How to PR.

How to PR a Kickstarted game; see The Universim, Armello, Pillars of Eternity, Underworld Ascension, Starr Mazer, Thimbleweed Park...

22Cans has, on occasion, engaged the community and shared development progress (and failures, alike) fairly well. They are capable of it - which is part of why the community frustration from the frequent (near predictable) fumbling and silence and hypocracy results in the persistent backlash that occurs.

Do more, do it better. We know its possible.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but no, we really are still the same. We are and always have been a non bias environment. I will PM you since I don't wish to derail your thread. 

I think what a lot of it comes down to (the culmination of the last several years experienced thus far, what we can certainly glean from this), is that the type of methods of PR, development interaction, and the more involved community cooperation people have become accustomed to with Alpha/Beta testing, Early Access titles, and more recently open-access crowdfunded titles, are not indicatively supportive of Peter's particular style or methodology (if it could be classified as that) process - which is being so... flexible or pliable, as it is - and that has been a huge factor in the overall experience. The two didn't mesh well without someone more experienced, or perhaps with more business credence, to mediate and mitigate.

Perhaps it could have worked better, with a more satisfactory result on both sides, if this had been more evident early in the project and addressed. It's unfortunate we'll never really know for certain.

It certainly seems the case that Peter's work methods are a bad match for making promises beforehand. That much seems clear to everyone (him included). If he hadn't made any during the kickstarter campain, just said: "I'm going to make a game", would people have still backed him though?

There's a couple of issues at play here. One, PM usually gets called out when he makes promises beforehand; claiming things will happen as if they're fact (usually implying or outright saying that the feature he's talking about is either done or just nearly finished). After release, it turns out that not only did those features not make it in, but they weren't cut to make a better game. They were cut for budgetary or technical reasons. Because of how he spun it, people are usually (understandably) upset. They're almost always major things that are flat-out missing, not things that got changed for the better.

The example morsealworth gives is of an entirely different nature. It's questioning an assumption, and proposing a change in order to make a better game. On top of that, there's a conversation about why.

The other difference is the Kickstarter. Pie-in-the-sky things said to the press while working on a game are one thing. The world has come to expect that from PM. It's almost endearing. With Kickstarter there are contractual obligations involved. And this:

Sure, things change during development. Sometimes your initial ideas aren't gonna work, for whatever reason. Talk to the people you promised would be involved, and payed you for it. Let them know what needs to change, and why. But that (almost) never happened with Godus. How in the world do you reconcile the months of silence with "a culture of openness, co-operation and honesty" that was promised?

Was there ever a point in Godus's development where we were "able to suggest, comment and vote to determine [any] elements of the game"?

Peter has already said himself in interviews what he feels about how Kickstarter promises influence him. It's no secret. If anything, pretending he hadn't said it would be a poor PR decision, as over here on Proboards, it wouldn't be fooling anybody. Funny you should use a kitchen as an example though, he did the exact same thing if I recall correctly.

Yeah? Nice coincidence. Well, as I said, I work in that industry.
But what I actually wanted to say is, that YOU started this topic, that YOU made that statement, irrespective of if Peter said so somewhere or not, in the end the people here will look at YOU. 

Also, it's about doing good PR isn't it?!

I can give an example of good PR.

I used to run a small company. I decided to do an event for networking and charity. I made up a cool catch name and an email blast and paper brochures for a new annual "Pick a Charity" Party. I did it mostly on my off time. I had each person who came bring a check for "at least 25 dollars" to a charity of their choice. I talked a large local nice restaurant owner into a half price off my room rental. I went to Kinkos and made of ton of my business related give always, all with our logo on it. I got a friend to donate their time and DJ and had a nice turnout for a few years. I made a few speeches and had them do a raffle for one nice gift each year and a few games. I kept it very lively.

I was able to have nothing but positive Twitter and FaceBook comments and got several more doctors and contacts I wanted and have a decent chunk of cash sent to many needy charities. I took pictures of each check and mailed with receipt to each person for their taxes. I was also able to take legitimate tax write off on my costs for the party's food and drink bills.

So, in end I had to front some cash out of pocket but for my company's PR, it was a huge success. Not only was it great for charity, I had all my contacts associating my business with fun and good positive actions.

I could suggest to Colin that 22cans should do something similar and pick a way to associate their name with positive actions like charity or the environment. Good PR is not always about what your business actually does for a living, just about representing your business in public eyes in best possible light.

A small note, however, that it only affects businesses that already have at least a neutral reputation.

Otherwise, the contrast only raises bigotry concerns.

UPD: Lord Ba'al got before me.