I recently paid for a table that i designed myself. It will take 4-6 months before I get it (has to be built). It could end up being better or worse than what I imagined, it might not work with the rest of my furniture. On the other hand it could end up being passed down my family as something of an heirloom.
Its a bit of a gamble- but its just a purchase not an investment.
In addition if we take out the time factor I can apply your logic to any game purchase. Buying a game is always a bit of a risk, maybe I won't really like it, maybe it will be the best game ever- worth 10x more than the $50 I spent on it. And I can certainly apply your logic to a pre-order - even including the time factor.
Its completely delusional to call giving money to someone in the hope they will make a game you will enjoy 5 years down the track "an investment". You are just paying money for a product to be delivered down the track.
It may seem harmless enough to fool yourself in such a way if you only put down $50, but feel for the people that get sucked into to such thinking and then plonk down thousands for their "investment".
Its an investment because your 50 bucks may or may not get you anything. You are not paying for a product you will get. You paying into an idea. Your illustration of the table, at the end you will get a table. With this game, you have no clue if you will get anything. If at the end you get nothing, there is little chance you will get your money back. Crowd funded projects does not make you a customer, it makes you a backer. They are not the same thing.
That's not called an investment that called a very risky gamble.....
If I buy a house for investment I don't get the idea of getting a house, I get the property and I get the potential of making a profit in the future.
Payment is not always money. But gamble also works =-) Point is you are not a customer and if things dont work out, there is little recourse.
OK I see where you are coming from. It does seem pretty risky; your word above "backer" is probably the best way to describe it, that's the spirit I would go into kickstarters etc with.
By definition of the word, people who put money into a kickstarter are an investor. They are not investing for potential financial gain, they are investing in hope of a game they want to play. There is no promise that you will get a return on investment in any situation, hence the reason terms like ROI are even created.
That logic makes every purchase of anything an investment. I think the word you are looking for is a gamble? - ie everyone who puts money into a kickstarter is taking a gamble.
No, it doesn't. A normal purchase doesn't have the time factor, risk or chance of greater return. Now if you purchase 50 can openers before a zombie apocalypse, that could be considered an investment because the factors of time and ROI.
$50 towards a game I really want to play in the future could be worth 10x as much to me as the $50 I spend on games offering more of the same.
I recently paid for a table that i designed myself. It will take 4-6 months before I get it (has to be built). It could end up being better or worse than what I imagined, it might not work with the rest of my furniture. On the other hand it could end up being passed down my family as something of an heirloom.
Its a bit of a gamble- but its just a purchase not an investment.
In addition if we take out the time factor I can apply your logic to any game purchase. Buying a game is always a bit of a risk, maybe I won't really like it, maybe it will be the best game ever- worth 10x more than the $50 I spent on it. And I can certainly apply your logic to a pre-order - even including the time factor.
Its completely delusional to call giving money to someone in the hope they will make a game you will enjoy 5 years down the track "an investment". You are just paying money for a product to be delivered down the track.
It may seem harmless enough to fool yourself in such a way if you only put down $50, but feel for the people that get sucked into to such thinking and then plonk down thousands for their "investment".
Sounds like you are arguing with me about how dictionarys defines an investment. Sorry you don't agree, but your table will most likely always serve you as nothing but a table.
You probably knew this, of course, if you understand words in English.
Not that I'm a moderator here, because I am certainly not, but let's be nice guys -- I don't see how a debate over semantics and the 'proper' definition of investor, backer, etc. really helps
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Not that I'm a moderator here, because I am certainly not, but let's be nice guys -- I don't see how a debate over semantics and the 'proper' definition of investor, backer, etc. really helps
Not trying to be nasty, just don't appreciate attempts to put a nice spin on things by wordsmithing them.
By definition of the word, people who put money into a kickstarter are an investor. They are not investing for potential financial gain, they are investing in hope of a game they want to play. There is no promise that you will get a return on investment in any situation, hence the reason terms like ROI are even created.
That logic makes every purchase of anything an investment. I think the word you are looking for is a gamble? - ie everyone who puts money into a kickstarter is taking a gamble.
No, it doesn't. A normal purchase doesn't have the time factor, risk or chance of greater return. Now if you purchase 50 can openers before a zombie apocalypse, that could be considered an investment because the factors of time and ROI.
