Shadow of the Eternals (Eternal Darkness 2)

Buuhan1

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/03/shadow-of-the-eternals-teaser-trailer

Okay, so Silicon Knights (or more accurately Dennis Dyack) fucked themselves and are now pretty much dead. They were developing Eternal Darkness 2 for quite some time, employees have went on record saying they even seriously shafted work on X-Men: Destiny to focus on it. Many believed it dead after the Epic vs. Silicon Knights lawsuit but now it seems a new studio, Precursor Games, is making it. It can be assumed this developer is created from ex-Silicon Knight employees due to the statement of "From the creators of Eternal Darkness" being shown in the trailer. They're following the "spiritual successor" routine in order to get away from exclusivity with Nintendo who owns the Eternal Darkness brand. (much like how FromSoftware did with Demon's Souls/Dark Souls). Dennis Dyack is also involved.

But it seems their money issues haven't improved as the only way this game is going to be made is by crowd funding. A whopping $1,500,000 has to be funded. Here are the details released so far:

It won't be a full game, instead it'll be a 12-part episodic game. That actually fits well with the Eternal Darkness formula.
A confirmed character is Paul Becker, a Louisiana detective embroiled in a conflict between two cult groups.
Story will take place over the course of 2,500 years.
Locations include Egypt, England, Hungary, and the United States.
Magick and Sanity Effects return along with the typical combat.
Wii-U and PC currently, but additional platforms will be made possible with additional funding.

Insider2000

YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Shit, this might be an actual crowd fund that I might join! Eternal Darkness is my favorite horror game ever!

Foolio

Can't express how freaking excited I am. They set the bar very high with the first game, and I only hope it retains the same feeling and Lovecraftian reverence. They really pulled off the "intellectual" feel of the whole situation, mixed with horror.

Can you please post links confirming all that data? I have a feeling it was all pulled from the old site of the now-scrapped "official" sequel to the game.

Sakonosolo

I wouldn't say that 1.5 million is a whopping budget for a game. Hopefully it allows them to deliver a good one. Any news on Kickstarter or other way of funding?

Buuhan1

@Sakonosolo:

I wouldn't say that 1.5 million is a whopping budget for a game. Hopefully it allows them to deliver a good one. Any news on Kickstarter or other way of funding?

I meant it was whopping as a crowd source goal.

Buuhan1

@Sakonosolo:

I wouldn't say that 1.5 million is a whopping budget for a game. Hopefully it allows them to deliver a good one. Any news on Kickstarter or other way of funding?

I meant it was whopping as a crowd source goal.

Foolio

@Sakonosolo:

Any news on Kickstarter or other way of funding?

All I can find is that it supposedly starts on May 6.

Sakonosolo

Crowdfunding thing is up now.

http://www.precursorgames.com/shadowoftheeternals/

Debating about whether I want to pledge right now or not.

Cyber-Robin

"Payments made to Precursor Games, Inc. to back this project are strictly donations and are not consideration for any service or product. Donations will be used by Precursor Games, Inc. for various aspects of the development and production of Shadow of the Eternals (the "Game") at their sole discretion. Precursor Games will accept donations immediately upon receipt; there is no minimum aggregate goal for funding. A donation cannot be cancelled or returned once it has been completed, whether or not Precursor Games completes the Game or fulfils the specified reward.

3. No Obligation. Precursor Games will use its commercially reasonable efforts to develop and produce the Game, and will apply all donations to the development and production of the Game and the other rewards. However, circumstances outside of Precursor Games' control may make it impossible for Precursor Games to complete production of the Game or other rewards. Precursor Games is under no obligation to complete the Game, or in the event completion is impossible, return any of the donations it has received."

Hey. We Might do this game, but even if you give us your money we still might not make it after all.

Sounds very dodgy to me. Especially considering the history with these guys

Sakonosolo

It's similar with other crowdfunding things as well, but yeah, I'm kind of wary pledging to this and that's one of the reasons.

Foolio

Ugh… I REALLY want to support this, and with a reasonable (non-entry level) pledge, but I just can't bring myself to do it when they say "we will probably use your money for the game, maybe. If it actually comes out. Otherwise sucks for you."

Plus the goal of 1.5 million is just for the FIRST episode? As implied by this:

I mean, I see it realistically possible to hit 1.5 million but to do that for every episode? Not gonna happen. No way.

