Snowy Wasteland 3 Launches Crowdfunding On Fig

We already knew Wasteland 3 [official site] was coming out and that it was set in the frozen hinterlands of Colorado, because we have an incredible repository of knowledge and wisdom. But we didn’t know exactly what would be waiting for us there. A short trailer accompanied the game’s crowdfunding launch on Fig today and it reveals what we should have guessed all along. The only thing waiting for us in the frozen north is death by a cannibal’s axe. But there are some other details. Come see.

Blood on snow – the medium of all the best artists.

The developers, inXile, have started their fundraising efforts today on Fig, where they are hoping to raise $2.7 million for this new happy-go-lucky jaunt into human depravity. And they’re already over halfway to their goal, although that is because $1.31 million of the total raised so far has been pumped in by investment men in real, actual suits. That’s the way this particular fundraising site does things.

Fig is a bit different to the usual Kickfunders, you see, in that it includes investors. It also allows you, Joe Videogames, to put in a big wad of cash at a “non-accedited investor” level, in which case you get money back if the game turns a profit. It’s partly run by a board of directors that includes Tim “Millions” Schafer and inXile’s own head Brian “$$$” Fargo, both individuals with, er, some experience in crowdfunding. But obviously, becoming an investor is a little more complicated than that.

Wasteland 3 is throwing you in at the deep end of the frozen pool. You are the last surviving member of a destroyed Ranger team and you need to set up a base in this new land where nobody cares how important you were in the deserts of the previous games. Decisions and actions will change how your base grows in this one, say the devs. Meanwhile, they’re adding vehicles to the mix, introducing the ability to use them in combat, like the turret-happy squadmate in the trailer.

But plans for the multiplayer sound the most interesting. You’ll be able to play the campaign mode with a friend by linking your games together, and while you can do missions and continue your playthrough while they’re offline, that will still affect the world as a single place. In other words, your pal Dan will log on and wonder why his neighbouring clan of Snow Friends has been wiped out. “Whoops,” you might say. “I murdered them.”

Here’s how the devs describe it:

Wasteland 3 opens up the possibility to play through the campaign with a friend. Both of you will control your own squad of Rangers.

The core of Wasteland 3 will still be a rich single-player experience. If you play with a friend while both online together, you’ll be able to share many missions, and join up to hit key story beats, but you can also split up and cover more ground. Once a game is started, you can play Wasteland 3 while your friend is offline, and do a lot of missions without them. Be aware, however, that the actions you take while your friend is offline are not without consequence!

Wasteland 3 can be played as an offline, single-player game, and will be built from the ground up with a focus on story and reactivity that makes no sacrifices for the multiplayer experience. At the same time, co-op players will enjoy working together to change Wasteland 3’s highly reactive world… or finding ways to destroy what their friend has worked to accomplish.

You can take a look at the Figstarter for more blurbs like that and details on the various rewards for backers. They are aiming to have the game released in time for the blizzards of Christmas in 2019.


  1. Solidstate89 says:

    Fig is itself controversial enough that I will not be backing this game the way I did Wasteland 2.

    • Thurgret says:

      Doesn’t Tim Schafer’s reputation for following through on promises inspire confidence in the platform?

      • Lars Westergren says:

        I’m guessing you are sarcastic, but my answer to that is “yes”.

    • Zallgrin says:

      Fig is the reason why Consortium 2 managed to find funding, after having failed its Kickstarter campaign. I’m immensely grateful for that, and besides found Fig to be very transparent and pleasant to use.

      As for controversy, I don’t care unless people have actual solid proof for any wrong doings.

      • April March says:

        There’s controversy of the “these people are shady” kind and there’s controversy of “these people might not be aware of all the ramifications of what they’re doing” kind. Fig is the latter. I don’t doubt the good intentions of anyone involved with the site, but I there are many instances of good intentions bringing bad results, and when you add money to the mix you just triple the chances of that happening.

        I personally don’t think anything bad will happen, but ain’t wagering my money on it. I’ll buy this game when it comes out like my grandpapa used to.

    • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

      It’s only ‘controversial’ because modern gamers seem to be idiots.

