You could say that about anything not just mmorpg's. The simple fact is if you are happy playing wow clones for the rest of your life then you carry on with the toxic approach to small developers starting up and asking the community to support an excellent idea.
It seems to me that people like yourself have nothing better to do than insult people trying to do something you yourself could never do.
And here it is again. No one is trash talking the guy who is trying to run this baby but no one is foolish enough to confuse the dreams of a developer with the harsh reality of what can be done and how much money it takes.
Yet you guys keep coming here twisting whatever we say.
We are reluctant to hand over our money for an unfinished game? - Clearly we are selfish and wow-clone lovers.
We criticize points you make? - Obviously we are a toxic community trying to roast a little indie dev.
My advice for you: Go try your luck on reddit where the majority of criticism is labeled as trolling. Echo chambers will probably work much better for you.
Actually most of you are being toxic. You might not like someone from outside coming and reminding you of this fact. The simple fact is kickstarter (and the like) these days is one of the best ways for a design studio that doesn't want to sell it's soul to a publisher to get funds.
This thread was about kickstarter and how much were people willing to give to a game in development yet what have some of you done. Bash kickstarter and any studio that wants to use it. Why did you even bother coming onto the thread if that was the best you could put up and then say oh its criticism not us just being toxic. There has been nothing constructive alfresco of your comments yet you think your super cool. Well here is news your not!
Just to verify i don't mean you as an individual I mean all of you who have moaned about kickstarter. Secondly I am no way associated with Soulbound and the views input on here are totally my own.
And that's where we disagree. Kickstarter is NOT a good idea. The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day.
Call us toxic if it makes you so happy but we are making that statement based on the results of the last years rather than ideologic promises.
If kickstarter is such a bad thing why have you come on a thread about kickstarter? It's not that you dislike kickstarter that's toxic it's that you come on someone's threat about a kickstarter moaning about kickstarter and devs that use it that makes you toxic.
If you don't want to be given that label don't come in threads like this throwing pointless comments into it.
And that's where we disagree. Kickstarter is NOT a good idea. The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day.
Call us toxic if it makes you so happy but we are making that statement based on the results of the last years rather than ideologic promises.
If kickstarter is such a bad thing why have you come on a thread about kickstarter? It's not that you dislike kickstarter that's toxic it's that you come on someone's threat about a kickstarter moaning about kickstarter and devs that use it that makes you toxic.
If you don't want to be given that label don't come in threads like this throwing pointless comments into it.
Rofl That's called a discussion. Someone says something and people will discuss the pros and cons of the given idea.
Visit the Chronicles of Elyria official site and the Official Wiki... an upcoming MMO from Soulbound Studios with real consequences to your actions. Finite Resources, WYSIWYG looting to player created and maintained maps and a deep modular crafting system. So much more that hasn't been said, ask questions! Post your thoughts! Spread the word of COE!
If you haven't yet, register with my referrer code on the official website: B0E240
Someone may make a $10,000 donation to a video game that may or may not ever release, in exchange for what?
Why does it have to be in exchange for something?
If people want to see innovation in games we need people willing to take a risk.
All publishers seem to want to do these days is rinse and repeat the cod/wow/moba clones because they earn money.
It's not a question of risk. Risk is where you may receive a return on an investment, or you may not. Here, you just take $10,000 and give it away. But to each their own.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
noboddy in his right mind should support a game kickstarter with more then $50... With $50 giving access to the game at release..
Dont you all have to work for your money?
The problem with crowdfunding is the idea is to pay now, let them create the game, then they deliver it. Except, even if we assume they can complete the game with the funding, they still owe a finished product but have already collected the revenue. So then what? Release the game then go out of business because they have no income?
noboddy in his right mind should support a game kickstarter with more then $50... With $50 giving access to the game at release..
Dont you all have to work for your money?
The problem with crowdfunding is the idea is to pay now, let them create the game, then they deliver it. Except, even if we assume they can complete the game with the funding, they still owe a finished product but have already collected the revenue. So then what? Release the game then go out of business because they have no income?
Actually you are wrong on that one.
Plenty of game studios with 20-50 employees bring outside investors to increase the budget for the game and those investors definitely look for a return on their money. The other thing is that few people get on board during the kickstarter phase and if the product is good you get money to pay your investors and hopefully enough for your next gaming project.
