Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5770
Location: Away
I just very much dislike when a person or a company, especially one that hasn't made anything noteworthy by itself, sees a popular free product and says, "hey, we SO can monetize this! This is a goldmine!" And then they continue to cash in the hell out of it, adding ridiculous "improvements", often making the game worse in the progress. Support or not, the concept itself is sickening, and I'm not going to endorse it, ever. Besides, as far as I understand, Pixel doesn't have a percentage share of CS+'s sales, but a fixed license fee. It's not the first time, either. Notice how the porting/publishing parties involved haven't had a single in-house developed title. I'm not even sure Kenta Cho received anything from them, but, I guess, this isn't the best place to discuss it anyway...
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Lex
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I completely agree with moozooh. Nifflas took a wrong turn there. Cave Story was free because Pixel decided it was so. Nifflas used to make awesome free games too, but he got greedy and now he's on a rampage to make as much money as possible. I lost much of my respect for him when he approached Pixel to sell Cave Story. The new Toroko (and other graphics, but especially Toroko) is awful, too. Play the original. It's been free since 2004. I remember in 2005 when I and everyone else I knew discovered Cave Story. Everyone was awe-inspired at how this game was released for free by an amazing developer, respected far above anyone else. Now, with this commercialization, Cave Story is considered by newcomers just another indie platformer. Many people I've talked to recently haven't even played it because they didn't know it was free, nor that it's the best adventure platformer ever made. They saw it as some commercial platformer like all the others. Cave Story by Pixel and Within A Deep Forest by Nifflas started a revolution of indie gaming. Both of those games were free, made in the developers' spare time. I wish Nifflas hadn't gotten dollar signs stuck in his eyes and roped the other revolutionist in. Pixel was reluctant too, as I saw in an interview with him when this commercial Cave Story BS all started.
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
So if I understand you correctly: * Once someone makes a free indie game, they're never allowed to make a for-profit game. Nifflas is a bastard for wanting to get paid for his new works. * Pixel bears no responsibility for ensuring reasonable licensing terms, artistic oversight, etc. prior to allowing the project to move forward. Remember that Pixel could easily have refused to make a commercial version of the game. He would have been well within his rights and there's not a damned thing Nifflas or anyone else could have done about it. All those people who think that Cave Story+ is the only version of the game would instead likely never have played the game at all, since they'd never have heard of it. You can definitely argue if the port was a crappy job (and I agree that it's rough in many areas, though Toroko's portrait is the only situation where the graphics are poor IMO), but I don't think you can reasonably paint Nifflas as some kind of asshole villain here.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Lex
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
He's just a sellout. Free stuff is great, and makes everyone feel good. Nifflas and Pixel were both doing fine before selling Cave Story.
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
So, once someone makes a free game, they're never allowed to charge for any future works again. Right. Remind me to never make a free game.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
arflech
He/Him
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
lol is that why you haven't made any commits to Jetblade since 25 March 2011
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
Lex
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I wouldn't be so upset if the Aeon Genesis translation was intact in the game, but instead, we get butcheries like these: - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/35695760/000001C4.png - "Something gleams in the dirt" retranslated to "Something shines brightly" - "King gets his ears in a tangle when he sees Sue and I getting along" retranslated to "King gets bent out of shape when Sue and I get along" - respectively: good version:
Balrog: "I've got the nose of a bloodhound!" Misery: "Indeed, and I daresay the brains as well."
bad version:
Balrog: "I've got the nose of a clever Harrier!" Misery: "Yes, he has the nose AND the brain of a dog."
What's a "Harrier" and why is "clever" used in a joke about Balrog being stupid? The original portrayed the joke fluently. The Nicalis translation failed. Also, the game runs 20% faster than the original. How could they overlook something that simple? I'm not alone in my anger at Nicalis' butchery. Here's a thread with similar complaint: http://www.cavestory.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4230 If Nifflas had left the game intact as it originally was, he would have maintained my respect. What he did with the game in combination with selling it is what really bothers me, not just porting and selling it alone.
    Senior Moderator
    Joined: 8/4/2005
    Posts: 5770
    Location: Away
    Derakon wrote:
    So, once someone makes a free game, they're never allowed to charge for any future works again.
    No, I suggest reading my post instead of reading... whatever made you say that. Specifically this:
    moozooh wrote:
    I just very much dislike when a person or a company [...] sees a popular free product and says, "hey, we SO can monetize this! This is a goldmine!" And then they continue to cash in the hell out of it, adding ridiculous "improvements", often making the game worse in the progress.