      • Solidstate89 says:

        You’re right, severe conflicts of interest is only for idiots.

        • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

          All that video does is confirms that yes, you’re an idiot with no experience in making financial investments.

          Here’s a clue – if your ‘evidence’ comes from YouTube you’re a moron.

          • Emeraude says:

            Haven’t seen the video, but it’s always so refreshing to have a good old-fashioned argument of authority.

          • Solidstate89 says:

            OK, that’s all I needed was confirmation that you neither know what you’re talking about, nor care that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            See ya around never.

          • Nerdy Suit says:

            Exactly. If people think that both KS and Fig are shady, that’s fine. That makes sense. But someone acting like KS is somehow super trustworthy while Fig is not clearly demonstrates that someone has no idea what they’re talking about.

          • April March says:

            There are many shades of trust between “snake-oil salesman” and “Mother Theresa”, and it’s completely possible that the fact that Fig both promises to pay back investments in money and is owned by some of the people who are peddling their wares there might push it past the line of trust for some people.

            I don’t think the conflict of interest is much worse than you have with your average bank or Unilever-sized corporation. Take that as you will.

          • Dragonzeanse says:

            Don’t like, try to refute it or anything. Just dismiss all YouTube videos. Mmkay.

          • jrodman says:

            Well, that video doesn’t exactly inspire one to take it seriously, from the title alone. I’m certainly not interested in watching things with that loony-toons a title, any more than I’m inspired to read obvious yellow-journalism “news”.

            But dismissing it simply because it’s on youtube is kind of ridiculous.

        • suibhne says:

          I’m not even sure where to begin. I have a business degree, I work in financial services, and I recently completed a very large capital transaction with a global private equity firm – and that video is flabbergastingly dumb. It gets some terribly basic stuff wrong (perhaps deliberately, in an attempt to spread FUD); criticizes other practices that are standard for some types of equity issue; and basically boils down to “Fig is unethical because it’s owned by some of the same people who will seek investment via the platform”. If you believe that’s a problem, then you also have a fundamental issue with the way much equity investment is handled…and you should certainly divest from any large financial institution while you’re at it.

          This is sadly typical of the analytical rigor we’ve seen from the “ethics in gaming” crowd.

          I totally get criticisms of Schafer and DoubleFine. Heck, I’ll happily join in some of those. But sheesh, there’s no defensible connection to Fig as a platform or as a company.

      • Sizeable Dirk says:

        The non-idiotic thing is to back promises with strange overlapping interest without any proven history and better don’t question any of it?

        Pre-order more and earlier, fill your shelves with more plastic crap, throw money into corporate black pits, consume and don’t question anything.
        Don’t Be An Idiot, Be Smart and hand over your money and don’t ask questions.

        • Goatcheese says:

          Don’t waste your breath, these people just want to burn everything that Tim Schaffer touches to the ground because he did something with a sock puppet three years ago. All they know how to do is just post a video with some other talking head who can dig through a huge amount of paperwork and suspend disbelief that he knows what he’s talking about. Fig got SEC qualification, that means more than some rando journo who’s trying to make a name for himself and who may or may not have studied finance in college, and if he did, probably not even in the same country who’s laws he’s professing to be an “expert” on.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      Unfortunately, I have to follow suit. Fergus and Fargo aren’t enough for me to hold my nose concerning Schafer, and while I have no reason to distrust InXile (great track record), I would prefer the ‘buffer’ of Kickstarter itself. Having members of the development team also on the board of directors of the funding mechanism just doesn’t seem healthy.

      Happy to buy the game on release though, obviously.

      • Nerdy Suit says:

        But what is this “buffer” that you think KS provides that Fig does not? Fig is literally the same thing except people can also invest. Both have similar site security. Neither provide refunds. This strange and unfounded idea that KS (from the perspective of an average backer) is somehow radically different from Fig makes no sense.

        • Emeraude says:

          Well, one significant difference was in the framing. One reason why I’m out of KS is that, to me the idea was that it was donation, patronage. Obviously the money was “lost”, because it was meant to, the whole point was in allowing the existence of things that would not otherwise come to pass.

