Moral code of current developers (definitely not clickbait)


#46

Do you have any idea about what it costs to actually run “Steam” ? Let me assure you, it sure as hell aint cheap.


#48

You’re underestimating the huge amount of cash pouring in but at the same time pointing out the costs.


#49

I believe you are wrong. While it might not be specifically written, i believe everyone understands it as “when launched” … not when it’s launched on a specific plattform.

If not you could just specify that you will get keys for the product at X-plattform … and then just never launch at that plattform… Which i’m pretty sure some law or regulation would prohibit quickly :slight_smile:


#50

Meh they offered refunds dude, if you really want to get technical i suppose they could name it alpha or beta and postpone “launch” to next year… Isn’t the game “launched” already with them sending out backer builds?


#51

Well, as i see it you kind of only have 3 options.

  1. Contact your local/national Consumer Organisation and check with them if this situation breaks any law/regulation.
  2. Request a refund through Fig/Xsolla/Snapshot/Bank
  3. Wait a year until you get the key on the plattform you originally preferred.

#52

Ofcourse they are making cash. They are a business after all, they provide a service, and they require payment for it. Same way EGS is, or will be atleast once they have built up a large enough userbase.

Steam also lets developers generate keys that can be used on steam, but not sold on steam, and as far as i know, steam does not make anything from those keys. So i’m not surprised that they might be more expensive. Besides 30% has been fairly standard for a long time now, and while i would be very very happy if Steam changed that to 0%, so that developers got 100%, it’s not exactly sustainable as a company :slight_smile:


#54

The only reason why they’re able to ask 30% is because they’ve had a monopoly for so long.
Seriously 30% cut from each sale on steam is a shitload of money!

I’ve made a detailed post about this that shares all my viewpoints regarding this topic in another thread if you’re interested in reading it.


#55

It will cost less than they make from it which only reflects how successful they’ve been. I don’t have any issues with Steam, I think it’s a great platform and I’ve never had any problems with it. I was just commenting on the unusual decision to release Phoenix Point somewhere else. It will be interesting to see if it effects sales of the game.


#56

Playing devils advocate again…

There is a massive amount of assuming going on in the forums at the moment. Everyone assuming they know what Gollop was thinking and trying to do. Not many thinking from the other side of the coin, only how it it affects them not getting their game.

Now after a few days and everyone has calmed down a little after realising they only need Epic to install the game and it will be coming to GOG/Steam later to focus seems to be ‘how moral was this decision’.

Reading his posts:
So Gallop has a team of 55 people he said in his post. That is 55 people relying on the backer funds to make this game… then find a new job ASAP. If any of those staff members find a secure full time job else where, that is not limited by ‘when the current funds run out’, they are gone.

By doing the deal with Epic, he can guarantee those 55 people a solid job not only until the game is complete but for a year afterwards as well. This year can be spent making more content, a new game, more things to make snapshot money to stay alive in the future.

So if this is the case, Gallop has the choice…

  • Piss off loads of backers BUT guarantee snapshots survival for a few years and keep the skills of the team he has in place.

OR

  • Run the risk of running out of money and constantly losing skilled operators along the project to safer jobs.

While everyone might be arguing how immoral he is, to use the backer funds, to get onto a sure thing… I am sure there are 55 people that are under him that are very happy with his moral compass.


#57

I would say you’re assuming here. We don’t know what his employees think. They could even think that they’re glad to have a secured job but think the manner it came about was scummy. Personally this is part of why I try to leave the “moral” bit out. I will say it’s wrong to screw over the backers in the way the deal was hashed out, but I wouldn’t say it was immoral to approach Epic.


#58

You are are 100% correct. I am assuming everything.

I was just assuming from the devils advocate side, rather that the current side everyone else is. It is always easy to assume the worst. Not always easy to see the other side of the coin.

The thought I was trying to put forwards was, was he weighing up between the keeping the team he works with every day safe OR pissing off us backers. The choice of one or the other.
(last paragraph added)


#59

This I am totally for too.
Maybe any chance? The pre versions (trials) are also free of any binding.


