Reply With QuoteThey're reskinning a game that is of legal voting age. They don't even have to spend money on designing the game, just recreating it on modern OSes + art assets. 10,000 dollars for tall grass? Is that really cheap?
ok, not sure what the challange here is. So lets try this, if i recall the figures to impliment tall grass (or any of the lesser features) actually cost sub 10k in total. Keeping mind that it has imbedded costs of being applied and set up to be used/intergrated to mesh with the random tile generator. so the cost of tallgrass overall is actually pretty low!Originally Posted by Mr. Zero
However funders wanted other features more (via survey results) and the new tile sets (which ranked highest) would take 40K of developer/programing time (estimated). So by the time you get to the tall grass being funded its a LOT of money later.
I dont work for Goldhawk, so my information may be variable percantage points off 'correct', but in essence this is how it works.
Last edited by davidf; 05-15-2012 at 02:22 PM.
They're reskinning a game that is of legal voting age. They don't even have to spend money on designing the game, just recreating it on modern OSes + art assets. 10,000 dollars for tall grass? Is that really cheap?
I think you're far, FAR overestimating the cost of art assets.
Especially for a 2D/2.5D game like this.
That said, I consider the tileset stuff some of the more reasonable things on their list.
_____
rezaf
IF they were simply reskinning the existing game....I would completly agree with you. However, they are using a new engine, and not reusing any of the original code, they couldnt because the original engine is so old and of course copy right issues. So its a new game, that 'feels' like a lift of the old one...which is a credit to how well they are doing! Its a good sign that you think that, but actually its a new game from scratch.
10,000 for tall grass that works semi seemlessly with a modular random map maker, can be set on fire and dynamically burned/destroyed?! For art, programing, QA resources and depending on how it looks, that doesnt sound completely unresonable.
You sound like the guy who drafts budgets for government contractors.
DYNAMICALLY BURNT AND DESTROYED, you say?! Why, 10,000 dollars is a steal of a deal.
Looking at that bonus list made me laugh out loud, and be glad that I have yet to support the game.
Yeah, the tall grass thing is pretty odd. I mean, what is the issue? Is it that they need to add an entire partial cover mechanic? That's the only thing I could see costing that much.
It's another example of under-communication -- if they really think it will cost that much, they need to explain why; otherwise it looks like they are pulling big numbers out of their ass so they can under-deliver on features when they don't make their stretch goals. NOT the impression they want to convey.
I was interested in having a discussion based on reasoning and logic about this project, but if all you've got left is labeling and dismissive digs ..I've better use of my time.
What makes it a stretch to assume all of those features would be in an Indy title, one with a multiple-person dev team?
I've been a fan of indie gaming since before Pogo found the internet, so I'm reasonably familiar with the trials and tribulations faced with small studios of various sizes. What is it about those features that you find complicated? Motion detecting is non trivial, as is proximity grenade AI. But we're not talking "months" non trivial, or anywhere close.
Anyway, part of the reason I am bringing this stuff up is because these are probably terrible stretch goals. Repoman is right that managing a kickstarter project is hard; I think there's an art to it and there absolutely is to stretch goals. Rich Burlew made it look so easy but it isn't, and he had a great and concrete initial set of things he could keep throwing out (additional book reprints).
I think content and art are really good stretch goals. But none of motion detectors, proximity grenades, and call signs and the other thing I am forgetting count precisely as content. I'm no expert, but I have watched a lot of Kickstarter projects at this point. I think it was a mistake to either include them at all or not include them all in a bundle. Except Call Signs, that should just be in the game if you want to do it. It's what might be referred to as a "highly visible public facing feature". It's not hard to do (seriously, time to do it would be measured in hours - a couple - including tokenizing all the important text displays. There are established algorithms for randomly generating the names from a list or several lists), and people will get a huge kick out of it.
Anyway, right now it (the kickstarter) feels a little slapdash.
Incidentally, that's part of the reason people have been discussing the "cost of features". certainly you want to space out stretch goals in a way that makes sense (it would probably be terrible for this project to increment stretch goals by 1k or even 5k e.g., but that sized goal can work great for really small projects, like some dude publishing his table top RPG). Here it's like
"Goal. . . russian tileset? That sounds great. Count me in."
"Goal. . . some other tileset super."
"Goal. . . some small feature that should be in the game anyway, most like. Uh. . . ok?"
