Support NeoGAF

[Rush2thestart]

Wii U stretch goal? About time. You've got my support finally.

 

[Theonik]

I think people with this mindset are missing the point. The Wii:U port is not free no matter what. Simply, the resources that would be used on Wii:U port, could have been used on making a better expansive more detailed game, and perhaps even more staff.

I don't know, it's not free now is it, being a stretchgoal and all that.
Now how much does that extra effort affect the overall product? Who knows.
Don't forget that porting to more platforms is an investment. In the first place it draws more consumers to buy the game and more backers to the kickstarter.

Now, the real problem is time. If they announce that it's coming to the WiiU at a later date though I have zero problem with it being there or if they hire an extra team to do the port, but that's the whole problem with stretchgoals. More money doesn't buy you more time, it might allow you to hire more labour, but the effort doesn't scale quite so well. That also goes for the 'They should use the money to hire more staff and make the project even better!' mentality. It doesn't quite work that way.

 

[Charles Brandon]

plus there will be people supporting this now who wouldn't have before. This is a franchise that is very closely associated with Nintendo platforms and those guys have been excluded up till now, so there is going to be money coming in that wouldn't otherwise have been there

 

[Haruka]

For the record, which IGA game has currently the biggest castle?

 

[MouldyK]

It supports 3. When asked about 4 on Wii U, Epic just kind of laughed. Like, literally laughed.

During the presentation the day before, another journalist asked if Unreal Engine 4 would work on Nintendo's Wii U -- a console that straddles the line between next-gen and the current one in terms of horsepower. "Hahahaha, no," he responded, which sent a wave of laughter through the room of journalists. But that's not technically true, he admitted the next day, walking back his gaffe. "You heard the stupid gaffe yesterday about the Wii U," he said. "If someone wants to take Unreal Engine 4 and ship a game on Wii U, they can! If they wanna ship an Unreal Engine 4 game on Xbox 360, they could make it happen." While that game might not look as pretty as it would on a "true" next-gen console, the new engine is scalable to a variety of platforms, including mobile.

Still 2+ years old, but it's still newer than what you say.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

For the record, which IGA game has currently the biggest castle?

Probably SotN. I was inclined to say Circle of the Moon but then I remembered SotN's inverted castle.

 

[Graphics Horse]

Probably SotN. I was inclined to say Circle of the Moon but then I remembered SotN's inverted castle.

Cotm isn't an IGA game anyway.

Is it just me or does that castle art hint at an underground inverted castle?

 

[CaviarMeths]

Feels like I've slipped into an alternate dimension or Bizarro Land where news that Igarashi is probably going to be putting a game on a Nintendo platform is met with such vitriol, and for such limp reasons.

Igarashi is going to be making exactly the game he wanted and set out to make before even launching the Kickstarter. The criticism would be founded if this were a typical Kickstarter project, but it isn't. It's one of the most lucrative and successful crowdfunded projects of all time. Don't forget that he has also secured funding from a publisher. A Wii U version at this point isn't going to compromise anything. It's an investment

But criticism over a new Nintendo console that may or may not be launching by early 2017 is just concern trolling.

 

[Crocodile]

I think people with this mindset are missing the point. The Wii:U port is not free no matter what. Simply, the resources that would be used on a Wii:U port, could have been used on making a better expansive more detailed game, and perhaps on even more staff.

• You could say the same about any feature you don't care about though. I'm sure there are those who don't care about co-op or "Classic Mode" and would prefer the "resources" be placed elsewhere. Here the feature is "lots more people get to play the game"
• That's to say nothing of the fact that this WiiU version isn't free anyway since they are asking for extra resources to do it.
• Finally, additional platform stretch goals are usually done to bring in more total money to the project. If it costs $350k (made up numbers so I must speculate but the point should be clear) to make a WiiU version but all the additional backers add an additional $500k to the working budget, that's a boon to the development team no? All versions of the game improve in this manner.

Also the below quote applies as well:

The Wii U stretchgoal for Bloodstained is not something the developers just added because of "popular demand" or anything like that. They had a Wii U port in mind from the very beginning, but it wasn't part of the initial target platforms, since a Wii U version is more expensive to produce. If they were ever willing to downgrade the "main versions" of Bloodstained, they would have chosen UE3 as the main engine to begin with - after all, that would have been a lot less trouble. That they are nevertheless using UE4 and that they made the decision hide the Wii U stretch goal behind the 3 million paywall all but proves that they are not willing to make compromises on that regard.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Feels like I've slipped into an alternate dimension or Bizarro Land where news that Igarashi is probably going to be putting a game on a Nintendo platform is met with such vitriol, and for such limp reasons.

