I think the biggest problem here isn't whether there is a problem with the Unreal 3 engine.. or if there is a problem with SVs implementation of it. the problem is that they are launching within 2 weeks and there is something majorly wrong with their game that is causing lag and desynch!
I don't care who's fault the problem it was.. it was the responsibility of the developers to see that this issue existed earlier and correct it before it got to this stage. How can one announce the release of a game before this gets fixed?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The context was that Epic is not fixing what you have messed up when you are licensee. They can point you in the right direction, they can fix bugs in their code if you find one, but they wont make your game for you.
That I have well understand. My question was, why were you working with epic? In which team?
He said working with Unreal. . not working for Epic Tunkasina. I think he meant that he has been using the engine. . maybe modding. . etc. Not sure. I think he is an end user of the engine . . not working for Epic. This could be some ambiguous language that is causing the confusion. . or I am totally wrong.
I think the biggest problem here isn't whether there is a problem with the Unreal 3 engine.. or if there is a problem with SVs implementation of it. the problem is that they are launching within 2 weeks and there is something majorly wrong with their game that is causing lag and desynch!
I don't care who's fault the problem it was.. it was the responsibility of the developers to see that this issue existed earlier and correct it before it got to this stage. How can one announce the release of a game before this gets fixed?
Because they did not want any money from "carebear" publishers... Read this...
Again the publisher ordeal goes to the heart of the matter -- business plan.
It's become painfully obvious that SV has no business plan whatsoever for this game -- if they did, publishers could read their business plan, and then decide whether to take on the game. Sure, business plans are modified -- but they likely didn't have one, so the publishers will go the route and say "well this is what is profitable."
Basically, all publishers rejecting are rejecting MO because they don't think in its current form it is sustainable or can make money. This is what I have been saying for MONTHS. It goes to the core of how SV and MO came to be -- some kid with a rich father who wanted to make his own version of UO with no experience. And now you look at the release coming, you look at the state of the game, you look at the rejection of publishers and you can come to the simple conclusion that this game is not going to last long, because the business plan wasn't solid.
Darkfall, for all its faults, got bought out by a larger company and had huge investments in it. I guess they presented a business plan that worked. I still don't like the game, but it seems to be doing well. After my guildmates tried MO, many of them went to DF and are there now, enjoying it.
Basically, all publishers rejecting are rejecting MO because they don't think in its current form it is sustainable or can make money.
Not really. Publishers rejecting core concept of MO because they don't think it can make lots of money.
That's very different. Major publishers wants massive income, not "enough to feed a team". That's why they asks Henrik to change most of the game.
What's obvious is that the first year of MO will be the most dangerous, because the target consumers of MO isn't huge, so, it will be hard to meet them. And, of course, the game must be "bug free" at release. Be sure Starvault know it as us, and try to fix all this. As I said, wait & see. Starvault can surprise us, and can do it.
Basically, all publishers rejecting are rejecting MO because they don't think in its current form it is sustainable or can make money.
Not really. Publishers rejecting core concept of MO because they don't think it can make lots of money.
That's very different. Major publishers wants massive income, not "enough to feed a team". That's why they asks Henrik to change most of the game.
What's obvious is that the first year of MO will be the most dangerous, because the target consumers of MO isn't huge, so, it will be hard to meet them. And, of course, the game must be "bug free" at release. Be sure Starvault know it as us, and try to fix all this. As I said, wait & see. Starvault can surprise us, and can do it.
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
Wouldn't you rather have the game go carebear than the entire game shutting down due to lack of money? Is that not hardcore enough?
From what I have read, the fans want it to stay hardcore even if it shuts down.
Originally posted by rlmccoy1987 Wouldn't you rather have the game go carebear than the entire game shutting down due to lack of money? Is that not hardcore enough? From what I have read, the fans want it to stay hardcore even if it shuts down.
Do you prefer Reservoir Dogs or Rocky V? It's a question of pursuing your vision versus producing one more retread of a proven formula. Which way to go is the developers decision. Some of the fans may appreciate that decision, but they don't make it. As long as Henrick understands that that decision may affect the success of the game, how can you fault him for it ?
