On November 12 2025 03:45 ChillFlame wrote: Also, I forgot to mention, they used the wrong materials for the lighting purposes. It's more like plastic or rubber than skin. But that's a game-wide problem.
It's like someone was told that every RTS fan's dream is to make it look like they're playing with a bunch of toy soldiers. Which is like, maybe? But not the cheap ones!
On November 12 2025 03:45 ChillFlame wrote: Also, I forgot to mention, they used the wrong materials for the lighting purposes. It's more like plastic or rubber than skin. But that's a game-wide problem.
It's like someone was told that every RTS fan's dream is to make it look like they're playing with a bunch of toy soldiers. Which is like, maybe? But not the cheap ones!
As a certified grown man who likes to play overpriced toy soliders with other grown men, I can tell, we try to make them not to look cheap.
On November 12 2025 03:45 ChillFlame wrote: Also, I forgot to mention, they used the wrong materials for the lighting purposes. It's more like plastic or rubber than skin. But that's a game-wide problem.
It's like someone was told that every RTS fan's dream is to make it look like they're playing with a bunch of toy soldiers. Which is like, maybe? But not the cheap ones!
As a certified grown man who likes to play overpriced toy soliders with other grown men, I can tell, we try to make them not to look cheap.
On November 11 2025 23:15 ChillFlame wrote: Not to mention this is a "AAA" companies' psyop to justify their inefficiency and price increases, but people repeat it like parrots without thinking.
I mean, you gotta pay dozens of managers somehow, and the e-sports coordinators years before your game is even released etc.
When I was still working at a big corp last year I had the feeling that for every developer there were like 3-5 different managers who just loved to talk about processes, pipelines and schedule meetings to decide when another meeting is going to take place etc. Gotta get all of those SLAs and OKRs in check, so that we can work towards some MVP for a vague feature that we'll probably never finish...
In the end, everyone was confused and just tried to look busy while no actual work that matters was being done. Example: Feature that could be done by 2-3 devs within 2-3 weeks. Corp assigns 15 devs and some managers, 6 months later there's not even a beta of the feature in sight.
Agile in theory: You divide the work into smaller chunks so you can iterate over them quickly and adapt to changes. Agile in practice: All work is constantly being changed, goalposts being shifted and nothing is ever "done".
On November 11 2025 23:15 ChillFlame wrote: Not to mention this is a "AAA" companies' psyop to justify their inefficiency and price increases, but people repeat it like parrots without thinking.
I mean, you gotta pay dozens of managers somehow, and the e-sports coordinators years before your game is even released etc.
When I was still working at a big corp last year I had the feeling that for every developer there were like 3-5 different managers who just loved to talk about processes, pipelines and schedule meetings to decide when another meeting is going to take place etc. Gotta get all of those SLAs and OKRs in check, so that we can work towards some MVP for a vague feature that we'll probably never finish...
In the end, everyone was confused and just tried to look busy while no actual work that matters was being done. Example: Feature that could be done by 2-3 devs within 2-3 weeks. Corp assigns 15 devs and some managers, 6 months later there's not even a beta of the feature in sight.
Agile in theory: You divide the work into smaller chunks so you can iterate over them quickly and adapt to changes. Agile in practice: All work is constantly being changed, goalposts being shifted and nothing is ever "done".
When I hear a decision is justified by a three-letter abbreviation, I feel an urge to strangle this person. And one time I almost did. It might've killed or maimed someone. Some people only think KPI, not actions and consequences.
On November 11 2025 23:15 ChillFlame wrote: Not to mention this is a "AAA" companies' psyop to justify their inefficiency and price increases, but people repeat it like parrots without thinking.
I mean, you gotta pay dozens of managers somehow, and the e-sports coordinators years before your game is even released etc.
When I was still working at a big corp last year I had the feeling that for every developer there were like 3-5 different managers who just loved to talk about processes, pipelines and schedule meetings to decide when another meeting is going to take place etc. Gotta get all of those SLAs and OKRs in check, so that we can work towards some MVP for a vague feature that we'll probably never finish...
In the end, everyone was confused and just tried to look busy while no actual work that matters was being done. Example: Feature that could be done by 2-3 devs within 2-3 weeks. Corp assigns 15 devs and some managers, 6 months later there's not even a beta of the feature in sight.
Agile in theory: You divide the work into smaller chunks so you can iterate over them quickly and adapt to changes. Agile in practice: All work is constantly being changed, goalposts being shifted and nothing is ever "done".
Oh man. Do I ever feel this.
I worked for ten years at a studio that was part of Activision. Even as a smaller studio (we were responsible for all the online stuff, which was more complicated than you might think) there were still many many layers of management and lots of "thought leaders" and people who didn't seem to really do anything.
