Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ender101

Quartertothree Discussion on Xenonauts

119 posts in this topic

We can't win, can we? If we don't post up stretch goals, we're out of touch and not doing the cool stuff the other Kickstarters are. We're rubbish at marketing because we can't motivate the Kickstarter community like everyone else does, and we've given no incentive for people to donate above the funding amount. We're idiots because we've left money on the table.

If we do post up stretch goals, then we're amateurish because we're either compromising our artistic integrity by adding new features that weren't in the earlier design, or we're leaving ourselves open to attack because our stretch goals are overpriced (or the community didn't vote the way people wanted, so they have a bee in their bonnet about it). We're money grabbing bastards for trying to take the money people are potentially making available to us.

Wiglafman - I really don't understand how us saying "if we hit X funding, we'll add a new tileset" is somehow leaving you worse off than you were before? You're not obliged to try and make that happen. If I said to you "I'll give you $10 if it rains on Thursday" would you be annoyed with me if it didn't rain on Thursday, because you've "lost" that money?

The new tilesets aren't a feature that have to be in the game, or were going to be. We were already going to have 7 tilesets in the game it'll potentially go up to 9 if we raise enough money in the Kickstarter. Why are you so angry about that? Yes, we could add all the stretch goals to the game to make it more exciting and immersive, but we're a small team and we don't have the resources to do it. If we raised enough money on Kickstarter we might be able to, of course, which would make the game better for everyone - but that's exactly what you're criticising us for trying to do.

In hindsight, I really wish we hadn't offered stretch goals either. The amount of flak we've taken for trying to be open about what we want to do and to offer backers a small bonus if the Kickstarter goes well has encouraged me not to bother in the future - it just seems to be seen as a weakness to attack by a small but not insignificant part of the internet. None of the features on the list were going to be in the final game - and in fact if I'd never mentioned them at all I doubt anyone would have noticed they weren't present. Lesson learned the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thing that when it comes to indie games, marketing is not so much of an issue as is the interest of the comsumers. Posting stretch goals may have not been the best markeeting wise, but it provokes more interest in the consumer, and now they have some more ideas to look forward to. If you look at a game like Minecraft, for example, you can see that marketing doesn't need to have an effect on indie games. The only way it got anywhere was because of the interest it sparked in people. With no direct aim as where the game was going to go in the first place, it evolved with more and more features being added, many of which are not "essential" to the gameplay. I see most of the stretch goal being implemented despite monetary issue, because of the interest the community gives

Edited by ChAnKoEr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiglafman - I really don't understand how us saying "if we hit X funding, we'll add a new tileset" is somehow leaving you worse off than you were before? You're not obliged to try and make that happen. If I said to you "I'll give you $10 if it rains on Thursday" would you be annoyed with me if it didn't rain on Thursday, because you've "lost" that money?

I think there's two ways that the customer has been harmed by your approach.

(1) You've undermined their confidence that you have a coherent and consistent idea of the ideal Xenonauts. Everyone had this confidence when you asked for $50,000 initially, but investors don't want to see someone who has been working on a game for three years to be suddenly throwing up a preposterously complex surveymonkey that asks what features they want in the game. You really should not be leaving it up to voters as to whether the game needs a level designer most, or more tilesets, more motion detectors. That is kind of your job. There is a reason no major game studio puts features to a popular vote months before their game's release. Investors lose confidence, pledges decline, and the game's quality suffers. = Consumers have been hurt.

(2) You've made it impossible to tell where the money for pledges is going. What % goes to giving you a studio, versus going to these new features? Who knows anymore. Didn't you promise you'd get a studio on just the $50,000, before you offered the stretch goals? The money allocation probably varies significantly by stretch goal, too. If you had just set the stretch goal to be "$130,000 = new studio and faster game development," there'd be much less confusion. Again, confusion = lost confidence = lost investors = lost quality = hurt consumers.

In hindsight, I really wish we hadn't offered stretch goals either. The amount of flak we've taken for trying to be open about what we want to do and to offer backers a small bonus if the Kickstarter goes well has encouraged me not to bother in the future - it just seems to be seen as a weakness to attack by a small but not insignificant part of the internet. None of the features on the list were going to be in the final game - and in fact if I'd never mentioned them at all I doubt anyone would have noticed they weren't present. Lesson learned the hard way.

