Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #28: Logistics Update

[l3loodAngel]

They really seems to be aiming pretty damn high...I hope they are right about the development time.

Once they will get the budget done, they will start with the schedule.

 

[DalekFlay]

I went to this ball shop and bought a ball but all they sold me was a fucking ball. It's goddamn ridiculous is what it is.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Is there really a single backer who is going to be massively pissed by this being buiggy as fuck? Surely everone just factored that shit into their donations - hell Obsidian aren't even as bad as their rep when it comes to bugs (and that isn't because they aren't buggy, it's because their rep on bugs sounds like some alternative ending to They Came from The Desert where the giant ants conquer all)

Similarly, what kind of douche gives money to a product in pre-pre-production, so early that they don;'t even have a budget yet, let alone a plan on what to do with that budget, and then complains because the plan that didn't exist doesn't exist.

 

[Jaesun]

 

[jewboy]

The point about needing multiple blurays to hold all of the artwork for a very large 1980x1080 world is an interesting one. How do most modern games deal with that problem? Well I guess the PS3 actually uses blurays, but everyone else somehow manages with multiple DVDs. It seems like most games take up no more than 14 gigs these days. It has been a while since I've thought of distribution media size as being a limitation. I suppose they could actually distribute the game on BD-Rs. Blank ones only cost about a dollar these days. Probably a lot less if you buy in large quantities. Probably lots of people have Bluray readers on their computers already and even if they don't they are pretty cheap these days. It's really only the burners that are expensive. Or they could offer the option of 1 or 2 bluray discs or 5-10 DVDs.

There is also the issue of the time it would take to download something like 50 - 100 gigs of content or more. Even for people like me with a un ultrafast connection that will take some time. For people with slower connections it could take weeks of downloading. That's the inherent downside to internet distribution.

Just before CDRom drives became popular software was often distributed on 6-12 floppies. That sucked, but it is always inevitable in transitionary periods between formats. The dual layer DVD era is ending and the era of single layer blurays is beginning. If it were me I would just offer both options. There is quite a bit of time before the game is released to find a good sale on a cheap bluray drive. In terms of cost lots of dual layer DVDs may still be cheaper than distributing on bluray, although box size and shipping costs will be higher for shipping all of those DVDs.

 

[Volrath]

More like

 

[Infinitron]

I believe the game will be delayed by as much as half a year, but a beta will be available before that so backers won't be too pissed about it.

I'm not to sure about that. When games get delayed they cost more money. I don't think they are going to keep 6 months worth of money in reserve just in case they wind up needing more time. Maybe 1 or 2 months worth. If they were going to delay 6 months they would need to get the money from somewhere. Maybe the Obsidian warchest is big enough to cover that. Maybe they can get a loan.

Maybe they could run a second kickstarter to get the money to polish project eternity.

Original game budget was 1.1 million. Fact is, we don't know how long they can afford to work. It could be much longer than 18 months.

How do most modern games deal with that problem?

There's a reason console games have notoriously shitty textures.

 

[Infinitron]

Original game budget was 1.1 million. Fact is, we don't know how long they can afford to work. It could be much longer than 18 months.

Them just pocketing a large chunk of the kickstarter money(even if it was for just in case we needed to delay) instead of spending it on the game would sort of be unethical. I don't know if they could do that without facing legal repercussions, If any backers chose to pursue that.

Uh that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that with 4 million dollars they can budget the game to spend two years or even more on it.

 

[Jaesun]

I can count to Potato.

 

[tuluse]

Sorry, but you faggots need to stop comparing this to art patronage.

Patrons had a massive amount of control over the outcome, whether they were patronising Michelangelo or a no-name portrait artist. If the patron was the church they could have elements painted out, over, in, whatever the fuck they wanted. If your patron was a de Medici, they could demand to be painted into religious scenes because they were the benefactors.

Stop fucking comparing this to art patronage as if the Popes or Sforzas or Monarchies of Europe were somehow gracious patrons freely giving away their money for fine art. They were not. They placed huge demands upon the artists as well as huge restrictions.