          Regardless of any issue I may have with KS (and which hold as true to Fig), I find the model crumbles to dust if you want to turn it into (equity) investment. It’s not a good model for investors, it was not meant for it.

          • Sizeable Dirk says:

            It’s like the crowd funding model is going full circle and is nibbling on the publisher model tail.

            If you want to gamble in creative projects through a company with a small chance of growing your investment there are already ways to do that through the regular old economy without making up a new investment models listing (the boat noun) even more toward the funded to minimise their risk.

          • suibhne says:

            I’m not saying a return is guaranteed via Fig. There’s no track record there yet – not just for Fig, but for micro-investing in game projects more generally. But it’s crazy to pretend that a 30-40% return over 2-3 years is easily available elsewhere in the economy. It just isn’t, at least in the US. Over the past 2 years, you’d have been lucky to do much better in equities than 3-5% total. Without doing any complex financial math, I’m at least satisfied that Fig’s reasonably potential return is in line with its risk profile.

        • PancakeWizard says:

          “But what is this “buffer” that you think KS provides that Fig does not?”

          Accountability, albeit a minimal amount. Fig has zero.

          • Goatcheese says:

            You realize investments are much more heavily regulated than donations right? Cuz that’s like investment 101…

          • suibhne says:

            That’s absurd. Donation via Kickstarter offers basically the same accountability and risk as donation via Fig, and investment via Fig offers far more accountability than either. You’re just flat-out wrong.

      • Goatcheese says:

        Ever heard the phrase “cut off your nose to spite your face..?”

        I’m guessing you are a nose-less person.

    • BobbyDylan says:

      Agreed. I’m not creating another account on another website. Sorry, Fargo. Shoulda gone to Kickstarter. Of funded from your own site.

  2. Thurgret says:

    Nothing in their pitch really explains how they’re going to make it better than Wasteland 2 – which had various problems – except in the most nebulous terms possible. Am I missing some more detailed document?

    • Lars Westergren says:

      Combat will add buffs & debuffs to the existing system of cover, height and damage types which should add some strategic depth. Vehicles with weapons as well, as can be seen in the gameplay trailer

      They promise a deeper storyline (whatever that means), more evil choices, branching dialogue based system like Torment instead of the more linear keyword based system of Wasteland 2.

      Improved graphics which certainly looks like they will be able to fulfill from the gameplay trailer. Plus they have the people behind Statis on board who also made the beautiful isometric RPG screenshot re-imaginings of games like Bioshock.

      Plus synchronous or async multiplayer like in Divinity: Original Sin 2, but I’m more meh about that.

  3. Lars Westergren says:

    > $1.31 million of the total raised so far has been pumped in by investment men in real, actual suits

    *Looks down at stained sweater*.

    I’m doing this wrong apparently.

  4. Fry says:

    Multiplayer. Bleh.

    • klo3 says:

      Multiplayer. Or multiple players.

      Men in real suits. Or women. People in general, in all kind on clothes. Clicking away with on their mice. Tapping away on their keyboards. Game controllers. Input devices. In front of their monitors. Displays. Television sets.

      Functions. Making code execute. Locally on the client. Memory addresses. Heaps. Over a network. Bit-streams. Synchronously and asynchronously. In a remote location. In the cloud. Making variables change far, far away. Making text display. Making pixels shift. Making sounds play.

  5. Emeraude says:

    Well, without me that one, but I’ll definitely buy on release if those other pending games of their I backed deliver.

  6. caff says:

    I’ve never bought or played Wasteland 2, after reading some fairly negative reviews about RNG “issues” and fairly restrictive characterisation/skills trees – is this still a fair reflection of the game, or has that been patched/worked on?

    If I’m to back Wasteland 3 I’d at least want to know the precursor was decent enough.

    • Emeraude says:

      I think it’s a mess of game that really suffers from lack of editorial cohesion, from a design standpoint.

      That being said, it’s my kind of a mess. Throws you into the action, with all your verbs and variables, and trusts you to experiment, however crazy the idea. Can be a lot more infuriating than more streamlined experiences, but I also find it a lot more satisfactory when it works.

      Still, always terribly disappointing when you end up with what amount to a pre-scripted event clearly built to prevent experimentation in the middle of it all, and it happens.

