Support NeoGAF

[DiscoJer]

While it's nice they are trying to do something to reward backers, because the game is DRM free, it's counterproductive.

All they are going to do is convince people who didn't back the game to acquire a backer version of the game to play for free, instead of buying one for themselves.

I mean, if the choice is the better version for free, or a lesser version for money, people will probably choose the former. I'm sure some will buy the latter then get a copy of the backer version (or just the files needed), but if you give people a reason to not buy the game and pirate, they will.

 

[Mistwalker]

Talk about overreacting. Rewarding people who actually funded the game versus most other extras which are just a way to squeeze money out of the consumer, often with stuff already on the disc, is a fine thing to do. Especially if its just one mission and they can always add it in later for everyone. Hell, even if it was exclusive, some dude would have leaked the data and a torrent for the extra mission would have gone up somewhere.

Seems like more like yelling at clouds than a principled stand to me.

This seems pretty disingenuous to me (you're seriously saying that because it will be torrented/pirated later anyway, it's not worth taking a stand over now? really??).

Not a principled stand? No, the sky is not going to fall and the game is going to be made, and it will hopefully have a ton of content either way. Fair enough.

But this is ground zero. It's uncharted territory for larger-scale Kickstarter projects, development teams are trying to manage backer expectations vs. content and rewards (guessing along the way) to drive up support.

And you know what? I want their model to be different than the existing one. You know, the one with ten types of exclusive content based on whether you preordered/bought it at Gamestop/Steam/Origin. You can call one "ways to squeeze money out of the consumer" vs. rewarding people who funded the game, and yes, there is a difference. The thing is, some gamers are tired of exclusive content period, and this is exactly the situation to make that as clear as possible.

I for one don't ever want to see game content offered at pledge level $XYZ.

Bringing in more manpower to build some specialized missions is a great idea...but once I heard the word exclusive, I went cold on it. Don't need or want it that way.

The developers are supposedly listening to the types of content and rewards we, as backers and potential backers, might want. Stop telling people what YOU think is worth taking a stand on and realize that in a lot of ways, there has been little better opportunity to send them a message, especially if Shadowrun and Wasteland are going to be models for popular Kickstarter projects going forward.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

You can call one "ways to squeeze money out of the consumer" vs. rewarding people who funded the game, and yes, there is a difference. The thing is, some gamers are tired of exclusive content period, and this is exactly the situation to make that as clear as possible.

You know what?

I absolutely love how people are all "Kickstarter is amazing", and then when devs actually start doing what they want, it is called "evil".

Makes you think that maybe - just maybe - DLC isn't a product of the Publishers.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

You know what?

I absolutely love how people are all "Kickstarter is amazing", and then when devs actually start doing what they want, it is called "evil".

Makes you think that maybe - just maybe - DLC isn't a product of the Publishers.

'We have overthrown the kings... time to become kings.'

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

'We have overthrown the kings... time to become kings.'

I can see being upset. I can see voicing your concern and opinion.

But what I don't get is how you can be so altruistic, but once you do something that people don't like, all of that trust somehow goes out the window and they act like they never liked you in the first place.

How about some context?
Does anybody actually think about stuff based on that anymore?

 

[reptilescorpio]

Within the next day they will announce that it is for everyone and not just backers. It was a nice thought, trying to give a little reward to the people who are going to make all this possible in the first place, but certainly won't make the majority of people happy.

I can see being upset. I can see voicing your concern and opinion.

But what I don't get is how you can be so altruistic, but once you do something that people don't like, all of that trust somehow goes out the window and they act like they never liked you in the first place.

How about some context?
Does anybody actually think about stuff based on that anymore?

This is the internet. No one cares about context.

 

[Figboy79]

Are people actually complaining about the exclusive mission that they're giving to people that backed the project?

God forbid they actually give a little extra to the people that have, literally, made this game possible with their funding.

I personally don't see a problem with them doing this, even if I hadn't backed the project. There have been plenty of things that I have missed out on for either not being an early adopter, or not being part of a beta or something, but why get so pissy about it?

I'm still too excited at the prospect of another Shadowrun game to be annoyed at something as trivial as an extra mission for backers. It amazes me at the entitlement issues some people have these days (it's not even relegated to something like this forum; I see it all the damn time in this country).

