TR Member Perks!

Following the release of update 6.0 hilariously and prophetically dubbed “Brig Ambitions, Broken Dreams”, Kickstarter darling Double Fine announced in the middle of September that they would be prematurely wrapping up production on Spacebase DF-9, falling three years short of their projected five year development cycle. For those of you with a short memory, Spacebase DF-9 was the overall winner of Amnesia Fortnight 2012 – an in house game jam where the community paid to vote on 23 proof of concepts to determine what game Double Fine would work on next. With Prison Architect and Dwarf Fortress  as cited influences,  Spacebase DF-9 essentially had penny loafers with an entire Lovecraftian pocket dimension hidden in them to fill.

The communities reaction was perfectly in-line with a consumer who just had the rug pulled out from under him, with first commentator “Xander” setting the tone for the next 15 pages:

“Double Fine is not a random fly-by-night indie dev and we are not going to silently pull the plug on Spacebase or any other in-development project. Doing so would be disastrous for our reputation and it would kill us emotionally ”

This does not seem to match up with what was written above sir. This is a quick end after a large steam sale with the game at a discount. A sudden discontinuation. You are going from alpha with multiple features planned to a quick cut ended 1.0.

Why are you going back on your word above? That or, why tell people this if resources had been becoming a problem? Why the disconnect between the two?

Also, what about peoples requests for refunds?

Project Lead JP, or Jean-Paul LeBreton, was quickly inundated with cries of outrage, and though a fair amount of users rushed to the defense of Double Fine, it becomes painfully clear that a majority of consumers felt jilted by the developers decision to pull the plug. Eventually public outcry became so loud that it even  reached the ear of self-described industry legend and noted panhandler Tim Schafer. Roused from his hibernation by the unwarranted grumblings of entitled gamers, he descended from his ivory tower to assuage complaints and offer as good of an explanation as people are likely to get. His response is rather lengthy, so for the sake of brevity here is a link to the thread in question.

To summarize, Tim reveals that they had planned for five years of development but were only able to fund one and a half due to fiscal shortcomings. He further explains that every dime spent on Spacebase went right back into the game, along with a healthy amount from Double Fine’s own pocket. Unfortunately, they still weren’t making profit on an unfinished game and decided they couldn’t operate on a loss, resulting in the decision to end development. This lead to the rather organic question of why they ended the production after explicitly stating they weren’t going to silently pull the plug. Tim Schaefer responds:

We are not silently pulling the plug. We are announcing our finishing features and v1.0 plan. I know it’s not a lot of advance notice, but we’re still here telling you our plan instead of vanishing quietly in the night.

This little morsel is best digested after a helping of the fact that Spacebase DF-9 had just came off of a steam sale, which raised the question of why would they put the game on sale if they knew that they were going to end development? In a dazzling display of mental gymnastics, Tim Schaefer offers:

Frequent sales are part of the Steam marketplace. We’ve had multiple sales throughout the game’s early access period in attempts to create a bigger audience for the game. As for the version of the game that people bought in this most recent sale, we are still working on it, fixing bugs and adding the final features to make the 1.0 version of Spacebase a fun and complete game.

So basically Double Fine and company turned their trick out for one last nights work with every intention of killing it and burying it in a shallow grave. For some reason they wanted to get their unfinished game out to a larger audience, even though at this point it was pretty clear it would never be feature complete and that they were essentially selling people on a dream. Yet, Tim is just as disappointed as we are:

I understand that the recent announcement was a disappointment. It was for you, and it was for us. We wanted to keep working on Spacebase for years. But Spacebase spends more money than it brings in, and that’s just not something we can afford to do any more.


Hard at work.

Tim rounds out his appearance by talking about how he can’t stand to see JP ripped up in the steam discussion threads:

It’s hard for me to see JP and his team get eviscerated on these forums, after I’ve watched them put their blood, sweat, and tears into Spacebase for the last year and a half. Telling you that they are hard-working and talented developers who toiled in good faith to create this unique work of entertainment probably isn’t going to change your minds about how you feel about this game. But I hope you might at least consider that no one is more disappointed than them that they will not be able to work on this game for years and years to come for reasons mostly out of their control.

