The same depressing though occurred to me, Kevin. Why don’t gaming journalists do a story on the inner workings of a publisher/developer relationship? Hard reporting in this growing industry would be an interesting read. The “suits” are typically maligned, but maybe a story on what really goes on might dispel those sentiments… or reinforce them. Maybe there has been such a story and I missed it.
Is there an industry paper for the gaming companies and publishers?
Whoa, that’s completely wrong. TOEE is actually a dream project for the Troika guys, particularly Tim Cain. They’re big D&D heads (and actually worked on a mapping tool using the Arcanum engine, which was going to be included in WotC’s “e-tools”). Troika very much wants to make a sequel to TOEE.
Oh, I wasn’t saying it was a game they didn’t want to make. I’ve read all about their PnP sessions and TOEE’s slavish adherence to the ruleset speaks volumes for their love of the material. My point was that it seems like a side job and gets corresponding priorities. It may be a labor of love but if it isn’t bringing home the bacon then they can’t afford to continue. Remember how despite the four month delay from gold to release for Arcanum they didn’t have a day one patch ready? Even though their were numerous bugs documented (unfortunately by the warez community) they obviously didn’t start working on a patch for Arcanum till Sierra funded it.
People even more impatient than I am have started patching TOEE themselves.
Here’s a mod to fix the “SPELL_NONE” spell requirement crafting bugs.
Apparently, the devs made some typos in the databases.
I had never heard of devs/pubs having to negotiate payment on a patch until Lionheart. And now the same thing with TToEE. Seems strange to me.
I think this thing is kind of stupid though, the business side of it anyway. The game has bugs, tons of them, hundreds even. Why wouldnt Troika feel obligated to fix them, payment for a patch or not? I mean, they got paid for the game right? Well the game is broken, so fucking fix it. If they are such hardcore D&D nuts I would expect them to want to fix it for playability’s sake, as there are dozens of broken rules in the game right now.
olaf
Troika has consistently argued that it is not responsible for patches, unless it receives additional payments. Perhaps that’s a term it specifically negotiated in its contracts, but it seems highly unlikely, especially since some jurisdictions prohibit contracting out of implied warranties that “your product works”. Like said in a previous post, if they couldn’t deliver the product in working condition within the time period they agreed to, I’m not sure how they rationalize that the publisher should pay more.
Apparently, the devs made some typos in the databases
Every game these guys have done is riddled with spelling mistakes.
Like said in a previous post, if they couldn’t deliver the product in working condition within the time period they agreed to, I’m not sure how they rationalize that the publisher should pay more.
I love Troika and every game they have done but I wish their attitude was closer to Bioware’s. Game Informer’s cover story this month is on Bioware’s Jade Empire and I was really impressed by Bioware’s comments on their commitment to quality. They seem really determined to make every game a home run and uphold their reputation and do an excellent job learning from each game. Troika seems to be of the mindset that they will deliver “exactly what was contracted for and not one bit more”. Admittedly Baldur’s Gate’s blockbuster sales probably granted Bioware a bit of independence.
Not to turn this into a Troika RPG vs Bioware RPG thread. I just think that TOEE’s ruleset, combat engine, and artwork combined with Bioware production values would have made TOEE an all around homerun.
Completely agree - well said.
It’s hard to get developers and publishers to disclose this kind of thing. Yeah, there’s probably some internal bitching that goes back and forth, but it’s all in a day’s work, so to speak.
If you want to read some detailed accounts of game development, read some of the Behind the Game pieces at Gamespot. That might satisfy you.
I think there’s a demonstrably large gap between what “works” from a publisher viewpoint and what “works” from a consumer viewpoint.
If you can load the game and run it and complete it, it “works” from a publisher viewpoint. Very few consumers consider this to be sufficient if you have to go through all sorts of workarounds and “don’t do this” type clauses, however.
I’m talking from the developer’s perspective. I find it impossible to believe that they aren’t contractually obligated to deliver to the publisher a completed, substantially bug-free product. I
I’m talking from the developer’s perspective. I find it impossible to believe that they aren’t contractually obligated to deliver to the publisher a completed, substantially bug-free product. I[/quote]
Further, you’d think a developer would want to fix the bigger bugs regardless of any additional financial incentive simply to stay in the good graces of the publisher.
Heh – it is weird that Troika is publicly discussing this stuff.
The developer is contractually obligated to deliver to the publisher a build of the game that the publisher signs off as ‘final’. What this means can depend on a great many factors.
One important thing to keep in mind: the current state of the industry for third-party developers is truly brutal. I would say at this point in time, possibly as many as 50% of the teams working on a PC game will be laid off in majority of entirety within weeks of the game going gold. Scenarios like Mumbo Jumbo/Myth III and Ritual/Elite Force 2 are more and more common. Some of them are public, some of them are very well concealed.
The way most contracts are structured at the moment for an outside developer is thus: the advance on royalties split over milestones will barely cover the salary burn rate of the development team plus operational overhead.
What this means is that for a company like Troika, there is no margin for post-release support unless the publisher is willing to fund it. And by fund it, it comes out of any theoretical royalties the developer would see. If Troika asks Atari for some cash to fund a patch, they aren’t asking the publisher for free money, they are asking for additional advances on their own royalties to support the product. The bottom line is that for a small company like Troika, if the publisher doesn’t do such a thing, either a) the team is working on another project and maybe putting together a patch slowly in spare time or b) they are laid off.
