Just a small issue that needs addressing.

[Kodiak]

I wrote this on the Steam forums as a response to the mob of torches and pitchforks coming for Chris to get the next update out. I want to share it on this board too and see what you guys think.

--------

Crowd funding and early access is a really good idea. I can see now why it hasn't really been done until now though, and the Steam forums are quickly becoming a prime example of such.

Independent development is exactly what it sounds like. It's a developer starting a game with absolutely zero financial backing. This means no publisher. No publisher ensures that the developer retains full creative rights to their work. I'm sure many on forums have or have at least witnessed people complaining about how diluted the industry has become. A focus that has shifted from making creative games that change the way we play to games that will sell.

The AAA industry has become a lot like Hollywood in that respect.

Crowd Funding and Early Access is the answer to that problem. Instead of looking for a publisher, a developer may now turn to the fans, and have their dream game become a reality without having to sacrifice their original vision of what they wanted to make.

This means risky ideas, and concepts that have never been done before have a greater chance of seeing the light of day.

The thing a lot of people need to realize about Early Access and crowd funding is that:

A: You're not always going to get a guaranteed return on your investment.

B: For all intents and purposes, there is very little you can legally do to hold the developer responsible to giving you a return.

But something is happening that I don't think anybody predicted. Us, the gaming community, the same people that have said "The gaming industry sucks compared to what it used to be" "That game sucked because it was too rushed/Too similar to X game/Not enough content/Too Buggy." We answer to a developer with a truly unique vision, making a game that has NEVER been done before. Nobody has ever attempted to do what this man is doing.

We tell him to "Hurry up"

"We want to pull our investment, because it's taking too long"

"We want X thing implemented because the game will suck otherwise"

You know who that sounds like?

Does that not sound exactly like those "Evil" publishing companies you've decided to avoid by breathing life into this project? Like a publisher, you're asked to take a risk...Not with millions of dollars, but with $15, and you still sound exactly like them.

Publishers are good at giving you exactly what you want. Or are they? I think you all need to take a step back, and decide what it is you want from this project, and whether opting into crowd funding is something that you, or even this community is ready for.

Your money is gone on this one already, no point in complaining. go outside, play other games, sit back, it will be completed eventually. OR it won't. You still got to try a game that you otherwise never would have if you hadn't opted in.

[Kehlian]

I actually... agree :/ I'm one of those impatient dude who wants news and leaks about games, and stalk all over the internet to get some, but I understand that the game should'nt be rushed.
After all, we have a life to live when we're not gaming !

[hbrown]

Till now that i seen that "problem" only happened in Steam forums, never seen an uprise like taht here till now , but i am not that long ago anyway.

But lets hope that those people stat to understand what they get into and read, which i doubt much about it, i think no matter how much posts of this gender will be done there will always be the small troll or idiot about such thing.

[kringtheking]

So I was one of the many people who bought the game when it came out on steam. While I understand that this game will take time to be made correctly, I don't think Steam does a very good job explaining that the game might not ever be finished and everyone will be out of $15 if that happens. I can understand that when people pay money, they want a product that is finished or will be finished quickly. While there will always be idiots on the internet, Steam could do some things better to fix there green light program. Personally what sold me on the game was the video on steam of the small hut with a wall and farm. I wanted to build that but by the time I bought the game walls had been removed. While I want them replaced ASAP, I can wait until they are fixed properly and not rushed back in.
I also think Chris could communicate a bit better. I have read that he is beginning to use twitter which is good but for people who don't use twitter. like myself, he could also post those same updates on here as well. It doesn't need to be a huge wall of words ever week. I think a few sentences once a month would do a lot to silence many of the worries people have. I have had to do this for several college projects and its not that difficult, it only takes about 5 minutes.

[fable salt]

I specifically chose to make an account here because of this post.

It was this post that specifically riled me up:

Your money is gone on this one already, no point in complaining. go outside, play other games, sit back, it will be completed eventually. OR it won't. You still got to try a game that you otherwise never would have if you hadn't opted in.

It's for that reason specifically that we SHOULD be complaining, not the other way around. It would be absolutely asinine to expect people to just stop being upset because their money is already gone. No where in the known universe have I ever seen this kind of argumentation. Our money was taken in return for a product, just because there's no legal contract for him to produce anything doesn't mean we don't have a right to complain. Hell, I'd still argue that we have a legal right to expect a game. It's the arguments contrary to that which make crowdsourcing a breeding ground of deception and thievery. Being quiet about a lack of content is literally the best way to encourage more people to start their own projects and never deliver.

Also, I am one of those "complainers" and I am quite vocal on the Steam forums. The difference between us and the "evil" publishers is quite vast. First, Chris doesn't answer to us; there is no contract here, so he could tell us to piss off any time he wants to. Second, the only return we will see is a game that is apparently going to take half a decade to create. Third, he has the initial sales from his game, and it's not even remotely finished. This leads us to the last difference between us and the evil publishers: there is no incentive for him to speed the process along.