      All in all, it’s one of those games I wouldn’t recommend to someone whose tastes I don’t know well enough, but I think that if you’re able to forgive a rough overall package for some good individual moments, it’s definitely worth a try for fans of the genre.

      • Sizeable Dirk says:

        Sounds exactly like my experiences with UFO: Aftershock, Silent Storm or Fallout: Tactics. Messy romances and so many harsh words and flower pots thrown across The Room.
        I have to get around to wherever Wasteland 2 is in the backlog.

    • Booker says:

      I’ve played Wasteland 2 4 times start to finish, no idea what you are talking about.

    • BloatedGuppy says:

      Probably not a popular opinion, but I really didn’t care much for Wasteland 2. I thought it was the worst offender of the recent glut of “throwback” RPGs that pillaged the look/feel of infinity engine era gaming without having any of the innovation or energy or creative spark that made those games classics. A case of imitation rather than iteration or improvement, and a shabby imitation of a 20 year old formula at that.

      The game was graphically ugly (the character models especially were ridiculously hideous…Wasteland 3, at least, seems to have improved here). The control scheme was kludgy. The tactics were “XCOM lite”, distilled/streamlined down to the absolute basics with little depth or sophistication. The RPG mechanics were beyond abysmal, overtly broken in many respects and just a terrible game system from top to bottom. The writing was pedestrian and the storytelling was boring.

      Its one real virtue is that it’s a throwback, so if you’re nostalgic or you think the sun rises and sets on isometric text-heavy RPGs from the 90’s, then you might find it to be a refreshing cup of water. Personally, I find it to be a rather startling disappointment, and a cautionary reminder that kickstarted RPGs should come accompanied by crashingly low expectations.

      • Someoldguy says:

        I think it was pretty good, but not excellent. There were definite branching options to explore giving you multiple routes through the game and the choices you made definitely affected the outcome for the different groups of people you encounter, not just which NPCs you could recruit. However there’s something about running a party of ‘people with guns’ that just doesn’t work as well for me as a party with differing abilities like fantasy has with its damage sponge fighters, crowd controlling or AoE wizards, versatile clerics and fragile DPS rogues. By the time I leave Arizona I’m getting pretty bored of shooting everything because even though there are plenty of non-combat skills in the system, the bulk of the game is gunplay. Somehow it has more of the feel of Fallout: Tactics than Fallout.

      • Booker says:

        It seems to be more of a silly opinion. It’s so funny that the first thing you complain about is the graphics while holding up infinity games (which Wasteland wasn’t supposed to be similar to, btw – you are thinking of Pillars of Eternity – perfect confusion) when infinity games were ugly as shit. Especially the infinity games were loved for their story, characters and quests and maybe complexity too – but certainly never the graphics.

        Wasteland 2 did hit all the marks, because it was exactly the game they had promised in their pitch and it so clearly was a game that never would have been made without crowd-funding. And this is what it was all about.

        • Fry says:

          The character models in Infinity Engine games weren’t great. The backgrounds, however, were quite nice. Certainly better looking than the 3D art of the time.

          • Booker says:

            No one mentions the graphics though as the thing that made them love infinity games and remember them to this day.

    • Nerdy Suit says:

      WL2 is one of the most engrossing experiences I’ve played recently. It has an 82% rating on Steam. And the RNG is totally fine. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      I absolutely loved WL2. I played the heck out of it in Beta…even through multiple patch releases that had me restarting. It was my GOTY year that year. I loved the exploration aspect, the humor, the easter eggs, etc. And I love turn based combat. To each his own I guess. I’m in at about $130 with some add-ons.

  7. AngoraFish says:

    I was tempted, mainly due to UnderRail thrown in and $5 off for previous backers.

    I checked in and saw that I’d already missed out on ‘early bird’ tier pricing and now have to pay $8 extra for a copy just because the fig email arrived when I was asleep.

    Decided that I’ll wait to get the game in a Steam Summer Sale one day.

