Skullgirls Developers Detail What's Going On With The Linux Port

I am very thankful the developer is here to help clear it up, but I do stand by my comments. They had ample resources to get a port started, and shouldn't of relied on a volunteer. I'm not saying it's bad to rely on volunteers, but it's not really worked out well for others. Postal 2 for example relies on Icculus for all Linux and Mac updates, and he's too busy.

Before making what seemed like promises I really think a lot more research should have been done.

My comment about getting money before the campaign may have been wrong, but wasn't the game already out and being sold before the campaign started? According to Wikipedia it was on consoles in 2012, so you must have had income from that too? Not just before it, but during the campaign you must have had income from it, and afterwards too?

The main problem is communication and the lack of it. Keeping users informed is increadibly important for being the right thing to do.

I am glad you guys realise your mistakes and are acting on it. This keeps you in my personal good books :). Mistakes happen.

There are two very important points that nobody has brought up yet that explains a lot of the glaring inconsistencies. I would have thought render would have jumped on this first one right off. Maybe he did; I skimmed the comment thread because I really wanted to refute these ignorant assertions.

First of all: the IGG fundraiser was originally going to create content for the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions. The Windows port was paid for by Marvelous AQL through taking cuts of the initial sales (that is, sales outside of the backers for the fundraiser), and they did the port. If they couldn't fund development for Windows through the IGG, then why would they be able to fund development for Linux with it?

And second of all: the assertion that the sum of money they received should be enough to fund the port themselves. They really do need every bit of that to fund the content. I know that without any perspective on how difficult game development actually is, that's hard to swallow, but this video I feel does a good job of explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US7RbhjMo78 Seriously, the production value for this game is through the roof; the only 2D indie game I can think of that comes close is Dust: An Elysian Tail. The composer for the score is Michiru Yamane, the very same who worked on Castlevania. The voice talent consists of the likes of Cristina Vee, Michelle Ruff, Lauren Landa, and Liam O'Brien; though you might know them better as Noel Vermillion, Rita Mordio, Yan Leixia, and Lezard Valeth (in Silmeria, not Lenneth). And as for the high-quality visuals, you can see them here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixLjhonClsg Stylistic taste aside, there is not a 2D fighter out there that has half the visual quality Skullgirls does, full stop. If you still can't believe that the funding must be entirely dedicated to the content after all of this, then I really don't know what to tell you other than to make a game yourself and see how hard it actually is.

I didn't back the project nor have I followed any development of it but wouldn't it be an idea for the developers to say...

"We need help with the Linux port. Anyone who wants to help with the port can get a cut of all earnings generated from linux sales of the game"?

Quoting: TiZFirst of all: the IGG fundraiser was originally going to create content for the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions. The Windows port was paid for by Marvelous AQL through taking cuts of the initial sales (that is, sales outside of the backers for the fundraiser), and they did the port. If they couldn't fund development for Windows through the IGG, then why would they be able to fund development for Linux with it?

That's irrelevant. We are not their financial planners. If they didn't have what it takes to make the port, they shouldn't have promised it.

Also, as someone else estimated, it couldn't have taken more than 10000$ to make the linux port happen, unless their code is really terrible. If they started the campaign asking for 150000$ and got much more, surely they could have used some of the extra money for the port rather than adding some new animation somewhere?

It probably shows through my posts but I am deeply suspicious of companies who use kickstarter or steam's early access model. I don't see how it's that different from the pre-order systems that AAA companies use, and that one gets a lot of flak. Cases like this one are why. There haven't been big lawsuits yet on the back of failed kickstarters (to my knowledge), so we're swimming in a sea of uncertainty as to what obligation these developpers actually have to fulfill their promises.

I'll let others fund these projects. If they ask me why, I'll point to this game.

They didn't have what it takes to make the Windows port, either. Yet they did promise it because they trusted their code to someone and it paid off. Yes, it was naive to believe that a volunteer would be able to take the codebase all the way to Linux all by himself. But it wasn't a thing of ill will. They messed up. You can continue beating the dead horse here or you can step back and give them a chance to make it right.

Quoting: SkarjakAlso, as someone else estimated, it couldn't have taken more than 10000$ to make the linux port happen, unless their code is really terrible.

I JUST explained this. What, did you stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA?

QuoteIf they started the campaign asking for 150000$ and got much more, surely they could have used some of the extra money for the port rather than adding some new animation somewhere?

