• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dead State Developers are Pulling a Ubisoft

Smash88

Banned
uDsDJte.jpg


For the Mobile Users said:
Wanted to start off by saying I was a huge supporter of this game pre EA and during early access. I enjoyed beta testing the game for DoubleBear and helping them to use the EA process to better the game.

I think the game is a blast even in its frustrating buggy state.

Now onto the reason why I think people should not buy this game or support the company DoubleBear for any future games until the Give a public apology.

I don't know about all of you but I found Kickstarter and Steam Early Access to be a wonderful breath of fresh air. I was sick of big AAA and medium sized AA Developers and Publishers pushing out 3/4 made buggy games that after I paid full price for had to wait months before it was patched up and enjoyable. This was the norm and I was sick of it.

So I started supporting only EA and Kickstarter games, more than I could afford at times. Dead State is one of those games and I was very happy to support Doublebear.

Sadly DoubleBear betrayed its fans and sought to deceive new buyers into believing that Dead State was a finished product in order to take full advantage of the Holiday shopping season. Brian and the Dead State team had pages of known bugs and some of them were game and story breaking.

Ask yourself what reason would a Developer move a product that is known to be a buggy mess from Early Access to calling the game fully released. We the gamers are there Publisher and we were not on their backs pushing them to release the game in a unfinished state in order to reap the profit from the Holiday season.

My over all point is that when small gamer funded games pull the same fast one as big AAA developers something has to be done about it. This type of behavior and not be rewarded.

These type of actions corrupt the new system from within. If this is allowed to happen then we get get a bunch of small studios acting just like the AAA ones because they can.

I and many others went onto Dead States forums to ask for an appology and get an answer why they felt the need to move a unfinished game from EA to fully released. We all found ourselves pounced on ,forum post locked and in several cases found ourselves banned. These type of actions are those of people wanting to hide what they did not ones wanting to correct the mistake that was made.

I don't know DoubleBears reasons to fall to to such a low level. If they had funding problems there are so many other more honest options. We gamers have shown ourselves to be very giving.

I ask people to avoid this game until the game is finished and DoubleBear publicly apologies for its mistakes.

The image says it all.

I don't know what is going on with developers this year, but this shit needs to stop. Between the broken games and attempts at hiding bad reviews, I'm just becoming exhausted with it all.

Oh the plus side, this has caused a Streisand effect and has become the top review on the game.

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2q89cv/dead_state_developer_trying_to_get_critical/
 
So how bad is it? I knew it was buggy on release because, well, indie wrpg, but I didn't know it was anything catastrophic.
 

xk0sm0sx

Member
I feel like the problem with some early access games are, they tend to suddenly declare their early access state as the finished version, betraying the expectations of the fans.
Ahem... Planetary Annihilation...

Also regarding that reviewer's choice, I don't like the fact that Kickstarter and Early Access is an attractive label for your games than, a game simply being in Beta version. The former two poses more risk and less polish than the latter. Yet why are developers labeling their games as such just to attract people now!
 

Smash88

Banned
I feel like the problem with some early access games are, they tend to suddenly declare their early access state as the finished version, betraying the expectations of the fans.

Ahem... Planetary Annihilation...

Based on this review and some brief research people are saying they released it early to get on the holiday sale - which they did, they were a daily deal.

Awful review, I have less respect for him than the developer.

Whether you disagree or agree with the review it still sets a bad precedent to try and censor reviews on your game.
 

Smash88

Banned
Since when does Ubi flag reviews?

They release broken games (so they can be put on the steam holiday sale daily deals) - this censorship is just icing on the cake.

It's essentially a word used to describe developers doing something stupid.

Censorship? It says on top that the review is still visible, just not modifiable until the flag is removed. I wouldn't really use the censorship word to describe it, if the review isn't removed or hidden.

They are trying to remove it through the use of Community Guidelines, which is an attempt at censorship.

They didn't flag it for no reason.
 

Lain

Member
They release broken games (so they can be put on the steam holiday sale daily deals) - this censorship is just icing on the cake.

It's essentially a word used to describe developers doing something stupid.

Censorship? It says on top that the review is still visible, just not modifiable until the flag is removed. I wouldn't really use the censorship word to describe it, if the review isn't removed or hidden.
 

xk0sm0sx

Member
Based on this review and some brief research people are saying they released it early to get on the holiday sale - which they did, they were a daily deal.