Steam early access is different, generally more people get onboard during early access instead of waiting for the full release. However, steam early access has nothing to do with crowdfunding, its paying for alpha/beta.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Im not a fan of permadeath but it bothers me more so with this game than other games. Their payment model is tied into your chars death/rebirth cycle. Am I the only one that is bothered by this??????????????
I am somewhat concerned about the "pay-to-grief" dimension of that concept. According to the main argument defending the concept, griefing pkillers will be stopped either by NPCs or other players and it will be costly to pkill and grief other people. The problem is that some people may be willing to spend a considerable amount of money on that activity and thus influencing the expenses of other players too. A griefing pkiller could go on a killing spree, wasting a lot of his/her real life money due to his/her own deaths, but also forcing other people to waste more money due to their deaths in the process.
The other concern is that some players become attached to one particular character and the loss of the character is a big deal for them. If the game fails to become exceptionally amazing to mitigate the negative feelings, permadeath has a potential of becoming a major stumbling block in the future. The negative impact and bad publicity can become compounded if permadeath hits a large portion of player population during the same time period. This can inadvertantly happen if first players arrive in a big wave within the first 1-2 months after game launch and then the majority of them start dying of old age during the same time period 10-12 months later.
Real life money only gets you so far in this game.
-Who provides you with in-game supplies? Food? Armor? Weapons? -Where are you based out of?
Running around naked and homeless after your first character permadied and your family was run out of town for harboring your criminal self means you're not much a threat to anyone anymore, no matter how many sparks of life you buy.
Raiders (which I do not equate with griefers) have to be careful out of necessity. If their base is found by one of their victims, thats it. They tell the city-states and kingdoms that have been hit by the raiders, and now this group of raiders has an entire nation's standing army at their front door.
This isn't going to be like other games where you die and your gear took a dura loss, or you lose your "guild hall" so you go to the next safezone with your friends. When your city is found, and you lose the fight, you lose everything in the game you have built or stolen.
... The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day ...
TL;DR: If the players want better games, they have to be willing to take risks... or be willing to wait.
Detailed: Unfortunately, this is the same observation that publishers made with their own business model. Making games is expensive and many games don't succeed to the level the publisher would like. A lot of games come in at a loss. This is the main reason many publishers stick to a formula they know is likely to succeed.
The main problem with the publisher model is it's difficult to know what customers want. So while they have a lot of resources, there's no guarantee of success.
The crowdfunding model is different. In theory, we know what customers want. They've told us. The challenge in the crowdfunding model is that we rarely get enough resources to cover the full expenses of making a game.
When publishers see only a small handful of games succeeding, they double down on the ones that do, and write off those that don't as a cost of business.
When crowdfunding fails, the supporters back off, lick their wounds, and vow to never back a game again. The truth is, there's nothing wrong with that. It's expected. But it also means players get to wait around until the companies with a lot of resources decide to take a risk. And innovation comes from big ideas, not big wallets.
... The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day ...
TL;DR: If the players want better games, they have to be willing to take risks... or be willing to wait.
Detailed: Unfortunately, this is the same observation that publishers made with their own business model. Making games is expensive and many games don't succeed to the level the publisher would like. A lot of games come in at a loss. This is the main reason many publishers stick to a formula they know is likely to succeed.
The main problem with the publisher model is it's difficult to know what customers want. So while they have a lot of resources, there's no guarantee of success.
The crowdfunding model is different. In theory, we know what customers want. They've told us. The challenge in the crowdfunding model is that we rarely get enough resources to cover the full expenses of making a game.
When publishers see only a small handful of games succeeding, they double down on the ones that do, and write off those that don't as a cost of business.
When crowdfunding fails, the supporters back off, lick their wounds, and vow to never back a game again. The truth is, there's nothing wrong with that. It's expected. But it also means players get to wait around until the companies with a lot of resources decide to take a risk. And innovation comes from big ideas, not big wallets.
... The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day ...
TL;DR: If the players want better games, they have to be willing to take risks... or be willing to wait.
Detailed: Unfortunately, this is the same observation that publishers made with their own business model. Making games is expensive and many games don't succeed to the level the publisher would like. A lot of games come in at a loss. This is the main reason many publishers stick to a formula they know is likely to succeed.
The main problem with the publisher model is it's difficult to know what customers want. So while they have a lot of resources, there's no guarantee of success.