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

It amazes me at the entitlement issues some people have these days

This is literally the opposite of entitlement.

Also:

Can I establish a new internet law stating that anyone complaining about entitlement as part of their argument is both A) wrong, and B) a giant douchebag?

Because it appears to hold true 100% of the time.

"Entitlement" is pretty much only used to belittle requests that are (at least on some level) reasonable -- generally because the person doing the criticizing is unable or unwilling to construct a more specific argument. When someone really is demanding something wildly unreasonable there are much stronger and more appropriate words than "entitlement" to throw at them. Don't play that game, kids.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

I can see being upset. I can see voicing your concern and opinion.

But what I don't get is how you can be so altruistic, but once you do something that people don't like, all of that trust somehow goes out the window and they act like they never liked you in the first place.

How about some context?
Does anybody actually think about stuff based on that anymore?

It's not that big a deal, my pledge was there on day one and it hasn't come close to being taken away, I just would like this stuff to happen.

And people like me bringing up our displeasure hopefully will give up coming projects (like Obsidian's) a feeling of the limits for funding incentives.

 

[Pachterballs]

LTTP back to this thread; even though I've backed this. Been following WL2 more. But holy shit at the update videos. I'm upping my support to the $125 tier. The crew really made me feel like they wanted to make this a great game

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

$2,592,103!

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

$2,592,103!

$1,056,716

 

[Zeliard]

lol

 

[Pachterballs]

this isn't the wastleland2 thread HP_Wuvcraft.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

We still love you HP_Wuvcraft.

 

[Aselith]

Guess he should add some thread links to the spreadsheet!

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

WHY DO I POST THIS LATE AT NIGHT?

 

[MrCunningham]

Developers want to give a little something extra to the backers as a big "thank you"... people complain?

personally, I think this extra quest sounds pretty awesome. Including the two main characters from the SNES game and Genesis game to tie in the story sounds great to me. Can't complain about that.

 

[Aselith]

Posting this for Emeraude over on the Shadowrun Returns comments section by request (I separated it out a little bit so as not to be so text-wally):

In introduction, because it bears saying: I really appreciate the will behind the thank you gesture of that bonus mission.I do think it speaks highly of the Harebrained Schemes people. I also deeply respect their desire to focus on their vision without tainting it with needless feature-creep - I find it reassuring really, a clear sign that they know what it is exactly they want to achieve. That being said, I''m not really comfortable with the idea of exclusive content for backers (up to the "SPECIAL ABILITY", really).

From a design perspective, it is my belief that this whole movement of fragmentation and segmentation of content (including, but not limited to DLCs) is hurting the culture and craft of game making. Instead of being perceived as some holonic gestalt from which nothing could be removed without damaging the global experience, games are becoming an amalgamation of somewhat related bits and pieces which can each be separated and sold on its own – ultimately diminishing the quality of products. A minor point in the current situation, maybe, but worth stating.

More importantly perhaps, at least to me, I can still remember a time not so removed when young student me would have been too poor to even contemplate shelving 15$ to back up that project (laugh all you like, but when you're below a certain level, every penny counts). The idea of depriving anyone in the same situation today of that mission (which, however much one argues the mission is a thank you bonus, is how I'm going to feel about it) down the line, when they can *finally* afford the game doesn't sit well with me.

I guess the whole problem for many of us can be summed up thus: Some see this whole Kickstarter thing as nothing more than another form of pre-order, and the mission as just another kind of pre-order bonus (and I do not find anything wrong with that). But others see it as a gesture of goodwill allowing the making of something they long have dreamed of seeing done. A pre-order bonus that flatters self interest in exchange for philanthropy - which is how the exclusive mission is being perceived - just produces a weird cognitive dissonance.

What do you guys think?

 

[Dice]

It would have been a lot faster just to type "Some people take videogames so seriously that they aren't even fun anymore."

 

[Aselith]

You seem pretty serious about people not getting it if I may say so.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

It would have been a lot faster just to type "Some people take videogames so seriously that they aren't even fun anymore."

why do you think NMA, and the Codex have members?



edit: I like having things in games others cant get after the fact, its the only reason why I buy Blizzard Collectors Editions, and spent 50 for Natural Selection 2 black armor. Just make it free for backs and charge 10 bucks after launch for the johnny come latelys.