Igarashi is going to be making exactly the game he wanted and set out to make before even launching the Kickstarter. The criticism would be founded if this were a typical Kickstarter project, but it isn't. It's one of the most lucrative and successful crowdfunded projects of all time. Don't forget that he has also secured funding from a publisher. A Wii U version at this point isn't going to compromise anything. It's an investment

But criticism over a new Nintendo console that may or may not be launching by early 2017 is just concern trolling.

I get what you mean but what some people here think is that, putting concerns about the game being compromised in order to run on a WiiU aside, money for this stretch goal could've been used for something else within the game to have more content or whatnot.

Look, I own a WiiU and I love it but I'll be the first one to voice doubts that the WiiU would be even a viable console to invest money on in 2017 at all.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Cotm isn't an IGA game anyway.

Is it just me or does that castle art hint at an underground inverted castle?

It's an Igavania styled game, though.

 

[charlequin]

I don't think you support this argument well.

I only see three possible scenarios (please do tell me if I'm missing something):

I just suspect you're overestimating the impact on the project by working from pretty pessimistic assumptions here. Based on other past successful projects and development experience, I would guess that:

• It'll be ported by an external team, probably one that's given the game resources and a semi-fixed budget and tasked with producing a version -- such that the spot for slippage will be in the quality of the port, rather than the resources invested.
• It could very possibly be scheduled later than the primary versions, which might mean it isn't even fully underway while the final decisions that impact the "real" versions of the game are being made.
• The effort to downport to UE3 (or to the type of stripped UE4 Rein has discussed in interviews) is less than you make it out to be. The assets and data should all be relatively straightforward to bring over, and much of the code structure should be comparable, given the ways UE4 apparently targets itself at existing UE3 developers.
• The Wii U version is the same game, but makes no promise of being 100% feature-complete. Most visual features that are engine-specific could be left out; certain add-on content could be excluded if it relies on anything unavailable (like a halfway decent network infrastructure); they could skip features or content that ship as DLC altogether. People who buy exclusively on Wii U are going to be used to low-feature ports.

I freely admit that my experience with UE3 and 4 is far too minimal to offer any first-hand educated opinions about them, but just based on my experience with software I don't think the resources needed to tack on an external Wii U port will be anywhere close to the primary development budget, and I think resource shortfalls are likely to just produce a shittier port rather than roll back into problems with the primary versions.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

It seems like tomorrow Bloodstained might surpass Yooka-Laylee in overall funding with 20,000 less backers and fewer days on Kickstarter.

I'm beginning to think this game could very much end up being the most successful crowdfunded game yet.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

I don't think you support this argument well.

I only see three possible scenarios (please do tell me if I'm missing something):

• They'll somehow try to shoehorn UE4 on Wii U. I hope I don't have to explain to everyone why that is a bad idea - you seem to agree.
• They'll create a direct downport of the game in a separate engine. This is a huge productions overhead: all their assets will need to work with multiple engines. Their code base either doubles or increases greatly in complexity. It will also limit them in what they can do -- for every UE4 feature they want to use they need to consider if there is a way to replicate it on the other platform.
• They'll create an entirely separate version of the game (not a port). This would be the least bad outcome, since it would at least free the real game from any port considerations, but it still means that they need to split their team across two games rather than working on a single one. I don't really see how that could achieve the "best possible result" -- it's simple math really.

Now tell me which of those 3 is not a net negative for me.

I did. I often do. Look above. What scenario did I fail to consider?

Unreal 4 is perfectly capable of running on Wii U. It already officially runs on weaker hardware. In fact, Unreal 4 was developed specifically with scalability in mind. Epic hasn't developed an official Wii U-specific branch because 1) there isn't much demand for it among developers 2) they aren't looking into developing on Wii U themselves and 3) Unreal 3 has been running on Wii U for years and for most purposes is completely acceptable. So no, it's not some terrible idea to port UE4 to Wii U, and in fact bonus reason 4) Epic themselves has said there's no reason why developers couldn't do so if they so desired.

