by Red Thread Games
Here's to hoping the developers will actually address the issue on the forums, not betting on it though :P
It's been a few days since I visited this comments section, but I wanted to quickly say that I'm content leaving the discussion as it is. Like you guys and I myself have said, it's no use repeating ourselves.
Now I just hope everyone will enjoy the game when it comes out, even if the Kickstarter before it wasn't perfect. I'm certainly still looking forward to it, and I'll be keeping an eye on development until then. Also I'll visit the forums, which should be a more suitable platform for discussing things than these comment sections. See you people around!
Hi, I'm new here :) Will I receive the Polish version of the game if I backed it or it will be available only in Polish stores?
@A.A: I was prepared to up my pledge to get a T-shirt until RTG pulled this crap on us. I'm a student with a limited budget, so as much as I'd like to buy the same game++ with exclusive content added, I cannot do so. I'll likely up my support for Torment instead as long as they don't pull something similar to what RTG did here.
@Toff: Very good point about Steam/DLC! And the preorder-DLC idea is something I cannot support in gaming.
Their very expensive pledges have done pretty well so far, Toff.
And as for comparing this to Torment? Nonsense. Much more popular series, much more popular genre- that's the reason it's got more support. Simple as that.
Did you happen to notice tier rewards and their pricing here? $150 for digital and $500 for physical collector's. It's already mad expensive. RTG said the price is so high because this is not a preorder, they're just trying to fund the project and reward supporters in return, okay, sure. But then they added this exclusive "preorder DLC" crap. Another sneaky way to monetize? Even with these prices? This is almost insulting.
Compare the pricing here with what you can get for $50 in the recent Torment Kickstarter. Those guys also need money, however they didn't go insane with the pricing and got a much better support in the end.
Finding the right balance here between what you ask for and what you're providing is the trickiest part. RTG through that very expensive pledges + DLC incentive will help them get more money. They are wrong.
@Aileen: I wish it was DLC, because then I could actually buy it. I would love to just spend 5-10 bucks and get these costumes, but guess what? I can't. They're a 100$.
Also with the game still in full development what's 'intended' beforehand changes all the time, so the 'they didn't intend this at the start' argument makes no sense.
I'm not jumping ship or anything like that, I just -really- like customization in my games and would like a realistically attainable way for me to get them.
This is really confusing to me. if it's DLC then its not exactly part of the full game, its DLC. Everyone is getting the same game but not everyone is getting the DLC. People who play extra can get the DLC, it was never MEANT to be part of the game from the beginning.
So technically everyone is getting the game, but not everyone can afford the extra costumes.
I would like to point out the whole point of a kickstarter is to get money so that they can build they can fund the game as well as keep the company afloat. RTG is a new start up and they definitely would want and need all the funding they can get. This is their chance to finally have a means to make the games they want and every bit counts, even if they have to try to entice people to pay more with DLC. I get that this makes them seem like a big evil corporation but as a small start up, everything does boil down to money. The more funds they have the more they can survive.
This isn't some day job to them, its a dream they want to make happen. The RTG team probably left steady paying jobs to start this company up. They are risking a lot to make this happen. Ragnar has a team and a company to think about, not just what the backers want.
And people have jumped for costumes and people have left because of the costumes. It's hard to know which one is more beneficial now.
@Guillaume Danel: The difference is this, on the level I pledged at I knew I wasn't getting any of the peripheral stuff, but I was promised the game and that's all I'm asking for, the game with everything included.
Sorry but I still can't get the distinction (except for the support and maintain part which is a mess, I totally agree). But I have no more arguments too, so let's just stay here for now. I hope to see you on the forum to speak about this with RTG, and thank you for your patient explanations.
@Sander Romeijn You are right, I don't believe there are no plans regarding future availability yet. And you are right again, the costumes make no sense in an adventure game in general, but they will be there now.
Assuming Dreamfall Chapters gets on Steam, everybody will get the same download there (RTG can't add four different editions for different tiers there, obviously), and in order to access the costumes higher-tier backers will get their personal keys, and those unlocked costumes will be listed under DLC tab. This is no different than any other preorder DLC out there. And I'm yet to find a game where preorder DLCs remained exclusive forever.
If they want to unlock it later for everyone for free months later, props to them. However even in this case making most of their backers wait for months for costumes to unlock together with those who buys the game on launch is surely a great way to show love to their dedicated supporters. I'm a huge fan of Ragnar and the team, I did all I could to popularize this Kickstarter. It's just sad the community is being treated merely as a money resource in the end.
James Sunderland summarized it perfectly.
