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

[Vault Dweller]

I just noticed that of all the people in the world to be butthurt about a delayed release, it's VD who's the most incensed. One should think he of all people would be able to empathize

Reading is a dying art? I said several times that it's not about the delay but the reasons behind it. Had they announced that they need another six months to improve the content, I'd be the first to speak in their defense.

 

[Metro]

...that I didn't really care about being on Steam.

Don't buy that one. From a personal view, fine, but as a professional trying to establish himself as a full time designer? Come on, bro~

 

[almondblight]

You're fucking incredible, man.

"The entire Internet is full of indies who are butthurt about not being able to get on Steam. But fuck them, what do they know? I, the great Vault Dweller, know the secrets of how Steam really works! Those chumps just need to try harder!"

As for the Infinitron Steam-thing: It clear as fucking day says that Greenlight has replaced other methods. When you straight-up fucking deny that without providing any sort of back-up then where does the discussion go? No where. There is no way to falsify that statement. No way to disprove it. It's just your claim with nothing attached.

That's what it means - there is no other way to Steam other than through Greenlight.

Eh...isn't the whole point of this thread that bitComposer could get them on Steam without Greenlight? You guys are really trying to simultaneously argue that there is no alternative to getting on Steam except through Greenlight, and that bitComposer is useful because they let them get on Steam without Greenlight?

 

[commie]

Let's just accept the reality that Logic Turds are scum of the earth, thieving, lying bandits and move on.

 

[tuluse]

I can't decide if commie is legitimately upset, parodying overreactions, or just having some fun with this thread.

 

[winterraptor]

The reason VD is arguing the 'theoretical sale' and the reason so many are annoyed here with him is probably the same: excessive sales and marketing experience, where being tenaciously annoying often creates eventual success. It's like having this .001% chance each time you throw a basketball the full length of a court vs. a moving basketball goal, while blindfolded. If you had the chance to make 10k$ if you succeed, and an infinite amount of time to try it, you might consider doing it, even training and scheduling it day after day. Sure some might not want to try it. Some might give up. Some might just dismiss it as impossible. Some people would just be awkward with the whole process of trying it: 'not for me' 'uh...basketball, what?' Some might physically be unable. Some might have a phobia of being blindfolded. Reduce this down progressively from 10k$, and the odds of anyone trying it diminish even further.

And that's pretty much the same thing as trying cold sales (or, and mixing analogies, but: shivering alone in the freezing night of the Market My Product Wasteland). Some are probably better off not even bothering, but furious persistence really can produce 'miracles' in this sense.

However improbable, I don't doubt creative badgering combined with fighting grassroots on other levels could produce a miracle here and there in the avenue VD is suggesting...

Either that or a restraining order.

Anyway, the same principle applies to the blossoming of annoyance on this issue of principle: VD has a .001% chance each time of convincing anyone here of the 'snake oil' that is the sales logic presented, but hammer it home again and again he did, like a true believer!

 

[Western]

I can't decide if commie is legitimately upset, parodying overreactions, or just having some fun with this thread.

Why not all three?

 

[Lancehead]

You're fucking incredible, man.

"The entire Internet is full of indies who are butthurt about not being able to get on Steam. But fuck them, what do they know? I, the great Vault Dweller, know the secrets of how Steam really works! Those chumps just need to try harder!"

As for the Infinitron Steam-thing: It clear as fucking day says that Greenlight has replaced other methods. When you straight-up fucking deny that without providing any sort of back-up then where does the discussion go? No where. There is no way to falsify that statement. No way to disprove it. It's just your claim with nothing attached.

That's what it means - there is no other way to Steam other than through Greenlight.

Eh...isn't the whole point of this thread that bitComposer could get them on Steam without Greenlight? You guys are really trying to simultaneously argue that there is no alternative to getting on Steam except through Greenlight, and that bitComposer is useful because they let them get on Steam without Greenlight?

One side of the debate is the argument that for a developer like Logic Artists, Greenlight is the only way to get on Steam on their own. Failing that they need to hook up with some publisher who already has access to Steam. The other side of the debate is the argument that the developer can get on to Steam without hooking up with a publisher by directly going to Valve and leveraging the positive media impressions the game got.

 

[Grunker]

^ bingo

 

[uaciaut]

I'm amazed by how quickly some people turn their opinions.

I mean don't get me wrong, the fact that they simply "omitted" to mention multiplayer and then wake up one day saying that they're putting it in and they're having a delay while getting a publisher to help them put the game out there really does mean bad communication/interaction and is a stain on the ammount of good will they probably got (i wasn't here when this whole thing happened). And particularly looking at that multiplayer thing, not because i'm a huge multiplayer hater but because it's a pretty big "detail" to leave out and it leaves plenty of space for people to speculate whatever the hell they want about it, which is what happened - and maybe some mistrust is rightfully placed.