The crowdfunding model is different. In theory, we know what customers want. They've told us. The challenge in the crowdfunding model is that we rarely get enough resources to cover the full expenses of making a game.
When publishers see only a small handful of games succeeding, they double down on the ones that do, and write off those that don't as a cost of business.
When crowdfunding fails, the supporters back off, lick their wounds, and vow to never back a game again. The truth is, there's nothing wrong with that. It's expected. But it also means players get to wait around until the companies with a lot of resources decide to take a risk. And innovation comes from big ideas, not big wallets.
TL;DR: Get your own money, investors, or a loan. Quit expecting the gamers to pay for every kickstarter that comes out.
Or you could just use your own money all the way through or take out loans and so forth instead of taking the players money. There used to be a time that players didn't have to pay till the game released. Now all the game developers figure what the hell we can just get the gamers to pay for it. Even though you honestly can't tell them if the game will release.
Oh sure I've seen a dozen or so kickstarters with "regardless if this gets funded we will release" and I have yet to see them release. If you believe in your game so much. Go take a loan out or get someone to invest in your project. Quit having the gamers pay for your vision. Used to the beta testers were just that, testers, not someone that test because they helped pay for said game. Some even got paid to test. Now days it is if you pre-order, buy founder packs or give us money for kickstarter.
Jermony claims that he already sold his dream home to pay for some of this game's development. Now i'm not saying go crazy and spend tons of money. However if what he claims is true (imo) he has gone pretty far into debt himself just to get the game this far, so it's not like he is looking for free money just to live happily off of while he diddles around with his game.
Many companies just have concept art and maybe a small model before they run to the fans, however if the videos are evidence (and until they are proven otherwise we should probably assume they are) he has snow accumlations, voice actors, walk, sword swinging, animations for crafting, world design. He also states that he'll be at an event where people will get to see the game. Maybe he is just one of those people who doesn't want publisers/investors telling him what he can and can't do. We'll have to see how it plays out, but I have more confidence in him than i have in most other people that he'll get the job done.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
... The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day ...
TL;DR: If the players want better games, they have to be willing to take risks... or be willing to wait.
Detailed: Unfortunately, this is the same observation that publishers made with their own business model. Making games is expensive and many games don't succeed to the level the publisher would like. A lot of games come in at a loss. This is the main reason many publishers stick to a formula they know is likely to succeed.
The main problem with the publisher model is it's difficult to know what customers want. So while they have a lot of resources, there's no guarantee of success.
The crowdfunding model is different. In theory, we know what customers want. They've told us. The challenge in the crowdfunding model is that we rarely get enough resources to cover the full expenses of making a game.
When publishers see only a small handful of games succeeding, they double down on the ones that do, and write off those that don't as a cost of business.
When crowdfunding fails, the supporters back off, lick their wounds, and vow to never back a game again. The truth is, there's nothing wrong with that. It's expected. But it also means players get to wait around until the companies with a lot of resources decide to take a risk. And innovation comes from big ideas, not big wallets.
TL;DR 'Big companies with a big budget don't know what players want but we crowdfunding people do. Crowdfunding devs are honorable people who will not ask for more money if the initial kickstarter fails.'
I'm not sure if you are naive beyond the scale or if you are just an impudent liar. Well you pretend not to know anything about what has been going on in the last years so I tend to think you are the later...
... The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day ...
TL;DR: If the players want better games, they have to be willing to take risks... or be willing to wait.
Detailed: Unfortunately, this is the same observation that publishers made with their own business model. Making games is expensive and many games don't succeed to the level the publisher would like. A lot of games come in at a loss. This is the main reason many publishers stick to a formula they know is likely to succeed.
The main problem with the publisher model is it's difficult to know what customers want. So while they have a lot of resources, there's no guarantee of success.
The crowdfunding model is different. In theory, we know what customers want. They've told us. The challenge in the crowdfunding model is that we rarely get enough resources to cover the full expenses of making a game.
When publishers see only a small handful of games succeeding, they double down on the ones that do, and write off those that don't as a cost of business.
When crowdfunding fails, the supporters back off, lick their wounds, and vow to never back a game again. The truth is, there's nothing wrong with that. It's expected. But it also means players get to wait around until the companies with a lot of resources decide to take a risk. And innovation comes from big ideas, not big wallets.