Do you prefer Reservoir Dogs or Rocky V? It's a question of pursuing your vision versus producing one more retread of a proven formula. Which way to go is the developers decision. Some of the fans may appreciate that decision, but they don't make it. As long as Henrick understands that that decision may affect the success of the game, how can you fault him for it ?
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
I am trying to understand the way people think. I am trying to figure out why people will support a game by paying a monthly fee, while they will not play it. Is this blind support for the "hope" of "potential" the game has, or is this a legitimate point/position? Can someone explain to me why people will spend money on a product and not play it only for the "hope" that the game will get better in the future? I value money and I could never see myself giving a company money just hoping their product will get better. Giving donations to a charity is one thing, but giving money to a publicly traded company is another.
I think the real question for you is, "Why peoples trust Starvault?", isn't it?
You already know some peoples trust them, and some other don't.
To be fair, there is good, and not so good things to make you trust or not.
I think :
Peoples who trust:
-Like the concept on paper
-Follow the game since a long time, and see what improved.
-have the same "vision" and priority think than SV (in term of features, etc)
-simply think SV do the job as they would do
-trust anybody
-etc etc
Peoples who don't trust:
-have preorder but are disapointed
-like the concept on paper, but don't like the way SV did it
-follow the game since a long time, and see what isn't improved
-don't have the same priority than SV (in term of features, etc.)
-think SV did it wrong
-trust nobody
-etc etc
I seruously think there is not a "good" or a "bad" point of view about SV & MO. Some trust SV for legitimate reason, some other trust blindly, as some hate SV for legitimate reason, and some other hate blindly.
Personally, I like the concept, and what they actually do for the game. I like the fact they are dedicated to what they do. Most of peoples at SV works 15/24 hours to try to get the game ready. I'm not saying it's normal. I say it mean they love what they do.
So I will trust them. Until I get bored, or SV bankrupt. I seriously hope they will manage to swim.
You can update your OP with my last post too if you want, I assume I'm a "fan" for you.
Update it with what? I posted screen shots of people supporting SV wanting to give them money even if they did not want to play the game. What do you want me to add?
Do you prefer Reservoir Dogs or Rocky V? It's a question of pursuing your vision versus producing one more retread of a proven formula. Which way to go is the developers decision. Some of the fans may appreciate that decision, but they don't make it. As long as Henrick understands that that decision may affect the success of the game, how can you fault him for it ?
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
If I am parsing your grammar correctly, planning a project (doing it on paper) is different from executing a project (actually creating it). If that is your intended meaning, all I can say is nothing is more obvious than that. Planning risks very little. Executing risks potentially wasting money and a few years of their lives. Not executing the plan means never knowing if they could succeed. Are you saying they shouldn't make the attempt?
Mats: But I will definitely not blame you in any way if you don't like our game or feel that it's too unfinished. We know it's a risky project, and it has never been about becoming rich and famous; it has always been a very serious attempt on making a living on doing something we like, by developing a game we miss on the market, for players that like what we do.
I think they understand what you are trying to say.
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
Wouldn't you rather have the game go carebear than the entire game shutting down due to lack of money? Is that not hardcore enough?
From what I have read, the fans want it to stay hardcore even if it shuts down.
Not really to be honest, not necessarily referring to just MO. I'd much prefer a company build the game they're passionate about building rather than the one suits tell them to make. Maybe the end result won't be great, however there is usually a better product as a result of one built due to passion, rather than a pursuit of money.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Do you prefer Reservoir Dogs or Rocky V? It's a question of pursuing your vision versus producing one more retread of a proven formula. Which way to go is the developers decision. Some of the fans may appreciate that decision, but they don't make it. As long as Henrick understands that that decision may affect the success of the game, how can you fault him for it ?
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
If I am parsing your grammar correctly, planning a project (doing it on paper) is different from executing a project (actually creating it). If that is your intended meaning, all I can say is nothing is more obvious than that. Planning risks very little. Executing risks potentially wasting money and a few years of their lives. Not executing the plan means never knowing if they could succeed. Are you saying they shouldn't make the attempt?
