Did Space Empires V kill Space Empires?

[Gandalf Parker]

And again we see some of the pros and cons of the big boys business plan vs someone like Shrapnel who was created by an independent developer specifically to give other options to independents. The marketing/shelfware version vs the publicity/distribution version.

[rant mode on]
The M/S version requires too much cash paid out ahead of time. That can mean advance payments for developers and big payback (eventually), and large sales audience, and games that go in bargain bins like some people keep harping about in the other Shrapnel forums. But it also means large debt to the distrib company which must be paid back before profit checks appear, sometimes 1 or 2 years. Also tends toward much more distributor control setting deadlines on the developers to finish the game in order to meet the advance advertising, setting DRM standards, setting prices, and of course buying the future rights. AND the possibility of total losses before the developer ever sees any profits. Possibly with a still outstanding debt that must be paid back.

The publicity/distrib version requires almost no advance money being laid out. The game gets covered in every online gaming magazine, blog, newsgroup, etc. The profits are quick, easily tracked by both parties so no hard feelings over questionable incomes, and the developer sees checks quickly. And because there is no gambling with advanced funds this model supports independents that otherwise wouldnt be touched by the big boys.

So for those who continually want to tell Shrapnel what they should be doing like the big boys do it so you can hope for bargain bin copies later, remember that everything has its pros and cons.
[/rant off]

[Azselendor]

To imply that it's the Microsoft model is a bit wrong. If you look, Microsoft only throws its money into games that print money (looking at you Halo), companies like activision, ea games, etc. tend to take on semi-safe bets while others yet take biggest risks. Just look at the quagmire that is Duke Nukem Forever.

The current model in game publishing seems to be very similar to that of the music, movie and book industries at times, which works sometimes and other times it doesn't. Just imagine how much money was pissed away in Tommy Wisaeu's "The Room" or on any SyFy original movie.

I think shrapnel's model is fantastic for what it does and hopefully can only bring them greater success.

[Gandalf Parker]

Of course its not wrong. Its just different with its own pros and cons. Its a money-chasing template which makes many other things secondary. Shrapnel would have to change alot to pursue it.

[S.R. Krol]

Originally Posted by Azselendor

Just look at the quagmire that is Duke Nukem Forever.

Actually DNF is a unique situation. For the most part they will self-funded until I believe near the end, where they then needed a cash influx from Take 2. If DNF hadn't been self-funded there's a good chance it may have actually come out years ago, since the problem was 3DR constantly tearing it down and rebuilding it every six months. A publisher would have just said, "Screw it, ship what you got." Sure, it would have tanked and would probably have been crap, but at least it would have shipped and everyone would have moved on.

[Azselendor]

It wasn't entirely self funding, Take2 poured a lot of money into its development and things came to a head recently when 3dRealms asked for another chunk of change to bring it to market. The problem with DNF's development was exactly that, the guys in charge of development kept scrapping it to go with the latest game engine or redoing entire sections of the game because of something visually neat they wanted to use from another game. Also known as Feature Creep.

Take2, which had supposedly sunk well over 30 million into the project, was fed up and naturally refused. This in turn caused 3drealms to self-destruct in a rage-quit and fold. It went to court and a few dramatic episodes later, the capable people at GearBox (many who are former 3drealm staffers) got a hold of it and they are bringing it to market now.

But the game's development was an unmitigated disaster. 10 years ago, it might've been a huge hit, but now. i don't know.

[DeadZone]

I did, oops lol

[gregebowman]

Well, when I bought my laptop, it had Vista, and I had no problems loading up SEV and playing it. I really like SEV compared to SEIV, but I seem to be in the minority. I don't really need a grahpics hog of a game, and SEV seems to have pretty good graphics. But it plays very well on my laptop, and that's all I need to know about the issue.

[Raapys]

I still think going 3D was a stupid move by Aaron( or publisher?). Can't even imagine how much work he must have spent on that, and then bug-fixing it and probably having to re-implement every feature from SEIV. Even if he had outside help, that's still a tremendous amount of work just to get where the previous game is already at.

And all that time and resources could instead have been used to improve upon SEIV's gameplay and updating it with some nicer 2D graphics from a decent artist. Distant Worlds is an excellent example of how 2D graphics still work just great for this type of games, being pretty much the best 4x game to come out the last decade or so, especially now with its expansion.

Sad really, as Space Empires was definitely one of the 4x games with the most potential.

[frightlever]

I gotta stop posting drunk. I read this thread backwards and was surprised to discover I started it.

I love the look of Distant Worlds but my one campaign attempt left me pretty dissatisfied. I gave it a weekend but I started automating more and more until it was virtually playing itself. Mustn't have the attention span to micromanage any longer. Kind of an expensive mistake and makes me question Matrix Games demo policy. I may go back to it.

If SE5 had just stuck to 2D graphics it would have addressed the bulk of my criticism and looked far better, potentially.