6 ms·
Lost interest the third time they said there were only updates for backers. Yes, they should be providing more updates for the people who might buy it. I think
by bvttf 14y ago
Lost interest the third time they said there were only updates for backers.
Yes, they should be providing more updates for the people who might buy it. I think the backer-only updates were listed as features since that was presumably one of the big draws of the doublefine kickstarter success.
But RPS: do some journalism and ask someone who did back it? Or email the project? For a story titled "where are they now", having half the entries be "they protected updates so dunno, lol" is annoying.
- JonLim 14y agoI came to make a similar comment, and am still reading my way through, but RPS seems to have a bias against updates only for backers. In my opinion, the games that are still far from being released are doing just fine by not marketing themselves a little too early. If I'm not mistaken, games typically ramp up their marketing efforts much closer to actual release dates than during the development process. Kickstarter enables a different method of capitalization, sure, but I think the game development process remains consistent as with other types of funding available to developers.