I think it is easy to get carried away promising T-shirts, random features, etc. when all people really wanted was to help you complete Xenonauts as you envisioned it.

Edited by wiglafman1225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would agree that using a vote to choose game features is probably not the optimum strategy. Gamers seldom have enough of the big picture in mind to be able to make development decisions. I've worked on a couple modding projects and the ones that made the most progress were the ones directed by the developers. Attempts to give the community a chance to vote typically resulted in chaos, flame wars, lost productivity and even worse, rapid shifts in focus and priorities.

Community feedback is always great but I think that the important and final decisions should be made by the management.

For the most part though, the complaints being fielded in other forums are done by people who know absolutely nothing about the project outside of assumptions based on a 5 minute read of the Kickstarter page. But that is the nature of the internet. People love to jump to conclusions and spout opinions but hate devoting time to research. That's why I'm not a fan of polls for things like this. Far too many people will cast a vote for the sake of voicing an opinion even if they haven't taken the time to evaluate the situation.

If polls are going to be used, it's really best to restrict access to people who are knowledgeable enough about the matter to make an informed decision. The people who frequent these boards would likely fall into this group. Those on Kickstarter however, know almost nothing about Xenonauts and its stage in development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure I get making motion scanners and proxy grenades paid features. That's a real head-scratcher. I guess it is good the stretch goals brought this to my attention. I had assumed they were kind of basic features that would be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That didn't come as a surprise to me since I've been following the project even before the current forums were setup. I also knew that Goldhawk had looked into doing up some tall grass for the fire system awhile ago and ran across some glitches in their initial attempt. I believe it had something to do with the animations of soldiers walking through it. Proxy grenades in themselves are simple enough but integrating them into the AI isn't simple.

A number of the old X-Com features didn't get attention because the developers had their time sucked away in the efforts to improve other aspects of the game. The improved dogfight system took a couple iterations and some serious modification (testing and feedback provided by pre-orderers) before it was completed. The cover system was redone once as well after it was heavily tested.

The 2D artwork resulted in a huge loss of time in creating and rendering the sprites. 2D sprite-based graphics are only quick to produce if the art is kept simple and the number of weapon and armor variations is kept minimal. In a 3D game adding a new weapon is mostly a matter of making the weapon model and entering it into the files. If Goldhawk were to add a new weapon now (let's say an autocannon), they'd have to create something like 24,000 new soldier sprites and enter that data into sprite sheets to get it to show ingame. This is why Goldhawk originally said they'd be unable to put female soldiers ingame. They realized that doing more sprites wasn't feasible.

A lot of the Xenonauts assets were actually created in 3D first to save time then rendered into 2D. This was faster than painting each individual image but it would have been faster to just use the 3D assets with a 3D engine. You won't find many games with Xenonaut's level of detail being done in 2D these days. It's just not efficient.

The new UI was another factor as well. Tester feedback indicated that the old UI wasn't good enough and much time was spent improving the appearance and function of it. AI was in the same boat. After the original coder was unable to come up with something acceptable Goldhawk had to make the decision to hire a specialist to take on the project (they just started this in the past month or so).

In other words, features that hadn't been done yet were put aside to focus efforts on priorities such as UI, AI and rendering the sprites required for the various armors and weapons.

So yes, I'm disappointed that we'll probably not get some of those features but I'm not surprised or upset about it. Keeping up to date with the news allows me to understand the reasons and put them into perspective.

Edited by Akavit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard for me to imagine that, 19 years after X-COM, a reimagining can't have proxy mines or motion scanners because of technical limitations. If technical limitations are keeping this game back, all that extra Kickstarter money should be going towards more programmers who can handle the existing workload. The wrong solution is to auction off the existing workload, or add new irrelevant stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid if you have to imagine what it's like, then you aren't familiar with game development. Modern technology hasn't made it easier to create a game. It merely upped consumer expectations.

Actually, you're looking at X-Com through rose-colored glasses. The technical limitations they had back then are glaringly obvious if you take an impartial look at the game. It had low resolution sprites and jerky animations. Power armor and flying armor shared the same sprites so with just three types of armor and the basic uniform they only needed sprites to represent three of them. They "cheated" on the death animations by only doing one facing (aliens did a funny spin towards the viewer before dying).

The UI is terrible by today's standards. It wasn't possible to assign soldier placement in the ship, weapons loadouts needed reassignment with each mission (if I remember correctly) and constant inventory juggling was required to reload and use grenades.

