Using Steam for testing is practical, for the ease of updating test builds, and stability versions among testers, and maybe more reasons afaik, doesnt mean the game ends up to be tied to Steam.
FTL another KS project funded with great sucess also used steam for betatest, and the game still ended up drm free despite that.
Im also not interested in the factions game untill a play vs cpu option is availible but that doesnt mean i dont see the benefit of testing the combat, and using that feedback to improve the single player experience.

I had been following Banner Saga but once it got pushed back I lost interest. I'm sad to find out they lost sight of their objective but I don't think this problem is endemic to Kickstarter but to gaming as a whole. The difference here is that It's not a funding issue or some publisher hassling the talent, most likely they just want to find a bigger audience. So, I'm not ready to completely give up on Kickstarter, it doesn't remove the realities of gaming but it does get rid of two big problems.

What is wrong with you people ? Can you read ?

Stoic ALWAYS said they were doing a free multiplayer part first to balance combat. It wouldn't be very smart to release the single player campaign and then release a free multiplayer part to balance combat.

You need to read more than just the first post of the thread ;)


Projects going over time limits are to be expected, especially from smaller startup companies with newer members, but in general even major companies have problems forecasting creative projects.

It sounds that Banner Saga is, however, sticking to its original plan and intentions - plus I'd like to point out that getting onto STEAM for pretty much any game is a major thing. Steam isn't the only distribution service but its by far the biggest and from its long time at the head of PC game distribution its really got a massive hold on the market.
Very few developers would turn away a chance to distribution on steam as an option (remember they can distribute on other services as well). Heck from memory only Minecraft stands out as one game that turned down the option of going on Steam, and taht was after it made its massive sales peeks (so it had already netted the market).

Most of the time they are underestimating the true time frame, because it just sounds better when you say November 2012 than March 2013. On other occassions the industry shoveled a game out as it is just to meet a deadline. However there is a certain time window (let's say 3-6 months) after which one can doubt the professionality of the team. You can expect a delay, but a long delay always means something failed.

True up to a point, it really depends on how professional the team are and on how clear they are with communication during the project.

The first part, the professional stance, says that whilst underestimating makes things "sound" better its very unprofessional to greatly underestimate your time-frame. In fact its generally better to give as honest an answer or an even longer time frame than is needed. Being able to build in an amount of "free" developing time is very helpful if you need it; whilst if you don't need it you can put out the final project "early".

The second is with communication. Investors and customers are far more understanding if they are kept in the loop during development. For Kickstarters any company using the service should be treating their investors properly and keeping them well informed during the process. Any problems or issues should be clearly stated as they arise along with the course of action to remedy them. This is how a company should communicate to any investor - even through crowed investment schemes.

IF a company fails to keep their investors in the loop then it stands to reason that if they go over budget or over their time frame then the investors will not look kindly upon them. On the flipside if kept in the loop then investors are likely to be far more understanding when its clearly presented to them that the project simply had unforseen problems or took longer than envisioned to complete.

As a side note, you can buy into the beta for $15.

I realize the content is limited, but is the gameplay worth it for a short/fun romp until the full release?

This was a game I wish I had contributed to, but forgot to do so when I had money to do it.

Most of the false/wildly exaggerated accusations have already been dealt with, but I feel like this should be added: They have stated several times in their updates that the reason (or at least part of the reason) the game has been delayed is because they got so much more funding than expected, which made them expand the scope of the game. I would have liked to see the game out already, sure, but I think a larger game sounds like a good thing.

Seriously, a thread like is seems extremely unfair to the Stoic guys.

Personally I like developers who live by the mantra "It is finished when it is finished", not to deliver whatever they have as long as it is within a certain date.

Aye but sometimes they can take too long - Anyone remember Starcraft Ghost? Made for the PS2 and then ugpraded for PS3 and then shelved. Done when its done, provided that it does actually get done ;)

another good mantra - "everything with moderation"

Yes, if we accept games as "art" then you have to accept that your original vision of the piece may differ from what you get.

The Banner Saga, something to which I donated, is still on track as far as I can tell, they're just working on a portion which was always promised, the online component, as a way to test the various factions. I haven't bothered to play the beta portion yet, but it seems it tests the engine and some other features which the team needs, so it's probably a good way to go for them.
To be even more fair, they've communicated well with the community and put up backer forums if you wanted to be more engaged, those who chose to do so are well in "the know" and I've heard absolutely nothing to indicate Stoic is "off task".

Oh I completely agree. I haven't been too active on the forums, but I checked them a lot when the beta started and I've played a number of games (maybe 10) and they are very good at answering questions and just engaging with the community from what I've seen.

And the game was fun, if a bit limited when I played. That's several builds ago though.

The problem with kickstarter is reactionary customers who can't read carefully and understand software development.

The solution is simple:

Do NOT ever again give money to Stoic, (i.e., the developer of the Banner Saga.)

Do NOT ever again pledge to Stoic's any other project.

If and when Stoic uses Kickstarter to raise money for another project, post warnings to inform/remind other people know how Stoic baited and switched with the last Kickstarter.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Like yourself, I despise online multiplayer game and would never give any money to one, but a single-player RPG gets my full support. I'd be seriously pissed if a company baited me with single-player promises and then switched to a online multiplayer BS. However, theBanner Saga: Factions seems more like some sort of beta to test the combat portion of the full single-player game.