YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
Each death in the game will go towards a counter to the game finishing forever, and no one will be able to purchase it again—say what?
Their PR folk emailed in to let me know it will release on Linux in “Q3 of 2015”.
Press release copied below:
------------------------------------
HILVERSUM, Netherlands - July 16, 2015 - Vogelsap delivers their first-person asymmetrical multiplayer horror game The Flock to Steam in Q3 2015, in a way that has never been done before. Time left for people to buy the game depends on the death rate of the players within The Flock. Developer Vogelsap commits to a hands-off approach and puts the lastingness of the game into the player's hands.
With each death in the game, one life will be taken from the Flock's population. When the Flock's population reaches zero, the game will never be purchasable again. Only players who have The Flock in their Steam library will then be able to partake in the yet to be announced climactic finale. After the ending, the game will go offline permanently and no longer be playable.
The Flock population countdown will be embedded in the game's menus, Steam store page, Vogelsap's website and The Flock's sub-reddit to make sure all gamers are aware of the amount of lives left.
Gamescom attendees will be able to play The Flock in the Indie Arena Booth.
Indie industry luminaries behind Indie Fund such as Ron Carmel, John Graham and Kellee Santiago have provided financial backing to flesh out what started as a student project into a full commercial release.
The Flock are a tragic race as they are doomed to extinction. The titular abominations are irrevocably attracted to the light of the Artifact which will lead to their death or transformation into a whole other being. Trying to convey this story into the game as well as the team's aspiration to find a solution to the anticlimactic ending of multiplayer games, resulted in the idea of the Flock's population countdown.
"A multiplayer game can take players to incredible heights, but at some point gamers will start to play less, get disinterested and stop playing altogether," said Jeroen Van Hasselt, creative director, Vogelsap. "In opposition to other multiplayer games, we want The Flock's experience to inspire a sense of awe, to keep players eagerly anticipating what is coming next and to end with a memorable climax."
Set in the year 3000, an unrecognizable Earth is in ruins. Centuries of devastating pollution have blocked out the sun, blanketing the planet in darkness. No longer able to support human life, a horrifying race of monstrous creatures known as the Flock is the world's new dominant species. That is, until the emergence of the Carrier.
Each player begins as a member of the Flock, when a strange light emitting device known as the Light Artifact will suddenly appear somewhere on the map. The first player who touches the Light Artifact will transform into the Carrier, who then becomes the hunted.
Equipped with the Light Artifact, the Carrier can defeat the Flock by using the Light Artifact to illuminate the creatures. The Flock can in turn avoid the light's lethal effects by remaining motionless when caught by the beam. When a member of the Flock successfully lunges at the Carrier, it seizes control of the Light Artifact and becomes the new humanoid hunted. The previous Carrier then respawns as a member of the Flock just arriving at the scene.
The only way of winning a match of The Flock is to survive as the Carrier while keeping the light lit or to capture certain objectives. Objectives can be captured by directing the artifact's light towards these key points. 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.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
Actually, there is no need to restrict this awesome feature to this particular game. We may create a new list in the wiki, like the lists of Humble Bundle or open source games we already have, so people can add games and their expiration day. When a game expires, buying or playing that game is forbidden for everyone and those who own the game must uninstall it and delete all the copies. If you got the game from steam, you must also hide it forever and asking for a refund is not longer allowed.
Let's start then! Here's my contribution to the list:
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - 8 Oct 2017
Dota 2 - 15 Dec 2015
ARK: Survival Evolved - 1 Jan 2022
Team Fortress 2 - 4 Aug 2015
Let's start then! Here's my contribution to the list:
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - 8 Oct 2017
Dota 2 - 15 Dec 2015
ARK: Survival Evolved - 1 Jan 2022
Team Fortress 2 - 4 Aug 2015
0 Likes
very interesting idea. I hope it turns out to be as the developers hope. it's like street entertainment.
0 Likes
Happily it will never come to that. The concept is too idiotic to last.Personally I hope this sort of thing does become popularIf it does, you can bet your life that you'll find me in demonstrations against it.
0 Likes
You all are giving the exact same reactions to this as people do whenever a game comes out with hardcore death penalties or open world PvP and they complain until the devs add an easier option (see ark)
Some of us like those things because it increases suspense and immersion. One major difference between entering a real dungeon and fighting for your life versus doing it in a game is that you don't get to respawn.
