Molyneux: Kickstarter, Early Access Can Be 'Destructive'

[HardOCP News]

Peter Molyneux wants you to know that getting close to a million dollars to fund your game can be "very destructive to the final quality."

In an interview with TechRadar, the Fable series designer deemed Kickstarter and Steam Early Access as "very destructive to the final quality" of games that aren't particularly far along in their development stages.

 

[Time2Kill]

Or maybe he should admit his latest game is crap, especially how hes trying to play it off as invest to play instead of pay to win....

 

[Skirge01]

Thankfully, Destiny and Halo heeded this advice.

 

[sir-gold]

Kickstarter and Steam should make the final-features list contractually binding. That way, if the game developer doesn't deliver the promised features, they can be held liable for breach of contract.

This is the way it is done in other industries where the product is already paid-for before the product actually exists, such as new home construction and the futures market.

 

[GaryJohnson]

I think what he's trying to say is that his main incentive to make a good game is to make money, so if you give him a bunch of money in advance he will no longer be properly incentivized to deliver a good game.

Pavlov's Molyneux

 

[Rizen]

Kickstarter and Steam should make the final-features list contractually binding. That way, if the game developer doesn't deliver the promised features, they can be held liable for breach of contract.

This is the way it is done in other industries where the product is already paid-for before the product actually exists, such as new home construction and the futures market.

That's not how software development works and your comparisons don't make sense.

 

[temujin987]

Or maybe he should admit his latest game is crap, especially how hes trying to play it off as invest to play instead of pay to win....

Molyneux has been full of crap for as long as i can think. all the promises of what his next game will offer and at release it's a broken mess that only lets you do 10% of what was claimed. and this cube clicking thing... i bet there was a pic of his peenor inside as a reward for the one billionth click or however many it took collectively.

 

[sir-gold]

That's not how software development works and your comparisons don't make sense.

What part doesn't make sense? There is no difference between collecting the full upfront price on a house that hasn't been built yet, a crop of soybeans that hasn't been planted yet, or a game that hasn't been written yet.

If the soybeans fail, or the house falls down when it's halfway finished, the seller is still required by contract to either deliver the product as promised, or compensate the buyer in some other way. Even if it means the farmer or home-builder is driven into bankruptcy in the process

And since when is there a limitation on how development "works"? The normal way software development "works" is that you produce a finished product, and THEN you sell it to the public. Since Kickstarter and Steam aren't selling software the "normal" way, why should we be limited to "normal" solutions?

If you hold developers responsible for their promises, it will stop them from promising the moon and delivering a small rock.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Kickstarter and Steam should make the final-features list contractually binding. That way, if the game developer doesn't deliver the promised features, they can be held liable for breach of contract.

This is the way it is done in other industries where the product is already paid-for before the product actually exists, such as new home construction and the futures market.

Feature lists don't generally have concrete items on them. For example, from Wasteland 2 on Steam (not because it's a bad game, but because it has a silly feature list)

Enhanced Classic RPG Game Play: Classic RPG game play ideas updated with modern design philosophies.

What does that mean exactly? How would you go about proving a game doesn't have that feature?

 

[Quix]

Molyneux has been full of crap for as long as i can think. all the promises of what his next game will offer and at release it's a broken mess that only lets you do 10% of what was claimed. and this cube clicking thing... i bet there was a pic of his peenor inside as a reward for the one billionth click or however many it took collectively.

He has literally always been full of crap. He also hasn't put out anything really interesting in years. Not since Black and White, which was quite buggy at release and given a bit more polish could have been the game of the year but was just pushed out before it was totally done.

 

[sir-gold]

Feature lists don't generally have concrete items on them. For example, from Wasteland 2 on Steam (not because it's a bad game, but because it has a silly feature list)



What does that mean exactly? How would you go about proving a game doesn't have that feature?

This only applies if specific features are promised.

