Yo Peter and Jack and the dev team! Let's jam!

I have no idea why Jack thinks a video is the best way to answer these questions. Making a video takes at least three people (him, whoever shoots and edits it and whoever approves it), and will take the length of time it takes to shoot the video multiplied by however many times it has to be reviewed during the editing and approval process.

It does, however, give 22Cans the maximum maneuvre space for talking around and otherwise evading issues, ultimately copping out with "ok that's all we have time for!" 30 minutes can easily be eaten up with the usual platitudes and elucidations about how hard the team is working, how much they appreciate our feedback, how great they expect the game to turn out and what a storming success the mobile release has been. We could probably save them some time by recording someone reading aloud Jack's email to Leon and posting it on YouTube.

Once again we have been assigned to collate a bunch of questions/suggestions/whatever, and once again the call has been answered. 22Cans, I really hope you will show some respect to the fans and actually follow through with this promise in a meaningful way.

Man, do you know anyone who can draw and 3D-model?

If so, we can design the God game Molyneux never dreamed of. In his nightmares.

Oh and here is a really easy fact based question - what analytics do you gather from PC GODUS?

What I know is if they try to skirt my yes or no question, in my opinion, the rest don't matter. Put it on a video, on a forum, or in the sky. Yes or no, it is that simple, if you try to say it is not, then the answer is no. If you say it is yes, then I will hold you to it.

Anyone have any ideas as to when we should pose a cutoff point for these? Or should we just roll for awhile until questions stop coming? I know I'm still expecting a few from 13thGeneral and Digital Jam when they find the time.

I'm also trying to decide how many of my own questions I should toss in. A few I've been considering are along the following lines:

Why did you go with Kickstarter and claim to be trying an open, transparent development cycle when you've done anything but throughout development?
How much is forum feedback that is within the scope of the game fully taken into consideration, if at all, and to what extent is some dismissed dependent on the tone of the post?
Why were several, generally considered to be PC, classics pushed to the forefront of the Kickstarter campaign if it wasn't entirely the intent to build the game design around a PC focus?
While it was certainly conveyed that Godus would be a crossplatform title, was it really in such a nebulous design state that it could not be clearly conveyed that there would be a semi-synchronous development cycle for PC/mobile?
Did the initial community resistance and backlash lead to the current situation in regards to the PC community, and if so, how was it any harsher than the internal resistance/backlash against ideas pitched to publishers/investors/development team members?
To whom does 22cans feel more obligated, its publishing partner DeNA, its mobile audience/backers, and/or its PC audience/backers or its own/Peter's indescribable, ever-changing vision?
Why was crowdfunding decided over any other method of accruing the funds to make Godus, if the community was to eventually be neglected, was it the absence of accountability?
Why has communicating the development process to both PC and mobile audiences been such a challenge to keep clear and consistent, setting aside the company mantra of iterative development/suck it and see/discovering the game and excluding also being utterly overwhelmed working? What are/may be the plans to improve this in the future?

I think I'll leave it at these for now.

I don't think we should be asking accusatory questions. I understand people are pissed off but we should focus on getting information and engaging the in discussion on future features.

I would be great to hear a fulsome explanation of why certain things have transpired but its not going to be productive in terms of moving the game forward. Better to force 22Cans to address the future than hold them to the past.

Exactly this. I was hoping for the same thing; discussion about design before things are implemented.

That's why the question, "What are you currently working on?" is so often expressed, because it's one of the foundations of the Kickstarter.

A simple "Here's a list of what we're thinking of doing, what do you think?" - which they actually use to somewhat do (in a limited way) very early on in the KS and during Alpha - isn't so hard to do as they say. All the excuses about "No time" is complete malarkey; it's important, MAKE TIME.

We don't need every detail, just a quick synopsis of what things are currently being seriously looked at (e.g. they've passed the scrum and are on "The List" to hit the devs desks as per the daily/weekly production schedule).

I work in an industry where things can and do change fast and daily, but we also know exactly what everyone is working on, and what they have lined up to do next. Because otherwise it would be complete chaos. And if the investors (or clients) asked for a list of what we were working on, or preparing to work on, and we couldn't answer them... well, we wouldn't have jobs.

I think so too; that's part of what I was trying to say when I was talking about needing to be very careful in how the questions are posed, as not to be accusatory, or bare any biased negative connotation - be it overtly or subtle, or even simply marginally hostile. The reason is, even the smallest "negative" could very well seen taken as a set up, thus having all the evidence they need to "prove" that the community backed them into a corner like an angry mob; out for blood. Of course, they could likely take almost anything we say and pose it as such, simply because it serves them*, but the safer we play it the more likely the better outcome. Or at least the better we look if/when they dodge questions and hide in the sand crying foul.

*not that I'm saying they will, just positing potentialities to express the purpose of my point - to be very specific in how we word things. Essentially to stay as neutral as possible while making the question clear, and hope it will motivate them to answer as honestly as possible without fear of being condemned for their answers.