But to turn 100% instantly and call the guy who are making this project shitheads and douchebags only because you only hear the word "publisher" written in a sentence related to an "indie" project just seems way too harsh. I mean the game is not even out there yet, shouldn't people just wait for it to launch and see what it's like?
Because quite frankly if the single player/campaign experience turns out to be good and it turns out to be a solid game overall i will hardly give a flying fuck about multiplayer being added (maybe i'll even try it) and i will certainly not care at all about them actually getting some help with distributing the game with a publisher's help so they can have more exposure and potentially grow and make more good shit in the future.

If the game turns out to be complete shit with emphasis on a retarded common-place features found in most other games, well then that's a different story.

 

[Grunker]

I'm amazed by how quickly some people turn their opinions.

I mean don't get me wrong, the fact that they simply "omitted" to mention multiplayer and then wake up one day saying that they're putting it in and they're having a delay while getting a publisher to help them put the game out there really does mean bad communication/interaction and is a stain on the ammount of good will they probably got (i wasn't here when this whole thing happened). And particularly looking at that multiplayer thing, not because i'm a huge multiplayer hater but because it's a pretty big "detail" to leave out and it leaves plenty of space for people to speculate whatever the hell they want about it, which is what happened - and maybe some mistrust is rightfully placed.

But to turn 100% instantly and call the guy who are making this project shitheads and douchebags only because you only hear the word "publisher" written in a sentence related to an "indie" project just seems way too harsh. I mean the game is not even out there yet, shouldn't people just wait for it to launch and see what it's like?
Because quite frankly if the single player/campaign experience turns out to be good and it turns out to be a solid game overall i will hardly give a flying fuck about multiplayer being added (maybe i'll even try it) and i will certainly not care at all about them actually getting some help with distributing the game with a publisher's help so they can have more exposure and potentially grow and make more good shit in the future.

If the game turns out to be complete shit with emphasis on a retarded common-place features found in most other games, well then that's a different story.

Just in case you didn't realize the debate is not about Publishers.

Funny, since VD has reiterated countless times that the basis of his argument is the slippery slope supposedly caused by taking on distributors in order to get better financing.

 

[Grunker]

Shrek: It isn't about distributors.

Grunker: It actually is, VD says it's the basis of his entire beef with these guys that they're looking for additional funding.

Shrek: OK, I'm a total idiot, so I'll just criticize your use of hyperbole to avoid facing that fact.

 

[uaciaut]

I'm amazed by how quickly some people turn their opinions.

I mean don't get me wrong, the fact that they simply "omitted" to mention multiplayer and then wake up one day saying that they're putting it in and they're having a delay while getting a publisher to help them put the game out there really does mean bad communication/interaction and is a stain on the ammount of good will they probably got (i wasn't here when this whole thing happened). And particularly looking at that multiplayer thing, not because i'm a huge multiplayer hater but because it's a pretty big "detail" to leave out and it leaves plenty of space for people to speculate whatever the hell they want about it, which is what happened - and maybe some mistrust is rightfully placed.

But to turn 100% instantly and call the guy who are making this project shitheads and douchebags only because you only hear the word "publisher" written in a sentence related to an "indie" project just seems way too harsh. I mean the game is not even out there yet, shouldn't people just wait for it to launch and see what it's like?
Because quite frankly if the single player/campaign experience turns out to be good and it turns out to be a solid game overall i will hardly give a flying fuck about multiplayer being added (maybe i'll even try it) and i will certainly not care at all about them actually getting some help with distributing the game with a publisher's help so they can have more exposure and potentially grow and make more good shit in the future.

If the game turns out to be complete shit with emphasis on a retarded common-place features found in most other games, well then that's a different story.

Just in case you didn't realize the debate is not about Publishers. It is about keeping us in dark. This "minor detail called publisher" is not some isolated perspective on codex either if you actually listened to what Fargo said in the party yesterday.

My post was probably directed mostly at the first reactions to the delays in the game and the other details that started coming up a few pages back (p 13 or something) rather than the latest discussion, which i haven't followed that closely since i don't use steam D:

 

[Vault Dweller]

Shrek: It isn't about distributors.

Grunker: It actually is, VD says it's the basis of his entire beef with these guys that they're looking for additional funding.

Not at all.

The issue, as I've "reiterated countless times", is that they delayed the release to chase a better publishing deal, thus disregarding their commitment to the backers who gave them 80k to pay for the development. The latter is a mortal sin in my book.

 

[Infinitron]

The issue, as I've "reiterated countless times", is that they delayed the release to chase a better publishing deal, thus disregarding their commitment to the backers who gave them 80k to pay for the development. The latter is a mortal sin in my book.

