Kickstarter Drive Update #6

[Workbench]

Wtf is this news of social shit.

If this isnt cleared up (which means removed) before the end of the kickstarter I will withdraw my pledge. game is funded anyway and i dont want to see a single dollar sunk into that shit.

/nerdrage

[Hiver]

No, youre missing the point, A_drain.

I never claimed genre or anything like youre mentioning was changed so... strawman arguments ahoy, mkay?

getting a clear and straight info on this issue - which represents all other issues that may just pop up - is essential both for those that oppose it and those that are fine with it.

Nobody looses anything if all is made crystal clear. Before the funds are made irreversible.

As for whether it will hurt the whole game, we can have differing opinions on it. What i know tells me it could.
You might disagree but thats totally different can of worms.

[Kide]

Yeah I really just can't understand some of this things I read here about how they think their money will be used to implement something they do not want.... Well... Consider this there might actually be some people who want this kind of thing that are also investing money and if they already invest enough to get that sort of thing implemented then your money will not be spend on that, but to the core game. I am quite sure that out of the 30 thousend investers here there are enough people giving money to implement some kind of social feature that those invester's will enjoy, then you can think that ok they will pay for it for the game.... Just like those who wanted linux version are paying to get the linux version, I have no use for it.

You are not the only one giving money to this project.... It is your choise if you want to take your pledge away or to the minium for one or another reason when it's still available, but ecpesially those who say they then do not want the game even succeed getting that 2 million dollars is quite..... well hostile to say the least.

I want them to have creativite to do things that will make the game shine and not only put limit's to them in one way or another personally. Even when I don't think I would find use for these social features. But the game is not only made for me and depending on the social implemetation it won't change that it still is old school rpg game nor that it will be tactical. It just simply does not change that. Or at least I trust them that it won't suddenly change to a first person shooter because of some possibly social feature that they are considering...

[Hiver]

blah, blah, blah... youre sure are telepathic and precognant, arent you?

[flang]

The Escapist has a partially-related post that really hits home for me: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... ming-Blues

The short version: Games that are built in some way to be played online will lose their value over time, as the servers are eventually abandoned for the next big thing. So that anyone who tries to play the game years into the future will end up with a significantly degraded experience compared to those who play "as it was intended" - either directly or indirectly with others involved.

The author is mostly talking about purely multiplayer games, but he specifically mentions Demon's Souls which is why I think it's relevant here. Even though that game is functionally a single-player experience, those that try to play it a couple of years from now when the serves are offline (whether those people are playing for the first time or returning out of nostalgia) will be getting a much less enjoyable game.

That's why I hope whatever these social features in Wasteland 2 turn out to be are carefully designed to be superficial, disposable parts of the game that no one will miss when they are no longer playable 3, 4, or 5 years down the line.

[The_A_Drain]

getting a clear and straight info on this issue - which represents all other issues that may just pop up - is essential bot for those that oppose it and those that are fine with it.

It's a creative project. There's no possible way to outline every tiny thing that might come up, or that might have to be cut when the deadline hits. If you want to tick of a checklist before making your purchasing decision then that's what you should do, once the game is released and finished.

Nobody looses anything if all is made crystal clear.

As for whether it will hurt the whole game, we can have differing opinions on it. What i know tells me it could.
You might disagree but thats totally different can of worms.

What you know, right now is literally nothing. I want the issue clarified as well, the point is that you aren't going to be happy with every feature in the game, I completely guarantee it. And if you can't deal with that, then it's going to be a very frustrating 18 months for everybody.

But nothing can be made completely crystal clear. Everybody is going to have a different vision, by this point in a project the only person who has anything resembling a crystal clear idea of the final project is Brian Fargo himself, and even that is so far removed from what the final thing will actually be that all he can give people is a vague idea. That's generally what happens with creative projects, things change and evolve throughout development.

[ButchinMelancholy]

Are you serious with that money-scaling idea?

We (backers) are not the only one concerned by this game, and I thought it was about support and not selfish desires...
Of course, we are behind that project because it's interesting for us, because we would love to see that kind of games rise up again, but one more time, we are NOT buying inXile, we are NOT shareholders and have absolutely no more power than anyone else. Period.

If there is a poll, it is free for anyone who's interested in the game, in pure fairness.

[Kide]

If it is not too costly (that we do not know yet, we do not know the exact price of many other things either) then yeah I am sure there are enough people pledging that would like this kind of feature. But it all depends first of all how mutch it will approximatly cost to implement. But it is still silly for me to say straght up that your money is spend in to something you do not want, as it is still only small part of the whole thing at least for what I would think or understand. I am pretty sure that a minority would want that kind of feature. It is the same kind of question of how many of the pledges come from people of the original wasteland and how many pledges come from people who are fans of the later games liek fallout or the others.

We can't know. I can't know how many would like the feature or want it, but if it is not that costly I would still assume there would be enough people contributing that would be paying for it themselves. It is my assumption, it may be wrong or it may be right, but the biggest question would still be how mutch it will cost and what it will even be at this point.

Sorry if I am too loud of my opinion, but it still is weird to me how people react to this thing. And even when I do not even care fo those social things myself, I don't think it is very contibuting or couraging for the developer's to immidiatly have hostility about a feature they are thinking to possibly implement.

Opinion's are a different thing. And sure I can agree that for people thinking about their pledges it would be good that Brian Fargo would establish "the ground rules". So to speak. At least then we all know where we stand and will make some to have easier time of deciding what they wish to do.

[Workbench]

I can't believe brian's reasoning here. It's a sure bet most people donated to get away from everything that has plagued games the last ten years.

Now he's actualy giving his fan base a reason NOT to make that 2 million mark. wth was he thinking.

[Hiver]

A_drain - Nothing you say has any actual merit on getting to know how this will be played.

Im not talking about any hypothetical issue from the future. Your attempts to muddy this - because you either like or dont mind this specific feature are becoming comical.


1. People that funded this should be the only ones to get a vote.
- this is not negotiable.

2. Amount of invested money should matter. we need to know how. mkay?


3. We need to know all of this info before the kickstarter deadline.
- this is not negotiable.

[Sluggish]

It is our money to do with what we see fit. We donated it because of what we wanted in a game, a game like Wasteland. If they suddenly say they're going to add something that ISN'T what a game like Wasteland needs and is completely useless and unnecessary it is COMPLETELY WITHIN OUR RIGHT to take our money back. It is not "blackmail", it is not us trying to dictate the game. It is us voicing our opinion of a feature that this game DOES NOT NEED.

I feel like this is part of the thing I hate about people today, they can't take negative criticism in ANY form and see it always as a personal attack.

[stonetoes]

I feel like this is part of the thing I hate about people today, they can't take negative criticism in ANY form and see it always as a personal attack.

I am quite sure you'd have to be high out of your mind to think something so stupid.

Of course sometimes it is a personal attack. Please look at how you are talking to your fellow posters.

And what I am not happy with isn't people withdrawing their money and walking away, it's people threatening to take away their money then hanging around for the next 18 months being critical of optional features which the developers are interested in.

[The_A_Drain]

Im not talking about any hypothetical issue from the future. Your attempts to muddy this - because you either like or dont mind this specific feature are becoming comical.

I don't want the feature and will vote against it should a vote arise. Clear enough?

I'm trying to convey to a group of highly emotional individuals that in their minds, things will only get worse and that if they want to take back their money, do so now. I'm not attempting to muddy the issue by diluting it with potential future problems, I'm trying to let people know that they aren't in control of the project no matter how much money they donated, and if they aren't ok with that all I'm thinking of is the state of the community during the next 18 months. I don't know about you, but I want to be able to have fun, be merry, and revel in the celebratory nature of this and similar projects. I've seen other projects communities ruined by self-entitled fanatics and I don't want that to happen here.

1. People that funded this should be the only ones to get a vote.
- this is not negotiable.

It's up the inXile.

2. Amount of invested money should matter. we need to know how. mkay?

This is precisely what publishers do. Are you really happy to make such a hypocritical call?

3. We need to know all of this info before the kickstarter deadline.
- this is not negotiable.

As I stated before, even if Mr Fargo releases the entire game design document as a PDF it won't be entirely representative of the end product. You've still got something like 2 weeks, so I'm sure we will hear more on Monday.

I'm not sure how many more times I have to say it, but if somebody requires a concrete representation of the final product before they fork over their cash, then the funding stage is the wrong end of the project for that person to be giving money because all it will do is bring that person and by association other members of the community unhappiness.

[Hiver]

You sure are lost buddy.

blah, blah, blah... nothing to do with what im saying.

- repeat my answer.

[The_A_Drain]

they're going to add something that ISN'T what a game like Wasteland needs and is completely useless and unnecessary it is COMPLETELY WITHIN OUR RIGHT to take our money back.

It is not "blackmail", it is not us trying to dictate the game. It is us voicing our opinion of a feature that this game DOES NOT NEED.

It's utterly baffling to me that you can't see the irony in these statements.

It's not your vision for the game. Great. Withdraw your pledge, and state why.

Threatening and chest-thumping in this manner is precisely 'blackmail' and "trying to dictate the game".

I feel like this is part of the thing I hate about people today, they can't take negative criticism in ANY form and see it always as a personal attack.

Well, you have personally attacked people. So they will take those portions of your posts as personal.

[Hiver]

I can see how things are baffling to you.


Fargo and inXile have been nothing but straight upfront and clear and honest in representing their view and intentions so far.

Mentioning this latest issue is a statement to that. I wholeheartedly approve.

I dont see any reason in thinking that deviating from that path will suddenly become a better option.

[ButchinMelancholy]

I hope they're not wasting their time reading and worrying about what's happening in this topic at least...

[Kide]

Indeed ButchinMelancholy.

[Hiver]

God forbid, yeah?

I mean, to think they would actually read and consider forums posts and threads as expressions of opinions by their backers... the very thought strikes chill deep in my heart.

[Manbearpig]

Reading all these posts is like watching Animal Farm play out before me. We free ourselves from publishers only to find the fan base is just as bad. Some are more equal than others I suppose. If you guys can't have faith in Brian Fargo than what does that say about us as a fan base? We really are awful collectively. We deserve whatever game we get with this kind of attitude. You guys missed the entire point of kickstarter we don't need to be our own EA.