The Epic Brutality Of Unchecked Capitalism (Jimquisition) - Videos for the 97.4%

i thought I did if KOTOR 2 had enough money to continue development for another 6 months, it would've been a significantly better game

Hey, my man, you read english yeah? I said dont name a hypothetical, name a time it happened. Came out. Released. Occurred. I can buy it and see it with my own eyes. Not "What ifs", not "well maybes", you go and find a game where what you're talking about actually, tangibly, visibly, identifiably, objectively occurred. I dont want your little hypothesis.

That is not the way it works; at all.

And what about all those funders who were expecting you to release on platforms other than Epic?

Kotor 2 wasn't rushed because of money problems. Kotor 2 was rushed because LucasArts told Obsidian to get the game out by Christmas when it wasn't half way done.

Dude, you're not Samuel L. Jackson. This isn't an interrogation. We're talking about video games. Chill. My position is that more development time can make a game turn out better. KOTOR 2 is a game that was very specifically negatively impacted by a lack of development time. Why would it matter where the funding for that development time comes from?

Its aggitating when i ask an extremely simple question and its being circumvented to avoid answering it up front. Either name a game where it actually happened or stop saying it, because otherwise it means nothing. Its just pointless, meaningless blabber that doesnt actually mean anything. Name a single game where what you're saying could happen actually happened, thats it, thats all im asking either of you to do.

How is that functionally different from being forced to release a game for financial reasons?

Once again i dont care about Kotor 2, the question was name a game where extra funding at the end of development actually, tangibly resulted in more content. Stop bringing up Kotor, i dont care, because that isnt answering my question.

Because it was an entirely different reason why it was released early. How do you not fucking get this? They had the money to work on the game for longer but were told to ship it early. The problem with Kotor 2 wasn't funding so using it as an example of more money = more development time is fucking retarded.

Are you trying to argue there isn't a functional difference between releasing a game before it's done because you're out of money and releasing a game before it's done because the boss demands it? Because if so, I'm gonna have to ask you to step outside.

I just don't understand why the source of the funding matters? Is there something I'm missing here? The thread is moving really quickly, so if I've missed anything important I apologize.

Yeah so why did you ever bring it up when you cant even think of a time it actually happened, then? Pointless, baseless speculation with no proof. Bullshit.

In case I'm not clear, I mean functionally different in terms of how it impacts the end product. Please, if I'm just a drooling idiot, I implore you to correct me.

Also; isn't it slightly concerning you're arguing for a company to pick winners and losers in a closed environment; essentially ghettoizing game development further?

The entire god damn point about his was that Jackald said if the devs suddenly got more money they could just put in more content suddenly at the end of the development cycle instead of it just going into their pockets. That wouldnt have affected Kotor at all.

I'm going to clarify my position just so we're all on the exact same page here More development time can make games better. Development requires money. More money allows for more development. I'm having trouble understanding how people find any of these points disagreeable. These all seem fairly self evident to me.

No one on this Earth would invest €300,000,000 (Three hundred million) and expect a 16.7% return in profit. If you do do that you fucking deserve to go out of business because that's doomed to fucking fail.

So why did you even bring it the fuck up as if it was something you could actually prove happens? It doesnt. This money is being pocketed, thats it.

Are you fuckin serious dude?

You're arguing that turning around on a pretty significant part of your campaign and screwing backers after asking uncle Epic for extra allowance is fine and dandy. How about fuck 'agree to disagree'?

This ignores the following elements of any project: Projected production time (A project is managed to hit certain milestones at certain times, for certain costs. There is some variance in how much over you can go, but it's typically not much. If a project suddenly gets a lot of extra time the entire time projection needs to be re-estimated.) Projected production cost (The budget for a project isn't fucking magic. Someone needs to plan that shit out and suddenly having a pile of cash dropped in your lap creates MORE work to just organise shit. Now you have to recalculate all the costs of the project, including wages/salaries, the rent and amenities of the office, will any product licenses need to be reacquired, do we need to entirely replace our advertising material because it was all geared around the old release date and the old target for the product.) Product scope (When a project is in the planning stage, before any work is done, you have to determine what you want to do and what you can do. Say a game designer who is high up wanted to use some expensive new tech but you don't have the budget for it. Well now that you've got an extra pile of cash he's going to be pushing for his fancytech to be bolted in to the game, sometimes that's possible but most of the time the game will be too far along to implement and trying to take the game apart to add it in could easily wind up costing more than what the new budget can handle. This is the main reason most Kickstarters which have massively beaten their goals end up taking three or more times longer than originally intended and have half baked features that weren't in the initial pitch.) Customer expectations (This one applies mostly to crowd funded games, but it can also apply to games funded by publishers. If the customers are expecting a cooking game they're not going to be happy when you spent 2 extra years adding a shopping centre management sim on top of it. That's not the game they wanted, sure it's still there but it's contained within a product the customer didn't want.) More money = more time = more gooder makes sense on a very superficial level, but once you look at what goes into making something you can see that without proper management a change in scop, time, budget, or any mixture of the three can be a stone attached to the project's neck.

I have to disagree with games getting better with more time. Mostly because when you have to delay a release its in doing because its at at unacceptable state close to the end of development which is usually the sign of management issues. Andromeda, Duke Nukem, Aliens Colonial Marines, and etc

Except they're fucking not. It's just money for money's sake.

You are literally biased in the worst way possible for this discussion.

How the hell did you people debate for four pages and eighty posts in the span of 3 hours?

So you're just openly shitposting right? Same as any other Epic thread. Bizarre apologism of an objectively shit product that spits on consumers with no discernible reason why they're choosing to defend it.

I apologize if the way I've articulated myself has in any way escalated the tone of the conversation. I'm not here to fight, I'm just trying to find the source of disagreement between myself and what seems to be the majority position. The problem I have is that there's this inherent tension between the desire to make people happier and the need for financial stability. How many people here have been in a position where having more money would've drastically improved the lives of themselves or someone you care about? If you own a studio, and a huge publisher offers you what could be life changing financial stability for both you and the rest of your team in return for inconveniencing your customers, would you really turn that offer down? Would you be upset if someone you knew took that offer? This isn't something limited to entertainment. That tension exists almost everywhere in life. I find it really hard to criticize an action when the environment that person is in makes doing that thing almost necessary. It's like getting angry at homeless kids for stealing food. The ones that don't are probably dead. Obviously that's an extreme example, and there's a point where a person or a company is sufficiently stable that that sort of thing isn't justifiable, it's just the exact point where that is isn't really clear to me.

This guy is banned but I'm going to make a point here. If you can't understand why preordering, which is what most kickstarters are, a game with the monetarily backed promise of a GoG/Steam release and then get told you gave to use a launcher you never agreed to or WAIT A YEAR for a standard release is glaringly upsetting. You really should be asking more of why its upsetting and not questioning those who are upset.

So your only point in interacting with Facepunch was to defend Epic? That the entirety of the forums boils down to an argument with 5-6 of its members over a game store? What a bizarre exit.