This is *exactly* patronage. The major difference here is that it's tens of thousands of patrons, instead of one.

If you gave obsidian 4 million dollars, I'm sure they would make whatever game you wanted them too.

If you give them $50 along with 70,000 other patrons, you get about 1/70,000 of a say in what happens.

Also, demands have been made and met: Linux and Max support, no DRM, big dungeon, George Ziets, romances

 

[tuluse]

The point about needing multiple blurays to hold all of the artwork for a very large 1980x1080 world is an interesting one. How do most modern games deal with that problem? Well I guess the PS3 actually uses blurays, but everyone else somehow manages with multiple DVDs. It seems like most games take up no more than 14 gigs these days. It has been a while since I've thought of distribution media size as being a limitation. I suppose they could actually distribute the game on BD-Rs. Blank ones only cost about a dollar these days. Probably a lot less if you buy in large quantities. Probably lots of people have Bluray readers on their computers already and even if they don't they are pretty cheap these days. It's really only the burners that are expensive. Or they could offer the option of 1 or 2 bluray discs or 5-10 DVDs.

There is also the issue of the time it would take to download something like 50 - 100 gigs of content or more. Even for people like me with a un ultrafast connection that will take some time. For people with slower connections it could take weeks of downloading. That's the inherent downside to internet distribution.

Just before CDRom drives became popular software was often distributed on 6-12 floppies. That sucked, but it is always inevitable in transitionary periods between formats. The dual layer DVD era is ending and the era of single layer blurays is beginning. If it were me I would just offer both options. There is quite a bit of time before the game is released to find a good sale on a cheap bluray drive. In terms of cost lots of dual layer DVDs may still be cheaper than distributing on bluray, although box size and shipping costs will be higher for shipping all of those DVDs.

Four words: reused low res textures

 

[Tigranes]

Sorry, but you faggots need to stop comparing this to art patronage.

Patrons had a massive amount of control over the outcome, whether they were patronising Michelangelo or a no-name portrait artist. If the patron was the church they could have elements painted out, over, in, whatever the fuck they wanted. If your patron was a de Medici, they could demand to be painted into religious scenes because they were the benefactors.

Stop fucking comparing this to art patronage as if the Popes or Sforzas or Monarchies of Europe were somehow gracious patrons freely giving away their money for fine art. They were not. They placed huge demands upon the artists as well as huge restrictions.

This is *exactly* patronage. The major difference here is that it's tens of thousands of patrons, instead of one.

If you gave obsidian 4 million dollars, I'm sure they would make whatever game you wanted them too.

If you give them $50 along with 70,000 other patrons, you get about 1/70,000 of a say in what happens.

Also, demands have been made and met: Linux and Max support, no DRM, big dungeon, George Ziets, romances

I'm sure ironyuri would be very happy with a democratic 70k-backer boardroom that tells Obsidian what to make.

Thought through, this has not been.

 

[ironyuri]

Sorry, but you faggots need to stop comparing this to art patronage.

Patrons had a massive amount of control over the outcome, whether they were patronising Michelangelo or a no-name portrait artist. If the patron was the church they could have elements painted out, over, in, whatever the fuck they wanted. If your patron was a de Medici, they could demand to be painted into religious scenes because they were the benefactors.

Stop fucking comparing this to art patronage as if the Popes or Sforzas or Monarchies of Europe were somehow gracious patrons freely giving away their money for fine art. They were not. They placed huge demands upon the artists as well as huge restrictions.

This is *exactly* patronage. The major difference here is that it's tens of thousands of patrons, instead of one.

If you gave obsidian 4 million dollars, I'm sure they would make whatever game you wanted them too.

If you give them $50 along with 70,000 other patrons, you get about 1/70,000 of a say in what happens.

Also, demands have been made and met: Linux and Max support, no DRM, big dungeon, George Ziets, romances

So it's exactly that, but it's not. So it is not exactly patronage. It is nowhere near the exact same thing as a de Medici patronising a da Vinci.

