Game News Kickstarter Drama: Conquistador, Shadowrun and Eisenwald

[janjetina]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Just that setbacks and compromises are unsurprising and rage over matters of principle (that KS devs must be free of publisher influence, that everything they release must be DRM free, etc.) is useless. I'm being preachy though, and perhaps as Roguey said it's all a storm in a teacup.

How about keeping the promises the funding was achieved under?

 

[Irenaeus]

How about keeping the promises the funding was achieved under?

Yeah, that ship has sailed.

 

[The Vanished One]

How about keeping the promises the funding was achieved under?

That may prove impossible. Honest devs will be open about it, and try to make up for it with continued support of their game. Maybe they really tried their best to properly manage their resources and funds, and that wasn't enough. Less honest devs may start hiding this or that detail. I'm not talking about SRR in particular here.

 

[Gozma]

What did HBS say about their status with the license during the Kickstarter? That's kinda the rub on SRR to me; they should have completely disclosed what hooks were in their ass.

But maybe they did? I wasn't paying too close attention.

 

[Jaesun]

It is strange to be required to license your own game in order to make a new version of it but that’s what can happen when you’re old and keep changing companies. Here's the fast-forward version:

And so, our favorite game has come full circle and Jordan is again leading the development of a world he started oh, so many years ago.

 

[Drowed]

Don't know about Double Fine, but ObsidianinXile Corp are too big to fail. "

Exactly. I believe there is no chance that any of them will not release their promised game. And even though it may not be as good as many dream it will be (which is a fact, I'm pretty sure that many here will be disappointed with the final result), I think it will still be a game good enough to justify the crowd funding model.

And we have to remember that even if these games made by famous developers have not yet been released, Kickstarter has some successful cases, yes.

 

[Gozma]

And so, our favorite game has come full circle and Jordan is again leading the development of a world he started oh, so many years ago.

So that was the whole of what they said? They never said anything about the specific say Microsoft has over shit they do? I actually assumed they'd bought the license back completely somehow.

I am personally still favorable about SRR (no mousefuck container looting and sorting is a positive feature to me) but they certainly did fuck that up.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I don't remember seeing anything about Microsoft having control but the original faq does give some vague hints. It claims the public release will be DRM free, then contradicts itself and states some of the details are still being worked out in the next question:

How will the game be distributed when it's released to the public? What about DRM-free?

For mobile tablets, Shadowrun Returns will be available via iTunes, Android Marketplace, and the Amazon Android marketplace. For PC/Mac/Linux, the game will be available DRM-free from our website. We are also looking into a Steam release (and potentially Humble Bundle as well).
Last updated: Monday Apr 23, 6:39pm EDT

What type of account system/DRM can we expect?

While the details are still being worked out, we hate draconian DRM as much as the next guy. We expect there will be an account system but it would be primarily used to enable the social elements of the game like mission and character sharing--not to restrict access to the game itself.

 

[tadhg]

So that was the whole of what they said? They never said anything about the specific say Microsoft has over shit they do? I actually assumed they'd bought the license back completely somehow.

I am personally still favorable about SRR (no mousefuck container looting and sorting is a positive feature to me) but they certainly did fuck that up.

The original video mentioned they licensed the rights to do an rpg and the bit that Jaesun quoted even briefly mentioned how it was weird to have to license something that he created.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

License is a pretty broad term though. It just means they have permission to use the IP. What a license grants permission to do can range from "everything" to "making a single copy."

 

[Jaesun]

Yes. Watch at around 1:55 and he specifically states he licensed the game.

 

[tadhg]

License is a pretty broad term though. It just means they have permission to use the IP. What a license grants permission to do can range from "everything" to "making a single copy."

I was just replying in regards to the assumption that they'd bought the rights to the IP.

 

[Gozma]

Yeah... I guess people (or at least the Codex) will know to ask very specifically about licenses and so on now

 

[Spectacle]

I don't remember seeing anything about Microsoft having control but the original faq does give some vague hints. It claims the public release will be DRM free, then contradicts itself and states some of the details are still being worked out in the next question:

How will the game be distributed when it's released to the public? What about DRM-free?

For mobile tablets, Shadowrun Returns will be available via iTunes, Android Marketplace, and the Amazon Android marketplace. For PC/Mac/Linux, the game will be available DRM-free from our website. We are also looking into a Steam release (and potentially Humble Bundle as well).
Last updated: Monday Apr 23, 6:39pm EDT

What type of account system/DRM can we expect?

While the details are still being worked out, we hate draconian DRM as much as the next guy. We expect there will be an account system but it would be primarily used to enable the social elements of the game like mission and character sharing--not to restrict access to the game itself.