I've seen this before with other "crowdsourced" games. The fanbase is there, so there's really no need to finish the game; hell, finishing the game would honestly be the worst marketing decision out of those available. By leaving the game unfinished, the game can be sold on its "potential" instead of its end product. Dwarf fortress is a very nasty example of this abuse of customer loyalty; nearly a decade of "work," and while the game is decently built, the end result by no means justifies the decade of "work" put into it. But that's where cognitive dissonance really helps smooth over the anger and agitation that the c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶s investors go through after the initial buy-in. No one wants to feel like they've been "had," so they turn their anger on the new investors that are complaining of a lack in their return (see: game content). It's a horrible cycle, but it's indicative that the gaming industry is no better than Hollywood: even at the "indie" level of production, we're getting screwed.

If anything, crowdsourcing takes the title of evil from the big-time producers, and rewards its prevalence in the indie-developer. Don't get me wrong, I bought in on the potential of a lot of games--this being one of them. But I know better than to get my hopes up.

Furthermore, I find it absolutely insulting that the most prevalent response to my argument is that I am an idiot or a troll.

[islesofurth]

People just need to understand that most AAA games haveover 100 people working on them at any one time. Yet they still take a year or more from start to finish.

Indie games normally only have 1 or a very small team of friends working on them, If you want things as good as in AAA games then it takes as much time to make.

if a AAA game company and a indie dev were making the same game. The AAA company would finish the game before the indie dev could even finish the games layout, The indie dev would also more than likely be dead before finishing the game.


People just gota be paitiant.

[Kodiak]

I specifically chose to make an account here because of this post.

It was this post that specifically riled me up:

Your money is gone on this one already, no point in complaining. go outside, play other games, sit back, it will be completed eventually. OR it won't. You still got to try a game that you otherwise never would have if you hadn't opted in.

It's for that reason specifically that we SHOULD be complaining, not the other way around. It would be absolutely asinine to expect people to just stop being upset because their money is already gone. No where in the known universe have I ever seen this kind of argumentation. Our money was taken in return for a product, just because there's no legal contract for him to produce anything doesn't mean we don't have a right to complain. Hell, I'd still argue that we have a legal right to expect a game. It's the arguments contrary to that which make crowdsourcing a breeding ground of deception and thievery. Being quiet about a lack of content is literally the best way to encourage more people to start their own projects and never deliver.

Also, I am one of those "complainers" and I am quite vocal on the Steam forums. The difference between us and the "evil" publishers is quite vast. First, Chris doesn't answer to us; there is no contract here, so he could tell us to piss off any time he wants to. Second, the only return we will see is a game that is apparently going to take half a decade to create. Third, he has the initial sales from his game, and it's not even remotely finished. This leads us to the last difference between us and the evil publishers: there is no incentive for him to speed the process along.

I've seen this before with other "crowdsourced" games. The fanbase is there, so there's really no need to finish the game; hell, finishing the game would honestly be the worst marketing decision out of those available. By leaving the game unfinished, the game can be sold on its "potential" instead of its end product. Dwarf fortress is a very nasty example of this abuse of customer loyalty; nearly a decade of "work," and while the game is decently built, the end result by no means justifies the decade of "work" put into it. But that's where cognitive dissonance really helps smooth over the anger and agitation that the c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶s investors go through after the initial buy-in. No one wants to feel like they've been "had," so they turn their anger on the new investors that are complaining of a lack in their return (see: game content). It's a horrible cycle, but it's indicative that the gaming industry is no better than Hollywood: even at the "indie" level of production, we're getting screwed.

If anything, crowdsourcing takes the title of evil from the big-time producers, and rewards its prevalence in the indie-developer. Don't get me wrong, I bought in on the potential of a lot of games--this being one of them. But I know better than to get my hopes up.

Furthermore, I find it absolutely insulting that the most prevalent response to my argument is that I am an idiot or a troll.

Hey Thanks for the well thought out reply, even though you mentioned being riled up about it.

In all honesty, your argument would make a lot of sense, and I would be inclined to agree with you; however I do see one flaw in it.

Did you pay the price of the finished product?

Of course you didn't. The game is priced according to the amount of content it delivers. The kicker is, every time the game is improved or updated substantially, the price is going to go up, until the game is done. I feel I've gotten more than a return on the money I paid with the current state of the game. Many people here would agree, There are people who have been around way longer than me. They paid even less than I did, and have been enjoying features that they didn't pay for. I paid for those features though, but the nature of this project is, you paid the price of a night at the movies, a dinner out, less than a steak dinner, to play the incomplete game.