It's not the same with books/comics or guides. We have come to accept that this kind of stuff may provide additional background to characters that would help you understand some aspects of the game better, but it's either sold separately (in some cases) or as part of collector's editions or higher tiers. If they were critical to understanding the game world, then it is ofcourse wrong to split them from the game or make them unavailable to those who pay/pledge less. But this is another discussion, and not about DLC related marketing.
People generally buy a game for the main-game part. The one they boot into when they run the executable. That is the main "feature" of the package. They won't mind if they can't afford to get the book, and will understand that they have to get it separately. It's different with in-game stuff that creates different versions of the software, of the main feature. What'smore in this case, it creates different versio for a completely silly option. It's also more confusing, seems less fair and its harder to support and maintain (this are things that have already happened to other games, The Witcher 2 being a very good example). And being announced 4 days before the end does not help either, since it was something unknown to the first pledgers, and will probably remain so (yes, mostly due to their own fault) until very later on.
In an ideal world, perhaps getting a game would mean getting every trinket and bonus stuff related to it but that's not possible, nor feasible for many reasons (not for this discussion), nor is worth requesting or demanding such thing.
I've made my case about the distinction, and others have made it too. I can't think of anything more to be said about it without repeating myself.
Books / comic / guide are part of the game. For example you could hear a chat in the game only understandable if you had read the book. And so there would be two kind of people: those who had bought the book and the other who had only the "main" game.
In my opinion, you should request to include into the game everything that may alter it. Afterall, 1) it takes time to make the books (and others extra-stuff), 2) it's something which is created before the launch of the game, 3) you have to pay/pledge more to get it. This is the same thing than a zero day dlc that you abhor (and I'm fine with this).
Here, making a distinction between in-game and out-of-game stuff is something I still can't understand.
@Danel. I understand the spirit of your comment. Yes, extra stuff will affect how you experience the game. And either if they are silly things like in-game customization options, or out-of-game bonus stuff like a user guide or a short introductory book/comic, they can enhance the gamer's experience.
However, the out-of-game stuff are generally considered peripherals and are meant to in no-way be required in order to enjoy or proceed in the game (there have been bad examples of this in the past) or alter your experience once you boot the game. You may choose to get a collectors edition or a tier with a t-shirt, a statuette, a USB disc or an extra book, but if you'll still have the same options in-game as me than why should I mind? If it bothered me, I would pledge or pay more. I do like the option to have "collectors" stuff for the dedicated fans, out of the game itself. I mind when they become part of the main in-game experience. I will mind that the developers will put in extra time, to make these options available to some and limit them from others in-game.
Whatever comes as in-game feature that is available to some and not to others, creates different versions of the game. And also, the in-game stuff are considered by most to be the "main game", even the silliest or useless of the embedded stuff. One could also say, that even such things could add replayability value to the game (for them), or enhance their enjoying the game.
Yes, it's cloths and skins and accessories in this case, but this situation is identical to the case of having a version of a game with (non-essential if such exists) zero day dlc and another without (not something I want to support). Some will have one version, others will have another. The difference being as compared to the case that all of us get a globally identical version of the in-game content. This also has created trouble for game updates and support in the past (it's not the main reason, but it has happened to other developers eg. The Witcher 2 example) and confusion in the gamers' community (why don't I get that? where's that version available and how come I didnt know?). And finally this practice is also something that I don't want to see in especially in adventure games ever: Pay/pledge more and you get more character costumes, is not something I want to see in another kickstarter or otherwise. So I can't support something I don't agree with. I don't want this to be a precedent for kickstarter projects, certainly not for the ones I am backing.
It is also not the same, and would definately not be ok, if a developer split the end of their game and put the conclusion in a book. Certainly not if it was a move to force the gamers to buy the book*, but I fail to understand how this hypothetical situation that nobody follows (even the big publishers), relates to the current debate.
* I mean as opposed to a situation where budget does not allow to finish the game, and the entire community requests a continuation and conclusion in whatever form possible (which has happened).
I get that in these days, that we have digital releases and digital collector's editions as well as boxed editions, it's somewhat less distinguishable what's the main-game and what's peripheral. But the general rule of thumb remains "what do I get when I boot the game in my PC/platform?".
@Athanassios: Just because I like debating: "And also, yes, it is different to get extra stuff outside the game (manuals, guides, concept art books, soundtrack) and a whole different story to offer extra stuff in-game."
Why ? I mean, I don't understand where is the difference, as long as extra-stuff bring something which affect your way of experiencing the game.
Would you be ok if some developpers split the end of their game, and you had to buy a book to know it ? It would be only "extra-content" afterall.
