I pledged purely in hope that this project will be funded so that I can play a PVP game without hearing constant crying about PVE class balancing BS...
I actually never even considered that - bonus!
It is always a battle between PvP and PvE players when it comes to balance. I suppose CU will skirt this entirely; now it will just be PvP balance complaints, and I am sure there will be plenty.
IWhat forces products to release isn't the investors, it is the money running out - regardless how you obtained the money.
Also, the deadlines are set by devs, not the investors. It is mostly failing devs that cannot keep deadlines, skyrocketing budgets through the roof. If you want to blame someone for "unifinished" products, it's devs.
The difference then might be that money obtained via donations can be just flushed down the toilet or spent on new sports cars with no worries since there is no liability. With proper investment tho, there is at least a chance the product will be released, despite not perfect state.
While I agree that there is no guarantee with donations, backing a project through kickstarter is not a donation. If the project fails to fund, in this case if they do not reach 2 million before the clock expires then any amounts pledged will not be collected. If however it succeeds then there are still any number of things that can go wrong, for example the world could end. While that example is likely not a probable one, it serves the purpose of illustrating that there could be a legitimate reason for not happening as planned. I doubt CSE or Mark Jacobs will run off into the night having pocketed the money.
A product release can be forced by investors for a number of reasons. If the contract in place has ironclad wording stating that a product will launch by a given date, lawsuits may happen if it doesn't. The investors will not care if it is "ready" in some cases. If the money runs out because development ran longer than initially proposed it isn't necessarily the developers' fault, maybe the concept phase took too long, maybe the feedback during testing was unclear or some bugs were extremely hard to replicate and fix. Maybe the meetings with the investors did not go as planned and in an effort to please them the project manager bumped up some of the timelines for various features and ended up causing more problems.
Investors absolutely have an influence on the timeline of product development, the extent of which is likely documented in a contract. Additionally, unhappy investors who are unhappy for any reason can show said unhappiness and it will affect how the project team proceeds in any number of ways. And depending on the structure of a company, the developers would not set any deadlines, that would be handled by a project manager. An unfinished product isn't automatically the fault of the developers, if you think so you are very mistaken.
And if you are using devs to mean the studio or the project team behind the development then ignore some of the above.
STOP!!! Calling it A GAME its a idea of a game nothing more there is no game you are investing in someones idea the result could be terrible, if you are happy to invest in this idea despite what the resault may be then thats fine and dandy, But STOP!!! trying to sprook this idea into a game. THERE IS NO SPOON
Originally posted by Beerman27 STOP!!! Calling it A GAME its a idea of a game nothing more there is no game you are investing in someones idea the result could be terrible, if you are happy to invest in this idea despite what the resault may be then thats fine and dandy, But STOP!!! trying to sprook this idea into a game. THERE IS NO SPOON
I want to say something about yelling in an online forum but your name has beer in it so I can't be upset.
Originally posted by Sornin In short, I agree with the assertion, but I disagree with its weight.
Well, if an investor already put money on project and it is going as planned, there is little reason to back off. On the other hand developers have much more reasons to missmanage the development and make an investor cry.
Investors have much higher motivation to finish and release the product, it is their money that are in gamble.
As for "reputation", that's only about PR. You can steal money with style and people will even pity you. You will never know the truth.
You may forget, sir, that Steve Jobs participated actively in the design and the production of the MacIntosh, the new one released when he came back, the iphone, ipad and he brought back Apple from the brink of bankruptcy, can we agree that he was not merely a saleman!
You may forget, sir, that Steve Jobs participated actively in the design and the production of the MacIntosh, the new one released when he came back, the iphone, ipad and he brought back Apple from the brink of bankruptcy, can we agree that he was not merely a saleman!
Thanks.
Indeed, he was a idea thief and damn good one, nothing he "invented" did not already exist, the only thing he did was to blend things together and even that sometimes he stole from others. Add to this the retarded prices you pay for all apple products and your faith in humanity sinks to hell considering the company actually is profitable (sorry but when you charge twice the average price for your electronics that anyone sane would and have most of them be bog standard or even subpar to the competition.. just goes to prove there are allot of idiots buying things for the label alone).
