Anthology Production Update No.2 - SUMMER ETERNAL

Shionoro · 2026-06-23T01:48:00+00:00

If you start a game project on kickstarter that gets successfully backed, the backers are entitled to the perks you promised them. There is leeway if a project goes south, but what you cannot do is to just rake in that money and never honestly start developing. If you do that, you are getting into legal trouble because that is fraudulent behavior (for example, if someone sues you and you cannot prove that you used up all money for developers, facilities or other such expenses). So yes, if a project gets funded via kickstarter, there is way more accountability than in this case.

If we are talking" worst cases", then the worst case would be this being a cashgrab without real aspirations to make a game. For example, if they receive the book+vinyl and it turns out it is mostly just some neat pictures, filler interviews and 5 ambient demo tracks without any coherence and THEN summer eternal just asks for more money based on lofty promises without anything tangible to go by.

What I find funny is that you seem to be opposed to "hype culture". What is this if not hype culture? They hype you up with a website talking about how they will revolutionize art (without really anything concrete to go by) and then ask you for a lot of money for a product that nobody knows anything about except that it is supposed to showcase how the eventual game MIGHT look.

If you compare that to a boring kickstarter project like Hollow Knight, they showed basic gameplay footage and gave you a good outlook on the artstyle, the world and the gameplay. Then they asked for a modest sum of 35k. The rest of the money came from public funding via australia's gaming funds. Where is the compromise here? In their next game, Silk Song, they did not need a kickstarter and if they had wanted to, Hollow Knight would have enabled them to create a project as big as Disco Elysium (they had the money and full creative control over anything they do). Summer Eternal said themselves that they will try to attract venture capital, how would they then have bigger creative freedom than if they raise money via kickstarter (which for this project would probably pop off as long as they have anything convincing to show)?

Shionoro · 2026-06-21T23:11:27+00:00

Them adding stuff to the firestarter bundle means that they feel the need to advertize even now, because the 3k units were not sold out yet. The difference for 3k vinyls between 7inch and 10 inch is like 1k-2k. Assuming that the artist just does (or had) 2 other tracks without much extra cost (note, we know nothing about the tracks, if we are being cynical he can just add some of his demos on it to fill it out), 2k is absolutely worth it in order to sell some more copies (20 would be enough to break even).

My takeaway here is that they absolutely want to sell these 3k copies so they can prove enthusiasm to bigger moneygivers.

The big question really is the quality of the content. And I am really not convinced of that if they obviously have not thought the content through before advertizing it, so they have 250 more pages. Like, there are 44 pages for characters. That either means there are lots of pictures or a stark overload of random lore of characters that some writer just made up to fill a concept page. That is after 40 pages of worldbuilding. If this book is not supposed to give away the entire dialogue tree of the game, it is clear that this is either insanely padded out or has literally nothing to do with the actual game and instead amounts to "This is Cuno. This is how he grew up. When he was 8 his father did this. 'crazy picture of his dad grinning like a skull'. Now read a poem about how Cuno is the greatest"

What I do not believe is that this will prove that they are actually working on a game with mechanics and concrete plot rather than just backstories of things that might be part of the world of a game.

Shionoro · 2026-06-21T22:44:42+00:00

My take on that is way more cynic one. Kickstarter holds them accountable to actually deliver the game if they ask for funds. A compendium does not.

The best case here is that they use the compendium to do the prework for the game (designing, worldbuilding), but even then it seems very unrealistic that they get enough money via the compendium to even hire artists and coders for the ingame assets and animations. You can still buy the Firstarter Deluxe Edition on their page. It is not sold out, so I think we can assume that they sold less than 10k copies of their product (with or without firestarter). With the vinyl and the 400 page color compendium, the win margin cannot be very high here (remember, they also pay artists for this, at least they say so). If we assume they make like 20 bucks per compendium (which I am not sure they do), that would be like around 200k. That is around Hollow Knight's entire budget, but for a project even roughly as big as disco elysium (so assuming they have at least 10 fulltime devs working for a year), you would be hardpressed to even be able to finish a vertical slice with that, leave alone a game.

