2 ms·

> They are one of the best studios in the industry right now when it comes to consumer and dev friendliness. I think it's hard to judge that when the game hasn

by ebbv 10y ago

> They are one of the best studios in the industry right now when it comes to consumer and dev friendliness. I think it's hard to judge that when the game hasn't been released. Prior to release you could say that about Peter Molyneux or anybody else who promises the sun, moon and stars. I don't think taking people's money and not delivering anything for 4+ years isn't particularly friendly myself.

scrollaway 10y ago
But... they're not, though. You can at best say that of the original kickstarter backers (a now-tiny minority who backed a very different vision of the game - I'm part of that group, by the way), but not of somebody who's buying a ship today. There is a plethora of information available about the vision of the game and that is very much because of CIG's approach to openness. They make everything available. They release countless youtube videos, blog posts, etc about design work on the game. The people putting money into this, they're not preordering a game they're expecting to come out 3 months later, and then ending up disappointed because it's still in development. And I've seen CIG offer complete refunds (sometimes worth thousands of dollars) to backers unhappy with the vision shift. On these points alone they're doing a hell of a lot better than most game studios out there. And yes, they're "promising sun moon and stars", but unlike Molyneux's games, NMS or whatever other overhyped project you can think of, they're constantly delivering updates about it, delivering content. People will always be disappointed. I've been in the games industry long enough to know that gamers never know what the hell they want, and when they see something they think they want, they're usually wrong about it. Opening the gates of game development for consumers to peek inside, try out the product during its earliest days, is a ballsy move and one that simply isn't getting the credit it deserves, especially here.

by ebbv 10y ago

scrollaway 10y ago

But... they're not, though. You can at best say that of the original kickstarter backers (a now-tiny minority who backed a very different vision of the game - I'm part of that group, by the way), but not of somebody who's buying a ship today. There is a plethora of information available about the vision of the game and that is very much because of CIG's approach to openness. They make everything available. They release countless youtube videos, blog posts, etc about design work on the game. The people putting money into this, they're not preordering a game they're expecting to come out 3 months later, and then ending up disappointed because it's still in development. And I've seen CIG offer complete refunds (sometimes worth thousands of dollars) to backers unhappy with the vision shift. On these points alone they're doing a hell of a lot better than most game studios out there. And yes, they're "promising sun moon and stars", but unlike Molyneux's games, NMS or whatever other overhyped project you can think of, they're constantly delivering updates about it, delivering content. People will always be disappointed. I've been in the games industry long enough to know that gamers never know what the hell they want, and when they see something they think they want, they're usually wrong about it. Opening the gates of game development for consumers to peek inside, try out the product during its earliest days, is a ballsy move and one that simply isn't getting the credit it deserves, especially here.