I feel that it's bad because for me, I will NEVER buy an Early Access version. To me, Early-Access is like "Alpha" state. I want to play Prison Architect, but I will buy it only when they have actually "Released" their game. I also wanted to do the same for Planetary Annihilation.

But in PA's case, they didn't add any features beyond what they had in Early Access, and decided to call it the Release version. I was expecting some campaign at least that they promised in the Kickstarter. That broke my decision to actually want to buy the game, as it feels like they released a half-assed version.
 

element

Member
Dead State is pretty much done by a husband and wife team with an outside contractor here and there. They don't have a 'team' and they are about as indie as you can get, and it shows in the lack of polish.

To even remotely compare the lack of polish we are seeing in $60 AAA games to a husband and wife indie team is pretty ridiculous.

I feel that it's bad because for me, I will NEVER buy an Early Access version. To me, Early-Access is like "Alpha" state. I want to play Prison Architect, but I will buy it only when they have actually "Released" their game. I also wanted to do the same for Planetary Annihilation.
You are going to have to change the way you game with more games moving to a 'games as a service' model. The day of 'released' games are over, as a game is never 'done'. There will always be more features, levels, and bug fixes to do.
 

pa22word

Member
The devs are saying on the Steam forums that the review was flagged because it was bumped to the top via spam votes using alt accounts of the same user who posted it.
 
What is it with indie developers and trying to censor or meddle in coverage of their games? It never, ever works out in their favour. I'm not familiar with Dead State, but his comments don't seem unreasonable; rather than flagging the review maybe they should respond.
 
Dead State is pretty much done by a husband and wife team with an outside contractor here and there. They don't have a 'team' and they are about as indie as you can get, and it shows in the lack of polish.

To even remotely compare the lack of polish we are seeing in $60 AAA games to a husband and wife indie team is pretty ridiculous.

It doesn't matter if it's 2 people or 1000. When you put a product up for sale it should work. If you can't do that then you shouldn't release it.
 
These days Early Access games can't be trusted. I got burned on Carmageddon Reincarnation myself, where the developers put a post up on their game's Steam forums saying that they will never put the game on sale during Early Access, and they will only participate in sale events once the game is finished.

Then they silently removed that post and put the game on sale anyway.


Seems like Dead State devs know that Early Access is a bad label these days and silently removed that to take advantage of sales...
 

element

Member
It doesn't matter if it's 2 people or 1000. When you put a product up for sale it should work. If you can't do that then you shouldn't release it.
So it has to be perfect? That us unreasonable with how complex games are these days. Also the game works. Does it have bugs? Yes. Are they fixing them? Yes. They have had 5 patches in December alone.
 
I don't understand the reviewer. They were sick of developers releasing games in an unfinished state but found early access a breath of fresh air? Ummm...
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
am I the only one who thought EA = Electronic Arts at first?

Yes. I couldn't quite grasp why Electronic Arts would bother with indie games. Or why someone would be sick of AAA+ games yet continue to buy EA games.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
1) "So I started supporting only EA and Kickstarter games."

Ok, well that's dumb. There is absolute NO reason that you should expect these games to be more polished/less buggy than games from proven developers/publishers. If anything, these games are probably a far higher risk to be in that sort of state. Some games don't ever get finished at all. The 'funding' from backers is sometimes too small, or the team is woefully underprepared and/or overambitious and it hurts development greatly.

So while I know its annoying to have buggy or incomplete games, this was not the way to go to solve that and I feel that this is a case where the average gamer's lack of comprehension about how development works has definitely created a bit of a mess with these backer projects.

2) "more than I could afford sometimes."

So this just shows how much he doubled down on his ignorance. That's a stupid thing to do from a financial perspective in the first place, but the absolute faith he must have placed on these projects just because they are being funded(partially or wholly) by people is astoundingly naïve.

3) "We the gamers are there publisher"

No, you are not. This brings me back to the Kickstarter debates about what being a 'backer' implies in terms of your personal input. This is a bit different, but for the same reasoning, you are not a publisher, nor do you have any rights over the concerned product, unless it is explicitly said that you do.

All in all, it really needs to be reinforced that Early Access and Kickstarter projects are *risks*. There is no guarantee for a complete, 100% polished experience at the end. Know that going in. Put your money in because you want to back a project or because you would like to get in on the ground floor of a game's development.
 