Obsidian has control over the vision and outcome. What it is like, is a corporate pitch to shareholders to drum up venture capital in order to embark on a new business venture. Only instead of financial returns, we get a share in the end product, with no meaningful say or sway over its production.

So it is not at all like art patronage.

I'm sure ironyuri would be very happy with a democratic 70k-backer boardroom that tells Obsidian what to make.

Thought through, this has not been.

Tig, I never said I want a democratic 70k-backer boardroom. This is an entirely new business model which neither the company (Obsidian, nXile), or the backers (us) have fully explored the limits of. We'll know with the benefit of hindsight what works and what doesn't.

What I have advocated in many of my KS-related posts is an open business model from the prospective developers. Treat us like investors. Show us your plans, give a project outline with a projected schedule and a rough breakdown of where and how you plan to spend our money.

I don't want spreadsheets with Obsidian's financial projections for the financial year, but I'd like to know the money is being spent responsibly, and that Obsidian is open with the people who have financed this project.

Edit: Basically "don't treat us like open wallets", "don't treat us like easy sales (without us you wouldn't even be making the game)", "don't treat us like joe shmoe who just picked up his first video game".

I know that you can't make a game through consensus, especially not the consensus of 70,000 people. the problem is, if Obsidian as the project manager has a strong artistic vision, pitches it and we fund it, then we can rightfully expect the end product to meet at least some of that potential. They've already removed the Orobouros logo, which is aesthetic only, yes, but it was part of the original pitch. Are they going to radically change the world they've envisioned? They've already sold us on a spiritual successor to the Black Hound/Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale, so that's where I've set my expectations going into the project. Now it's their job to demonstrate that they're willing to take the project to completion with the vision they sold.



PS (EDIT2): I was actually bouyed by this video from Sawyer, despite the meaninglessness of talking "logistics" when he can't show us anything yet. The fact that they seem to be open about their use of finances and about proving themselves to be fiscally responsible with fans' money gave me a better feeling about Obsidian as KS company. So, you know, don't lump me with Mrowak here. Regardless, this is still nothing at all like art patronage, for the other reason that once produced Obsidian will be taking the product to mass market and generating what will likely be considerable profits. This isn't a "one-off" unique piece that we'll hang in the Uffizi, it's a mass product that will be sold on to 200,000+ prospective customers as a cultural product.

 

[Ogg]

Amon Tobin shirt:

 

[tuluse]

Sorry, but you faggots need to stop comparing this to art patronage.

Patrons had a massive amount of control over the outcome, whether they were patronising Michelangelo or a no-name portrait artist. If the patron was the church they could have elements painted out, over, in, whatever the fuck they wanted. If your patron was a de Medici, they could demand to be painted into religious scenes because they were the benefactors.

Stop fucking comparing this to art patronage as if the Popes or Sforzas or Monarchies of Europe were somehow gracious patrons freely giving away their money for fine art. They were not. They placed huge demands upon the artists as well as huge restrictions.

This is *exactly* patronage. The major difference here is that it's tens of thousands of patrons, instead of one.

If you gave obsidian 4 million dollars, I'm sure they would make whatever game you wanted them too.

If you give them $50 along with 70,000 other patrons, you get about 1/70,000 of a say in what happens.

Also, demands have been made and met: Linux and Max support, no DRM, big dungeon, George Ziets, romances

So it's exactly that, but it's not. So it is not exactly patronage. It is nowhere near the exact same thing as a de Medici patronising a da Vinci.

Obsidian has control over the vision and outcome. What it is like, is a corporate pitch to shareholders to drum up venture capital in order to embark on a new business venture. Only instead of financial returns, we get a share in the end product, with no meaningful say or sway over its production.

So it is not at all like art patronage.

If all 70k backers tell Obsidian to do something, they're going to do it.

And plenty of patron-supported artists had autonomy, ignore painters for a moment, and look at opera writers. They usually had freedom to compose and arrange music as they saw fit.