Panda Bear

@Foolio:

Ugh… I REALLY want to support this, and with a reasonable (non-entry level) pledge, but I just can't bring myself to do it when they say "we will probably use your money for the game, maybe. If it actually comes out. Otherwise sucks for you."

I'm honestly not really sure where people are coming from with being so scared off by this legalese covering of their backs. I mean, in regards to your paraphrasing there, the actual statement as quoted by Cyber reads: "Precursor Games will use its commercially reasonable efforts to develop and produce the Game, and will apply all donations to the development and production of the Game and the other rewards."

So, in fact, they specifically say that donations will be used towards production of the game (or towards donation rewards, admittedly), nothing 'maybe' about it. Yes, what it does say is that in the event that, for whatever reason, the game does not come into fruition, then people that donated have no recourse for compensation, but that very self-same thing is true of any other sort of crowd-sourced fundraising, such as with Kickstarter. Really, the only way this is any more of a gamble is that in this case, money is donated before they are even sure that the goal will be made, which obviously adds a potential source of failure to the project.

Obviously none of that is speaking towards the company's personal track record, as I know nothing about it; and if people are simply hesitant about the concept of this sort of crowd-sourcing in general, then that's fair enough. It just seems somewhat odd to me that people seem to be being scared off by what Cyber posted, and consider it 'dodgy', when it's really just about as standard as you get with these things.

Foolio

If a kickstarter fails to reach its goal, the money is refunded (more accurately, it is never collected). In this instance, they are saying there is no minimum goal and all pledges are actually just donations. And even if the project fails they have no obligation to return your money. I don't see how this is vague.

Panda Bear

Apologies in advance if this comes across as snide, but:

@Foolio:

If a kickstarter fails to reach its goal, the money is refunded (more accurately, it is never collected). In this instance, they are saying there is no minimum goal and all pledges are actually just donations.

@Panda:

Really, the only way this is any more of a gamble is that in this case, money is donated before they are even sure that the goal will be made, which obviously adds a potential source of failure to the project.

I addressed that specific point, and admitted that it was a distinction that would make donating in this case more of a risk than, for example, contributing to a Kickstarter.

@Foolio:

And even if the project fails they have no obligation to return your money.

@Panda:

Yes, what it does say is that in the event that, for whatever reason, the game does not come into fruition, then people that donated have no recourse for compensation, but that very self-same thing is true of any other sort of crowd-sourced fundraising, such as with Kickstarter

I addressed this specific point as well. No, they have no obligation to return your money if the project fails, but the exact same thing could be said of any given Kickstarter, or really any sort of crowd-funded project that I have ever been familiar with.

I have no panda in this race. I have no idea what this game is, and it's none of my business whether someone chooses to try to help fund it or not. I merely found it odd that people seem to be over-reacting to what Cyber posted, when, as I've already said, the only way in which it is different from any other thing of this type is what we have both pointed out in our respective first quotes in this post.

Foolio

I never said you didn't address the points; what's perplexing is that you mention them and don't see them as significantly different. I was just stating the differentiating facts concisely in 3 simple sentences (which, not to be snide, but you seem incapable of doing in any post of yours I've ever read).

I guess the only thing that needs elaboration is the definition of "failure." One level of failure is "we didn't reach our goal, game over." That is a very clear-cut point of failure, and it is being denied. What does their pledge goal even mean then? Presumably it's an estimate of required money, but what does that estimate mean if, when underfunded, they say "well we'll keep trying, I guess." What does that say about the possible result of the project? About its possible quality?

Whether or not they manage their funds effectively and do pop out a product even after achieving funding, is a separate point of failure that I was not even factoring. Fact is Dennis Dyack does NOT have a good track record with these things, but I wasn't considering it.

Not to mention my important point that this is just a goal for the FIRST episode. If I make a pledge that guarantees me 12 episodes, it's really a lie because if the other 11 will need funding, and comparable funding at that, then there's a very small chance I'll see my rewards. Of course the game could sell so amazingly at launch that this isn't a factor, but that's not realistic either.

Edit: As an aside, if they WERE planning to misappropriate any of the funds then of course they wouldn't say "oh and we'll use part of your money for pizza and booze." It sure would be nice though if every company that promised nicely to use funds appropriately actually did so.