"Goal. . . AI friendlies! Well, ok" (personally I don't care for this one)
"Goal. . . some other small features that should probably be in the game anyway. Not caring so much."
"Goal, moar graphics. Super."
True. I can burn and destroy the grass at my backyard for the cost of a gasoline tank and a box of matches.
I'll throw in smoke for an extra 100$.
Respond to a couple of points.
I see your point on the motions sensor and proximity grenades, I dont necessarily agree with it. I come from the perspective (and presume) that if they choose not to include it, the engine or coding had a significant enough challange that they opted out from inclusion. So if they choose arbitarily NOT to include it because they didnt want to be bothered with it. I would agree with you. However they've added a TON of extra touches to the game, random events, new depth to intercepts, friendly soldiers, that i think if something from the core game didnt make it, it was because of balance or coding challanges (like the blaster bomb unbalancing play)
They have also had chronic issues with text wrapping on their research displays. So i suspect they have coding challanges, i.e. some unexpected tool limitations they are working through.
Now on the Call signs, I'll agree with you. After the Kickstart started someone on the forums suggested that as a new tier to give users their names on the side of ships if they pledged 100 (or something), and have it otherwise be random names. Somehow this one made its way to the stretch goals as another feature, which was a poor fit IMO.
Last edited by davidf; 05-15-2012 at 04:00 PM.
Here's a question for those with experience in software development: what's the pie chart look like for game costs?
It seems to me like a 2d-(ish?) game with TBS control systems and a borrowed design doc has already got a ton of bottom-line advantages. Where's the money go?
In this case, most likely their pockets, or towards future projects. However, due to a poor management setup the project probably has some financial overhead.
Well I assume they have tool costs as part of set up, they have equipment costs (which includes server location to share code being worked on- since they are a virtual team). They also have time costs for all job and contracts. You either do this as a full time job and need money for living expenses, or you do it on your free time, which is at best ad hoc and often very limited availaiblity.
However, I'd also love to also see what the costs breakdown on are for a project of this size. I assume art costs are a killer, but there are probably other area as or more costly.
Even 2D TBS games can be quite the programming challenge -- isometric renderers aren't hard but they aren't trivial either, and complex UIs with lots of state are always tricky to get right. There's a lot of plumbing under the hood.
The most significant variable is the planning and design experience of the lead coders on the team. If the lead guys create a solid foundation that properly supports all the key game mechanics and interfaces, then building additional features is relatively easy. But if they haven't thought through the requirements of all those features upfront, then adding additional features can require a lot of reworking, resulting in a lot of money for not much visible progress.
At this point this team isn't looking like the most experienced bunch around....
Edit: For example, tall grass being burnable. One way of developing the game would be to implement the concept of destructability / burnability relatively generically, so that darn near anything in the game could be made to burn. Then adding burnable tall grass is easy -- paint the sprite, check the "burnable" checkbox in the "tall grass" properties, and you're done.
Or, one could build the game without accounting for burnability. Then suddenly you want to add burnable tall grass... and now you need to figure in all the issues that come with making things burnable. What happens if burning grass is next to a wooden building? Should the fire spread? Burnability is a way bigger issue than tall grass itself, and if you leave it until later, it might be difficult or impossible to add it without injecting huge numbers of bugs.
Double edit: hmm, they actually clarify that the tall grass goal includes adding fire:
So that's why it costs more than you'd think for just a sprite.$355,000 - Tall Grass – There’s waist-high grass in X-Com. This would put it in Xenonauts too, complete with the ridiculous (yet amusing) fire mechanics from the original.
Last edited by RepoMan; 05-15-2012 at 03:45 PM.
My Bad. Thats what I get for paraphrasing. I would think that DYNAMICALLY BURNT AND DESTROYED (copied from Zero's post) would have conveyed the inclusion of the fire mechanic.
For me it's just the absolute numbers that makes the list so silly.
They started a money-raising kickstarter despite being previously commited to make a X-Com remake and stating they'd develop the game in any event, just slower without successful KS. Fine.
Their initial funding goal should have covered the amount of cash they'd reasonably expect to need in order to implement X-Coms features in a also reasonable timeframe.
Let's say, $100k.
Then, additional nice-to-have features (that weren't in the original X-Com) for maybe $50k more.
After that, more art for another $50k.
And then (we're at twice the original budget), outrageous, totally over the top stuff they hadn't previously considered at all. At $300k or something if they must.
Wouldn't have raised an eyebrow at such stretch goals.