(PS: I just want to point out that I totally respect your decision, and the only purpose of my questions is an healthy debate)
I really hope backers are reading the updates though*. Of course it is their responsibility to do so, and it will be their "fault" if later on (after the campaign), they find about the different versions and complain, only to be met wth "where were you when we explicitly announced this on a update, then?"
Because, with 20,000 backers and an update about extra options announced 4 days before the end of the campaign, I can see this happening, and it would be a shame.
Also, I don't think anyone is implying that RTG are evil or have a master plan to deceive the backers or anything like that. We just say that they made a bad decision, that is in line with day one (or zero-day ) DLC, and that's not easy for some of us to get behind.
It really is not just about some stupid cloth options, one doesn't get. I have gone from $75 to $25 after this update to have nothing to do with these customizations and to "protest" this tactic. And also, yes, it is different to get extra stuff outside the game (manuals, guides, concept art books, soundtrack) and a whole different story to offer extra stuff in-game.
*(On the other hand, sticking around for updates and comments, sometimes can also hurt the initial enthusiasm for backing the project, so I don't know what's best really).
@James Sunderland: Your comment made my day. :)
Every backer gets an equal game, some just get a more equal version than others.
I don't see the point of discussing whether someone would enjoy the game more or less with the information about John Doe. It's clear that some will and some won't. This doesn't matter to me and to others, but the whole issue is a moral one. I am against DLC, micro-transaction and anything that is similar to it. I admit that there are gray areas regarding DLC. A DLC one 1 year down the road might be just fine. But what about day one DLC? It is wrong. This "pay-for-your-extra" content is similar to that, unfortunately. If you don't agree with that, that is fine. But many good arguments have been laid before to explain that. And, (yet) again, this is not about the size of the difference and whether people will enjoy or not. Do you see this?
I don't disagree with you this is an arbitrary line. (the line about in-game and outside-the-game reward) But you are missing the part where people say that this is an important line for some gamers. You should at least acknowledge that. Many people feel strongly about this. This is not a new controversy. That's why you see some people saying that RTG should have seen this coming. For some, myself included, is a good place to discuss higher moral standards regarding game development. And for many, RTG fell short of that.
I have to go, but I promise I'll answer later if you reply.
@Bruno I certainly didn't mean to complicate things, so sorry about that.
"When you say "well, since the fingerpuppets thing is just for a few people, it might as well not be in the game for others". Wrong. Even if I am not one of them, I'd still like to see this when I play and I'll probably enjoy it."
But would you enjoy it more knowing that John Doe is one of the puppets than if it was a fictional NPC? Maybe if you're familiar with the particular backer, but that's why I mentioned "friends and family" which I would include the familiar backer in. Again, it's not a perfect analogy, but I could easily see the people complaining about the clothing options complaining about the fingerpuppets.
"This part of the discussion is not a metaphorical argument, it is a very clear-cut distinction between in-game-rewards and outside-the-game rewards. It is as simple as that! You, like others, might feel that this line is arbitrary and that is just fine."
I could easily turn that around: You might feel there is a very clear-cut distinction, but this is an arbitrary line, and it's as simple as that. Like you said, different opinions, so saying either your version or mine doesn't really make sense to me. Things like the audiobook, novell, and Tome of the Balance will have a much bigger influence on how I experience the game than a couple of costumes, and it doesn't matter whether or not these things would be in-game or not. I acknowledge that others make a different distinction, even if I don't understand how they could.
"But the point is that many others feel that is too similar to dlc, micro-transactions and etc. and that point of view should also be respected."
I wish people would elaborate on that some more though. If I play a game, love a game, I don't want it to end. If after a year I can buy more of that game, that makes me happy. Of course the DLC could be really expensive and/or terrible, and then I have the option not to buy it. There is nothing necessarily evil about that. Microtransactions aren't bad per se either. If I play a free 2 play game it gives me a chance to support the developer by buying cosmetical stuff that doesn't influence gameplay. Of course some developers sell stuff that give you unfair advantages in multiplayer games, but that isn't inherent to microtransactions.
"What's the point of stating that other Kickstarters did that too?"
That was in response to the "unwritten rule" argument and the supposed fact that something like this never happened on Kickstarter, or is somehow incompatible with the indie spirit, which even if I would call this DLC, I would disagree with.
I don't like DRM, as a consumer, and on principle, but I do not have anything against DLC just because it's DLC. Like I mentioned, I welcome DLC in some cases, and it doesn't even always have to be free to be good to have.
I am still confident everybody will end up being content at the end of this ride. I just hope people don't make rash decisions and dropping their pledges completely only to wish they hadn't later, and I mean that for their sake, not for the sake of the project.