And thats the very reason why I'm putting so much emphasis on establishing a mutual understanding and clear expectations.
The initial exchange of information might be a step towards that goal - but ultimately we need to understand what it is 22cans WANTS and what it is they can give us.
In return they need to understand what it is we are expecting/want, and what we're willing to give them in return.

The simple examples are along the lines of time and information sharing on a consistent basis.
If they need time to develop certain features they can get that, aslong as they keep us in the loop (thats the core and essential part of both crowdfunding and early access programs, sharing of information...)
The main difference between the traditional development model where information is kept hidden untill the very last moment and then gets a massive press release creating hype resulting in a big launch of the game.
(It seems that Peter believes he can use the traditional 'big release/hype' method, while still gathering funds for his vastly incomplete product.)


Now mistakes have been made, and both sides have said and done things that the other side doesn't like. Whether deserved or not, there's not much we can do to change the past.
We can work towards the future together. Which means we *NEED* to establish that mutual understanding.
We need to establish some basic expectations and allign them according to the reality.
And that ultimately means that 22cans needs to acknowledge and be open about certain features that MIGHT result in a further decrease of sales on PC...
(Something that shouldn't exactly bother them since their focus is on iOS nowadays anyway.)

So as much as answers will be great. Its looking forward to the future and assuring that 22cans doesn't crawl back into shell that would assure that the communications remain positive/neutral in the future. If a clear line of information gets established.
With honest and direct facts resulting the development being delivered on a regular basis. Combined with some more definitive concepts on the direction of development. Then in return, we as a community can create an environment where people are less likely to get ticked off at the drop of a hat.

If people know for a fact that 22cans is indeed working on something. Contrary to being told that this isn't the case and that they are doing their best to do something they're in reality not doing, or atleast not doing to the degree that people would expect of them.
Then that basis of honesty will result in less people feeling cheated by the lie. Sure, some people will still feel they've been cheated originally by the sale - but again there isn't much we can change about that (barring refund talks...)


Now I don't see why it is that 22cans is so afraid of mentioning upcoming features in regards to "in-dev status", aslong as they are clear that these are features that are being looked at as potential future mechanics rather than posing them as this "amazing feature that is coming into the game".
At the same time 22cans needs to understand that something that Peter believes is amazing, might not always be received as so ground-breaking by the community. Acting like this IS a ground-breaking or miracle feature enforces the belief that 22cans doesn't take us seriously and thus pisses people off.

Really it comes down to information and communication management. Respecting your community and providing the information in the right way.
Not a PR-spin that is designed to garner sales. But plain pieces of information regarding the state of development (this is what both backers and SEA customers have paid for according to the FAQ's of the respective systems.)
And if any specific member of 22cans isn't capable of delivering information in such a way, then this should be left up to the members that CAN do it.
George has proven adept at sharing information and Matthew is pretty good at it aswell. Peter on the other hand is often too caugh up in his own idea's to realize that not everyone shares his exact vision.


And finally something to establish is that when we as a community provide feedback or suggestions. We don't expect 22cans to drop everything they're doing and give in to them completely. We don't expect miracle solutions and we understand that development takes time.
HOWEVER... When a significant number of customers point out that they have a problem with certain mechanic, and these people get discounted/ignored as a minority with the problems remaining within the game for 6~12 months or more. It seems increasingly obvious that there's little intent on changing these features.
So why the PR-spin? Why claim that you're going to do something, if you're not going to? Or why not do it, if you intend to do it.

There's countless of suggestions that I've seen pass that could be used in full or in part. And that would be of tremendous benefit to the iOS version aswell. Now I don't know whether it is that Peter and the design team believe their expertise is superior and they do not want to stoop to taking suggestions. Or whether it is that they are so rigid that they can't alter plans that have been "determined" within the 6-month sprint method.
But it would seem to me that as 22cans touts an "iterative design" methodology, they could easily incorporate feedback into their design as they go.
Even if they don't take OUR suggestions all the time, they could provide us with reasons why certain features were chosen and why others are ignored.

This ties directly into my request of giving the CM's more authority in obtaining and distributing information. If no massive embargo is maintained on the project (which there shouldn't be given that iOS is 'released' and both SEA and crowdfunding work off of an information sharing basis), then it should stand to reason that a professional CM should be capable of acquiring and distributing of information in a manner that is beneficial to 22cans.

It would diminish the feeling that 22cans isn't taking us seriously, it would increase the level of understanding between the two groups as people get to become aware of what is going on and it would decrease the level of disappointment on features that are promised as "real", but turn out to be a mere concept at best.
If 22cans shows us this basic layer of respect - then I'm 100% certain that a significant number of the community is willing to show them some respect in return. Directly improving the relationships between the two groups as time goes on.


It won't be a miracle cure, it will take time... But as long as steps aren't being taken then nothing will change and this slippery slope will just keep getting worse and worse.