Mats: But I will definitely not blame you in any way if you don't like our game or feel that it's too unfinished. We know it's a risky project, and it has never been about becoming rich and famous; it has always been a very serious attempt on making a living on doing something we like, by developing a game we miss on the market, for players that like what we do.
I think they understand what you are trying to say.
I would like to make a living as a Hollywood Movie Star, perhaps an Astronaut- Hell a Soldier of Fortune might be a fun little diversion.
Anyone want to donate to me so I can MAKE A LIVING? Granted I may never work in any of these fields but I will give it the ol College try, just FUND ME... I also wont bother to tell you how much I am paying myself every week/month/year- Just believe in me Okay?
/sarcasm off
If you want to make a living doing something, you need the skills, talent, training, planning and good descision making to make that a reality.... You dont become a Hollywood Star without first trying your hand in a few school plays and community productions (with few exceptions some are "born" into it) You dont become an Astronaut without first becoming a Pilot and you dont become a Mercenary without first being a trained Soldier.
Sure these guys WANT TO MAKE A LIVING doing something they love...The way to do that is by starting small and proving yourself not by jumping in "balls to the wall" in a major project which people are PAYING YOU FOR.
IF you feel the need to "donate" to their living based on a concept.... Well you said in the title not to call you an idiot so I just wont say anything.
EDIT: lol well I will call MYSELF an idiot as I posted this in the wrong thread- I thought I clicked the "dont call me an idiot" thread...Oh well, my point still stands...kinda =P
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
Wouldn't you rather have the game go carebear than the entire game shutting down due to lack of money? Is that not hardcore enough?
From what I have read, the fans want it to stay hardcore even if it shuts down.
Not really to be honest, not necessarily referring to just MO. I'd much prefer a company build the game they're passionate about building rather than the one suits tell them to make. Maybe the end result won't be great, however there is usually a better product as a result of one built due to passion, rather than a pursuit of money.
I agree, but at the same time they have to have a strategy to make sure they make enough money to survive. And make it to where they fix the basic problems, such as lag BEFORE they release anymore features or content. Starvault has not done that, they release content on top of a buggy system. That will not work. They have no strategy or planning, I believe they just throw it together and hope it works (just look at every patch has been 1 - 2 days late)
Do you prefer Reservoir Dogs or Rocky V? It's a question of pursuing your vision versus producing one more retread of a proven formula. Which way to go is the developers decision. Some of the fans may appreciate that decision, but they don't make it. As long as Henrick understands that that decision may affect the success of the game, how can you fault him for it ?
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
If I am parsing your grammar correctly, planning a project (doing it on paper) is different from executing a project (actually creating it). If that is your intended meaning, all I can say is nothing is more obvious than that. Planning risks very little. Executing risks potentially wasting money and a few years of their lives. Not executing the plan means never knowing if they could succeed. Are you saying they shouldn't make the attempt?
Mats: But I will definitely not blame you in any way if you don't like our game or feel that it's too unfinished. We know it's a risky project, and it has never been about becoming rich and famous; it has always been a very serious attempt on making a living on doing something we like, by developing a game we miss on the market, for players that like what we do.
I think they understand what you are trying to say.
I would like to make a living as a Hollywood Movie Star, perhaps an Astronaut- Hell a Soldier of Fortune might be a fun little diversion.
Anyone want to donate to me so I can MAKE A LIVING? Granted I may never work in any of these fields but I will give it the ol College try, just FUND ME... I also wont bother to tell you how much I am paying myself every week/month/year- Just believe in me Okay?
/sarcasm off
If you want to make a living doing something, you need the skills, talent, training, planning and good descision making to make that a reality.... You dont become a Hollywood Star without first trying your hand in a few school plays and community productions (with few exceptions some are "born" into it) You dont become an Astronaut without first becoming a Pilot and you dont become a Mercenary without first being a trained Soldier.
Sure these guys WANT TO MAKE A LIVING doing something they love...The way to do that is by starting small and proving yourself not by jumping in "balls to the wall" in a major project which people are PAYING YOU FOR.
IF you feel the need to "donate" to their living based on a concept.... Well you said in the title not to call you an idiot so I just wont say anything.