    Cave Story+ is a rehash made for quick and dirty buck, as the audience is already there, you need little to no advertising, and most obviously you need not try to make something new and awesome like the original CS was. It's exploiting the popular name to make money. And if you're still not getting what I said, look at this. It's a yet another rehash of Cave Story, this time robbing it of its unique look and sound completely, but adding another arrangement of the soundtrack and the ever-awesome gimmick that is 3D. I'm sure you would understand it better if Valve, instead of hiring the devs of Narbacular Drop to make Portal, just bought the rights to the game and started releasing countless rehashes of Narbacular Drop running on Source engine. Thankfully Valve is a company that makes money by making sense.
    Warp wrote:
    Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
    Banned User, Former player
    Joined: 3/10/2004
    Posts: 7698
    Location: Finland
    moozooh wrote:
    Derakon wrote:
    So, once someone makes a free game, they're never allowed to charge for any future works again.
    No, I suggest reading my post instead of reading... whatever made you say that. Specifically this:
    moozooh wrote:
    I just very much dislike when a person or a company [...] sees a popular free product and says, "hey, we SO can monetize this! This is a goldmine!" And then they continue to cash in the hell out of it, adding ridiculous "improvements", often making the game worse in the progress.
    I think you missed his point as well. It's not like this big evil company took the game without the author's permission and started selling it. If the company makes an offer to the author, and the author agrees with it, who are you to say what he should or shouldn't do? It's his right to do whatever he wants with his property. If he wants to start charging a million bucks for each copy, that's his prerogative.
    Senior Moderator
    Joined: 8/4/2005
    Posts: 5770
    Location: Away
    If the initiative was to raise money for Pixel, or to hire him as a developer so that he wouldn't need his main job, it could have been a different story, but there's this middleman who wants their share of the pie without contributing anything of worth. In any case I'm not ordering people around; I vote with my wallet, and the vote is 'no'. Unfortunately, people who honestly believe they're supporting Pixel by buying Nicalis's endless rehashes only pave way for more rehashes. Because the model itself is unproductive and made for a different purpose altogether. Which is, again, profiting from an established name. Which is the current trend for pretty much anything, because making new stuff that is good, surprisingly, takes effort. So why make that effort when you already have the work cut out for you? Some people don't seem to understand the importance of cultural artifacts. When something, no matter if it's free or commercial by nature, crosses a certain threshold of popularity and public acclaim, it becomes an item of culture, and object of importance that starts living a life of its own, regardless of the author's wishes, or yours for that matter. We saw this when the fanbase became making mods and free conversions of the original CS to different systems, fully preserving what made it unique, its identity. It went much farther than Pixel intended, and it's a good thing. A good example from the commercial world would be Star Wars. It became so big and universally loved it didn't need change. Lucas didn't understand that either, and started introducing changes that were not only minor and cosmetic—something that is generally welcome, even if not expressly required—but also contentious, ones that break the established flow, implant personality traits that weren't there, and just don't make any sense (like putting Hayden Christensen at the end of RotJ, even though Luke's character would never recognize his father in that creepy looking young fellow). Well, at least Spielberg has woken up somewhat. In other words, when you're taking an established work and start rehashing it for money, marketing it as new and improved, you're spreading it thin; you're destroying parts that made it a unique cultural artifact, instead making it one with rest of the cookie-cutter crap. What makes it worse, that way you're hampering or even preventing further dissemination. With regards to "it's my property, I do what I want" comment, I recommend watching this video. It should become obvious that giving fans what they want is more important and profitable than giving fans what you want to give them.
    Warp wrote:
    Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
    Joined: 10/20/2006
    Posts: 1248
    I'm very annoyed by the concept of milking franchises as well. I get annoyed if companies act reasonably and stop improving a game when they know they've reached the point where they'll get the most money for the least amount of work. I know they are only being reasonable, but it saddens me. Historically, there have been some companies who were willing to take that extra step to make their games not just good enough, but totally awesome! Nowadays it happens very rarely, mostly only when new folks try to prove that they can produce some more amazing stuff than the competition; to get some initial attention. However, I don't really blame the companies for it. I see capitalism as the culprit and we'll be stuck with that one for quite a while still, until we can come up with a better system. If you want to maximize annual profits, you can't add the extra finnishing touches to leave everybody in amazement and build a fan base that'll buy even more games in the future. You have to milk the existing fan base here and now instead. They're only being reasonable, I don't blame them at all. I like to avoid buying those kind of games as well though, I also don't want to support that trend. Even though my vote is pretty insignificant...
    AnS
    Emulator Coder, Experienced player (723)
    Joined: 2/23/2006
    Posts: 682
    Warp wrote:
    If the company makes an offer to the author, and the author agrees with it, who are you to say what he should or shouldn't do?
    Author is mere human with his own weaknesses that could have been abused.
    Senior Moderator
    Joined: 8/4/2005
    Posts: 5770
    Location: Away
    Kuwaga wrote:
    If you want to maximize annual profits, you can't add the extra finnishing touches to leave everybody in amazement and build a fan base that'll buy even more games in the future. You have to milk the existing fan base here and now instead. They're only being reasonable, I don't blame them at all.
    That seems pretty contradictory to me. Indeed, the employed strategy is very short-sighted, even more so considering the blunders that soiled the ports' reputation as software products. But I don't think this is reasonable. I think what Valve did when they hired Narbacular Drop devs was reasonable: they took people who had a know-how (in our case that would be Pixel) and made a really damn awesome new game in collaboration. "Huge success" is not an understatement. In fact, Nifflas is a proficient developer by himself — he can create something new. We basically have two proficient indie developers who have already made names for themselves. If Nicalis has enough money to remake all assets under (some) supervision from Pixel, surely they could have hired Pixel himself and made something new together. I don't get this shit.
    Warp wrote:
    Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
    Player (244)
    Joined: 8/6/2006
    Posts: 784
    Location: Connecticut, USA
    Kuwaga wrote:
    Historically, there have been some companies who were willing to take that extra step to make their games not just good enough, but totally awesome! Nowadays it happens very rarely, mostly only when new folks try to prove that they can produce some more amazing stuff than the competition; to get some initial attention.
    Reminds me of Working Designs, the company that put so much care and time into their games (and guides!) and sadly ran their company into the ground.
    Joined: 10/20/2006
    Posts: 1248
    Maximizing annual profits means making the most money you can by the end of the year. Not over the course of 5 years. People and stakeholders pay great attention to the annual balance and generally don't take into account investments that will probably pay off in the future (such as always adhering to higher quality standards than necessary, building a strong and loyal fan base, etc) as much, as these are not easily visible on paper. So as soon as they know the average consumer will be happy with their product, it's not reasonable to invest further time and money into it, just to make people like you and me happy too. Won't pay off. They'll start working on something else instead. If the annual balance sheet doesn't look good, but they could theoretically more than make up for it over the course 5 years, it won't help them a lot. Stakeholders would already have lost trust in them and there's a good chance that everything would go to hell for them. Of course, the next decade matters too, but nowhere near as much as the annual balance does. Only way to prevail in our current form of capitalism is to maximize annual profits and hardly care about the more distant future at all. It's a pretty dangerous system. My point is, producing slightly subpar games (which look really promising though, so you just have to try them!! extra dungeons ;))) can be a pretty smart thing to do from a business point of view, even though we might not like it. ^^ Edit:
    Lex (2 posts below) wrote:
    Please don't die, Pixel!
    [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfCBHq4L-Cg]each life each end[/URL] inb4 this is just some devo - girl u want ripoff also inb4 i had no idea the lyrics were english
    Skilled player (1637)
    Joined: 11/15/2004
    Posts: 2202
    Location: Killjoy
    Derakon wrote:
    Remember that Pixel could easily have refused to make a commercial version of the game.
    I was actually quite happy that Pixel made money off of Cave Story - it is a Masterpiece of gaming. I would rather he die a rich man with bastardized versions of his masterpiece put out, than to see him die penniless like Edgar Alan Poe or Vincent Van Gogh. Also, it isn't like these bastardizations actually devalue the original. AFAIK, the original is still totally available for download, in untouched form.
    Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
    Lex
    Joined: 6/25/2007
    Posts: 732
    Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    Please don't die, Pixel!
    Skilled player (1637)
    Joined: 11/15/2004
    Posts: 2202
    Location: Killjoy
    Lex wrote:
    Please don't die, Pixel!
    Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
    Editor, Skilled player (1405)
    Joined: 3/31/2010
    Posts: 2086
    Ho boy. Personally, I really don't care about either of the remakes and rereleases. For me, it's that little 320x240 5MB freeware download I adore so very much for so very many reasons, and always will be. All the rereleases lose the charm of being so rough. Cave Story was made by one person over 5 years and for that, it's remarkable. This very notion is lost in the rereleases. As the game gets polished and marketed more, suddenly, it stops being an amazing showcase of what just one person can do. As of this, I'm kind of indifferent to the whole discussion really as while it may be great to see the game and its author get some recognition, I won't even bother checking out any rerelease. //Let me add that above all else I think the original game didn't -need- any changes. I call Cave Story rough around the edges, technically, and, even graphically. But I don't mind that, because it, in its way, adds to this charm. It's kind of like Minecraft, in how limited graphics can contain a great sense of aesthetics. As for the gameplay, changing it in any way would be stupid anyway.