While I’m sure that Tim’s heartfelt sentiment is fairly accurate, as I’m sure no one on the project wants to go down as the people who left a sinking ship, I assure you that a bulk of the people who purchased Spacebase DF-9 are more than adequately disappointed that Double Fine will be shoving a pre-natal 1.0 through the ravaged Fallopian tubes of Early Access as a last-ditch act of appeasement.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear before we go in to my reaction to all of this. I do not believe that Double Fine set out with the intention to never finish this game. I honestly believe that Jean-Paul LeBreton wanted to make Dwarf Fortress in space and had every intention of delivering on the stated devplan, which can no longer be viewed on their website but can be viewed here. That being said, it is my opinion that Double Fine not only grossly mishandled the development of this game, which they readily admit to, but set a dangerous precedent for future early access titles.

The most egregious implication is that Double Fine basically used Early Access as a way to test the waters. Developers such as Swen Vincke of Larian will tell you that the Early Access system is worth its weight in gold if you’re looking for feedback rather than funding. In the case of Divinity: Original Sin, they had already acquired the necessary backing through a mixture of investment and a successful Kickstarter program. In the case of Spacebase DF-9, it was the principle means of funding with very little capital to fall back on should it fail to earn its keep. By pulling out of development Double Fine is sending a very clear message: that if they put a game in Early Access and it fails to make sales despite being an unfinished product, they will cancel the project and leave the people that did invest out in the cold. In this sense, Double Fine was essentially throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what would stick. As soon as the bologna started to slide, they took JP’s pet out back and gave it the Old Yeller treatment.

In traditional development Double Fine would have assumed all the risk. They would have developed the game in-house, or sought investors or a publisher, with a specific budget and a specific deadline in mind. If the game bombed, they would have been out the money and the consumer would have been able to make a very clear judgment as to whether the game in its finished state was worth their money or not. By taking this route, Double Fine minimized its risk by being able to closely monitor sales while still selling the product with a tantalizing list of planned features to string consumers along. Once they realized that their five year plan was unsustainable, they cut out before they dug themselves into too deep of a hole and the people who purchased the game end up with something that sort of looks like the game they thought they would get.

It’s my opinion that Early Access is best utilized by larger companies as a way to get valuable feedback, while in the case of smaller companies it serves as a fine way to secure funds that would otherwise be unavailable. When I see companies like Ubisoft and even Double Fine reaching into the early access honey pot with the intention of securing funds rather than looking for feedback it upsets me. It says “We want to try this out and see if it can make some money off of it” rather than “we’re going to make the game regardless, but would really like some community steering to help deliver a better final product”. It erodes consumer confidence and damages the integrity of the system as a whole, making it difficult for smaller studios who actually need the help to begin with.

The worst part is controversies like this hurt the little people. People like the developer of Kenshi, who after failing to secure funds through both Kickstarter and Indiegogo has to rely on Early Access for support. He has stated before that he’ll develop the game no matter how much or how little money he receives, and has been steadily working on it as a one-man show for a couple of years. Deliberate actions like those taken by Double Fine make the already dubious gamble of Early Access even less attractive to potential buyers, especially given the lack of consumer confidence laws in the United States that are enjoyed by Australia and the European Union.

Unlike Kickstarter, Steam Early Access offers no safeguards against devs that take the money and run. The most someone can do is report a game as fraudulant. Given that Double Fine is still technically delivering a product, albeit one drastically different from that consumers were hooked by, it’s even less likely that any action will be taken. Hopefully if we raise awareness of situations like this we can force reforms on Steam that impose more stringent requirements on Greenlight and Early Access to protect buyers.

What happened with Spacebase DF-9 is a story as old as time itself. Like a snake oil salesmen Double Fine went from town to town with the promise of something great, only to pack up and move on before people caught on. While this may not have been the intention on the onset of their adventure into SEA, from the comfort of hindsight it will have every appearance of a confidence scam. At the very least, despite nearly 15 years as a functioning studio with an established pedigree, Double Fine has demonstrated a startling lack of financial acumen that raises serious questions as to their ability to plan, manage, or deliver on a project. Given the reported dip in Kickstarter funding this year it would appear that the gaming community is sobering up and becoming increasingly skeptical of the pay-now-play-later business model. With that in mind and given the context of what just happened with Spacebase DF-9, it would be nice to see Double Fine show a little restraint for their next few releases when it comes to reaching into the crowd-funding cookie jar for another freebie.