AI wasn't fantastic either. It was pretty good for its day but not up to today's standards.

Anyone remember the hours spent hunting the last aliens that went into hiding on every mission?

Game balance was completely messed up in the end game. Just watch the YouTube video titled "X-com: ufo defence - final mission (DOS)". Victory is possible in one round apparently.

An interesting thing to note is that Goldhawk did ask for more funds to add features that weren't going to make it in the game. The response came in two forms. First, most people voted in favor of visual improvements over gameplay features. Secondly, people complained that Goldhawk was asking for money to add said features.

Also note that Xenonauts has vastly improved every aspect of X-Com that made it into the game: UI, visuals, weapon and armor selections, soldier deployment, saved weapons loadouts, dogfighting, vehicle customization, cover system, etc. But they missed motion detectors and proxy grenades so I guess the improvements are of no consequence now?

People want modern games to look better than X-Com so obviously, more time has to be spent on the visual department. People may say that they want proxy grenades but when given the chance to vote, it looks like the vast majority of folks chose the eye-candy in Xenonaut's Kickstarter poll.

So obviously, Goldhawk has to make the game look good to sell it. It seems that Chris made a good choice when he opted to put more time into the tilesets and UI instead of those other things.

Edited by Akavit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't get all these complaints about proxy grenades and motion detectors. "OMG! HOW CAN IT EVEN BE XCOM WITHOUT THOSE? THIS IS NOT TEH FAITHFUL REMAKE!" Minus the caps, I'm not even kidding, I've seen people saying that. Seriously guys... those aren't core features. The proximity grenades frankly sucked once tougher enemies than floaters and sectoids showed up, and even then, a trooper with high reactions was more effective at watching a corridor. The motion detector was always a clunky and unreliable way to find aliens. Once you played the game a couple times it's not like you had to guess where the aliens would be hiding. Neither of them worked at all on the most dangerous kind of alien--the stationary one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if people take the lack of the motion tracker as a hint that there is no sensor of any kind planned?

It doesn't say that but could easily read like it and as we don't have any information one way or the other, many people (and I) often assume the worst. It's an experience thing.

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, with mainstream interest comes all the downsides. Welcome to the limelight. It's a different world for you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiglafaman, if we'd set the stretch goal to be "130k, a bigger studio" then we've had been crucified for it. We were getting slated on the RPS comments boards because apparently this should be a fundraiser for Xenonauts, not a fundraiser for Goldhawk. People were getting annoyed we weren't spending the money on "the game". The studio is something abstract that doesn't add any value to the game, as far they're concerned. This is why we didn't put it in as a stretch goal. Also, what if we hadn't hit that stretch goal? Then would we not be able to have a physical studio? It'd just be giving the haters more ammo.

I also don't see why you need clarity of where the money goes in the stretch goals. It all just gets spent on the game, so whether it's spent on bringing the team together or paying freelancers to do the work doesn't really seem relevant. Admittedly it would stop people complaining about how expensive some of the features are, but they all seem to be in the "every penny raised above 100% funding should be spent only on implementing stretch goals!" brigade so I doubt they'll ever be happy.

Also, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't ask the community what they want in the game. We set all the options in the questionnaire as choices, because they're things we think would add to the game if implemented. Over a thousand people voted to let us know what they think would improve the game - essentially, adding more tileset variation. So the vast majority of people that played the game would rather have more varied levels than, say, a motion detector. But you're telling me I shouldn't be listening to them? We should come up with a game design entirely divorced from reality to preserve our "coherent direction"? As if somehow putting in more tilesets instead of motion detectors would irrevocably change the feel of the game and undo everything that we have done so far? Even if that was the wrong choice to make, it'd only make up about 1% of the final gameplay experience so it's being blown out of all proportion.

Anyway, if over a thousand people are telling me there's not enough tile variation in the game, I'm inclined to listen. I think it'd be pretty stupid of me not to - they're probably on to something.

Finally, as Akavit has said, there also seems to be a complete disconnect between people's expectations of how much the game should cost to make (seemingly mostly because it doesn't have AAA graphics) and how much it does cost. A "reskin" of X-Com must be cheap to make, because X-Com is old. But in fact we have to make X-Com, but improve on it in every way, just to even be considered standing still. We don't get the credit for spending money improving things because expectations have increased, but if we miss out a feature that X-Com had (like proxy grenades, which I see as a very low priority feature) then everyone jumps all over us.

