When crowdfunding games, there's always a risk that something will go wrong. Sometimes games get cancelled, sometimes the Linux version gets cancelled and in the case of Eco from Strange Loop Games they're not exactly filling me with confidence.
On the original Kickstarter campaign for Eco back in 2015, the FAQ stated this:
We will be developing the release client targeting PC, Mac, and Linux platforms. During early stages of the project, such as during alpha, the server may only be usable on windows platforms, but by beta will be available for all 3 platforms.
The Steam Greenlight page for Eco was also listing Linux as platform, heck even their announcement on it about a release directly mentioned Linux was available. That same announcement is also on their official site, which mentions "For alpha the client will be released on PC, Mac, and Linux.". Given all that, I did purchase a copy personally to support it direct from their website. Since February 2018, it's been available on Steam but they only continue to advertise Windows support (despite a Linux version being there). We're talking almost four years since the Kickstarter and well over one year since being on Steam.
Before getting into anything else, I want to note that the developer has told me over email they currently class the game as being in "Beta". So we're at the stage, where Eco should have reasonably good Linux support by now but does it? No it does not. A Linux version exists but they won't advertise it, single-player only works on Linux with a workaround and now we're onto the below…
Why am I bringing all this up? Well, an interesting email entered my inbox recently, announcing that Eco would be adding in Vivox. Remember Vivox? The voice chat company whose staff actually suggested a developer drop Linux support? Yeah Vivox backtracked on it, but they still seem to have no plan in place to support Linux. Given that, you would think since Eco is supposed to be supporting Linux that Strange Loop Games wouldn't go and pick a middleware that locks out a platform but they did.
I reached out to Strange Loop Games and the resulting emails left me very unimpressed with them. They repeatedly claimed things like "It only was mentioned as a long-term goal on kickstarter" (clearly it wasn't) and "The linux client we offer actually is a internal alpha client we ship additionally without being required to do so." which seems pretty false, given the quote from Kickstarter and the release information they themselves posted onto Steam Greenlight and their official site.
There is a silver lining here (it's not all doom and gloom), as they told me "the plan is to deliver full linux support when the game is actually released" but given how long it has been so far and how they've reacted, it doesn't exactly fill me with hope.
They're far from the worst though, Stainless Games treated Linux gamers far worse with Carmageddon which was pretty ridiculous. Phoenix Point is another that still stings and it certainly all makes you think twice about supporting future crowdfunding efforts. However, thankfully the times where things like this do happen are still a minority, for the most part crowdfunding still results in something good but it pays to be careful.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: Luke_NukemI'm still pretty bitter over Carmageddon. Can't even play it through Proton.I got it to work recently, no tweak needed. Still runs like ass, though, and drives even worse, so eh.
Nevertheless Jun 17, 2019
Quoting: eldakingQuoting: riusmaQuoting: GuestThey are the worst!
At least they had offered refund for bakers when Linux was cancelled. ;)
I didn't know pastries were affected, but at least bakeries had a choice. xD
But seriously, I think offering a refund is not even close to addressing the issue. It is maybe better than getting a game you will never run.
A company gets people to give them money under false pretenses; the money and number of backers are usually displayed in the campaign or in advertisements, misleading other backers; they hold on to the money usually for a long time; and usually the burden of asking for a refund is on the backer. So they take a "fraudulent" zero interest loan, benefit from user engagement for marketing, and they keep the money unless the backer puts in the effort to get it back. They use in bad faith the lax nature of crowdfunding to get away with stuff like this.
Even worse for our cause! They use our will to support our platform, only to turn around and prominently do the opposite.
Luke_Nukem Jun 17, 2019
Quoting: SalvatosQuoting: Luke_NukemI'm still pretty bitter over Carmageddon. Can't even play it through Proton.I got it to work recently, no tweak needed. Still runs like ass, though, and drives even worse, so eh.
That's what I mean by it can't be played.
The optimism back in 2012 is a bittersweet reminder about the perils of crowdfunding. 7 years later and not much has changed, really...
Mountain Man Jun 17, 2019
Quoting: Mountain ManYou should never pay for an unfinished product. This is just common sense.
Crowd funding made many games possible I bought and loved.
