Topic: Descent reboot confirmed! (Descent Underground)

[Hunter]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=251821609
Playable test builds available right now (for Windows and Linux).

DU deserve just as much support and love from the community as both Geocore and SC. After many lengthly discussions and observations of the dev team, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to support it.

[tueidj]

After many lengthly discussions and observations of the dev team, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to support it.

That's exactly why I don't want to support them - they keep constantly changing their plans as each day goes by.
First there wasn't going to be singleplayer, now there is (except it's a "mini-campaign", the full compaign sounds like it will be DLC).
Microtransactions weren't mentioned from the start. Then they were claimed to be "cosmetic only". Then when it was pointed out that purchasing whole new ships is not a cosmetic change, they responded by saying that those purchases are not considered to be microtransactions because they would be around $30 (!). Regardless it can be practically guaranteed that real money will somehow be tied to the in-game currency, either with direct purchases or by purchasing ships and selling them off; or do they not plan to have a fully working economy that allows assets to be traded? Otherwise the idea of having in-game currency seems a bit pointless.
They claim they're not getting paid for this, but want $600,000 to get it off the ground. Sure sounds like they expect to get paid.

Basically they say they're big Descent fans, but their actions look like they're just in it for the money. Every time the crowd volume reaches a certain point about a particular feature, they backtrack. And while it's all well and good to say "we're listening to what the players want and adjusting our plans based on that", that's just a PR spin on "we got caught trying to do something sneaky." If they're really going to let the fans have free reign and decide what does and doesn't get included, how did they have any idea what to put for the KS goal? It's likely just a made up number they've pulled out of a hat with no real breakdown-of-costs behind it, because at this stage they don't even know themselves what content will/won't be included.

I'm actually waiting to see what happens when someone raises the absence of the reactor gameplay mechanic, since it was an essential element of the original games but it's not mentioned in any of their game modes (and will likely be hand-waved away as part of the "it's a prequel" story).
I'd also raise issue with their claim that all the older assets are unusable (as they belong to someone else) since nearly all of the sound effects were sourced from free-for-commercial-use collections.

[Pumo]

I'm actually waiting to see what happens when someone raises the absence of the reactor gameplay mechanic, since it was an essential element of the original games but it's not mentioned in any of their game modes (and will likely be hand-waved away as part of the "it's a prequel" story).
I'd also raise issue with their claim that all the older assets are unusable (as they belong to someone else) since nearly all of the sound effects were sourced from free-for-commercial-use collections.

AFAIK, stuff like the Pyro and the PTMC are the property of Parallax Software, that got divided into Outrage (non-existant now) and Volition, and it would be a true PITA to ask for permision to use that stuff from a splitted company.

Some people doesn't realize this, but to make a full Descent game is not as easy as it seems in regards to copyright.
Interplay is not the only company to have a word regarding the license of Descent stuff, they only have property over the brand.

[tueidj]

Some people doesn't realize this, but to make a full Descent game is not as easy as it seems in regards to copyright.
Interplay is not the only company to have a word regarding the license of Descent stuff, they only have property over the brand.

If that were the case they would have had no right to request that Sol Contingency stop using anything from Descent besides the name. But they requested removal of levels, weapons, models, sound effects, anything remotely related to the original games, citing their exclusive right to "duplicate, distribute and prepare derivative works of Descent and its sequels". In other words, they claimed the IP wholy and completely belongs exclusively to them.

(And that alone is a load of bullshit since as I stated earlier, most of the sound effects came from free-for-use collections.)

[Scyphi]

This is what Descenters having been waiting for for nearly two decades and this team are probably the closest we'll ever get to the RIGHT kind of team. They aren't perfect, but do you really want a 'Press A to open door' type Descent title in 5 years time? Because that's what you might end up getting. Reject this project at great risk, guys. Just chill and give it a chance.

Yeah, Sol Contingency may be better and we may like it more, but whether we like it or not, it won't have the Descent brand nor assets on it, so it won't be an official Descent title, period.

So there's no better oportunity to get an official Descent game than this one, don't let their KS campaign fail, I would really LOVE to see a new Descent game on the Steam store!! 

Actually, to be perfectly frank, I would rather see Descent left alone and to continue to languish in inactivity rather than have it be half-heartedly revived with a game that will miss the mark, in hopes someone will eventually come along and do it better. And if no one ever comes, then maybe that just means that Descent, as painful as it'd be to admit it, has had it's day, and it's time to let it go and move on. Whatever the case I'm not going to support a game purely out of the principle of promoting the Descent name because I'm not so desperate that I just want to merely see the Descent name back on the market. There's more to Descent than just the name. What I want is a Descent game, like the one's previous I've been playing all this time. I want a game I can point at with absolute confidence and truthfully state "THAT is Descent!" and I can't do that with Underground yet. If the game can't make that promise, then odds are I'm not playing it, and if I'm not playing it, then what's the point?

