Repentent pirate drops $10,000 in Wasteland 2 fund

Wednesday, 14th March 2012 21:52 GMT By Brenna Hillier

In his youth, Razer CEO Min-Liang Tan walked the path of piracy, but he’s made up for it now.

The executive tweeted that he had donated $10,000 to inXile’s Kickstarter for Wasteland 2.

“And I’m sorry for playing on a pirated copy of Wasteland years ago, I hope this makes up for it,” he added in a message directed at inXile lead and Wateland designer Brian Fargo.

“Wow. I just saw that you donated 10k. You more than made up for it. I am most grateful,” Fargo replied.

The Kickstarter has garnered over $750,000 of its $900,000 goal, with well over a month to go. Fargo was inspired to take the stymied project to crowfunding by the recent success of Double Fine’s Adventure Kickstarter.

Thanks, RipTen.



  1. YoungZer0

    To be honest, i never expected to be it so successful. I mean the game’s so old, most people barely even heard of it.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Gheritt White

    Nevertheless, this is great news. Maybe somebody could convince Alex Seropian (and Bungie) to make a sequel to Marathon!

    #2 3 years ago
  3. silkvg247

    @1 The world is a big, big place :)

    #3 3 years ago
  4. TheWulf


    I think age comes into it a lot. Wasteland is a very familiar name to me. I suppose this is just a game aimed at old farts. Not sure if it’s something I’d want to get behind yet, but it is interesting.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Ercarret

    I don’t think that it’s necessarily just old Wasteland fans who’re donating money. I think many fans of old school RPGs in general are excited about the project. I certainly am, even though I never played the original Wasteland (loved the early Fallout games, though, so I do have some connection to it).

    But I think there are a lot of people who’re hoping that a Wasteland 2 success could spark some life in the genre of top-down RPGs, just as a lot of people are hoping the same for Double Fines’ project and point-and-click adventure games. I know I do.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Hunam

    I’m just glad that the Double Fine one wasn’t an exception to the rule. If this is how niche but none indie games have to be made then I’m glad it’s going strong.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. DSB

    I don’t think you can get a much better case of a modern tactical RPG than Dragon Age: Origins, and obviously that’s not something that started a trend. Even Bioware didn’t stick with it.

    Still, I don’t see many ways to do better than that in terms of gameplay beyond fooling around with spells and abilities.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Ercarret

    But didn’t DA: Origins do great? There was obviously a market for that kind of game. I guess someone thought there would be a greater market for a somewhat streamlined version of it, but I think the original game proved that that type of game is still viable (at least on PC).

    In some ways, I’m glad that it wasn’t Bioware that started the trend. That would probably just have led to everyone copying the Bioware formula. I think it would probably be more interesting if Wasteland 2 inspires a lot of smaller developers, who I believe would create more divergent games.

    But that’s just my hopes and guesses.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Phoenixblight


    DAO did extraordinarily well not only did it sell over a million copies and the Day 1 DLC sold 1 million too.

    DAO was just an homage to older games like that. Now they are not relevant and I agree with DSB its hard to bring those games back. We enjoyed those games because the limitation of the hardware and had to just like we all used to go to the library 30 years ago but now we have the net. These type of games are dated and are niche and will only sell to those that know about them or are curious they will never get back to the point that they used to. Not to mention that it is hard innovate with this type of games, it will just be a fan service or a reminder to what it was like playing those games 20-30 years ago.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Sini

    There is a lot of innovation left, you just don’t see it. Because of the limited gfx requirement, it is easier and faster to create more complex outcomes to situations.
    Furthermore, turn based encounters in rpgs are still very basic compared to say a game of chess. While it’s fine for a brainless zombie to do a straight run for you(or in case of DAO, you created wall of fire in front of you and darkspawn still went though it and died even though they saw it ahead), fighting an intelligent creature with varied abilities that can make proper use of cover and squad commands depending on your very last move is still in its infancy. While that would require some extra computational power, currently 2 of the 4 cores on cpus are chilling while you play the games.
    Also, DA:O is a real time combat with a pause button game, not a turn base game ala chess. Big difference. It is closer to kotor games than fallouts/toee.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. Phoenixblight


    Don’t talk to me like I am a child I actually know what I am talking about and I do know about engines, “AI” and programming. I have actually made some games for android.

    “Also, DA:O is a real time combat with a pause button game, not a turn base game ala chess. ”

    I know the difference. DAO is not real time when I press a button nothing happens the engine has to wait to calculate number then figure out how much damage is received. IT is very archaic.

    ” currently 2 of the 4 cores on cpus are chilling while you play the games.”