Kimyrielle Jun 17, 2019
Unfortunately, my willingness to back a project has been all but eradicated by things like the stuff mentioned in this article. And that was -despite- me backing games only when I thought the studio was respectable and had a proven track record on Linux. But how often do studios announce Linux support only to deliver it literally a year after the Windows release, or never at all? I get that sometimes unforeseen things can happen, but when a developer uses Windows-only middleware for a game they promised a Linux release for, this person should look for a profession other than software development rather urgently. There is also no excuse for promising Linux support and then not only launch Windows first, but keep working on other stuff for a very long time, before finally completing the Linux version when there REALLY was nothing else left to do.
In short - either take us serious as customers or don't promise Linux support in the first place, if you don't care about it. Honesty goes a long way with me.
Nevertheless Jun 17, 2019
Quoting: EikeQuoting: Mountain ManYou should never pay for an unfinished product. This is just common sense.
Crowd funding made many games possible I bought and loved.
It's all a matter of trust! I know who better not to trust a second time now...
Quoting: gradyvuckovicPersonally I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that crowdfunding is almost always a terrible idea and almost always used incorrectly.I dunno. On one hand, I think your arguments have some force and I like the niche you define of "projects that benefit a community".
The normal way to do business, would be to start small, make a few small games, then gradually work up to larger projects off the back of the smaller ones.
If a game developer is crowdfunding, it means that first of all, they're likely taking on something of a much larger scope than they're probably ready for, that's warning flag number 1.
The second thing it means, is that they likely weren't able to find financial backing from any publisher or bank or anyone, which means no one wanted to invest the idea, that's warning flag number 2.
Crowdfunding comes with no strings attached or certainty at all that the game will even be made, so you can potentially throw your money at something that goes no where, which is very wrong, YOU should not be asked to take on that kind of risk, that risk should be taken on by the game developer. Because if the game is a success, it's the developer who will receive all the spoils of victory, and have a product to sell over and over again. You just get the opportunity to basically pre order a game. When it's the developer who gets the 'reward' then it's the developer should take on the 'risk' for that reward. And they likely would, if they themselves had any confidence in their project, which means they likely don't if they're using crowdfunding, that's warning flag number 3.
If none of those above statements apply to a crowdfunding project, because it's being made by a very capable team of people who have made very large games before and have an established game development studio and plenty of funds, and who wouldn't struggle to find a publisher for their project, and it's being made by people who are confident they can produce the final product, and that it will sell well.. then it means the company views crowdfunding as essentially just an interest free loan from people who are too generous with their money. They don't need the crowdfunding, they just want the cash, that's warning flag number 4.
There's a time and place for crowdfunding, and in my view, it's for projects that benefit a community. Funding the creation of a product that a company will own and sell, is not one of those in my opinion. A better use of crowdfunding would be crowdfunding the creation of FOSS licensed games for example, because then at least the people taking on the risks (the backers) are the ones who would receive the reward (a foss licensed game).
On the other, I think your warning flags assume basically that "the system works well" (and therefore if someone needs to do something else, that must be a problem with them), and I have no confidence that it does. People might not be able to raise money from bankers or whoever because bankers are blinkered idiots ignorant of the game industry, or because more knowledgeable investors insist on only backing games that are very "safe" the way Hollywood ends up doing nothing but sequels and remakes, or because modern banks are increasingly oriented towards financial speculation and servicing really big firms, and away from loans to small businesses, or because the interest rates they charge for small "high-risk" borrowers are insanely high (rational for the lender in a sense, but so high as to readily change a potential profit to a loss, thus self-fulfilling the high risk prophecy), or because the developer lives somewhere with a crap economy, or (insert your favourite market failure here).
It's not like the risk is hidden ... in a way, it strikes me less as a form of investing than a form of gambling: don't bet what you can't afford to lose. It's why I never gamble.
I see crowdfunding more like giving money to friends. I never loan money to friends---I decided long ago to just give them money. I tell them that if they ever want to pay me back, it'll be a loan---but let's just call it a gift. I would approach supporting a crowdfunding campaign no differently.
Last edited by Nanobang on 18 June 2019 at 1:14 pm UTC
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me