Panda Bear

@Foolio:

I never said you didn't address the points; what's perplexing is that you mention them and don't see them as significantly different. I was just stating the differentiating facts concisely in 3 simple sentences (which, not to be snide, but you seem incapable of doing in any post of yours I've ever read).

I guess the only thing that needs elaboration is the definition of "failure." One level of failure is "we didn't reach our goal, game over." That is a very clear-cut point of failure, and it is being denied. What does their pledge goal even mean then? Presumably it's an estimate of required money, but what does that estimate mean if, when underfunded, they say "well we'll keep trying, I guess." What does that say about the possible result of the project? About its possible quality?

Whether or not they manage their funds effectively and do pop out a product even after achieving funding, is a separate point of failure that I was not even factoring. Fact is Dennis Dyack does NOT have a good track record with these things, but I wasn't considering it.

Not to mention my important point that this is just a goal for the FIRST episode. If I make a pledge that guarantees me 12 episodes, it's really a lie because if the other 11 will need funding, and comparable funding at that, then there's a very small chance I'll see my rewards. Of course the game could sell so amazingly at launch that this isn't a factor, but that's not realistic either.

I apologize if I came across as dismissing the point as a valid difference; that was not my intention. Certainly, the fact that a donation is immediate, rather than only occurring if and when the goal has been reached, is a notable distinction, and a perfectly fair reason to be warier of personally making a donation in this case. Likewise with your point about the goal only being for the first episode, of presumably many, which is why I never addressed that in the first place.

The only point I wished to make was that I felt people seemed to be being put off by the entirety of the legalese posted by Cyber, when I feel that – with the exception of the distinction of donations being immediate -- it was all relatively standard and innocuous, as such things go.

As an aside, there's no need for worry; I'm perfectly well aware that my posts tend towards the needlessly obtuse. No offense intended, none taken.

Foolio

Well I'm glad you took no offense because I wasn't intending it.

Everything has legalese, and I can't speak for others but what was off-putting to me was what I described, and not the fact that they have "cover our ass" clauses. Immediate fund withdrawal is fine if they acknowledge that there actually is a bare minimum for development and agree to return it if it's not met. An appropriate way to approach underfunding is to cancel all donations and re-launch a new campaign with a lower goal, and – this is the important bit -- an adjusted project scope and forecast.

Right now I know they are trying to make something and that's really just about it. It's underwhelming. If you look at campaigns for something like the Skullgirls DLC, they had very detailed fund appropriation breakdowns. That kind of thing makes one feel safer in donating.

Panda Bear

@Foolio:

Well I'm glad you took no offense because I wasn't intending it.

Everything has legalese, and I can't speak for others but what was off-putting to me was what I described, and not the fact that they have "cover our ass" clauses. Immediate fund withdrawal is fine if they acknowledge that there actually is a bare minimum for development and agree to return it if it's not met. An appropriate way to approach underfunding is to cancel all donations and re-launch a new campaign with a lower goal, and – this is the important bit -- an adjusted project scope and forecast.

Right now I know they are trying to make something and that's really just about it. It's underwhelming. If you look at campaigns for something like the Skullgirls DLC, they had very detailed fund appropriation breakdowns. That kind of thing makes one feel safer in donating.

In which case, I agree completely.

Frankly, I find it rather difficult to understand why they are making donations immediate and non-refundable, regardless of meeting the goal or not; it seems to me that that choice is going to hurt them more than help, and I have trouble thinking of a way in which it is a positive for them at all. I suppose there's an argument to be made that if they come very close to their goal without making it, then in this situation they'd be able to possibly cut corners and at least get out some sort of product, as opposed to having nothing at all under the Kickstarter method, but that feels flimsy to me at best.

Meanwhile, on the con side, we have your reaction, which I doubt is uncommon. Certainly, speaking for myself, the exact things you mention would make me wary of donating, were I interested in the first place. Really, I think the method of donations only going through if a goal is met is a great part of Kickstarter's brilliance. It's pretty natural for people to be more inclined to donate to something if it's more likely that their donation will ultimately mean something, which can make it hard for a fundraiser to first get off the ground. With how Kickstarter does it, that becomes a non-issue, regardless of how early a backer one is.