$50 towards a game I really want to play in the future could be worth 10x as much to me as the $50 I spend on games offering more of the same.
I recently paid for a table that i designed myself. It will take 4-6 months before I get it (has to be built). It could end up being better or worse than what I imagined, it might not work with the rest of my furniture. On the other hand it could end up being passed down my family as something of an heirloom.
Its a bit of a gamble- but its just a purchase not an investment.
In addition if we take out the time factor I can apply your logic to any game purchase. Buying a game is always a bit of a risk, maybe I won't really like it, maybe it will be the best game ever- worth 10x more than the $50 I spent on it. And I can certainly apply your logic to a pre-order - even including the time factor.
Its completely delusional to call giving money to someone in the hope they will make a game you will enjoy 5 years down the track "an investment". You are just paying money for a product to be delivered down the track.
It may seem harmless enough to fool yourself in such a way if you only put down $50, but feel for the people that get sucked into to such thinking and then plonk down thousands for their "investment".
Sounds like you are arguing with me about how dictionarys defines an investment. Sorry you don't agree, but your table will most likely always serve you as nothing but a table.
You probably knew this, of course, if you understand words in English.
No, I think I was pretty clear in explaining that by your logic "investment" includes practically any purchase of any item.
Not that I'm a moderator here, because I am certainly not, but let's be nice guys -- I don't see how a debate over semantics and the 'proper' definition of investor, backer, etc. really helps
It doesn't really help, but its the internet and one can only take so much blind arrogance and blatant disregard for the English language! Oh for the days when anonymity didn't hinder informed individuals from enjoying intelligent discourse.
Not that I'm a moderator here, because I am certainly not, but let's be nice guys -- I don't see how a debate over semantics and the 'proper' definition of investor, backer, etc. really helps
It doesn't really help, but its the internet and one can only take so much blind arrogance and blatant disregard for the English language! Oh for the days when anonymity didn't hinder informed individuals from enjoying intelligent discourse.
OK I'm off to invest in some lunch now, make sure to invest in some sleep tonight!
Not that I'm a moderator here, because I am certainly not, but let's be nice guys -- I don't see how a debate over semantics and the 'proper' definition of investor, backer, etc. really helps
It doesn't really help, but its the internet and one can only take so much blind arrogance and blatant disregard for the English language! Oh for the days when anonymity didn't hinder informed individuals from enjoying intelligent discourse.
I agree, except I think that you and Aradune are the ones being intellectually dishonest here. Kickstarter and the like are donor programs not investment sites. They know that and so do you. Stop pretending that a Kickstarter donation is anything but a donation.
All I know is the two people who can't and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money is Brad and Smed. I have to say anyone giving these two money for a game must really have money to burn and shouldn't expect nothing back in return and that includes a working fully released game.
I do understand the type of game you guys want to play and heck I do too. But these two have run their course and they are both trying to create what they had years ago. Which is the problem, they have no new ideas that could create a game that holds on to what they and we experienced years ago and that my friends is sad. It is like they say you can never go back and get that feeling again.
Personally am waiting for that person who has the hunger and is fearless to go and create something that will open all our eyes and say WTF why didn't we think of that. It may happen years from now or it could be happening in some basement right now. But that person will not be allowing some backer(s) to say you can't do that or it won't sell.
I just hope it happens before i die because that is what me and a few others are waiting for.
So basically what you're saying is you have no idea what has been proposed with Pantheon, because they've told us about a number of fresh ideas that have not been done before in MMOs, and some anywhere period.
No what am saying is I seen a game that had great ideas and was beloved by a heck of a lot of players destroyed by a persons great ideas. So am sorry but that is hard to forget and forgive. Like I said they have run their course and should just retire and let new people into the fold so we can all move on to better gaming.
I just don't understand how this MMORPG could ever get its feet off the ground. The amount of money gained from crowd funding is rather small compared to the development costs of an MMORPG. The only other two Kickstarter MMORPGs I know of are Pathfinder Online, which looked like crap before its shut down, and Crowfall. Crowfall has potential, but its scope is extremely limited. To be like a higher quality EQ, wouldn't it need a budget much higher than it currently has?