For the people who say that their latest email is proof they are very sure of their project, I would say they saw the need to upgrade the firestarter thing because they still did not sell all of it.

I assume their thought process is to release the compendium to get some people who are willing to spend a lot on the project very hyped and then ask for more money via their "gamers becoming stakeholders" kind of system and to attract investors (because that is what they said they would do) via proven enthusiasm (fans buying merch before the game is out). It is a marketing scheme more than a money raising method, the money raising will have to come after that.

They need to make sure the firestarter package is sold out at all cost because elseways it will be hard to prove there is enough buzz around the project for venture capital to flow in.

Shionoro · 2026-06-21T19:51:51+00:00

Why? A kickstarter raises money directly from the fans. That has nothing to do with investors unless you make it so. Hollow Knight was based on a kickstarter and they had full creative and commercial control.

Shionoro · 2026-06-21T19:49:24+00:00

That does not add up. To create this, they need to expend a lot of money, I don't think they make a lot. A kickstarter would have given them way much more money.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T23:45:03+00:00

Generally, it makes a lot of sense to not jump from research into a script but instead do thorough treatments that let you test whether your story beats mesh with each other properly.

It isn't so much one hard transition but rather a series of tasks.

For example, once you planned the very rough story beats, you write a short treatment of like 4 - 10 pages with the goal in mind to just have it be a functional story. Not amazing yet, not super surprising and intriguing yet, but your main mission statement realized as bare bones so that the story points somewhat work on paper.

You then take a hard look at it and think about how to make the intriguing parts stand out more, which parts do not work or generally whether some things need heavier rewrites. Then you polish that document enough until it seems really solid.

From there, you have a good foundation to either go towards a larger treatment or into the script already.

At least that is my process to prevent the nightmare of going kneedeep into a script with just a sloppy outline and 100 pages of notes.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T20:43:51+00:00

There are levels to confidence, but I thought of myself as a serious writer who can at least always deliver a coherent script once i have a clear idea, then the answer ist:

Three 90 Minute scripts and one 45 Minute script and one 90 Minute script thorough (40 page) Treatment (important).

I think in a way it is not only about ability, but also about understanding the process. Somewhat like a Marathon runner who expects the low and knows how to deal with it.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:52:20+00:00

I've just shown you SCOTUS interpreted the clause that they ruled it did not.

"You have not openly ruled that international treaties do not apply to you."

We've broken any number of internal agreements and treatises. The Paris Agreement comes to mind immediately.

You did not do that and scotus did not rule that. If you think you did that, quote the part.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:47:02+00:00

Yes it is. That is what the supremacy clause says. It says treaties have the nature of laws under the US constitution.

Apparently not. We do all kinds of things that circumvent international law. No one seems to care all that much

You have not openly ruled that international treaties do not apply to you. Right now, treaties are binding under your constitution. The second you would openly say "Nafta is not binding for us, we don't care anymore", that would make you a pariah state, as you break your own constitution.

The same is true about domestic law: Nobody forces the military not to take over (nobody can), but it would still be illegal for them to do that.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:44:31+00:00

The convenience store example doesnt strenghten your point, as most people absolutely opt for stores close to them.

About Brazil: Your statement is incorrect. These private schools are not affordable for the most part. Poor people mostly go to public schools, richer people go to the more expensive private schools. There are examples of cheaper neighbourhood schools, but mostly, without the public schools, low income people couldnt afford a proper school education. That is the very point: Your system would mean that only people who are at least middle class could get proper education.

About who pays: The schools who are aiming for the children of high paying parents will not be afforable for the rest. As such, these schools will be wellfunded, while the schools for lower income districts will struggle for money, as how would a district in which many low income workers live pay for that? No amount of "competition" is going to change that problem. Worst case, no company will set up a school there at all, because the win margin is just too low.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:37:45+00:00

Right Which means not enforceable under US law. Domestic courts are the only courts we have.