As for using another engine, again UE3 already exists as a fallback, and while it's not an exact match, with a small bit of time and money any assets and work done in their UE4 versions could be down-converted for UE3 without overly significant work and added complexity. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Epic specifically built tools for UE4 to UE3 conversion given the broad popularity of Unreal Engine and the significant amount of support last gen consoles are still receiving.

Even in your final scenario you're assuming that somehow the additional funds coming into the project would somehow cause a secondary goal (a port, which by its very nature will require less assets and personnel than the overall project) to itself cause the overall project to lose a substantial amount of assets and personnel, which doesn't make much sense. Especially considering you're further assuming that additional funds would not go to additional staff hired for the port or even the hiring of an external studio.

You're saying you're going to pull money if a port is greenlit on the hypothetical basis that somehow its mere existence instantaneously destroys the project integrity, which is in turn based in the incorrect idea that both UE4 could not run on Wii U and UE3 could not possibly be used as an acceptable replacement with a small bit of time and money used as coaxing. Furthermore, again, this all relies on the ridiculous notion that a studio that deliberately delegated a platform to a stretch goal six times over their targeted goal would somehow allow said platform to diminish the technical integrity of the overall project, which is a massively illogical assumption.

 

[Kojirospath]

It seems like tomorrow Bloodstained might surpass Yooka-Laylee in overall funding with 20,000 less backers and fewer days on Kickstarter.

I'm beginning to think this game could very much end up being the most successful crowdfunded game yet.

Maybe on kickstarter. Don't forget Star Citizen.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Holy crap, in the blink of an eye it went from $2,491,000 to $2,500,000. Unless a bunch of low backers poured in a matter of seconds I think someone just backed the hell out of this game.

Maybe on kickstarter. Don't forget Star Citizen.

Right. Forgot about that.

 

[ShogunDarius]

so what happens if we havent got the basement key but have met the pledge amounts of the basement stretch goals?

 

[Hubble]

• You could say the same about any feature you don't care about though. I'm sure there are those who don't care about co-op or "Classic Mode" and would prefer the "resources" be placed elsewhere. Here the feature is "lots more people get to play the game"
• That's to say nothing of the fact that this WiiU version isn't free anyway since they are asking for extra resources to do it.
• Finally, additional platform stretch goals are usually done to bring in more total money to the project. If it costs $350k (made up numbers so I must speculate but the point should be clear) to make a WiiU version but all the additional backers add an additional $500k to the working budget, that's a boon to the development team no? All versions of the game improve in this manner.

A Wii:U port is far more costly than all of the stretch goals like classic mode, so you're other examples don't really apply..... Heck, a Wii:U port will likely need a whole other studio of staff to work. There are a million other stretch goals to achieve substantial funding, and plenty than supporting a failed console. A Wii:U port is expensive and I rather IGA hire more technical staff, especially over outsourcing to a whole other team. I would rather have a potential Wii:U port studio actually work on making the game better..

 

[Theonik]

Holy crap, in the blink of an eye it went from $2,491,000 to $2,500,000. Unless a bunch of low backers poured in a matter of seconds I think someone just backed the hell out of this game.

Someone backed Igadventure. Probably a troll again.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

Put $150 (+$15 shipping) into this project yesterday. I need the artbook.

I really hope a Wii U version is possible somewhere down the road. Until then I'll get this game on PS4 for sure.

EDIT: Ooooooh, $3mil goal is most definitely a Wii U version, holy crap, so awesome!
I am so happy because this game getting to $3mil is as sure as Konami currently betting on the wrong horse!

EDIT2: Also, I am happy that the artbook is going to be hardcover. It'll be a beautiful fit with my other hardcover artbooks and I curse Capcom for being too cheap in making the MvC artbook softcover.

And just as a sidenote: The average pledge is almost $80 per person! That is so incredible!

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Someone backed Igadventure. Probably a troll again.

Again? So it has happened before!?

Would it be so difficult to change the way this works by having Kickstarter charge you the second the project gets funded and from that point on every new backer gets charged right away? This way you'd get rid of most of the trolls who pull shit like that.

 

[Theonik]

Again? So it has happened before!?

Would it be so difficult to change the way this works by having Kickstarter charge you the second the project gets funded and from that point on every new backer gets charged right away? This way you'd get rid of most of the trolls who pull shit like that.