#60

Sure i see your point ok GOLLOP wanted to secure the future of his company but consider this : knowing what he did who fill crowdfund Phoenix Point 2 now matter what kind of store he will promise and even if he negotiate Epic+Steam+Gog as publishers, who will believe him ?..Not me…and i guess i wont be alone

So i really hope PP 1 will be a success for them because crowdfunding campaigns are no more an option for their next title be it PP 2 or something else


#61

I do appreciate the offer of a refund, and happily applied for it after this once I was able to locate it in their FAQ’s.

Problem is, I believe he/they shot themselves in the foot for short term gain, long term loss. The crowdfunding and backers fronted the money in the first place. After this bait-and-switch I doubt people in the XCOM niche will do the same for Snapshot ever again. So this will kinda paint Snapshot into a corner, making them reliant on bowing to Epic Games or Tencent to front money for their production needs… sort of like a publisher. It’s a slippery slope they’re going down, and for people who create tactical games, it doesn’t seem very well thought through. If the creed is greed, then mission accomplished, but if it’s for making more products in the future, they’re going to have to rely on publisher-like entities to trust them and front the money from now on.

All of this selling out by developers to Epic Games does bring up a good question, are developers really INDIE anymore if they are selling out to exclusivity of one company?

Personally, I can no longer trust this company to do as they promise. The sudden change of year-long exclusivity to Epic was not part of the promise in the original deal… so what is to say that they can’t “alter the bargain any further” down the road as they justify or see fit?

Nothing they promise I can believe, as money is a clear motivator for their decisions, not the consumer’s wishes or honoring original deals.

Gollop, I hope your decision for selling out for cash was worth sacrificing my trust.


#62

I will back sequel if PP will be great game. And I hope that they will get from under Epic influence by then. Yes they did break promise. But it is promise of small importance on my list. Probably many people think the same.


#63

For me the problem is not Epic launcher even if Epic boss confirmed the Steam friends privacy issue and that they will fix it.
The problem is that you dont sign an exclusivity deal when you benefited from a crowfunding campaign.
If you want to sign exclusivity with a publisher you dont go with crowdfunding
At least SG could have discussed the deal with Epic to keep their initial offer to their backers.
SG PR guy said was not possible to give Steam/GoG keys because PP was not on sale on Steam but when your communication since the beginning refer to Steam key you think about this before.
Sure the game might be better with Epic money but now more than ever, PP must be a success because if it fail or sell less than expected there wont be another crowdfunding campaign for Mr GOLLOP

"The backers of this game would be the very people who have been Gollop fans for decades. He’s literally gathered together the people who have supported and encouraged him for all these years and then …


#64

This is indeed a problem of moral conduct. They made a move that secures the game and jobs, but it will forever stain their reputation. For me, i won’t refund, i won’t use my epic key, i will wait 1 year to play Phoenix Point, but it will be the first and the last game i buy from Snapshot Games.


#65

Well I guess this is half the point.

By doing a deal with Epic, he might’ve been setting up snapshot so they never have to rely on crowd funds again. If PP1 is the game he has been wanting to make for so long, sells how they want it to… WITH the money from Epic, they might have enough to start PP2 without the need for crowd funding ever again.

Doing a deal with the devil this time might mean they never have to do that deal again.

But there are a lot of ‘ifs’ there :smiley: I was just throwing out a possibility from the other side.

When I put my money forward on Fig there was almost nothing. It was just a hope that Gollop was going to make ‘his’ xcom remake his way. When I put that $$ forward, there was still a possibility that the game wouldn’t even get enough to be started. At that early time, if he said it was going to be Epic for the life of the game, I would’ve still put my $$ down. I just wanted the game to have a chance to be made.


#66

If they said on their site it would be an epic exlusive i would have never put my money in and would never bought PP. The problem here is even if you’re right in your statements, they will probably never sell a new game to most of their initial PP backers. I know it is a water drop in an ocean, but it still worth mentionning it.


#67

praised for offering refunds?

They were obligated to offer refunds as the game was crowdfunded and they betrayed the trust of those backers and those that pre-ordered.