Ah, but did they explicitly commit to not chase a better publishing deal? Or is that something that is implicitly assumed by Kickstarter backers due to the "publisher hating hardcore gamer" aura that surrounds Kickstarter these days?

Would it be a breach of commitment to delay the release for any other reason besides chasing a better publisher deal?

 

[uaciaut]

Shrek: It isn't about distributors.

Grunker: It actually is, VD says it's the basis of his entire beef with these guys that they're looking for additional funding.

Not at all.

The issue, as I've "reiterated countless times", is that they delayed the release to chase a better publishing deal, thus disregarding their commitment to the backers who gave them 80k to pay for the development. The latter is a mortal sin in my book.

How exactly do you think they disregarded all of their bakers in this case? Do you think each and every one thinks in exactly the same way with regard to this publisher issue? Because personally, even if i haven't donated to this particular project, if something i did donate for suddenly came out and said "we got more funding from a publisher that helps us distribute the game and gain more exposure and so we're delaying the game because we think we can further enhance the experience" i would be 100% behind that shit. I don't think my e-privileges are harmed in any way as long as the developer's goal with the game remains intact (which is what seems to be the case here), they can even fucking strike a pact with satan as far as i'm concerned as long as the core single-player experience is untouched.

Then again them adding a surprise multiplayer mode does sound fishy and all, but again they said the game cost way more than 80k to make and as long as they used the resources they had available to them (both the 80 k from KS and others) to make a good game then i don't really care about that either. So it's all moot to me until the game comes out anyway.

Also did they actually state that the delay was actually caused by them looking for someone to help them with distribution?

 

[Vault Dweller]

The issue, as I've "reiterated countless times", is that they delayed the release to chase a better publishing deal, thus disregarding their commitment to the backers who gave them 80k to pay for the development. The latter is a mortal sin in my book.

Ah, but did they explicitly commit to not chase a better publishing deal? Or is that something that is implicitly assumed by Kickstarter backers due to the "publisher hating hardcore gamer" aura that surrounds Kickstarter these days?

Would it be a breach of commitment to delay the release for any other reason besides chasing a better publisher deal?

The deal was "give us moneys to finish a game and we'll give it to you in Jan 2013 or when it's done." It certainly looked like the game was done - that's the impression I've got and that's what they explicitly told Grunker. So, if the game IS ready, nothing else really matters. It should be released to those who funded the development. The fact that they are delaying it to chase a publishing deal simply makes it worse.

 

[Infinitron]

The issue, as I've "reiterated countless times", is that they delayed the release to chase a better publishing deal, thus disregarding their commitment to the backers who gave them 80k to pay for the development. The latter is a mortal sin in my book.

Ah, but did they explicitly commit to not chase a better publishing deal? Or is that something that is implicitly assumed by Kickstarter backers due to the "publisher hating hardcore gamer" aura that surrounds Kickstarter these days?

Would it be a breach of commitment to delay the release for any other reason besides chasing a better publisher deal?

The deal was "give us moneys to finish a game and we'll give it to you in Jan 2013 or when it's done." It certainly looked like the game was done - that's the impression I've got and that's what they explicitly told Grunker. So, if the game IS ready, nothing else really matters. It should be released to those who funded the development. The fact that they are delaying it to chase a publishing deal simply makes it worse.

So you think there's no excuse for a delay for any reason at all?

Okay good, that's a consistent position to take.

 

[Monty]

if something i did donate for suddenly came out and said "we got more funding from a publisher that helps us distribute the game and gain more exposure and so we're delaying the game because we think we can further enhance the experience"

An honest explanation is all I wanted. This is what they said:

Unfortunately some distribution complications have come up. We're honestly not sure how much we're supposed to talk about this, and I don't want to cast anybody as the villain here - nobody has done anything wrong, it's just that kind of situation where things turned out to be a little more complicated than we'd hoped, and we need a little extra time to get our ducks in a row.

Ah, but did they explicitly commit to not chase a better publishing deal? Or is that something that is implicitly assumed by Kickstarter backers due to the "publisher hating hardcore gamer" aura that surrounds Kickstarter these days?

Would it be a breach of commitment to delay the release for any other reason besides chasing a better publisher deal?

They committed to releasing the game to their backers on a certain date, which they confirmed days before. When they reneged on this at the last minute they should have given us an honest explanation as to why, instead of treating their backers as an afterthought. They should have done everything possible to still release the game to their backers or clearly explain why this was impossible.

They committed to producing a single player game which is what we backed. To learn that multiplayer has been added at the last minute and then read their admission that the single player game has 'suffered' as a result is not acceptable.

 

[Ulminati]

Shrek: It isn't about distributors.