There was this one guy, I thought he was a cool guy in general. We had great discussions about games and he was fun to be around. Also he was a pretty smart guy too. I liked him. But in ten years of working with him I had no idea what his job actually was. (I'm sure some folks would say the same about me, to be fair). He was some sort of manager, and he made a lot of charts and graphs and sometimes we'd have meetings about things that would last for hours and at the end I had no idea what we had actually talked about. Like, I have a Physics degree, so I know how to read a graph. But these graphs weren't ABOUT anything. There was a lot of data, but it was super unclear what it meant. I suspect these presentations were deliberately designed to not mean anything, and confuse anyone who tried to understand them.
Anyway he kept getting promoted over time. I think he's a Director now. And good for him! But imagine a studio entirely run by these sorts of people, these really nice, really friendly, really cool guys, who don't actually know how to do anything related to making a game. Now give them five years and $40 million dollars. I wonder what would happen?
On November 13 2025 09:53 Jeremy Reimer wrote: There was this one guy, I thought he was a cool guy in general. We had great discussions about games and he was fun to be around. Also he was a pretty smart guy too. I liked him. But in ten years of working with him I had no idea what his job actually was. (I'm sure some folks would say the same about me, to be fair). He was some sort of manager, and he made a lot of charts and graphs and sometimes we'd have meetings about things that would last for hours and at the end I had no idea what we had actually talked about.
On November 13 2025 11:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote: There was this one guy, I thought he was a cool guy in general. We had great discussions about games and he was fun to be around. Also he was a pretty smart guy too. I liked him. But in ten years of working with him I had no idea what his job actually was. (I'm sure some folks would say the same about me, to be fair). He was some sort of manager, and he made a lot of charts and graphs and sometimes we'd have meetings about things that would last for hours and at the end I had no idea what we had actually talked about.
I've followed the launches of many PC games over the past year, and it's striking how brief the window of player attention typically is. Where traditionally player interest would build gradually, then crest and decay over a period of months, most releases today have much sharper rises and falls. There are still exceptions, but this pattern exhibits across a variety of successful and unsuccessful titles.
What's changed to cause this? One factor could certainly be a more crowded market, but perhaps the biggest change is how players discover games. Where traditionally, retail and media outlets played a significant role, today, platforms that promote content algorithmically have the most influence. This includes not just social media, but also Steam itself.
Algorithmic content promotion inherently creates a snowball effect. When certain metrics are achieved, a bright spotlight gets cast. When velocity slows, that spotlight extinguishes just as quickly.
Platform algorithms are typically black boxes that don't provide transparency for their internal function. We do our best to understand how they work by observing their behavior, but there is little certainty, and the algorithms themselves can change at any time. Where before there was an established playbook for how to promote PC games, it feels much more "wild west" right now.
One by-product of shorter windows is that it will probably be more difficult for free-to-play games to succeed on PC. Faster decay presents a challenge to the kind of long-term ecosystem that free-to-play games rely upon. I suspect "Premium Plus" will become the more common business model, since it ensures up-front revenue while still providing a tail.
I don't think spikiness will go away -- algorithmic promotion seems here to stay, and best practices will presumably continue to evolve along with the algorithms themselves. I'm eager to see how developers and publishers adapt.
I've talked to a few folks exploring ideas for new discovery channels - more alternatives would definitely be welcome. Consumer behavior seems challenging to change; I suspect new discovery channels will have to figure out how to more successfully leverage existing aggregators (Discord as one example)."
On November 14 2025 23:49 ChillFlame wrote: New volume of Tim's LinkedIn cronicles:
"Spikiness
I've followed the launches of many PC games over the past year, and it's striking how brief the window of player attention typically is. Where traditionally player interest would build gradually, then crest and decay over a period of months, most releases today have much sharper rises and falls. There are still exceptions, but this pattern exhibits across a variety of successful and unsuccessful titles.
What's changed to cause this? One factor could certainly be a more crowded market, but perhaps the biggest change is how players discover games. Where traditionally, retail and media outlets played a significant role, today, platforms that promote content algorithmically have the most influence. This includes not just social media, but also Steam itself.
Algorithmic content promotion inherently creates a snowball effect. When certain metrics are achieved, a bright spotlight gets cast. When velocity slows, that spotlight extinguishes just as quickly.
Platform algorithms are typically black boxes that don't provide transparency for their internal function. We do our best to understand how they work by observing their behavior, but there is little certainty, and the algorithms themselves can change at any time. Where before there was an established playbook for how to promote PC games, it feels much more "wild west" right now.
One by-product of shorter windows is that it will probably be more difficult for free-to-play games to succeed on PC. Faster decay presents a challenge to the kind of long-term ecosystem that free-to-play games rely upon. I suspect "Premium Plus" will become the more common business model, since it ensures up-front revenue while still providing a tail.