 

[Jaesun]

Gawd we seriously need to put a warning on this thread that reads:

WEAR INT PROTECTION BEFORE READING THIS THREAD OR YOU WILL TAKE SO MUCH INT DAMAGE YOU WILL BECOME A DROOLING IDIOT.

 

[ironyuri]

Sorry, but you faggots need to stop comparing this to art patronage.

Patrons had a massive amount of control over the outcome, whether they were patronising Michelangelo or a no-name portrait artist. If the patron was the church they could have elements painted out, over, in, whatever the fuck they wanted. If your patron was a de Medici, they could demand to be painted into religious scenes because they were the benefactors.

Stop fucking comparing this to art patronage as if the Popes or Sforzas or Monarchies of Europe were somehow gracious patrons freely giving away their money for fine art. They were not. They placed huge demands upon the artists as well as huge restrictions.

This is *exactly* patronage. The major difference here is that it's tens of thousands of patrons, instead of one.

If you gave obsidian 4 million dollars, I'm sure they would make whatever game you wanted them too.

If you give them $50 along with 70,000 other patrons, you get about 1/70,000 of a say in what happens.

Also, demands have been made and met: Linux and Max support, no DRM, big dungeon, George Ziets, romances

So it's exactly that, but it's not. So it is not exactly patronage. It is nowhere near the exact same thing as a de Medici patronising a da Vinci.

Obsidian has control over the vision and outcome. What it is like, is a corporate pitch to shareholders to drum up venture capital in order to embark on a new business venture. Only instead of financial returns, we get a share in the end product, with no meaningful say or sway over its production.

So it is not at all like art patronage.

If all 70k backers tell Obsidian to do something, they're going to do it.

And plenty of patron-supported artists had autonomy, ignore painters for a moment, and look at opera writers. They usually had freedom to compose and arrange music as they saw fit.

This is still nothing like patronage, bro. The end product is not being made just for the 70,000 people who fund Obsidian's work, they will take it to mass market and that must be a consideration. It is a product influenced, as any other, by the nature of the culture industry. The economic and social conditions of patronage qua Early Modern/Renaissance patrons of the arts no longer exist.

If you want to call it patronage then you must redefine the term, because its traditional form no longer applies.

Crowd funding has more in common with venture capital, than it does with patronage.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

tuluse why are you so stupid?

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Patrons had a massive amount of control over the outcome, whether they were patronising Michelangelo or a no-name portrait artist. If the patron was the church they could have elements painted out, over, in, whatever the fuck they wanted.

Not that much control - they couldn't stop him from putting dicks all over the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

 

[Tigranes]

ironyuri

Tig, I never said I want a democratic 70k-backer boardroom. [...] What I have advocated in many of my KS-related posts is an open business model from the prospective developers. Treat us like investors. Show us your plans, give a project outline with a projected schedule and a rough breakdown of where and how you plan to spend our money.

Well the thing about normal investors is that they have a board of investors. And the reason they have that board is so that they can, in fact, tell the developers what to do. Not just to listen to the plans and nod OK, cool. So are we just wanting for more detailed information, and business-related information, from Obsidian, or are we wanting some mechanism by which 70k backers can tell them what to do?

If the former, fine, I'm behind that in principle. Though the obvious problem with releasing information is that information breeds speculation and panic, which then requires more information - a highly ineffective process. Transparency, despite what people keep saying all the time, is not always a good thing. E.g. a double fine still breakdown of what part of 4.1m goes to game development, or how many developers are employed? Fine. If we're talking about 'breakdown' of, say, how much on design and how much on graphics, what internal milestones the team has, then I think it's unncessary. (Oh God it's May and they haven't finished all the levels fuck them!)

If the latter, then no, that was never part of the bargain and it should not have been, either. What's that we say about publishers? They don't understand game development and yet tell them what to do? Well we wouldn't want 70,000 people doing that, would we?

if Obsidian as the project manager has a strong artistic vision, pitches it and we fund it, then we can rightfully expect the end product to meet at least some of that potential. They've already removed the Orobouros logo, which is aesthetic only, yes, but it was part of the original pitch. Are they going to radically change the world they've envisioned? They've already sold us on a spiritual successor to the Black Hound/Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale, so that's where I've set my expectations going into the project. Now it's their job to demonstrate that they're willing to take the project to completion with the vision they sold.

