Then doubts resurfaced concerning this 2012 Kotaku article. Precursor and Dyack sought to put the matter to bed. Then Precursor was asked what would happen to the game if its ambitious funding target was not met. Precursor answered that Shadow of the Eternals would likely not see the light of day.
Now the latest wrinkle in what has been, from its inception, a very troubled public funding campaign: Precursor has opted to freeze its Shadow of the Eternals Kickstarter, after failing to reach even one-tenth of its $1.35 million funding goal.
In an open letter to backers, Precursor's Paul Caporicci said the funding drive had seen "more support from our community than we had ever hoped for" and announced that it would be "re-launching" its funding campaign at an unspecified later date.
Current Kickstarter backers will not be charged and those who donated directly on Precursor's site through PayPal have been promised full refunds.
"We want to thank everyone who has participated, volunteered, and spoken up to support us," said Caporicci.
Many will complain or laugh at what's happened, but the people at Precursor Games are doing everything in their power to make "Eternal Darkness 2" a reality, you can just sense it (if you've been doing your research of course). Every step they've made is born from passion for the project. Missteps have occurred, but they weren't MISTAKES. Anyone would have done the exact same thing if they were in their shoes. It was hard getting around Kickstarter's legality issues, so they did their own thing. Clearing up those legal issues, they knew it was best to use Kickstarter, as it's the place for crowd funding. However, two campaigns may be a bit confusing to some. Denis Dyack, being core to the original's design, is an integral asset when dealing with a sequel, he SHOULD be there if you want to make a true spiritual successor. However, that was obviously going to cause some issues with his history. So, they did their best to clear that up with candid and thoughtful interviews, to reassure us that, regardless of the past, they're working towards a future where fans' dreams come true. Everything they decided was the best thing to do at each step of the way, and if I haven't said it, I will now: "Thank you for your efforts, Precursor Games."
In the end, the ones that lost out are the fans. The casualty was a sequel to a game that was loved passionately. A flame was fueled by dissidents, but all anyone wanted was that game! They weren't trying to harm you! They weren't trying to steal your money! They just wanted us to relive a cherished experience, in whatever way we could. That's it. Unfortunately, the universe dealt them a bad hand, regardless of their intentions.
However, I sincerely hope that this doesn't mean the end is near. Take a step back, Precursor Games, and figure out, after all that's happened, how to come back renewed and prepared for a fight against the eternal darkness.
The backer tiers look poorly designed to me. Why even bother with the $5, it should be $15, the $5 reward is like a demo, which should be free. The jump from $5 to $25 and then $50 is too big IMHO, plus they don't really offer anything beside the game itself in the lower tiers.
I really don't understand why they were being so ambitious. Why do they need CryEngine, and why do they need to put it on WiiU and Windows? Why even support the WiiU as your main platform if barely anyone owns a WiiU? Why not use a cheaper engine, like...oh say...Unity? And target Windows, OSX, and Linux? There seems to be a theme with a lot of kickstarter games that are built on good will, and that being the developers attempt to support as many platforms as possible. And why even support a console? They're going to loose a lot of money just to get around the wall garden with licensing fees, it really just doesn't seem worth it, maybe make it a stretch goal, but to aim for the WiiU off the bat, seems like a fool's errand.
And Dyack carries a lot more baggage to the project then just that Kotaku article. Like the Epic law suit, the theft of Unreal technology, all the unpaid Canadian loans, his ban from NeoGAF, etc. So its not like Kotaku was the only nail in the coffin. And worst his explanations seem so...flaky. Are we to really assume that Silicon Knights put 2 million dollars of their own money into Xmen Destiny, only for it to still be one of the worst games around, and then for them to ask for $1.5 million and expect them to make this game and make it well? I think it might have been better to say that some of the Kotaku article is true, but we've learned a lot from it and won't be making those kinds of mistakes anymore, rather then to fain incompetence.
You'd think they'd go and learn from the République post mortem. Camouflaj was having a really difficult time to even get funded when they were targeting iOS, but when they started to support PC and Mac, that's when they started to generate buzz for their project and get donations.