I don't think spikiness will go away -- algorithmic promotion seems here to stay, and best practices will presumably continue to evolve along with the algorithms themselves. I'm eager to see how developers and publishers adapt.
I've talked to a few folks exploring ideas for new discovery channels - more alternatives would definitely be welcome. Consumer behavior seems challenging to change; I suspect new discovery channels will have to figure out how to more successfully leverage existing aggregators (Discord as one example)."
The game had ~500k wishlists Every single one of them got a pop-up on the game's release. Some of my friends got it, despite not having wishlisted it. ~12k out of 500k checked it on release date because the game had mixed reviews and scandals surrounding it. Tim blames Steam algorithms. Classic.
Don't worry, Gobsmack is on the case to save this game from oblivion!
Today he uploaded a new image without any context. Some sort of goop that can be applied to buildings, sort of like the contaminate feature of the Overseer in SC2, maybe?
With no more management oversight, I wonder if this new patch will end up with infinite scope creep? Sort of like Star Citizen, but without the endless money fountain.
On November 15 2025 03:35 Jeremy Reimer wrote: Don't worry, Gobsmack is on the case to save this game from oblivion!
Today he uploaded a new image without any context. Some sort of goop that can be applied to buildings, sort of like the contaminate feature of the Overseer in SC2, maybe?
With no more management oversight, I wonder if this new patch will end up with infinite scope creep? Sort of like Star Citizen, but without the endless money fountain.
From Temu SC (StarCraft) to Temu SC (Star Citizen). To be serious, making the "new" content instead of delievering the promised is scummy and delusional.
I find the whole situation higly surreal and irritating. Everybody knows FG is toast. Why the spectacle?
Tim makes me appreciate Battle Aces more and more.
On November 15 2025 03:35 Jeremy Reimer wrote: Don't worry, Gobsmack is on the case to save this game from oblivion!
Today he uploaded a new image without any context. Some sort of goop that can be applied to buildings, sort of like the contaminate feature of the Overseer in SC2, maybe?
With no more management oversight, I wonder if this new patch will end up with infinite scope creep? Sort of like Star Citizen, but without the endless money fountain.
From Temu SC (StarCraft) to Temu SC (Star Citizen). To be serious, making the "new" content instead of delievering the promised is scummy and delusional.
I find the whole situation higly surreal and irritating. Everybody knows FG is toast. Why the spectacle?
Tim makes me appreciate Battle Aces more and more.
I honestly think this is just Gobsmack wanting to be the Big Cheese Who Saves Stormgate With His Incredible Ideas, and everybody else has just moved on.
Tim Morten keeps promising that "encouraging conversations" will lead to some sort of ill-defined "partnership" that could save the company, but the longer things go on without any news, the less likely this is to happen. And the whole idea was ridiculous in the first place. "Partners" don't show up to save bankrupt game companies whose first game had massive hype and was an even more massive flop.
This has never happened in the history of gaming, from what I can tell. There have been buyouts of bankrupt companies (Bobby Kotick buying Activision back in the day is the most famous example) but they completely replaced the existing management, which Tim Morten would never allow. Also, Activision back in the day had a bunch of hits and only ran out of money because of bad management decisions (did you know they tried renaming the company 'Mediagenic' and tried to branch into business software?)
Gobsmack was a superfan who loved to make videos about how he could "save Stormgate" with his clever ideas (spoilers: these ideas were terrible) and when he was finally hired by Frost Giant, it must have been a dream come true for him. His profile image on LinkedIn is him with a massive grin in front of the outdoor Frost Giant office sign, with all the other company names blurred out. That in itself is weird. But his subsequent behavior on the Discord shows all the signs of someone who simply can't accept the reality that the company is done. Tim lets him work on the game, doing whatever he wants, simply because Tim can't let go of the dream either.
But the truth is that even a stellar game developer couldn't save Stormgate on his own. And Gobsmack was a junior developer (he hates it when people call him an intern) whose only prior experience was in web dev. He's in over his head, and he probably knows it.
The whole saga is so ridiculous that it's fascinating.
On November 15 2025 05:04 Jeremy Reimer wrote: Tim Morten keeps promising that "encouraging conversations" will lead to some sort of ill-defined "partnership" that could save the company, but the longer things go on without any news, the less likely this is to happen. And the whole idea was ridiculous in the first place. "Partners" don't show up to save bankrupt game companies whose first game had massive hype and was an even more massive flop. This has never happened in the history of gaming, from what I can tell.
Tim is having encouraging discussions with Vandelay Industries. The CEO, Art Vandelay loves RTS games.
