After Nightingale Underperforms, Inflexion Games Announces Layoffs and Confirms UK Branch Closure |

System

After Nightingale Underperforms, Inflexion Games Announces Layoffs and Confirms UK Branch Closure | MMORPG.com

After Nightingale's Early Access wasn't "commercially successful enough" to keep current staff levels, Inflexion announces layoffs, UK office closure, and restructuring at Canadian HQ.

Read the full story here

Dattelis

It really is a shame. I had high hopes for this title.

Aeander

I hate survival games, but if you told me this was gonna be a massive flop when it was announced, I wouldn't have believed you.

Sovrath

The thing about that irks me is that it wasn’t the launch of a finished game. It was early access. Did they really think they were going to attract a lot of people to buy an unfinished game?

mitech616

Frankly, I think "early access" needs to stop. It really does seem like a majority of the titles go under. So, a bunch of people paid a company for an alpha test, then the game gets shut down.

And I know: "They chose to buy into it."

But I still feel like it's taking advantage of gamers. Offering them something with promises of what they hope for, only to lie or simply pull the rug out from under them. It just doesn't seem right.

Asm0deus

I really liked the idea of the game and did enjoy it for awhile but it was too repetitive AND too many things like combat for example were just poorly done.

Kyleran

Sovrath said:

The thing about that irks me is that it wasn’t the launch of a finished game. It was early access. Did they really think they were going to attract a lot of people to buy an unfinished game?

Some survival game devs do hit the jackpot in early access, 7D2D is still in EA after 10 years and going strong having just released a new console version back in July.

Valheim was another, along with Conan Exiles, Subnautica and many others.

But I'm guessing many more tank as it's getting to be a pretty crowded field these days.

Lobotomist

I bought this one when it launched in EA , regretted it instantly - only 24 hours in the game studio caved to internet trolls and announced that their online only game ( built as kind of MMO survival game ) will get Offline mode

On paper that sounded as small thing but the game that is built with MMO infrastructure, to get offline mode, means they basically have to do lot of code rewriting.

It was clear the developers have no backbone and no real vision. But it was too late to refund.

...

That is the story with EA games now days. Its really : we launch the game half finished , if we get positive reviews and millions of buys , we continue , and if not we either abandon it , or add few more things and call it 1.0 version

Scot

Sovrath said:

The thing about that irks me is that it wasn’t the launch of a finished game. It was early access. Did they really think they were going to attract a lot of people to buy an unfinished game?

It is a gamble, but they are making it with players money and the jobs of the employees. The employees right up to the creative director must know this is the case though, that seems plain to me. 

hupa

Kyleran said:

Sovrath said:

The thing about that irks me is that it wasn’t the launch of a finished game. It was early access. Did they really think they were going to attract a lot of people to buy an unfinished game?

Some survival game devs do hit the jackpot in early access, 7D2D is still in EA after 10 years and going strong having just released a new console version back in July.



Valheim was another, along with Conan Exiles, Subnautica and many others.



But I'm guessing many more tank as it's getting to be a pretty crowded field these days.

7D2D released 1.0 on July 25th after nearly 12 years of EA.

mklinic

Sovrath said:

The thing about that irks me is that it wasn’t the launch of a finished game. It was early access. Did they really think they were going to attract a lot of people to buy an unfinished game?

I dunno. I mean, this came out around the same time as Palworld and Enshrouded which also got a decent amount of hype so seems people were primed to buy at the time. I'm sure most every dev that chooses Early Access thinks they have a homerun on their hands.

As far as survival games go, this one has some neat ideas to it that gave it a chance. That said, it might be that Early Access was just an attempt to infuse some cash and delay/prevent layoffs sooner. Ultimately, without an honest post mortem from the studio, we probably won't know the intent and expectations (vs. hopes) of early access.

cheyane

Enshrouded, I got in early access is a good game and has done well. So did Valheim which I bought too. 

This game I bought too but haven't played it yet as I am busy with other games . May be I should play it before they shut it down.

Tatdad

Should have made this game more like Valhalla and give us more freedom and control. The art is perfect and I wanted this to be good but the entire gameplay loop and model is completely crazy.

Elidien_ga

I have played many of these games and types of games and often in early access. Nightingale was one I was the most excited about. I love the setting and the look and everything. But it just was not fun. I am not sure why. I feel like even early access needs to be at a certain level of quality and for some reason its not with this game. 

ShinyFlygon

This enrages me beyond belief.

A game that is still in Early Access has not "performed" at all. It's still in beta. It's not a commercial release. If you were treating EA as a full release internally, you were being hugely dishonest with your customers and yourselves.

Having seen a lot of great progress during EA, I had fully intended to purchase the 1.0 version of the game. I guess I won't bother at this point, since the studio is apparently run by some combination of idiots and snake oil salesmen.

