• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Wasteland 3 announced (co-op, base, Tides writers, PC/XB1/PS4, $2.75M Fig funding)

B

bumclot

Member
Dalibor68 said:
Holy moly that looks amazing. I take it they have a new engine? It's still full 3D though, right?

The last screenshot reminds me of Stasis (and that developer guys' beautiful art in general).

*edit* Oh thats why lol:

Additionally, we’ve been working closely with Christopher and Nic Bischoff of Brotherhood Games, the team behind the widely celebrated STASIS and Cayne isometric adventure games. In fact, they’re responsible for the beautiful prototype screenshots and video you’ve seen so far!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Prototype? Damn, well I hope the final product looks very similar. Loved the look of Stasis and the biggest issue I had with W2 was the art.
 
T

Triggerhappytel

Member
texhnolyze said:
They are the developer and the publisher. There's no one funding their games besides from crowdfunding.

Do you think devs like Naughty Dog will be able to make games and publish them without investors' help?

In indie scenes, gamers are the investors. Devs who also publish their games are not the norm (even AAA ones). Most devs are relying on publishers.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm wondering whether the money from sales of Wastleland 2 is enough to fund development of Wasteland 3, specifically. Are sales just a bit shite because most of the audience 'buys' the game up front, thus they don't actually make a lot of money from selling the game once it's completed and released?! Just spitballing really.
 
J

JustSomeone

Member
Imp the Dimp said:
People on RPG Codex consider Wasteland 2 superior to Pillars of Eternity which I would have not expected. I should honestly get around to playing the game at some point. I backed it on KS waaay back.
Click to expand...
They really hated pillars for some reason, so it doesn't neccessarily mean they think highly of WL2
 
C

CrichtonKicks

Member
Triggerhappytel said:
Well, I'm wondering whether the money from sales of Wastleland 2 is enough to fund development of Wasteland 3, specifically. Are sales just a bit shite because most of the audience 'buys' the game up front, thus they don't actually make a lot of money from selling the game once it's completed and released?! Just spitballing really.
Click to expand...

Wasteland 2 had approximately 100k backers but has now sold 6x that on Steam. I don't know if I'm missing something there but it sure seems like they got quite a bit of uptake after release.

What bothers me about the returning to KS is that I feel like the whole KS presentation on that initial wave of games (WS2, Broken Age, PoE), was "Publishers say there is no market for these games! Prove them wrong!" OK, for better or for worse gamers have responded and, in quite a few cases, to the tune of over 500,000 in sales. So were the publishers right?

Then I see Frictional stating that they have already made enough in one year of sales of SOMA to fund the entire multi-year development of that title. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't been crowdfunding their games.

I just can't shake the feeling that inXile is using crowdfunding as their own private ATM at this point. I might feel better about it if they had waited until after Torment's release before launching WS3.

And I'll admit to being a potential hypocrite because I will back PoE 2 if Obsidian does a KS/Fig for it.
 
S

Sou Da

Member
JustSomeone said:
They really hated pillars for some reason, so it doesn't neccessarily mean they think highly of WL2
Click to expand...

Hating RtWP is in now, give it a couple of years and it'll considered the most "popamole of popamole" features.

Also those grognards apparently hate balance
 
Lister

Lister

Banned
CrichtonKicks said:
Wasteland 2 had approximately 100k backers but has now sold 6x that on Steam. I don't know if I'm missing something there but it sure seems like they got quite a bit of uptake after release.

What bothers me about the returning to KS is that I feel like the whole KS presentation on that initial wave of games (WS2, Broken Age, PoE), was "Publishers say there is no market for these games! Prove them wrong!" OK, for better or for worse gamers have responded and, in quite a few cases, to the tune of over 500,000 in sales. So were the publishers right?

Then I see Frictional stating that they have already made enough in one year of sales of SOMA to fund the entire multi-year development of that title. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't been crowdfunding their games.

I just can't shake the feeling that inXile is using crowdfunding as their own private ATM at this point. I might feel better about it if they had waited until after Torment's release before launching WS3.

And I'll admit to being a potential hypocrite because I will back PoE 2 if Obsidian does a KS/Fig for it.
Click to expand...

You are being a bit generalist here.

