Spacebase!

[Dewar]

With the raids, is your entire population getting wiped out? If not, then I would assume the design-intent is to create some drama that forwards an emergent narrative. I like the idea of losing a quarter of my crew on a regular basis. But of course if your entire population is destroyed, you'd be essentially seeing the same portion of the game over and over.

 

Depending on what appears to be just a random chance, I lose either a couple people or more than half of my population, all depending on the behavior of my security personel (who don't really guard what I tell them to) and how many people are outside (since those folks generally get elminated almost immediately.) The problem is that attacks are fairly constant, so you're going to roll bad on those dice at least once and then it's a downhil spiral. I've played a lot of Dwarf Fortress, so I understand the idea, but there just aren't enough tools to mitigate the risk.

[Dewar]

Three simultaneous sets of raiders ended the second life of my most advanced base, and I have uninstalled. It's just not worth it.

[ExitDose]

I wish that I had gone with Rimworld when I made the initial dip into early access. I'm enjoying that a lot more than the 'finished' version of DF-9. It's weird that I made my choice to go with DF-9 back then because I worried about the Rimworld crew's ability to deliver on it, but they ultimately look to be the next ones to do so - aside from Prison Architect. Oh well, you live and you learn, and I've had a lot of good experiences with EA, at least. 

[Thrik]

I'd never heard of Rimworld before. It looks a lot like Prison Architect — like, borderline excessively so — but I highly approve of the game's premise.

[ExitDose]

That was one of the common criticisms, and why I was a little leery of trying it at first. Visually it's very similar, but it's a very different sort of sim. Its premise is very close to DF-9's, only on a planet instead of a space station. Build your colony and try to survive; though Rimworld at this point has more depth, to my mind.

[Ninety-Three]

So as you might have heard, Double Fine is now trying to crowdfund Psycohnauts 2. I brought up in the Psychonauts 2 thread that I'm still mad about Spacebase, the discussion drifted towards derailment, so I'm continuing the topic here.

I'm a little angry about Spacebase because I paid for it and they pulled the plug, but mostly, I'm upset about how they handled the aftermath. In what few public announcements the devs made, the spin was relentlessly positive, trying to make it look like they had reached the natural end of development and were releasing a basically-finished game. They never apologized.

It feels somehow scummy for them to turn to crowdfunding after their last crowdfunding venture ended in failure and disappointment, without at least acknowledging "Yeah, we fucked up. But here's why you should trust us this time."

 

I was surprised by how few people in the Psychonauts thread were holding Spacebase against them, so I thought I'd check in here: Am I the only one that's still upset? Does anyone else feel Double Fine owes an apology?

[Dewar]

I was somewhat upset about SpaceBase, yes, but Massive Chalice was a pretty awesome Kickstarter project, so I guess I'm ambivalent on the whole thing in the end.

[Bjorn]

I was irritated when the Spacebase thing happened for a few different reasons, but I got over it.  DF's been around for 15 years and has produced something like 15 or 16 games, most of which I've either liked or loved.  They've been one of the most accessible and open companies in gaming.  Out of all that time, and all those games, we have this one example where they fell down, both in game production and communication.  I can forgive that. 

[Irishjohn]

I was irritated when the Spacebase thing happened for a few different reasons, but I got over it.  DF's been around for 15 years and has produced something like 15 or 16 games, most of which I've either liked or loved.  They've been one of the most accessible and open companies in gaming.  Out of all that time, and all those games, we have this one example where they fell down, both in game production and communication.  I can forgive that. 

 

I think that's the best way of looking at it. It kind of sucks, but these things are going to happen now and again to the best of us. I'm mostly sad they didn't get to finish it, though I have never played the game, so I might be mourning my imagination of what the game was going to be anyway.

 

There's also something weird about the way some gg folks piled on to this after Tim Schafer made fun of them. This is absolutely not what Ninety-Three is talking about, but it really just gave me further incentive to assertively extend my benefit of the doubt to Spacebase.

[Ninety-Three]

I was irritated when the Spacebase thing happened for a few different reasons, but I got over it.  DF's been around for 15 years and has produced something like 15 or 16 games, most of which I've either liked or loved.  They've been one of the most accessible and open companies in gaming.  Out of all that time, and all those games, we have this one example where they fell down, both in game production and communication.  I can forgive that. 

 

I have largely gotten over the failure of Spacebase, like I said above, my issue is with their handling of the aftermath. They never admitted they messed up the game, and never apologized to people who bought the game expecting it to be finished. I can forgive a failed game, but if they owed an apology in 2014, that apology debt has not decreased with time.

