Xenonauts 2 - Gets Mod Support
 

Xenonauts 2 will be getting mod support according to the latest update.

Thanks Farflame!

More information.

That's nice :)

So your a big fan then :p

It will be interesting to see if any good mods come of this. Usually modders just change the colour values on some armour and make new weapon variants etc. When people say they want modding, what they mean is they want someone to make x-piratez for xenonauts 2 or something like that but its unlikely they will be able to. There is basic modding capability then there is the real shit.

I wonder what level of modding they have planned? My money is on the basic kind.

X-Piratez in the Xenonaut engine would get a hefty donation from me…I consider X-Piratez the best TC mod I've ever played, flooring even awesome mods like Nehrim for Oblivion and FFH for Civilization 4. X-Piratez kept amazing me through the entire playthrough I did when I had a month of only gaming after surgery this spring.

On topic, I believe basic modding was always on the table, I hope the added tools will allow more complex and interesting ones.

If Goldhawk were to run another Kickstarter for advanced modding tools I would pitch in.

I decided to back the game, but I'm not terribly excited for it - I must admit. I found the first game dry and sterile for the most part, even if the mechanics were decent.

This does look better - and I like the genre, so why not support it.

Often, when I pledge for games - it's mostly to support the crowd-funding model and less so the actual game, because otherwise I'd just buy it post-release eventually.

As for modding, that's never a bad thing. I'm glad to se that made it in ;)

I do try to support the crowd-funding model myself. Luckily the general quality is improving as well as the professionalism on display. If crowdfunding has been good for anything it at least has to be credited with encouraging developers to get their acts together and work out their vision before seeking money.

Incoming musing that's not directed at you, necessarily:

I haven't really noticed much of a change in terms of the success ratio myself.

It's not that I've backed countless titles or anything, but I'm a gargantuan fan of the concept - and I don't expect miracles or that people don't make mistakes or mess up.

That's not about the model so much as it's about the nature of development.

The only difference from the publisher model, in this way, is that most developers who get their games published already have some established experience, as most publishers prefer a safer bet.

But we don't see how much developers mess up under those circumstances - because it happens behind the scenes.

People don't magically become competent developers because their source of funds change.

Crowd-funding is much more transparent in most cases - and developers feel obligated to share their progress with more detail.

Personally, I consider that a downside - because I really don't need to see all their fuck-ups, and I don't need detailed reports of why such-and-such decisions were made.

When I back something, I know I'm taking a chance. I know that things will go wrong in one way or the other - and I know that I'll be pretty lucky if I get anything like the "ideal" experience that's being pitched. That's a chance I'm very comfortable taking and I don't need any guarentees where none could ever be found.

In my opinion, if you're a person who needs guarentees - you should never back anything but rather wait until it's actually released. If not, I would consider you a very silly person.

I consider the vast majority of gamers out there completely ignorant of what it takes to actually make something as complicated and challenging as a computer game.

Which is why I sometimes struggle when people bitch and moan about cancelled features or what I consider inevitable delays.

But I realise I'm in the minority here. I know that the majority of people who back games feel entitled to make a whole host of judgment calls on the development process made by other people - and how developers are so stupid, incompetent, scam artists and/or liars :)

I don't think you're in the minority here if here is on the Watch, the general attitude towards crowdfunding on this site feels like it's closer to what you're saying, with people realizing it's a gamble but one most of us are willing to take as long as some of the Games turn out good, and many if them do in my opinion.

If by "here" you mean out of all the people who donate to crowdfunded games then yeah, that might be true.

Well, it's not like I've spoken to every single person who ever backed a game - and the vocal minority can definitely misrepresent the norm.

But it's my clear impression that most people who back games AND choose to speak about it, seem to think it's much, much simpler to make games than it really is.

That goes for the Watch and everywhere else I've been online.

But, you're right, I could be wrong. Maybe it's just confirmation bias.

You sure do like going off on a tangent. :p

If you are asking me for my opinion on the success ratio I would say its stayed roughly the same.

I don't care if developers fuck up but I do care if they obfuscate and bullshit us about reason x and y. Alot of the hostility is down to that or radio silence for 6 months or longer. All any backer wants is honesty and a sense that the project is going forward. Mature backers expect projects to run late - its the nature of software development. I think people backing now are more realistic about their expectations too.

Professionalism from developers, in my mind, means working out realistic budgeting and scheduling constraints. Also having an engagement and marketing plan. Not just pitching up and expecting success.

FTL was an early Kickstarter success story who did Kickstarter right. No stretch goals. Funding over the set amount went to improving the quality. The design was the design and they didn't fuck it up just to grab more dollars. They released what they said they were going to release and delivered what they said they would because they had worked out what sort of game they were making and didn't turn up with concept art and a vague idea.

BTW:
I've backed many risky projects. Most have delivered and some have not. I am getting better at picking winners from losers as are most backers. Thats another plus in my book. Gamers are working out what they really want from their crowdfunded games and supporting the projects that are most likely to give them some enjoyment. Don't get me wrong. I also back some games that I'm sure I won't enjoy, just to support the genre, like Pillars 2. Every Kickstarter project is a risk but I like to think I support games that should be given a chance.

I like talking about games and the industry, sorry ;)

I think what you refer to as:

Professionalism from developers, in my mind, means working out realistic budgeting and scheduling constraints. Also having an engagement and marketing plan. Not just pitching up and expecting success.

Are things that are almost impossible to evaluate as a person outside the process and outside the company.

That's essentially where I differ from the people who feel entitled to speak from an informed position to the extent of making strong value judgments.

As in, even if a game is never delivered - it's extremely hard to make a truly informed determination about who failed, how they failed - or even IF they failed.

Unless we get some very specific, thorough and detailed information.

Sometimes, that's the case - but in the majority of cases, people don't have the first clue what they're talking about when it comes to the reality of the development process.

Essentially, every game is a unique project and there's no exact science when it comes to "how to do it right" - because people are different, ambitions are different, challenges are different - and so on.

Writing things down and having a "realistic" plan does NOT enable you to predict the future, which is the only way you could possibly create an ambitious game and never mess up in significant ways.

Some of the most successful games of all time almost never got made - and some of the most respected developers out there have failed time and time again.

I hope you appreciate I'm speaking in generalities. Specifics are never that interesting to me as broadly observable trends which you can tease out if you pay enough attention.

If you want to talk specifics ie the blame game, we should not avoid pointing fingers but we should also not do so indiscriminately. When both parties are honest with each other processes improve and outcomes improve. We may not have all the facts about a developer but a broader conversation should be able to take place in an environment of honesty. Yes some mis-communication may take place but that is not important. What is important is that a conversation takes place so people can hash things out.

You say some things are impossible to gauge unless your behind the scenes. While this is broadly true some things are obvious and in the public eye, such as the absurdly low funding goals for most projects, which are generally used these days to indicate interest from a community and/or attract a publisher. That was not the case in 2012 and this changed because of the discussion that took place around some of the early Kickstarter projects. (Some healthy and not so healthy finger pointing was involved)

I remember it was not so long ago that backer rewards were handled individually by each developer individually. Now there are services for such things. An ecosystem has sprung up where none existed before so obviously there was a need for it and this is obviously beneficial to all involved.

Yes, so am I.

However, without specifics, it's also extremely easy to make claims and it's very hard to refute them.

Definitely, a productive conversation is a good thing. That's not really the kind of thing I'm talking about, though. You can't really have a conversation without both parties present during the exchange :)

I don't agree it's obvious at all in many cases. It depends on each individual project and the circumstances involved.

Games aren't made with money. They're made by people - and money can't buy anything real that's actually put in the game.

So, how much is needed will vary depending on a huge host of potentially relevant factors - and without a specific example, it's hard to demonstrate.

But everything from the stage of development, experience of developers, personal financial situation (where you don't actually need money to spend time on development), type of game and engine being used, ambition and innovation, scope and intention to stick to it, and so on are all relevant.

Some games can be made for free under the right circumstances - and some games could never be made even with an infinite amount of money.

Which sort of supports my point that some challenges aren't easily overcome - and that it's not necessarily because of incompetence - but simply that some things are prone to failure - no matter how smart you are.

---

But this is becoming very broad - and we're already way off topic. That's my fault - and I apologize :)

I don't think we necessarily disagree THAT much, but I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page when it comes to valid criticism of crowd-funded games in general.

Which is cool - and I suggest we agree to disagree ;)

I was talking about 2012 dude. 2012 was the wild west so yes it is obvious. Especially with hindsight.

Which supported my point that scope was not being managed properly.

Okay, I agree to disagree with you. :D

(this is an invisible post)

I just want everyone to notice that Silver got the last word ;)

Apart from the fact he didn't because you had to make an invisible post…it came pretty close though. :)

Anything that boosts the intrinsic value of this franchise gets a huge /cheer from me. I don't think I've used many mods unless they magically came with the base games, but the ones that I remember I'm grateful for.