Voices of reason insist to reserve judgment until the release of 1.0, but there’s little doubt in anyone’s mind that they’ll be able to deliver on a 5 year devplan in a month and speculation abounds that the “final” version will be gutted of most of its formerly planned features. At least with the announcement that Spacebase DF-9 will come with the game’s full lua users can rest assured that they will have every opportunity to finish the game themselves.

Edit: Twitter user @ki11deer brought it to my attention that Spacebase DF-9’s investors got their money back, meaning that the only people who are out their money are the people who bought the game. This begs the question of how the 400k was spent. Was it spent on the proof of concept? How far did it stretch in terms of development time?

Do you think Double Fine took advantage of the Early Access system? What are your experiences with Early Access? What would you like to see in terms of consumer protection? What does Early Access mean to you? Will you purchase another Double Fine game? Comment below!

Stuart Burns

Stuart Burns is aging horribly along with his world view. When not keeping his son away from choking hazards he sometimes plays video games and writes about them.

  • lucben999

    I can’t believe Kotick was right about Tim, it’s like the world has turned upside down.

  • Ryan Juel

    “Eventually public outcry became so loud that it even reached the ear of
    self-described industry legend and noted panhandler Tim Schafer. Roused
    from his hibernation by the unwarranted grumblings of entitled
    gamers, he descended from his ivory tower to assuage complaints and
    offer as good of an explanation as people are likely to get.”

    “Double Fine will be shoving a pre-natal 1.0 through the ravaged
    Fallopian tubes of Early Access as a last-ditch act of appeasement.”

    See this shit? Stop it. I left Kotaku to get away from this. I sure as hell don’t want to see it here.

  • JackDandy

    DF has been losing lots of good faith lately.

    I was disappointed with Broken Age, too.

  • Viredae

    What exactly are you upset over, the abundance of purple prose? Because I would like to believe that you left Kotaku for their horrible reporting skills and blatantly biased propaganda, not that they used $10 words.

  • Viredae

    On one hand, DF has been clearly shown to be in dire need of better financial handling, they should fire whoever handles their money, or give a serious overhaul to their current managers.

    On the other, people should be more aware and expecting that KS and early access always have a fair chance of simply crumbling to bits and giving you nothing more than disappointment and broken hearts, maybe even a bigger share than what we estimated in the first place.

    It’s kinda like saying “yeah, the con-artist is at fault, but this wouldn’t have happened in the first place if you kept your wits about” kinda thing.

    And in the end, it’s up to you whether you wanna go in full monty and accept the risks, or just pull out and altogether and not use the system.

  • Stuart Burns

    I do apologize if you don’t like the style. Tim Schafer has been making a number of comments on Twitter that would cast the impression that he has the same sort of universal disdain for “gamers” as Kotaku.

    Also, if this were purely a news piece I would keep a neutral tone.

    Anyway, sorry if you don’t like the way its written. You’re probably not going to like my Shadow of Mordor Second Opinion, either.

  • Stuart Burns

    I agree with you to a point. I would like to see some sort of safeguard to help consumers. Not necessarily a binding contract to force the developer to finish their game, because no good could come of it, but maybe the ability to get a refund if you’re dissatisfied with the final product.

  • Stuart Burns

    I really liked a lot of Double Fine games. Even Costume Quest was sort of cute. Brutal Legend had a great story but I felt bait-and-switched by the mechanics. I thought I was buying an adventure game and ended up with a weird RTS. Iron Brigade was a fun tower defense. I mean, that’s the sad part. I like Double Fine games usually, and it’s a little disconcerting to see them doing this.

    My honest opinion is this that unless I’m totally wrong about them as a company, this will be the first and last time they pull this sort of stunt on Early Access. Hopefully they do learn from their mistakes.

  • anonymouse

    Double Fine has never been a big company. It has never made a game that has sold well. Literally this company is a pet project of critics and pretentious assholes who think that tim schaefer was a pretty cool guy, and that his games were good. You can’t sell a game to the masses when the only people who know what the company is are in an echo chamber where they constantly mix shit with their steak and tell eachother it’s delicious. I feel sad for Double Fine, because they really REALLY couldn’t afford to make this game, but holy dicks guys – you want a game to continue? Fucking tell your friends about it. Tell your friends to buy the game. Tell them to tell their friends to buy the game. Do something. Don’t just sit there. Break out of the fucking echo chamber. Wake up.

  • Viredae

    A safeguard would be nice, but I wonder if it’s even feasible, assuming, of course, that the money all went into the development process, who would handle the reimbursement costs?