@James "splintering the release in the process"
I understand you and other see it that way, but I seriously and sincerely doubt the majority of people would use words like "splintering the release" or "incomplete version" for the minor differences that were introduced. This has been blown way out of proportions, and yes, that is my opinion, but I'm sure it is the popular opinion as well.
"Their response has merely fanned the flames, and though they say they understand why people are upset, their actions show that they clearly do not understand why people are so upset as to cancel their pledges."
If that is even true, the flames are the die hard complainers' flames, not their own. How can you say they do not understand why people are upset? You are making an assumption here. Just because you disagree with how they handled things doesn't mean they don't understand the standpoint of the complainers. I understand door to door salesmen want to sell me stuff, but that doesn't mean I'll buy their products.
"If they truly did, they would have reversed the decision and possibly offered an alternative, non-game content goodie for higher pledgers."
One does not logically follow from the other. It's presumably what you would've done if you were them, but that doesn't mean it's the only option that shows they understand, it doesn't mean it's the best or the only good option.
"This is indicative of a disconnect on a fundamental level."
I do see a disconnect.
"but they though that this wasn't as important as creating a rift in the final days of what had been by and large, a pleasant campaign until recently."
They haven't done anything to make this campaign unpleasant and I what they did, or at least what they intended to do, doesn't make them resemble some evil publisher to me at all. They quite clearly explained what they did, why they did it, so if you still consider this to be evil, I guess it means you simply don't believe them. If that's the case there's nothing they could've said to make things right to you.
@Toff "and somehow I have no doubt that would be extra costumes available for purchase as DLCs."
I have no doubt either, no doubt that it won't happen actually. We're talking about an adventure game here, costume DLC, certainly paid for costume DLC, makes no sense here. And I say to you as well, if you do believe they have some kind of evil plan of selling DLC in the future, that must mean you don't believe them. I actually do believe that they will eventually give everybody access to this stuff. I sort of hope they will just so will all pass. If they won't however, I won't blame them either. I do believe this will be brought up again in the forums, and if all the emotion seen here comes with it, they won't have a choice but to address it again. If they find the "incomplete game" arguments just as unconvincing as I do, I wouldn't be surprised, but it would be relatively simple for them to make, hopefully, everybody happy by giving everybody the costumes after some time has passed. (There's always the chance higher tier backers won't like losing their exclusives of course.)
"they could care less"
And yet they don't.
"instead they did it their own way that nobody wanted and pretended this was the wish of the community."
The complainers obviously didn't want this, but that doesn't mean nobody did. The "other side" in this argument seems to mostly have a "don't really care that much" attitude towards the whole thing. I don't recall them saying they did whatever because of the community, they did what they thought was a good idea, and what wasn't as bad as an idea as the complainers make it out to be in my opinion.
@Sander, the points you mention, in my opinion, make this matter appears more complicated than it is. When you say "well, since the fingerpuppets thing is just for a few people, it might as well not be in the game for others". Wrong. Even if I am not one of them, I'd still like to see this when I play and I'll probably enjoy it. This part of the discussion is not a metaphorical argument, it is a very clear-cut distinction between in-game-rewards and outside-the-game rewards. It is as simple as that! You, like others, might feel that this line is arbitrary and that is just fine. But the point is that many others feel that is too similar to dlc, micro-transactions and etc. and that point of view should also be respected.
What's the point of stating that other Kickstarters did that too? People who think like me, undoubtedly were against it even if they still supported the project. And there were several Kickstarters that touted that they were 100% DRM, DLC free, so you can see that this is something that matters for some players, no matter how small the difference is.
I can't stress this enough: the issue at hand lies at a very clear-cut distinction between in-game rewards and outside-the-game-reward and whether the game will be 100% equal for everybody. Please, do take note that I am saying 100%, not 99.9% nor 99.999%. And I am not saying this in a subjective sense. I am saying in a quite literal way.
@Toff - I am bit more positive, though. To be fair, before this whole issue, they I had the impression that they were listening to the fans. Though I am bitter and disagree with their stance, I still have some hope that, at least, they won't make matters worse.
Future forum discussions? Seeing how the discussions here didn't change their stance at all, and with them saying customization options couldn't be a stretch goal because this is what they wanted to do (such a lame excuse for sticking to this shameless marketing tactics), I'm sure they already know what they're going to do upon release, and somehow I have no doubt that would be extra costumes available for purchase as DLCs. Community asked for one damn thing and they could care less, instead they did it their own way that nobody wanted and pretended this was the wish of the community. Same thing will happen with those "future forum discussions". Keep "dreaming" your opinion matters.
@Sander: "Except that the move didn't cause the controversy, it's all the people who complained about it that made it controversial."