 

I wish they would be held accountable, even if it was just people on the internet telling them to say sorry. I would like to believe we live in a world where you can't swear on your reputation not to pull the plug, then pull the plug and walk away scot-free.

[clyde]

Didn't they give Hack & Slash to folks who bought Spacebase, I took that as some amount of recompense.

Really though, I don't see what the option is. It's not like it is now illegal for Double Fine to crowd-fund because they didn't deliver a product to funder's expectations. Just don't fund Psychonauts 2 if you feel like you will get burned.

[Bjorn]

The idea of "apology debt" is kind of gross to me.  It's never going to be enough now, for you and others who feel that way.  There was a window in time when a better apology might have been accepted (and that ain't no guarantee), but there's no debt moving forward.  There's the fallout from their choices, sure. Schafer didn't apologize well enough with his statement, and Hack n Slash wasn't enough to make up for the disappointment of Spacebase.  Some people lost their faith and/or trust in DF over Spacebase.  That's fine, I can totally understand why some people would feel that way.  But the way that you're communicating your feelings about this are weirdly personal feeling to me.  Maybe it's just the way you're coming off in text. 

 

I'm somebody who is very big on apologies in my personal and professional life.  I give them when I think I've transgressed and expect them when someone has transgressed against me.  I can look at Spacebase and just see that it was bad all the way around at the end.  No amount of Tim grovelling is going to make me feel any better. 

[Dewar]

Didn't they give Hack & Slash to folks who bought Spacebase, I took that as some amount of recompense.

Really though, I don't see what the option is. It's not like it is now illegal for Double Fine to crowd-fund because they didn't deliver a product to funder's expectations. Just don't fund Psychonauts 2 if you feel like you will get burned.

 

Hack and Slash felt a bit unfinished to me as well, so it kinda felt like getting two half-games. : (

 

Swerving back toward the the Pyschonauts 2 talk,,,, I dunno, DF9 doesn't bother me anymore, but I sat and thought about how many DF games I really enjoyed and I really only came up with three (Brutal Legend, Massive Chalice, and Iron Brigade) and I think two of those are more because of Brad Miur, who has since left. I really like the open studio stuff and would continue to pay for documentaries of the development process. Those were the best things to come from the Broken Age Kickstarter by far.

[Ninety-Three]

Didn't they give Hack & Slash to folks who bought Spacebase, I took that as some amount of recompense.

 

It wasn't much good for those of us who already owned Hack & Slash.

 

As for what the option is, the pitch for your next crowdfunding campaign seems like a good place to acknowledge how you've learned from your past failures and won't make those mistakes again.

 

The idea of "apology debt" is kind of gross to me.  It's never going to be enough now, for you and others who feel that way.  There was a window in time when a better apology might have been accepted (and that ain't no guarantee), but there's no debt moving forward.  There's the fallout from their choices, sure. Schafer didn't apologize well enough with his statement, and Hack n Slash wasn't enough to make up for the disappointment of Spacebase.  Some people lost their faith and/or trust in DF over Spacebase.  That's fine, I can totally understand why some people would feel that way.  But the way that you're communicating your feelings about this are weirdly personal feeling to me.  Maybe it's just the way you're coming off in text. 

 

It could be I'm communicating poorly. I still wish they would apologize, or even just acknowledge the failure, because it would be something, but maybe you're right and it's too little too late. To rephrase it all:

 

I can forgive the fact that Spacebase failed, games fail sometimes, it happens. I can especially forgive it because it's in the past and they've released successful games since. What I can't forgive is the fact that they messed up and never apologized, and unlike a failed game, that's a black mark on their record that doesn't fade with time, because unlike failure, "not apologizing for failure" is an avoidable part of the process.

 

But it wasn't my intent to come here to complain, I was interested in seeing if I was alone in feeling this way. Apparently I am, everyone has forgiven the failure, and no one seems to be taking much issue with their handling of the situation.

[dium]

But it wasn't my intent to come here to complain, I was interested in seeing if I was alone in feeling this way. Apparently I am, everyone has forgiven the failure, and no one seems to be taking much issue with their handling of the situation.

This is kinda tough, because when it comes to the specifics of the SB9 situation I did and do take issue with how they handled it. And it's shitty that they haven't owned up to it like they should've.

But also, I really like Double Fine games, and I quite like the way it seems they run their company in general. I feel positively in those respects about Double Fine to a degree that I really don't for most other game companies. And the unfortunate SB9 situation simply isn't a big enough issue for me to stop wanting more Double Fine games and to support them in general. 