    I’ve backed over 100 crowd funded games, but as a matter of principle I now say no to any campaign with shitty ‘early bird’ tier pricing. As if 12 hours too late on a game that probably won’t come out for another two years is apparently not early bird enough. Blargh.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Amen to that, some of us have jobs. There’s also the fact that an increasing base tier price means the customer takes more and more of the risk. I would back at $25, but not at $33.

      I did like Wasteland 2 though.

      • Booker says:

        What risk? Unless there’s an apocalypse or something, inxile is going to finish the game they’ve described. And if the apocalypse happens, a game will be the least of your worries.

        • Emeraude says:

          Well, there’s always the one of not being there anymore by the time the game gets released. As we grow older, that’s one we have to contemplate more and more.

          Granted, it helps relativize the “loss” quite a bit.

          • Booker says:


            You are joking, right? It’s also just a re-hash of what I just said. It’s the same as the apocalypse happening. When you are dead, you CAN’T care anymore about having crowdfunded a game… Duh?
            In fact, if you are about to die soon, or before Wasteland 3 releases at least, this would be all the more reason to back this game, because one of your last actions would have been to make a lot of people who want this happy. :P

          • Emeraude says:

            Only half joking. But then one death does not an Apocalypse make.

            That being said, while certainly you don’t have much to care about when in death, you can easily find there’s better uses of your resources in light of it while alive.

        • InternetBatman says:

          There’s several risks:
          1. That your life will have changed and you won’t be able to play by the time it comes out.
          2. That the game won’t be good. Wasteland 2 was fine, Choplifter and Hunted looked less fine.
          3. That the game doesn’t come out. They could burn through money they didn’t have. It’s very rare, but it’s been known to happen in software development.

          • Booker says:

            None of these 3 points are really valid reasons. Or they only would be if you put massive money into this. Just don’t then. I chose the $25 option, which is 22€ about now, so it’s hardly worth thinking about the “risks” of loosing the amount of money that would allow me to go see a movie one single evening or eat something.
            Especially since they are also giving you UnderRail or Stasis for free… Stasis btw costs 20 bucks (and I’ve wanted to play this for a while), so not only isn’t this a risk, I’m getting more for my money than I would otherwise.

            Fargo’s troupe has also always delivered their games. I like WL2 a lot and Torment (I played the public beta) is going to be good too. They have earned their trust.

      • welverin says:

        I feel the same as you two, big reason I didn’t even consider Bard’s Tale.

        What’s worse with these guys is and really turned me off supporting them, is with Torment every time a limit tire sold out they just created a new one at a slightly higher price and kept doing so right up to the end of the campaign.

        That just made it even more scummy.

  8. Phantom_Renegade says:

    The only entity capable of holding crowdfunded stuff accountable is the entity through which it is crowdfunded. When the ceo of the company you’re crowdfunding is on the board of the company that should hold him accountable, you’re an idiot when you put money in.

    Getting shit from kickstarter is hard enough, fig is worse, just read the TOS. I get that they don’t want to give KS a cut of the money. They should get that when their TOS is a big middle finger, I’ll buy when it’s done. Also, any such board that has Schafer on it is a joke.

    • eeguest says:

      Amen bro

    • Hobbes says:

      The first half of this is largely what the SEC is still holding things up over for non certified investors, because of the clear conflicts of interest that crop up from board members promoting *THEIR OWN PROJECTS* on the site and polling for investment using what is allegedly a neutral indie investor friendly platform. Schafer made the announcement that all DF games will go through Fig because that way if things go sideways he can roll fig up, take all the money, and keep DF running whilst leaving Fig backers (of all shapes and sizes) with zero legal recourse.

      It makes Indiegogo look relatively regulated (and that’s not something you hear every day).

      In short, do not trust Fig or any Fig project with money you could not afford to roll up and smoke as a cigar. This does generally apply to Kickstarter type projects but when it comes to Fig I automatically drop -all- projects into the “junk grade investment / I’d rather invest in Greek 10yr Bonds” bracket.

      • Booker says:

        “Schafer made the announcement that all DF games will go through Fig because that way if things go sideways he can roll fig up, take all the money, and keep DF running whilst leaving Fig backers (of all shapes and sizes) with zero legal recourse.”

        So weird you forgot the link to the source. :D

      • Hobbes says:

        Well since you asked so nicely –

        link to

        “Justin left to start Fig. I’m on the advisory board along with Brian Fargo and Feargus Urquhart. We see this as the way of funding our games in the future, bigger games.”

        As for the information concerning Fig’s shell structure, that’s something you’ll have to research, there’s plenty of youtube videos explaining it for the peanut gallery, and no, I’m not going to do your homework for you on this one because I’ve already done it and it was time consuming the first time (dissecting financial instrument documents are always migraine inducing). I discussed this and I’m not going through the hassle of repeating that a -second time- just to satisfy some random internet pleb.

        • Booker says:

          That link – surprise – doesn’t confirm any of your crap.

      • Goatcheese says:

        They got their SEC qualification. So what’s your next theory?

        Hey I get it, there’s a lot of animosity toward supporting games before they’re finished. I think it’s totally logical to wait until they are complete and buy them then. But why turd on those who want to support things early? They’re not dumb, they’re just more passionate about it than you.

        • Hobbes says:

          Someone didn’t read. Which means I’m not going to explain for the peanut gallery. Read my post in full before spouting nonsense.

          Getting SEC qualification for “qualified” investors isn’t hard, anything else *IS* because no surprises, the SEC doesn’t look kindly on investment vehicles set up in such a way that they can be “rolled up” to leave nothing in their wake and all the money with another company. Qualified investors are people who assume risk and know full well what they’re getting into, and have money to smoke as cigars.

          That still doesn’t elevate this mess above “Greece” level investment status in my book. The entire financial instrument is one giant piece of bubble wrap designed to offer DoubleFine a money cushion if things go awry.

          • Booker says:

            If the SEC doesn’t look kindly upon it, why are they then making it so easy to get their qualification? :P Your mumbling has more holes than a swiss cheese dude. :D

          • Goatcheese says:

            And speaking of reading, SEC qualification is for UNACCREDITED investor (i.e. “not rich people”).

    • Grayman says:

      I thought about it for a bit. Initially turned off by Tim Schafer’s involvement. I come to the conclusion though that kickstarter offers zero guarantee so I can’t logically look at Fig as being worse than that.

      • Nerdy Suit says:

        Exactly. I have zero issue if people think both KS and Fig are shady. That’s a totally reasonable opinion. But acting like KS is somehow better or somehow offers guarantees and security that Fig does not is extremely silly. If inXile fails to come through, KS management wouldn’t hold inXile any more accountable than Fig. Whether you back inXile on KS or Fig, it’s the same damn thing – you’re giving money to inXile and hope that they follow through.

    • Nerdy Suit says:

      Lol @ your idea that KS’ board actually even attempts to hold the creators that don’t deliver on their products accountable. Honestly, this idea that some of you guys have that KS and Fig are somehow radically different is laughable.

      • Booker says:

        Totally. The only difference is that Fargo won’t have to give as much money to KS and keep more for the actual development of the game.

  9. Disgruntled Goat says:

    inExile already has two Kickstarted games that they haven’t released yet. And the one crowd-funded game they did manage to release (W2) was a mess.

    Sorry, my wallet is staying in my pocket on this one.

    • Booker says:

      I loved Wasteland 2, it was exactly what they had promised. I played it 4 times. Had lots of fun each time. I’d even play it a fifth time at some point. It’s this good.

      I also played the Torment public beta and this too, is exactly what they promised. The game is basically done at this point and their are only still doing stuff like localization.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      If you think Wasteland 2 was ‘a mess’ you must’ve only ever played 16-bit era first party Nintendo games to have such high standards, or you’re being hyperbolic and going with the contrarian crowd. Nothing wrong with that game at all.

      They’ve Kickstarted 3 games: 1 is ‘gold’, another is in open beta launching in January and the third is in heavy development. The fact they are starting work on their next project is not unusual.

      • DarkFenix says:

        Wasteland 2 was a mess. Also, shocker, ‘normal’ people can have different opinions to you.

        • PancakeWizard says:

          Saying a game is ‘a mess’ is a strong enough opinion that it requires some justification. Saying you just don’t like something would be more appropriate than making wild assertions.