So people caused the controversy, not the actions that led them to speak out? You state that RTG merely wanted to add something for people with large sums of money to give to the project, splintering the release in the process and driving away some pledges in the process. Their response has merely fanned the flames, and though they say they understand why people are upset, their actions show that they clearly do not understand why people are so upset as to cancel their pledges. If they truly did, they would have reversed the decision and possibly offered an alternative, non-game content goodie for higher pledgers.
This is indicative of a disconnect on a fundamental level. RTG could have scrapped, made it a stretch goal or an early unlock, any of which should have satisfied the majority of dissenters, but they though that this wasn't as important as creating a rift in the final days of what had been by and large, a pleasant campaign until recently.
The ostensible future discussion that they touted to try and placate people is an empty gesture unless they actually take action to make this right. If RTG comes out with a solution that keeps the game equal for all, I'm quite willing to forget about this episode and look forward to the game. The way things stand now however, they seem more like the big publishers they deny emulating than they care to admit.
Grab the torches!
It is a fact that since this controversial topic has been announced there have been people excited to raise their pledge because of it and a vocal group of people who have issue with it. In the situation where this has already happened, people will feel slighted no matter what decision is made.
Even though I don't fully agree with this idea that RTG made to incentivize tiers, while rewarding existing tiers; there are merits to the idea too. Those merits made the idea seem great in concept/ on paper. My main issue is the logistical hassle it may cause. I actually respect RTG more for thoroughly explaining their stance and not backing out of it. Some people took this as disrespectful and I'm unsure as to why. Plainly it was acknowledgement of differing opinions and an explanation of their own. They didn't choose to change the issue, but did respectfully respond to it.
This is not a moral crusade and thoughts/objections and support have been thoroughly discussed. I thank the majority of people that have discussed this with critique and maturity. There's a ton of great things that have come out of this Project and a lot more to come. And then there's this little grey area.
@Sander Romeijn - I hope you're right. But the problem now is that nothing is certain. RTG's decision to only give the complete content to pledges of $150 or more may or may not stand. The additional content may or may not be offered to non-backers upon release. How can someone make an informed decision if the information they need is not available. I guess what I'm saying now to RTG is this: Give me the facts and I'll deal with it, but don't make me guess what your intentions are..
@kertitorpe "the problem is that this move caused controversy. That's something developers should avoid in the first please, because it's a lose-lose situation"
Except that the move didn't cause the controversy, it's all the people who complained about it that made it controversial. I assume you read RTG's posts (if not, please do), so you know that all they wanted to do was add a little something extra for the people who showed their support the most clearly. (They are not, and I am not, saying people who pledged at lower tiers support them less.) That and enhancing their chances to reach another stretch goals because of people upping their pledges. (Stretch goals being a good thing for every kind of pledger, and everybody else who buys the game after the Kickstarter!) You quickly mention those people as if they are nothing, but as can be seen in the numbers, pledges actually rose right after the announcement compared to previous days. If you disagree about the move not being controversial, you have to at least agree that they didn't intend it to be. Actually I disagree about controversy always being a lose-lose situation, but I have no reason to believe RTG intended to be controversial as a marketing gimmick. If they wanted to do that they wouldn't do it with something as insignificant (in the grand scale of things) as extra costumes.
As for the unwritten Kickstarter rule of not adding expensive stuff to in-game content... I've never heard of it. I've actually pledged for a few other projects where extra in-game stuff was given to higher pledge levels. Apparently there was some controversy with Shadowrun that I missed, but I can tell you it went over just fine for other projects. If it really is something everybody agrees with, I say it should be an official Kickstarter rule that all projects actually (have to) follow. I'm not even getting into the "complete game" versus "incomplete game", because it's obviously something personal that you and others feel really strongly about, but I and other others don't.
@Rivercliff, they said they might consider adding the extra costumes to lower tier pledgers sometime in the future, since it doesn't seem like the higher tier pledges mind. They refer to future forum discussions, so there is that. Why on earth would they not give lower tier pledgers this content, if that ends up happening (and actually I wouldn't be surprised if everybody got the extra stuff eventually), and then do give the content to people who didn't participate on Kickstarter? RTG has the sense not to do something stupid like that.
@Toria: Given their response so far, I would not be surprised if RTG further segregates the game by not letting later adapters access this content if they buy from retail, as they seem quite dedicated in their decision to block regular backers from having a full game as well.
@kertitorpe - Excellent post.
RTG v- How about clearing this up for us. Will a full version with all customization options be available to the general public (non-backers), or not? (If not, I've got a decision to make and about 64 hours to make it.)
