It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Double Fine EPIC FAIL at budget management(570 posts)(570 posts)
(570 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
25
26
27
28
29
30
35
38
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
Cormoran: Indeed, kickstarter is letting us see that the "big bad publishers" really aren't all that bad with all of their oversight and deadlines.

They've had to deal with developers like Double Fine for years and know how to crack the whip, when to cut their losses and drop the project entirely, or when to just launch the game into the public regardless of it being up to the developers vision.

I've certainly gained a new appreciation for the big publishers thanks to kickstarter.
avatar
hedwards: This does no such thing.
It does for me.

EA, Activision, Ubisoft. They're really not that bad now that I see things like this.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
hedwards: This does no such thing.
avatar
Cormoran: It does for me.

EA, Activision, Ubisoft. They're really not that bad now that I see things like this.
This is one example, and I listed more than one example.

Just because publishers often times reign in excessiveness, does not mean that they aren't causing other problems themselves.
avatar
stonebro: Publishers have never been the problem. So many games have been funded due to publishers who take all the risk. Being a video game publishers is essentially venture funding. Of course they're going to want oversight over the projects. It's incorrect to think that publishers just pull the plug on games if the developers can't deliver as agreed upon. The key for the publisher is to minimize risk. Minimizing risk may require further investment so that a game can actually get made.
avatar
Spinorial: That's a very rosy way of looking at things. Publishers will, at the very least, end up with a new IP, possibly new tech. At most, they'll eat up the developer, all their assets, code, and IPs. Publishing contracts can be extremely predatory and the publisher can further manipulate the development by delaying royalties, forcing the studio into concessions and debt.
Ah yes "Hollywood Accounting" and if they're doing it correctly, they won't even show the books that they use to track their income from the games they publish.
Post edited July 05, 2013 by hedwards
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
Cormoran: It does for me.

EA, Activision, Ubisoft. They're really not that bad now that I see things like this.
avatar
hedwards: This is one example, and I listed more than one example.

Just because publishers often times reign in excessiveness, does not mean that they aren't causing other problems themselves.
And? They're really just doing what we would want to do in their position, as the furor over this story has shown. They're not the evil scumbags you want them to be.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
hedwards: This is one example, and I listed more than one example.

Just because publishers often times reign in excessiveness, does not mean that they aren't causing other problems themselves.
avatar
Cormoran: And? They're really just doing what we would want to do in their position, as the furor over this story has shown. They're not the evil scumbags you want them to be.
I never said they're evil scumbags, you said that.

Publishers themselves cause tons of problems, ultimately they were the ones that cause the various crashes in the video games markets, not the developers.

In this one dimension they're good for things, but that does not mean that they don't cause other problems, like the tendency to flood the market with clones and dumb things down and simplify them to maximize the return on investment.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
Cormoran: And? They're really just doing what we would want to do in their position, as the furor over this story has shown. They're not the evil scumbags you want them to be.
avatar
hedwards: I never said they're evil scumbags, you said that.

Publishers themselves cause tons of problems, ultimately they were the ones that cause the various crashes in the video games markets, not the developers.

In this one dimension they're good for things, but that does not mean that they don't cause other problems, like the tendency to flood the market with clones and dumb things down and simplify them to maximize the return on investment.
How is that bad? it sells, doesn't it? Some of my favourite games are just clones of other succesful games and sometimes simple is better. I think now you're grasping at straws just to find "bad things" about them.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
ET3D: It's that pre-order mentality that Kickstarter is trying to stamp out, the thought that you're just buying a game. Especially in this case where the pitch itself said that you might not get one.
I do agree that Kickstarter is not a pre-order, but the fact is that people donate money out of good will because they TRUST that the project will be made. Kickstarter pledging is based on trust. Double Fine has broken this "trust" backers had put into them. People have valid reasons to be upset. They donated money on a project because they believed in Tim Schafer's ability to come up with a great game. The project was way overfunded yet it's struggling to be completed, that's a reasonable reason for backers to be upset.