Also there's this weird attitude that as we've gone on Kickstarter and raised more funds, somehow the people who have already pre-ordered the game have lost out. The only net effect of the Kickstarter is we'll have more money to develop the game, so they'll get a better game at the end of it. But again, they've found something to complain about.

I know this happens to all game developers and I'll stop moaning now, but hopefully you understand that if we had done what you were suggesting there would have been an equally large number of people on the internet being angry at us for the opposite reasons. So we just did what we thought was best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haters gonna hate.

Chris & Co. are spending all of the kickstarter money on hookers and blow- what's it to you? ;)

Don't feel inclined to pledge, then don't. There's probably a well in Africa waiting to be built that would be a better use of your hard-earned cash.

Chris, enough wading into the forum quagmire, back to work! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, this thread stopped going places on page 2. You're not going to convince wiglafman by reasoned debate or passionate invective that wiglafman's opinions are anything other than the sermon on the mount. (This was painfully obvious by the fourth page of the thread). I think we all need to listen to professor internets, chill out and have a sammich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:( Must be tough to be developer.

I want to be able to be game developer one day(at moment I don't really see that being ever being possible), but more I heard about game industry, more it seems like hard work just gets rewarded with people shooting you in leg and then putting you through treatment victims get in Saw movies =/

Well, if words from random person help at all, I'm grateful for hard work developers put in their games. I also love the sprite graphics and think they are much more worth than graphics/aesthetics in AAA games and that you guys have been doing great job so far. You guys deserve much better. Thank you for pulling through the whining and not quitting because of it. Thank you for making game most people would consider niche. Thank you for making this game.

BTW, I can see why people might be complaining about tile variation ^^; From what I've heard, current ones are xenonaut base, alien base, arctic, farm, industrial, town, suburbia and temperate. Actually, thats quite a lot, so they might be complaining because of demo and assume that real game will have that little variation ._. Anyway, I guess they are expecting.. Well, XCOM was long time ago, it was already impressive for it to have that much randomization. People are assuming that since this is newer game, game needs more than just tilesets for different type of terrain. For Example, UFO: Alien Invasion has ton of different maps for different kind of locations and not just different kind of town maps, there are maps for different locations like workyard, map with access to underground pipe network, map in middle east, mountain cabin map, etc... I mean, I guess people are expecting that town maps for example should look different based on where map is located. Or that there should be different kind of forests. Or map for all type of wilderness. That or they think that all maps done with farm tileset for example will look exactly the same. That or they are just bitching about something they don't know anything about. After all, it doesn't matter if there is only one map for Arctic terrain as long it can be used so that it can look both like tundra and like snowy mountain. That or I'm completely missing the point of why they are complaining -_-;

Its also possible that they hear "8 tilesets? THATS TOO LITTLE" without realizing how much work that many tilesets mean or how it actually shows up in the game =/

Honestly. People in Internet nowadays are naive cynics. They believe everything they are told if it strengthens their point of view, but distrust everyone else and assumes everyone is trying to screw them over =/ I wonder whether that is just true nature of people, people turn into that because of masses of people(people in smaller Internet communities tend to act better than in large ones) or Internet just has that effect on people. After all, it is in a way to screw people over in Internet than in real life =/ ...Eh, I should probably stop talking about things I don't know about -_-;

Edited by XenoMask

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, I'll respond to your specific points below, but stop playing victim. You started this game in 2010 and went to Kotaku with it, stating the goal of finishing it by the end of 2010. Then 2011 came around and you said you'd finish it then, all the while asking people to pay you. Then 2012 came around and you said "I'm nearly done, just need 50k to get over the top." Now it's now mid-2012, you got your $50k, and then you turn around and offer a bunch of difficult-to-implement and outrageously expensive features, ask voters to pick them based on their personal whims, and promise t-shirts, art books, etc. You do this even though the alpha of your game is riddled with existing bugs and game-breaking imbalances. Forgive me but as someone who pre-ordered the game and is bothered by the lack of progress on the fundamentals of Xenonauts, to me, it looks like you're a bit out of your depth. You're asking people for hard-earned money after being wrong on numerous promises before, and now this Kickstarter has you making dozens more promises. You should probably dial down on the promises if you want less criticism.