    Say if it was DF who handled it in this case, they not only have to take care of the money they lost in the development process, they would also have to fork out money out of their own pockets to pay for dissatisfied costumers.

    If the product was physical, an actual recalled item can be salvaged or even repaired, and that is the case with buggy games as well, but what would the solution be in cases like this one?

    Of course, I don’t mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater, when the idea is doable, it would work, I’m just curious to see what you think is doable in case the product is clearly unfinished, or if it even merits further consideration on account of “deserving hat you get” in complete mishandlings like SBDF-9.

  • Stuart Burns

    I’m no Hemingway. I admire people who can be concise, but it’s in my blood to write archaically.

    I’d like to think that after a few pieces and getting comments I’ll be able to adjust my style a bit more to the liking of the readership.

    Until then I am faithfully yours.

  • Viredae

    The issue here really isn’t so much that DF can’t get enough traction, they clearly have plenty as evidenced by the Broken Age project, it’s more of how they seem to be incapable of managing the scope Vs. cost of their games.

  • Stuart Burns

    You raise a valid concern, and this is another reason why companies that pull this sort of stunt are hurting the little guy. Let’s say Steam takes in a policy that says “you can get a refund within x amount of days if the title is early access”. It would, obviously, have to come out of the pockets of the dev because Steam certainly wouldn’t foot the bill.

    Take into consideration that most of the people who use Early Access as a platform actually need the money, and you’re looking at a disaster. At the same time, I feel like there should be something to keep people from cutting and running, like with Towns or even Stardrive.

    I’m all for consumer responsibility. I don’t buy a whole lot without doing research. In the case of these early access titles, where all you have is a proof of concept and a devplan, it’s very difficult to make an educated decision when they keep moving the line. When I bought Spacebase DF-9 I bought it in the hopes that it would become the game that was hinted at in the devplan. It was only 24.99. I’m not angry at the loss of my money so much as I am with the mentality.

    The thing that strikes me the most about this is that they had the expectation of being able to float this game along on nothing but early access for 5 years. I really felt that this was an unrealistic dev plan, given their lack of experience with the platform. They had to have known that the game would sell the most when it first entered Early Access, with sales petering off as time goes on. There’s only so many people who are willing to purchase an early access game. Many more, for this exact reason, will wait until it goes gold.

    It just feels like they played fast and loose with Early Access, and the people who lose are the people who honestly wanted to see the game come to fruition in its entirety and other early access titles that may be hurt by their behavior.

  • coboney

    I’m not sure a refund is really possible Stuart because the money is already spent at that time. I do think that there should be some safeguards in place against blatantly fraudulent ones – which I don’t think Double Fine was doing here.

    Thats not to defend double fine though. I think it is a massive disappointment (and I’m happy I never bought DF9 because of this), and I think it also goes to underline one of the potential issues that can happen with companies that are just developers. You need to have someone who manages and watches the finances – and while I like to gripe about big publishers, sometimes they can – if properly working – serve that role (… even if they often times go elsewhere).

    I don’t think that there’s any real ‘fair’ protection clause that would work on DF9 easily because there is a released project and the money has been presumably spent. If you forced refunds it would kill any chance of that as people can often get disappointed over small things that had nothing to do.

    I also think that Double Fine expecting the public to fully fund 5 years of development was badly planned and idealized. I don’t really blame the team of DF9 here though I haven’t followed it closely as its likely this came from the top to shut it down.

  • coboney

    Even bigger I think is the fact they show no ability to manage money. Its not that Broken Age didn’t have money but they seem to be using a bloated team, there’s that whole documentary and other bits – despite splitting the game in two, using early access and raising additional funds.

    On SBDF9 the issue is they seemed to think that it would be guaranteed people would keep buying it early to support 5 years of development and had no real contingency plan for if sales dried up. What you should have ideally is a scaled back dev plan and explain that you can only devote so much depending on income of the game and it probably goes up over time as more people are likely to buy it towards the end when its looking more complete.

  • Stuart Burns

    As I said, I fully believe that JP wanted to deliver on his game. It was his baby, after all. It’s definitely clear that the order came from the top.

    You’re right. As I discuss below with Viredae, a refund isn’t exactly practical. Perhaps it’s in the lack of oversight.

