Re: inXile Entertainment joins Microsoft Studios
Posted: November 24th, 2018, 9:09 am
The official inXile forum community for Wasteland 2, Torment: Tides of Numenera, The Bard's Tale IV, and more!
https://forums.inxile-entertainment.com/
https://forums.inxile-entertainment.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=19904
Well, not luckily. As intended. You can see from my forum badges I'm a backer too. But I'm very much a silent backer, and that is, in my view, as it ought to be. The backers, collectively, are important and should be treated with respect. Each backer individually, however, only contributed a tiny, tiny, tiny amount to the project (barring supermegabackers) and should not expect the game to be their personal pet project.svdp wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2018, 12:33 pmLuckily you nuanced it a bit at the end, because at the start I would have said: I'm a crowdfund backer, and I didn't make any demands whatsoever. I just wanted to see what they could do, and their enthusiasm was pretty cool, and the genre looked like I like it, so I went with it.kanisatha wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2018, 8:21 am Crowdfunding backers are a very small group that ends up coercing developers to produce games that are exactly as they want them, with zero tolerance for even the smallest of deviations or creative differences from their absolutist demands. They are far too often whiney and entitled. And these particular backers I speak of are not even representative of all backers; rather, they're a very tiny minority within that small group of backers. But they're extremely vocal and in-your-face, and they pretend that they are the majority voice. They are the reason I no longer bother with engaging in threads on this forum. So I'd much rather see decisions about what games to make and how to make them be made by some dispassionate studio exec than these backers that I speak of.
I would say of capitalism what Churchill said of Democracy:
Well, I would agree with you you have plenty of whiners. I've said so in my other posts, in my 'patch 4' comment on the tech forum. Some people really feel self-entitled to an astonishing degree. And, you know...even if there REALLY is something wrong with it, just mention it politely and try to help. I had some crashes too; instead of whining about it without end, I made a dxdiag and eventviewer, and send it to them. I had lot's of fun with the game, and everyone can have, but only if one doesn't let any minor or even larger thing get to you. There is a difference between a bug being annoying, and it making it unplayable. Some are just SO f- snowflake pussies. Ironically, it are sometimes the same people praising old-school RPG's (of hearsay, no doubt) that complain about stuff that old-school is rife with. Makes me think they're post-millenials who don't even know what it truly was like, to play old-school. They're just parroting.kanisatha wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 9:15 amWell, not luckily. As intended. You can see from my forum badges I'm a backer too. But I'm very much a silent backer, and that is, in my view, as it ought to be. The backers, collectively, are important and should be treated with respect. Each backer individually, however, only contributed a tiny, tiny, tiny amount to the project (barring supermegabackers) and should not expect the game to be their personal pet project.svdp wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2018, 12:33 pmLuckily you nuanced it a bit at the end, because at the start I would have said: I'm a crowdfund backer, and I didn't make any demands whatsoever. I just wanted to see what they could do, and their enthusiasm was pretty cool, and the genre looked like I like it, so I went with it.kanisatha wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2018, 8:21 am Crowdfunding backers are a very small group that ends up coercing developers to produce games that are exactly as they want them, with zero tolerance for even the smallest of deviations or creative differences from their absolutist demands. They are far too often whiney and entitled. And these particular backers I speak of are not even representative of all backers; rather, they're a very tiny minority within that small group of backers. But they're extremely vocal and in-your-face, and they pretend that they are the majority voice. They are the reason I no longer bother with engaging in threads on this forum. So I'd much rather see decisions about what games to make and how to make them be made by some dispassionate studio exec than these backers that I speak of.
I recently backed Realms Beyond on KS. It has TB combat. I don't care for TB combat and much rather prefer RTwP. But not once have I whined or stomped my foot or in any way demanded the game be changed to suit my preference. I've also backed several RPGs with RTwP. Their forums (incl on KS) are flooded with posts (usually a gazillion repeat posts from the same small group of individuals) demanding that the game be changed to TB because that is what they want, i.e. that is the "correct" way a game should be made.
Look at the "saves" thread on the BT4 forum here where certain posters were literally foaming at the mouth insisting I and others like me should be burned at the stake for the heresy of asking for save anywhere anytime.
Just a couple of examples of why I have become disillusioned with crowdfunding (a model I wholeheartedly embraced and was so very happy about several years ago).
Really? Insofar as I saw people getting upset, it was the people insisting that the game should have unlimited save/restore. They had a really hard time understanding that there are other legitimate ways to make games and not every game has to cater to their desire to have unlimited save/restore.
I thought most of us where saying put in both. Save anywhere with an ironman mode. Or restrictive save with a I'm a wuss mode._noblesse_oblige_ wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 1:02 pmReally? Insofar as I saw people getting upset, it was the people insisting that the game should have unlimited save/restore. They had a really hard time understanding that there are other legitimate ways to make games and not every game has to cater to their desire to have unlimited save/restore.
From what I remember of the great save game debate, the main concern was that going for both options only ends up splitting the design. Having a restrictive save system is pointless unless the maps are specifically made to work with it. It was the same problem with grid movement. One camp wants it, other camp hates it, but adding both as a compromise is just a fancy and expensive whim. To get the most out of grid movement you need maps that are designed for it.Woolfe wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 4:50 pmI thought most of us where saying put in both. Save anywhere with an ironman mode. Or restrictive save with a I'm a wuss mode._noblesse_oblige_ wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 1:02 pm Really? Insofar as I saw people getting upset, it was the people insisting that the game should have unlimited save/restore. They had a really hard time understanding that there are other legitimate ways to make games and not every game has to cater to their desire to have unlimited save/restore.![]()
Stop sweating over details and facts while he is trying to find deeper truths and paint the bigger picture.
The DC edition of WL2 or D:OS, or the additional mini-campaign in Shadowrun: Hong Kong ? PoE2 also had some free mni-DLC (but since I got the season pass I'm not exactly sure which were free and which weren't).
Then you misunderstood my point. My point was always build the game at the difficulty they want it to be. Then apply a save system after. Hence no expense, because the game is exactly the same in both save systems. If you use the save system to bypass the difficulty, then that is on the player. The game difficulty has not changed.IHaveHugeNick wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 11:31 pmFrom what I remember of the great save game debate, the main concern was that going for both options only ends up splitting the design. Having a restrictive save system is pointless unless the maps are specifically made to work with it. It was the same problem with grid movement. One camp wants it, other camp hates it, but adding both as a compromise is just a fancy and expensive whim. To get the most out of grid movement you need maps that are designed for it.Woolfe wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 4:50 pmI thought most of us where saying put in both. Save anywhere with an ironman mode. Or restrictive save with a I'm a wuss mode._noblesse_oblige_ wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 1:02 pm Really? Insofar as I saw people getting upset, it was the people insisting that the game should have unlimited save/restore. They had a really hard time understanding that there are other legitimate ways to make games and not every game has to cater to their desire to have unlimited save/restore.![]()
With Broadbrush generic statements that aren't actually correct.IHaveHugeNick wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 11:31 pmStop sweating over details and facts while he is trying to find deeper truths and paint the bigger picture.
No, you're deliberatly interpreting it in a way that tries to focus and nitpick on the details - and in this case, the interpretation isn't even correct.Woolfe wrote: ↑November 25th, 2018, 1:38 amThen you misunderstood my point. My point was always build the game at the difficulty they want it to be. Then apply a save system after. Hence no expense, because the game is exactly the same in both save systems. If you use the save system to bypass the difficulty, then that is on the player. The game difficulty has not changed.IHaveHugeNick wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 11:31 pmFrom what I remember of the great save game debate, the main concern was that going for both options only ends up splitting the design. Having a restrictive save system is pointless unless the maps are specifically made to work with it. It was the same problem with grid movement. One camp wants it, other camp hates it, but adding both as a compromise is just a fancy and expensive whim. To get the most out of grid movement you need maps that are designed for it.
With Broadbrush generic statements that aren't actually correct.IHaveHugeNick wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 11:31 pmStop sweating over details while he is trying to find deeper truths and paint the bigger picture.
In what sense opened, they don't charge for developer tools like Sony do? That's some improvement indeed (if that's the case), but I'd consider it open enough when they'll allow using open source tools and open cross platform APIs.
IMO, a platform does not have open development unless I can create and sell a game without needing permission from the platform owner, either for the creation or for the selling process. By that measure, XBox is a closed platform, as are iOS, PS4, and others. If there's only one sales channel which the platform company controls and holds veto power over, and/or there's no way to publish without giving that company a cut, then it's not an open platform. (I don't keep up with XBox, so I don't know if the changes ET3D talked about have truly made it open, but from the historical pattern of MS's behavior, I'd be extremely surprised).
Agreed. But there are degrees of nastiness in that. For instance, to even get some access to Sony tools, you need to sign a draconian NDAs and pay a toll. It makes life a lot harder for developers who for example want to make a cross platform engine.demeisen wrote: ↑November 25th, 2018, 8:35 amIMO, a platform does not have open development unless I can create and sell a game without needing permission from the platform owner, either for the creation or for the selling process. By that measure, XBox is a closed platform, as are iOS, PS4, and others.
Yeah, no doubt... Sony is among the worst corporate citizens, and has been for a long time.
In my experience, espescially on this forum, many people argue just for the sake of arguing.
Yeah. It's not accidental, that independent studios who pursued crowdfunding made some of the best DRM-free and Linux games available. They are a great counterbalance to DRM obsessed publishers who push for lock-in and walled gardens. That's why it's so saddening when someone like MS swallows such studios.