If your confidence is shaken in any way by the removal of the Ouroboros then the problem is somewhere else. Srsly what? Otherwise, of course it's their job to demonstrate that they're going to work towards the vision they sold. I think they're doing that, as much as they can while they're still in preproduction. And as I said above, I wouldn't mind some low-level business information or explanation. Otherwise, at least wait for something that actually seems to contradict the vision in your understanding (because there will be).

 

[ironyuri]

ironyuri

Tig, I never said I want a democratic 70k-backer boardroom. [...] What I have advocated in many of my KS-related posts is an open business model from the prospective developers. Treat us like investors. Show us your plans, give a project outline with a projected schedule and a rough breakdown of where and how you plan to spend our money.

Well the thing about normal investors is that they have a board of investors. And the reason they have that board is so that they can, in fact, tell the developers what to do. Not just to listen to the plans and nod OK, cool. So are we just wanting for more detailed information, and business-related information, from Obsidian, or are we wanting some mechanism by which 70k backers can tell them what to do?

If the former, fine, I'm behind that in principle. Though the obvious problem with releasing information is that information breeds speculation and panic, which then requires more information - a highly ineffective process. Transparency, despite what people keep saying all the time, is not always a good thing. E.g. a double fine still breakdown of what part of 4.1m goes to game development, or how many developers are employed? Fine. If we're talking about 'breakdown' of, say, how much on design and how much on graphics, what internal milestones the team has, then I think it's unncessary. (Oh God it's May and they haven't finished all the levels fuck them!)

If the latter, then no, that was never part of the bargain and it should not have been, either. What's that we say about publishers? They don't understand game development and yet tell them what to do? Well we wouldn't want 70,000 people doing that, would we?

if Obsidian as the project manager has a strong artistic vision, pitches it and we fund it, then we can rightfully expect the end product to meet at least some of that potential. They've already removed the Orobouros logo, which is aesthetic only, yes, but it was part of the original pitch. Are they going to radically change the world they've envisioned? They've already sold us on a spiritual successor to the Black Hound/Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale, so that's where I've set my expectations going into the project. Now it's their job to demonstrate that they're willing to take the project to completion with the vision they sold.

If your confidence is shaken in any way by the removal of the Ouroboros then the problem is somewhere else. Srsly what? Otherwise, of course it's their job to demonstrate that they're going to work towards the vision they sold. I think they're doing that, as much as they can while they're still in preproduction. And as I said above, I wouldn't mind some low-level business information or explanation. Otherwise, at least wait for something that actually seems to contradict the vision in your understanding (because there will be).

Sorry, bro, the orobouros part was poorly thought out. I don't mean my confidence was shaken, I was trying to indicate that it shows they have obviously shifted their artistic focus from their initial steps into kickstarter, as the project has matured (And let's face it we're, neither of us, sitting here writing perfectly thought out essays here). This can be extrapolated to bigger shifts down the line, will they change the game world significantly? What concessions will they make to higher, more accessible fantasy? And so on.

Edit: The megadungeon and the world map are other examples. Those are conceptual, but were they to change significantly in execution that may upset backers. We backed you because there was a giant underground statue! Now where has it gone? etc. Shifts from concept to execution in these projects are as yet untested waters.

The low-level Double-Fine style information would be perfectly fine, I think. I agree that too much information can be a bad thing (I am not a financial analyst or games publisher, nor would I want to be), but too little information is also a bad thing. Keeping your investors abreast of relevant information is not a bad thing at all, and not all of it will require explanation.

Obsidian, through KS, has earned the freedom not to have a SEGA or Bethesda watch-dog barking at them whenever their narrative/mechanics/characterisation falls out of step with projected market trends (the scrapping of Mitsoda's work on Alpha Protocol), but in earning that freedom, they should also be showing good faith to the people who bought it. Regardless, I have a good feeling from the continued updates and their openness to community dialogue that they won't disappoint as far as the business end of KS goes.