    I admit I don’t really have the answer myself. If you add some sort of clause that they have to refund purchases, then it will salt the earth for all the little lonewolf teams that actually need the help.

  • Viredae

    Maybe an actually good idea is for platforms like Steam to hire a financial advisor who can, at a cursory glance, look at the devteam’s financial plan and decide whether or not they’re actually capable of completing the project on their budget in the allotted time?

    It would only require the devteam to create a financial proposal to make sure that their project is actually feasible, this may not eliminate cut and run scammers, but it would at least allow Steam to outright avoid any disasters waiting to happen?

    Though I also kinda feel that someone at DF should have told JP and his crew this at the outset, furthering my belief that yes, whoever is in charge of the finances at DF should really be given a good look over.

  • Stuart Burns

    One thing I totally forgot to mention about this, by the way, is that the investors aren’t out their money. The only people out their money are the people who bought the game:

  • coboney

    The best thing that could be done in a lot of cases like this is openness I think. Part of what shaked so much here is it seemed to come out of nowhere as far as I know. There was this ‘5 year plan’ and than suddenly it got hit with the axe because it wasn’t bringing in enough money.

    The other thing is that DF shows a complete lack of fiscal skills. There likely should have been plans for what to do when it slowed down or if there was less while keeping things slowly updating. If instead they explained due to financials they’d cut back the team some and work on it slower with some updates it would likely be accepted and they might even drum up more sales by getting people who were on the fence. Instead there doesn’t seem to have been money budgeted for even keeping one or two people on it part time.

    I think DF has been one of the winners and losers of the kickstarter/early access and definitely a cautionary tale. They won on popularity but they are managing to kill it with mismanagement and poor public relations.

  • coboney

    I don’t think Steam would bother with that. Valve has shown repeatedly they don’t want to get into the curating or managing business of what games are released on their platform as much as possible.

    Sometimes, financial plans are wrong and people are able to adjust – and especially for smaller companies that are newer there are more troubles in running on your won than many expect to run into.

    As for DF’s financial management – as I’ve said elsewhere here, it is a complete and utter mess at basically every opportunity its been seen. They are a business without much in the way of management skills. Its very possible what brought them to new found prominence in kickstarter will kill them because of those issues that have damaged people’s faith in them.

  • coboney

    I do remember hearing that and it isn’t unusual for investors to get the money back first. What strikes me as a bit odd – and maybe someone should ask this is – did the investors get repaid at that point as is intimated there and thus remove 400k + from development or is that waiting for future sales. Most of the time the investors have to wait for sales as well to come in to start recouping losses, and if Double Fine was paying them off with EA money that is potentially an issue.

  • Stuart Burns

    No, no. I mean, that’s totally within reason. Investors should get their money back. It’s just that I’m not sure where the 400k went.

  • Ryan Juel

    Apology accepted. I overreacted, too. I just see this exact same type of verbiage out of Kotaku’s writers, and it doesn’t help things at all.

  • Stuart Burns

    It’s justifiable. Like you, I came to TechRaptor because of the problems with Kotaku and Polygon.

    To be honest, while I was happy with it upon writing it, I’m less pleased with it in retrospect. It’s sort of old news, and reads like a smear piece.

    I’ll do my best to restrain myself next time.

  • coboney

    To some degree its within reason in my opinion. In most development stretches the investors don’t get paid until the game is released – so they like Double Fine were taking less risk if they were repaid early on. Its a continuation of downloading the risk onto the consumer in full which is an issue given they are making money on it and the players are not – and aren’t getting a finished product.

    If they weren’t repaid, how much would 400k have continued to fund? If they were repaid, one has to wonder did Double Fine seek out additional sources of funding before they decided to pull the plug on the game and with what vigor. It is very possible that they might not have given their comments about expecting it to be completely crowdfunded despite being a largely incomplete game. One thing is that as it got more complete it would likely have picked up more people over time – not at a great pace but a little over time helping to defray to some extent the cost.

  • Ryan Juel

    Don’t you hate it when that happens? I have a couple posts like that on my blog that I leave up to avoid the streisand effect, but outright loathe.

  • Stuart Burns

    I suppose they took out the 400k loan just to push out the proof of concept, paid off investors, and then hoped that the rest would continue to finance the game. It’s just strange to me because I remember the initial version of Spacebase and it would be very hard for me to call it a 400k game. It would be nice if we had a break down of exactly how the money was spent.