People are free to change their mind throughout the campaign that's kinda the point. It's open to exploitation but if they charged you when you pledge they'd probably lose more than they benefit. Same with stopping you from going down. More people would hesitate from going higher if they knew they couldn't take back but after they've committed they are far less likely to take it back even if they THINK they might.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

People are free to change their mind throughout the campaign that's kinda the point.

Make it so if they want to upgrade they can and KS will just charge the remaining amount but you can't downgrade to a lower tier.

Each thing has its disadvantages but this way trolls wouldn't be total asses and you'd get rid of those big amounts of money that disappears after a KS ends that you thought you counted on.

 

[Theonik]

Make it so if they want to upgrade they can and KS will just charge the remaining amount but you can't downgrade to a lower tier.

Each thing has its disadvantages but this way trolls wouldn't be total asses and you'd get rid of those big amounts of money that disappears after a KS ends that you thought you counted on.

I clarified this in my stealth-edit but I should also mention that when I said 'again' I meant it happened before in this very campaign, could also not have been a troll but it happens. The bigger issue is cases where you might have impropriety on the campaign runner's end since KS protections only go as far as not charging if the project doesn't hit its goal.

You just have to account for all this when setting your funding goals.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I clarified this in my stealth-edit but I should also mention that when I said 'again' I meant it happened before in this very campaign, could also not have been a troll but it happens. The bigger issue is cases where you might have impropriety on the campaign runner's end since KS protections only go as far as not charging if the project doesn't hit its goal.

You just have to account for all this when setting your funding goals.

Try as I may I didnt understand that part. Impropriety? You lost me there.

 

[Crocodile]

A Wii:U port is far more costly than all of the stretch goals like classic mode, so you're other examples don't really apply..... Heck, a Wii:U port will likely need a whole other studio of staff to work. There are a million other stretch goals to achieve substantial funding, and plenty than supporting a failed console. A Wii:U port is expensive and I rather IGA hire more technical staff, especially over outsourcing to a whole other team. I would rather have a potential Wii:U port studio actually work on making the game better..

Yes I imagine it would cost more (which even my hypothetical numbers that I made up acknowledged) but the return is also much higher and will likely leave the project with an overall higher budget even with the extra costs factored in. If you take this thought to the extreme, why not make this game PC exclusive? Biggest consumer base and best specs There is no logical reason the assume the WiiU version would somehow compromise the PS4/Xbone versions unless you actually think the PS4/Xbone versions compromised the PC version.

Anyway, its clear that this team was adamant that Unreal 4 and PC/PS4/XBone were the target platforms but if they got enough extra money they would try a WiiU version (extra money they wouldn't get for other sorts of features). This wasn't a haphazard addition, it was planned. While I'd appreciate some more budget transparency from the team, unless you honestly don't think they know how to manage their money (both from the Kickstarter and from their publisher who they really should fucking name) I can't see any logical reason to think the WiiU version is a detriment to the other versions (when in all likelyhood it may end up being a benefit)

Someone backed Igadventure. Probably a troll again.

That's been backed since yesterday. I think someone upgraded from the $7.5k tier because I def remember that was backed days ago but isn't anymore.

 

[clay_ghost]

He'll yeah wiiu!

Now to see if I want to back the 125 tier....

 

[Hubble]

Yes I imagine it would cost more (which even my hypothetical numbers that I made up acknowledged) but the return is also much higher and will likely leave the project with an overall higher budget even with the extra costs factored in. If you take this thought to the extreme, why not make this game PC exclusive? Biggest consumer base and best specs There is no logical reason the assume the WiiU version would somehow compromise the PS4/Xbone versions unless you actually think the PS4/Xbone versions compromised the PC version.

Anyway, its clear that this team was adamant that Unreal 4 and PC/PS4/XBone were the target platforms but if they got enough extra money they would try a WiiU version (extra money they wouldn't get for other sorts of features). This wasn't a haphazard addition, it was planned. While I'd appreciate some more budget transparency from the team, unless you honestly don't think they know how to manage their money (both from the Kickstarter and from their publisher who they really should fucking name) I can't see any logical reason to think the WiiU version is a detriment to the other versions (when in all likelyhood it may end up being a benefit)

We will have to disagree. I never said a Wii:U port would detract or compromise from the XB1/PS4 editions like other posters, but from a budgetary standpoint, I think it makes far more sense using those funds in bettering the game by for example, hiring more staff. Logically, it makes more sense to invest in a PS4/XB1/PC versions than the Wii:U for much of the reasons you listed above like how you said bigger consumer base. Even if planned, the money spent on a Wii:U version can be better spent elsewhere than porting the game for a small niche failed console. The Wii:U is dismal right now and I cannot even imagine how many regular Wii:U users will be around in 2017. There are always additional features that can be added for this game, that will cost money. As an Iga fan, I want as much dollar investment for the game possible; not towards every platform possible.

