deals with certain platforms if they release the product simultaneously on them all.

Presumably they care that their niche flourishes and that the game is succesful. If Kickstarter is about funding the niche and the risky, the niche being succesful is a good thing. Self-explanatory.

Your use of retarded hyperbole in this thread is bordering shitposter-quality. Securing the release on profitable platforms doesn't change gameplay. Changing gameplay "to make it succesful" is what fucked up the industry.

Apples and oranges.

 

Which was the developer's choice.

 

Let me ask you this then: why the game hasn't been released yet?

 

They had the beta earilier and the other ones would get the access on special circumstances. I think it's a nice middle ground. As for now the low-tier backers (which are the majority) are the ones treated worst.

Communication is only one form of interaction, while interaction is not always about communication. And it seemed people on Codex would understand such basics.

 

The very same post you quoted, jesus VD:

 

Apparently? Who's the conspiracytard (as you so eloquently put it) now? Plenty of games got on Steam after being released elsewhere. I'm sure you know that.

Also, the distribution is already secured - KS backers, GoG, GG, Desura. So, it's delayed to secure MOAR distribution, while those who funded the development have to sit and wait until the stars align.

 

Hm, we have similar arguments here, I bet I can beat Nikolay, he is not doing that well in LoE combat

I talked to Logic Artists a few days before this Update 19 and I had an impression they were going to release on Desura, GOG and GG. I might even have suggested to them a bit later to talk to bitComposer or Paradox but I can't find my post, so I am not sure. Anyway, now I am pretty much sure that their decision to do MP was quite a bit before they started distribution talks.

 

Which they could have released as a patch. I think you are being generous due to the restriction of professional courtesy. Not a bad thing at all. But not really helping this argument much. But I guess it would be indecent on my side to involve you in it.

 

Exactly.
They pitched a single player game. They decided to implement multiplayer well after the Kickstarter campaign was over. By their own admission, it detracted from the single player aspect and it contributed to the delay. They should have been upfront and announced the multiplayer possibility at the start. They could have ameliorated the situation by releasing a single player game immediately and adding the multiplayer functionality through a patch. But the whole publisher fiasco prevents that.

 

I already got involved But would you agree that releasing a game with multiplayer is better than without from a business point of view? Adding it in a patch is a possible solution, of course, but it does make more sense to release it together. If I had a choice I would do MP. Not at the expense of waiting another year, but judging by what they were doing they were testing and fixing bugs. In our company, when it happens, developers switch back to their tasks to implement new features. Their devs probably were fixing bugs and had some time to work on new stuff. So, again, I don't think they added MP at the expense of the delay. Professional courtesy has, well, not nothing, but little to do with it. It's just that I am very keenly aware what kind of process they go through right now and it's very easy for me to put myself into their shoes. And when I think about the decisions I would have to do had I been in their position, I probably would end up doing the same thing. Maybe with better communication though

 

Not necessarily, and certainly not in this way. Not necessarily, since the core aspect of the game is single player, the question is whether MP would detract from that aspect and whether the target customers (those who would play the SP game) are interested in the MP functionality or think of it as a resource sink (I, for one, am not interested in multiplayer games). Not in this way, because they should have been upfront about the possibility of adding the MP while the Kickstarter campaign lasted.

 

Depends on the game, doesn't it? After playing the demo I didn't get the impression that multiplayer was missing or needed there.

 

I really don't understand why they didn't extend beta to all backers and let everyone play the game. No one would care about a distribution delay then.

 

The issue at hand is not communication - or should I say, it's not "communication" where they present the things they're doing in a nice, friendly, and ultimately false manner that will pacify the masses.

The issue is that what they decided to do - prioritize distribution deals and random whims (multiplayer!) over delivering what their Kickstarter claimed to be about - is simply antagonizing.

Maybe that's the best way to (ehem) kickstart your career as a professional developer beloved by "distribution platforms". But it surely is not the best way to appeal to the Kickstarter crowd (however fickle they might be).

Other than that, I've already said everything - with better handling, they could've done mostly the same things and gotten the approval of most people complaining now. "Mostly" because delaying releases because it makes you more appealing to "distribution platforms" is a shitty thing to do no matter how you present and "communicate" it.

 

Well said.

 

How does delaying the game for 2+ months get them Steam money right fucking now? Inquiring mind wants to know.

 

Who said anything about a year? Why construct hypothetical arguments where the 2 months delay totally makes sense?

Steam generally accepts games that get good reviews and positive reaction. So far the game got very positive reviews, so there is nothing there to suggest that they couldn't get on Steam 2-3 months after the release. If they needed money now, releasing it on the other platforms would have done the trick. Sure, Steam is better, but GoG, GG, and Desura are pretty good too and very friendly toward indies, probably more so than Steam.