But putting (in my book) essentials way up the list at a funding level that'll be very challenging to meet isn't what I'd consider good sportsmanship.
_____
rezaf
Quoting myself from a few days ago. Change "vaguely" to "very". Xenonauts, to me, just went from a passionate fan project to a "WOO HOO ride the KICKSTARTER BALONEY PONEY MONEY TRAIN, YA'LL"
I mean, shit. Really? How much for tall grass? Naw.
If I could cancel my preorder, and get my money back (hell, I'll even make a video of me erasing the alpha executables), I would at this point.
The most important part of your original post was "rational". That still remains the case.
Yeah, heaven forbid they actually make money on this.
Don't give them money if you don't want the tall grass - Its just that simple.
You have all wanted this remake for years - its why you are (most of you, yes, covering my bases) so lighten up, smile, and enjoy the fact that you can get not only one, but TWO Xcom games in the near future.
Edit: Its funny - This is actually why I always argue against spelling out what each dime goes to whenever I sent out a prospect to a client. Since they are on the outside, they have no idea how much work is in each section of the work we do, and if we ask for 100.000 dollars, they'll smile and pay but if I itemize and detail what costs go where, they'll scream bloody murder and go somewhere else.
People are silly.
Lot of "Don't like it?! Don't buy it!" going around this week.
I know in my case I'll buy it. But not yet. It feels as though the dev's need to get their feet back onto the ground and get a solid handle as to how the game is progressing. Of course, I completely understand the notion that kickstarter will help make their good game better. But I can not agree with the scenario of putting it up to vote with the fans as to what priority the stretch goals should be. I'd have thought that would be better to come down to the individual talents of the team and what they can achieve within a particular timeframe.
I'm pretty sure no one here minds the developers earning some money here. Really.Yeah, heaven forbid they actually make money on this.
I do find the Kickstarter proposal irritating though. I had read about Xenonauts before, but didn't know every single detail about the game. So, when they went to Kickstarter, it basically seemed like: "We'd like to get some additional funding to get us through the final phase of the production of the game." And surely enough, $50K sounded like a reasonable number.
Yes, we know how Kickstarter works. Once you reach the initial goal, the developers will dig out the next carrot to be dangled so that people keep spending. And that's fine. However, in the case of Xenonauts it doesn't seem like the bonus content you usually get - it's, at least partially, features you'd simply expect to be in a game that more or less claims to be an X-COM remake("All the classic features are present and accounted for"). And to get some of them you'd have to get 5x the original KS proposal.
I'm not saying that they're cheating or making stuff up as they go - there's a demo one can check out after all. But it seems weird nevertheless.
Last edited by JD; 05-16-2012 at 03:49 AM.
I wonder if they just got all big eyed at the kickstarter prospect? And than a little carried away as you can do on a new toy? Shame, but i'm going to wait before deciding what to do as at one point i was real close to pre-ordering, you know when all the normal x-com remake content was going to be in the game. But now i'm a little confused over what exactly has changed from that pre-kickstarter model, and why.
I really hope this all works out well, we could do with a proper xcom remake once and for all, but yeah.....not the way i had hoped the kickstarter thing would help them out in that goal.
That was the least interesting and valid part of my post, made entirely due to me being annoyed at the previous posts. I swear the rest of my post actually made sense and had some interesting points! ;-)
I was going to come back with a lengthy diatribe against the Goldhawk apologists posting in this thread, but Zak's post will do. Kickstarter suddenly making this content a moving target is bullshit. Makes me wonder where my preorder money went. Oh well. Live and learn.
I'm pretty sure Chris\Goldhawk would be fine giving you a refund if your that upset about it. You should ping him and see about getting your desura key revoked. The folks at Goldhawk are some genuinely nice guys and I wish them well. I think we all agree that their communication could have been better, but if you read their details they are trying to do the right thing (such as including females and Linux/Mac support despite the low interest per surveys but were able to include them due to a solution with realtively low cost).
The overall stretch goal communication created a poor perception with some (including you), but rather than find out the real deal, your going with your gut and subjective perception. No one can fault you for that, it's definetly your right, except at end of the day it has little to do with reality.
Last edited by davidf; 05-16-2012 at 01:07 PM.
What Desura key?
People have been able to buy the alpha of Desura for a while - That Desura Key.
That's not connected to the kickstarter though, so the only way a potential backer would know about the state of the game is through the promises given there.
Posting Permissions