With the exception of a precious few companies that have pulled off hits and actually managed the wring royalties beyond the advance out of their publishers, all third-party developers operate pretty much hand-to-mouth with no financial reserves for carrying salaries (80-90% of the overhead of a game development firm). This is not a fun industry, for the developer, the publisher or frequently the consumer.
Nate
(speaking soley for himself)
Interesting. So since the publisher decides when to release the game, the developer has automatically satisfied that condition when the publisher decides that a build will be the “gold”.
I would say at this point in time, possibly as many as 50% of the teams working on a PC game will be laid off in majority of entirety within weeks of the game going gold. Scenarios like Mumbo Jumbo/Myth III and Ritual/Elite Force 2 are more and more common. Some of them are public, some of them are very well concealed.
The industry is becoming more and more like the movie industry in that regard - where all work is project specific, and limited term contracts.
The way most contracts are structured at the moment for an outside developer is thus: the advance on royalties split over milestones will barely cover the salary burn rate of the development team plus operational overhead.
As long as developers are willing to accept those deals, the publishers will naturally keep paying as little as possible. There are obviously ways that developers gain additional bargaining power, however - track record, willingness to self-fund at least part of the development. Like the movie industry, making games – notwithstanding the brutal hours and low pay for many developers – is a cool enough job that companies aren’t having problems attracting people under those conditions. Even in the crazy tech boom, rates didn’t increase as much as they did in other software industries, because there was less of a shortage of people willing to make games.
This doesn’t mean that the publisher is satisfied with the result. The publisher might want to sign of the build as “gold” because:
a) They need that particular title in a given timeframe (gotta have fresh products to sell all year. And you don’t want to end up with your star product when HL2 or Doom3 ships)
b) They cannot afford to fund the project for the time that the developer really needs to finish the product. And they cannot afford cancelling the whole thing because that would lead to a total loss of all invested money. So they work out a deal with the developer in finishing priority stuff in the project (like crash bugs and major game elements), thus being able to release a more bare bone product. But still “sellable” so that some of the invested money can return in form of sales.
The publisher can sue the developer for breach of contract, but that would mean risk not getting any money from this and could leave you without a product to sell.
In my experience, developers are the ones who want the less then perfect code to be signed of as ok. Publishers are the ones sending alphas, betas and gold candidates back with lists of what must be fixed before that milestone can be considered ok. This is really noting odd since those milestones are what the developer gets paid for. And, as already stated, most developers operate with very limited funds.
There are, of course, many exceptions to this.
I saw TOEE in the store the other day, and almost bought it, remembering the old module. But then I remembered the hit-or-miss quality of D&D type games over the years, so I paused. I don’t want a lot of spoilers so I haven’t read the other threads, but overall, how is this game? And how bad does it need that patch?
To borrow from Chris Rock, how bad does a crackhead need another hit of crack? Do not buy this game until they patch it.
Does it need a patch? Sure. Is it buggier than the Baldur’s Gates, Fallouts, and Icewind Dales out of the gate? Nope. Well, except for Item Creation. That does lead to some CTDs. That bug is annoying in the same way the car bug was in Fallout 2. If you could deal with that, you can deal with TOEE. Besides some specific rule implementations and typos it plays well. Anything else seems to be the gameplay nuisance level of catching a burst in the back from Vic or Cassidy. Like your followers grabbing so much loot they’re overburdened and you have to trudge back to a merchant to get rid of it. Or Identify not doing much other than giving you the name and +'s of the item. Nothing game-breaking, just things you have to work around.
If you know your basic D&D rules and are willing to look at the manual, it’s easy to play. BTW, the in-game help is quite extensive. Errr… except for that darn Item Creation.
There are a lot of little things to like in the game; the ability to pop main characters in and out of the party, idle animations, it translates the module faithfully, and later on you’re able to recruit an NPC monster of a type that owned your party at lower levels.
If you’re going strictly on nostalgia, and aren’t a RPG addict it would probably be best to wait until a price drop or you hear about a patch. If you are an addict you can run a good party through and by the time you get done with that, a patch should be available for your evil party run through. Or vice versa.
Right now on a movie ratings level (full-price, matinee, rent, free cable) it’s a matinee. Not a must have, but nice to pick up.
It’s much, much, buggier than the Baldur’s Gate games were upon initial release (or Icewind Dale, for that matter). Agree it’s in about the same state as the Fallout games were upon initial release, although the engine is a bit clunkier.
It’s much, much, buggier than the Baldur’s Gate games were upon initial release (or Icewind Dale, for that matter). Agree it’s in about the same state as the Fallout games were upon initial release, although the engine is a bit clunkier.
And the link between Fallout (at least; only partly Fallout 2) and ToEE is of course the developer. Coincidence? I think not :) Don’t get me wrong, I like Troika’s games and the people there are great but there is something of a tradition here of buggy RPGs from Fallout to Arcanum to ToEE.
At least Fallout was approachable.
Arcanum and ToEE having a stifling atmosphere.