ShinyFlygon

Kyleran said:

Sovrath said:

The thing about that irks me is that it wasn’t the launch of a finished game. It was early access. Did they really think they were going to attract a lot of people to buy an unfinished game?

Some survival game devs do hit the jackpot in early access, 7D2D is still in EA after 10 years and going strong having just released a new console version back in July.



Valheim was another, along with Conan Exiles, Subnautica and many others.



But I'm guessing many more tank as it's getting to be a pretty crowded field these days.

That just makes it all the worse, though, because other studios begin cashing in on the trend with unfinished games. Early Access is the worst.

Steam really should start holding ALL Early Access proceeds until the product's full release. Early Access should NOT be used to "help the company get by" until they finish their game.

hovsep159

mitech616 said:

Frankly, I think "early access" needs to stop. It really does seem like a majority of the titles go under. So, a bunch of people paid a company for an alpha test, then the game gets shut down.



And I know: "They chose to buy into it."



But I still feel like it's taking advantage of gamers. Offering them something with promises of what they hope for, only to lie or simply pull the rug out from under them. It just doesn't seem right.

early access is a neccesity for indie games, it's the only way for them to actually get feedback while getting a budget to continue their work.

Sovrath

Kyleran said:

Sovrath said:

The thing about that irks me is that it wasn’t the launch of a finished game. It was early access. Did they really think they were going to attract a lot of people to buy an unfinished game?

Some survival game devs do hit the jackpot in early access, 7D2D is still in EA after 10 years and going strong having just released a new console version back in July.

Valheim was another, along with Conan Exiles, Subnautica and many others.

But I'm guessing many more tank as it's getting to be a pretty crowded field these days.

But I wonder if they “needed “ early access to raise money; to make a their games to be successful?

To be clear, my issue isn’t with early access so much as requiring early access to make a lot of money as if it was launch. 

ominator

And as usual they make flashy game trailers that are totally not realistic and don't come even close to what you get when you play the game.

Maybe it's time to stop hyping things up, and instead rely on the actual product to sell itself?

Slapshot1188

hovsep159 said:

mitech616 said:

Frankly, I think "early access" needs to stop. It really does seem like a majority of the titles go under. So, a bunch of people paid a company for an alpha test, then the game gets shut down.



And I know: "They chose to buy into it."



But I still feel like it's taking advantage of gamers. Offering them something with promises of what they hope for, only to lie or simply pull the rug out from under them. It just doesn't seem right.

early access is a neccesity for indie games, it's the only way for them to actually get feedback while getting a budget to continue their work.

To me it seemed like they wasted effort and focus on frivolous stuff during development instead of focusing on core gameplay.  

I had high hopes for the game, but it was really an empty shell. We got to the city... and the game ended.

Kataal

Fully agree with the others angry this is happening while the game is in Early Access.

I completely expected this game would get a console release with 1.0, at least on PS5 and/or Series X/S, which would have increased sales and the playerbase a ton. I also was simply waiting for full launch to try it myself.

Sovrath

Kataal said:

Fully agree with the others angry this is happening while the game is in Early Access.

I completely expected this game would get a console release with 1.0, at least on PS5 and/or Series X/S, which would have increased sales and the playerbase a ton. I also was simply waiting for full launch to try it myself.

Well, I wouldn't say I'm "angry" but more "irked."

And not that it really affects me though I did buy in. I'm just annoyed at a company that was relying upon selling enough of an unfinished game in order to stay in business.

That falls into the "what were they thinking" department. Hovsep (above) said that Indy studios need early access for feedback and funding. I buy feedback but it's not a good plan for funding. If the lottery is not a sound financial plan then neither is early access for staying in business.

I don't know if they had issues or not with development but if not then this is the head of the company "gambling" and risk taking. I've known a head of a company who believed in taking such risks, even if it meant failing and closing up shop. It feels reckless when one takes into account their employees.

cheyane

It's like catch 22. They don't have enough cash so they do early access and then they don't sell enough because people are not buying as they are waiting for launch. Then game shuts down.

Scot

cheyane said:

It's like catch 22. They don't have enough cash so they do early access and then they don't sell enough because people are not buying as they are waiting for launch. Then game shuts down.

When a game goes into early access players often think that's a good sign, it isn't, they only do it for revenue and if the revenue is badly needed it could show the game will not come out.

Scot

Tatdad said:

Should have made this game more like Valhalla and give us more freedom and control. The art is perfect and I wanted this to be good but the entire gameplay loop and model is completely crazy.

Welcome to the forums!

waveslayer

in todays gaming atmosphere DAoC wouldnt have made it 6 months, to me it is one of the greatest games made, some posters here know what I am talking about


maybe EA needs to be renamed to - pay us to beta our game, maybe even include the phase of beta the game is in or maybe its actually in alpha, or maybe gamers should be smarter and know that EA means your not playing a finished game, or better yet if studios dont have the money to make a game, they shouldnt make it, its not like there are not millions allready to play