A game like SOMA, and one would presume new games along that vein are in no way shape or form equal in terms of devleopment budget, to something like a huge CRPG.

CRPGs are expensive to make. You need a lto of talented writers, you need a lof of talented artists, you need a lot of talented level and encounter designers, you need a lot fo talented people coming up with game mechanics/systems and tweaking them along the way.

A good, meaty CRPG is an EXPENSIVE, DIFFICULT game to make. Which is why I am very vexed when fans of the genre are always bargain hunting for these types of games.

The devs making these games could easily be making shallower, linear, actiony experiences with cutscenes left and right and shaders up the wazoo, and be making much more money. SUPPORT the games you love!

Pillars was not made on the budget of kickstarter. That's just not possible. Money came in from other places too, and even so, a lot of planned features were cut or reduced in scope due to budget and time constraints - changes that can be felt in the game as flaws in an otherwise excellent CRPG.

As a business you also need to be thinking about the future. Not only should you be asking, are these CRPG's sustainable, but is there growth potential? OTherwise, one miss-step and you're out of business and your employees are out of a job.
 
J

jimboton

Member
I don't get why some people act so concerned about Inxile going to crowdfunding once more for this. Like going through Kickstarter/Fig was some stigma a dev house shouldn't even consider unless in dire need. Like it's a charity resource that's being taken away from the needy. It's nothing of the sort. If a company like Inxile or Larian or any other can make the crowdfunding model work for everyone involved once, twice, or a lot of times then by all means they should.
 
C

CrichtonKicks

Member
Lister said:
You are being a bit generalist here.

A game like SOMA, and one would presume new games along that vein are in no way shape or form equal in terms of devleopment budget, to something like a huge CRPG.

CRPGs are expensive to make. You need a lto of talented writers, you need a lof of talented artists, you need a lot of talented level and encounter designers, you need a lot fo talented people coming up with game mechanics/systems and tweaking them along the way.
Click to expand...

Unless you have concrete numbers for both SOMA and WS2's dev costs I don't think either one of us could say concretely. Wasteland 2 didn't exactly reek of high production values (which is fine, no one expected it to).

But, whatever. I'm just disappointed that evidently even a half million copies sold isn't enough to fund the sequel. And I do think it's crazy that inXile would then have 3 crowd-funded projects in progress versus one released game. They really should wait 6 months for Torment's release before launching this. Especially if word of mouth is good. But maybe they can't afford to pay the team in that time without another cash infusion sooner.

jimboton said:
I don't get why some people act so concerned about Inxile going to crowdfunding once more for this. Like going through Kickstarter/Fig was some stigma a dev house shouldn't even consider unless in dire need. Like it's a charity resource that's being taken away from the needy. It's nothing of the sort. If a company like Inxile or Larian or any other can make the crowdfunding model work for everyone involved once, twice, or a lot of times then by all means they should.
Click to expand...

Because at some point it starts to feel just as predatory as Season Passes, Deluxe Digital Collector's Editions, etc designed to get more money from consumers upfront than the base game will cost.

I get it when you are starting out- "hey we want to make this game but we don't have the money to do so". Crowdfunding pays a good chunk of the development cost in advance. But, ideally, when the game comes out the studio makes it all back and then some so now they have enough money to turn that around and pay for the next project. That's the point of the SOMA example. It took Frictional 5 years to make SOMA and now, a year later, they have totally covered the dev costs for that entire time a which lets them continue forward with existing projects. And they will continue to get income as back catalog sales continue. For inXile to say that that even with 550k sales of WS2 (plus whatever the console versions did) they can't make another Wasteland game without an additional $3 million dollar injection just makes me wonder if the franchise is sustainable.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
CrichtonKicks said:
Unless you have concrete numbers for both SOMA and WS2's dev costs I don't think either one of us could say concretely. Wasteland 2 didn't exactly reek of high production values (which is fine, no one expected it to).

But, whatever. I'm just disappointed that evidently even a half million copies sold isn't enough to fund the sequel. And I do think it's crazy that inXile would then have 3 crowd-funded projects in progress versus one released game. They really should wait 6 months for Torment's release before launching this. Especially if word of mouth is good. But maybe they can't afford to pay the team in that time without another cash infusion sooner.