 

[Dice]

You seem pretty serious about people not getting it if I may say so.

This was more my experience.

Kind dev gesture: "Hey, we want to do something nice for you for making all this possible for ourselves and for everyone."
Me:

Naysayers: "ZOMG THIS IS THE SHIT THAT WILL DESTROY GAMING YOU CONTENT NAZIS! HOW COULD YOU KEEP THIS AWAY FROM THE OTHERS?!"
Me:

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

Posting this for Emeraude over on the Shadowrun Returns comments section by request (I separated it out a little bit so as not to be so text-wally):

*Text*

What do you guys think?

I agree, except for this part.

''From a design perspective, it is my belief that this whole movement of fragmentation and segmentation of content (including, but not limited to DLCs)...''


If they end up with too much money and thus decide to put some aside for DLC that would be FREE to all owners of the base game I think that would be a good use of the possibilities that the old SR never had.

Just because publishers are misusing the idea of DLC doesn't mean others should come along and use it correctly.

 

[Aselith]

I agree, except for this part.

''From a design perspective, it is my belief that this whole movement of fragmentation and segmentation of content (including, but not limited to DLCs)...''


If they end up with too much money and thus decide to put some aside for DLC that would be FREE to all owners of the base game I think that would be a good use of the possibilities that the old SR never had.

Just because publishers are misusing the idea of DLC doesn't mean others should come along and use it correctly.

I can't tell you Emeraude's mind on this but I think he/she more meant things that wall certain consumers away from content through a paywall or exclusivity or whatever and that anything released for free would be integrated into the base game with it being freely available for every owner that it actually doesn't fragment or segment the user base as he said.

I think the most egregious example of this is in online shooters where they are selling multiplayer packs with levels but unless it's a REALLY big shooter, there's no point in even buying it because there's not enough people with those map packs to get into games with those levels. I've had quite a few games like this where I buy the levels because they look really good and then no one is playing them so I'm screwed. Games that release new content for free like your L4D's and Witcher's don't have this becoming a problem. Everybody's got the maps so you just play whatever.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

This whole idea that all DLC is created equal is silly.

 

[Dice]

This whole idea that all DLC is created equal is silly.

But it is, don't you see? You can do whatever you want with everything else, but never touch the divine game content. Communities can add whatever they want, but everything that comes from thine heavenly dev studios must be freely distributed among all. And they shall not offer various options, lest the fanboys be divided, but only a canon base game and then perhaps a new revelation of its artistic glory through a full campaign expansion pack. These were the ways known to our forefathers, the steadfast ways of the gaming industry which are now being forgotten. We must protect them.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Posting this for Emeraude over on the Shadowrun Returns comments section by request (I separated it out a little bit so as not to be so text-wally):



What do you guys think?

I find the conclusion is absurd in the case of Shadowrun, a property and tabletop game already fragmented by a range of separate and distinct campaigns and material as well as discrete editions of rulebooks. If SRR was a competitive shooter, I'd see it. Can't wait 'til someone complains about a CCG computer game version and its huge line of various decks all sold separately, fragmenting the base. It's part of the source. But whatever. Think you're doing something when you're not. I think you guys are a bit misguided about all of this.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

I find the conclusion is absurd in the case of Shadowrun, a property and tabletop game already fragmented by a range of separate and distinct campaigns and material as well as discrete editions of rulebooks. If SRR was a competitive shooter, I'd see it. Can't wait 'til someone complains about a CCG computer game version and its huge line of various decks all sold separately, fragmenting the base. It's part of the source. But whatever. Think you're doing something when you're not. I think you guys are a bit misguided about all of this.

Then games based on films should be 90 minutes long.
Bringing over a shitty part of it origin would be pointless, and doesn't make sense at all in this context since it falls in line with practices the big game publishers use to drive up pre-orders.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Bringing over a shitty part of it origin would be pointless

Do you know how long Song of Ice and Fire would be if not broken up into multiple books?

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

Do you know how long Song of Ice and Fire would be if not broken up into multiple books?

?

My point was when something goes from one medium to another that doesn't excuse shitty practices.

I don't see a long from story as being any sort of problem in any medium.

 

[Dice]

I find the conclusion is absurd in the case of Shadowrun, a property and tabletop game already fragmented by a range of separate and distinct campaigns and material as well as discrete editions of rulebooks.

