Nonsense this is such a strawman. If frontier was more open and forthcoming offline gate probably never would have happened. If we knew what their priorities are we at least would know...oh balancing of the basic professions probably isn't coming for a while because they are working on x y or z. Instead all we have is speculation. At best FD is completely incompetent in PR, at worst it's a shell game
Recent answers = "More in the coming weeks"
- Thread starter Sanderson
- Start date
- Status
Nonsense this is such a strawman. If frontier was more open and forthcoming offline gate probably never would have happened. If we knew what their priorities are we at least would know...oh balancing of the basic professions probably isn't coming for a while because they are working on x y or z. Instead all we have is speculation. At best FD is completely incompetent in PR, at worst it's a shell game
Sorry, Sanderson - but I genuinely don't agree with your position or disappointment. The only element with which I feel even vaguely disappointed was the standard of the multiplayer/community aspect; but I also know how difficult that is to implement and so am prepared to wait for it.
.
I am not denying that there isn't massive scope for more improvement in the game (missions and encounters being the two biggies) and it would have been nice to have those in for official release.
.
The game had to be released at some point and (as someone else pointed out) it will never actually be complete. Complaining that it was "not release ready" is really a matter of opinion and I think it's pretty insulting of you to ask for some sort of acknowledgement of your opinion from FD, or take umbridge with forum users who challenge your view.
.
Perhaps it's a matter of some people having lower expectations - but that's my tuppence.
.
I am not denying that there isn't massive scope for more improvement in the game (missions and encounters being the two biggies) and it would have been nice to have those in for official release.
.
The game had to be released at some point and (as someone else pointed out) it will never actually be complete. Complaining that it was "not release ready" is really a matter of opinion and I think it's pretty insulting of you to ask for some sort of acknowledgement of your opinion from FD, or take umbridge with forum users who challenge your view.
.
Perhaps it's a matter of some people having lower expectations - but that's my tuppence.
Are you suggesting other dev teams in your experience release their dev work cycle for upcoming features/updates with dates etc?
I for one have almost never seen that, in gw2 for example we have been waiting now for 2 years for this kind of information and it has never been released, sc2 is another example where "when its ready" has become the dev teams mantra for years now...
Tar Stone
Banned
This is your actual strawman argument right here, that's not what he said.
You say 'are you saying x?' And then you shoot down x.
Granite's post above nails it. Some of us think the game has changed direction and the communication is getting vaguer.
I have been here since Alpha but this is no longer Alpha or beta and the dev's will not be communicating with the players the same as they used to with a small set of Alpha/beta KS backers.
Stating that FD is terrible at communication or saying things like "completely incompetent in PR, at worst it's a shell game" when they are similar to all other dev teams i have encountered for a released game -especially when it is concerning future development plans- is what i'm arguing is a pretty harsh statement.
All games change as they develop and Elite will be no different, some will like the changes others less so but the team will aim to develop the game for the broadest appeal and to satisfy the largest amount of customers, they are a business after all.
Last edited:
That is a truth that many people either choose to ignore or misunderstand, EVE would be an example of this as would WoW, to the degree that they release new modular builds that can expand on the original model, but are not required to play the orginal model, while not purchasing these builds means that there is no access to their particular features there is also no requirement to have to buy them. In many ways this model was seen by mainstream developers and producers and replicated with the DLC model, that focused more on vanity items or extra maps rather than rebuilding and expanding the original product.
Perpetual development rather than the traditional release of a finished build, is becoming a path of game design and development that can be judged as embracing a riskier strategy both for the Developers and the Customers. Despite I believe this its a resonable fair model to give consumers a choice to invest in this model by buying the "game as is" at the time of purchase but then having a reasonable expectation that the path of development may be of differing scope and time scales than would be expected of a game bought as finished but then requiring patches and bug fixes due to the Q&A part of the development title being stop at a certain time to fit a release date.
Personally I am happy with Federations choice of game development, at this time, and believe that all things being equal they will continue to expand and develop this game in such away that it is never finished... The real cost and risk of Emotional and Fiscal investment thus far is negligible, and I have lost more money and had more disappointment over the years, than this game cost in cold hard cash, on its "Release into the wild for all comers" but only a few weeks ago.
Edited to add this in no way means i believe frontier have got everything right, and certainly need to get on top of customer relations etc but i dont believe either they are wilfully doing things badly...