Worse still is that I'm clearly not alone in this mentality. There are plenty of other long-time Descent fans both here and elsewhere that are skeptical about Underground, and it seems to me that if Descendant sticks to the first impressions they've given, they stand to alienate a good portion of the Descent fanbase, and seeing the game's promoting the use of the Descent name so much, that's exactly who both Descendant and Interplay are banking on getting all of the profit from. So they're setting themselves up to lose money if this holds true, and we've really just wasted everybody's time on the matter.

But that being said...

Don't think I've personally lost all faith in Underground, because that's not true. Descendant Studios certainly aren't a gaggle of idiots, and the more I learn about them the more that glimmer of hope starts to grow. The fact they're taking note of our first impressions and already looking to make changes where they can to compensate does indeed suggest they have the right intentions. They're facing entirely in the right direction...I'm just not confident they're wholly on the right path.

Yet.

Which is something I believe is not too late to fix. I cannot justify supporting Underground financially yet, but I intend to "support" it in another way, by seeing to it my voice is heard as best as I can, and if Descendant is willing to listen, and we've certainly got no evidence that they aren't, then I plan to continually give my input on what they do with the hope it'll help them build a better Descent game in the end. I may seem unrepentantly scathing and critical about the game still, but that's just me being upfront, blunt, and honest; my way of trying to help this game make it as the Descent game we're looking for.

Right now I'm still probing for details, trying to get a "feel" for what Underground actually is at present. Once I've got a clearer picture on that, I intend to react accordingly, and give Descendant my thoughts on what they've got so far in earnest. Hopefully they'll meet the praise of Hunter and Pumo and lend a patient and listening ear to my ranting.

I know most are looking for that "Descent" feel, but maybe a change is good. If it fails at giving us a "Descent" feel, maybe it's still going to be a fun game.

Here's something funny; I tend to think the same. In fact, I'd like to consider myself fairly open-minded about this sort of thing, usually. I embraced things like AbramsTrek and Sonic Boom with open arms, both of which took radical departures from their past entries in their respective franchises, and often would point my finger and ridicule at the haters that arose in response, accusing them of being closed-minded. So I'm actually a bit shocked and embarrassed at myself for feeling so...negative...towards Underground. So much so that at first I thought maybe it was just the initial reaction and that I'd warm up to the idea after I'd had a chance to sleep on it. But nope, still look at that trailer for Underground and feel something's amiss and it doesn't sit well with me.

I mean, I'm not against change. Change can be good. And I think Descendant's got some good ideas already that I'm willing to explore. It just all doesn't feel...right...yet.

So again, I may seem negative, but I'm trying to keep it negative with an ulterior purpose, to try and encourage other changes for the better, and not just be flat-out hateful and unhelpful.

Besides, tueidji seems to have us covered on that department, and I wouldn't want to step on his toes or anything.

I'm actually waiting to see what happens when someone raises the absence of the reactor gameplay mechanic, since it was an essential element of the original games but it's not mentioned in any of their game modes (and will likely be hand-waved away as part of the "it's a prequel" story).

I'd actually would be SHOCKED if they even did address the reactor mechanic, much less attempt to implement it, as I'm not at all expecting them to. It did feature heavily in the first two games, but by the third, it was clearly starting to feel a little overdone and D3 was right to decide it was time for a change, as it also helped to promote more creativity with the levels and the gameplay within them. I would think Descendant would want to continue that with Underground. And I'd actually totally buy the "it's a prequel" excuse. With the chaotic environment they seem to be setting it in, a fusion reactor seems like it'd be too tricky a thing to set up and maintain in such a turbulent environment anyway.

AFAIK, stuff like the Pyro and the PTMC are the property of Parallax Software, that got divided into Outrage (non-existant now) and Volition, and it would be a true PITA to ask for permision to use that stuff from a splitted company.

Some people doesn't realize this, but to make a full Descent game is not as easy as it seems in regards to copyright.
Interplay is not the only company to have a word regarding the license of Descent stuff, they only have property over the brand.

Then that would mean Interplay really only owns Descent in name only, something I've already been long suspecting up until now (hence why they've done so little with it up 'til now), and it'd be just like Interplay to not even make an attempt at getting permission to use the rest.

But I have to side with tueidj on this and question if that's really true, at least in its entirety. Not only is there the fact that Interplay DID claim full possession to Descent when they (tried to) shut down Sol Contingency, surely whatever rights that belonged with the other companies have lapsed by now (at least in the case of D1; it is twenty years old now). Outrage isn't even around to complain and I don't think THQ, who I believe were the ones inherited what was left of them, even knows they might have anything pertaining to Descent, and even if they did, it can't possibly be enough to do anything with. And I know Volition has next to nothing on Descent, otherwise they would've tried to do something with Descent by now too (I know they've got people over there who are willing). Interplay is actually the only one who has ever made any attempt at all to keep their rights to Descent active, and convey an intention to use them. Granted, more for the profit than anything, but this fact still stands.