I'm glad i didn't back this project, but i would be pissed if the same thing happened to one of the projects that i pledged. One thing is certain, though, i was very interested in buying the game once it came out, but at this current state and DF's incompetence i'll never ever pay for early access. And i'm not backing any KS project from Double Fine in the future. In fact, this was the main reason why i didn't back Massive Chalice.
avatar
Cormoran: Indeed, kickstarter is letting us see that the "big bad publishers" really aren't all that bad with all of their oversight and deadlines.

They've had to deal with developers like Double Fine for years and know how to crack the whip, when to cut their losses and drop the project entirely, or when to just launch the game into the public regardless of it being up to the developers vision.

I've certainly gained a new appreciation for the big publishers thanks to kickstarter.
Agreed. Studios like Silicon Knights, Double Fine and Gearbox do corroborate with the vision that publishers are not the bad guys after all.
Post edited July 05, 2013 by Neobr10
Posted July 05, 2013
Publishers aren't always bad guys. That's common sense to anyone with some rational thought. If you want to blame someone for DLC, DRM and endless sequels that would actually be Joe Consumer, who wants and buys it all. Artistic types often, if not always, need someone to reign them in and put them on budget. Obsidian and InXile have experienced managers to do this but obviously Double Fine did not.

That said, publishers are also often stupid or too greedy for their own good. Everything and everyone is fallible.

At the end of the day people trusted Tim Schafer to make an "old school adventure game" and he's kind of blowing it. Not only by running out of money and being a year late so far, but also in the fact that what I have seen of the project so far doesn't really scream Day of the Tentacle to me, which is what I think most people expected.

If he pulls it out and delivers a great game though people will forget. People just want a great game, in the end.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
Trilarion: I expected a 3m$ game (not a 300k$ game)
I don't believe this, that a company is obliged to change their plans just because they got more money then they expected. They promised a game of a certain scope, and they need to deliver a game of a certain scope. If there's money left over ... well, why shouldn't there be? They're trying to make a profit, and if the pre-orders alone (which, although we can quibble over wording, is what backing video game Kickstarters at non-extravagant levels seems to me to amount to) are enough to both cover expenses and make them money, good for them.

Certainly it might be worthwhile to invest some of that profit into making a larger game, so that people who didn't back it on Kickstarter will be more tempted to buy it, but mandatory?
Post edited July 05, 2013 by BadDecissions
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
BadDecissions: I don't believe this, that a company is obliged to change their plans just because they got more money then they expected. They promised a game of a certain scope, and they need to deliver a game of a certain scope. If there's money left over ... well, why shouldn't there be? They're trying to make a profit, and if the pre-orders alone (which, although we can quibble over wording, is what backing video game Kickstarters at non-extravagant levels seems to me to amount to) are enough to both cover expenses and make them money, good for them.

Certainly it might be worthwhile to invest some of that profit into making a larger game, so that people who didn't back it on Kickstarter will be more tempted to buy it, but mandatory?
The should have stuck to the plan of an old school adventure game like the Blackwell stuff, just added smaller enhancements to it. A better soundtrack, a longer game, more room, better voice actors, etc. That's what pretty much every project since them has done as stretch goals, little additions to the core formula.

They didn't have to change the fundamental design idea.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
StingingVelvet: At the end of the day people trusted Tim Schafer to make an "old school adventure game" and he's kind of blowing it. Not only by running out of money and being a year late so far, but also in the fact that what I have seen of the project so far doesn't really scream Day of the Tentacle to me, which is what I think most people expected.
TBH, I think by "old school adventure game" he just meant adventure game (as opposed to what people now refer to as adventure games). As for what people expected, I disagree that most people were thinking of DotT. I think just as many people would have been thinking of Grim Fandango or Full Throttle.

Personally, my expectations were based on all three of those games. So far it looks like it's going to have a "proper story", like Grim Fandango or Full Throttle and I'm ok with that.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
BadDecissions: I don't believe this, that a company is obliged to change their plans just because they got more money then they expected. They promised a game of a certain scope, and they need to deliver a game of a certain scope. If there's money left over ... well, why shouldn't there be? They're trying to make a profit, and if the pre-orders alone (which, although we can quibble over wording, is what backing video game Kickstarters at non-extravagant levels seems to me to amount to) are enough to both cover expenses and make them money, good for them.