Like a steak dinner, if it were rushed, and under-cooked, people would hate the cook for not making the steak properly. It's not like a steak dinner is going to get better with time either, like this game will.

Just be patient, and stop demonizing a single human being, who while professional in appearance, has only just recently had a sum of money plopped in his lap. This is after working part time jobs simply to be able to live while he works on this project.

I'm not saying you're wrong or a troll. If you feel you haven't gotten what you paid for, then it's by all means your right to dissent. But just think for a moment about who you're complaining to, pretty much a single guy, who wants to make a game, not Ubisoft.

[Kodiak]

I specifically chose to make an account here because of this post.

It was this post that specifically riled me up:

Your money is gone on this one already, no point in complaining. go outside, play other games, sit back, it will be completed eventually. OR it won't. You still got to try a game that you otherwise never would have if you hadn't opted in.

It's for that reason specifically that we SHOULD be complaining, not the other way around. It would be absolutely asinine to expect people to just stop being upset because their money is already gone. No where in the known universe have I ever seen this kind of argumentation. Our money was taken in return for a product, just because there's no legal contract for him to produce anything doesn't mean we don't have a right to complain. Hell, I'd still argue that we have a legal right to expect a game. It's the arguments contrary to that which make crowdsourcing a breeding ground of deception and thievery. Being quiet about a lack of content is literally the best way to encourage more people to start their own projects and never deliver.

Also, I am one of those "complainers" and I am quite vocal on the Steam forums. The difference between us and the "evil" publishers is quite vast. First, Chris doesn't answer to us; there is no contract here, so he could tell us to piss off any time he wants to. Second, the only return we will see is a game that is apparently going to take half a decade to create. Third, he has the initial sales from his game, and it's not even remotely finished. This leads us to the last difference between us and the evil publishers: there is no incentive for him to speed the process along.

I've seen this before with other "crowdsourced" games. The fanbase is there, so there's really no need to finish the game; hell, finishing the game would honestly be the worst marketing decision out of those available. By leaving the game unfinished, the game can be sold on its "potential" instead of its end product. Dwarf fortress is a very nasty example of this abuse of customer loyalty; nearly a decade of "work," and while the game is decently built, the end result by no means justifies the decade of "work" put into it. But that's where cognitive dissonance really helps smooth over the anger and agitation that the c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶s investors go through after the initial buy-in. No one wants to feel like they've been "had," so they turn their anger on the new investors that are complaining of a lack in their return (see: game content). It's a horrible cycle, but it's indicative that the gaming industry is no better than Hollywood: even at the "indie" level of production, we're getting screwed.

If anything, crowdsourcing takes the title of evil from the big-time producers, and rewards its prevalence in the indie-developer. Don't get me wrong, I bought in on the potential of a lot of games--this being one of them. But I know better than to get my hopes up.

Furthermore, I find it absolutely insulting that the most prevalent response to my argument is that I am an idiot or a troll.

Hey Thanks for the well thought out reply, even though you mentioned being riled up about it.

In all honesty, your argument would make a lot of sense, and I would be inclined to agree with you; however I do see one flaw in it.

Did you pay the price of the finished product?

Of course you didn't. The game is priced according to the amount of content it delivers. The kicker is, every time the game is improved or updated substantially, the price is going to go up, until the game is done. I feel I've gotten more than a return on the money I paid with the current state of the game. Many people here would agree, There are people who have been around way longer than me. They paid even less than I did, and have been enjoying features that they didn't pay for. I paid for those features though, but the nature of this project is, you paid the price of a night at the movies, a dinner out, less than a steak dinner, to play the incomplete game.

Like a steak dinner, if it were rushed, and under-cooked, people would hate the cook for not making the steak properly. It's not like a steak dinner is going to get better with time either, like this game will.

Just be patient, and stop demonizing a single human being, who while professional in appearance, has only just recently had a sum of money plopped in his lap. This is after working part time jobs simply to be able to live while he works on this project.

I'm not saying you're wrong or a troll. If you feel you haven't gotten what you paid for, then it's by all means your right to dissent. But just think for a moment about who you're complaining to, pretty much a single guy, who wants to make a game, not Ubisoft.

I also feel I should include, that I really do appreciate your "Power of the consumer" kind of views. You are very right in that respect. Like with the XBox One. They were creating a console nobody wanted, we all spoke up, and got something better. You're very right to enact your power as a consumer. I agree with that.

I only mean to remind you that it's not like the dev of Kenshi is a professional developer. That's again, the nature of indie development. It's not like he's created hundreds of games before. For the longest time, this has been the equivalent of a personal project that a bunch of people had decided to take an interest in, and help fund, because we thought it was cool.

I feel this might not have been appropriately communicated with the "Early Access" section of Steam.
I was personally worried about it, because I had a feeling something like this would happen. I thought it was great, because if you thought updates are few and far between now! They have actually improved substantially since the Steam release.

