I dont really care about the whole Kickstarter thing because Double Fine is just making a point and click game. I don't like those kinda of games but if the game they were making instead of a point and click, like a cool action platformer but made for the xbla i would probably put in $15. As for Twisted Metal goes, its probably not gonna sell well, hell even Resistance 3 didn't sell good but that game was the best of the Resistance series. Twisted Metal maybe should be $40 or $50 instead of $60 but this game is made for the fans and its not gonna turn you into a fan if you never liked the franchise, but I am going to support Jaffe and I think he is brilliant and unique and I hope he continues to make games.

Love the show and I listen every week.

Originally Posted by billyok So even though running around shooting people in confined maps in Call of Battlefield is the most popular thing going in gaming right now, doing the same thing in a car, a la Twisted Metal, is somehow 10 years obsolete and out of touch with gamers today. Makes sense to me!

I know right? The thing with the demo is that it didn't feel like a complete representation of Twisted Metal being that one of the main attractions to the games are the characters and the storyline(s) of which the demo doesn't show. It has one map, two modes, and about half of the vehicles the game offers. I actually did enjoy the demo and I've been a fan of the series since 2 so I'm looking forward to this game.

As for the whole Double Fine thing does this make someone like the AVGN a bad person for e-begging people so he can make his movie? Isn't it basically the same?

Wombat, I just got over being sick so I'm going to attribute your Double Fine/Kickstarter rant to not feeling well. Otherwise, they're not taking money out of your pocket and/or ruining the industry so I don't see what the big deal is. I can usually get behind your whole "devil's advocate" role but no one else was really taking a stand on the issue, so I'm not sure which "side" you were really playing to.

I do wholeheartedly agree with all the thoughts on the XBL dashboard. I know the dash update has received a lot of criticism already but filing through the latest DLC releases is a hassle. It's just pages and pages of Rock Band. Every day. Instead of a car commercial, how about a link to Rock Band DLC on the dash? That will at least be valuable to some people. You know it's bad when the PSN store is better organized.

I'm assuming you guys gave out that DLC and just didn't say who won but if not, that really sucks. The last show's comment thread was just chalked full of exactly what you asked for Cheapy.

Originally Posted by Just-Joe I know right? The thing with the demo is that it didn't feel like a complete representation of Twisted Metal being that one of the main attractions to the games are the characters and the storyline(s) of which the demo doesn't show. It has one map, two modes, and about half of the vehicles the game offers. I actually did enjoy the demo and I've been a fan of the series since 2 so I'm looking forward to this game

Online is the focus of this Twisted Metal. I don't think CheapyD played online at all because of the matchmaking errors. Wombat calling the game "Calling All Cars 2" is completely stupid and shows he's ignorant to the depth. Seemed like they were talking a lot about a game they didn't know anything about, which tends to happen on this show. Love you guys!

I liked the demo and it only got better the more I played it. The depth of the game will not come across in the early hours of play.

I agree with Wombat about Double Fine and Kickstarter. This move reeks of desperation from Double Fine.

Psychonauts was the first and best game produced by the studio, Brutal Legend was crap and as a result the studio could not get anymore publishing deals. That essentially turned them into a XBLA/PSN games developer that tend to get good reviews from journalists who cannot seperate the Lucas Arts-era Tim Schafer from the one who is churning out mediocre digital games. Despite the critical handjobs these game get, the gaming public is largely apathetic to their output.

Tim Schafer used the goodwill he earned in the 90's to bait nostalgic gamers who have largely ignored his 00's output to fund his next project. That goes against the spirit of Kickstarter, which is intended for people with no viable way of funding an idea, not established businesses that have pretty much failed over the past ten years and are desperate to remain relevant.

Wombat do you illicit this type of reaction from people in real life?

When 3DO needed money: Trip Hawkins gave them a loan
When Double Fine needs money: Tim Schafer panhandles

What pissed me off about the TM demo is that I saw Cheapy having all the issues connecting online and David Jaffe talk about them being fixed last week, then when I tried to play it Wednesday it was already locked and you couldn't play it at all.

Originally Posted by guardian_owl To some extent I agree with Wombat, kickstarter should be used by people who legitimately have few if any options to raise funding for their project(s). A large % of the cash raised is likely from Double Fine fans who specifically went onto kickstarter to fund the project, but I am sure some portion of the cash is money from regular kickstarter visitors which was not spent on one of the other projects whose sole option for funding is kickstarter. The extreme metaphor would be a person who makes a decent living, but periodically dresses up in ratty clothes and goes down to the soup kitchen for a free meal. Leave the free meal to those who need it.

No, that would be extremely flawed metaphor. This project raised a tremendous amount of cash in 24 hours, which means it was completely demand driven. It is not like people wake up each morning, turn on their computers and then try to figure what kickstart project they are going to fund today. You might as well say amazon or starbucks or the red cross are also starving other kickstarter projects as well, since people spend money at those places....money that could be spent on kickstarter projects.

It seems like alot of the griping about this sounds like 'oh, double fine isn't indy enough' to be using kickstarter, which just strikes me as petty bullshit. It isn't like EA is doing this to fund Madden kergillion. If anything, this thing probably introduced the kickstarter concept to whole lot more people, which likely means more backers and more projects in the future.

Wombat seemed to focus on the 'easy money' aspect, but the key thing in my mind is less the access to capital but rather the clear indication of demand for the product, which is an ADVENTURE GAME. No publisher is going to touch an adventure game in this day and age (I believe Telltale self-publishes their own works), and given Double Fine's past problems with publishers on Psychonauts and Brutal Legend, it isn't surprising they might want see if there were other options out there. And while they probably could get the capital to finance it via more traditional ways, this route clearly shows they have an audience for the product right out of the gate....it may not be a massive audience (they have about 40K+ backers at the moment) but it is sufficiently motivated audience to put their money into the product ahead of time. At a basic level, this isn't really too far removed from gamestop taking a pre order on something, outside of the fact that it cuts out all the middlemen between the producer and the end consumer and that it didn't cost Double Fine a penny in marketing costs.

Originally Posted by K_G this route clearly shows they have an audience for the product right out of the gate

Yup, 40,000 people want to play it. That is enough of an audience for me to create a game.

You know what else shows that they have an audience? Game sales. How much did Psychonauts sell?

Originally Posted by XXXplosive1 I agree with Wombat about Double Fine and Kickstarter. This move reeks of desperation from Double Fine.

I just don't understand how anyone who considers themselves a gamer and wants to actually support the devs could ever take issue with the Double Fine Kickstarter campaign.

Originally Posted by XXXplosive1 Brutal Legend was crap and as a result the studio could not get anymore publishing deals. That essentially turned them into a XBLA/PSN games developer that tend to get good reviews from journalists who cannot seperate the Lucas Arts-era Tim Schafer from the one who is churning out mediocre digital games. Despite the critical handjobs these game get, the gaming public is largely apathetic to their output.

Brutal Legend wasn't crap. It, and pretty much every game they've made so far scores on average a 7.5 to 8.5 out of 10 (critic and user scores.) That is pretty consistent quality, whether or not one or many of their games wasn't your cup of tea.

And if they could not get anymore publishing deals, why the hell not go to Kickstarter?

Originally Posted by XXXplosive1 Tim Schafer used the goodwill he earned in the 90's to bait nostalgic gamers who have largely ignored his 00's output to fund his next project. That goes against the spirit of Kickstarter, which is intended for people with no viable way of funding an idea, not established businesses that have pretty much failed over the past ten years and are desperate to remain relevant.

Sour grapes. The mere fact that, as of right now, some 40,000 fans kicked in $1.5 million for this project says just how much people believe in the studio and Schafer. Double Fine should be applauded for going directly to the fans, and not being beholden to the publishers who things up every chance they get. I guess they should make a Kickstarter+ which would be only for well known names/studios, so people wouldn't give them shit for taking the spotlight away from the little guys.

Judging from his tweets, Wombat is pretty much just trolling to stir up controversy anyways, which is the epitome of douchiness. At least there's a story you CAN talk about on the CAGcast.

I think Double Fine does it just the right way. I remember the whole community cry for a rerelease of "Psychonauts" and they brought it to the Marketplace - guess what really did not so well!!!
The thing is people like to cry out loud a lot if they demand something, but thats all they do. The psychonauts example and the CoD:MW 2 -"Boykott" showed this very well
there is always dumbass manager on the publisher side that will talk into the developer to change this and that in the game or come with " and here .... some online pass.... and here: take this part out of the game - it would make a good download episode".
They ensure their freedom in the design of the game. Also they ensure that there is some interest in this game.
I prefer to crowdfund games over being ed by developers via online-pass and other cheap tricks to suck more money out of gamers (some overpriced and mostly recycled CoD-MapPacks, anyone ... no... maybe an overpriced statistic system that shows how often you farted in the sweet camperspot). Not to mention the people who bought Batman Arkham City but can not play as Catwoman because they have no Internet-Connection to suck the 200 MB File, while it was always advertised as a part of the game.

Originally Posted by Porksta Yup, 40,000 people want to play it. That is enough of an audience for me to create a game. You know what else shows that they have an audience? Game sales. How much did Psychonauts sell?

Psychonauts didn't sell well. What does that have to do with Double Fine having fans of point & click adventures games directly fund a new point & click adventure game thru kickstarter?

Originally Posted by Porksta Here is a good site for XBL whiners: http://whywasibanned.com/

Hilarious website. I am wowed by the ridiculousness of the offenders. Xbox Live Enforcer seems like a fun job for the first four to six weeks. Definitely not something I'd want to do for any long amount of time.

—

In regards to the Double Fine Kickstarter adventures, it's interesting to see a developer kick the publisher out of the equation. Publishers do still have relevancy, tho. What Double Fine raised is nice for a point-and-click adventure game, but they'll still need real money to produce high-level games and for marketing and production costs.

While production costs will plummet when digital distribution takes over, I think marketing costs would have to increase—especially if companies implement systems into the next generation of consoles that discourage and prohibit friends sharing games with friends. Outside of storing games on discs, what the physical copy does is market and get that game out there in the public. People visit places like Wal-Mart and Target, and browse the video game aisle for their kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews. Remove that section, and game titles, not video games, will lose exposure. A good example: The Imagine series. I imagine many not-quite-so-video-game-savvy parents and grandparents bought those games while just browsing the store.

Times will be interesting when video game consoles evolve to where physical media is dropped in favor of digital distribution or streaming. However, that won't be any time soon. There have been recent news polls that state around 40-percent of people in the U.S. don't have broadband internet. I think technology adoption will improve to where the next-next generation will be ready for digital distribution and streaming-based consoles.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

I think Double Fine's Kickstarter method might hurt their chances of getting traditionally funded in the future.

They'll be giving out thousands of free codes to download this game, as per the arrangement with their Kickstarter donators. Surely these free code downloads are tracked and counted seperately than paid downloads, right? How do they determine if the code user was an early supporter, or just a guy who won the code in a contest?It wouldn't make sense for industry watchers to count 100,000 downloads of a normally for-pay product as the same as 100,000 downloads of a free CAGcast.

And since 40,000 of their small, but loyal, fanbase will be getting their game for free instead of buying a copy straight up, it's going to look like a sales dip in Double Fine's track record.

Plus, publishers might feel slighted by the fact that DF went this route in the first place, and could very well hold a petty grudge against them in the future.

And any disappointment in the final product this time around will definitely be remembered by supporters during DF's next Kickstarter attempt.

So, unless Double Fine really knocks it out of the park and produces a game that redefines the Point & Click genre, their independent funding success could really hurt them down the road.

Originally Posted by Curufinwe Psychonauts didn't sell well. What does that have to do with Double Fine having fans of point & click adventures games directly fund a new point & click adventure game thru kickstarter?

If you want to show support for a company, you buy their games. Nobody bought Psychonauts, which means not many people support Double Fine.

Originally Posted by meager I think Double Fine's Kickstarter method might hurt their chances of getting traditionally funded in the future. They'll be giving out thousands of free codes to download this game, as per the arrangement with their Kickstarter donators. Surely these free code downloads are tracked and counted seperately than paid downloads, right? How do they determine if the code user was an early supporter, or just a guy who won the code in a contest?It wouldn't make sense for industry watchers to count 100,000 downloads of a normally for-pay product as the same as 100,000 downloads of a free CAGcast.

XBLA sales numbers are often not disclosed to the public.....Steam sales figures are also often not disclosed to the public . This isn't anything new in digital distribution. If the game is successful, it will show in the double fine's balance sheets, which future funding sources will be far more concerned with than what the public thinks their sales numbers were.

Originally Posted by Porksta If you want to show support for a company, you buy their games. Nobody bought Psychonauts, which means not many people support Double Fine.

If the Wikipedia page it to be believed, in physical retail copies (ie, non-digtial), Psychonauts sold 400K by 2007. That is quite a lot of "nobody". Now was that enough to cover their production costs? Almost assuredly no. But I guess they are the odd man out in the industry, given that absolutely no one else lost money on a game. I mean, come on, everyone bought Shenmue back in the day, didn't they?

But I get it.. In your view, if you can't sell out stadiums, don't even bother to try. Jonathan Coulton should just hang it up already. I mean, $500K a year is just chump change. If you can't beat Transformers at the box office, you shouldn't be even in the film business at all.

And why do you even care in the first place? If you like Double Fine's style of kool aid, and want to buy some more, people can now do that....if you don't, don't buy it and move on....no one is trying to pour it down your throat.

I know Cheapy and Wombat wanted more people to talk about the A/B/C/D rating of Internet celebrities. The problem is that fans and casual observers do not define these lists. There are actual lists put out by Hollywood talent agencies that categorize celebrities based on their marketability.

An A list celebrity is someone who is attractive, experienced, well-known, easy to publicize, eloquent, great during interviews, etc. A B list celebrity is one or two attributes removed from an A-Lister and C-Lister 3-4 steps away from an A-Lister. A D-Lister is not easily marketed.

I'm not that hip on Internet celebrities but I'll try to grade the CAGcasters accordingly.

CheapyD - B-list.
Moderately recognized, fairly attractive, experienced/trusted, interviews well.

Shipwreck - C-list.
Lacks recognition, fairly attractive, experienced/trusted, eloquent, interviews well.

Wombat - D-list.
Lacks recognition, polarizing figure, not always appropriate. (Truth be told, I respect wombat, he's just not very marketable)

My understanding of the celebrity grading system comes from Horace Dediu on the podcast The Critical Path, episode "Below the (belt)line"

Wow Wombat, you must have been feeling like hell. I can't remember the last time I heard this much language from you. Get some rest, and I'm with you on the Kickstarted crap. I thought Kickstarter was out there for the little guys with great ideas, but oh well.

Originally Posted by S0LIDARITY I know Cheapy and Wombat wanted more people to talk about the A/B/C/D rating of Internet celebrities. The problem is that fans and casual observers do not define these lists. There are actual lists put out by Hollywood talent agencies that categorize celebrities based on their marketability. An A list celebrity is someone who is attractive, experienced, well-known, easy to publicize, eloquent, great during interviews, etc. A B list celebrity is one or two attributes removed from an A-Lister and C-Lister 3-4 steps away from an A-Lister. A D-Lister is not easily marketed. I'm not that hip on Internet celebrities but I'll try to grade the CAGcasters accordingly. CheapyD - B-list. Moderately recognized, fairly attractive, experienced/trusted, interviews well. Shipwreck - C-list. Lacks recognition, fairly attractive, experienced/trusted, eloquent, interviews well. Wombat - D-list. Lacks recognition, polarizing figure, not always appropriate. (Truth be told, I respect wombat, he's just not very marketable) My understanding of the celebrity grading system comes from Horace Dediu on the podcast The Critical Path, episode "Below the (belt)line"

really, I am not even fairly attractive?