Game News Publisher Exploiting An Obsidian Kickstarter

[JarlFrank]

He's not a real German anyway, he's a Romanian.

 

[Dexter]

What the fuck are you even talking about now, I can't even follow your train of thought anymore.
And why do you bring up Arcanum, that came up in 2001 when none of this was possible?

Digital Distribution only grew from like 2005 onwards, Steams first Publisher Partnership came to be at the end of 2005. Games like World of Goo and Minecraft (respectively 2008/2009) showed that "Indie games" can not only be these neat little things that people play on Flash sites, but commercially viable products that people will spend money for and that they can make tons of it. The first Humble Bundle giving birth to a tradition of Indie game bundles came out in 2010.

KickStarter would likely not have been possible 5 years ago, some of the most trafficked and influential PC gaming sites like RPS or PCGamer started cropping up as late as 2007/2010 and the Internet wasn't what it is today at that point. Yes, if KickStarter or a similar thing might have been around at that time and with its recent popularity there might still be companies like Troika around.

Crowdfunding is said to grow from a ~$1.5 Billion "industry" in 2011 to $3 Billion in 2012 alone: http://www.crowdsourcing.org/docume...-composition-and-crowdfunding-platforms/14277

Even your truly Codexia came to be after Arcanum in 2002. Shit changes and people that can't change with it will live miserably.

 

[Hamster]

There's also certain publisher influences in regards to marketing, for instance this is a recent example of what can happen to a game within a single year to "make it more marketable":

Thanks, i now feel depressed.

 

[Reapa]

Shit does change, but i want it to change like this: arcanum with 30-40giga (not to be taken literally, doesn't have to be arcanum, just monumentally good) and no kickstarter will ever be able to gather enough money for a project that cannot assure success and demand some millions at the same time. So you see publishers are the solution and should not be circumvented but helped to realize that they're spending millions on shit instead of doing something spectacular.
felipepepe said people have shitty tastes - while that is true - dragon age has been bought by these millions of idiots and played, so the next thing to do is not to start over with low res high depth independent stuff, but to go on producing games like dragon age with more depth and less meaningless combat. Such a game would also be bought and played, and maybe, one day, the sheeple will evolve. And thus demand real games.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Reapa, just out of sheer curiousity...when you woke up this morning did you say to yourself "I think today I shall make a handful of flimsy arguments on the internet. Ah, the weather is fine and the air is crisp...such a day!" No big deal. Just wondering.

 

[Reapa]

Indeed I did.

 

[JarlFrank]

So you see publishers are the solution and should not be circumvented but helped to realize that they're spending millions on shit instead of doing something spectacular.

Publishers don't give a shit about shit (witty pun hurr). They don't want to make something spectacular, they want to make money. Easily marketable gimmicks and accessibility are a lot easier to make money with (especially since it's way cheaper than actually producting quality content) than games that are actually worth a damn. As you say yourself, sheeple are retarded and will buy anything that's marketed sufficiently. They'd buy an Arcanum with modern graphics just as much as they'd buy an incredibly shallow and shitty cutscene-filled Mass Effect or Dragon Age. But why would the publishers pay money for quality content, if the marketing cost stays the same? Also, can they be truly sure that everyone will be able to enjoy such a game? Maybe some retards are too stupid to enjoy a smart game! We have to make it more accessible so even some stupid ghetto nigger can play and enjoy it, and 40-year-old housewives who don't usually play games, and also her dog!

Publishers want to reach as broad an audience as possible. To find out how to do this, they do market research. The result is usually dumbing down of games to reach a broader audience, and including shallow shit such as easily marketable gimmicks and "inclusivity" content (homosexual romances to get more gays interested in the game! a character who is cute and wacky to get the housewives interested! etc etc etc). The quality of the content does not matter. The marketability does.

felipepepe said people have shitty tastes - while that is true - dragon age has been bought by these millions of idiots and played, so the next thing to do is not to start over with low res high depth independent stuff, but to go on producing games like dragon age with more depth and less meaningless combat. Such a game would also be bought and played, and maybe, one day, the sheeple will evolve. And thus demand real games.

Yes, but it requires designers who actually know their job and writers who aren't hacks to create fun combat encounters and a good story. Talentless hacks cost less money to employ, though, and it also takes much less time and effort to just copypaste combat encounters and write shitty fanfiction-quality romances instead of actually making things good.

Well, at least Dragon Age 2 was a comparative failure and many people were disappointed in how shit it was compared to the first game. That didn't stop BiowEAre to create some shitty DLCs to squeeze even more money out of it, and it sold well enough to make a profit, and the game still has many fanboys/girls who go all GIGGLESQUEE CHARACTER X IS SO CUTE without caring one little bit about the quality of the story and the gameplay as long as the game lets them romance cute characters.