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
I just don't understand how this MMORPG could ever get its feet off the ground. The amount of money gained from crowd funding is rather small compared to the development costs of an MMORPG. The only other two Kickstarter MMORPGs I know of are Pathfinder Online, which looked like crap before its shut down, and Crowfall. Crowfall has potential, but its scope is extremely limited. To be like a higher quality EQ, wouldn't it need a budget much higher than it currently has?
First of all, the amount of money it takes to make an MMO is considerably less than what has been spent in recent years. EQ for instance was made with only a few million.
Second, we don't really know how much their budget is. If they use the money they have to build the foundation of a good game, chances are they will secure additional funding as time goes on.
First of all, the amount of money it takes to make an MMO is considerably less than what has been spent in recent years. EQ for instance was made with only a few million.
Agreed. The whole point of the technology is to allow more to be done with less. I would hope that making an MMORPG would cost less with time as better tools come out to do more of the work for you.
Personally I could care less for the terminology used. Yes I did (insert your choice of label) money into the potential creation of Pantheon.
Is it guaranteed? No. Therefore a gamble? Sure.
Do I personally see any other games now, in the past years, or in the near future, that could live up to MY expectations for what I believe a MMO should be. Frankly No.
It could possibly be long odds, but those odds could diminish dramatically if their development yields a decent model to attract an investor. My only hope is enough control is maintained to create the game that the niche needs and not the game that the masses want.
Which I am sure everyone is aware of how pleasing "everyone" in an mmo yields a crap game with no depth, no challenge, no group dependancy, and ultimately no longevity.
Long odds is better than no odds. Pantheon only MMO in development that is even in the friggin realm of what an MMO should be. If it doesnt get made, im no worse off than i am now. If it does, then its awesome.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Long odds is better than no odds. Pantheon only MMO in development that is even in the friggin realm of what an MMO should be. If it doesnt get made, im no worse off than i am now. If it does, then its awesome.
Usually, when people gamble, long odds are far worse than no odds as you don't have to lose any money if you don't participate.
First of all, the amount of money it takes to make an MMO is considerably less than what has been spent in recent years. EQ for instance was made with only a few million.
Agreed. The whole point of the technology is to allow more to be done with less. I would hope that making an MMORPG would cost less with time as better tools come out to do more of the work for you.
I don't think thats how it actually works, otherwise we wouldn't see game installations getting bigger all the time, truth is, the more complex a game is, the more complex the coding, and this especially applies to the game engine, not just the pixel count of the graphics etc. If it was about doing more with less, then games would not be continually increasing in size. As for the tools, MMO dev's tend to create their own game engines, buying someone elses is fraught with issues, which also include, drastically increased costs, same with art assets, you can buy someone elses, or you can create your own. Short answer, it all costs and it really doesn't get cheaper.
First of all, the amount of money it takes to make an MMO is considerably less than what has been spent in recent years. EQ for instance was made with only a few million.
Agreed. The whole point of the technology is to allow more to be done with less. I would hope that making an MMORPG would cost less with time as better tools come out to do more of the work for you.
I don't think thats how it actually works, otherwise we wouldn't see game installations getting bigger all the time, truth is, the more complex a game is, the more complex the coding, and this especially applies to the game engine, not just the pixel count of the graphics etc. If it was about doing more with less, then games would not be continually increasing in size. As for the tools, MMO dev's tend to create their own game engines, buying someone elses is fraught with issues, which also include, drastically increased costs, same with art assets, you can buy someone elses, or you can create your own. Short answer, it all costs and it really doesn't get cheaper.
Not so sure size reflects anything. You could go back to a classic EQ install and refurbish all the textures and other assets increasing the size by 5-10x. That doesn't necessarily mean it takes 5-10x longer to create them. The concept art would be the same, and honestly the tools with which they're created are much more streamlined today than 15 years ago.
The real problems today are the amount of fluff and eye-candy that have to be produced to keep players around in a game with a fundamentally flawed design, and the amount the creators of said fluff cost to employ.
Personally I could care less for the terminology used. Yes I did (insert your choice of label) money into the potential creation of Pantheon.
Is it guaranteed? No. Therefore a gamble? Sure.
Do I personally see any other games now, in the past years, or in the near future, that could live up to MY expectations for what I believe a MMO should be. Frankly No.