All I can say is, in the future, if you're buying into early access, look at what they're charging, and look at what you have available to you. Just think "Is it worth the price they're charging "As is"? Look at all the people who got suckered by "The War Z" Or whatever it was. This is the time when action needs to be taken. Chris might not release updates the fastest, but if you'd followed his development up until now, you'd see that he has a passion for this game, and it's going to be completed with, or without your funding. The only thing is, without funding, it will take longer, and it might not be as good.

He has stated this himself.

[Hatsune_Neko]

nods
good points one and all.
gonna have to snip some and add to my post on the steam forums.

[juknju]

I specifically chose to make an account here because of this post.

It was this post that specifically riled me up:

Your money is gone on this one already, no point in complaining. go outside, play other games, sit back, it will be completed eventually. OR it won't. You still got to try a game that you otherwise never would have if you hadn't opted in.

It's for that reason specifically that we SHOULD be complaining, not the other way around. It would be absolutely asinine to expect people to just stop being upset because their money is already gone. No where in the known universe have I ever seen this kind of argumentation. Our money was taken in return for a product, just because there's no legal contract for him to produce anything doesn't mean we don't have a right to complain. Hell, I'd still argue that we have a legal right to expect a game. It's the arguments contrary to that which make crowdsourcing a breeding ground of deception and thievery. Being quiet about a lack of content is literally the best way to encourage more people to start their own projects and never deliver.

Also, I am one of those "complainers" and I am quite vocal on the Steam forums. The difference between us and the "evil" publishers is quite vast. First, Chris doesn't answer to us; there is no contract here, so he could tell us to piss off any time he wants to. Second, the only return we will see is a game that is apparently going to take half a decade to create. Third, he has the initial sales from his game, and it's not even remotely finished. This leads us to the last difference between us and the evil publishers: there is no incentive for him to speed the process along.

I've seen this before with other "crowdsourced" games. The fanbase is there, so there's really no need to finish the game; hell, finishing the game would honestly be the worst marketing decision out of those available. By leaving the game unfinished, the game can be sold on its "potential" instead of its end product. Dwarf fortress is a very nasty example of this abuse of customer loyalty; nearly a decade of "work," and while the game is decently built, the end result by no means justifies the decade of "work" put into it. But that's where cognitive dissonance really helps smooth over the anger and agitation that the c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶s investors go through after the initial buy-in. No one wants to feel like they've been "had," so they turn their anger on the new investors that are complaining of a lack in their return (see: game content). It's a horrible cycle, but it's indicative that the gaming industry is no better than Hollywood: even at the "indie" level of production, we're getting screwed.

If anything, crowdsourcing takes the title of evil from the big-time producers, and rewards its prevalence in the indie-developer. Don't get me wrong, I bought in on the potential of a lot of games--this being one of them. But I know better than to get my hopes up.

Furthermore, I find it absolutely insulting that the most prevalent response to my argument is that I am an idiot or a troll.

While I agree with you for the most part, I don't think this is a good example of a project that deserves much of any criticism (yet). You have to bear in mind that until recently, he's been doing this by himself. I think it would only be fair that you let the guy assemble a team before you are 'very vocal' on the Steam forums. Just look at the Kenshi roster in the update he just posted (Upcoming 0.44). The artists have been working with him for a while, but as he noted in the interview he did with 6aming (Update: 'Gaming Interview' 08 May 2013), the real development bottleneck is the programming. And the freelance programmer he hired to do "a few auxiliary jobs" and implement the sound engine flaked on him (Update: 'New Sound Designer' 08 May 2013). It's not until now that he has found a dependable programmer (Sam Gynn) to help him with that. Also, according to his 6aming interview, he had been working a part time job for "six or so years" prior to release (I don't exactly know what he means by 'release'. That's the Steam release, right?). So just to recap: one guy has been doing all of the programming since the game's beginning and has only recently been working full time. To me, it seems a little unfair of you to be 'very vocal' about the development of a game that's just now getting off of the ground.

I don't know what you've been saying on the Steam forums, but I hope it hasn't been too scathing. He hasn't done much to dash our hopes. Either way, you bought the game. To me, this means that you do hold a bit of optimism for this game.

And btw, if anyone reading this has any information that supports or refutes anything I've said, please let me know.

[Clawdius Talonious]

Kenshi is a work in progress, and the fact that it is in the Early Access portion of Steam is there for all to see with a large disclaimer. I imagine many of our jobs involve a transitional phase where the product we're working on doesn't bear much resemblance to what the final result will be.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/3/14/

[islesofurth]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/3/14/

true and hilarious at the same time

[Hatsune_Neko]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/3/14/

giggles, now thats classic

[skynet464]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/3/14/

Too bad the final result for that was crap.