Why spend time and money on making a good game when you can sell boxed shit for the same price, while investing much less in the production?

EDIT:
Telling you about the Codex was a really good decision on my part, Drecksrumäne.

 

[Infinitron]

Why do you keep mentioning the physical size of games? You're talking like somebody from the 90s who's still amazed by how all these new games on CD-ROMs take a whole SIX HUNDRED MEGABYTES OMG!!!1

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Indeed I did.

Oh, ok. Well, I suggest aiming higher from now on.

 

[Infinitron]

I think I understand Reapa's fallacy here.

He thinks that bad AAA games are bad, not because they're built that way on purpose, but because of unfortunate design mistakes by developers who don't know better. He thinks that all we need to do is show these misguided developers the error of their ways and presto, we'll enter a new era of super-duper AAA games that are both AND appeal to the mass market at the same time.

I can see why someone would think this way. In fact, probably most of the pseudo-intellectual game developers like Ken Levine believe that they are already doing this, by creating "layered" games that appeal to the masses while containing pseudo-intellectual content for the hipsters.

 

[JarlFrank]

No, he actually believes that you could take a game like Arcanum or Morrowind, give it modern graphics and high-budget marketing, and then it would be super-successful (which it probably would) and publishers would continue making such great games forever.

But he doesn't understand publishers.

As soon as the crowd that cannot find Caius Cosades turns up, someone at the publisher will suggest to implement a quest compass, so those poor retarded souls can enjoy their games, too. Why lock them out of enjoying the game? They also have money and want to buy games, so let's dumb the game down so they can enjoy it too!

Publishers do not care about quality. They care about number of sales. And even if the best game ever sells billions of copies, as soon as some retards claim it is too difficult, *someone* will think it's a good idea to dumb it down in order to sell even more copies of the game. This is how publishers work. Appeal to the lowest common denominator so everyone, his mom, and their dog can play it.

 

[skuphundaku]

I think I understand Reapa's fallacy here.

He thinks that bad AAA games are bad, not because they're built that way on purpose, but because of unfortunate design mistakes by developers who don't know better. He thinks that all we need to do is show these misguided developers the error of their ways and presto, we'll enter a new era of super-duper AAA games that are both AND appeal to the mass market at the same time.

I can see why someone would think this way. In fact, probably most of the pseudo-intellectual game developers like Ken Levine believe that they are already doing this, by creating "layered" games that appeal to the masses while containing pseudo-intellectual content for the hipsters.

Yeah, that's right. He thinks that the problem is not that AAA publishers have too much power but that they have too little power. That, to quote a shouty Internet personalty, is "pants-on-head retarded" because, as JarlFrank was already saying, the publishers don't give a flying fuck about quality, being in it exclusively for the money.

 

[Serious_Business]

reasonable post

Fucking christ

your boring

 

[Reapa]

frank

They don't want to make something spectacular, they want to make money.

- true, but in order to make money you have to fulfill demands and if people start to expect more content and less cut scenes these demands will have to be met to sell anything.
I strongly believe that you cannot go back from a game that gives you freedom and total control over your character/party and a fascinating story along with countless side quests to some linear, achievement based,cut scene interrupted, state of the art stupidity once you've played the first.

Well, at least Dragon Age 2 was a comparative failure and many people were disappointed in how shit it was compared to the first game. That didn't stop BiowEAre to create some shitty DLCs to squeeze even more money out of it, and it sold well enough to make a profit, and the game still has many fanboys/girls who go all GIGGLESQUEE CHARACTER X IS SO CUTE without caring one little bit about the quality of the story and the gameplay as long as the game lets them romance cute characters.

Exactly, but some of it has been introduced to the people and will stay there - talking about the good stuff like magic schools, multilateral character management, and decreased linearity.
Of course the process of evolving will have to bear some setbacks like Dragon Age 2, but if you say people were disappointed then the next one should be better. At least that would be the real goal we here should try to achieve.
Going around publishers to make low budget games which will not be recognized as good ones except by a few people due to low res, low length, low marketing is not evolution, it's decline. It's starting over in order to achieve less.

 

[Infinitron]

Reapa's arguments are starting to remind me of one my old threads, where I asked whether the decline was never-ending or whether it was something that could be managed and perhaps slowed down or even stabilized: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/is-the-decline-manageable.67152/

In one sense he has a point - certain genres have reached the lowest possible point and they aren't going to get any dumber. But, that doesn't mean they're going to get very much smarter either.

And of course his insinuation that Kickstarter games are going to be low budget indie shit is ridiculous. We already have low budget indie games, Reapa (and some of them happen to be extremely successful, btw)

We're going to Kickstarter so we can get back medium-budget games.