Whatever the game turns out to be, I'll see when I have the box in my hand. Until then, as long as I don't hear they've made significant, Biowarean concessions, I am not worried about the quality of the end product. I trust them on those grounds.

 

[tuluse]

This is still nothing like patronage, bro. The end product is not being made just for the 70,000 people who fund Obsidian's work, they will take it to mass market and that must be a consideration. It is a product influenced, as any other, by the nature of the culture industry. The economic and social conditions of patronage qua Early Modern/Renaissance patrons of the arts no longer exist.

If you want to call it patronage then you must redefine the term, because its traditional form no longer applies.

Crowd funding has more in common with venture capital, than it does with patronage.

My mom works at a public library, they refer to tax payers (and various other people who have cards without paying property taxes) as patrons.

Does this offend your definition of patronage?

2: one that uses wealth or influence to help an individual, an institution, or a cause

How does this not match what kickstarter is?

Here's the difference between venture capital and contributing to a kickstart, with venture capitol you're expecting to receive a monetary return, with a kickstarter project, you're expecting a work of art to be made. I think that's a far bigger difference than the difference between a Renaissance rich dude paying an artist to paint his wife and 70k people donating to receive a game.

 

[Tigranes]

Sorry, bro, the orobouros part was poorly thought out. I don't mean my confidence was shaken, I was trying to indicate that it shows they have obviously shifted their artistic focus from their initial steps into kickstarter, as the project has matured (And let's face it we're, neither of us, sitting here writing perfectly thought out essays here). This can be extrapolated to bigger shifts down the line, will they change the game world significantly? What concessions will they make to higher, more accessible fantasy? And so on.

Edit: The megadungeon and the world map are other examples. Those are conceptual, but were they to change significantly in execution that may upset backers. We backed you because there was a giant underground statue! Now where has it gone? etc. Shifts from concept to execution in these projects are as yet untested waters.

The low-level Double-Fine style information would be perfectly fine, I think. I agree that too much information can be a bad thing (I am not a financial analyst or games publisher, nor would I want to be), but too little information is also a bad thing. Keeping your investors abreast of relevant information is not a bad thing at all, and not all of it will require explanation.

Obsidian, through KS, has earned the freedom not to have a SEGA or Bethesda watch-dog barking at them whenever their narrative/mechanics/characterisation falls out of step with projected market trends (the scrapping of Mitsoda's work on Alpha Protocol), but in earning that freedom, they should also be showing good faith to the people who bought it. Regardless, I have a good feeling from the continued updates and their openness to community dialogue that they won't disappoint as far as the business end of KS goes.

Whatever the game turns out to be, I'll see when I have the box in my hand. Until then, as long as I don't hear they've made significant, Biowarean concessions, I am not worried about the quality of the end product. I trust them on those grounds.

Of course things change as you make the game, if it didn't you'd have a shit game. We didn't need the Ouroboros to tel us that. So, does the Ouroboros indicate in any way a significant and destabilising change in itself? Or does the mindset behind changing the Ouroboros signal the possibilities of such volte-faces later on? It doesn't. It's a typical example of how people are grasping at things to get excited/worried about by projecting tiny details into the far future in totally unsubstantiated ways. It would be the same if the megadungeon didn't in fact feature a giant 12-storey-tall statue. I'm sure some people would complain. Fine. Does it represent some kind of betrayal of vision, or indeed, anything more than how game development could only ever work? No.

I agree with the rest of your post and I don't have huge problems with what you say, since I too support the call for low-level information. I just think it's pretty early to project things into the future about these things, and the only reason we/you do is because we're sitting on our hands waiting for the game.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Sawyer's video made me laugh. "So... we got all this money. This game's supposed to be fucking huge! Stupid KS promises! What the hell are we going to do... oh god..." I'm still optimistic that they'll put out something interesting and good but it's funny that his commentary was mimicking some of the earlier discussions on the forums about this exact issue.