    Maybe that would be the answer: transparency. That early access funds need to be reported. The problem being that you’d have to pay some governing body with near omniscient powers to be able to police it. So that’s just as unpractical as the next.

  • coboney

    Transparancy would be in many cases the best type of way. I don’t know if you’d need a council per say on it – I think to some extent consumers and media can set the standards here. If we explain we want disclosure on it to invest on something like early access and can point out why its more likely to happen. Some of the better kickstarters do a good job of communicating with their backers on what things are being spent on – others not so well. Its a matter of building it as the ‘norm’ for it to help reduce issues.

    As for it being a 400k game thats a bit difficult though I don’t know as I didn’t play it because of the fact that a lot of times for something with its inspirations the work is going on behind the screen and so isn’t seen heavily. Lots of set up for expansion, triggers, setting up the engine to handle what they want (given their previous games they didn’t have that). Also Double Fine is a bit on the bloated side size wise as Indy’s go and that probably hurts their efficencies on spending.

    I also know that hoping the community can police is optimistic and its difficult without a body due to competition concerns. It might be that what is needed is some sort of regulatory body at a governmental level arms length away from the government. Something that manages regulations on the area, advocates and investigates cases of potential fraud.

  • Ryan Lawson

    Tim Schafer accused of:
    ☐ Different Shit
    ☑ Same Shit

  • coboney

    I think they are probably best to stay out of crowdfunding in general given their lack of skill on financial planning and the amount of goodwill they’ve lost over it. While Publishers have a lot of issues, they do help with that side and I think its clear Doublefine needs any help with financial management possible.

  • AnarKreig

    Brutal Legend is and will remain the last Double Fine game I ever buy. Their recent games have all been subject to economical disasters. I don’t trust a company with such a tendency.

  • What with the Yogscast having pulled off their “oops, our game failed – sorry!” and now this, crowdfunding should be becoming a more and more less viable solution for consumers. I’ve contributed to a few Kickstarters/IndieGogos/Early access games, some that I’ve regretted and some that I haven’t, but I’m going to seriously reconsider crowdfunding now. I hope others do as well. Buying an unfinished product =/= you get a finished product.

  • coboney

    I think its something you have to be careful with for sure. I’ve backed some that I’ve been very happy with (Fate (Tabletop RPG), Divinity, Wasteland 2) and some that I haven’t been so far for reasons such as discussed additions (Dreamfall), lack of updates (Hero-U) or other things (such as not really realizing some facts when dealing with their with the Strange (Tabletop RPG)

    I’ve come to think about it more and more that its about being cautious looking at the scope of the game promised compared to the funds requested and the company in question.

    I suspect whats going to happen is that transparancy and credibility will likely become key things and more smaller projects will be fulfilled. I think the time of an old developer showing up and getting a bunch of money for his name is past due to the issues that have come up. I think successes such as Divinity, Wasteland 2 and FTL are potentially enough to keep it going.

    One other possibility is that we may see more of what Larian did with Divinity: Original Sin – ‘kick finish’ where you already have an alpha that works and can finish if not to your ideal vision. It provides proof of concept and some assurance of work while still letting people get in on it to help and provides the company with community involvement.

  • HohenheimOL

    I hate to say it, but from now on the only DF I trust is Dwarf Fortress. Tim Schafer is either hideously incompetent at running a company or willing to cash in on his reputation for a quick buck. Neither one sits very well with me.

  • Ryan Lawson

    Kotaku labels this as news. The top of my page shows this under Editorials: Opinion

  • Stuart Burns

    It’s difficult to say. At the very least I think there’s been a large disconnect between Double Fine and the general public.

    At this point I don’t really consider them an indie developer, but it seems like they’re desperately trying to appear that way.

    You can only cash that check so many times before it starts bouncing.

    To be honest I find Brad Muir the only interesting part of Double Fine anymore. I really liked Trenched / Iron Brigade, and as much as I’m really disgusted by the way Spacebase turned out and the Broken Age needing more money, I’ll probably break down and buy Massive Chalice eventually.

  • cptk

    I want to like Tim Shafer for his role in Monkey Island but instead I dislike him for his string of crap, buggy, projects.

    I’ve always had a bit of a bad feeling about him because when you look back at his roles, the only good things he’s done were co-written/designed. I suspect he’s much better at claiming credit than designing games.

    I feel sorry for the thousands he duped in to stumping up cash for his junk releases.