I agree, but at the same time they have to have a strategy to make sure they make enough money to survive. And make it to where they fix the basic problems, such as lag BEFORE they release anymore features or content. Starvault has not done that, they release content on top of a buggy system. That will not work. They have no strategy or planning, I believe they just throw it together and hope it works (just look at every patch has been 1 - 2 days late(
That's true, and the pitfall of trying to learn on the job. As the poster above stated if you don't have the skills needed, you should build them up, before trying to sell a product that requires them.
As I said I was not referring to MO, as we know it's state. In a general manner, I would prefer a company do their own thing. The problem here isn't that they aren't. It's that they're not true industry professionals.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
I think the biggest problem here isn't whether there is a problem with the Unreal 3 engine.. or if there is a problem with SVs implementation of it. the problem is that they are launching within 2 weeks and there is something majorly wrong with their game that is causing lag and desynch!
I don't care who's fault the problem it was.. it was the responsibility of the developers to see that this issue existed earlier and correct it before it got to this stage. How can one announce the release of a game before this gets fixed?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That I have well understand. My question was, why were you working with epic? In which team?
He said working with Unreal. . not working for Epic Tunkasina. I think he meant that he has been using the engine. . maybe modding. . etc. Not sure. I think he is an end user of the engine . . not working for Epic. This could be some ambiguous language that is causing the confusion. . or I am totally wrong.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Of course, it's a problem if they release with those issues. Let's hope they will fix it before release.
Because they did not want any money from "carebear" publishers... Read this...
www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/272763/Starvault-CEO-If-you-do-not-support-MO-it-could-be-the-end-of-sandbox-MMOs-Does-not-like-trolls-on-mmorpgcom-Will-not-add-carebear-publishers-Will-keep-it-hardcore-and-not-turn-it-carebear-even-if-the-company-gets-low-on-funds-etc.html
Fixed
Again the publisher ordeal goes to the heart of the matter -- business plan.
It's become painfully obvious that SV has no business plan whatsoever for this game -- if they did, publishers could read their business plan, and then decide whether to take on the game. Sure, business plans are modified -- but they likely didn't have one, so the publishers will go the route and say "well this is what is profitable."
Basically, all publishers rejecting are rejecting MO because they don't think in its current form it is sustainable or can make money. This is what I have been saying for MONTHS. It goes to the core of how SV and MO came to be -- some kid with a rich father who wanted to make his own version of UO with no experience. And now you look at the release coming, you look at the state of the game, you look at the rejection of publishers and you can come to the simple conclusion that this game is not going to last long, because the business plan wasn't solid.
Darkfall, for all its faults, got bought out by a larger company and had huge investments in it. I guess they presented a business plan that worked. I still don't like the game, but it seems to be doing well. After my guildmates tried MO, many of them went to DF and are there now, enjoying it.
Deleted cuz other one was.
Not really. Publishers rejecting core concept of MO because they don't think it can make lots of money.
That's very different. Major publishers wants massive income, not "enough to feed a team". That's why they asks Henrik to change most of the game.
What's obvious is that the first year of MO will be the most dangerous, because the target consumers of MO isn't huge, so, it will be hard to meet them. And, of course, the game must be "bug free" at release. Be sure Starvault know it as us, and try to fix all this. As I said, wait & see. Starvault can surprise us, and can do it.
Not really. Publishers rejecting core concept of MO because they don't think it can make lots of money.
That's very different. Major publishers wants massive income, not "enough to feed a team". That's why they asks Henrik to change most of the game.
What's obvious is that the first year of MO will be the most dangerous, because the target consumers of MO isn't huge, so, it will be hard to meet them. And, of course, the game must be "bug free" at release. Be sure Starvault know it as us, and try to fix all this. As I said, wait & see. Starvault can surprise us, and can do it.
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
Wouldn't you rather have the game go carebear than the entire game shutting down due to lack of money? Is that not hardcore enough?
From what I have read, the fans want it to stay hardcore even if it shuts down.