[Jutranjo]

I haven't bought anything from Double Fine since Stacking/Psychonauts in a Humble Bundle so I'm not much bothered with the Space Base thing/Broken Age delay. I thought they'd at least mention how their first kickstarter campaign fared and what they've learned since then, since they went and put it in the pitch video.

[Architecture]

I think I'm going to forego support for Kickstarter and its ilk and just pay for the games or services on the back end, even if the cost increases. It's worked out just fine thus far.

 

Shenmue 3 almost broke me, however.

[Latrine]

I agree from a customer's perspective that discontinuation of the development of Spacebase is certainly a disappointment and failure compared to the project's initial goals. However think of it from Double Fine's perspective as a business, is it more in their interest to issue an apology and basically acknowledge that Spacebase is a failure or to cut their losses and just accept Spacebase as a subpar but complete product that they will continue to sell with their name on it? I actually think it would be a bigger hit to their reputation if they did issue an apology. The only time you'll see a game company actually recall a game is when it's completely broken as software, for example the recent Batman game on PC. Also you'll notice that in the studio demo reel they released with their new campaign that every single Double Fine game is shown, including Spacebase, so they're owning as their own game whatever the end product became.

 

Also there's an important distinction between the funding models for Spacebase and Double Fine's other recent games. Spacebase used a purely early access model which relies solely on revenues from sales of alpha versions of the game to sustain development, the initial budget is mostly an estimate of expected sales. Broken Age, Massive Chalice, and now Psychonauts 2 all use a crowd funding model that requires them to achieve a lump sum funding goal for the project to go forward and they can budget that more appropriately. Spacebase was a bet on an unproven funding model and niche game genre that just didn't pay off. Because of this difference it's not at all clear that the funding problem that happened with Spacebase would also be replicated in Psychonauts 2.

 

Although I will say I do have some concerns and issues with how Double Fine has been making games recently. I haven't really loved a Double Fine game wholeheartedly since the original Psychonauts and I think it's in part because they've become dedicated to making smaller games with more limited budgets. It just seems they can't afford to put in the time to really polish their games to a higher standard. There's even a part in the Broken Age documentary where they're discussing their expected Metacritic rating and how much more time it would take to improve it and whether they could afford it in their budget and I think they basically decided they had to live with a rating in the 70s or 80s.

[Ninety-Three]

I agree from a customer's perspective that discontinuation of the development of Spacebase is certainly a disappointment and failure compared to the project's initial goals. However think of it from Double Fine's perspective as a business, is it more in their interest to issue an apology and basically acknowledge that Spacebase is a failure or to cut their losses and just accept Spacebase as a subpar but complete product that they will continue to sell with their name on it? I actually think it would be a bigger hit to their reputation if they did issue an apology.

 

I don't think apologizing for Spacebase would hurt Double Fine as a whole, although it would probably hurt the sales of Spacebase a bit. That said, the game is currently sitting at 49 Metacritic and three quarters negative Steam reviews, so I doubt it's been selling much since the final release. As for what it gains them, I'm holding back from Psychonauts 2 because I'm still upset they never apologized, and the lack of apology is a black mark on their overall reputation. There are surely a few more people like me out there. It's a balancing act between several unknowable numbers (sales lost on Spacebase, overall reputation lost by apologizing, reputation gained with people angry about Spacebase), but it's at least plausible that apologizing is the right course of action.

[Latrine]

I'll agree that it's plausible, and from an ethical perspective it's the right course of action, personally I would also appreciate an apology. However I still think it's a riskier move to acknowledge failure, something that other video game companies and other content producers very rarely do, than to just stay silent. It's precisely because the cost-benefit analysis may be impossible that the more conservative choice is the rational one. 

 

Although Double Fine may actually have some way of quantifying from feedback just how many people feel like you do. I certainly don't think you're alone in your point of view, I'm just not sure there are that many people in Double Fine's core audience who feel the same way. I guess we'll see how Psychonauts 2 does since I feel like $3.3 million is a pretty big ask and if they really have alienated a big chunk of their audience they may not reach that goal, but right now it looks like they're on track. Personally despite my reservations I think I'll still end up backing Psychonauts 2 just because I like the types of games Double Fine tries to make even if they don't always live up to my expectations. 

[Ninety-Three]

 

I guess we'll see how Psychonauts 2 does since I feel like $3.3 million is a pretty big ask and if they really have alienated a big chunk of their audience they may not reach that goal, but right now it looks like they're on track.

 

Oh Psychonauts 2 was about 40% funded by the end of the first day, it'll beat their target by a large margin.