It doesn't matter who has the universal truth (which might not exist in this case), the problem is that this move caused controversy. That's something developers should avoid in the first please, because it's a lose-lose situation (except for the extra income from those who pledged more just for the sake of character customization).
It is an unwritten rule at KS, that any expensive extra ingame content is put in a stretch goal and not tied to tiers. Also it is unfair to compare this situation to Shadowrun's concept, because they wanted a backer-only extra mission without any restriction to tiers and even THAT was voted down by the community, so they dropped the idea and ultimately it will be available for everyone.
Let's do the math, who will have the whole game on release? Right now 8% of the backers are qualified for the full experience, 61% gets the basic game, the others are in between. It would be an awful decision to give the additional content to non-backers, who purchase the final game, that would punish only the people, who made the game possible with their pledges, but didn't pay enough, so at the end only a few thousand people will enjoy the full game (and of course hundreds of thousands of pirates, but that's another story). So yes, this little content, which is "only a visual change, and will not affect gameplay in any way, shape or form" is pretty expensive, if you think about. Does it even justify the resources needed to make it and the controversy it generated? I doubt.
@Bruno I think I understand the issue, certainly tried do, but I do not understand all the arguments, or do not agree with them. Some of them simply aren't convincing to me. I tried to mention all the main points and mention them in a single post, along with my point of view, and left out the arguments on the side of people defending the change, unless they were counterarguments. With so many posts I wouldn't be surprised if I forgot some points and because of that didn't represent everybody/thing perfectly.
The fingerpuppet thing was of course in jest, and it isn't a perfect analogy. Having John Doe as a fingerpuppet in the game would only really matter to John Doe (and his friends and family), so for everybody else he might just as well not even be in the game. That last part makes it very similar to the clothing options that can only be enjoyed by a limited amount of people, and that literally aren't there for everybody else. I believe it's a decent enough analogy, and again, I was mainly making fun of this whole situation. I do not envy RTG having it happen to them over what they thought was a small addition that would be nice for the fans, and that might help bring some more money in. I imagine this all started because of the nose stud. RTG offering people the option to taking it out, then going a step further and adding more customisation stuff.
As most people at least seem to agree, in the end this all boils down to opinions and personal points of view. No opinion is "wrong" or "right" by definition, but everybody values different opinions differently, of course putting their own opinions on top.
RTG have been very clear that they won't be removing the bonuses from the higher tiers. In the second to last post they confirmed that everybody will get at least some customization options, though of course that won't satisfy the people who reason they want the "complete game". Then again their last post mentions the possibility of releasing this stuff to everybody eventually, if all the higher tier pledges are OK with it. From this thread at least I gather that nobody has a problem with that (I don't), so perhaps the complete game for everybody will be just a matter of time. I'm sure this will be brought up again in the forums once they are online.
It is amazing how sometimes people feel that only their way of enjoying something is valid. Seriously, this is just silly. In that sense, if someone say there will be less enjoyment for them because of this "pay-for-extra-content", how could you possibly argue with that? It is their way of sensing things, after all! There is no "right" or "wrong" here.
I would also like to voice the opinion, that everyone should have their voice heard. And please, if possible, avoid "stop whining" posts. This kind of "shut up and enjoy!" mentality is just... wrong and evil.
@Sander, sorry, but you really didn't understand the issue. And you make that clear when you say "Being a fingerpuppet in-game will change the way you experience it a lot more than being able to change Zoe's outfit, so there need to be people complaining about that now. Fingerpuppets for everybody!". That is an incorrect analogy. But I won't waste my breath, you correctly stated, and I agree with you, that the case have already been laid several times before.
@Toria - Good point. Depressing, but good.
Ah, I don't want to get caught up in this again, but I just want to make one more point:
@Rivercliff (& others): I don't see where it says that the extra customisation will be available in the retail version. It says that the extras will be added *to existing tiers*. That sounds to me like it is exclusive to Kickstarter backers. Apologies if I'm wrong about that. I just don't think that you should be so sure that you will be able to get a "full version" outside of Kickstarter.
@Rivercliff By missing a few things, you mean an alternative outfit for the main character. How exactly would that affect your enjoyment of the game? It's an adventure game, not a dress-up game. You're getting all the story, puzzles, voices, music, characters, etc... basically everything that matters. How this is a big deal to anyone at all is completely beyond me.
@RTG: Thank you for your answers, i think i might understand a little bit more your point of view. Even if i still disagree i'm not canceling my pledge for that, i'm too found of this game to do that !
And i'm still considering upping my pledge actually cause i really would enjoy getting the content that comes along (without taking the customization into account).
I just would i've really loved to be able to enjoy those extras in-game, because it's fun as you said, and i'll still feel a little left out because i won't.