I get it that this isn't your personal preference, but to call the idea to increase the games suspense and create a sense of ephemerality a "stupid idea" is pretty narrow minded if you ask me, and I find it pretty funny how everyone who has gone to insult the idea has chosen to do so on the grounds of intelligence when it seems to me that it is _you_ who isn't considering it from other points of view.
Last edited by stss on 17 July 2015 at 8:03 pm UTC
Some of us like those things because it increases suspense and immersion. One major difference between entering a real dungeon and fighting for your life versus doing it in a game is that you don't get to respawn.
I get it that this isn't your personal preference, but to call the idea to increase the games suspense and create a sense of ephemerality a "stupid idea" is pretty narrow minded if you ask me, and I find it pretty funny how everyone who has gone to insult the idea has chosen to do so on the grounds of intelligence when it seems to me that it is _you_ who isn't considering it from other points of view.
Last edited by stss on 17 July 2015 at 8:03 pm UTC
0 Likes
Kimyrielle Jul 17, 2015
It's art and as such I can appreciate it. But as a product, it's one of the most stupid ideas I've ever heard of. We complain about planned obsolescence of gadgets, but we'd accept it if programmed in software? Seriously?
0 Likes
What a great idea, I should do this too, I'll make a shitty game and buzz everyone to buy it on release date or else they won't have a chance to play it (and make them believe they might lose their chance to play the most awesome game of all time). On the release date they'll all buy the game before there is any review and when they all realize the game is a scam it will already no longer be on the store. Some people will probably ask for a refund but I would have spend so little time on the game that if only 10% don't ask for a refund it would be profitable. I wonder why no one had ever thought about this one before, probably because it's a little too obvious.
1 Likes, Who?
There are some interesting questions raised by this comment about feeling entitled to access to a creative product.That's...kinda my point, yeah.
I do think I'm entitled access to this creative product. And not just me, not just this creative product. I think everyone is entitled access to every creative product. For the good of the people.
Mind you, in this case it seems to me that in order for everyone to be able to access it, it would have to be something different, in which case it wouldn't be this creative product and therefore nobody at all would be able to access this creative product . . .
More generally, by rights you should be complaining about every single game (or book, album etc) being sold for money, since around half the world's population can't possibly afford to buy the things. Not that I would have a problem with that complaint necessarily, I'm just saying that your position isn't compatible with support for capitalism. The availability constraints of this particular game seem minor and fair compared to the more general constraint of "no money, no play".
0 Likes
I get it that this isn't your personal preference, but to call the idea to increase the games suspense and create a sense of ephemerality a "stupid idea" is pretty narrow minded if you ask me, and I find it pretty funny how everyone who has gone to insult the idea has chosen to do so on the grounds of intelligence when it seems to me that it is _you_ who isn't considering it from other points of view.No, I did consider this from other points of view. I understand why you'd want your survival game to actually be about survival, even if I'm not a fan of the genre. I also see why you'd want games to be challenging. These goals themselves are not what people are calling stupid, as you seem to imply. An implementation of an idea is not the same as the idea itself. IMHO the way Vogelsap's gone about it seems more like a cooler-than-thou arts project than a genuine attempt to make a better survival game. Very indie though. Daft, but original.
Last edited by tuubi on 17 July 2015 at 8:46 pm UTC
0 Likes
How are they going to accomplish it without DRM? Pretty bad concept really.
UPDATE: Ah, I see it's multiplayer. Then it makes more sense, users are just kicked from the server. But it's still a bad concept regardless.
Last edited by Shmerl on 17 July 2015 at 8:46 pm UTC
UPDATE: Ah, I see it's multiplayer. Then it makes more sense, users are just kicked from the server. But it's still a bad concept regardless.
Last edited by Shmerl on 17 July 2015 at 8:46 pm UTC
0 Likes
your position isn't compatible with support for capitalismYes. I'm not a supporter of capitalism. Capitalism is not something I support. You could call me an anti-capitalist and I would agree. And then raise my fist in the red salute.
How are they going to accomplish it without DRM? Pretty bad concept really.It's a multiplayer game. It needs a central server to run.