Because at some point it starts to feel just as predatory as Season Passes, Deluxe Digital Collector's Editions, etc designed to get more money from consumers upfront than the base game will cost.

I get it when you are starting out- "hey we want to make this game but we don't have the money to do so". Crowdfunding pays a good chunk of the development cost in advance. But, ideally, when the game comes out the studio makes it all back and then some so now they have enough money to turn that around and pay for the next project. That's the point of the SOMA example. It took Frictional 5 years to make SOMA and now, a year later, they have totally covered the dev costs for that entire time a which lets them continue forward with existing projects. And they will continue to get income as back catalog sales continue. For inXile to say that that even with 550k sales of WS2 (plus whatever the console versions did) they can't make another Wasteland game without an additional $3 million dollar injection just makes me wonder if the franchise is sustainable.
Click to expand...

It does depend on the reward structure and success of the Crowdfunding, as well as how much of the target market participates in that initial round. For example having a super successful crowdfund with stretch goals that use most of the funds, may mean there's not a huge audience left over (and thus no real ongoing profit). That's not inherently a bad model, as long as you can keep the crowd satisfied that they'll get what they pay for with each release. It's effectively "pre-selling" the product to the audience in order to fund it.

(This of course doesn't apply to investment things on Fig. Investors need returns and I doubt that you'd be able to satisfy both investors and pledges under this model. Pledges aren't going to want to see a 30% stake going to investors and investors aren't going to want to lose money.)
 
Lister

Lister

Banned
CrichtonKicks said:
Unless you have concrete numbers for both SOMA and WS2's dev costs I don't think either one of us could say concretely. Wasteland 2 didn't exactly reek of high production values (which is fine, no one expected it to).

But, whatever. I'm just disappointed that evidently even a half million copies sold isn't enough to fund the sequel. And I do think it's crazy that inXile would then have 3 crowd-funded projects in progress versus one released game. They really should wait 6 months for Torment's release before launching this. Especially if word of mouth is good. But maybe they can't afford to pay the team in that time without another cash infusion sooner.



Because at some point it starts to feel just as predatory as Season Passes, Deluxe Digital Collector's Editions, etc designed to get more money from consumers upfront than the base game will cost.

I get it when you are starting out- "hey we want to make this game but we don't have the money to do so". Crowdfunding pays a good chunk of the development cost in advance. But, ideally, when the game comes out the studio makes it all back and then some so now they have enough money to turn that around and pay for the next project. That's the point of the SOMA example. It took Frictional 5 years to make SOMA and now, a year later, they have totally covered the dev costs for that entire time a which lets them continue forward with existing projects. And they will continue to get income as back catalog sales continue. For inXile to say that that even with 550k sales of WS2 (plus whatever the console versions did) they can't make another Wasteland game without an additional $3 million dollar injection just makes me wonder if the franchise is sustainable.
Click to expand...

I think we wouldn't need concrete numbers and it woudl be obvious why something like Pillars would take a lot mroe money to make than SOMA.

In terms of wasteland, sure maybe the comparison is more even. I guess you're right, we'd need to know more.

As to your last paraph I think it's important to keep somethings in mind when determining if something like Wasteland is sustaineable or not: Wasteland 2 had zero advertising. It was a sequel to a niche game. It did not feature great graphics (which can do wonders for selling a game - just looka t the reactions to the screenshots fo Wasteland 3 right here in this very thread).

I think a game like that is sustainable, but with crowd funding as a resource.

Can a bigger game, with betetr graphics, and possibly some marketing be sustainable WITHOUT crowdfunding? That's going to depend, and it's likely we'll see when Wasteland 3 comes out.
 
E

exmachina64

Banned
CrichtonKicks said:
Wasteland 2 had approximately 100k backers but has now sold 6x that on Steam. I don't know if I'm missing something there but it sure seems like they got quite a bit of uptake after release.

What bothers me about the returning to KS is that I feel like the whole KS presentation on that initial wave of games (WS2, Broken Age, PoE), was "Publishers say there is no market for these games! Prove them wrong!" OK, for better or for worse gamers have responded and, in quite a few cases, to the tune of over 500,000 in sales. So were the publishers right?