"adding some new animation somewhere?" No, it's an entirely new character. Multiple entirely new characters. Did you not watch the video? This requires considerable effort. Let me reiterate this for you and for everyone else, although at this juncture I don't think any of you are capable of understanding. The indiegogo was meant to create new content for the game that already existed on 360 and PS3. The Windows version that came of it was a happy side effect, and this situation here an unhappy side effect. No, they're not going to spend any of the money they were given to use for game content in order to fund a port. They shouldn't! So in that conext, yes, absolutely, they made a promise they shouldn't have, and I'd love it if we could stop beating this dead horse. But that doesn't give you guys the right to try and dictate what they do with their project funds. They owe us an earnest effort to make the Linux version exist, or a refund if you donated on the impression that a Linux version would be funded. They do not owe us redefining the purpose and direction of their project.

hmm.. so with your whole couple of posts TiZ (registered 8 hrs ago) it's obvious you have shown up just for this thread.. who do you work for? or just a fangirl?

If they only asked for $150k to make the content they wanted to make yet made $650k MORE than they had asked for... explain why $10k couldn't have gone toward paying someone to properly port it? It really IS that simple. Pretty sure the game would have been ok with one less fighting character.. stop sticking up for them (yourself?).. it's obviously a waste of time around here, they(u?) screwed up, fix it or deal with the backlash from the very vocal linux community.

EDIT* on a totally unrelated side note. My new laptop needs some stickers. I would like a GOL sticker for it. Does that exist? if not it really should.

EDIT2* I want to clarify that I didn't mean anything bad by the use of the term "fangirl".. I should have chosen my wording differently. And yes, we are normally a quite positive and enthusiastic bunch. Some of us just get a bit "mouthy" when it seems the linux crowd is getting the run around. This is the last thing I will say on this topic I just hope that the devs (and the volunteer ones) get it figured out for the sake of those who want to play it and not rely on windows. Oh and see my first EDIT!

What I understand from this thread is that crowdfunding being a whole new thing, traditional ethical conceptions are not enough to cover it.

What I mean is that this very thread raises the following question:
Should a crowdfunding stretch goal be considered as a paid-for and due thing?

Because in my opinion, devs don't pay attention enough to what they put into these goals. Is it an advertised feature or just the promise that they will try to do it?

Still, I think that if it's got people paying for it, there must be a professional, paid-for port afterwards. Also, I'm sorry to put it this way, but putting a volunteered port (costless) as a stretch goal (which raises money), isn't it an enormous mistake? You get money for a port you don't finance. I just think it's weird.

Quoting: GuestThe question is not if they had enough money to do the port. I didn’t follow this kickstarter at all, but this:

QuoteSome have misinterpreted our inclusion of a free download of the Linux port for campaign backers at the $30 tier and above upon its completion as a promise that we, Lab Zero, would handle its development. However, it was included as a backer reward only – one that we hope we’ll still be able to deliver with the help and support of volunteers willing to work on it.

This is just WTF quality. They included a Linux version in their rewards, and now are saying “oh yes, we will give it to those who paid, as long as someone makes the port for free for us”. WTF? Some people have no shame.

lol so true!!
"Throw us money, we'll try to find someone else to do the job for free."

Quoting: omer666Still, I think that if it's got people paying for it, there must be a professional, paid-for port afterwards. Also, I'm sorry to put it this way, but putting a volunteered port (costless) as a stretch goal (which raises money), isn't it an enormous mistake? You get money for a port you don't finance. I just think it's weird.

Linux was NOT listed in the stretch goals. In this case, Linux as a strech goal probably would have been the best course of action, since then there should have been specific funds set aside for the porting, making up for what may be total lack of cross-platform experience internally at Lab Zero. That would have been one reasonable way to approach Linux support, the other having been to go the volunteer route but explain it during the campaign.

Still, I think the "backlash from the very vocal Linux community" has already gotten accross any constructive criticism there was to get across, and we should stick with courses of action that won't end up with us getting a counter-backlash from Indie devs (who might not even want to touch Linux if every mistake is flamed endlessly, and I wouldn't blame them):

• politely ask for refunds


• or give the volunteer team a decent chance

If I were a backer, I'd definitely go with #2 first. I've argued before that devs who don't know a thing about Linux should just get help from the community, and I truly believe it can work.

Quoting: Nel

Quoting: GuestThe question is not if they had enough money to do the port. I didn’t follow this kickstarter at all, but this:

QuoteSome have misinterpreted our inclusion of a free download of the Linux port for campaign backers at the $30 tier and above upon its completion as a promise that we, Lab Zero, would handle its development. However, it was included as a backer reward only – one that we hope we’ll still be able to deliver with the help and support of volunteers willing to work on it.

This is just WTF quality. They included a Linux version in their rewards, and now are saying “oh yes, we will give it to those who paid, as long as someone makes the port for free for us”. WTF? Some people have no shame.

lol so true!!
"Throw us money, we'll try to find someone else to do the job for free."

If the Linux porting is done for free, Linux backers are paying for the CONTENT which is the exact same thing all the other backers are paying for. It's not cheating. The team just needs to make sure the free port actually happens.