Originally posted by Dihoru Originally posted by BenedictXVYou may forget, sir, that Steve Jobs participated actively in the design and the production of the MacIntosh, the new one released when he came back, the iphone, ipad and he brought back Apple from the brink of bankruptcy, can we agree that he was not merely a saleman!Thanks.
Indeed, he was a idea thief and damn good one, nothing he "invented" did not already exist, the only thing he did was to blend things together and even that sometimes he stole from others. Add to this the retarded prices you pay for all apple products and your faith in humanity sinks to hell considering the company actually is profitable (sorry but when you charge twice the average price for your electronics that anyone sane would and have most of them be bog standard or even subpar to the competition.. just goes to prove there are allot of idiots buying things for the label alone).
I'm not sure why people are discussing Apple products here. I can say that everyone I've known who bought an Apple product has been happy with them. These are people who work in IT as developers, managers or providing support. They aren't idiots. They bought a product, and it works and they're happy with it. Basically, the idea of the products is inline with the reality of the products.
If CU is anything like an Apple product where the idea and the reality is inline, then it will be a very successful game.
On the other hand, if it is a cult of personality kind of thing, well, I suppose it'll sell well initially, and then tank like all the other games that are popular more for the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I actually never even considered that - bonus!
It is always a battle between PvP and PvE players when it comes to balance. I suppose CU will skirt this entirely; now it will just be PvP balance complaints, and I am sure there will be plenty.
While I agree that there is no guarantee with donations, backing a project through kickstarter is not a donation. If the project fails to fund, in this case if they do not reach 2 million before the clock expires then any amounts pledged will not be collected. If however it succeeds then there are still any number of things that can go wrong, for example the world could end. While that example is likely not a probable one, it serves the purpose of illustrating that there could be a legitimate reason for not happening as planned. I doubt CSE or Mark Jacobs will run off into the night having pocketed the money.
A product release can be forced by investors for a number of reasons. If the contract in place has ironclad wording stating that a product will launch by a given date, lawsuits may happen if it doesn't. The investors will not care if it is "ready" in some cases. If the money runs out because development ran longer than initially proposed it isn't necessarily the developers' fault, maybe the concept phase took too long, maybe the feedback during testing was unclear or some bugs were extremely hard to replicate and fix. Maybe the meetings with the investors did not go as planned and in an effort to please them the project manager bumped up some of the timelines for various features and ended up causing more problems.
Investors absolutely have an influence on the timeline of product development, the extent of which is likely documented in a contract. Additionally, unhappy investors who are unhappy for any reason can show said unhappiness and it will affect how the project team proceeds in any number of ways. And depending on the structure of a company, the developers would not set any deadlines, that would be handled by a project manager. An unfinished product isn't automatically the fault of the developers, if you think so you are very mistaken.
And if you are using devs to mean the studio or the project team behind the development then ignore some of the above.
I want to say something about yelling in an online forum but your name has beer in it so I can't be upset.
Well, if an investor already put money on project and it is going as planned, there is little reason to back off. On the other hand developers have much more reasons to missmanage the development and make an investor cry.
Investors have much higher motivation to finish and release the product, it is their money that are in gamble.
As for "reputation", that's only about PR. You can steal money with style and people will even pity you. You will never know the truth.
You may forget, sir, that Steve Jobs participated actively in the design and the production of the MacIntosh, the new one released when he came back, the iphone, ipad and he brought back Apple from the brink of bankruptcy, can we agree that he was not merely a saleman!
Thanks.
Indeed, he was a idea thief and damn good one, nothing he "invented" did not already exist, the only thing he did was to blend things together and even that sometimes he stole from others. Add to this the retarded prices you pay for all apple products and your faith in humanity sinks to hell considering the company actually is profitable (sorry but when you charge twice the average price for your electronics that anyone sane would and have most of them be bog standard or even subpar to the competition.. just goes to prove there are allot of idiots buying things for the label alone).
I'm not sure why people are discussing Apple products here. I can say that everyone I've known who bought an Apple product has been happy with them. These are people who work in IT as developers, managers or providing support. They aren't idiots. They bought a product, and it works and they're happy with it. Basically, the idea of the products is inline with the reality of the products.
If CU is anything like an Apple product where the idea and the reality is inline, then it will be a very successful game.
On the other hand, if it is a cult of personality kind of thing, well, I suppose it'll sell well initially, and then tank like all the other games that are popular more for the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.