0 Likes
thelimeydragon Jul 17, 2015
Well from what I can tell... it's basically a game of it/tag/(other names). You go after this "light" if you get it then your IT and everyone is trying to get you but you can use the light to kill the things chasing you. If you get caught then you die and the process repeats until the round ends.
I imagine the total number on this death counter will be quite high, might take 2 years for it to reach 0.
I also foresee open source clones called "OpenFlock" or "The Swarm/some other synonym"
Last edited by thelimeydragon on 17 July 2015 at 9:02 pm UTC
I imagine the total number on this death counter will be quite high, might take 2 years for it to reach 0.
I also foresee open source clones called "OpenFlock" or "The Swarm/some other synonym"
Last edited by thelimeydragon on 17 July 2015 at 9:02 pm UTC
0 Likes
An implementation of an idea is not the same as the idea itself. IMHO the way Vogelsap's gone about it seems more like a cooler-than-thou arts project than a genuine attempt to make a better survival game.I disagree. It's easy to say that when you don't have to offer an alternative that can achieve the same effect. There might not be one, and although it seems like a silly idea on the surface it might be the only way to create this type of experience in a game.
This is more of a service than software.
If you're just thinking about what you're getting in terms of software then sure I can see why it's upsetting, but it's not like they are tricking anyone.
It's a service with a piece of temporary software written around it, and people are paying for the experience.
Games don't simulate victory, they simulate artificial obstacles that you then overcome to achieve a sense of satisfaction.
By the same token the service they are offering here is to simulate something that will increase your sense of importance in the game. They can't do that without artificially creating negative circumstances. So just as you pay for the artificial obstacles in other games you would be paying specifically for the artificial restriction that you can never play it again because it enhances the experience while you can play it.
Last edited by stss on 17 July 2015 at 9:13 pm UTC
0 Likes
How are they going to accomplish it without DRM? Pretty bad concept really.It's a multiplayer game. It needs a central server to run.
Yep, I noticed that (updated my comment above). Still the concept of limited playability is weird and IMHO isn't useful.
0 Likes
I would be ok with that concept only if they made the game (client and server) open source (or even public domain) after the game's ending. However, I doubt this will happen and it's just a waste of people's money and game maker's skills.
0 Likes
Deep down I believe this is marketing only. Imagine this being a success and Valve having to deal with hundreds of angry players who got the game just before the shutdown. You are assuming that everyone clicking on the purchase button will be fully aware of the obsolescence, but Steam (as any other store) is full of compulsive customers who buy more games than they can play and will just purchase if they like the trailer or have a friend who also owns the game. Remember that game you paid for a month ago? Well, now it's gone forever and you lost your opportunity to play, better luck next time.
Is some random company willing to suicide? Sure. Is Valve willing to suicide with them? I must admit it would be very funny if it happens, but they have showed some common sense up until now.
Is some random company willing to suicide? Sure. Is Valve willing to suicide with them? I must admit it would be very funny if it happens, but they have showed some common sense up until now.
0 Likes
This sounds like a publicity stunt to create a buying frenzy. Only time will tell if said publicity stunt will be successful. I, for one, ain't biting.
if this was a publicity stunt, they failed in my case. lost the interest as soon as i saw forced playing. i buy games and play when i feel to, sometimes i can have some game for years and only then try it. in my case, i'd pay for dead horse
0 Likes
They'd better have the Linux build ready from day one then.
If they have a single player able to die maybe that removes the trolling potential.
It sounds like they are aiming for something like Eve, where the metagame is more interesting than the actual gameplay; the time limited business model may be a blessing if game quality must not affect the player base (if the gameplay is good I'm sure they'll find a way to extend it). If neither the game nor the metagame are interesting, it will end up as just another inscrutable art project.
If they have a single player able to die maybe that removes the trolling potential.
It sounds like they are aiming for something like Eve, where the metagame is more interesting than the actual gameplay; the time limited business model may be a blessing if game quality must not affect the player base (if the gameplay is good I'm sure they'll find a way to extend it). If neither the game nor the metagame are interesting, it will end up as just another inscrutable art project.
0 Likes
your position isn't compatible with support for capitalismYes. I'm not a supporter of capitalism. Capitalism is not something I support. You could call me an anti-capitalist and I would agree. And then raise my fist in the red salute.
Ah, well then, objection withdrawn. For the record, I'm with you there. Cheers and vive la revolution!
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me