So perhaps time will prove me wrong, but I can't help but feel that the way this group is doing things is just shooting themselves in the paw in terms of getting support. It just seems like a poor choice to me from a business perspective.

Foolio

Yeah, exactly. I thought of the "fail by just a little" possibility as well, but in that case they could easily decide on a bare minimum and include it in their terms. For example, "if funding doesn't quite hit 1.5 million but exceeds 1.3 million, we will see the project to completion anyway."

Foolio

So the terms were modified. In particular:

3. No Obligation. Precursor Games will use its commercially reasonable efforts to develop and produce the Game, and will apply all donations to the development and production of the Game and the other rewards. However, circumstances outside of Precursor Games’ control may make it impossible for Precursor Games to complete production of the Game or other rewards. Precursor Games is committed to completing Shadow of the Eternals. However, in the event that Precursor Games cannot raise enough money to develop this project, all donations will refunded to their respective contributors.
For what that's worth.

Buuhan1

I guess they figured "No one reads the ToS!" and when they realized different and know just what kind of damage having that in their terms could do (leading up to even failing to meet their funding goal) they changed it.

Foolio

On the upside it really might tip me to donate.

Davis-Lightheart

1.5 Million in the span of 29 days? I think that's setting the bar pretty high. Or at least, I feel there's going to be some psychology factor involved here, where their goal isn't met because some people don't have hope in the project or etc.

Darkstorm

"Please give us 1.5mil so I can mismanage another company into the ground"

Foolio

@Darkstorm:

"Please give us 1.5mil so I can mismanage another company into the ground"

Stop crushing my hopes, I want this game :(

Foolio

The first track from the soundtrack was released. It's actually pretty good.

Barkworm

Did anyone see the IGN interview with Dyack in which they pretended that Dyack hasn't done anything after Twin Snakes? I thought that was hysterical.

Foolio

@Barkworm:

Did anyone see the IGN interview with Dyack in which they pretended that Dyack hasn't done anything after Twin Snakes? I thought that was hysterical.

I noticed that. He was like "man you did Legacy of Kain and Eternal Darkness and Twin Snakes! Cool!"

The demo they showed off was really cool though. Even if they only really showed what had gotten worked on before at Silicon Knights, they still had to update it to Crytek and Wii U which is non-trivial.

And seeing Oublié cathedral redone in modern graphics is a treat. Even though they probably can't call it by that name now.

Barkworm

@Foolio:

The demo they showed off was really cool though.

Actually, the demo is what has me worried the most. It was basically a 9 minute graphic/walking demo with mediocre voice acting and no real gameplay whatsoever. If that is all they have, they'll have a very hard time generating the amount of enthusiasm that would be necessary to achieve their immensely ambitious crowdfunding goal.

Foolio

@Barkworm:

Actually, the demo is what has me worried the most. It was basically a 9 minute graphic/walking demo with mediocre voice acting and no real gameplay whatsoever. If that is all they have, they'll have a very hard time generating the amount of enthusiasm that would be necessary to achieve their immensely ambitious crowdfunding goal.

I think their progress is reasonable for this stage; it will be an episodic thing and they need the money to develop the very first episode. The demo shows they are serious (as they have obviously done extensive character modeling updates [assuming they are using old work] and an engine conversion. It seems tricky to develop any real amount of varied gameplay to demo with a fairly complex title, before having funds.

That said of course people want to see more before donating. And it's a super ambitious target that almost certainly won't be hit; I'd be impressed if they got 500k. I think you have two categories: the Eternal Darkness fans that don't need to hear a single word beyond "sequel," and normal people. And there are not enough of the first category for this to work.

Foolio

They have actually launched a legit Kickstarter now. Here is the link. So the only reason not to donate now is if you think they're going to crash and burn and never put out a product. And let's be real, that risk is worth taking. Yep. You won't convince me otherwise. Nods

Buuhan1

So they abandoned their own and created one on kickstarter?

I also love that they increased the amount of days.

Foolio

Well, the Kickstarter goal has the target reduced by the amount of donations they already had on their own site (and people who donated on the site were promised some nominal extras). But yeah even with the increased time it probably won't be funded. But now I see no reason not to try.

valiantt

Wow at the rate they're going, I'm sure they're going to hit 1.3M in no time!

Foolio

It's not a likely thing right now but if enough people hear about it and they actually publicize, show they mean it, and differentiate themselves from Silicon Knights who knows. All I know is if it does succeed I will say a prayer to Mantorok.