Certainly it might be worthwhile to invest some of that profit into making a larger game, so that people who didn't back it on Kickstarter will be more tempted to buy it, but mandatory?
avatar
StingingVelvet: The should have stuck to the plan of an old school adventure game like the Blackwell stuff, just added smaller enhancements to it. A better soundtrack, a longer game, more room, better voice actors, etc. That's what pretty much every project since them has done as stretch goals, little additions to the core formula.

They didn't have to change the fundamental design idea.
Precisely, Al Lowe and the guys at Replay added more text and a new woman, and there's was tons of bitching from some people about them not doing something more drastic, but it's something they could deliver, and already have.
Posted July 05, 2013
avatar
BadDecissions: Certainly it might be worthwhile to invest some of that profit into making a larger game, so that people who didn't back it on Kickstarter will be more tempted to buy it, but mandatory?
I'm of the opinion that extra money should be invested into the project. It's called backing a project for a reason, you are giving money not to them in general but specifically to this project. I don't think it should be made mandatory, but I think it's disingenuous not to put it towards the project in some way.

Now, that's not to say that Double Fine haven't fucked up. Sure the budget for the game was increased, but you increase the scope of the game proportionally to that! They basically went "$3m!? I see no way we could ever use all of this up!" and then didn't bother to budget at all.
Post edited July 05, 2013 by SirPrimalform
Posted July 06, 2013
It's not like DF woke up one day and discovered that the KS money will not be enough. They knew pretty early on that the KS money will not be enough to make the game they wanted. That's why they started to seek additional funding and they have done an impressive job with that. This was all known to the backers who have been watching the documentary and that's the reason the majority of backers are not freaking out over it, not some kind of DF brainwashing.
Post edited July 06, 2013 by Mrstarker
Posted July 06, 2013
avatar
misfire200: So lets look at an even bigger risk...so now that people have seen this "small" project go to shit...Sure it will be finished eventually, but they could not do a small point and click game at 3.2 million.

Now...how the hell is Star Citizen which supposedly will be a huge game will get finished...sure they have 6x the budget of Broken Age...but...the scope is probably 1000x larger. Secondly, the ships are expensive as hell. Seems a lot of risk to backing that game. Even more so seeing s smaller game looking like it will take 3-4 years to finish...so by those numbers, Star Citizen should take about 10-20 years to finish...

Kickstarters will probably take a bit of a nosedive for a while...or hopefully they will get smarter...who knows.
Well from my own impressions Chris Roberts isn't inept at sticking to a budget and knowing realistically what he can accomplish with said budget.
Posted July 06, 2013
avatar
BadDecissions: Certainly it might be worthwhile to invest some of that profit into making a larger game, so that people who didn't back it on Kickstarter will be more tempted to buy it, but mandatory?
avatar
SirPrimalform: I'm of the opinion that extra money should be invested into the project. It's called backing a project for a reason, you are giving money not to them in general but specifically to this project. I don't think it should be made mandatory, but I think it's disingenuous not to put it towards the project in some way.

Now, that's not to say that Double Fine haven't fucked up. Sure the budget for the game was increased, but you increase the scope of the game proportionally to that! They basically went "$3m!? I see no way we could ever use all of this up!" and then didn't bother to budget at all.
I understand that point of view, but I also don't think an artist should have to abandon his vision just because it becomes popular, i.e. "You wanted to create something small-scale, you started a project to create something small-scale, but you generated a lot of public interest, and are now not allowed to do that." Not every short story should be expanded into a novel, and not every game needs to be 30 hours long. I grant that in this specific case, that's not really an issue, since I don't gather that they particularly had a vision. Probably what StingingVelvet posted is the correct solution.
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
25
26
27
28
29
30
35
38
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Double Fine EPIC FAIL at budget management(570 posts)(570 posts)
(570 posts)