One example is if you read Iga's interview, he says the game is 2.5D partly because of financial reasons to keep the scope of the project realistic. More resources could have allowed him a better game.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

I don't think you support this argument well.

I only see three possible scenarios (please do tell me if I'm missing something):

• They'll somehow try to shoehorn UE4 on Wii U. I hope I don't have to explain to everyone why that is a bad idea - you seem to agree.
• They'll create a direct downport of the game in a separate engine. This is a huge productions overhead: all their assets will need to work with multiple engines. Their code base either doubles or increases greatly in complexity. It will also limit them in what they can do -- for every UE4 feature they want to use they need to consider if there is a way to replicate it on the other platform.
• They'll create an entirely separate version of the game (not a port). This would be the least bad outcome, since it would at least free the real game from any port considerations, but it still means that they need to split their team across two games rather than working on a single one. I don't really see how that could achieve the "best possible result" -- it's simple math really.

Now tell me which of those 3 is not a net negative for me.

I did. I often do. Look above. What scenario did I fail to consider?

Unreal 4 is perfectly capable of running on Wii U. It already officially runs on weaker hardware. In fact, Unreal 4 was developed specifically with scalability in mind. Epic hasn't developed an official Wii U-specific branch because 1) there isn't much demand for it among developers 2) they aren't looking into developing on Wii U themselves and 3) Unreal 3 has been running on Wii U for years and for most purposes is completely acceptable. So no, it's not some terrible idea to port UE4 to Wii U, and in fact bonus reason 4) Epic themselves has said there's no reason why developers couldn't do so if they so desired.

As for using another engine, again UE3 already exists as a fallback, and while it's not an exact match, with a small bit of time and money any assets and work done in their UE4 versions could be down-converted for UE3 without overly significant work and added complexity. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Epic specifically built tools for UE4 to UE3 conversion given the broad popularity of Unreal Engine and the significant amount of support last gen consoles are still receiving.

Even in your final scenario you're assuming that somehow the additional funds coming into the project would somehow cause a secondary goal (a port, which by its very nature will require less assets on personnel than the overall project) to itself cause the overall project to lose a substantial amount of assets and personnel, which doesn't make much sense. Especially considering you're further assuming that additional funds would not go to additional staff hired for the port or even the hiring of an external studio.

You're saying you're going to pull money if a port is greenlit on the hypothetical basis that somehow its mere existence instantaneously destroys the project integrity, which is in turn based in the incorrect idea that both UE4 could not run on Wii U and UE3 could not possibly be used as an acceptable replacement with a small bit of time and money used as coaxing. Furthermore, again, this all relies on the ridiculous notion that a studio that deliberately delegated a platform to a stretch goal six times over their targeted goal would somehow allow said platform to diminish the technical integrity of the overall project, which is a massively illogical assumption.

I want to echo White Rabbit's reply.

In the FAQ, specifically about Nintendo platforms which could mean nothing but Wii U, they say that only X1, PS4, and PC were planned because they are not willing to compromise the vision and scope of the game for the sake of multi platform support. Clear as day. They assure you of this fact right on the Kickstarter.

For a stretch goal six times the original goal of the campaign, clearly they were only willing to humor a down port once they were able to do everything they want to do as per the intended product they set out to make. They want to make a nextgen game on Unreal 4. That's exactly the game they will make.

For all you know, the Wii U port will come out six months later. If it doesn't run on U4, it will run on U3, and there is zero reason to assume and there has been no indication that the main game would suffer in any capacity.

There is only evidence of the contrary where they explicitly state why the Wii U was not a base goal. They are not going to completely change their minds on this fact just because they can afford it. They're not going to say "well, we weren't willing to sacrifice the fidelity of the game for other consoles, but now we will."

Be logical. The Wii U port would be not have any affect on the game you backed. To assume it would is mindless fear mongering. They have already promised you that your concerns are baseless.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

3D stretch goal? You must mean stereoscopic 3D because otherwise I don't understand.