    THis has nothing to do with this game or turn based system I see no point in this argument you are trying to make unless you are suggesting Turn-based games are far more taxing on the CPU which is laughable. We have moved beyond Turn based games because developers can make far more interactive games.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Jerykk


    You sound like a child because your opinion is incredibly narrow-minded. Real-time combat is not inherently superior to turn-based combat. They each have their own merits. Real-time combat is more accessible because you have plenty of opportunities to compensate for mistakes you’ve made. It’s also faster paced. With turn-based combat, you have to live with your choices and a single mistake can have long-term repercussions. More accessible + faster paced = appeals to a broader audience. That doesn’t make real-time combat better, it just means it caters to the lowest common denominator.

    Secondly, you’re completely missing the greatest benefit of making a 2D, isometric RPG. Instead of focusing the bulk of development on presentation, the developers can focus instead on creating more open-ended quests with branching paths and long-term consequences. Instead of getting Hollywood actors to voice a small set of dialogue, the writers can instead spend time creating more dialogue options and thus allow for more meaningful roleplaying. Hell, voiced player characters are incredibly limiting when it comes to roleplaying. There’s a reason why the Mass Effect games only allow you to play as a human. Recording the same lines for every race simply wouldn’t be feasible. That’s why the Elder Scrolls games still have a silent player character. Same with Arcanum, Baldur’s Gate and any RPG that lets you choose your race or has tons of dialogue options (like Planescape: Torment).

    My enjoyment of the classic RPGs had nothing to do with the limitations of the hardware. I played most of them for the first time within the past five years and I still consider them better than the vast majority of RPGs released within the last decade.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. DrDamn

    ‘Real-time combat is not inherently superior to turn-based combat.’

    There is a lot of other stuff being discussed in this thread but this I absolutely agree with. They are simply two different sub-genres. One is not better than the other.

    There is plenty still out there in the turn based genre too. Japanese SRPGs like FFT and the Disgaea series, the real XCom revival, it’s also an approach well suited to tablets so there are a fair number of titles there too.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. Phoenixblight

    I never said one was better than the other but one is more desired then the other along with Turn based games being dated. That is it. Thanks for reading into it though.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. DSB

    @8 I don’t know what the internals look like. I seem to remember that it moved something like 3 million, but this is a game that was in development for at least 5 years. When you consider the fact that EA are doing better with games that they only spend one or two years developing, I don’t think it’s what they’re looking for in their business.

    @9 I definitely don’t agree that turnbased games were a “time and place” genre. I could maybe see that for adventure games, but those are still great fun to those of us who were there.

    Gamers attention spans have just gotten a lot shorter, and there isn’t the same demand for real intelligence in games. That’s left to nerds in the basement under Paradox Interactive – Sadly so. Games like Silent Storm or the X-Coms, or any other game that requires real tactics or strategy still hold their own among any game developed today. I guess Starcraft 2 is the perfect mix of both worlds, catering to the ADD kid and the nerd in the very same game.

    It’s just a question of the demographic changing. Now gaming is truly for everybody. Back in the 90′s it was mostly us nerds who were sat in front of the screens, and that obviously shaped the games in an entirely different way.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. DrDamn

    You said … ‘We have moved beyond Turn based games because developers can make far more interactive games.’

    Beyond is not ‘better’ in this context? The word ‘archaic’ is also largely detrimental in this context too. Maybe you didn’t mean better, but you certainly used words which could be taken that way.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. Phoenixblight


    You are right but that is not what I meant and I am sorry for that misunderstanding. Whenever I get the chance once in a blue moon when I have no child, work or school I occasionally pick up a turn based game and play it but usually my games typically go with what I can pick up and put down within a couple of hours. You just can’t do that with Turn based games especially with the old school ones where you have to find a save point.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. DSB

    @17 That’s a pretty negligible design issue. Most turnbased games I’ve played didn’t feature save points, and they certainly don’t today.

    Why people stick with checkpoints in other games is beyond me. It’s just retarded.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. Phoenixblight


    Well these are most of Square games from Ps1 and Ps2 era. THe last current gen Turn based games I had played were Civ 5 and Cthulu Saves the world.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. DSB

    @19 Fair enough, but save functions or lack of same isn’t why nobody’s making turnbased games anymore.

    X-Com was released in 1994 and it had free saves on the menu and in combat.

    I think it is partly down to the whole PC slump in the early odds. Quite a lot of genres were killed off back then.

    It’s easier to disown a genre than it is to revive it, sadly.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. Phoenixblight

    “Fair enough, but save functions or lack of same isn’t why nobody’s making turnbased games anymore.”

    I didn’t say that the save system is the reason why these games aren’t being made but it would definitely be a cause. One of the reasons why I can’t play these as much as I used to besides the reasons I stated is that some battles can take 30min – 2 hours then after the battle is done, I remember having my game running because I had to do something like class. SO the system was running for like 8 hours. I am just not sure if you can make a Turn based game as easy to pick up and play as you can with most games. If you make the battles too quick or your remove control to the player you get FFXIII which just removes the point of being Turn based.

    #21 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.