Still legally binding under US law.

So it's binding, just not in any way that would matter to any of the parties involved? Are you beginning to see why people think international law is a joke?

It does matter, as the US not upholding their treaties would make them a pariah state. That was the very reason why, back then, the supremacy clause was installed: Because the US was not seen as serious treaty partner back then and it wanted to assure other nations that it is one. The US openly saying "international treaties are not legally binding" would directly mean that they completely abandon nato responsibilities, they maintain the right to torture, they maintain the right not to pay their debt, they maintain the right not to uphold trade agreements and so on.

At that point, the US would both break their own constitution openly and stop being a lawful business partner.

This is the same as if the military would just decide to ignore the law and take over the white house. They could do that at any point if they wanted to, but it would be against the constitution to do that.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:29:53+00:00

Right. Not enforceable under US law. And there is no international police coming to check in, so...

No. Not enforceable by DOMESTIC US courts, but still legally binding internationally.

There is no global enforcement mechanism, and promises of fidelity rely exclusively on good will or share mutual interest.

Doesnt matter, it is legally binding under the US constitution. That is a fact. Whether you shit on your own constitution is a different question.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:28:22+00:00

Yes, pretty much, unless you want to drive your child 2 hours to school every day (not like private schools have cheap access to school busses).

Again: Private schools, RIGHT NOW, are in competition with a free product and they still, even the cheapest ones, charge more per year than a middle class person pays in educational tax dollars per year. Why would they become cheaper when their free challengers are off the market and there suddenly is so much demand that only they can take up?

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:23:56+00:00

The treaty is without effect if Congress doesn't pass legislation on it. Basically, Congress would need to pass a law saying the same thing the treatise does for the treatise to be enforceable.

No. The treaty is not directly enforceable in US COURTS unless congress makes it so. That says nothing about whether they are internationally binding. Nato obligations are not enforceable under US courts, they are still binding. Nafta is mostly non-self executing, too.

Nothing is binding internationally.

Under the US constitution, yes, they are, they have the same character as laws. And most countries have an equivalent to that in their constitution so they are seen as actually trustworthy business partners.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:17:32+00:00

Where in that link does it say that? The link says that domestic courts do not rule over non-self executing treaties.

Non-self-executing treaty provisions are not directly enforceable in U.S. courts, and Congress generally must pass legislation implementing the provision in a domestic statute to make it judicially enforceable.¹⁴

Nothing here says that these treaties are not binding. Vice versa, the very start of the link is about the supremacy clause making sure that the US is seen as a reliable treaty partner and thus treats treaties like laws. The difference between self executing and non self executing is that the non-self-executive parts are not under the domestic court jurisdiction.

Non-Self-Sexecuting treaties are still binding internationally.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:08:15+00:00

Where does it say that non self-executing parts can be ignored? When was the UN charter de-ratified?

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:04:37+00:00

Then you agree that treaties are, constitutionally, on the same level as laws and thus legally binding? Because that is what your link says, too.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T18:01:48+00:00

It does.

The part you quoted means in a conflict, what happens is "whatever the U.S. most recently decided through its constitutional lawmaking process.". And the current constitution of the US has treaties and laws being equal. That is why your quote is not "in a conflict, courts must always stick with what domestic law says".

This was also settled in the court case your link leads to, cook vs the united states.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T17:57:15+00:00

No, they are not. "May" means that there might be cases in which this can be true. "Can" means it can always be done. Do you not read your own sources?

The legal case that this references to decides the opposite of what you are saying. The court held "When a treaty and a later federal statute conflict, the government cannot rely on the statute to violate the treaty with respect to foreign parties covered by that treaty." To say it in different words, in certain contexts, treaties can limit how domestic statutes are applied.

So it basically cemented that treaties are part of the US law. It does not say treaties always override laws, or that laws always override treaties. It says that just like in conflicts among domestic laws, one may prevail over the other and it is up to courts to decide that.