[Mawd]

I don't remember anything about Hack & Slash but I do own SB, did it only go out to kickstarter backers? weird I bought SB in oct 2013 and I've never heard anything about this. 

 

Ahwell. I liked SB but it's no Dwarf Fortress. As far as early access disappointments, it's no Towns either. Which I'd also put time into.

[brkl]

Space base was an early access game. It just wasn't as good as I hoped, and I think a lot of that comes from the initial idea not being strong enough. It doesn't feel like space or a space station. Buying an early access game is a risk and you shouldn't do it if the game in its current state isn't enough for you. For me, it was simply a poor investment and I don't need an apology.

The reason I'm not backing DF games is that they seem to be too fast and loose with development. The games tend to be OK and look interesting. I want more than OK.

[unimural]

DF-9 was a failure as a project, but that's fine with me. Perhaps they could have been a bit more gracious about the upset over stopping the development, but I've never felt they've owed an apology. I guess the argument is that people feel Double Fine promised, or at least gave the impression that they would make a deep simulation game out of DF-9. They failed, but it is a game. The "Spacebase DF-9 is now released." -approach was obviously putting a nice sounding spin on an unfortunate situation. However, I do think Tim's form post response to all the hubhub was a nice move. It was certainly more honest than what most companies would have done, and I don't fully understand anyone needing anything more after that.

 

Further rambling

 

Personally, I very rarely buy early access games, or pre-order games. I do back a lot of kickstarters though. Crowdfunding, to me, is providing the opportunity that something might exist at some point, and early access is buying whatever the thing happens to be at that moment. And pre-ordering these days is, I suppose, about the pre-order bonuses versus the possibility that you won't enjoy the game. With early access you do at least get reviews of sort. I understand that a lot of people approach buying games differently, but when it comes to early access, I think they are making a mistake if they do.

 

I really liked the concept of Spacebase DF-9, but I always considered the game as a weird fit for Double Fine. As a developer, I don't think they've ever made a game without a ton of art and animation, and I was concerned whether they'd be able to make DF-9 work with their kind of visual-oriented approach. But I like Dwarf Fortress a lot, and I like JP, or at least the perception I have of him, so I bought the game fairly soon after its early access launch. I didn't enjoy it for long, and I felt my concerns were justified. When they stopped development, I gave it another shot, and it still wasn't very captivating. Steam says I've played it 6 hours, and I mildly enjoyed myself for most of it.

 

As a side note, I do wish it was possible to filter early access games on Steam.

[Ninety-Three]

DF-9 was a failure as a project, but that's fine with me. Perhaps they could have been a bit more gracious about the upset over stopping the development, but I've never felt they've owed an apology. I guess the argument is that people feel Double Fine promised, or at least gave the impression that they would make a deep simulation game out of DF-9. They failed, but it is a game. The "Spacebase DF-9 is now released." -approach was obviously putting a nice sounding spin on an unfortunate situation. However, I do think Tim's form post response to all the hubhub was a nice move. It was certainly more honest than what most companies would have done

 

Was it though? To summarize Tim's explanation:

• "The project wasn't making money so we're ending development."
• "We're skipping beta because we've been doing bugfixing throughout the alpha stage."
• "It's not silently pulling the plug because we're telling you a month in advance and putting out one final release." 
• "Sorry about not communicating better. But we didn't tell you about our plans to end development because we hoped we wouldn't have to."
• "We put the game on sale knowing that development would end, because that's just how Steam works, sales happen."
• "We're disappointed too, but we worked hard, we still think Spacebase is cool and we hope you check it out."

What part of that was honest? What information did he actually give out, that most companies wouldn't have? "We're disappointed too" is obvious, plus it's standard PR and "The project wasn't making money" is obvious without him having to say anything. So we've got a mountain of positive spin, one piece of obvious information, and no apology for the big thing everyone's mad about (ending development). That seems exactly like what most companies would do.

 

I suppose you might say that most companies wouldn't have apologized for poor communication about the state of the project, but when the focus of the anger is on them ending development, that's an awfully faint apology.

 

 

 

As for why people feel DF promised or implied a deep sim game with a longer development cycle, Tim himself admits in the linked post that the original plan was a five year dev cycle, and their development roadmap (archived, because the original site is gone) reflected plans to put out a much larger game than they did. Yes, the way EA works, the dev might end development where it stands and walk away, everyone knows that's a risk, but the point is that it's a risk, not the system working as intended. When that happens, something has gone wrong, and even though the dev is allowed to do it, they're breaking the implicit promise of continued development. In the case of DF-9 and the roadmap, that promise was even less implicit than usual. At the very least, they could apologize for breaking that promise.