But then again, I'm no lawyer. Maybe I ought to add this to my list of inquires to Descendant Studios...see what they know about it and if they've got a straighter answer to give...

[Hunter]

If that were the case they would have had no right to request that Sol Contingency stop using anything from Descent besides the name. But they requested removal of levels, weapons, models, sound effects, anything remotely related to the original games, citing their exclusive right to "duplicate, distribute and prepare derivative works of Descent and its sequels". In other words, they claimed the IP wholy and completely belongs exclusively to them.

If that's true then I don't see what legal standing Interplay have to prevent SC from using assets such as the Pyro. I think we better call saul on this one *grabs phonebook*.

[Pumo]

I suppose the same that also applies to D:U? As it also doesn't features any of said stuff (robots, levels, ships, names).

I think that Interplay are just a bunch of braggarts that likes to show they are important and have lots of power by intimidating people, even if they are just a bunch of incompetent lawyers playing to be publishers (not even developers by now).

They don't want to admit that they don't have such power and that the licenses doesn't only belong to them.
I suppose Descendent Studios realized that just now, and that's why even if they got the name they won't want to risk any further the project with legal issues.

If Interplay shows they are not the total authority they would lose their 'fame' as an important publisher.

[tueidj]

I suppose the same that also applies to D:U? As it also doesn't features any of said stuff (robots, levels, ships, names).

That's what makes it ridiculous. The reason Interplay issued the cease and desist notice to SC was because they'd reached an agreement for D:U to carry on the franchise, yet it won't feature any of the content (besides the Descent name) that they claimed belonged to them and requested to be removed.

[Hunter]

The Torch-KS looks like a Pyro - Technically if your previous statement is correct, then they wouldn't be able to include the Torch in DU, either.

[tueidj]

The Torch-KS looks like a Pyro - Technically if your previous statement is correct, then they wouldn't be able to include the Torch in DU, either.

So why aren't they using the actual Pyro then?

[Hunter]

I guess you haven't been following closely - They've stated several times this is intended to be a prequel which predates the Pyro-GX, but perhaps not the 'origin' of the Pyro. But if the rights to the Pyro extend to it's physical shape, then perhaps the Torch is in breach of that? 

[Kaiaatzl]

They could always just talk to Volition.  The guys there seem to be reasonable people... moreso than Interplay who let them license the name and the setting.  And they're probably easier to contact.

[Scyphi]

Exactly my criticism on the matter. If Interplay's really is lacking in the full rights to Descent, then they've made no clear attempt to even try to obtain them, which is ridiculous, because I can't see people like Volition being unreasonable about it. But again, I question whether or not whatever rights to Descent people like Volition might are are even still legally valid. Remember, Interplay's own rights to Descent had lapsed back around 2008 before they went out of their way to reobtain them. Haven't heard the other parties who had been involved in Descent do the same.

Still, I'm starting to think that speculating about it ourselves will get us nowhere, especially as we don't know the facts. I think we need to ask these companies themselves and see what they can tell us.

[tueidj]

I guess you haven't been following closely - They've stated several times this is intended to be a prequel which predates the Pyro-GX, but perhaps not the 'origin' of the Pyro. But if the rights to the Pyro extend to it's physical shape, then perhaps the Torch is in breach of that? 

Apparently you weren't following the conversation when I already criticized their "it's a prequel" excuse which seems to get trotted out whenever someone mentions using content from the original game.
Unless Interplay gave them permission to use the name only, I don't see why they couldn't use any of the original assets or their likeness. The excuse of the IP belonging to other companies simply doesn't hold water (and I haven't actually seen anyone from DS using it, only commentators on their forum).

I think we need to ask these companies themselves and see what they can tell us.

Ha. Don't hold your breath for an answer since it would probably need to be ok'd by their legal department first, lest it wind up being used as part of a future action.

[Kaizerwolf]

There's been a lot of interesting points to read in this thread, and it's good to see the community so active.

I have to share a lot of Scyphi's opinions about this. While it would be fantastic for a new Descent game to hit the market, it just seems like a big money-grabbing play from Interplay. At the moment, even if the game is in a very, very early stage, it looks nothing like Descent. The common theme throughout the three existing games was (relatively) the same ship. Yes this may be a prequel, but it almost feels like it ruins the Descent name.

The developers don't even seem to have any ideas nailed down either. It seems to be a lot of promises, vague answers to community questions, more of a "please don't be mad at us, we want to do everything!" kind of attitude. From these forums and Descendant's, there seems to be a lot of speculation as to what they'll actually put in the game.

Furthermore, the idea that micro-transactions will exist at all is enough to make me mad. Even if they are purely cosmetic, that's the common trend for modern games, and I think it is not a good direction for the gaming community to head in. Even further, usually a game's single player is created first, with multiplayer taking its assets into further use on non-objective based maps later on. I don't quite understand their desire to launch a multiplayer game first.