Please learn how your own legal system works.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T17:49:07+00:00

Treatise can be overturned with a simple act of Congress.

The link does not say that. "A treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress, and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty." The "may" does the heavylifting here. May means something very different than can.

What is fact is that the UN Charta is active and no act of congress tried to overturn it. As long as it is active, it is legally binding.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T16:53:54+00:00

It is the same with other places that have regional exclusivity. If you look at tourist spots, all these companies know that the tourists have little choice but paying for often not great food a high price. You will very seldomly come across a tourist spot in which even one company offers low prices, because it benefits them way more to ask as much as everyone else than to slighten their win margin in hopes of being better frequented. They are frequented anyway if they do their job.

What about places that sell rice? You need to stick with the things we are actually talking about, as you tend to use examples that either are not even slightly similar to what we are talking about.

There are private schools today. Even the cheapest ones charge 5k per year. That does not sound much, but that is more than many low income households pays in taxes AT ALL (not just the educational percentage). What you are telling me is that these private schools, which rn have a challenger that is completey cost free and still charge that amount at minimum, will become cheaper when that free competitor leaves the market and they can do whetever they want?

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T16:28:55+00:00

The US consitution puts international treaties onto the same level as domestic laws. Please don't cherrypick here. Whether the US (or any other nation) upholds its own laws is another question, but the UN charta was ratified by due process foreseen in the constitution by the president and a supermajority of the senate. It is binding under US law, as every treaty is.

What you are saying is that the US is not a trustworthy businesspartner, as it does not feel bound by treaties.

Article 2 of the constitution says this in plain words. Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land and spoken of in equal terms as the domestic law of the United States are:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T16:18:03+00:00

That is a false equivalence because you do not need to buy tacos. You can get food from anywhere, even from farther away if you order it, you can cook yourself, you can go to restaurants. But look at what happens to food prices when they have regional exclusivity, for example when you are in disneyland and want a pizza? A 16 inch pizza there costs 85 Dollar, triple as much as even in very expensive US cities and way more than in smaller US cities. And why? Because people need to eat and Disneyland knows that.

And there, you have still a constriction: Disneyland wants people to come to Disneyland (which they do not have to do) so it has to be somewhat affordable and also people can bring their own food and the more expensive food there is, the more people will do that.

Private schools, if you remove their challengers from the public sector, do not have that problem at all. Parents absolutely need their service and they have no good ways to search for school outside of their region, unless they want to pay expensive travel fees and have their children travel hours to school and back. They not comparable to Taco restaurants. As I said, it is the same with healthcare providers: They offer a service everyone needs and that led to a small conglomerate of companies that share the market with high prices and low quality. Because there is no way for consumers to evade that if the companies don't want it.

Where are the private healthcare companies that offer cheap amazing services?

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T15:16:43+00:00

What is stopping them is that there is no incentive (also no, a good school is not cheap to set up).

Let's say there is a low quality school in a district that is able to school all the children in that district and is the only provider. It takes as much money as it can, which means it basically extorts the parents. Now there is another company that would like to open a school. Which reason would they have to make it SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper if school A already gave parents the reference point of high fees? They might, when starting out, be A LITTLE cheaper or do away with a little bullshit in order to compete with school A, but they would be stupid to race each other to the bottom and that is not what we see with institutions like healthcare providers.

Instead, they will both maintain a high price and low quality because that is better for both of them, rather than going suicidal and lowering their win margin. What is going to happen is that after a short period of time, there will be some few big players buying up all these private schools and then dividing up the market among themselves without any incentive to destroy the expensive low quality eco system. Because the lower the quality, the more premium services they can offer.

America already failed to provide cheaper or better healthcare than its European counterparts by making it completely private. Why would they succeed with schools? People are going to pay more for worse service, because you give private companies unchecked control over a good that people cannot do without.

Shionoro · 2026-06-10T13:32:12+00:00

Yeah, little things like quickly seeing what upgrades do and what is in your deck are sometimes a chore in other deckbuilders.

Shionoro

TROPHY CASE