It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionPhoenix Point aims for the feet, is Epic exclusive for a year.(239 posts)(239 posts)
(239 posts)
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
16
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
PaterAlf: - On the first day only 3% of the backers asked for refunds.
That's the number to watch.

How many backers apply for a refund is what is going to make or break this kind of behavior by crowdfunded devs going forward.

Also, Epic showing up on the market was a surprise. They weren't around during most of the production life of Pheonix Point. From now on crowdfund-seeking devs should refrain from promising platform releases if it something they can't reasonably guarantee. (Much like devs in the past should have refrained from promising a GOG release before they had any contract with GOG.)
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
PaterAlf: - On the first day only 3% of the backers asked for refunds.
avatar
misteryo: That's the number to watch.

How many backers apply for a refund is what is going to make or break this kind of behavior by crowdfunded devs going forward.
The number might be higher in reality. they refused to answer, if the number is only about the people who used the official way (and by doing that shared their bank and credit card details with a third party) or also the backers who did a chargeback.

Also after just one day a lot of backers probably didn't even make up their mind, if they want a refund or not.
Posted March 14, 2019
As a backer who looked forward to playing this game on release, I already submitted my request for a refund. I refuse to install the Epic client, and never will. I'll probably just end up playing the game at some point in the distant future once all the expansions/DLC have been released and most of the bugs have been stomped out, which will probably make for a more enjoyable experience anyway. I felt it was a cock move by the Dev. But they can do whatever with their game. It's their choice, and I've made mine.
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
misteryo: That's the number to watch.

How many backers apply for a refund is what is going to make or break this kind of behavior by crowdfunded devs going forward.
avatar
PaterAlf: The number might be higher in reality. they refused to answer, if the number is only about the people who used the official way (and by doing that shared their bank and credit card details with a third party) or also the backers who did a chargeback.

Also after just one day a lot of backers probably didn't even make up their mind, if they want a refund or not.
I don't see many backers going for the refund. After all, this is not an FOSS game, it will be distributed through a third party and all of them are just different shades of gray. I would have liked to see the return of the Linux port, now that they got a significant financial injection. Otherwise, I hope Epic launcher is going to work under Lutris.
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
ChrisGamer300: Seeing this fiasco and broken promises i can definately say i'm happy i cancelled my pledge halfway through the FIG campaign back when it was announced, shame on you Julian and Epic.

Can't say i'm happy that another developer tarnish the trust of crowdfunding again though, been enough devs doing that already.
Same. Loved the crowdfunding idea. Still do in general. But unless we get a backer platform that is trustworthy and has an iron grip around devs which makes scams like this not possible every backing has immediately considered a total loss and disappointment before even the CC is pulled; regardless of dev popularity.
Posted March 14, 2019
This ladies and gentlemen is why I will NEVER back any "crowdfunded" game!
Post edited March 14, 2019 by fr33kSh0w2012
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
fr33kSh0w2012: This ladies and gentlemen is why I will NEVER back any "crowdfunded" game!
Yeah, I think this is the downside of Kickstarter, GoFundme and other crowdfunding sites. Unless specifically stated, they don't owe backers anything. This is not some social contract where we expect civility to each other at public spaces or something. We're just the public who are bank-rolling musicians, inventors, and game designers so they can have the money to make cool shit. But no one is ever guaranteed the cool shit. IP licensing can change hands, the company head might retire early, someone might die while working on the project. All kinds of Murphy's Law shit can happen.

And that's why I don't crowdfund either. I expect nothing, I gain nothing, I lose nothing. The only way the Phoenix Point team was gonna get my money was if it showed up on GOG, and it looks like that's not gonna happen for a while, if ever.

Was this Epic decision by Julian and the other devs a good move? No. Is it there right to make it? Yes. Their money, their license, their product, their decision.
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
PaterAlf: Unfortunately getting a refund isn't a good option as well. Refunds won't get handled by Fig who collected the money. To get a refund I should give my credit card details to a third-party-company I know next to nothing about. I don't feel comfortable with that.

Also they won't refund you in the currency you pledged in. Which means because of currency conversion I will get back about 10% (didn't check the exact currency conversion) less than I paid to them.

I wrote them a mail and told them how I feel about the whole move and that I won't support any of their future projects. Guess that's all I can do.
You can refund through Fig apparently. Just mention that Snapshot Games wants to process your refund through a third party. You can alternatively initiate a chargeback through your credit card company. They don't generally like the third party refund idea either - it screams fraud.

I may attempt one of those - I never got email confirmation that my refund request was received and I'm expecting that I'll be ignored until the deadline passes.
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Thanks. I'm curious how things turn out, and you're definitely among the more level-headed and trustworthy of those that could report back.
avatar
PaterAlf: I might have missed some answers and won't mention the ones that were only about the design of the game, but here's my summary of the AMA (of course they dodged the most critical questions and there was a lot of PR speak):

- On the first day only 3% of the backers asked for refunds.
- The Epic Store/Epic Launcher is blocked in China. Snapshot games have no idea how backers from that country will be able to play the game on release day. They hope they'll have an answer soon.
-The game will be DRM-free and run without he Epic launcher. You'll need it for updates though.
- The exclusivity deal even forbids snaphot games to offer a DRM-free download from from their own homepage for backers.
- Snapshot games approached the Epic store and not the other way around (in a later answer they clarified that they only approached Epic Store about distribution; they didn't give an answer how the exclusivity deal happened).
- Even before the exclusivity deal they had enough money to develop and offer the promised game.
- Snapshot thinks the deal is in the best interest of the backers, because it will help them to deliver the best game possible.
- They weren't allowed to inform backers backers beforehand and ask them about their oppinion (because of a confidential clause).
- Snapshot thinks investors will get the best return possible, but they can't share confidential data on the AMA (in the comments an investor revealed that upfront payments by distributors count as revenue and so they will get a share from the Epic deal).
- Game will have limited modding support a while after release (but not before the first major DLC).
- There will be 3 major DLCs.
- All free DLCs for backers during the first year after release doesn't mean all DLCs. There will still be exclusive DLCs for high-tier backers.
- Right at the moment there's no indication that Steam or GOG won't host the game after the exclusivity deal.
Thanks!

-That 3% statistic is BS and not even worth the paper it was written on. Far too many confounding factors. If this statistic was trotted out without anyone asking a question where it is the answer, then it stinks even worse.

-They had enough money to deliver the promised game, but the deal is in the best interest of backers because it will help them deliver the best game possible? Mmm.

-"How many of the major DLCs are going to come out in the first year window?" remains unanswered in your synopsis. I doubt they answered it in the AMA.

Meh. I'm probably just preaching at the choir here.
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
Linko64: I don't recall seeing familiar statements of disdain when Thronebreaker was announced as an exclusive.
avatar
tomimt: A lot of GOG users tend to turn a blind eye if it's GOG doing the exclusivity. I haven't seen a lot of moaning about Diablo being exclusive here. Not here at least.
Do you think that Gog should have done all the work of making Diablo run on modern platforms and putting fixes in and then gladly handed it over on a silver plate to every other store? Should Marcin Iwinski lick Gaben's boots while they were at it too?

As for Thronebreaker (even ignoring the fact that CDPR backpedaled and removed Gog's exclusivity) that's hardly the same thing. It was developed by CDPR without backer money and exclusive to the developer's own store. I don't complain that Ubisoft has Assassin's Creed exclusivity, I complain that the exclusivity never ends, so if I want it out of their DRM BS waiting isn't an option.

Also it was never marketed that Thronebreaker would be in other stores, so Gog's exclusivity didn't pull the rug under the customers.

Steam users can start thinking of crying foul play the day I see Portal and Half-Life released here.
Post edited March 14, 2019 by joppo
Posted March 14, 2019
What bothers me about this trend is the one year duration. Ok, exclusive release, fine. One or two months and then it will release on other storefronts. Wouldn't be the first time...

But a full year?

The last thing consumers want is a bidding war for one year exclusives for all new games between storefronts, forcing us to track accounts on half a dozen different stores and launchers. It would be almost as bad as console exclusivity.

And this is a step beyond the developer themselves making it exclusive to their own storefront. Now it's convincing 3rd parties to join in on this exclusivity.
Post edited March 14, 2019 by RWarehall
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
RWarehall: But a full year?
Well, on the plus side, prices tend to drop after a year, so I probably wouldn't have bought it earlier. Good timing, for me.

On the minus side, prices tend to drop after a year, so backers might get, in a way, monetarily "less" for their support.
Posted March 14, 2019
Well, they are really gambling their future with this move.
Koch Media/Deep Silver can gamble on a AAA game like Metro: Exodus and still come on top; make a profit; maybe.
But indie developers, second, crowdfunded game to be exclusive on shady epic store for one year; that's pure madness!
So long Snapshot games, it was nice knowing you!
Posted March 14, 2019
avatar
GlorFindel: Well, they are really gambling their future with this move.
Not really, they've actually bought themselves a year worth of extra development time as far I've understood it. I've read that they can now push out free DLC for the game thanks to this deal, which indicates that they don't have to break up the company no matter how the game sells. It seems more like they weren't 100% sold on the game selling well enough and went with the option allowing them to do additional stuff for it.
Posted March 14, 2019
Did You guys know this --> The Hopeless Fight to Kill Single Player Games
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
16
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionPhoenix Point aims for the feet, is Epic exclusive for a year.(239 posts)(239 posts)
(239 posts)