EDIT: nice stealth-edit, Hubble. Now I'll never know what you meant by 3D stretch goal.

 

[big_z]

considering theyre aiming for 2017 it should be Nintendo platform port and not wii u port. no point in boxing yourself in when new hardware will be out around the time your game launches.

 

[Crocodile]

We will have to disagree. I never said a Wii:U port would detract or compromise from the XB1/PS4 editions like other posters, but from a budgetary standpoint, I think it makes far more sense using those funds in bettering the game by for example, hiring more staff. Logically, it makes more sense to invest in a PS4/XB1/PC versions than the Wii:U for much of the reasons you listed above like how you said bigger consumer base. Even if planned, the money spent on a Wii:U version can be better spent elsewhere than porting the game for a small niche failed console. The Wii:U is dismal right now and I cannot even imagine how many regular Wii:U users will be around in 2017. There are always additional features that can be added for this game, that will cost money. As an Iga fan, I want as much dollar investment for the game possible; not towards every platform possible.

One example is if you read Iga's interview, he says the game is 2.5D partly because of financial reasons to keep the scope of the project realistic.

Can we have a 3D stretch goal? Please.

A) A WiiU port would require additional resources but the promise of a WiiU version would bring in more resources so it cancels out (or better). Which scenario is better for the project?

-No WiiU version offered. Kickstarter ends a $4 million. Total Budget is $9 million (KS + Publisher)

vs.

-WiiU version promised. Kickstarter ends at $4.5 million due to increase interest. Total Budget is $9.5 million. If WiiU port costs 350k, then total budget for features of main versions = $9.175 million.

$9.175 million > $9 million

If we assume that IGA and crew can manage their money and expectations of additional pledges properly, the extra additional funds a WiiU port would bring in potential backers should exceed the cost to do an actual WiiU port. Recall, Castlevania, especially the IGAvanias, have a long history on Nintendo consoles and gamers of all walks have shown they are THIRSTY for this game. That's why they set the stretch goal at $3 million and not like 2.75 million or as part of the original funding goal of 500k.

B) 2.5D just means using 3D graphics on a 2D plane. This is as opposed to using sprites or hand drawn animation which would likely result in an art/graphic design most people would actually prefer but be more time consuming and likely more expensive (mostly as a function of increased time). Full 3D means something like Castlevania 64 or the recent Mercury Steam games. Fuck that shit!

 

[Bots are better than you]

We will have to disagree. I never said a Wii:U port would detract or compromise from the XB1/PS4 editions like other posters, but from a budgetary standpoint, I think it makes far more sense using those funds in bettering the game by for example, hiring more staff. Logically, it makes more sense to invest in a PS4/XB1/PC versions than the Wii:U for much of the reasons you listed above like how you said bigger consumer base. Even if planned, the money spent on a Wii:U version can be better spent elsewhere than porting the game for a small niche failed console. The Wii:U is dismal right now and I cannot even imagine how many regular Wii:U users will be around in 2017. There are always additional features that can be added for this game, that will cost money. As an Iga fan, I want as much dollar investment for the game possible; not towards every platform possible.

That last sentence, sorry to interrupt ... but, as an fan of IGAvanias too, how does this apply to any IGAvania?
Most of his games were 2D, sans Castlevania: Judgement and the PS2 ones (and i think we all agree on keeping those abominations buried!), and even reused many assets from SotN, which is, correct me if wrong, the last IGAvania being state of the art. And no, i don't consider Dracula X PSP as good looking.

The game has backing from a publisher, who is responsible for a huge majority of the budget to develop the game at all. So IGA should have an outline defined, regarding the games production and development. Without the pub, the game might have been able to reach the needed budget with the kickstarter campaign only, sure. But as of now, IGA decided to take a pub on board.

That pub doesn't really care about the games quality, as long as it is not the worst game every created, in the end, they want sales.
So, strechting the game to more platforms, by using a dev studio to handle ports or whatever, will result in more sales, i'm not talking about how much, just more.

If the pub is happy with the sales on all platforms, IGA might have an easier time to get a possible sequel greenlighted, and the pub might dish out a bigger budget, too.

In general, the outrage is rather funny ... it's like we are talking about a game with a scope like the Witcher 3, big AAA.
Given the Producer IGA, the developer IntiCreates (you have seen M.N.9 or Gunvolt, have you?) and at last the type of game they want to make, i'd say that they will be more than enough able to put out a great game on *every* platform. ^^

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

You seem very certain that NX is simply a home console successor.