Folks, this thread stopped going places on page 2. You're not going to convince wiglafman by reasoned debate or passionate invective that wiglafman's opinions are anything other than the sermon on the mount. (This was painfully obvious by the fourth page of the thread). I think we all need to listen to professor internets, chill out and have a sammich.

Again, it makes little sense to attack people like this. just because they disagree with you. No one in this thread has really changed their opinion in response to anything I've said, so it seems hardly fair to go after me for it. I mean, it makes sense since we're on the dev's boards, but it'd be nice to be a little less obvious about the bias.

Wiglafaman, if we'd set the stretch goal to be "130k, a bigger studio" then we've had been crucified for it.

I think if you explained how the studio would help in some concrete fashion, there'd be less outrage. But I do agree that it's best to have a stretch goal that more directly helps the game, like a new programmer.

Anyway, if over a thousand people are telling me there's not enough tile variation in the game, I'm inclined to listen. I think it'd be pretty stupid of me not to - they're probably on to something.

I highly doubt those people know the costs of implementing the tilesets, and the effect it will have on slowing game development. Voters say what they think is nice, not what's practical. You even mention how little us common people know about game design in your next paragraph! You said: "Finally, as Akavit has said, there also seems to be a complete disconnect between people's expectations of how much the game should cost to make (seemingly mostly because it doesn't have AAA graphics) "

So WHY EVEN ASK PEOPLE who have a "complete disconnect" between their goals and the realities of development? Why put game features to a binding vote?

The only net effect of the Kickstarter is we'll have more money to develop the game, so they'll get a better game at the end of it. But again, they've found something to complain about.

Well, another obvious effect is that a ton of people who would have purchased the game on release have instead purchased it now. This diminishes your incentive to pour any more money and time into the game, since you already have most gamer's money well before release, and you know you might not get much more afterwards.

Edited by wiglafman1225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, another obvious effect is that a ton of people who would have purchased the game on release have instead purchased it now. This diminishes your incentive to pour any more money and time into the game, since you already have most gamer's money well before release, and you know you might not get much more afterwards.

Jesus, Dude. Calm down. Goldhawk is not EA, I bet that Chris has put a lot more of his own money into this game than most of us "hard earning workers". It'd human nature to finish a project you started, and to finsih it well, the consipiracy of abandoning development of the game is unfounded.

chillax.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiglafaman, if we'd set the stretch goal to be "130k, a bigger studio" then we've had been crucified for it. We were getting slated on the RPS comments boards because apparently this should be a fundraiser for Xenonauts, not a fundraiser for Goldhawk. People were getting annoyed we weren't spending the money on "the game". The studio is something abstract that doesn't add any value to the game, as far they're concerned. This is why we didn't put it in as a stretch goal. Also, what if we hadn't hit that stretch goal? Then would we not be able to have a physical studio? It'd just be giving the haters more ammo.

The haters gonna hate but the fact is that they cannot have Xenonauts without Goldhawk Interactive. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XenoMask

There's desert too.

@Wiglaf

Did you even get any sleep since you came to this forum the previous day?

Quite a few people with way more familiarity with this game and development experience have taken turns at trying to explain things to you. You either cannot or will not understand. Or maybe you just care about being "right" no matter what. Either way, your angry tirade has been noted, argued, counter argued so maybe it's time for it to end. You do whatever it is you want to do and leave us folk alone. This is generally a flame free forum and we like it that way.

Things are as they are and they're not going to change at this point. We are all customers here, just like you, and we don't feel hurt, "wrongly rubbed" or cheated. At worst we accept the limitations of a small dev studio (that doesn't even have an office and was started with Chris' life savings) and focus on the significant improvements and additions made to the game rather than proxy-nades and flammable grass.

We're sorry you and your buddies don't share our enthusiasm but the old saying about how you can't please everyone is as true as it ever was, especially in this day and age when everything's out in the open and everyone has an idea on how things "really" should be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus, Dude. Calm down. Goldhawk is not EA, I bet that Chris has put a lot more of his own money into this game than most of us "hard earning workers". It'd human nature to finish a project you started, and to finsih it well, the consipiracy of abandoning development of the game is unfounded.

This is probably the strangest thing I have read so far on these forums. It's "human nature to finish a project you started"? I suppose I don't have to pay my roofing contractors anymore, now that they've begun work...

It's in Goldhawk's overriding economic interests to get some return on its three years of work on this game. Let's face it: The alpha, even though the game was slated to be released in 2010 and even though new features are still being promised, is nowhere near release quality in mid-2012. Funds are running dry.

There's a very real chance that the game won't sell well on release, because it's a niche 2D remake of a 20 year old game. There's also the very real risk that many of the buyers have already shelled out for the game.

If I'm Chris, I'm worried about maximizing profits right now, not burning through all these Kickstarter donations to implement new features. That's not a conspiracy. That is economics.

Did you even get any sleep since you came to this forum the previous day?

...Yes?

This is generally a flame free forum and we like it that way.

Bizarre. Seconds after you insult my sleeping patterns, you say this. To be clear: I haven't attacked anyone. In fact, all the personal attacks have come from supporters of Xenonauts, who I suspect are aggressively trying to justify their sizable and unconditional investment in a game that runs the risk of being subpar on release.

Things are as they are and they're not going to change at this point. We are all customers here, just like you, and we don't feel hurt, "wrongly rubbed" or cheated.

I suspect that is because your are all big fans of X-COM and really want to see this re-imagining succeed. But it is important to be honest when Goldhawk messes up, so as to avoid further mistakes. This is one such mess-up.

Edited by wiglafman1225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, dang it, I knew I forgot one from the list.

Anyway Wiglaf seems to be good example of what I meant with "Naive cynic". I mean, does he have any good reason to assume that devs would screw pledgers over their money other than that it is theoretically possible for them to do it?

Or that project will be just mediocre in the end? Besides that "They promised us [x] in year [before 2012]]" which I can't confirm as I haven't been here that long. Heck, Wiglaf hasn't either so I don't know what his source is. Either way, whether that is true or not it doesn't change the fact that that usually happens with all projects, never heard of project that was completely on time. While it is true that developers could lie to us about how well they are doing with the project, we don't have any concrete reasons to believe that.

Anyway, what is point of investing in project if you lack faith for the project? :P Of course people will think you are being whiny, they wouldn't have invested in this if they wouldn't believe in it.

Edited by XenoMask

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mean, does he have any good reason to assume that devs would screw pledgers over their money other than that it is theoretically possible for them to do it?

It's not "theoretically possible," like it's some sort of statistically implausible and crazy paranoid theory that we all evolved from space aliens or something. It's actually "economically sensible," though it all depends on what you mean by "screw pledges over."

I believe that some of the KS donations will go to the game's features. I think Chris is genuinely a good guy who will try to apply some of the cash to the game. But he has deliberately avoided making clear how much of the KS donations will go to the features, or how much the features will cost.

I suspect that is because he realizes the Kickstarter may be the most money he gets for the game, since most of the KS donations come from $20/30 people who are just after the pre-order. Therefore, if Chris has good business sense (which admittedly he has not shown recently), he will try to minimize the use of KS funds towards new features and pocket the rest.

"It's human nature to finish a project you started." What nonsense. They'll finish it, alright, but you've now removed all incentive they have to pour your money into its development.

Edited by wiglafman1225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody nowadays believes in "Doing it for the sake of art" it seems :P This is another thing what I meant, people seem to lack belief that some people might truly do it for sake of art/project instead of profit. As if they can't see why somebody would do that.

Not that devs don't want to make any profit from this(after all, having worked three years on project is tiring and you have to pay salary to people. Everyone wants some kind of rewards for their work after all.), don't get me wrong, its just you are too eager to believe that they will on purpose make game worse in order to hold more money for themselves later. I'm pretty sure most artists/developers/directors/whatever of any sort have pride in their own work, while they do want to get rewarded for their own work/realize its impossible for them to do it without getting anything in back, they don't do it just for sake of getting money. Xenonauts is kind of niche game because it aims to be remake of XCOM, so its aimed at XCOM fans mostly. You don't set out to make niche game in order to make money, you do that because you loved original work and wanted to do your own take on it.

(BTW, sorry devs if I've assumed stuff wrong, I'm trying to think of it from my own perspective why I would want to do XCOM type of game if I could do XCOM type of game ^^; )

Edited by XenoMask

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, yeah, trolls shouldn't be feed, but it would be rude to assume hes troll just because he has unpopular/annoyingly cynical opinion. Then again, most good trolls aren't obvious ones... Oh well, I still like debating ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0