If the developer promises nothing, then the buyer can't get upset when "nothing" is exactly what they receive. (Caveat Emptor)
But when a developer promises that there will be a single-player mode, they can't just decide to remove single-player mode at the last minute (like Elite: Dangerous did)

 

[GaryJohnson]

But when a developer promises that there will be a single-player mode, they can't just decide to remove single-player mode at the last minute (like Elite: Dangerous did)

They didn't remove single-player mode, they removed offline single-player mode. They originally said offline single-player wouldn't have all the features of the "evolving galaxy." Turns out one of the features of the "evolving galaxy" was the ability to actually have content in the game.

If you stare at your desktop and twiddle your thumbs you will have the exact same experience as you would have playing Elite offline single-player if they implemented it as minimally as they promised to. If you think about it that way it still could technically be considered to have an offline mode - It's just very (very) feature-limited.

If the developer promises nothing, then the buyer can't get upset when "nothing" is exactly what they receive. (Caveat Emptor)

Backing something on kickstarter isn't a purchase. That's why it's called kickstarter and not buyathing. You might could look at it as an investment, but it's probably closer to being a donation.

 

[sir-gold]

They didn't remove single-player mode, they removed offline single-player mode. They originally said offline single-player wouldn't have all the features of the "evolving galaxy." Turns out one of the features of the "evolving galaxy" was the ability to actually have content in the game.

If you stare at your desktop and twiddle your thumbs you will have the exact same experience as you would have playing Elite offline single-player if they implemented it as minimally as they promised to. If you think about it that way it still could technically be considered to have an offline mode - It's just very (very) feature-limited.



Backing something on kickstarter isn't a purchase. That's why it's called kickstarter and not buyathing. You might could look at it as an investment, but it's probably closer to being a donation.

Agriculture futures are an "investment" too, especially "contract-to-buy" futures, in which the investor doesn't receive ANY product for his money (and is therefore not a purchase), and instead only receives the promise of a specific discount on a specific amount of the product. The seller MUST provide the specified amount of product at the specified price, even if it means selling at a loss.

Even with donations there are still legal obligations. If you claim that you are collecting donations to feed the homeless (or produce a video game), and instead spend the money on expensive vacations for yourself, you can still be held accountable in court.

My point is, this problem has come up many many times before, and it eventually ends up being dealt with by contract law of some sort. If you are going to collect money on the basis of a promise, it doesn't matter if it's an investment, purchase or donation, there is still a need for a binding agreement.

 

[CPY]

Molyneux is full of shit, i'm not even pirating his next game if any. Scamming p2win crap facebook/rtard mobile game FAILus.

 

[EODetroit]

But not as destructive as getting less than a million dollars.

 

[face2palm]

He's a danger to the industry. Someone needs to buy him a steaming cup of STFU.

 

[FiveFig]

Until there is a public service announcement campaign on how micro-transactions and the pay to win culture are creating a counter-culture it's going to continue; because unfortunately people as a whole are lazy fucks who have no clue as to the concept of hard work determining self worth, or simple economics like saving up for something you want to buy rather than paying twice as much, ten times as much, or sometimes worse just to have someone loan you the money to satiate your instant gratification where if you had a modicum of self control you would be able to maintain personal savings which allows for more instant gratification due to the fact you are not paying interest on debt your whole life.

ugh
/rant off

 

[kbrickley]

Kickstarter and Steam should make the final-features list contractually binding. That way, if the game developer doesn't deliver the promised features, they can be held liable for breach of contract.

This is the way it is done in other industries where the product is already paid-for before the product actually exists, such as new home construction and the futures market.

We would need to be careful what we define as a feature. In software development (like in many other creative endeavors) there are often ideas/features proposed at the start of a project that just aren't always feasible (something doesn't work as well in reality as on paper, a feature creates gameplay imbalances, something turns out to be harder to implement technologically or financially, etc) ... I agree that the project owners needs some accountability (especially for the few projects that default) but I don't think we should pursue a standard for software that forces them to implement features that don't add real value (to meet a promise) or delay projects excessively (because the features are too difficult given the schedule and financial constraints)

 

[chaikovski2002]

Black and White 3? I want!

 

[Exavior]

Thankfully, Destiny and Halo heeded this advice.

Neither of those games were kick started or early access. but thanks for trying