Then I see Frictional stating that they have already made enough in one year of sales of SOMA to fund the entire multi-year development of that title. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't been crowdfunding their games.

I just can't shake the feeling that inXile is using crowdfunding as their own private ATM at this point. I might feel better about it if they had waited until after Torment's release before launching WS3.

And I'll admit to being a potential hypocrite because I will back PoE 2 if Obsidian does a KS/Fig for it.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, money from the sales of Wasteland 2 will help fund Wasteland 3; however, their ideal budget is closer to 10 million dollars rather than 2.75. InXile's goal is probably to fund W3 with money from Fig, external financing, and their own money.

What many don't understand is that the point of Fig is really to provide accredited investors access to AA budget game developers. Attracting crowdfunding from traditional KS backers is a secondary to this, but for the purposes of PR, they present it as being a better alternative for developers and fans.

In an interview from August 2015, Tim Schafer said:

"I wanted to do more with crowdfunding, and have it grow not just to be a novelty or something for very, very tiny games but instead something that’s a legitimate way to fund larger-size games. 'Triple-I' you might call them."

Schafer says that equity was something he wanted to offer even to his earliest backers on Kickstarter, but laws and that company's business model prevented him. Fig intends to solve that problem, and Schafer is excited about its prospects.
Click to expand...

I might add Fig's CEO and cofounder is former Double Fine COO Justin Bailey, so this is clearly an idea that people in that community have been kicking around for some time.

On the other hand, Frictional's been more transparent about their finances and might not be considering crowdfunding in the near term.
 
AHA-Lambda

AHA-Lambda

Member
Anyone else get an email from inXile (if you're a backer of any of their other projects), offering a "preview" look at the campaign?

I click the link and it shows nothing, just a page with a countdown. What's the point in that??
 
A

Arulan

Member
AHA-Lambda said:
Anyone else get an email from inXile (if you're a backer of any of their other projects), offering a "preview" look at the campaign?

I click the link and it shows nothing, just a page with a countdown. What's the point in that??
Click to expand...

If you sign in you can see it.
 
M

More_Badass

Member
texhnolyze said:
They are the developer and the publisher. There's no one funding their games besides from crowdfunding.

Do you think devs like Naughty Dog will be able to make games and publish them without investors' help?

In indie scenes, gamers are the investors. Devs who also publish their games are not the norm (even AAA ones). Most devs are relying on publishers.
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem accurate. Far more indie devs publish their own games compared to getting picked up by publishers or crowdfunded.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
CrichtonKicks said:
I just can't shake the feeling that inXile is using crowdfunding as their own private ATM at this point.
Click to expand...

I don't get this. The implication being that it's just a well of free money or something?

You miss the part where people pledging are getting a game for doing so? And yeah, it's not too different from preordering and everyone is advised against doing that because the games come out and are shitty or whatever. But I imagine that most people who pledge will do so because they enjoyed Wasteland 2, and want more. Even just more of the same with very few changes, even. That's why I'm going to pledge.

You make it sound like they're cackling gleefully and stealing money out of people's pockets.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Shengar said:
Also if the rumor of Obsidian coming to FIG is true, then my suspicion of these devs avoiding KS because their share of the cut and the delay in payment turned out to be true.
Click to expand...

Obsidian representatives are on Fig's board of directors, so if they did put a game on Fig it wouldn't be KS's failing (also Fig switched to a milestone system this summer rather than an all-up-front, so the payment delay thing is definitely a wash versus Fig).
 
D

duckroll

Member
So what's the status on FIG these days anyway? Is it still a "shady" sort of platform in terms of lack of clarity on what it is legally (crowdfunding? investment?) or has that been sorted out? Is it just a crowdfunding platform targeting games specifically? I don't even know why it exists when Kickstarter works.
 
L

Labadal

Member
duckroll said:
So what's the status on FIG these days anyway? Is it still a "shady" sort of platform in terms of lack of clarity on what it is legally (crowdfunding? investment?) or has that been sorted out? Is it just a crowdfunding platform targeting games specifically? I don't even know why it exists when Kickstarter works.
Click to expand...
Kickstarter takes a cut. They circumvent that with FIG. You can back games like usual. They get accredited investors and unaccredited investors. They had issues but they seem to be fixed according to the Polygon article posted a few posts back. From what I understand, they work like a crowd funded publisher of sorts. "Community powered publisher" is used on their site. They fund video games only.
 