Dead State is pretty much done by a husband and wife team with an outside contractor here and there. They don't have a 'team' and they are about as indie as you can get, and it shows in the lack of polish.

To even remotely compare the lack of polish we are seeing in $60 AAA games to a husband and wife indie team is pretty ridiculous.

You are going to have to change the way you game with more games moving to a 'games as a service' model. The day of 'released' games are over, as a game is never 'done'. There will always be more features, levels, and bug fixes to do.

Oh that's not a problem. Let them release a buggy game, shit happens you know. Viewtiful Joe had the bug that deleted your whole Memory Card.

The difference here is that Capcom didn't try to censor all publications that described it. The DS developers are. Instead of putting up a warning, they removed any quantifier of warnings about the game being buggy by rushing it out of Early Access for the holiday season.

....Again, nothing wrong with that. They want a piece of the pie, so to say. No. The fault lies in the fact that they flagged this review-insignificant in the long run, simply because it threatened their paycheck at the end of the day. I'm not for Libel, so was the information in the interview fallacious? I doubt it.

And that's the issue over it. A game can have bugs. The buyers should be aware of them, however. When you try to silence the issue, is where this main story began.

And yeah, it's a sad state that many games are in. They release rushed for the quarter, a holiday, or the deadline, because after all you can just patch the issues away. But let's not tell the consumer.

......Good lord I'm starting to sound a bit like TB. Let's uh, Thats where my rant ends.
 

pa22word

Member
The difference here is that Capcom didn't try to censor all publications that described it. The DS developers are. Instead of putting up a warning, they removed any quantifier of warnings about the game being buggy by rushing it out of Early Access for the holiday season.

As I've already posted: they flagged the review because it was spam voted to the top. It'll probably be reposted later once Valve retallies all the upvotes to take the skewing into account by the person who posted it.
 
So it has to be perfect? That us unreasonable with how complex games are these days. Also the game works. Does it have bugs? Yes. Are they fixing them? Yes. They have had 5 patches in December alone.

I'm not saying it has to be perfect. I'm saying that just because it's a small team they shouldn't get a free pass when people are spending their hard earned money on these games. That's not unreasonable is it?
 
The devs are saying on the Steam forums that the review was flagged because it was bumped to the top via spam votes using alt accounts of the same user who posted it.

What proof do they have to know if some Steam accounts are valid or alt accounts? It isn't like they have access to IP data like Valve.
 

Smash88

Banned
As I've already posted: they flagged the review because it was spam voted to the top. It'll probably be reposted later once Valve retallies all the upvotes to take the skewing into account by the person who posted it.

It was flagged prior to being spam voted up.

Dude hasn't even tried playing after the past 2 patches.
And the review is there for all to see, apart from not being able to edit it how is it censored?

Answered this before.

They are trying to remove it through the use of Community Guidelines, which is an attempt at censorship.

They didn't flag it for no reason.
 

jesu

Member
Based on this review and some brief research people are saying they released it early to get on the holiday sale - which they did, they were a daily deal.



Whether you disagree or agree with the review it still sets a bad precedent to try and censor reviews on your game.

Dude hasn't even tried playing after the past 2 patches.
And the review is there for all to see, apart from not being able to edit it how is it censored?
 

MattKeil

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
While this is pretty shady behavior from a publisher, it should be noted that terminology matters, and people should really stop using "censorship" to describe stuff like this. Game publishers are not government entities. They cannot "censor" anything. This is not an issue of censorship, nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated.
 

pa22word

Member
What proof do they have to know if some Steam accounts are valid or alt accounts? It isn't like they have access to IP data like Valve.

I don't know, I'm not a dev on steam and have no idea as to how they made the decision to flag it, I'm just reposting what they originally said on the steam forums regarding why they flagged the review.
 

element

Member
I'm not saying it has to be perfect. I'm saying that just because it's a small team they shouldn't get a free pass when people are spending their hard earned money on these games. That's not unreasonable is it?
And they are attempting to resolve those issues as quick as they can. While being a small team shouldn't absolve them of responsibility of shipping a quality product, those that bought the game should be informed that their resources and output aren't going to be at the same level of a massive team.