Yes. This is the point I was also trying to make in post 841. The "setting a precedent for future kickstarters" is an unfounded assumption a separate issue, but in just the context we are working with here and now, looking at what Shadowrun is and will continue to be in this game format, it doesn't make any sense to have a problem with it.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

?

My point was when something goes from one medium to another that doesn't excuse shitty practices.

I don't see a long from story as being any sort of problem in any medium.

And my point was that it's not a shitty practice to have various books for one franchise.

I was not trying to get in the way of your argument, I was just pointing out that multiple books in a franchise is not a shitty practice. I can only assume that you have played some form of D&D in your life and come across the many different rulebooks in your day. It's not uncommon to have a book for every nation of your universe.

 

[Zeliard]

While I definitely disagree with those railing against it, I'd honestly be quite surprised at this point if Harebrained continued forward with this idea. As I posted earlier, I feel this debate may ultimately be moot as the backlash - regardless of how misguided it is - seems large enough that they're probably at least heavily reconsidering it.

The only other option I see is Harebrained clarifying what the mission will entail, and that it would be a fairly small and inconsequential one relative to the rest of the game - essentially something more similar to an extra weapon or ability or something of that nature. Could be it's something like a super easter egg of sorts for fans of the original SNES/Genesis games, and not as large in scope as some may be imagining. That may be enough to calm some people down, though it remains to be seen.

Likening it to publisher-driven pre-orders as some are doing is just weird, though, and feels pretty knee-jerky. Both the intention and the ultimate effect are very different. Pre-order bonuses are meant to aid retail chains and occasionally DD services in standing out in the marketplace, and to drive up initial sales. They aren't a "reward" to anyone as you are still losing out on content regardless of pre-ordering, since it tends to be spread out between various stores to help them differentiate themselves.

This, on the other hand, is a reward to backers in an attempt to incentivize greater funding that will simply ensure the game is bigger and better for everybody in the end. It has nothing to do with any outside influences shoving their noses into it.

But anyway, like I said, it's probably not gonna happen regardless.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

And my point was that it's not a shitty practice to have various books for one franchise.

I was not trying to get in the way of your argument, I was just pointing out that multiple books in a franchise is not a shitty practice. I can only assume that you have played some form of D&D in your life and come across the many different rulebooks in your day. It's not uncommon to have a book for every nation of your universe.

I really haven't, closest I came was having to go to detention and sit at the back of a classroom while a Star Trek board game was being played.

Due to my lack of knowledge on this stuff I can see this argument taking the thread down a cul de sac and so concede.

 

[mclem]

Describing it as a "pre-order bonus" in the fashion we've seen this gen is off the mark. It isn't demarcated, withheld content targeted at helping various retail chains; it's a reward to people who are causing the game to exist at all in the final state it will come out as.

Aren't pre-order bonusses - as we know them - ultimately things that reward the *publisher*?

In which case, isn't the parallel actually spot-on?

 

[MrCunningham]

After lurking around these kickstarter threads for so long, I have come to the conclusion that there are a few key phrases that developers should use caution with when Kickstarting a video game...

• Social networking: People went crazy the moment that Brian Fargo mentioned this in Wasteland 2. Unless your game is based around social networking, the average gamer will treat this word like it is the plague. Carefully word out what social networking features you are adding. Make yourself clear.
• Bonus in-game content exclusive to backers: Nobody likes to be reminded of the power that publishers wield in this day in age. Even though I don't see this as being such a big deal, some may look at this as being unfair to the people who are willing to pay pull retail price for this game.
• iOS exclusive: This one doesn't seem to work well if the designers are asking more than 150k. See: Republique. Great looking original game, but marred by the platform it's on.

This is going a bit off topic, sorry....

But anyway, like I said, it's probably not gonna happen regardless.

Well, nothing is written in stone yet. If this topic gets enough negative responses, they may rethink this and offer the additional quest for everyone. Who knows. But I would imagine that this is just a bonus quest that they created in the SDK that they will be giving out to everyone with the full retail game, anyway.

 

[Kayhan]

I am going to back this for sure but I am wavering between a $15 pledge or the $60 pledge which will give me the ingame DocWagon to bail my ass out.

But its hard to say how valuable that will be. I like a challenge in my game so I don't want it to become to easy.