 

[ironyuri]

This is still nothing like patronage, bro. The end product is not being made just for the 70,000 people who fund Obsidian's work, they will take it to mass market and that must be a consideration. It is a product influenced, as any other, by the nature of the culture industry. The economic and social conditions of patronage qua Early Modern/Renaissance patrons of the arts no longer exist.

If you want to call it patronage then you must redefine the term, because its traditional form no longer applies.

Crowd funding has more in common with venture capital, than it does with patronage.

My mom works at a public library, they refer to tax payers (and various other people who have cards without paying property taxes) as patrons.

Does this offend your definition of patronage?

2: one that uses wealth or influence to help an individual, an institution, or a cause

How does this not match what kickstarter is?

Here's the difference between venture capital and contributing to a kickstart, with venture capitol you're expecting to receive a monetary return, with a kickstarter project, you're expecting a work of art to be made. I think that's a far bigger difference than the difference between a Renaissance rich dude paying an artist to paint his wife and 70k people donating to receive a game.

a video game, like it or not, is a mass market product not a work of art. a video game can be a work of art, or have artistic merit, but it is a product of the culture industry and cannot be divorced from the context of its mass market production.

your dictionary definition of patron is lovely, but it has no bearing on this discussing. the definition of patron in the sense to which you refer is entirely different and one produced by a specific set of historical economic and social circumstances which do not exist in relation to this project.

venture capital investors expect a financial return, kickstarter backers expect t-shirts, cloth maps, boxed copies, digital downloads, soundtracks, hand-drawn trolls, their face in the game, etc, etc. there is a return for this patronage it is not altruistic in any way shape or form.

Of course things change as you make the game, if it didn't you'd have a shit game. We didn't need the Ouroboros to tel us that. So, does the Ouroboros indicate in any way a significant and destabilising change in itself? Or does the mindset behind changing the Ouroboros signal the possibilities of such volte-faces later on? It doesn't. It's a typical example of how people are grasping at things to get excited/worried about by projecting tiny details into the far future in totally unsubstantiated ways. It would be the same if the megadungeon didn't in fact feature a giant 12-storey-tall statue. I'm sure some people would complain. Fine. Does it represent some kind of betrayal of vision, or indeed, anything more than how game development could only ever work? No.

I didn't say there was a betrayal of vision, nor did I say the removal of a small art asset was significantly destabilising. I do expect changes to the project. The point itself was that the way kickstarter works creates a specific set of expectations, due to the structure of the "pitch" which is a marketing tool to drum up project investment. The problem is we are not making money from the investment, so we don't care about changes being made to make us more money, changes have to be justified differently for kickstarter projects because then it becomes a question of getting what you paid for. I didn't pay for a snake eating its own tail, I invested in a vision. So the point was if the vision is seen as a totality (that Project Eternity as a whole is this artistic vision Obsidian has created and that as a vision it actually exists in some tangible form [it doesn't, but for argument's sake, it does]) then when Obsidian begins to make changes to particular elements of that totality, the totality itself must necessarily change. A small change to a single element of the proposed vision, must necessarily change the overall artistic vision of the project, even if only slightly. So what I was getting at was that the small changes we see now may be indicative of much larger changes later. These changes may not necessarily make the game worse (they will in all likelihood improve its quality if the original vision is found to be flawed) but they will be changes and the fact is that a kickstarter project is a project in stasis.

We have funded what appears to be a solid state project. As of the day of funding, we should expect: A Baldur's Gate-like game with a deep engaging narrative that uses rtwp as a function of gameplay mechanics for deciding combat, a game with open-world exploration, two large cities, a megadungeon, a certain number of companions, stats skills and so on. That sounds like a finished game. That's the game we backed. But the end product may make significant changes to this model and therein lies the problem for the kickstarter model. So my point about change relates more widely to how perceptions of kickstarter projects will change when products are delivered and the sustainability of the funding model. Basically: change is good if it's justifiable, but with this new model, developers must necessarily justify their changes to the originally proposed model.