Double Fine’s decision to pull the plug on Spacebase DF-9 may seem on the surface like just the latest act by a developer taking gamers for a ride, but such decisions could have huge consequences for the flourishing indie scene as a whole.
Indie games are mostly based on trust - a small developer with limited funding makes a promise to deliver something, and based on that promise we pay up so that they can make it a reality. Thanks to the likes of crowdfunding and alpha funding, we have gotten a slew of titles on Linux which many of us hold in high regard, like Kerbal Space Program, Planetary Annihilation and Prison Architect. However, if events continue the way they are, that much needed funding may dry up as gamers become more sceptical of these projects.
Earlier this month the (non-Linux) game The Stomping Grounds was pulled from the market after months without any updates or communication from the developers. In May there was the (Linux supported, barely) game Earth: Year 2066 which Valve had to pull from Early Access after speculation that it was just a big scam. There has also been some fierce criticism of some games (which I will not mention) for not updating anywhere near frequently enough and having to revise their over-optimistic aims.
Earth: Year 2066 received widespread criticism, to which developers responded abusively
And that’s just Early Access games, there’s also the massive flood of Kickstarter campaigns which are badly thought out, either asking for too much or going into the campaign with not much more than a concept. The saturation of the market with crowdfunding attempts (many of which inevitably never reach their goals) means that gamers’ wallets are being spread thinner and thinner, while the increasing amount of broken promises are leading some to stop backing projects altogether.
A History of Pushing the Good Will of Gamers
While it may be more fair to give Double Fine the benefit of the doubt in making some bad decisions, it has to be pointed out that they have been pushing the trust of gamers for some time now. The £18.99 price tag does rub a bit of salt in the wounds, considering that type of game had its peak back in the late 90s with the likes of Theme Hospital. Even worse is the fact that they put the game on sale in the weeks leading up to the announcement, a move which wreaks of either very stupid timing or a "take the money and run" attitude as one Steam user pointed out:
Then there’s Broken Age (presumably the game this user was referring to), which set records on Kickstarter with fans of adventure games expecting the likes of Monkey Island and throwing piles of money at the campaign. While reviewers praised it, some adventure fans like myself were left somewhat underwhelmed. The fact that the campaign raised almost $3.5 million (over 8 times what it was originally looking for) and then produced a game which lasts little over 3 hours, giving no firm release date on the second half is also questionable (as is charging £18.99 for this one too) and creates a reputation for Double Fine as a studio that can’t keep within deadlines and budget.
Needless to say, the reckless actions of a well-known studio which has been at the forefront of shunning big studios and publishers in favour of community-driven projects will no doubt diminish the trust gamers put in indie studios far more than other failed projects. If a reputable company like Double Fine can’t keep its promises, then what chance does an unknown studio with an ambitious game have?
In the very least - and to Double Fine’s credit - they at least had the decency to open up the code and let the community do the rest, but conversely the cynic in me says that they’re still profiting while allowing others to do all the work for free, which adds further insult to injury especially considering that they already broke-even on the game almost a year ago:
The Bigger Picture
On the Linux side of things, there has been case after case now of indie developers promising ports of games which never seem to materialise, or are awful when they do. Lack of communication from developers has been widespread on these issues as well, but this lack of communication in general is also something which extends beyond Linux ports and is further damaging trust as a whole.
It’s a shame when developers jump on the crowdfunding gravy train without really thinking things through, not just because every dollar they take is one that could have potentially been spent on something great, but also because for small studios looking to make something original this is often the only way which they can get the money to do it. This type of funding has made games which publishers would have disregarded as too “niche” or “brainy” a very real possibility and the continued abuse and mismanagement of funding by a few greatly harms the chances of these games succeeding.
Big studios have been increasingly at the mercy of marketing types who seem to think that gamers are a bunch of unintelligent frat boys who just want to shoot at their mates online, but indie studios have taken us out of the drab world of repackaged blockbuster games and reminded us that games can be creative, fun and artistic. They have proven that there are gamers out there who want more than just buying the same football game year after year just because it is one number higher than the last.
At the same time, if it wasn’t for indie studios being pioneers in Linux gaming, we would most probably still be trying to get the first Bioshock working through Wine, interspersed with the occasional game of an open source Tetris clone. It would be a great shame to see all this put at risk because of the greed or bad decisions of a few. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Indie games are mostly based on trust - a small developer with limited funding makes a promise to deliver something, and based on that promise we pay up so that they can make it a reality. Thanks to the likes of crowdfunding and alpha funding, we have gotten a slew of titles on Linux which many of us hold in high regard, like Kerbal Space Program, Planetary Annihilation and Prison Architect. However, if events continue the way they are, that much needed funding may dry up as gamers become more sceptical of these projects.
Earlier this month the (non-Linux) game The Stomping Grounds was pulled from the market after months without any updates or communication from the developers. In May there was the (Linux supported, barely) game Earth: Year 2066 which Valve had to pull from Early Access after speculation that it was just a big scam. There has also been some fierce criticism of some games (which I will not mention) for not updating anywhere near frequently enough and having to revise their over-optimistic aims.
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
And that’s just Early Access games, there’s also the massive flood of Kickstarter campaigns which are badly thought out, either asking for too much or going into the campaign with not much more than a concept. The saturation of the market with crowdfunding attempts (many of which inevitably never reach their goals) means that gamers’ wallets are being spread thinner and thinner, while the increasing amount of broken promises are leading some to stop backing projects altogether.