No, I'm not certain that it is "simply" that, but it is factual that it is at least that much.

"As proof that Nintendo maintains strong enthusiasm for the dedicated game system business, let me confirm that Nintendo is currently developing a dedicated game platform with a brand-new concept under the development codename 'NX'. It is too early to elaborate on the details of this project, but we hope to share more information with you next year."

^from Nintendo's mobile/NX announcement

So again, like I said in the blurb you quoted, the only reason we even know of the NX is to quell fears over Nintendo's mobile announcement.

 

[Theonik]

Try as I may I didnt understand that part. Impropriety? You lost me there.

impropriety
/ˌɪmprəˈprʌɪəti/
noun
noun: impropriety; plural noun: improprieties

failure to observe standards of honesty or modesty; improper behaviour or character.

Or 'shady shit'. Think of the same thing on eBay for example. The person running the auction makes fake accounts or uses friends to bid on their auctions to raise the price.
Kickstarter allows the person running the campaign to do the same with inflating totals.
Consider a project that looks to not be hitting its goal but is funded over a certain percentage. If it doesn't hit the goal, the project loses all pledges. If it is, they get the money minus fees, so there is a window a scammer can use to get over the goal and still make the money back from the remaining pledges. KS gives a bit of lenience when the money gets charged that makes this kind of shady practice possible, in other cases they might use it to lure people into thinking the project is more successful than it is and pull out as needed.

That's been backed since yesterday. I think someone upgraded from the $7.5k tier because I def remember that was backed days ago but isn't anymore.

Not sure, there has been some fluidity in these higher tiers. I know there was a 10k earlier it the campaign but it was out for several days after that so either someone is moving between tiers, it's a troll, or a mistake. Or it could be all of these things on different occasions.

 

[kulapik]

Is it me or they changed the portrait example?

 

[xevis]

Oh, gee, look at that. the $2.5M "last" castle goal is reached and instead of finally adding a Nintendo goal we have more castle goals and the addition of a "key" requirement.

FFS Igarashi. Why won't you let me give you my money?

 

[Theonik]

Is it me or they changed the portrait example?

I think so. You can see the old example if you look at the Igadventure tier. It looked really out of place.

Oh, gee, look at that. the $2.5M "last" castle goal is reached and instead of finally adding a Nintendo goal we have more castle goals and the addition of a "key" requirement.

FFS Igarashi. Why won't you let me give you my money?

The new castle goals don't affect the basement goals. The first basement goal is +250k like the previous ones were. they just added 6 more in between which are at much smaller intervals.

Also, WiiU is the goal at $3m if you look at the very obvious visible WiiU logo on the stretch-goal board.

 

[CaviarMeths]

Oh, gee, look at that. the $2.5M "last" castle goal is reached and instead of finally adding a Nintendo goal we have more castle goals and the addition of a "key" requirement.

FFS Igarashi. Why won't you let me give you my money?

Such has been clear from the beginning.

The FAQs mention Nintendo platforms as a basement goal. The achievements board illustrate that a key is needed to unlock the basement. In an update, it's further clarified that funding continued after the final castle stretch goal will go towards basement goals and then be immediately unlocked once they key is obtained.

Besides, the campaign runners seem really eager to give away that key. It awarded backers +5 keys for being in a good mood, and then made new achievements to give a better chance of unlocking.

 

[Gbraga]

Are we safe it'll hit every goal? It's in the slow part of the campaign right now, and I'm not so confident we'll get the biggest castle goal.

I don't really mind it though, most of the really awesome goals were already met, and "biggest castle" just seems like a vague goal to drive people who don't care about WiiU to help getting the WiiU money they need.

 

[YianGaruga]

Are we safe it'll hit every goal? It's in the slow part of the campaign right now, and I'm not so confident we'll get the biggest castle goal.

I don't really mind it though, most of the really awesome goals were already met, and "biggest castle" just seems like a vague goal to drive people who don't care about WiiU to help getting the WiiU money they need.

Doesn't the campaing still make 100k a day? And every kickstarter sees a huge surge in contributions in the last 2-3 days. It will definitely be met.

 

[Theonik]

Are we safe it'll hit every goal? It's in the slow part of the campaign right now, and I'm not so confident we'll get the biggest castle goal.