TL;DR: Get your own money, investors, or a loan. Quit expecting the gamers to pay for every kickstarter that comes out.
Or you could just use your own money all the way through or take out loans and so forth instead of taking the players money. There used to be a time that players didn't have to pay till the game released. Now all the game developers figure what the hell we can just get the gamers to pay for it. Even though you honestly can't tell them if the game will release.
Oh sure I've seen a dozen or so kickstarters with "regardless if this gets funded we will release" and I have yet to see them release. If you believe in your game so much. Go take a loan out or get someone to invest in your project. Quit having the gamers pay for your vision. Used to the beta testers were just that, testers, not someone that test because they helped pay for said game. Some even got paid to test. Now days it is if you pre-order, buy founder packs or give us money for kickstarter.
Jermony claims that he already sold his dream home to pay for some of this game's development. Now i'm not saying go crazy and spend tons of money. However if what he claims is true (imo) he has gone pretty far into debt himself just to get the game this far, so it's not like he is looking for free money just to live happily off of while he diddles around with his game.
Many companies just have concept art and maybe a small model before they run to the fans, however if the videos are evidence (and until they are proven otherwise we should probably assume they are) he has snow accumlations, voice actors, walk, sword swinging, animations for crafting, world design. He also states that he'll be at an event where people will get to see the game. Maybe he is just one of those people who doesn't want publisers/investors telling him what he can and can't do. We'll have to see how it plays out, but I have more confidence in him than i have in most other people that he'll get the job done.
Hey, that is great and commendable. But finish that off and then expect someone to pay for the game. I'm sorry but developers now expect the gamers to cough up money for a game before it is released. It shouldn't happen. I very rarely pre-order a game, and if I do, it is from a company I know and trust. And there are very few of those. I damn sure am not going to go out and give them money for a kickstarter with the hopes said game releases, regardless if I know them or not.
I'm glad this developer is going all out (if that is to be believed, I don't know them and tend to err on the side of caution). I mean there is no way to know if he honestly sold his dream house to pay for the game so far. And I tend not to trust developers as most are full of BS.
I'm all for the game getting made for those looking forward to it. But it should be on the developers dime, not any of the gamers dime. That goes for every game developer, not just this one. I'm not just singling this one out, it was just this discussion is about this game.
So again, I say get a loan (for whatever amount you need), an investor or get your money from side projects. If you have that much faith in your game you don't need gamers giving you any money for no return on their investment. Now I will say if they could receive a return on the investment I would feel a bit different about it. But most now realize if they can get a kickstarter going and succeed they don't have to pay anyone back.
That's an understandable point of view. I wish they could do it without having to turn to the fans. Would make things a whole heck of a lot easier if an investor could just give them the money it's basically one and done they don't have to see the money inching closer to their goal and biting their nails hoping it will reach it in time. They do take some risk that going this route will get them a bad rep and possibly not even get the money in the first place (ie the kickstarter fails).
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
$0 will never back any kickstarter project ever.....Its a terrible investment
I think it's wrong to see these as an investment. Treat it as a pure gamble and only risk the amount you're willing (and expect) to lose. Those that do gamble might get a pleasant surprise.
I'm considering it, purely because I'm so jaded with the current MMO's out there and the chance of something new and different coming along has really piqued my interst.
lunawisp was my peacebringer in City of Heroes. She lives on, in memory, as my gaming id
Hey, that is great and commendable. But finish that off and then expect someone to pay for the game. I'm sorry but developers now expect the gamers to cough up money for a game before it is released. It shouldn't happen. I very rarely pre-order a game, and if I do, it is from a company I know and trust. And there are very few of those. I damn sure am not going to go out and give them money for a kickstarter with the hopes said game releases, regardless if I know them or not.
I'm glad this developer is going all out (if that is to be believed, I don't know them and tend to err on the side of caution). I mean there is no way to know if he honestly sold his dream house to pay for the game so far. And I tend not to trust developers as most are full of BS.
I'm all for the game getting made for those looking forward to it. But it should be on the developers dime, not any of the gamers dime. That goes for every game developer, not just this one. I'm not just singling this one out, it was just this discussion is about this game.
So again, I say get a loan (for whatever amount you need), an investor or get your money from side projects. If you have that much faith in your game you don't need gamers giving you any money for no return on their investment. Now I will say if they could receive a return on the investment I would feel a bit different about it. But most now realize if they can get a kickstarter going and succeed they don't have to pay anyone back.
