Torment: Tides of Numenera - A Look Back
 

Colin McComb looks back at the development of Torment: Tides of Numenera:

More information.

While some are disappointed with something, this pleases me more than moaning over some cut away NPC.

I really don't like how dismissive they seem to be about cutting stretch goals.

Of course stuff changes in any creative project. If people can't understand that then they should stay away from kickstarter/fig. Dropping italian is disappointing but they are doing the right thing and offering refunds.

If companies don't understand that they have to communicate their decisions before their customers find out, they should stay away from kickstarter/fig as well.

Game development is not a grassroot democracy. But lending money for not developing what has been promised could also been interpreted as fraud, even if it's not indictable. For outsiders the difference only exists in the way things get handled. And from a morale PoV it is at least worth mentioning. Especially if you call your stakeholders "fans".

Well one tiny correction. It is not lending - it is giving (money for development). It is at best an early pre-order (sometime above and sometime below retail release price with no guarantee that a product will actually be released).

It's not lending or giving - it's a essentially a sales contract for future goods. If anyone could be bothered, they'd almost certainly get their money back in court if the contract is not fulfilled. But no-one does that over a few bucks in these cases.

Actually this is NOT true. Read the terms for kickstarter; there is no promise of delivery of goods and FURTHER it states that goods might not be delivered.

I must admit I never really read the T&Cs…but now that I have, it seems someone can simply collect all the money, on reaching their target, and then bolt with your money and everyone else's. And You'd have to mount a legal claim yourself to pursue them yourself. Actually quite a crappy system. Another reason why I pledge the minimum these days. When I pledge, I *do* expect a finished product at least - other's seem happy to "donate" very large sums and just say "ah well'. Fortunately I have never been placed in this position on KS, but I do think their should be greater accountability - for me KS was about funding accessibility, not providing an easy source of funding for unscrupulous people. Of which there are many.
Back on topic: I am a bit miffed at the changes, reductions, but at least a game will be produced and based on what I played so far, I'm sure I will like it.

Kickstarter may not provide protection, but as a customer you do get protection (until Trump removes that too I suppose). Several Kickstarters have been successfully sued over failure to deliver the product.

Waiting for Directors Cut, then I will have a blast for sure!

Unless the courts rule otherwise and say they statement has no legal binding. Just like a lawyer at a company that sends you a cease and desist order it doesn't mean it has any merit.

The courts, and it was reported here a few times, have gone back and forth on EULA's for example. There's already been a few cases of fraud charged against kickstarters, like the Russian playing card thing. (The recent jury award against Oculus Rift was for breach of contract for an NDA, not the actual kickstarter).

When a developer uses kickstarter to secure funding for a project, and then announces stretch goals as incentives to get more backers and more funding beyond the original target, there is at least a moral obligation (if not a legal one) to provide the promised features. Failure to do so undermines the entire concept of offering stretch goals for more funding.

"Could not provide promised localization because stretch goals expanding the scope" and "Could not provide the promised companions because they would not be fleshed out enough" means they either did not estimate the costs needed for their stretch goals properly; promised more than they could deliver; did not properly plan; OR the addition of the publisher forced a release date they could not meet; or some combination of these.

"Crafting didn't fit in properly so we ditched it" really sounds like an excuse.

Regardless, if you promise something in exchange for money, you should deliver it. At the very least, you shouldn't take an "oh well, that's just how game development works" attitude about it.

If you promised a publisher a feature set, you can be damned sure the feature set would be provided. In a kickstarter campaign, the backers (not a publisher) are funding development, so not meeting any of the promises of the campaign should be considered a Big Deal to the developer, not something you mention in passing after someone snoops your beta code and then just say "ooops, oh well, that's how it goes sometimes".

It is true. Kickstarter's terms essentially cover themselves, as the intermediary, but they also make it clear that the contract is between the creator and the backer. Legally, that is a sale of future goods. Even if the contract did say that the goods might never be delivered, that wouldn't stand up in court - the basic principle of the purchase of goods would override it.

Have a look here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanRo…iabilities.php

There is an assumption often made when these things are cut that the other aspects of the game weren't enhanced or improved in exchange. If not an assumption it is something that is rarely considered at all when this comes up. That has to count for something as they have provided the funds and resources to improve other aspects of the game, so it's not as if they just cut the content and pocketed the money. You're still getting close to, if not the same gross amount of "stuff", just in a different implementation. IMO.

The game is still going to be the best thing since sliced bread so enjoy it. We're lucky developers are still out there making RPGs like this.

I didn't see the need to back the game, so I don't even know what they've failed to do. I doubt anybody is going to court over it. I do think that these studios ought be a bit more cautious with the specific goals, and stick to things they know they can deliver. It just causes such bad blood with some backers when this stuff happens.

Fluent, you miss the point. I already expect a great game as described in the campaign, I wouldn't have backed it otherwise. But when the developer says "give us another $200,000 and we will do X", that doesn't mean "give us another $200,000 and we might do X, or we might use it in some other way as we deem appropriate to improve the game". If they wanted $200,000 to improve the game in other ways they should have said that.

In fact, "deeper story and reactivity" was a part of several of the stretch goals. If they had to cut features to accomplish it, they did not budget sufficiently for the stretch goals.

And since they didn't deliver X, who knows WHAT happened to the money, since there is no public accounting for the expenditures. It could have gone towards other facets of the game, it could have gone toward other games they are developing, it could have gone toward funding ports to consoles which was not part of the campaign, or it could have just gone in a general pool to fund the salaries of the studio. Who knows?

One thing we DO know is that $200,000 did NOT implement X as promised. Which means they did not deliver something they promised they would do if they reached the targeted amount.

Then when they not only didn't deliver X, but also not W, Y, or Z, that becomes a real integrity issue (to me, anyway). It is an abuse of the backers who funded the project believing they would receive everything that was promised.

And there is just NO excuse whatsoever for not providing the promised number of companions. They had over 4 million dollars and hired staff specifically to write some of the "extra" companions.

Regardless of the above, I am still highly looking forward to the completed game. But I think if someone is going to ask for money to provide something, then they should provide it. If for some reason it doesn't fit, they should have made a statement about it. And having multiple stretch goals not included is really pretty disrespectful to the backers IMHO.

I'm not missing the point, just choosing to look at it in a positive way. They have said that several of the features they cut were because they weren't working like they wanted, so they in turn used the time and resources that would have been pumped into those systems to make other game systems better.

It's not perfect and I understand that people pledge to see those stretch goals achieved, but if the developers have tried to implement them and it's not going so well, then bolstering the other systems more in the game is a reasonable move to make.

I mean, what is the reasonable way to react to this? Put bamboo shoots under their fingernails or take legal action against them? Or just shrugging, being more careful about pledging for stretch goals in the future and just enjoy what's going to be a great RPG regardless?

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're making quality old-school CRPGs again. I think that's a good thing.

I think it's great to have a positive attitude about things, but I think you need to be careful. Being to accepting allows things to become a norm that shouldn't be the norm.

I'm not blindly "accepting" anything. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and actually believing them when they say they used those resources to make other elements of the game better.

Regardless of accepting a developers word, this is why I only back at the minimum pledge for most crowdfunding games. As I just want to pre-order at a cheaper price.

So I'm not disappointed but I can see the point of the other backers. As inXile should of communicated this earlier with the major delay updates over the last two years.

I agree, they probably should have communicated it, but that's also their decision. Whether they do or not it's still a no-win situation for them. Even if they make the most gentle announcement of a cut feature you can make, a lot of people will still go nuts over it (like they are now) and totally ignore the fact they said they are making other aspects of the game bigger and better.

Depends. From a cold economic PoV they took money for a promise, invested in their product, speculating for future interest. Then they changed their business plan and in some case made the result worthless for the backer (italian translation). They do indeed offer a refund, but after three years of calculating with that money. The refund sum is the same as the pledge sum three years before, without any incentive. Thanks to inflation, this money is now worth less than three years before, so the bottom line is: you lose, they make a plus with selling their product. Don't tell a class action specialist about that.

I don't say I would do that, but if you're very angry imho this is valid personal opinion. If they had communicated their plans before, you could at least negate deception. Stock listed companies have the obligation to announce immediately every company-related news that can affect their shareholders. You could expect the same from a crowdfunding project. If not from a legal obligation than at least from a morale one.

Not to be argumentative but isn't believing them and giving them the benefit of the doubt with no way to know if they put the money into other areas of the game or not the same as blindly accepting it.:)

No, it's called trusting a developer at their word. :) Why would I believe they are lying? Are they trying to sneakily pocket some money? In the grand scheme of things that would be ridiculous considering they are poised to make much more money in the long run if they do the best of their ability to make great games. IMO.

As for morale obligations, they have an obligation to deliver a game to the best of their ability. If that means they have to sacrifice stretch goals to make that happen, then that is what they have to do. Again, there is an assumption that these features are cut and the resources were just removed or lost. They clearly said they reinvested into the game to compensate by making other features of the game bigger and better. They gave specific examples, such as making the area known as The Bloom much bigger than it would have been if they had included the stretch goal city, etc. They essentially took the same pie and split it into different size pieces rather than removing pieces and trying to pass it off as a whole pie. IMO.

In any event, I'm interested in the game and hope it does well for them. I understand people are upset they didn't get some things in (I was upset when D:OS didn't have a day/night cycle, as I'm sure everyone else was. :P), but the game will still be great. If anything, wait and see how the final game is. But more CRPGs are a good thing, even if a few details are different when the game ships.

I'm also ready to believe that InExile spent all the money they got on the game, and that it turned out better for it. Still I find the negation of 3 companions very disappointing. If nothing else it really cuts down on the game's replayability. It also reflects badly on the developers, IMO, that they made promises for things they decided not to do. On the other hand I've backed games which I haven't enjoyed playing all that much. So if Torment turns out to be a good game, I'd be willing to overlook this sort of thing. I think I'd be really upset if I had pledged a massive amount of money though.

I want more companions in all RPGs (less fleshed out story-wise but offering more choices that affect gameplay), but that's just me. And it's also beside the point. :P

To address what you just posted, what if the remaining companions are twice as fleshed-out than they would have been otherwise? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Doesn't sound too bad, IMO.

Again I don't see a difference but I see no reason for us to debate in circles. I'll just agree to disagree. I don't think they are trying to scam people or pocket money, however I'm not trusting enough to take them at there word. I'm more inclined to believe things are taking more time and money than they thought so things are getting cut.

At the end of the day though it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. If they deliver a worthy game people will forget all about this and line up to kickstart their next game. Much the same as D:OS.

I do have some sympathy with the fact that "no plan survives contact with reality"; that the realities of development mean that some features are changed or cut for the good of the game.

However, I think Avantenor makes a good point. When it comes to cutting something like a localisation, that seems a bit more cynical. That is simply a matter of the cost of translation being higher than they hoped, and, rather then taking the hit, they simply refund people's money that they've been sitting on for three years. If it were my business decision, I would argue that the right thing to do in that case is to absorb the cost, which is virtually guaranteed to be only a fraction of the profits, and extremely important to customer goodwill.

Well I do disagree because there is no evidence your assessment is correct. For one, things aren't just getting cut now, they seemed to have made these decisions earlier in development and just didn't communicate them. Two, again, they explain the decisions, so unless you are saying they are making that story up that instead of including a stretch goal city they chose to expand The Bloom area by leaps and bounds because it was more Torment-y (their words), then why not take them at their word? If the game comes out and The Bloom is a one shack village with a random NPC that says "I am error" you can tell me how wrong I was. :P Until then I see no reason not to believe them.

I'm certain you're right about the decision being made much earlier, at least in the case of the Italian translation. They said they delayed the game for months for translation time. Surely they knew at that time they were cutting the Italian translation to reduce costs, even though had promised it. Don't you think that's a bit cynical, and quite different from making hard creative decisions about changing elements of the game? There's no way they couldn't afford it, if they wanted to.

From InXile:

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They are also giving out refunds for anyone who wants one, even though they aren't really obligated to do so. I'm not a Kickstarter history buff but have other Kickstarters given refunds to customers who wanted them for the game missing stretch goals?

I think that is wrong, and I don't think much of their post. The deal was that there would be an italian translation, along with a number of others. Not that they would determine how many of each nationality were backers, and make a decision on which ones should be honoured.

The history of what previous Kickstarters have seen fit to do by means of restitution doesn't really have any bearing on the situation. As was discussed in the legal article I posted, you have legal and moral duty to delever what you promised. As I said, I think it is reasonable to show some flexibity on tough game-related decisions. I think cutting out a language group because you've estimated that they're the smallest and your costs have overrun, despite having made deal with them - I think that's far less defensible.

They're offering refunds. If Italian backers and/or those who wanted to play the game in Italian want to get their money back, they can. It ain't that serious.

And cutting the Italo translation was a tough game-related decision, too.

No, I think that cutting a discrete piece of work, like a translation, that doesn't actually change the game in any way, is categorically different than a creative decision for the benefit of the game itself. One could maybe make that argument if you were dealing with a tiny indie that was absolutely constrained by cost, but that is not the case for a company like this.

With regards to refunds, I think you proceed under the assumption that return of funds is proper restitution for failing to deliver on a contract. That is by no means always true, legally or morally. In many cases the proper legal remedy is to force the party in breach to carry out their commitments. Of course, you're right that because we're only dealing (individually) with nickels and dimes, no-one is likely to commit to a legal action, which is why so many Kickstarters get away with so much. But in principle, I don't think it stands at all.

Then it's bamboo shoots under the fingernails, I guess. :slap:

I'm just making a point of principle, one that many backers feel, and not one that says people are due dire penalties. It's a bit of a cop out, on the central point, to belittle the significance because it's only a few bucks on a computer game.

What I'm saying is that when one makes a contract, the purchasing party is entitled to what they purchased. Let's say that, due to some weird circumstances, I sign a contract to sell you my car for a hundred bucks, and then I welch on the deal. Legally and morally, I don't owe you a hundred bucks, I owe you a car. In some circumstances, a straight refund on a deal is sufficient, because one could take that money and buy a straight replacement. But, when one can't get that thing anywhere else, like a copy of Numenera in Itailian, a refund is not sufficient - one is due the thing itself, period.

If they were in a position where they had no options, and a refund was their best effort at restitution, that would be one thing, but here they are making a hard-nosed decision to save some money by deliberately breaching a deal.

Kickstarter Terms of Use:

They've already done all of the things required of them.

As was explained in that article, the KS terms are merely brief guidelines for the benefit of both parties. They do not have legal force over the fundamental contract to purchase that is made.

I highlight the terms above, as if they were binding. As I said before, if one were dealing with a tiny indie that had no other funds than those provided by the KS, then terms liked "prevented" and "best possible" would have meaning - it may literally be that they can do no more. However, if it is a company with greater resources, those terms do not apply. The fact a company may exceed the budget provided by the KS by fulfilling their obligations, but still have money to their name - that is tough luck. They must use whatever resources they have in total to fulfill the contract. That is how business works!