    Lex
    Joined: 6/25/2007
    Posts: 732
    Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    I agree with everything you said, Scrimpy. Also, yes, making it run at 120% of the original speed would be stupid. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
    KennyMan666
    He/Him
    Joined: 8/24/2005
    Posts: 375
    Location: Göteboj
    Ooooh, it runs faster? That WOULD explain why I thought the jump was slightly less floaty, and the game is slightly harder. Otherwise, I have no problems with Cave Story+ as a game, even if there were some sketchy things about how it came to be. Nothing's wrong with the new translation, either, 90% of the "The Aeon Genesis translation was better!" is purely nostalgia from those who had their first experience with the game with that. I've seen some parts where the new translation is better. But mostly, it's just semantics. And the remixed music is ace. Remixed Sand Zone BGM is infinitely awesome.
    Det man inte har i begåvning får man ta ut i energi. "I think I need to get to Snoop Dogg's level of high to be able to research this post." -Samsara Read my fanfic, One Piece: Pure Corruption
    Joined: 5/30/2007
    Posts: 324
    DarkKobold wrote:
    Derakon wrote:
    Remember that Pixel could easily have refused to make a commercial version of the game.
    I was actually quite happy that Pixel made money off of Cave Story - it is a Masterpiece of gaming. I would rather he die a rich man with bastardized versions of his masterpiece put out, than to see him die penniless like Edgar Alan Poe or Vincent Van Gogh. Also, it isn't like these bastardizations actually devalue the original. AFAIK, the original is still totally available for download, in untouched form.
    This pretty much echos my own thoughts. If the new, re-released, commercial version of Cave Story is bad, then that's on the team that adapted it, not on Pixel for licensing it, or the distributors who bought it from him. I don't see how the hell it makes any difference to a consumer, or annoys him or her in any manner. The original game is still around. The original developer makes some extra money. If you don't like the new game for whatever reason, don't fucking buy it. A win/win situation, no? Finally, this idea that people should never do anything for money is absolutely ridiculous. When it comes to movies, I don't know a single actor or director in history, even notoriously ascetic, proud ones like an Orson Welles or Daniel Day-Lewis who didn't do certain projects purely for the money.
    Lex
    Joined: 6/25/2007
    Posts: 732
    Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    IronSlayer wrote:
    If the new, re-released, commercial version of Cave Story is bad, then that's on the team that adapted it, not on Pixel for licensing it, or the distributors who bought it from him.
    Of course. That's why I'm only upset at Nifflas and his company, Nicalis. If I didn't have any friends and I played games purely for my own enjoyment, these butcheries wouldn't annoy me. However, now I have to work around this garbage and explain to friends that Cave Story was made by one person and is free and doesn't suck. I've had long IRC conversations explaining the whole situation to 2 separate people who wouldn't even try the game because they thought it was just some commercial indie game among a bunch of similar games, not knowing how truly awesome it is, and how it started a revolution of indie game development. It just seems like the whole attitude towards Cave Story from newcomers has shifted for the worse. Sure, old fans know the game is free and the Aeon Genesis translation is great and is still available, but newcomers have no idea. The original beloved game is being diluted and obscured by advertised rehashes which fail to capture the charm of the original. Like I said, I don't blame Pixel. He was personally coerced by Nifflas, and he submitted because he's a humble guy. I blame Nifflas for this whole mess.
    Senior Moderator
    Joined: 8/4/2005
    Posts: 5770
    Location: Away
    IronSlayer wrote:
    I don't see how the hell it makes any difference to a consumer, or annoys him or her in any manner. The original game is still around. The original developer makes some extra money. If you don't like the new game for whatever reason, don't fucking buy it. A win/win situation, no?
    No, the idea is not charging money for something that has established itself to be free, selling it as the official, improved (which it arguably isn't) version. A commercial project is fine, too, but make it something new. Lex has pointed out one negative effect of this situation, I have cited another. It's not catastrophic or anything, but it's not a win/win situation. Most certainly because nothing new is being done, and we're once again left with something old and well-known sold to us under the guise of an improvement, making use of our nostalgia and desire to support the author. I'm willing to bet no-one who supports that motif has ever considered the possibility of sending something as simple as a $10 check to Pixel, or a $10 gift, before CS+ came out—let alone actually do it—now don't fool yourself into thinking he will receive all of the $10 if you spend them on a product several parties have been involved with.
    Warp wrote:
    Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
    Joined: 2/26/2007
    Posts: 1360
    Location: Minnesota
    Perhaps Squeenix is at the core of this?
    adelikat wrote:
    I very much agree with this post.
    Bobmario511 wrote:
    Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.