That's an understandable point of view. I wish they could do it without having to turn to the fans. Would make things a whole heck of a lot easier if an investor could just give them the money it's basically one and done they don't have to see the money inching closer to their goal and biting their nails hoping it will reach it in time. They do take some risk that going this route will get them a bad rep and possibly not even get the money in the first place (ie the kickstarter fails).
While I agree with the "get an investor" concept, in theory, it's just not that simplistic.
Even before the rise of all these Indie studios; before Kickstarter became a big thing, I saw a ton of MMO studios crash because they couldn't find an investor or a publisher or whatever.
I just don't think there are many people who want to invest in MMOs, as a whole. There's just not that much investment money floating around marked for MMO developers.
All that said, I'm not one of the people who dumps money into KS campaigns. If I want to dump a bunch of money into a game concept, I'll dump it into my own. I'm perfectly content to wait and see where the chips fall. If some glorious new MMO rises from the pile, then I'll buy it and support them.
^ I'm in the "or" camp. #That's not a shot against CoE or Jeremy, FYI. I hope you guys succeed in your dream.
My personal feeling (for the future of MMOs) is that if any of these Indie MMOs looming on the horizon draws a decent sized playerbase and manages to be a success in today's market, we will see a renewed interest in the genre amongst the big financiers/studios.
This is definitely -$20 off from my potential crowdfunding of CoE. Maybe BD doesn't have such big promises as CoE but at least it is already here, can be bought and played already today. I feel BD has a more user-friendly approach. It has launched small but can potentially grow to MMO scale and with an inclusion of some cool innovative features. People can join and try the game themselves whenever they want instead of being offered a stiff 30 day limit which comes as a part of Kickstarter campaigns. People can also get their money back if they have played the game for less than 2 hours. Was there some reason why CoE decided to go with Kickstarter instead of Steam early access?
In Gareth Harmer's interview BD developers also confimed my suspicion that indie developers get to benefit quite a lot from the content and features released as part of Unreal Engine 4 updates. Looking at all these indie dev studio projects and the video trailers of their games, it can be hard to tell apart how much of the awesome looking stuff should be credited to the indie devs and how much to the big developers making and releasing content for these modern game engines like UE4 and CryEngine 3. If you look at all the Black Death video trailers, all that stuff was made by a team of seven people who started making the game in July 2015.
Enough to help but not so much that I will be pissed if it fails. I paid 100 bucks for Repopulation and that doesn't bother me, but the $150.00 SWTOR Sucker Edition Box set still makes me angry.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
noboddy in his right mind should support a game kickstarter with more then $50... With $50 giving access to the game at release..
Dont you all have to work for your money?
The problem with crowdfunding is the idea is to pay now, let them create the game, then they deliver it. Except, even if we assume they can complete the game with the funding, they still owe a finished product but have already collected the revenue. So then what? Release the game then go out of business because they have no income?
The revenue is supposed to include profit. That's why I harp on products that clearly aren't asking for enough, they obviously don't have anyone who understands the business side of the equation. There's a reason new AAA games come out and cost $50-$60, it's because it covers the development, marketing, et al of the product AND includes profit margin.
If they ask for $50 for their game that $50 needs to have profit margin built into it based on an estimated/anticipated number of sales. Unless you're a big enough entity that you can play loss leader to hinder competition, you need to price your product accordingly. If that means each box sale is $200 because you expect very low volume of sales, then so be it. It's total madness to ask for donations that will just cover the development process, you're already failing at that point.
When the product releases, the should have the development costs covered and profit to either pocket or reinvest as working capital into new development/projects. This is why people need to really look at these crowd funding projects carefully, it's one thing to propose a feature list and have a roster of development talent, but if you don't know what you're doing as a business you're heading straight for an iceberg and all your supporters will soon find out what happens when your titanic dream meets the reality iceberg.
This is definitely -$20 off from my potential crowdfunding of CoE. Maybe BD doesn't have such big promises as CoE but at least it is already here, can be bought and played already today. I feel BD has a more user-friendly approach. It has launched small but can potentially grow to MMO scale and with an inclusion of some cool innovative features. People can join and try the game themselves whenever they want instead of being offered a stiff 30 day limit which comes as a part of Kickstarter campaigns. People can also get their money back if they have played the game for less than 2 hours. Was there some reason why CoE decided to go with Kickstarter instead of Steam early access?
In Gareth Harmer's interview BD developers also confimed my suspicion that indie developers get to benefit quite a lot from the content and features released as part of Unreal Engine 4 updates. Looking at all these indie dev studio projects and the video trailers of their games, it can be hard to tell apart how much of the awesome looking stuff should be credited to the indie devs and how much to the big developers making and releasing content for these modern game engines like UE4 and CryEngine 3. If you look at all the Black Death video trailers, all that stuff was made by a team of seven people who started making the game in July 2015.
Early access can have a very double edge sword. People pluck down money and then find the game is like only 4 hours long and feel cheated or some features aren't working correctly. That will hurt your business and really cause word of mouth to go sour before you get the chance to even put those new features in.
Early access is also getting a stigma for quick cash grabs because people ran out of development money and is looking to make the money up by getting people to buy an incomplete product and now you have to wait for the game to be finished and in most cases they don't ever actually finish or rarely get updates.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Comments
This thread was about kickstarter and how much were people willing to give to a game in development yet what have some of you done. Bash kickstarter and any studio that wants to use it. Why did you even bother coming onto the thread if that was the best you could put up and then say oh its criticism not us just being toxic. There has been nothing constructive alfresco of your comments yet you think your super cool.
Well here is news your not!
Just to verify i don't mean you as an individual I mean all of you who have moaned about kickstarter.
Secondly I am no way associated with Soulbound and the views input on here are totally my own.
The majority of kickstarted games never sees the light of day.
Call us toxic if it makes you so happy but we are making that statement based on the results of the last years rather than ideologic promises.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
If people want to see innovation in games we need people willing to take a risk.
All publishers seem to want to do these days is rinse and repeat the cod/wow/moba clones because they earn money.
It's not that you dislike kickstarter that's toxic it's that you come on someone's threat about a kickstarter moaning about kickstarter and devs that use it that makes you toxic.
If you don't want to be given that label don't come in threads like this throwing pointless comments into it.
That's called a discussion.
Someone says something and people will discuss the pros and cons of the given idea.
I appreciate your comments @Dakeru.
Finite Resources, WYSIWYG looting to player created and maintained maps and a deep modular crafting system. So much more that hasn't been said, ask questions! Post your thoughts! Spread the word of COE!
If you haven't yet, register with my referrer code on the official website: B0E240
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Plenty of game studios with 20-50 employees bring outside investors to increase the budget for the game and those investors definitely look for a return on their money. The other thing is that few people get on board during the kickstarter phase and if the product is good you get money to pay your investors and hopefully enough for your next gaming project.
Steam early access is different, generally more people get onboard during early access instead of waiting for the full release. However, steam early access has nothing to do with crowdfunding, its paying for alpha/beta.
-Who provides you with in-game supplies? Food? Armor? Weapons?
-Where are you based out of?
Running around naked and homeless after your first character permadied and your family was run out of town for harboring your criminal self means you're not much a threat to anyone anymore, no matter how many sparks of life you buy.
Raiders (which I do not equate with griefers) have to be careful out of necessity. If their base is found by one of their victims, thats it. They tell the city-states and kingdoms that have been hit by the raiders, and now this group of raiders has an entire nation's standing army at their front door.
This isn't going to be like other games where you die and your gear took a dura loss, or you lose your "guild hall" so you go to the next safezone with your friends. When your city is found, and you lose the fight, you lose everything in the game you have built or stolen.
All of your raiding treasures are gone.
Detailed:
Unfortunately, this is the same observation that publishers made with their own business model. Making games is expensive and many games don't succeed to the level the publisher would like. A lot of games come in at a loss. This is the main reason many publishers stick to a formula they know is likely to succeed.
The main problem with the publisher model is it's difficult to know what customers want. So while they have a lot of resources, there's no guarantee of success.
The crowdfunding model is different. In theory, we know what customers want. They've told us. The challenge in the crowdfunding model is that we rarely get enough resources to cover the full expenses of making a game.
When publishers see only a small handful of games succeeding, they double down on the ones that do, and write off those that don't as a cost of business.