Grunker: It actually is, VD says it's the basis of his entire beef with these guys that they're looking for additional funding.

Not at all.

The issue, as I've "reiterated countless times", is that they delayed the release to chase a better publishing deal, thus disregarding their commitment to the backers who gave them 80k to pay for the development. The latter is a mortal sin in my book.

$80k.
That's going to fund the basic living expenses of a dozen people and that office of theirs for 1-2 months with danish expenses. The starting wage for a programmer is 5-6k$/mo over here depending on whether he has a B.Sc. or a M.Sc. Their publisher likely paid 90% or more of their development costs. Just saying.

Ah, but did they explicitly commit to not chase a better publishing deal? Or is that something that is implicitly assumed by Kickstarter backers due to the "publisher hating hardcore gamer" aura that surrounds Kickstarter these days?

Would it be a breach of commitment to delay the release for any other reason besides chasing a better publisher deal?

They committed to releasing the game to their backers on a certain date, which they confirmed days before. When they reneged on this at the last minute they should have given us an honest explanation as to why, instead of treating their backers as an afterthought. They should have done everything possible to still release the game to their backers or clearly explain why this was impossible.

They pretty much said all they could from the sound of it. "Hey guys. We have a publisher that funded the rest of the game. There are disagreements about whether or not the game is ready to be released, and angry lawyers are telling us to STFU or they'll sue".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also did they actually state that the delay was actually caused by them looking for someone to help them with distribution?

Not looking for, but dealing with someone.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Shrek: It isn't about distributors.

Grunker: It actually is, VD says it's the basis of his entire beef with these guys that they're looking for additional funding.

Not at all.

The issue, as I've "reiterated countless times", is that they delayed the release to chase a better publishing deal, thus disregarding their commitment to the backers who gave them 80k to pay for the development. The latter is a mortal sin in my book.

$80k.
That's going to fund the basic living expenses of a dozen people and that office of theirs for 1-3 months with danish expenses. Their publisher likely paid 90% or more of their development costs. Just saying.

That's what they asked for, isn't it? And the game was ready around Jan 2013 as promised. So, the issue isn't that they ran out of money and had to jump in bed with someone else, but that they decided to ignore the backers and take their time seeking a better publishing deal.

 

[Vault Dweller]

One side of the debate is the argument that for a developer like Logic Artists, Greenlight is the only way to get on Steam on their own. Failing that they need to hook up with some publisher who already has access to Steam. The other side of the debate is the argument that the developer can get on to Steam without hooking up with a publisher by directly going to Valve and leveraging the positive media impressions the game got.

Quick google search:

http://greenlitgaming.com/igf-finalists-will-be-offered-a-steam-distribution-contract/

You don't even have to click on the link to get the point. Here is yet another way to get on Steam. Before someone says "but.... but.... they aren't an IGF finalist", it proves that there are ways to bypass the Greenlight process, that Steam will gladly take your game if they think it will sell (proven in case of the game in question by positive reviews).

 

[Infinitron]

Ulminati I'm pretty sure they already had money from investors before development ever started. bitComposer did not fund the game.

 

[almondblight]

One side of the debate is the argument that for a developer like Logic Artists, Greenlight is the only way to get on Steam on their own. Failing that they need to hook up with some publisher who already has access to Steam. The other side of the debate is the argument that the developer can get on to Steam without hooking up with a publisher by directly going to Valve and leveraging the positive media impressions the game got.

The argument "for a developer like Logic Artists, the only ways onto Steam is Greenlight or using bitComposer" is one thing. That argument would require people to give evidence of why Logic Artist can not pursue any alternative methods except for using bitComposer. But that's not what we got - we got arguments that there's no way to get on to Steam except for Greenlight.

This statement:

Greenlight is tough, but it's not the only way to get on Steam.

Is not only correct, it should be self evident from this conversation. The responses:

For fuck's sake man, admit that you were wrong here.

Steam Greenlight has replaced our previous submission process.

That's what it means - there is no other way to Steam other than through Greenlight.

As for the Infinitron Steam-thing: It clear as fucking day says that Greenlight has replaced other methods. When you straight-up fucking deny that without providing any sort of back-up then where does the discussion go? No where. There is no way to falsify that statement. No way to disprove it. It's just your claim with nothing attached.

Right now it ends with Infinitron's FAQ. Burden of proof is on you to show that he is wrong.

...are bizarre, considering this discussion is about how Logic Artists is using an alternate way to get onto Steam. It should be obvious that, despite people saying the claim is "absurd", there are alternative ways of getting on Steam. There are backdoors onto Steam; Logic Artists is using one. You can argue that it's the only backdoor available, but no one here has made that claim yet, and honestly that seems pretty unlikely.