Still coming along for the ride though ;)
@A.A - You're promised a complete game and in the final week of the pledge-drive, you're told you're version of the game will be missing a few things. And you don't care?
I can't believe you people.
All over some goddamn clothing. Godalmighty.
@Sander: Clearly the project isn't losing money, and I am well aware that most people who threaten to remove/reduce their pledge probably won't, but you can't fault people for voicing their opinion on a change to a project they're backing that they personally don't agree with. Would the project be gaining more money had they not done this? We'll never know.
Do I agree with what they are doing? No, not at all. Am I going to remove my pledge? of course not. Am I going to let RTG games know that I disagree with this policy? Hell yes.
One of my big problems with this change is that I pledged on a tier that gives me, and I quote, "a digital downloadable copy of dreamfall chapters" and that's all I want. But what I'm actually getting is a copy of the game with something missing and that wasn't stated on my pledge.
The timing of this change could have been better as well, because now RTG have no time to actually come up with a proper solution and leave people enough time to change their pledges accordingly.
So here's hoping they deliver on their incredibly vague promise of "we might change something sometime in the future maybe", but I leave you with the note that my excitement for the project has definitely taken a hit but that doesn't mean i'm no longer along for the ride.
Having slept on it overnight, I have arrived at the following personal solution to this very unnecessary and irritating dilemma:
(1) I want the most complete version of the game
(2) My $75 pledge does not get me the most complete version
(3) To get the most complete version I have to pledge $150
(4) I cannot afford $150 ($75 was a stretch and I've got this thing about going into debt)
(5) I will reduce my pledge to $25 without rewards, so I can still support the project.
(6) I will purchase the most complete version of the game upon release in November 2014.
My conscience is clear, my bank account is balanced, and I'm still supporting the best saga in gaming history.
To RTG, I will only say: What the hell were you thinking?!
Wow, this is still going. People are rehashing the same arguments again and again, and my view on this hasn't changed at all throughout. On the side of the complainers the arguments are basically (skipping the ones based on non-truth and Non sequiturs):
Costumes are too expensive. That sucks, but that's the way the world works. I don't buy a lot of things because I can't afford them. Luckily I'm not interested in most of those things anyway.
It's the principle, and that is sometimes elaborated on as that this reminds them of DLC, which is apparently considered to be evil by default. That reminds me of people saying science is bad because it gave us nuclear bombs. DLC is actually a good thing for the consumer sometimes. Some also say it is somehow incompatible with being indie, though I don't know how or why. An alternate explanation of the "principle" is that the game is experienced differently depending on what tier you pledge. Like others, that only makes me consider the other extra stuff in the higher tiers that will change my experience of the game a lot more. Some people make a distinction between physical and digital stuff, though I don't recall reading their reasoning behind that. Then some say the game has to be exactly identical for everybody, which it will be, minus the costumes. Special editions have extra stuff and because of that (actually I would argue the other way around) cost extra. That makes sense to me. If I want the extra stuff, I buy the special edition. If I can live without it, I don't buy it. If I want the game, I will still buy the regular version. I understand this is personal, and I understand that people aren't likely to change their opinion on this no matter how often someone explains their point of view.
Also if "principle" is so important to people, how is dropping a pledge like some threaten to do a good thing to do? You pledged originally, so first of all dropping out afterwards isn't fair to RTG, and all the people who do support this project. You did originally support the project, but a very small change is enough to make you drop support completely?I just can't understand that. Threatening to boycott products seems to have become the default response on the internet when people don't like something, often without being reasonable, so seeing this tactic used automatically makes me take the other party less seriously, sorry. I am in fact a huge fan of the "vote with your wallet" principle, but I can do without all the drama.
The same thing with "free". The costumes are added on top of what was already there. If you pledge at a tier, you agreed to pay X amount of money to get X amount of stuff. You suddenly got extra stuff, so yes, this stuff is in fact free. Alternatively you could claim it's not free because only the people who pledge at higher levels get this stuff. This is also a valid point, which shows that "free" depends on how you look at it. Again, no use explaining this eachother again and again because it depends on your point of view, and people aren't likely to change their mind on this.
I've noticed some people say the costume option is different from other pledge rewards because it wasn't announced right at the start. well, there were still 3 or 4 days at that time to up your pledge if you wanted to, so that doesn't even seem relevant.
People also claim this project is losing a lot of money because people (threaten to) drop their pledges. Considering the people who pledge at higher levels are going to get the costumes regardless, the people who might drop their pledge are likely low level pledgers, and I'm convinced the small loss of money is offset by the people upping their pledge to a higher tier after they find out they get even more stuff there. Look at how quickly the Puppetmaster slots were taken, and those add $1000 a piece. I also wonder how many people would actually drop their pledge like they claim. Remember the Modern Warfare 2 boycott? All the boycotters banded together and created a Steam Community which made it really easy to see which game they were all playing on release day. :) I'm not worried this project will lose much at all because of a few people dropping pledges.
