The facts about Spacebase DF-9

[ThunderPeel2001]

Here's what actually happened. The dates, the figures, the details. There's so much posted here that I thought I'd help clear up fact from fiction:

Spacebase DF-9 was funded using a new type of funding model which I'm going to call "Continous Development". Minecraft uses this model, as does Prison Architect. Double Fine, being a small indie company, decided to try this model out as well.

It works like this: People keep buying copies of the game, and the game keeps getting developed. If people stop buying copies of the game, money runs out, and development stops. This removes the need for a publisher, and so is attractive to developers, especially those without much money.

Valve spotted this and quickly tried to monetize this trend: They created Steam Early Access. All SEA games use the above funding model... but Valve gets some of the money in exchange for using their platform.

In short, what happened is this: Spacebase-DF9 sales dropped off, and so development stopped. BUT DoubleFine could have done a much better job of communicating with people how the sales were going. The biggest problem was the shock: For most people it felt like the end of development came from nowhere.

If DF had announced the project was having difficulty a few months before they shut it down, people would probably have been more understanding, and taken its eventual ceasing, much better than they did. They may have even gone out of their way to get their friends to buy a copy in order to keep the game afloat a little longer. It was the slap out of nowhere that people didn't like.

Any argument that DF suddenly decided to become an evil company, after a decade and a half of being really cool to their fans, and deliberately deceive everyone for financial profit makes no sense.

So anyway, here's a breakdown of what happened, with figures (based on a worst case scenario from the initial funding):

- November 2012: Amnesia Fortnight - Internal prototype of Spacebase is created in two weeks by the company.

- December 2012: The game was nominated for development. A business model of Continuous Development (see above) was selected. Funding was sought to build the initial public offering (the prototype was REALLY basic).

- January 2013: 400K funding found. A four man team was created, costing $40K a month. Development began.

- October 2013: Investment money comes close to an end and initial offering of Spacebase goes on sale. It sells over 20K copies and immediately recoups 400K outlay. The game is in the black (no longer in debt), and set for Continuous Development with monthly sales funding it.

As the initial alpha cost around $400,000 (probably more) to build over a 10-11 month period, we can see that the four man team cost $40,000 a month (which is what Tim himself tweeted about developer costs). This means that if DF got $7.50 for every Steam sale (based on what we know about IndieFund and Valve), they needed 5,000+ sales a month to sustain development into the future.

To put things into perspective, Prison Architect has averaged at least 14,000 sales a month for the past two years, so 5,000+ a month isn't too much to expect. The game only needed 60,000 sales a year to stay afloat, and they sold 20,000+K copies in the first two weeks! Unfortunately it seems there was then a drop off. In fact, it appears they only managed to sell around 50,000 copies overall… with sales then dropping below the required 5,000 a month, to about half of what they needed to keep everyone employed (never mind about making an actual profit).

In hindsight it would have been great if they'd made everyone aware that sales had taken a dip to below what they needed, but there were risks with that option: The right review, or the right new feature, might suddenly boost the games popularity and bring it back into profitability. They didn't need to sell THAT many games to keep afloat, after all. Announcing there were problems might have rallied the fans into pushing the game out there, but it also could have prematurely killed it, instantly.

The project lead, JP, was probably optimistic about his game continuing until the moment that the powers that be told him that his project needed to be shut down.

After the money ran out, DF kept on developing the game for another month (probably longer knowing DF), and then, later, the project lead was let go.

Tim Schafer has stated that DoubleFine made no money from the project.

Due to how upset some fans were from the cancellation, DF gave free copies of its latest game to everyone who had purchased a copy of Spacebase-DF9.

[Drac Morbis]

What is your point? lol

[James McCloud]

It was not disclosed that Spacebase was going to be a "Continuous Development" model that relied on continued sales for continued development, only that the development of features would be continuous. Early Access is a way for consumers to get involved earlier in development, with the possibility of directly impacting development, but not to guarantee the project gets the funding it needs to actually be completed. Regardless of an individual's view on how much of the proposed feature list that used to be on the Spacebase website should have made it in, it was not stated any where in any form that continued development was hostage to continued sales during most of the months it was available to purchase. It was understandably presumed that there was a concrete plan to keep developing and add/adjust features based on feedback, and also presumed to have concrete funding to go with it. Only with the announcement a month prior to pulling the plug was the continued funding part of this "Continuous Development" idea disclosed, which is why many are justifiably bitter. There's a reason why if you look at the entire Steam library and sort by "User Rating," filtered to Games as "Show Selected Type," it ranks 4064 out of 4222 games (US user), and the funding aspect and its lack of disclosure is primarily why.

In fact, Valve/Steam updated the Early Access Rules & Guidelines since Spacebase launched, and a lot seem directly related to its launch alongside other projects like Towns. For example:

• "Don’t launch in Early Access if you can’t afford to develop with very few or no sales.
  
  There is no guarantee that your game will sell as many units as you anticipate. If you are counting on selling a specific number of units to survive and complete your game, then you need to think carefully about what it would mean for you or your team if you don't sell that many units."

Giant Bomb Article for source[www.giantbomb.com]

These arguments about sales also discount consumers that were weary of Early Access to begin with, and those that had already been burned and unwilling to back another Early Access project. It also discounts customers simply waiting for Double Fine's declaration of "finished game" to decide if it was worth purchasing, so more income may have been waiting down the road even if there were a few months of loss to endure beforehand.

You can do all the math you want to show how many sales it needed, and it's understandable to not want to lose or keep losing money on a project and is likely why some can sympathize with Double Fine. However, tying the development to sales was completely anti-consumer, and dismisses the idea that by accepting Early Access funds there was at least some obligation to work towards an established, well-described, minimum development goal and not toward a maximum development time.

[Dimebag]

Shill of the Year .

[76561197991858962]

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

Here's what actually happened. The dates, the figures, the details. There's so much posted here that I thought I'd help clear up fact from fiction:

Spacebase DF-9 was funded using a new type of funding model which I'm going to call "Continous Development". Minecraft uses this model, as does Prison Architect. Double Fine, being a small indie company, decided to try this model out as well.

It works like this: People keep buying copies of the game, and the game keeps getting developed. If people stop buying copies of the game, money runs out, and development stops. This removes the need for a publisher, and so is attractive to developers, especially those without much money.

Valve spotted this and quickly tried to monetize this trend: They created Steam Early Access. All SEA games use the above funding model... but Valve gets some of the money in exchange for using their platform.

In short, what happened is this: Spacebase-DF9 sales dropped off, and so development stopped. BUT DoubleFine could have done a much better job of communicating with people how the sales were going. The biggest problem was the shock: For most people it felt like the end of development came from nowhere.

If DF had announced the project was having difficulty a few months before they shut it down, people would probably have been more understanding, and taken its eventual ceasing, much better than they did. They may have even gone out of their way to get their friends to buy a copy in order to keep the game afloat a little longer. It was the slap out of nowhere that people didn't like.

Any argument that DF suddenly decided to become an evil company, after a decade and a half of being really cool to their fans, and deliberately deceive everyone for financial profit makes no sense.

So anyway, here's a breakdown of what happened, with figures (based on a worst case scenario from the initial funding):

- November 2012: Amnesia Fortnight - Internal prototype of Spacebase is created in two weeks by the company.

- December 2012: The game was nominated for development. A business model of Continuous Development (see above) was selected. Funding was sought to build the initial public offering (the prototype was REALLY basic).

- January 2013: 400K funding found. A four man team was created, costing $40K a month. Development began.

- October 2013: Investment money comes close to an end and initial offering of Spacebase goes on sale. It sells over 20K copies and immediately recoups 400K outlay. The game is in the black (no longer in debt), and set for Continuous Development with monthly sales funding it.

As the initial alpha cost around $400,000 (probably more) to build over a 10-11 month period, we can see that the four man team cost $40,000 a month (which is what Tim himself tweeted about developer costs). This means that if DF got $7.50 for every Steam sale (based on what we know about IndieFund and Valve), they needed 5,000+ sales a month to sustain development into the future.

To put things into perspective, Prison Architect has averaged at least 14,000 sales a month for the past two years, so 5,000+ a month isn't too much to expect. The game only needed 60,000 sales a year to stay afloat, and they sold 20,000+K copies in the first two weeks! Unfortunately it seems there was then a drop off. In fact, it appears they only managed to sell around 50,000 copies overall… with sales then dropping below the required 5,000 a month, to about half of what they needed to keep everyone employed (never mind about making an actual profit).

In hindsight it would have been great if they'd made everyone aware that sales had taken a dip to below what they needed, but there were risks with that option: The right review, or the right new feature, might suddenly boost the games popularity and bring it back into profitability. They didn't need to sell THAT many games to keep afloat, after all. Announcing there were problems might have rallied the fans into pushing the game out there, but it also could have prematurely killed it, instantly.

The project lead, JP, was probably optimistic about his game continuing until the moment that the powers that be told him that his project needed to be shut down.

After the money ran out, DF kept on developing the game for another month (probably longer knowing DF), and then, later, the project lead was let go.

Tim Schafer has stated that DoubleFine made no money from the project.

Due to how upset some fans were from the cancellation, DF gave free copies of its latest game to everyone who had purchased a copy of Spacebase-DF9.

Okay, honestly...not to be rude (and I'm not rude very often) but a lot of us don't care how it happened. The FACT of the matter is...it happened, and your post doesn't list ALL of the facts. If you want to give gamers the REAL breakdown, then TELL THE WHOLE STORY, as NOWHERE in your wall of text have you listed any wrongs by Double Fine during the process other than lack of communication.

As someone who spent a lot of his free time supporting modders and fellow gamers in analyzing the .lua files for this game, posting a guide, and constantly updating his user review, I feel obligated to remind those who read ThunderPeel's (rather incomplete and very late) exposition and who still are in the dark about disgruntled former Double Fine fans and the current mood.

1) Early Access allows gamers to have a say in development as the game reaches completion, but most of the time such requests, bug reports and advice were COMPLETELY ignored. Bugs regarding air circulation, oxygen recyclers quickly degrading faster than technicians can repair them, security officers who refused to fight Raiders, technicians and builders who completed tasks whenever they pleased, doctors who allowed the sick and injured to die, colonists starving when there were food replicators closeby, brigs which remained buggy since the initial release of Alpha 6.0 (which was literally the worst release yet [I'll touch on this later]) were constantly pointed out to the dev team, and nearly all were ignored. No feedback via emails (including myself), their forum was slanted towards DF fandom (which I why after reading several threads to keep track of the progress I never registered) and slow progressional updates which made practically no attempts to address issues negates any claims of pre-release good faith efforts.

2) Lack of financial responsibility/management. As many people have read recently, I'm an Accounting/Business major with in-field experience (a part-time Staff Accountant, and I'm starting an assignment as an Financial Analyst later today [yes, on a Sunday...]), so BELIEVE ME when I point out that Schafer's (and not LaBreton's) lack of financial responsibility or long-term cash flow management is a major contributing cause, and not the gamers who "failed" to "support" the "continuous development". A company should NEVER make solid financial short-term goals without focusing on solid long-term financial goals, and that's exactly what happened.

Their assets regarding Spacebase DF-9? The $400,000 in Kickstarter funds, plus revenue gained from Humble Bundle and Early Access. Their expenses? A LOT, and if Schafer and/or his accounting department would have taken the time to calculate sales per unit and then subtract all variable expenses (man hours in development, promotion of the title, costs to HIB, Steam and other distributors for uploading the game onto servers, bug-fixing [...]) then the contribution margin (sales minus the variable expenses, and this does NOT include fixed expenses yet), then they woould have known DAY ONE that their method was unsustainable regardless of their recoup of the initial $400,000 plus interest.

We've now established that the contribution margin per unit of sale would already be low and thus the remaining funds left over couldn't possibly cover the company's remaining high fixed expenses (rent in San Francisco, salary and wage expenses, equipment depreciation) using Early Access funds alone, plus whatever sales (in which they lose even more money by constantly discounting the title). With this unsustainable business model, and the low amounts of revenue coming from older titles and and two new properties, of course they had to cancel. NOT BECAUSE of gamers' failure to support (in my humble opinion) a HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE handling of funds, but because they FAILED to develop a long-term realistic financial strategy. How many people can we afford to put on the project? Should we relocate the SBDF-9 team to less-expensive grounds? If this will be a five-year project, maybe we can allocate fewer man hours until our more profitable titles can cover the long-term costs? Rather than take a loan which requires immediate payback, how about using our (then somewhat decent) reputation to take out a business loan with favorable interest and low repayments? Just...ANYTHING but what they already did.

3) Wasted man hours and already high costs was compunded by slow updates which broke previous implementations which introducing new bugs. AGAIN, this was NOT the fault of the gamers, but of a dev team who was caught in a self-imposed dev spiral: must introduce new concepts in order to garner more sales, but sales were constantly lowering due to layer upon layer of bugs introduced, with hardly any time or funds to fix them (again, the costs). When Alpha 4.0 came out (Research being introduced, I think?), it was the most stable of all of the versions, despite the oxygen recycler issues degrading (that WAS fixed, but then broken again in a later patch). Alpha 5.0 (Doctors and Revivabeds?) was okay, except that datacubes were scarce. 6.0 (Brigs) was the worst yet, as the brig's walls wouldn't even render, prisoners escaped, colonists broke necessary objects, and security officers would RUN from Raiders. Reactors were poorly implemented, and the recycler degredation bug was back.

Word of mouth from gamers warned would-be buyers from purchasing the title, and for a good reason - the game no longer warranted a purchase. No purchase, no revenue, and in Double Fine's case, no revenue, no more development time.

4) Using the Early Access model to fund development without clearly informing gamers as to what you're doing. Steam gamers are a discerning bunch, and are very shrewed as to what $25.00 USD (the original price) can buy on the store. $25 could buy a GotY edition of Borderlands on sale or a sudden packaging of the BioShock trilogy, both PROVEN concepts and COMPLETE games with hours upon hours of fun. $25 is too much for an experiment (and a very buggy, flawed one), but because Double Fine had a decent track record for quirky games we bought into the title, not knowing that without more funds the game would remain incomplete. The videos contained an interesting concept, the (removed) feature list held a lot of promise, and there was every sign that they would push forward with development...until gamers were told the real financial guidelines a year later. Since then, Early Access is now eyed with suspicion instead of trust and enthusiam. Sure there were crash-and-burn or highly suspicious projects (DayZ, Towns, Castle Story), but Spacebase will be the most memorable because we know know that it's not just indie/garage devs that can abuse the system, but established devs as well.

I have to get ready for today's orientation, but ThunderPeel, you need to tell the WHOLE story. Don't just tell one-sided facts thinking readers have low intelligence and will take your (rather skewed) explanation at face value. You're stating only facts about the path of development, not the abuses, slow broken updates, bad PR, and lack of financial responsibility.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Their assets regarding Spacebase DF-9? The $400,000 in Kickstarter funds, plus revenue gained from Humble Bundle and Early Access. Their expenses? A LOT, and if Schafer and/or his accounting department would have taken the time to calculate sales per unit and then subtract all variable expenses (man hours in development, promotion of the title, costs to HIB, Steam and other distributors for uploading the game onto servers, bug-fixing [...]) then the contribution margin (sales minus the variable expenses, and this does NOT include fixed expenses yet), then they woould have known DAY ONE that their method was unsustainable regardless of their recoup of the initial $400,000 plus interest.

There were no "Kickstarter" funds, and the expenses were $40K a month. They needed 5000 sales per month. Did you actually read my post?

The rest of your post is completely subjective.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Originally posted by Fox McCloud:

It was not disclosed that Spacebase was going to be a "Continuous Development" model that relied on continued sales for continued development, only that the development of features would be continuous.

I certainly understood it to be that way. I didn't expect programmers to work for free. I guess this was one of the problems with EA: Some people didn't understand how it worked. I guess it was because of this that Valve issued a warning that all EA games might never be finished long before Spacebase announced it was ending:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-05-valve-issues-warning-about-steam-early-access-games

Also, the reason why Valve changed their policy, btw, was not because of Spacebase, but because it was discovered that 3 in 4 titles were not being completed.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2848777/buyer-beware-3-out-of-4-steam-early-access-games-havent-been-finished.html

The policy change included a lot of other changes with had nothing to do with Spacebase.

However, tying the development to sales was completely anti-consumer, and dismisses the idea that by accepting Early Access funds there was at least some obligation to work towards an established, well-described, minimum development goal and not toward a maximum development time.

You're not alone in that sentiment. Continous Development is largely seen unfavourably now, despite the few success stories that everyone is happy with (eg. MINECRAFT). It works great if the money keeps rolling in, but it go against the consumer if funds suddenly stop.

Interesting dissection of it here:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/24/5338478/early-access-exposes-the-lie-that-the-best-games-should-or-even-can

It's because of these issues that Valve changed their policies. It was an interesting experiment in game funding, but I don't know if it's going to be around in five years, and yes, it's a shame when people got caught up in the mistakes of the early attempts.

[76561197991858962]

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

There were no "Kickstarter" funds, and the expenses were $40K a month. They needed 5000 sales per month. Did you actually read my post?

The rest of your post is completely subjective.

Subjecti...wait, what?

You stated FACTS, but you only told ONE SIDE of the facts. And you can't say that my post was subjective when each of the points I stated were ALL RELEVANT to the contribution of the game's demise.

My point is, it NO LONGER MATTERS. Double Fine SCREWED UP. No amount of skewed logic changes that.

You know what? Don't bother to answer. At least in a way you reminded me to delete the game, hand over the guide to someone else, shut the computer off and honestly just enjoy life. The meltdown of Spacebase DF-9 is not even worth pursuing; why do we continue to beat this dead horse?

[Drac Morbis]

I don 't turn my computer off, it IS my life. lol

[James McCloud]

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

I certainly understood it to be that way. I didn't expect programmers to work for free. I guess this was one of the problems with EA: Some people didn't understand how it worked. I guess it was because of this that Valve issued a warning that all EA games might never be finished long before Spacebase announced it was ending:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-05-valve-issues-warning-about-steam-early-access-games

I don't expect them to work for free, but I believe I am with most in expecting the company to manage its finances (and thus salaries) well enough to not launch a project without secured funding to reach a development goal. This was my understanding of why Early Access existed back when I bought it (which wasn't through Steam), to have a hand in helping development and not just to add funding, and apparently it's what Valve intended too. I understood perfectly well that EA games had a risk of failure, but Valve's rules and guidelines set out that it's highly questionable to launch without enough funding to complete. That's what company profits, investors, and Kickstarter are for, and likely what Valve hoped for when Early Access became a thing (and why the rules are as they are now)

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

Also, the reason why Valve changed their policy, btw, was not because of Spacebase, but because it was discovered that 3 in 4 titles were not being completed.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2848777/buyer-beware-3-out-of-4-steam-early-access-games-havent-been-finished.html

The policy change included a lot of other changes with had nothing to do with Spacebase.

Your sourced article on 3/4 games not being finished is dated 3 days before the articles listed below (Nov. 17) about Valve's updated rules & guidelines, and even calls out Double Fine and Spacebase in it. I didn't say solely Spacebase, but it was certainly the most high profile Early Access burn, and the timing of events from Double Fine and Valve can reasonably link it to be the "last straw," even if it wasn't Valve's intention.

• Sept. 17, 2014 Spacebase DF-9's blog post on "The Road to 1.0"[blog.spacebasedf9.com]
  
  
• Oct. 27, 2014 Spacebase DF-9 blog stating 1.0 was released.[blog.spacebasedf9.com]
  
  
• Nov. 20-21, 2014. Multiple websites report on the updated Early Access rules and guidelines:
  GiantBomb[www.giantbomb.com]
  Eurogamer[www.eurogamer.net]
  IGN
  PC Gamer
  Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

It works great if the money keeps rolling in, but it go against the consumer if funds suddenly stop.

And if that is the funding model, so be it. That needs to be explicitly and in no uncertain terms stated from Day 1 of being up for sale. Double Fine didn't do that for Spacebase until the decision was made to halt development.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Originally posted by Fox McCloud:

And if that is the funding model, so be it. That needs to be explicitly and in no uncertain terms stated from Day 1 of being up for sale. Double Fine didn't do that for Spacebase until the decision was made to halt development.

As I say, I fully understood that that's how ALL Steam Early Access titles worked. Even today. The new guidelines... they're just guidelines. They're not law. A lot of titles EA are still going to come to grinding halt when people aren't expecting it.

It's the same with Kickstarter: It's not a pre-ordering service. There's a chance your money will amount to nothing. These new models are fraught with such risks.

I agree that things could have been better communicated, though. That's definitely where DF messed up.

[Shrapnel]

Originally posted by Vex Malleus:

What is your point? lol

My thoughts exactly - is this another DF Forum cultist still trying to ♥♥♥♥ in my milk and call it a chocolate shake?

Look OP, DoubeFine is a garbage company. I did my research into this fiasco long before I made my 1st post in here. If anything, DF should be making a statement like this, like 5 months ago- but they didnt, instead they made one to the effect of 'you didnt buy enough of our ♥♥♥♥, so we're pulling out'
A ♥♥♥♥ company. period.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Originally posted by Shrapnel:

Look OP, DoubeFine is a garbage company. I did my research into this fiasco long before I made my 1st post in here. If anything, DF should be making a statement like this, like 5 months ago- but they didnt, instead they made one to the effect of 'you didnt buy enough of our ♥♥♥♥, so we're pulling out'
A ♥♥♥♥ company. period.

Well, if you've done your research, I stand corrected.

[James McCloud]

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

It's the same with Kickstarter: It's not a pre-ordering service. There's a chance your money will amount to nothing. These new models are fraught with such risks.

Kickstarter does indeed hold risk, but there's an expectation now placed on creators that steps should include reconciliatory procedures now because of enough similar projects not being completed in the past:

Originally posted by Kickstarter Basics Page:

If the problems are severe enough that the creator can't fulfill their project, creators need to find a resolution. Steps should include offering refunds, detailing exactly how funds were used, and other actions to satisfy backers.
Kickstarter Basics

---------------------

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

As I say, I fully understood that that's how ALL Steam Early Access titles worked. Even today. The new guidelines... they're just guidelines. They're not law. A lot of titles EA are still going to come to grinding halt when people aren't expecting it.

This "Continuous Development" model with "continuous funding" you're defending is NOT what Early Access intended at launch and isn't today.

Originally posted by Steam Early Access Overview, "As a gamer...":

• Be the first to play exciting new games
  
• Discuss and give feedback
  
• Help test and report bugs
  
• Play the game as it develops

Steam's Early Access Overview

No mention of "Support game creators financially so the project can be completed or even see the light of day" as one of the benefits for gamers. However, Spacebase and other Early Access failures did prompt the inclusion of "You should be aware that some teams will be unable to 'finish' their game."

I knew as soon as I put the word "Guidelines," which I included so in order to not be deceiving, you'd fall back to the semantics argument of guidelines versus rules. Regardless of being relegated to the guideline class, it should not take Valve to remind an individual or company not to take consumer money for a project that cannot be completed as is. You're welcome to be content for a company to do this with your money if you want, but to most this is simply unacceptable. In fact, it's a foolish method for a creator to pursue because the project has no stable path to completion.

You're also completely ignoring purchasers of the game off of Steam, especially the old Spacebase website, with no such warnings or disclosures listed anywhere other than the feature list being shown as "proposed."

---------------------

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

I agree that things could have been better communicated, though. That's definitely where DF messed up.

No, they messed up through both communication, and being an established game studio with shipped games lacking the foresight not to launch a project it had no absolute way to complete with the funds available in-house. Despite what you think, NO Early Access projects should launch (receive customer money) with the need for continued sales for continued development, for the simple reason that there's no guarantee of success.

You're quite in the minority here, as the numerous articles mentioning Early Access failures always use Spacebase as the example now, combined with the continued bitterness and abysmal reviews it's gotten, show. It's understandable given how much people looked up to Schafer and those around him to want to let it slide, and even after this I'm not sworn off ever buying a Double Fine game again. However, I will never buy a Double Fine Early Access game, or back one of their Kickstarters ever again though, and will only judge their "released" games. Double Fine and Spacebase are to thank for that, and for my entire aversion to Kickstarter (even though this one wasn't Kickstarted) and the Early Access model now.

[ThunderPeel2001]

You're talking to me as if I'm stating an opinion. I'm merely stating facts:

- Your Kickstarter backing may amount to nothing.

- Steam's Early Access guidelines are merely guidelines and are not enforced by Valve or anyone else. (This isn't semantics due to you using the word "guidelines", it's just a fact.)

- Steam Early Access/Continous Development was created as a way of allowing developers without funds to develop without the need for money from a publisher.

Games cannot be made without funding. No developer, unless it's bedroom coders, puts money into developing a final game without a publishing deal in place, some funding in place, or some other form of investment in place. That's how the gaming industry works, from Double Fine to Rockstar -- if you have salaries and rent to pay, you need money.

Nobody has ever stated anywhere that development would definitely continue for free should that money stop. Why? Because this is a completely new model of funding, and such situations were not properly thought out -- not by Valve, not by DoubleFine. Yes, it's all a bit of a mess.

It also means that DF's only fault was lack of communication. This is evident in the simple fact that if they'd clearly stated that continued development was hinged on continuous funding, you couldn't complain if you'd given them money. Any other complaints about the situation are being made with the benefit of hindsight.

The difference between myself and those who are complaining is that I was fully aware that if funding stopped development would stop, so it didn't come as the slightest surprise to me when it did. If I hadn't understood this, I'd probably be very angry, too.

[Toliman]

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

Here's what actually happened.

ThunderPeel, I don't really know you ,except by your posting reputation, but you're a gold star Comedian / Troll. Here's my 5 stars. Starting off a DF9 post with "Here's what actually happened." you almost made me laugh out loud. right from the beginning.

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

Tim Schafer has stated that DoubleFine made no money from the project.

Due to how upset some fans were from the cancellation, DF gave free copies of its latest game to everyone who had purchased a copy of Spacebase-DF9.

perhaps a version of this is true, just not the version you seem to believe in.

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001:

If DF had announced the project was having difficulty a few months before they shut it down, people would probably have been more understanding, and taken its eventual ceasing, much better than they did. They may have even gone out of their way to get their friends to buy a copy in order to keep the game afloat a little longer. It was the slap out of nowhere that people didn't like.

Any argument that DF suddenly decided to become an evil company, after a decade and a half of being really cool to their fans, and deliberately deceive everyone for financial profit makes no sense.

This is probably the most sane argument you've embedded into the rant so far. I'm being generous, since you might feel that nobody read the post in entirety and cherry picked the problems only.

*if* JP or *if* Tim Schafer had asked for money, what would that look like ?

I ask, because, he did ask for money prior to the launch of the game on Early Access. After EA, there wasn't a kickstarter. there wasnt a patreon, no other funding sources were asked, teased, provided or cajoled from the public.

Apparently the process that Tim Schafer was testing for DF9 was a form of virtual osmosis. he must have held a bucket to his computer, and expected development money to appear in it without asking anyone for it, or even putting a label on this bucket, expecting cash to mysteriously transfer into it. Post EA, the game was left alone for almost an entire year on the Early Access program, with no additional funding efforts or promotional campaigns,

Apparently, funding rested entirely on the laurels of the DF9 team, led by JP and approximately the 3 or 4 others to "make it work". with the funding that the Early Access program was "rolling in"

If this is true, everyone else failed DoubleFine, So, *Here's what actually Happened*

Reality, failed DoubleFine. and Reality should apologise for mistreating Tim Schafer, Bad Reality, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Next game, we promise to find this virtual panhandling bucket and fill it with cash for no particular reason, because we're all now entirely ashamed of our inability to know there was a financial problem at Doublefine, until after decisions had been made to cancel development.

I.E.. We, the gamers who bought the game, were notified a month before they ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ the project into a final release, but we were never told a timetable or dates, until a journalist asked Tim what was actually happening.

This, a month after saying there's no way they'd just up and run away like a fly by night company (sic).