A History of Pushing the Good Will of Gamers
While it may be more fair to give Double Fine the benefit of the doubt in making some bad decisions, it has to be pointed out that they have been pushing the trust of gamers for some time now. The £18.99 price tag does rub a bit of salt in the wounds, considering that type of game had its peak back in the late 90s with the likes of Theme Hospital. Even worse is the fact that they put the game on sale in the weeks leading up to the announcement, a move which wreaks of either very stupid timing or a "take the money and run" attitude as one Steam user pointed out:
QuoteThis is the second time you managed to rip me off DF. Not an easy feat.
This time you used a great marketing move too. Put your game up with a 50% discount, fill your pockets, then the moment you reach your quota you dump the game like a brick. Well done, sirs. This is the last time you will ever get money from me though.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Then there’s Broken Age (presumably the game this user was referring to), which set records on Kickstarter with fans of adventure games expecting the likes of Monkey Island and throwing piles of money at the campaign. While reviewers praised it, some adventure fans like myself were left somewhat underwhelmed. The fact that the campaign raised almost $3.5 million (over 8 times what it was originally looking for) and then produced a game which lasts little over 3 hours, giving no firm release date on the second half is also questionable (as is charging £18.99 for this one too) and creates a reputation for Double Fine as a studio that can’t keep within deadlines and budget.
Needless to say, the reckless actions of a well-known studio which has been at the forefront of shunning big studios and publishers in favour of community-driven projects will no doubt diminish the trust gamers put in indie studios far more than other failed projects. If a reputable company like Double Fine can’t keep its promises, then what chance does an unknown studio with an ambitious game have?
In the very least - and to Double Fine’s credit - they at least had the decency to open up the code and let the community do the rest, but conversely the cynic in me says that they’re still profiting while allowing others to do all the work for free, which adds further insult to injury especially considering that they already broke-even on the game almost a year ago:
QuoteSpacebase DF-9 went into open alpha last month and recouped the entire $400k investment two weeks from that date. 85% of the revenue came in via Steam Early Access, and the other 15% via direct sales by Double Fine.
The Bigger Picture
On the Linux side of things, there has been case after case now of indie developers promising ports of games which never seem to materialise, or are awful when they do. Lack of communication from developers has been widespread on these issues as well, but this lack of communication in general is also something which extends beyond Linux ports and is further damaging trust as a whole.
It’s a shame when developers jump on the crowdfunding gravy train without really thinking things through, not just because every dollar they take is one that could have potentially been spent on something great, but also because for small studios looking to make something original this is often the only way which they can get the money to do it. This type of funding has made games which publishers would have disregarded as too “niche” or “brainy” a very real possibility and the continued abuse and mismanagement of funding by a few greatly harms the chances of these games succeeding.
Big studios have been increasingly at the mercy of marketing types who seem to think that gamers are a bunch of unintelligent frat boys who just want to shoot at their mates online, but indie studios have taken us out of the drab world of repackaged blockbuster games and reminded us that games can be creative, fun and artistic. They have proven that there are gamers out there who want more than just buying the same football game year after year just because it is one number higher than the last.
At the same time, if it wasn’t for indie studios being pioneers in Linux gaming, we would most probably still be trying to get the first Bioshock working through Wine, interspersed with the occasional game of an open source Tetris clone. It would be a great shame to see all this put at risk because of the greed or bad decisions of a few. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Patreon
PayPal
Yeah, how's that Linux port coming? Oh, they Tweeted on Sept. 12 about how it might be this year, and implied the programmers hadn't started working on it yet, a year and a half after the Kickstarter wrapped up?
I guess we should be grateful they're still even mentioning it.
Last time I tried it, the game was constantly at 100% CPU on both my cores. Actually had my system shut down for overheating because my fan was dusty again. I don't really feel it's all that necessary for this kind of game. :P
Well, and then they put another year of dev-time in it, which also costs money...
Me, I'm more interested in how they plan to license the release of the Lua sources. I kinda wish they'd FLOSS the sources and CC the assets, but I highly doubt that that will happen. :P
There has been some dark times on Kickstarter because of that when even good project weren't founded but I doubt that it will happen again or it would need a lot more than just one big project failing. Why ? Because even with these risks (that I think most people are aware of, now) this system as proven to be able to bring amazing games that we would never have had otherwise and because some projects deliver something even better than backers expectations (and that's not easy).
On Early access on Steam, I think it does have serious issues and Valve should create strict rules for that or remove this feature.
They are entirely different, really. The business model of these games depends on the money coming from sales in the EA period, and that has a direct correlation with the time and money that can be spent on it. It creates a much higher level of uncertainty over a traditional publisher funding model.
The features come and go as they do in an ordinary traditionally published game (*cough* Aliens: Colonial Marines *cough*), but it's dependant on a constant revenue stream from people buying the game. Clearly when this game first "launched" sales were high, the predicted total sales supported a much more featureful game. Normal development slip and dwindling sales has cut it right back.
This isn't the end of the road for Early Access, it's a sign post telling early buyers to check their expectations. Game development is a business, and a successful business changes with its changing circumstances (internal and external). Early Access is quite useful for devs in that it provides an alternative funding model, heaps of feedback with customers, and customers get to feel part of the process too. If this was a traditionally funded game, would it have ever seen a release at all? How many games never make it passed the prototype stage because a publisher says "gamers don't want that"?
I feel the same about people who post comments like yours.