B

Budi

Member
Labadal said:
Kickstarter takes a cut. They circumvent that with FIG. You can back games like usual. They get accredited investors and unaccredited investors. They had issues but they seem to be fixed according to the Polygon article posted a few posts back. From what I understand, they work like a crowd funded publisher of sorts. "Community powered publisher" is used on their site. They fund video games only.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out to the Polygon article, I've completely missed it. Need to check it out. I wasn't going to help fund this game through Fig since my impression of it was a bit shady as others have mentioned and also bit confusing. With kickstarter they would got my money immediatly. But maybe I'll take the time and study about Fig a bit and then throw my money at them.

Anarky said:
http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/29/13...-review-unaccredited-psychonauts-2-investment

Sounds like the issue is all cleared up.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this.
 
S

SL128

Member
duckroll said:
So what's the status on FIG these days anyway? Is it still a "shady" sort of platform in terms of lack of clarity on what it is legally (crowdfunding? investment?) or has that been sorted out? Is it just a crowdfunding platform targeting games specifically? I don't even know why it exists when Kickstarter works.
Click to expand...
There's nothing shady about it; they just took a long time sorting out its legal implementation. It's basically Kickstarter+Investment+Curation.
 
M

More_Badass

Member
Pretty interested to see the game in motion tomorrow. The screenshots labeled as "prototype" implies they have at least a vertical slice to show off.

I wasn't even the biggest fan on 2, but Chris Bischoff art plus more involved apocalyptic tactical strategy is up my alley
 
N

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
Labadal said:
Kickstarter takes a cut. They circumvent that with FIG. You can back games like usual. They get accredited investors and unaccredited investors. They had issues but they seem to be fixed according to the Polygon article posted a few posts back. From what I understand, they work like a crowd funded publisher of sorts. "Community powered publisher" is used on their site. They fund video games only.
Click to expand...

Fig also takes a cut though.
 
Lanrutcon

Lanrutcon

Member
Lime said:
Too bad theyre a bunch of bigots on their forums
Click to expand...

Oh, totally. But their taste in RPGs? outstanding. Their lists are basically essential playing if you consider yourself a fan of the genre.

(their forums and general chatter are very nsfw, btw)
 
V

Vex_

Banned
*Breaks into thread*

Did I hear co op?


You have my attention!!! Ill be buying. Never played a wasteland game before, but Im guessing now is a good time to jump in!
 
C

CecilRousso

Member
Sinatar said:
Fig is run by Obsididan, InXile and Doublefine.
Click to expand...

Isn't Fig a separate company, without any direct ownership from any of those companies you mention? And that their role is just that Feargus Urquhart, Brian Fargo and Tim Schafer sit on Fig's advisory board?
 
D

docbon

Member
Fukken loved co-op in Divinity: Original Sin, so I'm glad it's being included here too. Just need some like minded people who won't get bent out of shape when it comes time to make decisions.
 
Z

ZombieSupaStar

Member
So I'm going to go back and actually finish wasteland 2 this time.

First go around I was playing the original release got to the 2nd half then divinity o.s. came out and that side tracked me, then they announced d.c's for both so I quit playing either....

Now I'm sitting on:
Wasteland 2 d.c.
Divinity o.s. D.c.
ALL the shadowrun rpgs...
And I want to go back to fallout 4 now that all the dlc is out and hopefully mods are out (beat it once just focusing on main campaign at the launch).

Oh and also age of decadence if I'm feeling masochistic enough....


I figure by that time divinity 2 and wasteland 3 and elder scrolls 6 will be out..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Splintered Fate coming to PC in Q4 2024, local co-up support announced
News
4
1K
Sorcerer replied
Strategy RPG Paraside: Duality Unbound announced for PS5, Xbox Series, PS4, Xbox One, Switch, and PC via Steam
News Trailer
1
611
SlimeGooGoo replied
Homeworld 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
22
3K
amigastar replied
VA-11 Hall-A developer Sukeban Games announces ‘Active Time Action’ game .45 PARABELLUM BLOODHOUND for PC
News
12
1K
IAmRei replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom