A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Subnautica 2 Publisher Says It Fired Cofounders To Avoid Another Kerbal Space Program 2 Debacle
-
It's a lot of money. There are huge incentives on both sides to do the wrong thing (either delay a finished game or push out something half baked). That being said, the current course of action, regardless of justification, is actually going to get us a better game in the end. So there is a sunny side to it for the consumer, which is kind of really rare when you think about it. I would also love to hear from other workers.
-
What about this clusterfuck gives you the impression that this will improve the game beyond where it's already at?
-
When two parties sign a contract then they have to act in good faith. Preventing the other party from fulfilling their obligations to avoid a payout or invoke a penalty is not good faith. And that's why the sea witch Ursula's contract with the mermaid Ariel would not have held up in court. Maybe the game would make more money during it's life span if released later but that's irrelevant when there's a contract about how much money the game should make before a certain cut off date.We currently don't know which party is acting in bad faith. The publishers could be delaying to avoid the payout or the 3 founders could be rushing to get the payout. It's true that a shit half baked game would ruin the series and cause damages, if there is an actual lack of content, there is justification in delaying it. I guess we will get a clearer picture as the lawsuits draw to a close and the game is released.
-
Subnautica isn't just a survival game, but a story driven game as well, and given how janky their engine was, it's not a surprise that they'd want to overhaul it from the ground up.Their engine? It was built on Unity.
-
Their engine? It was built on Unity.
-
We currently don't know which party is acting in bad faith. The publishers could be delaying to avoid the payout or the 3 founders could be rushing to get the payout. It's true that a shit half baked game would ruin the series and cause damages, if there is an actual lack of content, there is justification in delaying it. I guess we will get a clearer picture as the lawsuits draw to a close and the game is released.
-
So from what I understand. That 250$ million bonus to "employees" was almost all going to like 3 people. The smaller bonus that was going to actual employees, they said they would honor it anyways. I'm happy those three founders gave us the first subnautica, but I'd rather a better game on release then something rushed so they get a payday (they also already got paid when they sold their company in any case). Really hard to say who is in the right without having gameplay footage or reap details, but it wouldn't surprise me if it does need more time and it was going to come out as a mess.
-
So do they not actually know what happened with KSP2? Because this isn't going to avoid it. It's basicslly the same exact mistake.
-
"We wanted a fresh _new_ debacle instead!"I agree, but Subnautica was more about exploration than just survival. Sure, you could keep expanding the world to add new environments, but eventually that gets out of hand. For a Subnautica type game, making new ones makes sense, especially to address tech debt as well and start fresh.
-
if I was told my bonus isn't coming I would immediately start slacking
-
It's a lot of money. There are huge incentives on both sides to do the wrong thing (either delay a finished game or push out something half baked). That being said, the current course of action, regardless of justification, is actually going to get us a better game in the end. So there is a sunny side to it for the consumer, which is kind of really rare when you think about it. I would also love to hear from other workers.>That being said, the current course of action, regardless of justification, is actually going to get us a better game in the end. Eh, I'm not sure about that. Sure, a more complete initial launch (probably still early access), but will 1.0 be better, or after that? Part of what made previous games good was getting user feedback early in early access. Sure, they played less complete versions, but it allowed them to direct where the game was heading sooner. Also, how much does this hurt morale of the team? Are they still going to care about the project as much with their owners fucking around with the project? If they don't care as much, the final product is almost certainly worse.
-
*Early Access* is being delayed. They were releasing early access to let users give feedback. Now that feedback will be delayed, which allows them to make mistakes that may have been avoidable if they heard from players sooner.
-
if I was told my bonus isn't coming I would immediately start slackingThat's the thing tho, they said they would honor the bonus for every employee except those three. Granted the three were getting the lionshare if the bonus, almost all of it, so the publisher is still saving money but they aren't screwing over the actual people making the game in regards to this. We get a delayed release with more content which is usually a good thing imo. Worse case scenario is three dudes getting screwed out of *half* of their 500$ million paycheck. Just pointing out that it isn't a bad situation pet say there.
-
>That being said, the current course of action, regardless of justification, is actually going to get us a better game in the end. Eh, I'm not sure about that. Sure, a more complete initial launch (probably still early access), but will 1.0 be better, or after that? Part of what made previous games good was getting user feedback early in early access. Sure, they played less complete versions, but it allowed them to direct where the game was heading sooner. Also, how much does this hurt morale of the team? Are they still going to care about the project as much with their owners fucking around with the project? If they don't care as much, the final product is almost certainly worse.They are still releasing it in early access it seems, they are just delaying it. The team is still getting paid their bonus, and they have more time to implement more things before the early access release from what I understand. I kind of prefer my games delayed. Maybe its ready to leave now and the delay is a big scam but all im seeing is less pressure on the team making it and more content. For the rest, they can figure it out in court.
-
Don't care, show me good gameplay and good reviews, then I'll consider buying it. Why are games nowadays 99% careful wording, business decisions and clout, and 1% game?Because money
-
"We wanted a fresh _new_ debacle instead!"Shit, I'll take sequels over as-a-service any day. Let continuing revenue be the result of *making new things* and *games being good.*
-
Krafton has claimed they asked for 30% more content for the early access version, which isn't that minimal.Depends how much content there was. 10 hours? 100 hours? Adding 3 isn't much, adding 30 is quite a lot. If they really were rushing then maybe there wasn't that much content already and asking 30% wasn't to unrealistic.
-
They are still releasing it in early access it seems, they are just delaying it. The team is still getting paid their bonus, and they have more time to implement more things before the early access release from what I understand. I kind of prefer my games delayed. Maybe its ready to leave now and the delay is a big scam but all im seeing is less pressure on the team making it and more content. For the rest, they can figure it out in court.Yeah, that's what I said. I assume the planned release date for 1.0 is staying the same though. This doesn't buy them any more time. It only delays the time where they'd get feedback from the community. You can always wait for early access to be over if you want. This is all that was delayed, not 1.0.