 

[Reapa]

infinitron, i'd like some examples of layered games to extend my horizon.

 

[Infinitron]

infinitron, i'd like some examples of layered games to extend my horizon.

Well, I mentioned Ken Levine, so obviously I was thinking about Bioshock. Ken Levine admitted that his intent with Bioshock was to try to market a relatively intellectual sort of game to a mass market.

 

[Reapa]

And of course his insinuation that Kickstarter games are going to be low budget indie shit is ridiculous. We already have low budget indie games, Reapa (and some of them happen to be extremely successful, btw)

I just want something monumental in this lifetime if possible. Whether low budget or medium budget id wouldn't cut it.

 

[JarlFrank]

I strongly believe that you cannot go back from a game that gives you freedom and total control over your character/party and a fascinating story along with countless side quests to some linear, achievement based,cut scene interrupted, state of the art stupidity once you've played the first.

Some people are actually confused by complex open-world games with many possibilities. They want the game to tell them exactly what to do, and to funnel them from one cutscene to the next. I can't be arsed to provide examples, but if you look for them, there are plenty of people who think that the freedom of a western RPG is inferior to the story focus of a jRPG. There are people who dislike the Elder Scrolls games due to the "lack of direction" they give to the player. There are people who get confused when it's not exactly clear what they have to do next. There are more than enough people around who would much rather play a game that holds their hand and pats them on the head whenever they "achieve" something than a game that offers actual freedom and challenge.

Never underestimate the stupidity and the shit taste of the masses. Also, cutscene-filled linear crap is played even by people who don't really like games, because they're more like interactive movies. Those people dislike the gameplay parts and see the cutscenes as a reward for going through all that gameplay. They will always prefer cutscene-filled shallow crap to good games.

Exactly, but some of it has been introduced to the people and will stay there - talking about the good stuff like magic schools, multilateral character management, and decreased linearity.
Of course the process of evolving will have to bear some setbacks like Dragon Age 2, but if you say people were disappointed then the next one should be better. At least that would be the real goal we here should try to achieve.

The problem here is that the majority of people who enjoyed DA didn't care too much about the gameplay systems and the decreased linearity, especially those who also enjoyed DA2. They liked the story and characters, mostly. Much of the disappointment over DA2 was over the incredibly shitty and tedious encounter design, the lack of varied environments and a rushed story. Magic schools? Multilateral character management? Decreased linearity? The masses did not care about these features.

Going around publishers to make low budget games which will not be recognized as good ones except by a few people due to low res, low length, low marketing is not evolution, it's decline. It's starting over in order to achieve less.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-returns
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity

Yes, these are super-low budgets right there.
Some kickstarter projects either already have some of their assets completed and just need a quick cash boost to add more content and polish the game to a satisfactory level. Others have a high enough funding goal to be able to actually create a good-looking and reasonably long game. Kickstarter is not about low budget games, it's about medium budget games that don't blow millions on marketing to reach a huge audience, rather focusing on making a good game for a certain target group that enjoys this particular type of game.

 

[Reapa]

As i recall Bioshock was no more than just another linear shooter with no other functions then changing weapons and shooting. I see no layers there. Had you said Psiops, i might have agreed.

 

[Reapa]

frank,

That is why the people have to "be evolved" from the outside. They might not have realized that the good parts of the game were not what they thought them to be, but give them enough games which aren't linear and them force them to walk a straight line and they will wake up.

 

[Infinitron]

As i recall Bioshock was no more than just another linear shooter with no other functions then changing weapons and shooting. I see no layers there. Had you said Psiops, i might have agreed.

Well, it had hacking. It had interesting magical powers. It had some non-linear level design. It had logs with pseudo-intellectual Ayn Rand references and GRIMDARK drama. It had stores where you could equip yourself with tonics, which grant various bonuses, in a pseudo-RPG fashion.

Seems like you weren't looking closely enough. Dude, the game was basically a dumbed down mass market version of System Shock 2. I wonder what you think of System Shock 2.

 

[JarlFrank]

Bioshock was just another linear shooter precisely because it tried to appeal to the masses, too.

Publishers have no interest in educating the masses on what a good game is. They want to reach as broad an audience as possible with as little cost as possible. Educating the audience about good games would be contrary to their goals.

 

[Reapa]

Buying health and mana potions is a step forward but not a big one. Seems I had forgotten about the magical powers. I recall playing it to the end but not why.

 

[tuluse]

frank,

That is why the people have to "be evolved" from the outside. They might not have realized that the good parts of the game were not what they thought them to be, but give them enough games which aren't linear and them force them to walk a straight line and they will wake up.

The games are there, they don't care.