I don't really mind it though, most of the really awesome goals were already met, and "biggest castle" just seems like a vague goal to drive people who don't care about WiiU to help getting the WiiU money they need.

My bet is it sits at $3.3m or so by the end. Maybe more.
Kicktraq projects $3.84-5.7m by the end of the campaign.
Their projection dropped a bit as we had an unexpected slump earlier this week.

 

[ShogunDarius]

Doesn't the campaing still make 100k a day? And every kickstarter sees a huge surge in contributions in the last 2-3 days. It will definitely be met.

past few days

$2,140,318 22:15 16/05
$2,256,061 22:15 17/05 up $115743
$2,340,554 22:15 18/05 up $84,493
$2,407,785 22:15 19/05 up $67,231
$2,465,161 22:15 20/05 up $57,376 Total $324,843

 

[YianGaruga]

past few days

$2,140,318 22:15 16/05
$2,256,061 22:15 17/05 up $115743
$2,340,554 22:15 18/05 up $84,493
$2,407,785 22:15 19/05 up $67,231
$2,465,161 22:15 20/05 up $57,376 Total $324,843

Ah I only saw your 100k update and thought it was staying that way. Still more than enough for now.

 

[Crocodile]

Are we safe it'll hit every goal? It's in the slow part of the campaign right now, and I'm not so confident we'll get the biggest castle goal.

I don't really mind it though, most of the really awesome goals were already met, and "biggest castle" just seems like a vague goal to drive people who don't care about WiiU to help getting the WiiU money they need.

Oh you sweet summer child

Yesterday was about 50k. If it stays that way for the rest of the campaign the final total would be about $3.6 million. It will certainly dip below 50k per day several times over the next few weeks but the last few days will be insane and more than make up for it. $3.5 million when all is said and done is my conservative estimate but I think 4 million is very possible.

 

[nynt9]

Again? So it has happened before!?

Would it be so difficult to change the way this works by having Kickstarter charge you the second the project gets funded and from that point on every new backer gets charged right away? This way you'd get rid of most of the trolls who pull shit like that.

But new information during a campaign might make you change your mind. It's a consumer protection that some idiots abuse. I don't think it's a big deal.


As for the down-port, I've seen people argue about how it would detract from the graphics and overall budget, but I have concerns about how it might affect the scope. New systems have vastly more RAM than the wiiu, and this could let them have bigger rooms, more enemies on screen, more areas, seamless loading etc. I would rather not have them compromise these so that they can fit the game on older systems.

And I say this as a wiiu owner and a $2k backer of this, so I'm not a concern troll who has no interest in the scenario.

 

[xevis]

Such has been clear from the beginning.

The FAQs mention Nintendo platforms as a basement goal.

The basement is a lie.

 

[Stone Ocean]

As for the down-port, I've seen people argue about how it would detract from the graphics and overall budget, but I have concerns about how it might affect the scope. New systems have vastly more RAM than the wiiu, and this could let them have bigger rooms, more enemies on screen, more areas, seamless loading etc. I would rather not have them compromise these so that they can fit the game on older systems.

And I say this as a wiiu owner and a $2k backer of this, so I'm not a concern troll who has no interest in the scenario.

I really hope the Wii U port is like a post release thing.

 

[El Pescado]

I can't wait until the Wii U goal is released and they announce that they're downgrading all the other versions of the game to compensate.

C'mon guys, get real here. A Wi U version isn't going to change anything in the PS4/XBO/PC version.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I find it incredibly stupid whining about the Wii U port with words such as "I hope it doesn't impact development for the other versions".
It most definitely won't.

The whole reason why the Wii U version is set at that high amount (which is SIX TIMES the initial goal, btw) is so that they actually can make all versions equally good. IGA told us on the stream last week that they didn't include Wii U as a console because it would be more costly to port the game to Wii U due to various problems they'd have (which is obvious as the Wii U is a very different console to create games on than the PS4 or Xbone). This stretch goal though will give them the money to be able to do just that. They'd be financially settled to be able to port the game to Wii U without that version affecting any of the other ones.

It would be totally unreasonable if they suddenly announced that the non-Wii U versions be downgraded because of the Wii U version.
As it is now the most likely solution would be that the Wii U version would release at a later date than the PS4/PC/Xbone versions anyway. So settle down, relax and simply enjoy the fact that EVERYONE can have their piece of cake and eat it too.