It could possibly be long odds, but those odds could diminish dramatically if their development yields a decent model to attract an investor. My only hope is enough control is maintained to create the game that the niche needs and not the game that the masses want.
Which I am sure everyone is aware of how pleasing "everyone" in an mmo yields a crap game with no depth, no challenge, no group dependancy, and ultimately no longevity.
Long odds is better than no odds. Pantheon only MMO in development that is even in the friggin realm of what an MMO should be. If it doesnt get made, im no worse off than i am now. If it does, then its awesome.
I think there is one major thing you three are missing with this argument, an MMORPG is what the players make of it, the only way it's going to be your perfect MMO experience is if the vast majority approach it as you would. Which is based on recollections of a community that came together over a decade ago. One that diverged into many different directions in terms of wants and expectations.
That goes for the direction it's development takes in what it offers post release as well. The majority will guide the devs hands in how this experience plays out, just as it does with any other live service.
Having this strict ideal on what an MMO "should be" is a recipe for disappointment.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Perhaps, but for most, appealing to the masses has been a recipe for nothing but short lived games on life support, if not complete failures altogether.
I think its time to stop trying to think in terms of what is most appealing, and for people to just start making games again that they're passionate about. Niche games are the way of the future. As of right now, 6 out of 7 games on the most anticipated MMO list here on mmorpg are indie games appealing to a niche audience.
Perhaps, but for most, appealing to the masses has been a recipe for nothing but short lived games on life support, if not complete failures altogether.
I think its time to stop trying to think in terms of what is most appealing, and for people to just start making games again that they're passionate about. Niche games are the way of the future. As of right now, 6 out of 7 games on the most anticipated MMO list here on mmorpg are indie games appealing to a niche audience.
I wouldn t count on any lists here as indicative of majority.
I've invested tons of money and time into the project so far and I will continue to do so with the hopes that my investment will pay off with priceless memories.
I've invested tons of money and time into the project so far and I will continue to do so with the hopes that my investment will pay off with priceless memories.
Duck duck goose the rest of you that don't lol.
Fine, I hope it pans out for you. But you donated time and money, you invested nothing, unless you have a share certificate or something similar in 'Visionary Realms'.
Comments
You probably knew this, of course, if you understand words in English.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
--John Ruskin
Second, we don't really know how much their budget is. If they use the money they have to build the foundation of a good game, chances are they will secure additional funding as time goes on.
Is it guaranteed? No. Therefore a gamble? Sure.
Do I personally see any other games now, in the past years, or in the near future, that could live up to MY expectations for what I believe a MMO should be. Frankly No.
It could possibly be long odds, but those odds could diminish dramatically if their development yields a decent model to attract an investor. My only hope is enough control is maintained to create the game that the niche needs and not the game that the masses want.
Which I am sure everyone is aware of how pleasing "everyone" in an mmo yields a crap game with no depth, no challenge, no group dependancy, and ultimately no longevity.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I mean, if you actually want to play an MMO again and you aren't happy what's currently being passed off as such.
As for the tools, MMO dev's tend to create their own game engines, buying someone elses is fraught with issues, which also include, drastically increased costs, same with art assets, you can buy someone elses, or you can create your own. Short answer, it all costs and it really doesn't get cheaper.
The real problems today are the amount of fluff and eye-candy that have to be produced to keep players around in a game with a fundamentally flawed design, and the amount the creators of said fluff cost to employ.
I think there is one major thing you three are missing with this argument, an MMORPG is what the players make of it, the only way it's going to be your perfect MMO experience is if the vast majority approach it as you would. Which is based on recollections of a community that came together over a decade ago. One that diverged into many different directions in terms of wants and expectations.
That goes for the direction it's development takes in what it offers post release as well. The majority will guide the devs hands in how this experience plays out, just as it does with any other live service.
Having this strict ideal on what an MMO "should be" is a recipe for disappointment.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think its time to stop trying to think in terms of what is most appealing, and for people to just start making games again that they're passionate about. Niche games are the way of the future. As of right now, 6 out of 7 games on the most anticipated MMO list here on mmorpg are indie games appealing to a niche audience.
I wouldn t count on any lists here as indicative of majority.
Duck duck goose the rest of you that don't lol.