"Are we to really assume that Silicon Knights put 2 million dollars of their own money into Xmen Destiny, only for it to still be one of the worst games around"
What's so unbelievable about that? EA put $300 million into SW:TOR and look how that turned out.
The WiiU could have been chosen due to the previous game being on the Cube exclusively. If they still have a foot in the door with the platform holder then why not? It's not a bad decision.
As far as the current number of owners of the console, that's not as relevant an issue as some make it out to be. People will buy consoles for specific games. Indeed, people will refuse to buy certain consoles until they see a game that they want for it. This could be that game for some.
Additionally, if your game manages to get crowdfunded into existence in the 1st place, then you know for a FACT that there are people invested enough in it to be willing to play it on whatever platform(s) you launch it on. Therefore, in the bigger picture, the choice of platform is a relatively minor consideration.
Yeah, it's obvious why they picked the Wii U -- they're looking for Nintendo diehards, which is the only audience that still cares about Eternal Darkness.
It's unfortunate that things went down like this. Basically he made a game that, based off all of the"a 7 is an amazing game" stuff you hear from reviewers, was amazing. Then he lost a lawsuit. Because of that, this guy got slammed by all the games press I saw as a flat out criminal out to steal everyone's money.
The coverage of this has always rubbed me the wrong way. As a minority, I never like seeing bandwagon slander/libel like this from people in positions of power and influence aimed to ruin someone's livelihood that appears to be completely baseless and without merit.
The crux of Denis Dyack's negative image came from the Kotaku article. For me and many others, it was my first impression of the man. From my reading of the article, it portrayed him as a very passionate man who wasn't self-aware enough to be a good manager. He reminded me of Curt Schilling of .38 Studios: someone who defended his own image of himself by aggressive ignorance. Except that Schilling had inexperience and a professional sports career built on perseverance to excuse it; Dyack only seemed to have a fairly black-and-white world view. Publishers were people to be manipulated into endless deadline extensions. The swarms of people who betrayed the company by quitting due to the working conditions shouldn't be in the credits. It didn't matter if he played the game during development himself because his word was gold. The article provided an explanation for the poor results of the company after the success of Eternal Darkness, and frankly I found it to be the best-written piece on Kotaku I've seen.
His rebuttal of the article only reinforced my mental picture of him. He focused on extreme and inaccurate interpretations of what people were saying about the article (that he was embezzling money, for instance) instead of what was directly stated within the article. Moreover, he hadn't said anything prior to the realization that it was heavily hurting the crowdfunding because he assumed that no-one would take the article seriously, and he was only coming forward now was because somebody else prodded him to. The rebuttal was a chance to counteract the article, but he didn't do so effectively. It seemed that he didn't understand how anyone could take the article seriously because it claimed that he wasn't a brilliant developer.
In that framework, there's an easy explanation for how a lawsuit against Epic Games started by him turned into a massive ruling against the company that had them destroy all the unsold copies of Too Human. My guess is that the simple, black-and-white view he portrayed in everything else both led him into a lawsuit without merit and also really pissed off the judge.
I really don't know what will happen next for Shadow of the Eternals, but I'd be surprised if Dyack is a significant part of further crowdfunding efforts. Crowdfunding is powered by reputation, and, if Dyack's was mixed before, it's a blinking red warning sign now. Were I involved in any Kickstarter, I'd think him a dangerous man to include simply by virtue of the stigma he has gained from this. Personally, I think it's a shame: he really doesn't strike me as a criminal and this really shouldn't cripple his career, nor should it affect the prospects of a game I'd like to see made myself. But the type of press attention that Kickstarters thrive on can't paint in shades of gray.
It's an interesting highlight of the difficulties of crowdfunding. To have the massive success that Kickstarter has become famous for, not only does there need to be a strong proposal but there needs to be faith in the team. Even if the allegations against Dyack are wholly untrue, the questions posed by the mixed history of the company and him prevents backers from getting in the same supportive frenzy that fuels the biggest projects. It inspires mixed feelings, and those are toxic to Kickstarter.
