And it was pretty good
I've been doing it since it started and some months are mostly golden, some aren't. It's introduced me to games I've loved that I wouldn't have looked at twice in the steam store.
I did too, but you know what? I'd rather they concentrated on making a good game than some daft stretch goals that were clearly only at the ideas stage. Sometimes ideas sound good on paper and are actually crap in practice.
I agree that some ideas may just not fit, but there is a fairly clear difference between game mechanics (e.g. deeper crafting systems) and content (characters and locations).
It is down to the developer to decide first of all if they want to make stretch goals (there are no requirements for the goals to exist) and secondly what they want to set the goals towards. This here is an example of a developer over-promising, spending too long prototyping, then finding they didn't have enough funds to meet all they promised. It is a shame that inXile are palming off the blame with a generic "we were too busy fixing things" statement, as they still were communicating with both backers and media on progression of the games development. They chose to keep silent about the cuts, and hoped the backers would forget about them.
Thats like probably small change for Valve at this point i doubt it would dent their wallet.
I thought F3 had pretty awful DLCs. Anchorage and Zeta totally crappy. Pittsburgh was kinda meh. Swamp was better and the one that raised level cap was good.
Not that I have ever seen many good dlcs.
both are -40% highly recommend Xcom2
Yay for a singleplayer focussed game as far as I'm concerned.
In every strictly single-player game I've played, I've thought: "Y'know what? This would be better if I could play with a friend."
I hate tacked-on multiplayer as much as anyone, but the option of doing a story campaign co-op is always a plus for me. I don't even care if one person is the "main character."