 

[Wildesy]

As someone who hasn't back this project (yet), the idea of backer exclusive content is a terrific one in my mind. Definitely increases my urge to back the project. It's a great way to reward those people who have gone out on a limb in support of the project. They've put their faith in the company, they deserve to be rewarded in as many ways as possible.

When I say exclusive though, I do think it should still become available to others down the track for a fee. Maybe not at the release date, but at some point in time.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Then games based on films should be 90 minutes long.
Bringing over a shitty part of it origin would be pointless, and doesn't make sense at all in this context since it falls in line with practices the big game publishers use to drive up pre-orders.

No, that's not even the same thing. What does the length of a movie have to do with a related game set in the same universe? That's beyond ridiculous. And the flexibility and evolution of the gameworld and its rules is hardly fucking shitty. In fact, it's one of Shadowrun's strengths, like D&D. SRR is going to bring CRPG players something closer to the tabletop experience, with its focus on discrete and connected modules that come from designs in the community as well as from those who know the world and its rules best.

If I were Harebrained, I'd ignore the bellyaching of people who cannot understand the differences involved between this game, which needs pledges to happen, and one that does everything you guys are railing on all for the profits for a publisher who'll happily screw anyone to protect themselves and their shareholders. Way to pick the right battle, guys. We already know that the game is supposed to receive what is essentially a full workup with $1.5M in place, so it's not like we don't know where this money is being aimed at, and that is that the full game will be better and deeper for everyone who buys the game...all thanks to backers and no one else for raising that incredible sum of money.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

I am going to back this for sure but I am wavering between a $15 pledge or the $60 pledge which will give me the ingame DocWagon to bail my ass out.

But its hard to say how valuable that will be. I like a challenge in my game so I don't want it to become to easy.

If you don't have the DocWagon perk your paid chummers can die permanently if killed in combat. It wouldn't surprise me if you can contract DocWagon in-game and that tier ability just gives it to you for free.

 

[Lancehead]

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but speaking of 'backers-only' content, Brian Fargo put up a poll asking if the $30 tier should include additional exclusive Ranger portraits for Wasteland 2.

 

[Pinko Marx]

In for $30.

 

[spindoctor]

I can't wait until EA latches on to this idea. "Hey guys, pay us so-and-so amount of money 2 years before we release a game and you will get exclusive DLC content that no one else ever will". I'm sure all the people who are defending this idea will be just as supportive of that EA initiative too right?

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

I can't wait until EA latches on to this idea. "Hey guys, pay us so-and-so amount of money 2 years before we release a game and you will get exclusive DLC content that no one else ever will". I'm sure all the people who are defending this idea will be just as supportive of that EA initiative too right?

EA the publisher with tons of money versus HBS with not that much money? Oh yeah, equivalents for sure.

 

[~Kinggi~]

I can't wait until EA latches on to this idea. "Hey guys, pay us so-and-so amount of money 2 years before we release a game and you will get exclusive DLC content that no one else ever will". I'm sure all the people who are defending this idea will be just as supportive of that EA initiative too right?

ugh, i can see it now. Kill it with fire.

 

[Pinko Marx]

I can't wait until EA latches on to this idea. "Hey guys, pay us so-and-so amount of money 2 years before we release a game and you will get exclusive DLC content that no one else ever will". I'm sure all the people who are defending this idea will be just as supportive of that EA initiative too right?

Except the fact that EA has the money to make these things happen without fanfunding.
These games, and the potential DLC to go with them would NEVER even be a thing without the backers.

 

[spindoctor]

EA the publisher with tons of money versus HBS with not that much money? Oh yeah, equivalents for sure.

This project is fully funded and is over 2X it's initial asking budget. The scale is not the same but in both cases, there is no need to lock out content from day 1 buyers.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

I can't wait until EA latches on to this idea. "Hey guys, pay us so-and-so amount of money 2 years before we release a game and you will get exclusive DLC content that no one else ever will". I'm sure all the people who are defending this idea will be just as supportive of that EA initiative too right?

Yea, hopefully it was something stupid he said without thinking about it and will retract it...

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Except the fact that EA has the money to make these things happen without fanfunding.
These games, and the potential DLC to go with them would NEVER even be a thing without the backers.

Wasn't this in production before the kickstarter? they acquired the license to do something with it.