Games are a really strange market. In no other medium of entertainment do you find people so caught up with the 'value' of something. If I don't get 100 hours of of this game I bought for $5 on the Steam sale it is crap. It is buggy, the developers were lazy. This $20 game better be on par with Call of Halo Zone, if not it sucks. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see many people asking for refunds or apologies for a bad movie or a average lunch meal or a so-so concert in the same way that people gripe about games.
 

BKK

Member
While this is pretty shady behavior from a publisher, it should be noted that terminology matters, and people should really stop using "censorship" to describe stuff like this. Game publishers are not government entities. They cannot "censor" anything. This is not an issue of censorship, nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated.

I guess someone should edit the Wikipedia page on Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.
 

Venfayth

Member
Outrage. That's the point, right?

The devs said it was flagged because it was vote manipulated. That's fair. What if this game isn't that buggy and people just have a bone to pick with them, it wouldn't be the first time people have gone to extremes to harass developers on Steam (see Starbound)

This kind of shit gets stale real fast. If you don't like a game, don't buy it. If you risk money on unfinished games, sometimes that's all you'll get. It's Valve's job to deal with a game if it 'releases' and is actually full of buggy garbage. If you're just a whiny consumer who buys early access and unfinished games and then is sad when a two person dev team tries to release their game in time for the holiday sale, then sorry to shit on your parade, but your concerns about integrity ring hollow.
 

pa22word

Member
It was flagged prior to being spam voted up.



As of that screen shot (where it's clearly marked as flagged) that singular review posted like two days ago had 2x the votes of any other review posted since the game was released, and the review swing is nowhere near as wildly negative as to think something like that would indicate suddenly 600 people coming out of nowhere and upvoting it to the top so quickly, and considering you don't need to own a game to upvote a review but simply have a free steam account that takes 5 mins to make...I don't know about you, but I might consider that a little fishy too. Then you add in the fact that the review was posted after said dude was apparently banned on the forums for posting stupid shit that would get banned here like personally insulting the devs and such, it makes the entire thing seem pretty suspect.
 

Smash88

Banned
As of that screen shot (where it's clearly marked as flagged) that singular review posted like two days ago had 2x the votes of any other review posted since the game was released, and the review swing is nowhere near as wildly negative as to think something like that would indicate suddenly 600 people coming out of nowhere and upvoting it to the top so quicjly. I don't know about you, but I might consider that a little fishy too. Then you add in the fact that the review was posted after said dude was apparently banned on the forums for posting stupid shit that would get banned here like insulting the devs and such, it makes the entire thing seem pretty suspect.

You could be right or wrong. I hope we can learn more about what's going on.

But it may have stemmed from this as well (which occurred on the same date as this review went up Dec. 20):

http://steamcommunity.com/app/239840/discussions/0/626329820923092813/

People got visibly upset, and rated this review positive, which lead us to this scenario.

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aXEGeLb_700b.jpg[IMG]

You are welcome[/QUOTE]

This is amazing.
 

Vlodril

Member
weird i have been playing the game for a while and its not that buggy or missing any content so far at least. Nowhere close to releasing a game early to get some money like df9 or perhaps elite.

the only bugs i have encountered so far were both fixed (crashed twice while trying to pick a door and the ammo from weapons disappeared when you put them in shelter) in the first week.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
As of that screen shot (where it's clearly marked as flagged) that singular review posted like two days ago had 2x the votes of any other review posted since the game was released, and the review swing is nowhere near as wildly negative as to think something like that would indicate suddenly 600 people coming out of nowhere and upvoting it to the top so quickly, and considering you don't need to own a game to upvote a review but simply have a free steam account that takes 5 mins to make...I don't know about you, but I might consider that a little fishy too. Then you add in the fact that the review was posted after said dude was apparently banned on the forums for posting stupid shit that would get banned here like personally insulting the devs and such, it makes the entire thing seem pretty suspect.
If you look through the Steam forums it doesn't seem like "personally insulting the devs" and his posts that have been preserved in the Web Cache don't seem like they would get you banned on GAF either.

Unless he all of a sudden went into mega rage mode even though by the time of the webcache his critical thread was already closed down I think one shouldn't give the developer the benefit of the doubt here.

But they are of course free to submit evidence that there were threats and insults. Doesn't seem like that is currently supported if you go back 4 and 2 days based around the posts.
Deleting, rather than locking, in general isn't a very transparent move.
 
Top Bottom