Anyway, this is all old news. Shouldn't the people who disagree with the costume be switching over the the update mentioning the Fingerings? Being a fingerpuppet in-game will change the way you experience it a lot more than being able to change Zoe's outfit, so there need to be people complaining about that now. Fingerpuppets for everybody!
I don't think there's nearly enough complaining in this particular comment section.
Please...keep going people. 3 days to get to 1000 We can do it~
@Ragnar Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'm not convinced that this is a right decision for you, especially since it was announced only 3-4 days before the end of the campaign, and it does mean different versions of the same game being released (which is always trouble). Yes, it does not change the basic game experience. But it is a bad marketing practice, one that I can't get behind.
But in kickstarter, we are backing a project and the people behind it. The process of planing, developing, marketing and releasing the game. It is not the same as "consuming" or buying a product or extra goodies. We can pledge a small ammount (say $5) because we just support the project with no expectations of a reward or getting the full game. We can also pledge a large ammount and still wave off all the rewards. Because we support the project. However, if things as "in-game silly customization for a few" happen a few days before the end of the campaign, and then we get a "sorry, but it's our final decision, people have requested this, I dont get why you other people are upset, take it or leave it" , then this means we indeed are at a disagreement that apparently can't be resolved.
It's a bit buffling how easy it is for this side to understand where you are coming from when you talk about an "essentially unaltered game", but you are having such a hard time (as you state) to understand the opposite view (about "preorder dlc" and bad precedent).
For me personally, customization and zero day extra content is not something I ever requested for my tier or something I want to see other projects doing. I have now settled in a tier that has none of that "bonuses" other people have apparently requested.
I really think you are making a mistake here.
@RTG: I am not sure making the customization time-limited is a very good idea. It has not been done for any other reward on higher tiers, so why this? I see no need for it and I think people who upgraded because of the cloths, perhaps would not have upgraded had it only been a time-limited reward, but like Ragnar said we shall see in the forums I suppose. Personally I´d rather keep things exactly as they are.
Adding my voice to those who think this extra game content for some tiers thing is a bunch of crap. We live in a time where people realise that aesthetics are perfectly valuable game content (see. Proteus). Vanity items like clothing might not seem like much, but it's game content.
This is big publisher shenanigans, not something one wants to associate with a small developer.
When Harebrained Schemes offered backer-only content - stuff that non-backers would not be getting when their game is released, the backers almost unanimously spoke out against it and said they don't want any "special treatment" and everyone should play the same game.
They listened to their backers.
This is worse even. It greats pockets of people within the group that have things that others don't. It goes against the community spirit of the whole Kickstarter thing. It's an attempt to get people to pledge more, but I would not be surprised if this results in people withdrawing pledges.
3 days to go. It's not too late for RTG to reconsider. It's also 3 days for people to decide if they really want to support this big-publisher nonsense with their money.
Sorry but guys - this isnt overreacting. There is a reason Games Let People Dress their character. Its because they Love it. It makes it more Personal, for this Person more emotional and i always thought that that was what it was all about.
I am Not going to cancel my pledge but i am also considering reducing it and investing the extra Money somewhere, where those Things are heard.
I would Love the best dreamfall possible. Just not at any cost.
@James and @Mika, I agree with you 100%. Since they stated so clearly that won't reverse, I guess the best we could (besides voicing our concerns) is to see how it goes from here. But it sure does set a bad precedent.
@Mikejames: People are still "overreacting" because some people have principle beliefs and aren't satisfied with vague overtures that this might be looked at down the road. The response from RTG has been enough to drive people away and I can't fault them for voting with their dollar here. Segregating game-play at the last minute is a mistake, regardless of the innocent act that RTG is putting on here. They could have backtracked or made this content available to all backers as a strech goal, but they seem to think standing their ground is more important than compromising and making a better game for ALL backers.
It's funny how big deal this customization thing is. And it's also funny how easy it is to see how the whole thing could have been avoided.
I can't understand how you didn't see this reaction come a mile away.
Instead of adding new stuff to existing tiers in hopes that people will up their pledges, it would have made perfect sense to add the customizations to the game for everyone. That would have made everyone happy, and it has been my experience that happy people are generally speaking more generous people.
Obviously I can only speak for myself, and it's easy to have 20-20 hindsight, but I would have probably bumped my pledge up a tier if you had just given that stuff to everyone.