Last edited:
No I'm not suggesting that, but using your examples GW2 at release day was a complete game, professions were balanced, missions were far more in depth, and the gMe contained everything advertised...are you suggesting ED is as fleshed out and polished as GW2 at release? If you are you are delusional. Now before you respond...I have backed many kickstarter and most communicated quite frankly with their backers...Ie there is delay y due to x, or feature y won't make it to finished product due to y, or our priorities.are xy and z, we will try to get a b and c if and on if x y and z work out as intended, etc etc
You have to be joking ...GW2 on release was an unoptimized mess. Mostly all missions were broken even the story was not fixed until months in with players getting stuck on their personal story lines (the Skritt cave bug).
The end of game encounter was broken and had no sound FX. Dragon boss events were broken for 6 months + with players having to swap servers to find a working event and profession balance was terrible, skill effects didn't show properly with typo's on many skills and the UI was a mess. GW2 promised new weapons, Elites and PvP modes and we still haven't got them 2 years later.
As for promises broken GW2 promised many thing i wont go into that turned out to be pure PR and as with all games you had to read between the lines and forgive the team for amazing promised features what turned out to be very basic.
People got so sick of waiting for GW2 in the years of development ( spent years on the forums through beta etc) that they released the game "unfinished" and scrapped many things mid development but as with Elite the game had to be released or they miss obvious windows of consumer interest. Now its almost a completely different game, as will Elite be if given time and with a little patience.
Last edited:
Tar Stone
Banned
If they are now developing ED for the broadest appeal that is a massive change in direction.
In fact it would be the polar opposite from 'we're developing the game we want to play' which is a big part of the reason I threw my money in, and to my mind would have been communicated out of courtesy to backers.
I'm happy you could shrug off such a change in direction, but you must respect that others may feel differently.
I ofc respect others feelings that are surprised by any change in the relationship between dev and backers/alpha testers but i find the notion that a game dev team would not be trying to make a game that appeals to a broad audience as well as a game they would want to play rather naive.
Its the same with every beta i have taken place in where the relationship changes over time, like i said they are a business after all and have to try and make their customers happy too, not just backers
Last edited:
I agree. It's easy for someone that has only come along recently to say "this is the way all developers are". But guess what? Frontier isn't "all developers"; they didn't go to a publisher, they used crowd funding, they opened a design forum to design the game along with players, Frontier repeatedly said they were making the game for themselves and not for the market. This to me sounds a far cry from most developers I know.
As you say Tar, if Frontier are now developing the game for the "broadest appeal", then that is no longer the game that they were originally developing. In fact David Braben said many times, that "appealing to the broadest audience" wasn't how they were developing the game.
And yes, anyone that has been here for a minimum of the past 12 months will know that Frontier are terrible at communication. How other developers communicate is completely irrelevant. As Frontier are not other developers and Elite isn't other games.
I ofc respect others feelings that are surprised by any change in the relationship between dev and backers/alpha testers but i find the notion that a game dev team would not be trying to make a game that appeals to a broad audience rather naive.
Its the same with every beta i have taken place in where the relationship changes over time and like i said they are a business after all and have to try and make their customers happy too, not just backers
And of course you are correct. This is how all Beta's go once in to release.
The difference here is that Elite is one of the first major crowd funded games to be released. It's not at all unreasonable or niave of people to expect and hope that things could have been different...
Last edited:
IMO FD went from a what I perceived as an "indie" feel good vibe to full on EA rubbish. There's a long list of outright lies, denial, shady (at best) and just "keep quiet" and it'll go away crap I never expected from FD. It's not about dates, roadmaps or "secret future information" it's about being honest with your customers.
The whole "offline" thing was the start of what IMO was the beginning of it. Let's pretend offline is impossible and doesn't fit with David's vision of a "rich gaming experience". Ok, I can choke that down, even though I know its rubbish as "offline" wasn't big on my personal list of must haves, I can swallow that. What I choked on was the denial flippant way David blew it off in several interviews. The next thing was the way refund request were handled. It was and still is ongoing and IMO is dirty sleazy greedy rubbish. It's just wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
Then there's the DDF/DDA and what the vast majority of us thought was "finalized" design turned into "a neat wishlist of things we never promised would be in the game but, decided to talk about for fun" so to speak. So, the DDA is out the window and barebones features were implemented so at least (for example mining) was "in the game" at release and now apparently that was always the plan. Rubbish.
How about the big premiere event? We all remember the "I bring friends" staged rubbish FD put on. If you've never played the game one would think "Hey! ED has great multiplayer/coop gameplay!" but, as we all know, that's not the case. It may be possible but it certainly isn't like FD portrayed it, not even close.
About that "release trailer". What a bad joke and classic rubbish, ties in nicely with the "I bring friends" rubbish as both are misleading at best.
Billionaregate is another blunder that is just total amatuer rubbish. Who decides these things? I have no issue with billionaires but, it was just a poor decision in a long list of stupid calls.
How about that "rich" gameplay offline was scrapped for? Guess what? It's not there. It's broken and doesn't work and even when/if it's fixed, IMO, it's hardly "rich" or justification to pull offline. The whole "background simulator" is a mess and hasn't to date worked correctly.
Ships. Where are they? How about the 25 (we'll forgo the other 5) ships? We have half what was promised after two years.
Missions are a handful of rinse and repeat tasks that I'm sure will grow and become better but, if missions are "complete" them I'm a monkey's uncle.
I could go on and on but, lets just do a quick check of what isn't complete.
1. Multiplayer/coop? Nope
2. Ships? Nope
3. "Background simulator"? Nope
4. Navigation? Nope
5. Weapons? Nope
6. Modules? Nope
7. Anything? Nope
Was this the plan all along? NOPE
I understand that adding content, features above what was supposed to be in the release is normal for some games but, these are things that were supposed to in the game at release but, has turned into "the plan all along". No, no it wasn't "the plan" all along. It was a financial decision to maximize profit and beat the glut of new space games that's already released and to be released over the next couple years. Surprisingly. I love the game and I'm ok with spoon fed updates to get the game where it was supposed to be at release. What I'm not ok with is the rubbish spin that magically made this "plan all along". It's just simply not true and FD knows it. So stop blowing smoke up our butts telling it is.
IMO, if FD had been honest, I'd be ok but, again IMO, FD is less than honest and playing the "cover our butt" games. I'd have so much more respect for FD if they had just told the truth. Something like the following"
"In order to continue developing the game it became necessary to release it in an incomplete form above and beyond what the normal "incomplete" means for a game. In this case incomplete entails missing and/or barebones features, content and mechanics. We apologize but, feel we made the right choice to ensure the continued growth and development of this amazing game."
Insteads, again IMO, we got something like this:
"Elite: Dangerous is a finished complete game. We never promised anything, the Kickstarter and DDF/DDA was a wish list of neat discussions and never meant as a design document or guideline, you weren't promised anything and should have known that things implied as supposed to be in the game were just wishful thinking on our part. Our marketing was creative visions of what's in our heads and does not reflect actual gameplay or features, we like to call it "mood pieces". MMO does not mean what has become the standard understanding of gamers across the world, it just means you may see other players from time to time on your "island". "
"However, now that you've purchased the game, we will sell you ship "skins" and other rubbish trinkets to maybe get the game where we implied (never promised) the game would be when you purchased it. We want to stress that we never have promised anything and actively avoid boxing ourselves into a corner we can't get out of by saying "we never promised that". We may (in the coming weeks) tell you what we intend or would like to do with the game but, we don't know yet so you'll have to be content with "in the coming weeks". As far as your Kickstarter/backer rewards, we never said "when" (except those couple of times we lied) the rewards are coming so, you'll have to wait with no information until we get our act together after recovering from this mess of a "release" we've created is under control and we can deal with it. Remember, now that the finished release is out we will continue to work towards a "release" version of the game but, can't promise that'll ever happen."
"It's not our fault some of you took what we implied as fact, shame on you for thinking that but, we will have a few more contests and "mood pieces" plastered incoherently in pieces across various social media sites that you'll need to hunt for the results to weeks after it was supposed to be over."
That's how I feel right now anyway. Do I like the game? No, I love the game. Will I continue to play it? Maybe, if I can get this bad taste out of my mouth. What I would absolutely love though is an end to the PR cover our butts spin FD has been putting out and instead an open, honest and COMPLETE discussion about the current mess ED is in with some kind of "plan" moving forward that's different than what the last few months has been. There's been entirely too many bad decisions, spins. slips and just plain stupid amatuer mistakes that's somehow no one's fault except our's, the customers.
I feel there's been a whole lot of covering of butts and way too little open and honest answers to obvious questions. Continued development of ED was always the plan but, NOT LIKE THIS. If anyone at FD claims that releasing ED in the state it was in on Dec. 16th was "always the plan" is a liar and/or an idiot. The "plan" as it was implied (never promised) was a COMPLETE game with paid expansions down the road. It was not "planned" to be rushed in the ninth hour to get it out the door in order to "complete" it "in the coming weeks, months or years". I know a game is "never finished" but, that's just a play on words (covering of butts) and a pee poor PR spin.
If we could just get a simple "We had to get it out the door to be able to keep realising our dream" or "Hey, we screwed up, we're sorry" or something similar to that I'd request this thread be closed and/or deleted but, apparently what I believe is the truth is like pulling hen's teeth, it just isn't going to happen. FD, is that so hard? Wouldn't it save time, effort and money just "coming clean"?
That's how I feel right now anyway and that's about all I have to say at the moment.
[edit] I lied, I have more. I should state that FD has done a lot of what I feel is good things, some are great. My issue is with "management" NOT the entire dev team and should not be taken as a slam against the "little people" at FD. I'm sure those FD employees unfortunate enough to read the forum has had a few cringe worthy reactions similar to mine on more than a few occasions.
The whole "offline" thing was the start of what IMO was the beginning of it. Let's pretend offline is impossible and doesn't fit with David's vision of a "rich gaming experience". Ok, I can choke that down, even though I know its rubbish as "offline" wasn't big on my personal list of must haves, I can swallow that. What I choked on was the denial flippant way David blew it off in several interviews. The next thing was the way refund request were handled. It was and still is ongoing and IMO is dirty sleazy greedy rubbish. It's just wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
Then there's the DDF/DDA and what the vast majority of us thought was "finalized" design turned into "a neat wishlist of things we never promised would be in the game but, decided to talk about for fun" so to speak. So, the DDA is out the window and barebones features were implemented so at least (for example mining) was "in the game" at release and now apparently that was always the plan. Rubbish.
How about the big premiere event? We all remember the "I bring friends" staged rubbish FD put on. If you've never played the game one would think "Hey! ED has great multiplayer/coop gameplay!" but, as we all know, that's not the case. It may be possible but it certainly isn't like FD portrayed it, not even close.
About that "release trailer". What a bad joke and classic rubbish, ties in nicely with the "I bring friends" rubbish as both are misleading at best.
Billionaregate is another blunder that is just total amatuer rubbish. Who decides these things? I have no issue with billionaires but, it was just a poor decision in a long list of stupid calls.
How about that "rich" gameplay offline was scrapped for? Guess what? It's not there. It's broken and doesn't work and even when/if it's fixed, IMO, it's hardly "rich" or justification to pull offline. The whole "background simulator" is a mess and hasn't to date worked correctly.
Ships. Where are they? How about the 25 (we'll forgo the other 5) ships? We have half what was promised after two years.
Missions are a handful of rinse and repeat tasks that I'm sure will grow and become better but, if missions are "complete" them I'm a monkey's uncle.
I could go on and on but, lets just do a quick check of what isn't complete.
1. Multiplayer/coop? Nope
2. Ships? Nope
3. "Background simulator"? Nope
4. Navigation? Nope
5. Weapons? Nope
6. Modules? Nope
7. Anything? Nope
Was this the plan all along? NOPE
I understand that adding content, features above what was supposed to be in the release is normal for some games but, these are things that were supposed to in the game at release but, has turned into "the plan all along". No, no it wasn't "the plan" all along. It was a financial decision to maximize profit and beat the glut of new space games that's already released and to be released over the next couple years. Surprisingly. I love the game and I'm ok with spoon fed updates to get the game where it was supposed to be at release. What I'm not ok with is the rubbish spin that magically made this "plan all along". It's just simply not true and FD knows it. So stop blowing smoke up our butts telling it is.
IMO, if FD had been honest, I'd be ok but, again IMO, FD is less than honest and playing the "cover our butt" games. I'd have so much more respect for FD if they had just told the truth. Something like the following"
"In order to continue developing the game it became necessary to release it in an incomplete form above and beyond what the normal "incomplete" means for a game. In this case incomplete entails missing and/or barebones features, content and mechanics. We apologize but, feel we made the right choice to ensure the continued growth and development of this amazing game."
Insteads, again IMO, we got something like this:
"Elite: Dangerous is a finished complete game. We never promised anything, the Kickstarter and DDF/DDA was a wish list of neat discussions and never meant as a design document or guideline, you weren't promised anything and should have known that things implied as supposed to be in the game were just wishful thinking on our part. Our marketing was creative visions of what's in our heads and does not reflect actual gameplay or features, we like to call it "mood pieces". MMO does not mean what has become the standard understanding of gamers across the world, it just means you may see other players from time to time on your "island". "
"However, now that you've purchased the game, we will sell you ship "skins" and other rubbish trinkets to maybe get the game where we implied (never promised) the game would be when you purchased it. We want to stress that we never have promised anything and actively avoid boxing ourselves into a corner we can't get out of by saying "we never promised that". We may (in the coming weeks) tell you what we intend or would like to do with the game but, we don't know yet so you'll have to be content with "in the coming weeks". As far as your Kickstarter/backer rewards, we never said "when" (except those couple of times we lied) the rewards are coming so, you'll have to wait with no information until we get our act together after recovering from this mess of a "release" we've created is under control and we can deal with it. Remember, now that the finished release is out we will continue to work towards a "release" version of the game but, can't promise that'll ever happen."
"It's not our fault some of you took what we implied as fact, shame on you for thinking that but, we will have a few more contests and "mood pieces" plastered incoherently in pieces across various social media sites that you'll need to hunt for the results to weeks after it was supposed to be over."
That's how I feel right now anyway. Do I like the game? No, I love the game. Will I continue to play it? Maybe, if I can get this bad taste out of my mouth. What I would absolutely love though is an end to the PR cover our butts spin FD has been putting out and instead an open, honest and COMPLETE discussion about the current mess ED is in with some kind of "plan" moving forward that's different than what the last few months has been. There's been entirely too many bad decisions, spins. slips and just plain stupid amatuer mistakes that's somehow no one's fault except our's, the customers.
I feel there's been a whole lot of covering of butts and way too little open and honest answers to obvious questions. Continued development of ED was always the plan but, NOT LIKE THIS. If anyone at FD claims that releasing ED in the state it was in on Dec. 16th was "always the plan" is a liar and/or an idiot. The "plan" as it was implied (never promised) was a COMPLETE game with paid expansions down the road. It was not "planned" to be rushed in the ninth hour to get it out the door in order to "complete" it "in the coming weeks, months or years". I know a game is "never finished" but, that's just a play on words (covering of butts) and a pee poor PR spin.
If we could just get a simple "We had to get it out the door to be able to keep realising our dream" or "Hey, we screwed up, we're sorry" or something similar to that I'd request this thread be closed and/or deleted but, apparently what I believe is the truth is like pulling hen's teeth, it just isn't going to happen. FD, is that so hard? Wouldn't it save time, effort and money just "coming clean"?
That's how I feel right now anyway and that's about all I have to say at the moment.
[edit] I lied, I have more. I should state that FD has done a lot of what I feel is good things, some are great. My issue is with "management" NOT the entire dev team and should not be taken as a slam against the "little people" at FD. I'm sure those FD employees unfortunate enough to read the forum has had a few cringe worthy reactions similar to mine on more than a few occasions.
Last edited:
"If they are developing the game for the broadest appeal..." - but they're not and have never said that's what they're doing. It's still their game and they're still developing it according to what they think would make it best.
.
The only changes to the original vision will be those informed by player feedback and the accumulation of ideas (both inside and outside their design team) which for a game in perpetual development is exactly what you'd expect.
.
In reality you're criticising FD over another player's opinion of their game design - highlighting the problems with communicating us and why they would be wary in what they communicate and how.
.
The only changes to the original vision will be those informed by player feedback and the accumulation of ideas (both inside and outside their design team) which for a game in perpetual development is exactly what you'd expect.
.
In reality you're criticising FD over another player's opinion of their game design - highlighting the problems with communicating us and why they would be wary in what they communicate and how.
I actually really, really enjoyed the first public releases of Nether. I found it a breath of fresh air after overdosing on DayZ and racked up about 35 hours in game. Shame what subsequently happened.
.
Definitely hope Elite doesn't go the same way (features cut left right and centre, whilst irrelevant stuff was added, getting dropped by developers into p2w Hell, hackers and griefers (infinitely worse than Elite) running riot etc. etc.).
No they didn't go with a publisher, they crowd sourced cash to show the viability of the IP, then went to the market to raise extra funds to 'make the game they wanted to make'. End result? An unfinished product in the same state as if a publisher had pushed it out the door, missing major features that were strongly hinted at (or allowed people to infer as) being present. (OK, yes, it is unlikely that any publisher would ever touch a 'sim-lite' space game, so at least we got something).
Last edited:
What I would like from FD is simply transparency.
I'd love to see a read-only version of their development backlog that I could read, maybe comment on, maybe vote on features/bugs.
I don't expect FD to always listen, they are the ultimate arbiter, but I'd like transparency.
Put the usual caveats in place, like change without notice, not guarantee or promise of anything.
True open development.
I'd love to see a read-only version of their development backlog that I could read, maybe comment on, maybe vote on features/bugs.
I don't expect FD to always listen, they are the ultimate arbiter, but I'd like transparency.
Put the usual caveats in place, like change without notice, not guarantee or promise of anything.
True open development.
You just described the DDF/DDA to a tee. That didn't work so well in the end.
An update of the DDAs with what's definitely coming, what's definitely out and what's on the list for the long term would be really nice about now. Even just some explanation as to thoughts on features (e.g. 'gravitational slingshots - well we couldn't get those to work with the current super-cruise implementation' etc.) The worst case scenario is that all of the DDA's get ignored, and people are moved on to the expansions straight away as they will provide more revenue in the end.
My assumption is that once the internal target of "release before the end of the year" was set, all resources - including planning, were diverted to that end. Now that the goal of release has been met, FD have had to take time to regroup, assess the state of the game and set new goals. I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that they are just now finalizing new internal targets for things to accomplish this year, perhaps hence the perceived lessening of communication.
I think most would agree the release seemed rushed (probably even the devs given enough pints at the pub) and was likely due to financial obligations - we have to remember that FD do have external investors. The irony is that the purpose behind using crowd funding and no external publisher was supposed to be to prevent the very "rush to release" scenario FD may have foisted upon themselves.
While I'm impressed with the game as it stands and see massive potential for future updates, I too would love to see more information regarding planned feature releases. Most major software productions routinely release a roadmap, and many include target dates. Especially once out of the beta phase. We may get more of this information soon as the plan for the year solidifies.
I also agree there have been changes along the way, subjectively for the better or worse, but I'm curious as to which changes (aside from perhaps offline-gate) are causing the most beef with those mentioning them in this thread.
I think most would agree the release seemed rushed (probably even the devs given enough pints at the pub) and was likely due to financial obligations - we have to remember that FD do have external investors. The irony is that the purpose behind using crowd funding and no external publisher was supposed to be to prevent the very "rush to release" scenario FD may have foisted upon themselves.
While I'm impressed with the game as it stands and see massive potential for future updates, I too would love to see more information regarding planned feature releases. Most major software productions routinely release a roadmap, and many include target dates. Especially once out of the beta phase. We may get more of this information soon as the plan for the year solidifies.
I also agree there have been changes along the way, subjectively for the better or worse, but I'm curious as to which changes (aside from perhaps offline-gate) are causing the most beef with those mentioning them in this thread.
Last edited:
Tar Stone
Banned
Changes that have been made suggest that they are going for a broader appeal, it's those changes that have sparked this response. Threads on difficulty level, interdictions, AI etc are all in response to these things being changed from the beta/gamma versions.
All of these changes were made without comment from FD and direct questions go ignored when other, easier questions get answered.
There are question marks over persistent NPCs, USSs being placeholder, security/danger levels of systems, try getting an answer on any of these cos I've seen the questions asked and ignored.
I would definitely agree here. I'm curious as to where FD believe the state of the game currently stands in relation to the DDA, and which parts of the DDA will or will not be implemented.
I recognize that the DDA may not be the final plan, but it's the closest thing we the public have to a final plan, and served as the catalyst for making the decision to become a backer for many. It was also the most open FD (or any game developer) has been in regards to feature set, even making major changes based on suggestion. It does feel as though the amount of openness and collaboration has shrunk. I would welcome it back.
Last edited:
- Status