Do you prefer Reservoir Dogs or Rocky V? It's a question of pursuing your vision versus producing one more retread of a proven formula. Which way to go is the developers decision. Some of the fans may appreciate that decision, but they don't make it. As long as Henrick understands that that decision may affect the success of the game, how can you fault him for it ?
Do you prefer Reservoir Dogs or Rocky V? It's a question of pursuing your vision versus producing one more retread of a proven formula. Which way to go is the developers decision. Some of the fans may appreciate that decision, but they don't make it. As long as Henrick understands that that decision may affect the success of the game, how can you fault him for it ?
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
Update the OP with a few more quotes from fans.
I think the real question for you is, "Why peoples trust Starvault?", isn't it?
You already know some peoples trust them, and some other don't.
To be fair, there is good, and not so good things to make you trust or not.
I think :
Peoples who trust:
-Like the concept on paper
-Follow the game since a long time, and see what improved.
-have the same "vision" and priority think than SV (in term of features, etc)
-simply think SV do the job as they would do
-trust anybody
-etc etc
Peoples who don't trust:
-have preorder but are disapointed
-like the concept on paper, but don't like the way SV did it
-follow the game since a long time, and see what isn't improved
-don't have the same priority than SV (in term of features, etc.)
-think SV did it wrong
-trust nobody
-etc etc
I seruously think there is not a "good" or a "bad" point of view about SV & MO. Some trust SV for legitimate reason, some other trust blindly, as some hate SV for legitimate reason, and some other hate blindly.
Personally, I like the concept, and what they actually do for the game. I like the fact they are dedicated to what they do. Most of peoples at SV works 15/24 hours to try to get the game ready. I'm not saying it's normal. I say it mean they love what they do.
So I will trust them. Until I get bored, or SV bankrupt. I seriously hope they will manage to swim.
But well, nobody can know, isn't it?
You can update your OP with my last post too if you want, I assume I'm a "fan" for you.
You can update your OP with my last post too if you want, I assume I'm a "fan" for you.
Update it with what? I posted screen shots of people supporting SV wanting to give them money even if they did not want to play the game. What do you want me to add?
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
If I am parsing your grammar correctly, planning a project (doing it on paper) is different from executing a project (actually creating it). If that is your intended meaning, all I can say is nothing is more obvious than that. Planning risks very little. Executing risks potentially wasting money and a few years of their lives. Not executing the plan means never knowing if they could succeed. Are you saying they shouldn't make the attempt?
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/777353-post153.html
Mats: But I will definitely not blame you in any way if you don't like our game or feel that it's too unfinished. We know it's a risky project, and it has never been about becoming rich and famous; it has always been a very serious attempt on making a living on doing something we like, by developing a game we miss on the market, for players that like what we do.
I think they understand what you are trying to say.
They seem to cling on for the "hope" of "potential" that will never be realized.
I smiled at the MO 2 remark. People these days...
Hopefully the majority will not be blinded by the "hope" and "potential" and start seeing the truth of what is really going on.
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
Wouldn't you rather have the game go carebear than the entire game shutting down due to lack of money? Is that not hardcore enough?
From what I have read, the fans want it to stay hardcore even if it shuts down.
Not really to be honest, not necessarily referring to just MO. I'd much prefer a company build the game they're passionate about building rather than the one suits tell them to make. Maybe the end result won't be great, however there is usually a better product as a result of one built due to passion, rather than a pursuit of money.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
If I am parsing your grammar correctly, planning a project (doing it on paper) is different from executing a project (actually creating it). If that is your intended meaning, all I can say is nothing is more obvious than that. Planning risks very little. Executing risks potentially wasting money and a few years of their lives. Not executing the plan means never knowing if they could succeed. Are you saying they shouldn't make the attempt?
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/777353-post153.html
Mats: But I will definitely not blame you in any way if you don't like our game or feel that it's too unfinished. We know it's a risky project, and it has never been about becoming rich and famous; it has always been a very serious attempt on making a living on doing something we like, by developing a game we miss on the market, for players that like what we do.
I think they understand what you are trying to say.
I would like to make a living as a Hollywood Movie Star, perhaps an Astronaut- Hell a Soldier of Fortune might be a fun little diversion.