        • DelrueOfDetroit says:

          Also betting pretty hard on the assumption that Disgruntled Goat is a ‘normal’ person.

        • Booker says:

          No it wasn’t a mess. It did exactly what was promised.

          • Emeraude says:

            The two propositions are not mutually exclusive though.

            To a point, I would even say I did not expect the promise to be kept in any orderly fashion. The kind of game W2 wanted to be calls for a mess.

            A beautiful one.

    • Goatcheese says:

      Makes sense. I’m actually getting tired of all the KS updates I get. I just write them off when they go over 100. When are those two guys from Andromeda going to finally ship their game?

    • Janichsan says:

      Torment is almost done and the team need a new project to stay busy (and employed) – that’s what Wasteland 3 is supposed to be. inXile did already the same when they started with Torment (it’s the same team that worked on WL2).

      The Bard’s Tale IV is being developed by a second, completely independent team.

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      Somebody doesn’t understand game development cycles. To simplify. Designers have finished Torment and have moved onto Bards Tale. Meanwhile programmers are finishing up Torment and will move to Bards Tale….right as those designers are ready to move to WL3. These guys aren’t “taking a stab at game dev and so we need to see if they can do it”. All game dev companies (except may super small indies) have multiple games in development simultaneously.

  10. sebmojo says:

    Wasteland 2 is a solid 7/10 game. They delivered what they said they were going to, then went back and made it better. I’m looking forward to the next one.

  11. keefybabe says:

    So because I don’t have millions in the bank, my $1000 for investment would be more risky and make less money.

    Ok, I don’t think I’ll be doing that then.

    • Goatcheese says:

      Yeah, I’m sure it’s a risky investment, but you know how much return you get off those $1,000+ rewards on KS? Zero, so at worst you’re just as bad off.

  12. Holysheep says:

    I loved Wasteland 2 but honestly this studio is full of shit. These “screenshots” are in fact completely bullshitted as they have nothing to do with that gameplay video, if it’s really a gameplay video – the difference between the “gameplay” part and the close up speech thingie is also very disconcerting.

    • Booker says:

      Wow you are so smart. You figured out that they couldn’t have actual gameplay of a game that hasn’t been developed yet, just as they so very obviously said themselves… Sometimes… :D

      About 100% of Kickstarters etc. show mockups. It’s just so that potential backers will have a rough idea how the final game is supposed to look like. Wasteland 2 came pretty close to their pitch. Anyone who doesn’t believe that they can do the same with Wasteland 3, shouldn’t back it then. No problem, right?

  13. mercyRPG says:

    Font sucks. Its coloring too. Looks like same crap as W2 with that horrible GUI that made me rage quit and equate this series of calamities as AvoidWare.

  14. kud13 says:

    I think it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to harbour deeper mistrust towards Fig (which has a built-in conflict of interest, no matter how much you sugarcoat it; as well as Double-fine’s legacy of that failed space base game). It may not be rational, given InXile’s track record, but it’s perfectly understandable why it may be there. The fact that regulator allowed their certification does not remove that possibility.

    I actually got an email from InXile- I backed both Wasteland 2 and Torment, so apparently I’m considered a “valued backer”. They offered me a discount on crowdfunding Wasteland 3.

    I don’t think I will. Frankly, I have not played Wasteland 2 yet, it’s been sitting on my GOG shelf, Director’s Cut and all. Moreover, this is not 2011 anymore (or whenever it was we started Kickstarting old genres). The resurgence is in full swing, and there’s no longer a need for my patronage to drag a “dying genre” out of its coffin, the way we did with Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, Project Eternity, etc. I’m happy to go back to the “buy it when it’s done” model- and I’m looking forward to playing Torment.

    Other, more adventurous types can take their investment risks. Hardcore fans may keep crowdfunding. I feel happy with with where I’m at now, and I’ll wait till the finished game pops up on my GOG newsletter e-mail

    • Booker says:

      If I hadn’t played Wasteland 2 years after it came out, I wouldn’t back Wasteland 3 either. Other than hating on Schafer for being one of the founders of Fig this is actually a valid reason which makes sense.