On November 15 2025 05:04 Jeremy Reimer wrote: Tim Morten keeps promising that "encouraging conversations" will lead to some sort of ill-defined "partnership" that could save the company, but the longer things go on without any news, the less likely this is to happen. And the whole idea was ridiculous in the first place. "Partners" don't show up to save bankrupt game companies whose first game had massive hype and was an even more massive flop. This has never happened in the history of gaming, from what I can tell.
Tim is having encouraging discussions with Vandelay Industries. The CEO, Art Vandelay loves RTS games.
On November 11 2025 23:15 ChillFlame wrote: Not to mention this is a "AAA" companies' psyop to justify their inefficiency and price increases, but people repeat it like parrots without thinking.
I mean, you gotta pay dozens of managers somehow, and the e-sports coordinators years before your game is even released etc.
When I was still working at a big corp last year I had the feeling that for every developer there were like 3-5 different managers who just loved to talk about processes, pipelines and schedule meetings to decide when another meeting is going to take place etc. Gotta get all of those SLAs and OKRs in check, so that we can work towards some MVP for a vague feature that we'll probably never finish...
In the end, everyone was confused and just tried to look busy while no actual work that matters was being done. Example: Feature that could be done by 2-3 devs within 2-3 weeks. Corp assigns 15 devs and some managers, 6 months later there's not even a beta of the feature in sight.
Agile in theory: You divide the work into smaller chunks so you can iterate over them quickly and adapt to changes. Agile in practice: All work is constantly being changed, goalposts being shifted and nothing is ever "done".
So I finally gave the single player campaign a shoot.
Jeez, it's worse then I thought.
There are some fun story elements, sure, but the whole thing just feels so, so cheap and uninspired. There is no polish, even the loading screen art is low res, the "ship as a quest hub" feature of the campaign is so badly done that Starcraft 2 WOL looks like a game from 10 years in the future compared to SG, it's so clunky, zoomed in, polygonated, there are no animations for anything, my fiancee who was in game dev as a producer almost fell out of her chair when I told her what the budget was.
Honestly this shit should have a "Fyre festival" type documentary filmed on it because this being the final product is honestly insane.
The fact that my experience was crowned by them wanting me to pay for the rest of campaign left me so floored, the gall on these people.
On November 17 2025 23:03 Jankisa wrote: the "ship as a quest hub" feature of the campaign is so badly done that Starcraft 2 WOL looks like a game from 10 years in the future compared to SG, it's so clunky, zoomed in, polygonated, there are no animations for anything, my fiancee who was in game dev as a producer almost fell out of her chair when I told her what the budget was..
Remember JoeRay's TV and jukebox?
After every mission, you get a unique and fully animated news episode with Donnie. After the Corhal show, you even interact with him indirectly, sending the poor fella to the hospital. We get an alternative Dominion propaganda narrative. There's even a note from the owner after Jimmy debates with the TV in the first cutscene.
Jukebox is also awesome. A full set of covers helps to create a cozy atmosphere of a southern space bar. There are even record-flipping and needle-scratching sounds. I love that Elvis record. It plays fitting tracks during the bar cutscenes, and it's even a part of the narrative during the bar brawl.
I'm pretty sure TV and jukebox have more character than Amara and Blockade.
They did all that campaign within the last year, scrambling to put together that looked something better than before. (Before was much worse). It was a big improvement, but definitely still felt "cheap" compared to other RTS campaigns. Overall I still enjoyed the gameplay, but it certainly wasn't as good as the old Blizzard SC/BW/SC2/War3 campaigns.
They needed more money and time, but it felt like if they had more money/time it wouldn't have been spent on improving the Vanguard campaign anyway.
I'm sure it takes a long time to get a game studio and ideas going, but I bet they wished they could have saved some money somewhere and squeezed out another few months of development.
I asked ChatGPT how it felt about Stormgate. It was pretty positive and enthusiastic. I felt bad dashing its hopes by getting it up to speed on its current state.
On November 11 2025 23:15 ChillFlame wrote: Not to mention this is a "AAA" companies' psyop to justify their inefficiency and price increases, but people repeat it like parrots without thinking.
I mean, you gotta pay dozens of managers somehow, and the e-sports coordinators years before your game is even released etc.
When I was still working at a big corp last year I had the feeling that for every developer there were like 3-5 different managers who just loved to talk about processes, pipelines and schedule meetings to decide when another meeting is going to take place etc. Gotta get all of those SLAs and OKRs in check, so that we can work towards some MVP for a vague feature that we'll probably never finish...
In the end, everyone was confused and just tried to look busy while no actual work that matters was being done. Example: Feature that could be done by 2-3 devs within 2-3 weeks. Corp assigns 15 devs and some managers, 6 months later there's not even a beta of the feature in sight.
Agile in theory: You divide the work into smaller chunks so you can iterate over them quickly and adapt to changes. Agile in practice: All work is constantly being changed, goalposts being shifted and nothing is ever "done".
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9waeZL5.png)