Anyone want to donate to me so I can MAKE A LIVING? Granted I may never work in any of these fields but I will give it the ol College try, just FUND ME... I also wont bother to tell you how much I am paying myself every week/month/year- Just believe in me Okay?
/sarcasm off
If you want to make a living doing something, you need the skills, talent, training, planning and good descision making to make that a reality.... You dont become a Hollywood Star without first trying your hand in a few school plays and community productions (with few exceptions some are "born" into it) You dont become an Astronaut without first becoming a Pilot and you dont become a Mercenary without first being a trained Soldier.
Sure these guys WANT TO MAKE A LIVING doing something they love...The way to do that is by starting small and proving yourself not by jumping in "balls to the wall" in a major project which people are PAYING YOU FOR.
IF you feel the need to "donate" to their living based on a concept.... Well you said in the title not to call you an idiot so I just wont say anything.
EDIT: lol well I will call MYSELF an idiot as I posted this in the wrong thread- I thought I clicked the "dont call me an idiot" thread...Oh well, my point still stands...kinda =P
It is a well known fact that managers and publishers will encourage all kinds of changes to increase the "marketability" of a product. Sometimes those changes are meaningless, sometimes they are a little necessary window dressing and sometimes they undermine the entire idea behind the product. From what Henrich has said, it's pretty clear he considers the changes that publishers propose to be of the last variety.
Wouldn't you rather have the game go carebear than the entire game shutting down due to lack of money? Is that not hardcore enough?
From what I have read, the fans want it to stay hardcore even if it shuts down.
Not really to be honest, not necessarily referring to just MO. I'd much prefer a company build the game they're passionate about building rather than the one suits tell them to make. Maybe the end result won't be great, however there is usually a better product as a result of one built due to passion, rather than a pursuit of money.
I agree, but at the same time they have to have a strategy to make sure they make enough money to survive. And make it to where they fix the basic problems, such as lag BEFORE they release anymore features or content. Starvault has not done that, they release content on top of a buggy system. That will not work. They have no strategy or planning, I believe they just throw it together and hope it works (just look at every patch has been 1 - 2 days late)
Don't it on paper and doing actually creating it are different
If I am parsing your grammar correctly, planning a project (doing it on paper) is different from executing a project (actually creating it). If that is your intended meaning, all I can say is nothing is more obvious than that. Planning risks very little. Executing risks potentially wasting money and a few years of their lives. Not executing the plan means never knowing if they could succeed. Are you saying they shouldn't make the attempt?
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/777353-post153.html
Mats: But I will definitely not blame you in any way if you don't like our game or feel that it's too unfinished. We know it's a risky project, and it has never been about becoming rich and famous; it has always been a very serious attempt on making a living on doing something we like, by developing a game we miss on the market, for players that like what we do.
I think they understand what you are trying to say.
I would like to make a living as a Hollywood Movie Star, perhaps an Astronaut- Hell a Soldier of Fortune might be a fun little diversion.
Anyone want to donate to me so I can MAKE A LIVING? Granted I may never work in any of these fields but I will give it the ol College try, just FUND ME... I also wont bother to tell you how much I am paying myself every week/month/year- Just believe in me Okay?
/sarcasm off
If you want to make a living doing something, you need the skills, talent, training, planning and good descision making to make that a reality.... You dont become a Hollywood Star without first trying your hand in a few school plays and community productions (with few exceptions some are "born" into it) You dont become an Astronaut without first becoming a Pilot and you dont become a Mercenary without first being a trained Soldier.
Sure these guys WANT TO MAKE A LIVING doing something they love...The way to do that is by starting small and proving yourself not by jumping in "balls to the wall" in a major project which people are PAYING YOU FOR.
IF you feel the need to "donate" to their living based on a concept.... Well you said in the title not to call you an idiot so I just wont say anything.
Great post...
That's true, and the pitfall of trying to learn on the job. As the poster above stated if you don't have the skills needed, you should build them up, before trying to sell a product that requires them.
As I said I was not referring to MO, as we know it's state. In a general manner, I would prefer a company do their own thing. The problem here isn't that they aren't. It's that they're not true industry professionals.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson