Developers cashing out before completion?

[republic]

I was amazed when I first saw Stardrive, and couldn't wait to buy it.  I didn't do Kickstarter or anything like that, pre-funding games was just starting to get popular then and I wasn't too sure about it.  As soon as it was released on steam though, I bought it.  I liked the idea, but there was some obvious goofups I was sure that would be fixed...though many of them never were.

The game is "complete" but not to what I thought it would be.

Starfarer (now Starsector) was a game I followed for a long time, and after a string of rapid updates I thought "Ok now is the time to buy in."  So I did...and as if a sinister plot...updates stopped.  Sme with Cubeworld, I ponied up the cash...development stopped...though maybe it has picked up just recently?

For every Minecraft there seems to be a dozen Stardrive's...  Its to the point where I'm gun shy about nearly every Greenlight/Kickstarter game.

Do any of you have similar stories?

[GDS_Starfury]

I dont bother with that process.  if a dev cant make a game and complete it without my money then theres a problem somewhere with their business model IMO.

[Tpek]

I dont bother with that process.  if a dev cant make a game and complete it without my money then theres a problem somewhere with their business model IMO.

Small independent studios can't always immediately come up with the budget required for the development of a high quality product.
Pre-orders, Beta-Buy-Ins and Early Access stuff give them a fix for these sort of situations.

[LongBlade]

Cash flow is vital to any business and developers have a double challenge.

If you build a better mousetrap you've usually got a prototype to take to an investor. They can look at it and judge for themselves.

With a game, the code isn't complete until it's finished. That may seem obvious, but I've seen games in an alpha state and there is a huge leap of faith between what you see in front of you and what is being promised. It takes money to get from point A to point B (sometimes a lot of money).

Sometimes the game doesn't live up to its promise. Maybe most of the time a game doesn't live up to its promise. In that sense Star is correct: the business model is flawed.

And just because a developer or publisher had a past success doesn't mean their next game will be a success. History is littered with examples of bad game sequels. So it's even more difficult to determine a winner from a brand new dev with no clear track record.

[Rayfer]

I dont bother with that process.  if a dev cant make a game and complete it without my money then theres a problem somewhere with their business model IMO.

+1 My feelings exactly. 

[Father Ted]

I think that this trend illustrates some interesting psychology.  I've got several friends who've bought into Star Citizen - a game that doesn't exist yet.  They've each spent far more (over £100) than most of us would consider is a sensible price for a video game.  Why have they done that?  I reckon it's because they're buying an ideal game.  Until it's  produced they (and the thousands like them - SC has raised £30m in this way) can think that they're going to get something magical that's worth the investment.

When people can actually play it and see that's just a videogame, complete with the inevitable bugs and limitations, the developer will never be able to slap such a huge price tag on it.  Whether by accident or design, he's hit upon an excellent way to get the punters to part with their dosh.

[SgtRock]

I dont bother with that process.  if a dev cant make a game and complete it without my money then theres a problem somewhere with their business model IMO.

+1 My feelings exactly.

The game business model is broken, spend 2-3 years making a game and a publishers get's 65% percent plus of every sale and that's when you used your life savings to develop it!

Sadly it looks like KickStarter is not the answer and why Steam is becoming a rip-off selling unfinished software.

[airboy]

I dont bother with that process.  if a dev cant make a game and complete it without my money then theres a problem somewhere with their business model IMO.

Me too!

[mikeck]

It depends. A lot of people get upset at Steam but many times they tell you exactly what your getting. The game will say "pre release beta" or even "pre release alpha". If you buy it, you know you are getting an incomplete game. You are gambling that the game will eventually become what you want. There are many games like "horizon" where I felt I lost money...but for every "horizon" there are "Kerbal space program", "space engineers", and a butt load of other games that are good but would never see the light of day with a conventional marketing and publishing system.

The combination of kickstarter with electronic distribution like Steam allows a lot of ideas and unusual games to become available. But it also allows a lot more trash.

There are always advantages and disadvantages I suppose. I never donate to kickstarter but if a beta looks promising, I will buy in. If a specific developer burns me, I won't buy a product of theirs again

[FarAway Sooner]

Software developers who want to cash out don't develop games.  They develop commercial software for big companies.

I do think, however, that there are a lot of developers whose ambitions are bigger than their resources.  IT project management is all about matching the scope of your designs with the resources you have available.  It's also a very rare skill set, even among Fortune 500 IT shops.

I think most small devs struggle because they run out of money just as they stagger across the finish the line.  And they don't have the deep pockets to get it right, nor is the product-at-release sufficiently revenue-generating to fuel adequate additional follow-ons.

Plus, frankly, tightening up a code base that isn't already tight is really hard. 

All of those are contributing factors, I think.

[son_of_montfort]

I think that this trend illustrates some interesting psychology.  I've got several friends who've bought into Star Citizen - a game that doesn't exist yet.  They've each spent far more (over £100) than most of us would consider is a sensible price for a video game.  Why have they done that?  I reckon it's because they're buying an ideal game.  Until it's  produced they (and the thousands like them - SC has raised £30m in this way) can think that they're going to get something magical that's worth the investment.

When people can actually play it and see that's just a videogame, complete with the inevitable bugs and limitations, the developer will never be able to slap such a huge price tag on it.  Whether by accident or design, he's hit upon an excellent way to get the punters to part with their dosh.

My thought is that you have to pick names you trust. With Star Citizen and Shroud of the Avatar, these are being developed by Chris Roberts and Richard "Lord British" Garriott (respectively). So I trust that these guys, who have major reputations at stake, are going to release something "finished" at some point. It may take them years, but they will do it.

As to smaller studios, I've been both pleased and burned in equal measure. Stardrive is playable and somewhat fun, but never lived up to expectations. Heck, even Minecraft never "finished," as many things like quests and interactions with NPCs were abandoned by the end. But many of these "pay-to-play-during-development" games are fairly fun, and even if they never fully fulfill their vision, they offer entertainment for a cheaper price (usually).

This discussion also presupposes that AAA titles don't release in unfinished states, for premium prices, and then get abruptly abandoned by the developers or publishers. While this seems to be more of a problem in the indie scene, at least you only pay $10-20 to mess around with a fun concept rather than $50-60 to get AAA crap.

[republic]

Good point montfort.  I imagine those who preordered Sword of the Stars 2 feel even worse than I do,  Legends of Pegasus as well.

[Father Ted]

I think that this trend illustrates some interesting psychology.  I've got several friends who've bought into Star Citizen - a game that doesn't exist yet.  They've each spent far more (over £100) than most of us would consider is a sensible price for a video game.  Why have they done that?  I reckon it's because they're buying an ideal game.  Until it's  produced they (and the thousands like them - SC has raised £30m in this way) can think that they're going to get something magical that's worth the investment.

When people can actually play it and see that's just a videogame, complete with the inevitable bugs and limitations, the developer will never be able to slap such a huge price tag on it.  Whether by accident or design, he's hit upon an excellent way to get the punters to part with their dosh.

My thought is that you have to pick names you trust. With Star Citizen and Shroud of the Avatar, these are being developed by Chris Roberts and Richard "Lord British" Garriott (respectively). So I trust that these guys, who have major reputations at stake, are going to release something "finished" at some point. It may take them years, but they will do it.

I'm not trying to suggest that these developers are doing anything underhand - and I guess I've drifted a bit off topic.  My point is that (some) people are prepared to pay more for something that doesn't exist yet than they would for a game that is already out.

[Jarhead0331]

Good point montfort.  I imagine those who preordered Sword of the Stars 2 feel even worse than I do,  Legends of Pegasus as well.

Sots2 doesn't belong in this thread. That game was finished and is quite good in my opinion.

[GDS_Starfury]

IIRC y'all had lots of problems when it was first released but I'd agree its not what the thread topic is about.