Lying and arrogance

[Yourinnertrollvoice]

Dear Backer Dear buyer of the game. Have you ever wondered why this game is so bad?

I am convinced that otherside funds from the Kickstarter project have been used to work on System shock 3. Quite simple example .... How can it be that a game like outward comes out with the same engine is even more complex and runs much better what comes from a team of 10 people? Otherside is a team full of veteran developers. They had almost a million dollars together. Certainly more then the developers of outward and yet they have failed. Take a look at the trailers on underworld-ascendant. All trailers look like an inexperienced team of 14 year old kids. Nothing looked promising.

Check out the trailer of System shock 3. This is not a world wonder but far better than what we were offered before.

I'm convinced these developers have more or less stolen money from us to finance their other project.

Of course I love the old thief series and I know that it was this team that developed thief. But that was years ago and people are changing. These people are nothing but liars and arrogant spinners.

Did you see the interview when one of these guys said that without any problems they get such a project, despite the fact that they are so small because they are so experienced in the development of games? I hate this man. He is a perfect example of a person who gets to much money and can't do s.it because he is a useless person who have nothing more of empty words to say.

[Azangod]

Can't say I agree with the whole line but speaking about the financing I confess I had the same thought.

[DrBunsen]

I feel the same. Being scammed.
We paid for UW3 and got this. You can easily make a good game from the backed money, even easier in this age of super-functional engines. We made games for less than half of what they got and had to develop all the technology by ourselves.
The point is, with some love and dedication they easily could have deliver a good game for half of the money, if they were smart. What's wrong with implementing only one or two core game play elements instead of melee combat, ranged combat, wonky physics and stealth? Just start with ranged spell combat and if you find the time, implement melee.
Write a good story and use Asset Store for most of the art. You can get all art you need there for under 500$ altogether in much better quality than these ridiculous not-the-mamma-dinos and the standard skeletons.

Ok, people would complain that game is only 5 hours long, but man, if it is good, you can always explain money constrains and even sell DLCs.

I think they used this project to develop all the said core game play elements they need in SS3 at our (the backer's) cost. You will most likely see the kind of game play they developped for UA in there. Then they tried to convert their sandbox to a 'game' using a color blind artist, an inexperienced coder and a very busy level designer. We are 'playing' the result now.

[Flare]

We've clarified in the past that Underworld Ascendant's KS money was not used for System Shock 3. Since this is the third time I've seen this kind of thread pop up, I'm going to make this the final time I address it.

System Shock 3 has not used UA Kickstarter money.

We've talked rather openly about how our production and financials were troubled during development.[otherside-e.com] The KS was run while we had a funding partner lined up who could finance the game. Shortly after the KS was finished, this funding partner pivoted away from UA, and the budget and timeline needed to be re-adjusted. This is separate from the design decisions that were being fleshed out during and after the KS, which revolved around ways to open up the expansion of player freedom and playstyle for UA.

In the years since that fallout, UA nearly didn't happen. Once we agreed with 505 to publish the game, we had enough to make it to a launch in 2018. (Obviously in retrospect, still too early, but there was an established timeline and budget).

Considering that Shock3's original budget was around $12-13 million from Starbreeze, had a consistent publisher, and can now share some of its progress while looking for a new publisher... it's an entirely different story.

UA's total budget has been less than half of that.

And that's just the financial side, which the team worked incredibly hard to deal with just to make a game with tons of options. For reference, I discovered recently during the Subnautica postmortem that the game took $10 million to finance over 5 years. On average, that's 2 million a year that they were able to spend and have the time to make. Not everyone has the time AND money to make their dream game.

That being said, lessons have been learned for Shock3's development as we search for a new publisher.

I am sharing this information because I think it's critical for people who are unaware about the costs of game development. It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently; on the one hand, I thought it was a lot on its own. And then when I compared our budgets to other indies, I realized just how much this team pushed itself on a shoestring budget.

Yes, there were scope issues. You could even say that we could have shifted our focus in different directions, but I want to stop people from accusing the UA team of launching a KS and then funding it to Shock3. If anything, it would have been amazing to have some of the Shock3 budget lent to UA; but that violates publisher-dev contracts, and we respected that and worked with what we had.

[B166ER]

Originally posted by Flarechess:

We've clarified in the past that Underworld Ascendant's KS money was not used for System Shock 3. Since this is the third time I've seen this kind of thread pop up, I'm going to make this the final time I address it.

System Shock 3 has not used UA Kickstarter money.

We've talked rather openly about how our production and financials were troubled during development.[otherside-e.com] The KS was run while we had a funding partner lined up who could finance the game. Shortly after the KS was finished, this funding partner pivoted away from UA, and the budget and timeline needed to be re-adjusted. This is separate from the design decisions that were being fleshed out during and after the KS, which revolved around ways to open up the expansion of player freedom and playstyle for UA.

In the years since that fallout, UA nearly didn't happen. Once we agreed with 505 to publish the game, we had enough to make it to a launch in 2018. (Obviously in retrospect, still too early, but there was an established timeline and budget).

Considering that Shock3's original budget was around $12-13 million from Starbreeze, had a consistent publisher, and can now share some of its progress while looking for a new publisher... it's an entirely different story.

UA's total budget has been less than half of that.

And that's just the financial side, which the team worked incredibly hard to deal with just to make a game with tons of options. For reference, I discovered recently during the Subnautica postmortem that the game took $10 million to finance over 5 years. On average, that's 2 million a year that they were able to spend and have the time to make. Not everyone has the time AND money to make their dream game.

That being said, lessons have been learned for Shock3's development as we search for a new publisher.

I am sharing this information because I think it's critical for people who are unaware about the costs of game development. It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently; on the one hand, I thought it was a lot on its own. And then when I compared our budgets to other indies, I realized just how much this team pushed itself on a shoestring budget.

Yes, there were scope issues. You could even say that we could have shifted our focus in different directions, but I want to stop people from accusing the UA team of launching a KS and then funding it to Shock3. If anything, it would have been amazing to have some of the Shock3 budget lent to UA; but that violates publisher-dev contracts, and we respected that and worked with what we had.

Too much fun dissecting dishonest/lying PR-gibberish of a failed game:

"Obviously in retrospect, still too early, but there was an established timeline and budget" - That's all backers + customers are getting as far as an apology for the current alpha state the game is in.
And obviously only this studio is under pressure of deadlines and budget, and not every other studio out there, of which many still managed to put out amazing games.

"UA's total budget has been less than half of that." - So ~3-5 million $ and this sorry state of a game is all you could come up with?

"It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently..." - An employee is shocked about the budget constraints of the game he's working at. I'm more shocked how utterly clueless you appear.

"And then when I compared our budgets to other indies, I realized just how much this team pushed itself on a shoestring budget." - "I'm only looking at studios which much larger funding, and excluding every studio that has had way less budget, and was still able to put out amazing games". Pretty pathetic showing seeing you flailing your arms in an attempt to make an excuse for the alpha state the game is in.

People/gaming studios like you deserve to burn in an endless stream of criticism and negative reviews.

[Yourinnertrollvoice]

Originally posted by B166ER:

Originally posted by Flarechess:

We've clarified in the past that Underworld Ascendant's KS money was not used for System Shock 3. Since this is the third time I've seen this kind of thread pop up, I'm going to make this the final time I address it.

System Shock 3 has not used UA Kickstarter money.

We've talked rather openly about how our production and financials were troubled during development.[otherside-e.com] The KS was run while we had a funding partner lined up who could finance the game. Shortly after the KS was finished, this funding partner pivoted away from UA, and the budget and timeline needed to be re-adjusted. This is separate from the design decisions that were being fleshed out during and after the KS, which revolved around ways to open up the expansion of player freedom and playstyle for UA.

In the years since that fallout, UA nearly didn't happen. Once we agreed with 505 to publish the game, we had enough to make it to a launch in 2018. (Obviously in retrospect, still too early, but there was an established timeline and budget).

Considering that Shock3's original budget was around $12-13 million from Starbreeze, had a consistent publisher, and can now share some of its progress while looking for a new publisher... it's an entirely different story.

UA's total budget has been less than half of that.

And that's just the financial side, which the team worked incredibly hard to deal with just to make a game with tons of options. For reference, I discovered recently during the Subnautica postmortem that the game took $10 million to finance over 5 years. On average, that's 2 million a year that they were able to spend and have the time to make. Not everyone has the time AND money to make their dream game.

That being said, lessons have been learned for Shock3's development as we search for a new publisher.

I am sharing this information because I think it's critical for people who are unaware about the costs of game development. It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently; on the one hand, I thought it was a lot on its own. And then when I compared our budgets to other indies, I realized just how much this team pushed itself on a shoestring budget.

Yes, there were scope issues. You could even say that we could have shifted our focus in different directions, but I want to stop people from accusing the UA team of launching a KS and then funding it to Shock3. If anything, it would have been amazing to have some of the Shock3 budget lent to UA; but that violates publisher-dev contracts, and we respected that and worked with what we had.

Too much fun dissecting dishonest/lying PR-gibberish of a failed game:

"Obviously in retrospect, still too early, but there was an established timeline and budget" - That's all backers + customers are getting as far as an apology for the current alpha state the game is in.
And obviously only this studio is under pressure of deadlines and budget, and not every other studio out there, of which many still managed to put out amazing games.

"UA's total budget has been less than half of that." - So ~3-5 million $ and this sorry state of a game is all you could come up with?

"It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently..." - An employee is shocked about the budget constraints of the game he's working at. I'm more shocked how utterly clueless you appear.

"And then when I compared our budgets to other indies, I realized just how much this team pushed itself on a shoestring budget." - "I'm only looking at studios which much larger funding, and excluding every studio that has had way less budget, and was still able to put out amazing games". Pretty pathetic showing seeing you flailing your arms in an attempt to make an excuse for the alpha state the game is in.

People/gaming studios like you deserve to burn in an endless stream of criticism and negative reviews.

you are my brother in mind. 100% agree what you said

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by B166ER:

"It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently..." - An employee is shocked about the budget constraints of the game he's working at. I'm more shocked how utterly clueless you appear.

Flarechess wasn't there from the beginning, IIRC hired on about a year ago. CM/PR folks are usually not told the whole picture and instead are usually only given what the company's management wants the public to hear, to minimize the truth from spilling out.

This was how Peter Molyneux burned through about half a dozen over 5 years, having them present a false narrative for whatever was going on with Godus. Those CMs were constantly confused when talking with the public and backers, because they were told to say one thing and everyone else provided evidence to the contrary. The rest of the company's rank and file are then told to avoid the forums for some ostensible other reason, but it's really to prevent the disruption of the company's narrative.

CM/PR are paid so the management doesn't have to directly face those they've screwed; that only until the backer beta was anyone informed in the least bit of the real state of UA is testament to the cynical regard of KS backers. Instead of a publisher with lawyers on retainer they have customers throwing themselves into shouldering the financial uncertainty with no milestone checks required. TL;DR of that sort, backers are free money, and even if KS' TOS says that backers are to get their rewards or the crowdfunder should refund KS is less than useless in doing anything about it (while taking their cut).

Speaking of which, how are those backer rewards coming along? Many have been "almost done" for quite some time.

[Yourinnertrollvoice]

Originally posted by l'Original:

Originally posted by B166ER:

"It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently..." - An employee is shocked about the budget constraints of the game he's working at. I'm more shocked how utterly clueless you appear.

Flarechess wasn't there from the beginning, IIRC hired on about a year ago. CM/PR folks are usually not told the whole picture and instead are usually only given what the company's management wants the public to hear, to minimize the truth from spilling out.

This was how Peter Molyneux burned through about half a dozen over 5 years, having them present a false narrative for whatever was going on with Godus. Those CMs were constantly confused when talking with the public and backers, because they were told to say one thing and everyone else provided evidence to the contrary. The rest of the company's rank and file are then told to avoid the forums for some ostensible other reason, but it's really to prevent the disruption of the company's narrative.

CM/PR are paid so the management doesn't have to directly face those they've screwed; that only until the backer beta was anyone informed in the least bit of the real state of UA is testament to the cynical regard of KS backers. Instead of a publisher with lawyers on retainer they have customers throwing themselves into shouldering the financial uncertainty with no milestone checks required. TL;DR of that sort, backers are free money, and even if KS' TOS says that backers are to get their rewards or the crowdfunder should refund KS is less than useless in doing anything about it (while taking their cut).

Speaking of which, how are those backer rewards coming along? Many have been "almost done" for quite some time.

in summer the physical goods should release....... if they told us the truth

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by Rough Bubblegum:

in summer the physical goods should release....... if they told us the truth

There is also all the in-game stuff.

[Yourinnertrollvoice]

Originally posted by l'Original:

Originally posted by Rough Bubblegum:

in summer the physical goods should release....... if they told us the truth

There is also all the in-game stuff.

right... funny thing is even some digital stuff is still in development and should be release summer. it is a disaster

[Nyast]

Originally posted by l'Original:

Speaking of which, how are those backer rewards coming along? Many have been "almost done" for quite some time.

I hear they're coming shortly after the Mac and Linux builds :p

Imagine being a Mac backer, having paid hundreds of $ for alpha access, and still not being able to play, 6 months after the official release.

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by Nyast:

Originally posted by l'Original:

Speaking of which, how are those backer rewards coming along? Many have been "almost done" for quite some time.

I hear they're coming shortly after the Mac and Linux builds :p

Imagine being a Mac backer, having paid hundreds of $ for alpha access, and still not being able to play, 6 months after the official release.

Godus backers are in the same boat. I doubt OS have a Linux/Mac dev in the Boston house, usually a full-time job in itself.

But then there's one of the more fun things said about Unity.[unity3d.com]

Unity for desktop

Strategy, puzzle, action, sandbox and more

Thanks to Enlighten-powered Realtime Global Illumination and Unity’s physically-based shader, there’s never been a better time to make beautiful, immersive and entertaining desktop games with Unity.

The Unity platform provides one-click deployment support across PC, Mac and Linux platforms.

So ... if that is true about Unity then it should only take one click for Mac, right? And another for Linux? Someone at OtherSide can't click? What's up?

[Tonkinese]

Originally posted by Flarechess:

We've clarified in the past that Underworld Ascendant's KS money was not used for System Shock 3. Since this is the third time I've seen this kind of thread pop up, I'm going to make this the final time I address it.

System Shock 3 has not used UA Kickstarter money.

We've talked rather openly about how our production and financials were troubled during development.[otherside-e.com] The KS was run while we had a funding partner lined up who could finance the game. Shortly after the KS was finished, this funding partner pivoted away from UA, and the budget and timeline needed to be re-adjusted. This is separate from the design decisions that were being fleshed out during and after the KS, which revolved around ways to open up the expansion of player freedom and playstyle for UA.

In the years since that fallout, UA nearly didn't happen. Once we agreed with 505 to publish the game, we had enough to make it to a launch in 2018. (Obviously in retrospect, still too early, but there was an established timeline and budget).

Considering that Shock3's original budget was around $12-13 million from Starbreeze, had a consistent publisher, and can now share some of its progress while looking for a new publisher... it's an entirely different story.

UA's total budget has been less than half of that.

And that's just the financial side, which the team worked incredibly hard to deal with just to make a game with tons of options. For reference, I discovered recently during the Subnautica postmortem that the game took $10 million to finance over 5 years. On average, that's 2 million a year that they were able to spend and have the time to make. Not everyone has the time AND money to make their dream game.

That being said, lessons have been learned for Shock3's development as we search for a new publisher.

I am sharing this information because I think it's critical for people who are unaware about the costs of game development. It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently; on the one hand, I thought it was a lot on its own. And then when I compared our budgets to other indies, I realized just how much this team pushed itself on a shoestring budget.

Yes, there were scope issues. You could even say that we could have shifted our focus in different directions, but I want to stop people from accusing the UA team of launching a KS and then funding it to Shock3. If anything, it would have been amazing to have some of the Shock3 budget lent to UA; but that violates publisher-dev contracts, and we respected that and worked with what we had.

like anyone will believe a liar like you

[ReamedBySteem]

Originally posted by l'Original:

Originally posted by Rough Bubblegum:

in summer the physical goods should release....... if they told us the truth

There is also all the in-game stuff.

I would be embarrassed to have a physical copy of this game next to my original boxes, and/or any other related paraphernalia.

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by Tonkinese:

Originally posted by Flarechess:

We've clarified in the past that Underworld Ascendant's KS money was not used for System Shock 3. Since this is the third time I've seen this kind of thread pop up, I'm going to make this the final time I address it.

System Shock 3 has not used UA Kickstarter money.

We've talked rather openly about how our production and financials were troubled during development.[otherside-e.com] The KS was run while we had a funding partner lined up who could finance the game. Shortly after the KS was finished, this funding partner pivoted away from UA, and the budget and timeline needed to be re-adjusted. This is separate from the design decisions that were being fleshed out during and after the KS, which revolved around ways to open up the expansion of player freedom and playstyle for UA.

In the years since that fallout, UA nearly didn't happen. Once we agreed with 505 to publish the game, we had enough to make it to a launch in 2018. (Obviously in retrospect, still too early, but there was an established timeline and budget).

Considering that Shock3's original budget was around $12-13 million from Starbreeze, had a consistent publisher, and can now share some of its progress while looking for a new publisher... it's an entirely different story.

UA's total budget has been less than half of that.

And that's just the financial side, which the team worked incredibly hard to deal with just to make a game with tons of options. For reference, I discovered recently during the Subnautica postmortem that the game took $10 million to finance over 5 years. On average, that's 2 million a year that they were able to spend and have the time to make. Not everyone has the time AND money to make their dream game.

That being said, lessons have been learned for Shock3's development as we search for a new publisher.

I am sharing this information because I think it's critical for people who are unaware about the costs of game development. It even shocked ME to hear about our actual UA budget recently; on the one hand, I thought it was a lot on its own. And then when I compared our budgets to other indies, I realized just how much this team pushed itself on a shoestring budget.

Yes, there were scope issues. You could even say that we could have shifted our focus in different directions, but I want to stop people from accusing the UA team of launching a KS and then funding it to Shock3. If anything, it would have been amazing to have some of the Shock3 budget lent to UA; but that violates publisher-dev contracts, and we respected that and worked with what we had.

like anyone will believe a liar like you

Moved this over from the other thread:

Originally posted by Tonkinese:

Originally posted by Flarechess:

We're working on Update 4, which aims to include more NPCs and other features. Update 3 will primarily be focused on bug fixing.

sure you are are you also working on the game you originally pitched? or is that a lie too>?

If anyone should have venom directed towards them it would be Paul Neurath for waving the reputation of everyone at OtherSide as a signal of quality and talent involved behind UA and failing to keep backers informed about the real state of things until the 11th hour. As studio head he knew when the other funding fell through and told nobody, nor made an effort for the state of product to match what he was pitching to the other funding parties involved (and again left them in the dark before it was shoveled out) - just let the financial risk drop upon the backers and if they weren't satisfied then "oh well, here's an excuse letter". A lot of BAD FAITH acts on his part. If there wasn't an upcoming console release for UA I doubt they would have done this much to patch up the mess they shrugged out.

Flarechess joined OS around a year ago IIRC and so probably didn't know everything that went on prior to that, and is now having to field the public and backers on behalf of the management in hiding.

Let's not forget what killed LGS in the first place: poor management. Well, keeping up with tradition...

[B166ER]

Quite telling how this "mod" is nowhere to be seen when faced with sharp criticism.
Does he honestly think PR-gibberish is sufficient?