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.
18 comments
Patreon
PayPal
Divinity FTW!
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again Direct Link
we can expect a deluge of EA games that will fail in the same way. take the money and run. I for one am thru with this business model.
Is the game in its current state unplayable as a whole game ? Sure, I suppose it could be better, as any other game could be, but is it a shaming version 1.0 ? this is a true question as I haven't tried it.
Another question is, what were their other options to finish the game ? It was unavoidable that one day they would say "feature freeze! we squish the bugs, add a tutorial and call it 1.0" How is an editor supposed to do that and not hear that he is abandoning the game ?
Does Spacebase DF-9 work as a game right now or is it horribly broken? I haven't heard of it being broken.
Is there an expectation with Early Access that a game will be worked on perpetually? Should a developer not be able to decide when to stop and what to cut before the 1.0 release like they would in a non-Early Access game? I think Double Fine is handling their 1.0 release just like they would with any other game. They focus on the features they can and cut the rest.
Do you expect Double Fine not to tweak the game and release bug fixes after 1.0? If not, why not, considering that they're still releasing fixes for old games like Brutal Legend and Psychonauts? I see no reason to believe they won't support the game with bug fixes.
If a non-Early Access game opened up its source to modders would it be considered "allowing others to do all the work for free"? This seems like a double standard.
I can understand that people are disappointed that the game isn't being developed further, but it seems like a stretch to say that Double Fine is ripping people off or causing a blow to indie games.
Doesn't that depend on how you view "finished"? When is a game really finished? Is it not finished when the developer decides? Every game has features that are cut. How is this different? Is it somehow worse because you can see into the process they took to develop the game and you can see what ideas they chose to cut?
Their announcement confirms that they will be.
To me it looks like much of the current dissent is a combination of things. The low level of communication and amount of time between Alpha 5 and 6 put a lot of people on edge. The Alpha 6 video and JP's appearance on SteamLUG Cast suggested there would be more communication and faster updates. The release announcement's timing is quite abrupt, and its wording seems quite poor (as in, given the context, it's the sort of thing that's going to result in negative reactions).
They haven't done that though. There'll be more stuff in the final release than there is in the game at the moment.
If they had not put the game on sale shortly before announcing it and making statements that they would not cease development just a month prior, but instead made a much more apologetic statement offering some form of compensation (vouchers or something) to those who paid a ludicrous amount of money for the game then the perceptions people have of the announcement would be more sympathetic.
The reality is that they made money off this game have given no clear indication of why they are ceasing development and likewise are suddenly calling a game "finished" despite labeled as "very early alpha" up until recently and has only been in EA for less than a year.
The point of the article isn't really "Double Fine are scumbags" but instead "Double fine are being perceived as scumbags, which is creating a lack of confidence in EA and crowd funding".
Also, just to clarify something which should have been in the article, the new features in 1.0 are limited to tutorials and game objectives, and although they never said they would implement all of the features on the list they had, realistically people expected a much higher percentage than this.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense now. I still feel like this type of situation is to be expected with Early Access though. Double Fine could have communicated the situation better, but I think with Early Access, you're paying more to support the developer and see what they come up with rather than paying for a concrete game. Maybe Valve and developers need to communicate that better. That's why I haven't yet bought an Early Access game, but I do see some value in Early Access being available. I have contributed to other crowdfunding, including Broken Age.
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.