In other words, they blatantly lied about the microsoft mandated DRM. Cunts.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

In other words, they blatantly lied about the microsoft mandated DRM. Cunts.

Either that or they were ridiculously careless with their promises to backers. To me it seems kind of silly to have to ask something like "You have claimed you will do something, but do you actually have the license to do that?"

 

[Jaesun]

That is why you NEVER make deals with Dragons. Mitch should know better.

 

[tuluse]

Or Microsoft changed the terms of the deal.

 

[Jaesun]

Personally my guess is this:

They approached M$, said they are going to try and fund a $400,000 game on KS. They asked M$ for the licence. M$ said $400,000 game? LOL sure go ahead.

After KS ended at $1,836,447 they went back to M$ later, said they are thinking about a new DLC and told them how much they made on KS as well as sales and number of units sold so far. M$ then probably when, wait.... this is now actually profitable? Sure. Go ahead with a new DLC but you need to have DRM on it.

Provided the final game is good, M$ now knows they can continue to make money on HBS continuing to Licence this from them.

 

[Al3xand3r]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Just that setbacks and compromises are unsurprising and rage over matters of principle (that KS devs must be free of publisher influence, that everything they release must be DRM free, etc.) is useless. I'm being preachy though, and perhaps as Roguey said it's all a storm in a teacup.

This comment has as much bs as your previous one... Again, I can be pissy about this case and not think any of what you claim here and in the previous post. Because it's nothing like what actually happened.

 

[The Vanished One]

I didn't want to imply people are only angry about what I said, but I think there's a lot of people who are.

 

[janjetina]

How about keeping the promises the funding was achieved under?

That may prove impossible. Honest devs will be open about it, and try to make up for it with continued support of their game. Maybe they really tried their best to properly manage their resources and funds, and that wasn't enough. Less honest devs may start hiding this or that detail. I'm not talking about SRR in particular here.

For one, they can at least be sued for false advertising in such a case, in addition to irrevocably damaging their reputation. I don't think that's enough though. Accountability is important and if we do not expect the developers to keep the terms under which they asked for money, then the whole Kickstarter could be discarded as a scam platform. From a developer's perspective, an investment should be treated as an investment, whether it's from a publisher, a bank, an angel investor, or the Kickstarter crowd. Breach of promises in the first three cases would have very serious consequences, and the same should apply for the fourth case. Just like it took Paypal a few years to start sanctioning fraudulous sellers, Kickstarter will eventually have to implement the mechanism to enforce the developers' accountability.

 

[Infinitron]

And so, our favorite game has come full circle and Jordan is again leading the development of a world he started oh, so many years ago.

So that was the whole of what they said? They never said anything about the specific say Microsoft has over shit they do? I actually assumed they'd bought the license back completely somehow.

To be fair, inXile have also said very little about EA's ownership of the Wasteland IP. We have absolutely no clue what the details are of the deal between inXile and EA. We're just lucky that the executive in EA in charge of Interplay's old IPs is apparently a BRO. Hopefully he doesn't get fired.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

Pretty much this. Kickstarter has no intrinsic control other than the trust between the consumer and the Developer.

And with few exceptions, so far it worked really well. If KS were a financial institution, they would have to do really a lot. But I think it's their deliberate policy to reduce amount of paperwork and I think it's a rather functional way. If they did it differently, who knows what would have happened. Right now this platform is seen as a big success and that should not be underestimated. I think other projects like hardware etc. carry more risks than computer games. Making a prototype is pretty much a must to get any funding for relative unknowns and big names can get funding just for an idea. Overall, it's seems like a sort of a self-regulated platform.

 

[Gozma]

The good and honest functioning of any given institution is critically dependent on the judgement and moral behavior of individuals in it. There is no legal algorithm to make the world a nice place.

Just put out the fucking games bros

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

If kickstarter were a bank, no one would qualify for the loans. Arts, crafts and videogames are way too risky and unprofitable for the loan officer to approve it.

The whole point of kickstarter was to provide funding for things that couldn't otherwise be funded because they are terrible ways to make money or the possible reward wasn't high enough to compensate for the risk.

ETA: That's why kickstarter is a donation. If kickstarter were to set things up for the kind of accountability to find in actual commercial transactions, it would seriously impact the ability for the average joe, under 10k type projects that are kickstarter's bread and butter. The problem is that the kickstarter approach isn't really great for large scale projects by established companies - they are the kinds of entities you expect commerce-level accountability from, while the system is set up for a totally different kind of relationship.