Buuhan1

So get this… they're still doing their own crowd-funding they started on their site a few days ago.

That's right.

They're doing both their own $1.5 mil crowdfunding AND a $1.3 mil kickstarter. So I guess that means if the kickstarter succeeds (not looking great so far) and theirs fails (most likely will) that despite failing they'll keep those donations as "technically" the project succeeded?

Foolio

I checked today and they took down all their tier stuff from the official site. There is still a "donate via PayPal" link but at least it stopped being completely concurrent, analogous crowdfunding sites.

Foolio

Denis Dyack addresses allegations:

Davis-Lightheart

For those up in arms about Denis Dyack, I thought this interview might ease the situation a bit.

http://nintendoenthusiast.com/17169/interview-with-precursor-games-dispelling-our-doubts-about-shadow-of-the-eternals/

Buuhan1

Doesn't look like it's going to happen, guys.

They have 18 days (so half over) left on their kickstarter and they've only reached $157k out of the total $1.35 million needed. Despite the damage control video Dyack made and his lower position in the new company a lot of people are still up in arms over this project and aren't wanting to support a "thief." Precursor has stated that they're going to do all they can to make the game happen because they believe in the project, but that they just have no other form of funding to do so. It's a shame.

Precursor has also stated that all funds donated on their own website WILL be refunded should the goal not be reached.

Foolio

They have been posting tons of updates and seem really excited and dedicated and their ideas are legitimately really cool. This game would have been amazing. But they did set themselves up for failure. They need to start with something modest if they want to build trust and reputation to fund a large project in the wake of what happened.

I've posted somewhat on their forums though and exchanged messages with various staff members, including Dyack who is pretty chill actually. According to them the crowd-funding route was "plan A" so if they're not talking out of their ass it basically means they haven't even tried getting a legitimate publisher. I wish they would try.

Buuhan1

I'm totally surprised that Nintendo hasn't just swagged on in to their offices and said "We got this."

Dyack and SK were big partners of theirs in the past, and, at least according to Dyack, they're still on good terms.
Nintendo needs first-party titles for the Wii-U more now than ever.
Nintendo already owns Eternal Darkness, so they'd be able to make this a straight up Eternal Darkness 2.
$1.5 mil is nothing to Nintendo.
Nintendo recently did something similiar with Bayonetta 2.

So if everything truly is honky-dory between them all I can think is Precursor merely doesn't want a Wii-U exclusive. Then again Nintendo could just genuinely not be interested.

Foolio

Well they are taking the Kickstarter down. They claim it will re-launch in a few weeks with "new developments" so we'll see what that means <_<

Buuhan1

They… honestly think it'll change anything? Crowd funding isn't going to work for this project, there's too much bad air. They're gonna have to try something else.

Panda Bear

@Buuhan1:

They… honestly think it'll change anything? Crowd funding isn't going to work for this project, there's too much bad air. They're gonna have to try something else.

I mean, while what I've garnered about the situation from this thread would mostly have me in agreement with that, it does depend on what 'new developments' means, since that's vague enough to be just about anything. If, for example, the new developments include that they've somehow figured out a way to get a product out with a considerably more reasonable budget, then it could have a chance. It's not as though they didn't get any backing at all, after all, just not nearly enough for what they had wanted.

tatermoog

@Foolio:

Well they are taking the Kickstarter down. They claim it will re-launch in a few weeks with "new developments" so we'll see what that means <_<

I'd say "new developments"="new platforms"

Buuhan1

That… could actually have an effect. But considering one of the platforms it already had was PC and that's what a lot of the kickstarter projects are for, I'm not so sure.

Foolio

It would be really cool if they could get at least partial funding from some publisher, even if it's just Sony through some indie deal, and they'd make up the rest through Kickstarter or something. I don't know what the plan is but I'm not sure why they are taking it down a couple of weeks before it finishes and then waiting more weeks before restarting. Presumably SOMETHING is afoot.

Buuhan1

These guys just cannot catch a break.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/28/4476104/precursor-games-founding-member-arrested-by-niagara-police-on-child

Foolio

I'm not sure I can support the project without their main lore guy. The Lovecraftian aspect was a major appeal and I get the impression it was him behind it.