It's certainly not to say that it's the first Kickstarter that has failed - less than 35% of Kickstarter games succeed. But it is an atypically high-profile one. Eternal Darkness was a game beloved by many.
In the end, the ones that lost out are the fans. The casualty was a sequel to a game that was loved passionately. A flame was fueled by dissidents, but all anyone wanted was that game! They weren't trying to harm you! They weren't trying to steal your money! They just wanted us to relive a cherished experience, in whatever way we could. That's it. Unfortunately, the universe dealt them a bad hand, regardless of their intentions.
However, I sincerely hope that this doesn't mean the end is near. Take a step back, Precursor Games, and figure out, after all that's happened, how to come back renewed and prepared for a fight against the eternal darkness.
And Dyack carries a lot more baggage to the project then just that Kotaku article. Like the Epic law suit, the theft of Unreal technology, all the unpaid Canadian loans, his ban from NeoGAF, etc. So its not like Kotaku was the only nail in the coffin. And worst his explanations seem so...flaky. Are we to really assume that Silicon Knights put 2 million dollars of their own money into Xmen Destiny, only for it to still be one of the worst games around, and then for them to ask for $1.5 million and expect them to make this game and make it well? I think it might have been better to say that some of the Kotaku article is true, but we've learned a lot from it and won't be making those kinds of mistakes anymore, rather then to fain incompetence.
You'd think they'd go and learn from the République post mortem. Camouflaj was having a really difficult time to even get funded when they were targeting iOS, but when they started to support PC and Mac, that's when they started to generate buzz for their project and get donations.
What's so unbelievable about that? EA put $300 million into SW:TOR and look how that turned out.
As far as the current number of owners of the console, that's not as relevant an issue as some make it out to be. People will buy consoles for specific games. Indeed, people will refuse to buy certain consoles until they see a game that they want for it. This could be that game for some.
Additionally, if your game manages to get crowdfunded into existence in the 1st place, then you know for a FACT that there are people invested enough in it to be willing to play it on whatever platform(s) you launch it on. Therefore, in the bigger picture, the choice of platform is a relatively minor consideration.
Because for some strange and unknown circumstances, Unreal is no longer available to them.... ;P
The coverage of this has always rubbed me the wrong way. As a minority, I never like seeing bandwagon slander/libel like this from people in positions of power and influence aimed to ruin someone's livelihood that appears to be completely baseless and without merit.
You should read a little deeper into some things. It has been well-documented.
Not saying he is a crook or anything, but I wouldn't give him a dime.
His rebuttal of the article only reinforced my mental picture of him. He focused on extreme and inaccurate interpretations of what people were saying about the article (that he was embezzling money, for instance) instead of what was directly stated within the article. Moreover, he hadn't said anything prior to the realization that it was heavily hurting the crowdfunding because he assumed that no-one would take the article seriously, and he was only coming forward now was because somebody else prodded him to. The rebuttal was a chance to counteract the article, but he didn't do so effectively. It seemed that he didn't understand how anyone could take the article seriously because it claimed that he wasn't a brilliant developer.
In that framework, there's an easy explanation for how a lawsuit against Epic Games started by him turned into a massive ruling against the company that had them destroy all the unsold copies of Too Human. My guess is that the simple, black-and-white view he portrayed in everything else both led him into a lawsuit without merit and also really pissed off the judge.
I really don't know what will happen next for Shadow of the Eternals, but I'd be surprised if Dyack is a significant part of further crowdfunding efforts. Crowdfunding is powered by reputation, and, if Dyack's was mixed before, it's a blinking red warning sign now. Were I involved in any Kickstarter, I'd think him a dangerous man to include simply by virtue of the stigma he has gained from this. Personally, I think it's a shame: he really doesn't strike me as a criminal and this really shouldn't cripple his career, nor should it affect the prospects of a game I'd like to see made myself. But the type of press attention that Kickstarters thrive on can't paint in shades of gray.
It's certainly not to say that it's the first Kickstarter that has failed - less than 35% of Kickstarter games succeed. But it is an atypically high-profile one. Eternal Darkness was a game beloved by many.