When crowdfunding fails, the supporters back off, lick their wounds, and vow to never back a game again. The truth is, there's nothing wrong with that. It's expected. But it also means players get to wait around until the companies with a lot of resources decide to take a risk. And innovation comes from big ideas, not big wallets.
Owner/CEO of Soulbound Studios
ChroniclesOfElyria.com
Many companies just have concept art and maybe a small model before they run to the fans, however if the videos are evidence (and until they are proven otherwise we should probably assume they are) he has snow accumlations, voice actors, walk, sword swinging, animations for crafting, world design. He also states that he'll be at an event where people will get to see the game. Maybe he is just one of those people who doesn't want publisers/investors telling him what he can and can't do. We'll have to see how it plays out, but I have more confidence in him than i have in most other people that he'll get the job done.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
'Big companies with a big budget don't know what players want but we crowdfunding people do. Crowdfunding devs are honorable people who will not ask for more money if the initial kickstarter fails.'
I'm not sure if you are naive beyond the scale or if you are just an impudent liar.
Well you pretend not to know anything about what has been going on in the last years so I tend to think you are the later...
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
I'm considering it, purely because I'm so jaded with the current MMO's out there and the chance of something new and different coming along has really piqued my interst.
Even before the rise of all these Indie studios; before Kickstarter became a big thing, I saw a ton of MMO studios crash because they couldn't find an investor or a publisher or whatever.
I just don't think there are many people who want to invest in MMOs, as a whole. There's just not that much investment money floating around marked for MMO developers.
All that said, I'm not one of the people who dumps money into KS campaigns. If I want to dump a bunch of money into a game concept, I'll dump it into my own.
I'm perfectly content to wait and see where the chips fall. If some glorious new MMO rises from the pile, then I'll buy it and support them.
^ I'm in the "or" camp.
#That's not a shot against CoE or Jeremy, FYI. I hope you guys succeed in your dream.
My personal feeling (for the future of MMOs) is that if any of these Indie MMOs looming on the horizon draws a decent sized playerbase and manages to be a success in today's market, we will see a renewed interest in the genre amongst the big financiers/studios.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/1364/feature/10767/Surviving-Early-Access.html/page/1
This is definitely -$20 off from my potential crowdfunding of CoE. Maybe BD doesn't have such big promises as CoE but at least it is already here, can be bought and played already today. I feel BD has a more user-friendly approach. It has launched small but can potentially grow to MMO scale and with an inclusion of some cool innovative features. People can join and try the game themselves whenever they want instead of being offered a stiff 30 day limit which comes as a part of Kickstarter campaigns. People can also get their money back if they have played the game for less than 2 hours. Was there some reason why CoE decided to go with Kickstarter instead of Steam early access?
In Gareth Harmer's interview BD developers also confimed my suspicion that indie developers get to benefit quite a lot from the content and features released as part of Unreal Engine 4 updates. Looking at all these indie dev studio projects and the video trailers of their games, it can be hard to tell apart how much of the awesome looking stuff should be credited to the indie devs and how much to the big developers making and releasing content for these modern game engines like UE4 and CryEngine 3. If you look at all the Black Death video trailers, all that stuff was made by a team of seven people who started making the game in July 2015.
* more info, screenshots and videos here
The revenue is supposed to include profit. That's why I harp on products that clearly aren't asking for enough, they obviously don't have anyone who understands the business side of the equation. There's a reason new AAA games come out and cost $50-$60, it's because it covers the development, marketing, et al of the product AND includes profit margin.
If they ask for $50 for their game that $50 needs to have profit margin built into it based on an estimated/anticipated number of sales. Unless you're a big enough entity that you can play loss leader to hinder competition, you need to price your product accordingly. If that means each box sale is $200 because you expect very low volume of sales, then so be it. It's total madness to ask for donations that will just cover the development process, you're already failing at that point.
When the product releases, the should have the development costs covered and profit to either pocket or reinvest as working capital into new development/projects. This is why people need to really look at these crowd funding projects carefully, it's one thing to propose a feature list and have a roster of development talent, but if you don't know what you're doing as a business you're heading straight for an iceberg and all your supporters will soon find out what happens when your titanic dream meets the reality iceberg.
Early access is also getting a stigma for quick cash grabs because people ran out of development money and is looking to make the money up by getting people to buy an incomplete product and now you have to wait for the game to be finished and in most cases they don't ever actually finish or rarely get updates.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.