Really silly, getting excited over a game that is probably at least 2 years out if not more. Might never make it to release too. Arguing what happens prior to that is just a waste of time.
so much drama... over a game that may never even see launch day.
What part of "I tied up a lot of cash in something that might never see the light of day so now I must defend it with my life against even the slightest hint of negativity" do you not understand?
Really silly, getting excited over a game that is probably at least 2 years out if not more. Might never make it to release too. Arguing what happens prior to that is just a waste of time.
I agree as it applies specifically to this game, but I think the conversations around it are good:
1. How much influence should crowd funders have?
2. Why indie devs and their studios come across as rookie and unprofessional. How should public statements be handled? Who should do the talking? Why having a CRM can be important.
3. Bad design tropes - why allowing players GM powers is a bad idea.
Very much this.
This particular situation is simply an example of an ongoing trend in crowdfunding. The suits are being replaced by the whales it seems, and it's giving rise to some questionable development decisions (at least, in many forum-goers' minds here at MMORPG.com) that don't seem to be the type of "change" we expected or hoped for when the crowdfunding thing took off. That's why folks are willing to devote time to it, even though the specific example is from a game a long way from being completed.
I enjoy reading these kinds of conversations, as they give me more perspective with each post. That's a good thing (to me).
To us this is just nr.20 on the list of overpromised games where in the end it turns out the announced features sounded better on paper than they are ingame. The "finished" game suffers from bad implementation, there isn't enough money to fix issues, etc etc etc.
To them it is: Omg listen to the head dev, he is going to make exactly the game I want!
To conclude this with the words of one of my favorite streamers:
Going through the official forums is like watching your children on Christmas day as an adult. It makes you think aww man to be a kid again, so cute. Inside it does kinda make you lament for those days.
Before the dark times, before your big brother murdered Santa. (
I really can't think of a game that admits to being pay to win. All of them have very logical reasons why their game is, or will be fair and square. Anyone that says different is wrong because they know exactly what the players will and won't do in their game. I'm also sure they have plans in place to stop gold sellers, dupers, bots, and radar programs, which the gold sellers will be stealth testing during beta.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Really silly, getting excited over a game that is probably at least 2 years out if not more. Might never make it to release too. Arguing what happens prior to that is just a waste of time.
I think there has been major miscommunication here.
From what I can gather from the quote directly, even if I were to be analyzing as more then just discussion, I don't really see the problem.
It seems as though the dev is saying that while there are currently no plans to allow people to play as a vice/virtue on a GM account (which I can't see any details on what that actually means for CoE), he has no problem with that. This can be seen in multiple ways, and I think thats the issue.
My fairy-tale way of seeing this is that when the story/events dictate, a highly influential player (AKA someone who is very influential, whether they paid for that or not (NOTE: You can earn influence through game mechanics)) can take temporary control of a special account that specifically has access to this very non-standard character that will allow said influential person to play out events. Given the nature of the game - or at least what has been explained so far - this is not in any way a form of P2W.
I have backed the game, and I will not say the design is without flaws. The monetary side of the game is still constantly being worked on, however this has lead to many misunderstandings. While you can purchase things now, it is to flesh out the world pre-launch. The developers have clearly stated their intention on how they want the game to be heavily player-driven, and the store as it currently stands is proving exactly that. They have also explained that they intend on removing the ability to purchase land/buildings/etc upon exposition, potentially even land selection.
I know and understand everyone's frustration with MMOs and how heavily micro-transaction based they have become. I don't think it's a problem that will be solved as easily as just removing those features, as the nature of micro-transactions is a result of many decades of compromise and industry-building for gaming. I believe that CoEs current monetary shop is not an indicator of a Pay-To-Win system, more like Pay-To-Exposit and for a game with such an interesting concept, why are we so toxic to something different?
At the end of the day, if you aren't willing to risk it or can't afford to risk it, then don't. But, there is no need to be so against something that really hasn't been done in this way before. Yes, it could go horribly wrong and everyone gets jaded against MMOs further.
But the thought of it going right feels so much better and would be oh so much fun to play.
Ah Slapshot, at it again I see? I thought leaking of "rough outlines" for the kickstarter tiers for CoE thread (where your agenda was that they needed to reduce the prices or they would fail) Or the problem you had with ageing (where you wanted it to take longer) or the other time with the talents and it goes on and on.
Instead of joining the discussion on CoE forums and actually try to have a discussion with the developers, you go to MMORPG with click-bait and something taken out of context that then proceeds to get less people interested in the game because, well I don't know actually, why do you do that? I mean I understand your concerns which have been disproved by Caspian saying he won't do it, which would have been solved if you had seen Caspian saying that anyone saying he would do it wasn't right, but the way you go about it is truly fascinating, you take it and post it as a fact, even though it clearly wasn't.
I really can't think of a game that admits to being pay to win. All of them have very logical reasons why their game is, or will be fair and square. Anyone that says different is wrong because they know exactly what the players will and won't do in their game. I'm also sure they have plans in place to stop gold sellers, dupers, bots, and radar programs, which the gold sellers will be stealth testing during beta.
It really has gotten to the point that most of us just ignore it when developers start talking about how their games are not P2W and how great a job they are doing against bots. It is almost exactly like when we hear political candidates talk. We know very little of what they actually say is the truth or will ever get done. It reminds me of a commercial I keep hearing on the radio lately, "You might not be fat, you could just be bloated" or "If the loss of weight is too substantial, reduce the amount of our product you take immediately".
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Ah Slapshot, at it again I see? I thought leaking of "rough outlines" for the kickstarter tiers for CoE thread (where your agenda was that they needed to reduce the prices or they would fail) Or the problem you had with ageing (where you wanted it to take longer) or the other time with the talents and it goes on and on.
Instead of joining the discussion on CoE forums and actually try to have a discussion with the developers, you go to MMORPG with click-bait and something taken out of context that then proceeds to get less people interested in the game because, well I don't know actually, why do you do that? I mean I understand your concerns which have been disproved by Caspian saying he won't do it, which would have been solved if you had seen Caspian saying that anyone saying he would do it wasn't right, but the way you go about it is truly fascinating, you take it and post it as a fact, even though it clearly wasn't.
You never seize to surprise me anymore.
You're saying that a person that may have a problem with a particular issue with a game should go to the official forums first, which does make sense. However, some people do forget that official forums are controlled environments which can alter/delete anything they wish. Discussing issues on as many outlets as possible gives an better chance of having issues actually discussed vs buried.
you know, I thought a lot about this. I have thought for a long long time, how cool it would be for GM (I se that term kind of loosely) type people who have more power to drift through the world and RP. Kind of like if Darth Vader and Yoda had been PLAYED by a RP'r from the devs in SWG. Maybe they are too iconic but I think you guys should get my drift. It would go a long way in immersion to have people with more power and ability than others.
Life is not equal footing. Virtual life is not equal footing. Playing a role in a game should not be equal footing NECESSARLY.
This comes with an awful lot of caveats and conditions though which are springing to mind as I write so I am coming back to this.
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
you know, I thought a lot about this. I have thought for a long long time, how cool it would be for GM (I se that term kind of loosely) type people who have more power to drift through the world and RP. Kind of like if Darth Vader and Yoda had been PLAYED by a RP'r from the devs in SWG. Maybe they are too iconic but I think you guys should get my drift. It would go a long way in immersion to have people with more power and ability than others.
Life is not equal footing. Virtual life is not equal footing. Playing a role in a game should not be equal footing NECESSARLY.
This comes with an awful lot of caveats and conditions though which are springing to mind as I write so I am coming back to this.
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
To Be Cont'd.....
The idea has merit. I think a lot of people hoping to become a Lich or vampire in CoE see themselves as potential "raid bosses", which is definitely a cool idea.
In those cases, however, the onus is entirely on the player to go into the game and achieve that status, and that it could be done by anyone from King to peasant.
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
Yeah... and that would be the problem right there: games where you CAN spend $40K. It boggles my mind that people don't see how that immediately compromises the integrity of the game.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
Yeah... and that would be the problem right there: games where you CAN spend $40K. It boggles my mind that people don't see how that immediately compromises the integrity of the game.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
It really shouldn't boggle your mind. What your demonstrating is a bias whereby you're assuming that they are gaining something significant, when there is no indication of what they're actually getting because there is no product to verify that one way or another.
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
Yeah... and that would be the problem right there: games where you CAN spend $40K. It boggles my mind that people don't see how that immediately compromises the integrity of the game.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
It really shouldn't boggle your mind. What your demonstrating is a bias whereby you're assuming that they are gaining something significant, when there is no indication of what they're actually getting because there is no product to verify that one way or another.
I don't know much about this game. What does it mean when they said they're giving him 5 kingdoms? Are kingdoms something people can attain through gameplay?
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC) Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
Yeah... and that would be the problem right there: games where you CAN spend $40K. It boggles my mind that people don't see how that immediately compromises the integrity of the game.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
It really shouldn't boggle your mind. What your demonstrating is a bias whereby you're assuming that they are gaining something significant, when there is no indication of what they're actually getting because there is no product to verify that one way or another.
WTF does your response have to do with the statement I responded to which was this: "If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag."
Are you stalking me on this thread or is it just that you have designated yourself as protector of all things COE lol?
And nice attitude to have when giving money to a KS project "I'm not getting screwed because the screwing hasn't started yet"
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
Yeah... and that would be the problem right there: games where you CAN spend $40K. It boggles my mind that people don't see how that immediately compromises the integrity of the game.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
It really shouldn't boggle your mind. What your demonstrating is a bias whereby you're assuming that they are gaining something significant, when there is no indication of what they're actually getting because there is no product to verify that one way or another.
WTF does your response have to do with the statement I responded to which was this: "If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag."
Are you stalking me on this thread or is it just that you have designated yourself as protector of all things COE lol?
And nice attitude to have when giving money to a KS project "I'm not getting screwed because the screwing hasn't started yet"
Not stalking at all. I'm just saying that you seem to be having a mind-blowing moment that you can't understand how people cannot see how something compromises the integrity of a game, but you're assuming that by someone donating $40k, the developer is somehow making compromises for those people. They aren't changing the game in any way. So I fail to see how it's compromising the integrity of the game.
With regards to the other post, he's expressing his expectation in the event that he were to spend that sort of money. I'd probably think the same myself. That's because the majority of us simply aren't in a position to spend $40k on a game. However, there are those who might find value in whatever it is that a person might get for $40k.
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
Yeah... and that would be the problem right there: games where you CAN spend $40K. It boggles my mind that people don't see how that immediately compromises the integrity of the game.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
It really shouldn't boggle your mind. What your demonstrating is a bias whereby you're assuming that they are gaining something significant, when there is no indication of what they're actually getting because there is no product to verify that one way or another.
I don't know much about this game. What does it mean when they said they're giving him 5 kingdoms? Are kingdoms something people can attain through gameplay?
Yeah, it's apparently entirely open after release so anyone can own anything through hard work and what not. How easy/difficult it will be to sack these Kingdoms is completely up in the air, which is the reasoning for my post. Shit, Albion Online is a perfect example. Many people have been finding it impossible to maintain their land after their initial purchase of it because they can't make the in-game currency required fast enough to pay things like taxes, so they're losing it. Granted, it's only in Alpha, but it's a great example of how buying something for real money, in a game, might not be as much of an advantage as you think it is when you originally purchased it.
lol, funny how crowdfunded games became a thing to get away from corp types messing with the vision of a game. Now we just have average Joe's messing up the vision of a game. Like trading one pile of poops for another. Who wants sum?
Andrew Rossdengarsw): Guild Wars 2’s buy-to-play model especially stands out, as when old content’s cycled out, it’s free to help get new players into the gameworld. It feels the most fair still. I dislike the cash shop that often comes with games using this model, but as long as it sticks to cosmetics over lockboxes, I’m fine with it.
Who knows though. Maybe Chronicles of Elyria’s proposed model will be here next year.
Hahahaha! The system where a 40K top donator just buys the available kingdoms and eventually he may end up as GM for his "support" will be the best business model in 2017.
Best business model for sure... just not for the players.
Shit, Albion Online is a perfect example. Many people have been finding it impossible to maintain their land after their initial purchase of it because they can't make the in-game currency required fast enough to pay things like taxes, so they're losing it. Granted, it's only in Alpha, but it's a great example of how buying something for real money, in a game, might not be as much of an advantage as you think it is when you originally purchased it.
Yeah that's sustainable. I bet whales are just lining up right now to spend $40K on things that don't give them the advantage they thought they were buying.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
My long involvement with MMORPG's (and life itself) has taught me to take with a grain of salt people's promises and pronouncements of what they intend to do vs what they end up doing.
Additionally, I don't find it reasonable for anyone who actually has $40K to spend on a game to not expect fair value in return. We already know it buys you a Kingship or three, any other benefits can only be inferred and may not exist, but hard to believe there isn't some bonuses as well.
Reminds me of a long in development (perhaps vaporware titles) called Citadel of Sorcery. They too had some expensive KS/donation program tiers and they provided special access to said downers on the secret "inner workings" of the project and let them provide input.
Likely the $40K buyer has a bit more influence and accessibility to the developers than the average Joe, which can also be a cause for concern.
Oh well, only a year to go until launch, looking forward to clarifying all of this in person Soon™
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
Yeah... and that would be the problem right there: games where you CAN spend $40K. It boggles my mind that people don't see how that immediately compromises the integrity of the game.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
lol no you don't have a real shot. For people that play 20 hours a day, for people that bot the game to get currency. For the people that are the "Elites" if you are here bitching I am 99% sure this is not you. All games are created unequal without the same shot. Or everyone will clear the same content in the exact same amount of time.
Shit, Albion Online is a perfect example. Many people have been finding it impossible to maintain their land after their initial purchase of it because they can't make the in-game currency required fast enough to pay things like taxes, so they're losing it. Granted, it's only in Alpha, but it's a great example of how buying something for real money, in a game, might not be as much of an advantage as you think it is when you originally purchased it.
Yeah that's sustainable. I bet whales are just lining up right now to spend $40K on things that don't give them the advantage they thought they were buying.
Well, as it stands, they have nothing yet at all, so I'd say that it's a pretty good racket, lol. For the record, I think it was only $10k during their KS campaign, so that must have been a fucking bargain!!!
So, apparently, they get to design their own crest, and crown and also an event, boss and/or castle. Plus they get their name in the credits as a Design Advisor. So I guess that's a pretty cool perk. Would I do it if I was a Billionaire? Fuck yeah! A Millionaire? meh.... Maybe? As a Thousandaire? Not bloody likely. Although I'm sure there are some thousandaires who would got for it, for sure. I think it's these types of perks that bring out the whales. It's all about seeing their name in the lights!!! Let's not forget that there were 5 $10k packages of Pillars of Eternity sold through their KS and it's a single player game. So there's no advantage other than you got to help design some shit for the game.
All I'm saying is that you don't know what the motivation is of these backers because you aren't one. If one of these backers comes here and says that the developer explicitly told them that they would have a distinct advantage and they would guarantee their reign for X amount of time, THEN maybe we break out the pitch forks. However, all that we know for sure is what's listed on the package and that is that you "Start the game as a King or Queen...". To me that does nothing but point to the inevitability that you won't be there indefinitely.
Comments
This particular situation is simply an example of an ongoing trend in crowdfunding. The suits are being replaced by the whales it seems, and it's giving rise to some questionable development decisions (at least, in many forum-goers' minds here at MMORPG.com) that don't seem to be the type of "change" we expected or hoped for when the crowdfunding thing took off. That's why folks are willing to devote time to it, even though the specific example is from a game a long way from being completed.
I enjoy reading these kinds of conversations, as they give me more perspective with each post. That's a good thing (to me).
Before the dark times, before your big brother murdered Santa.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
From what I can gather from the quote directly, even if I were to be analyzing as more then just discussion, I don't really see the problem.
It seems as though the dev is saying that while there are currently no plans to allow people to play as a vice/virtue on a GM account (which I can't see any details on what that actually means for CoE), he has no problem with that. This can be seen in multiple ways, and I think thats the issue.
My fairy-tale way of seeing this is that when the story/events dictate, a highly influential player (AKA someone who is very influential, whether they paid for that or not (NOTE: You can earn influence through game mechanics)) can take temporary control of a special account that specifically has access to this very non-standard character that will allow said influential person to play out events. Given the nature of the game - or at least what has been explained so far - this is not in any way a form of P2W.
I have backed the game, and I will not say the design is without flaws. The monetary side of the game is still constantly being worked on, however this has lead to many misunderstandings. While you can purchase things now, it is to flesh out the world pre-launch. The developers have clearly stated their intention on how they want the game to be heavily player-driven, and the store as it currently stands is proving exactly that. They have also explained that they intend on removing the ability to purchase land/buildings/etc upon exposition, potentially even land selection.
________________________________________________________________________________________
I know and understand everyone's frustration with MMOs and how heavily micro-transaction based they have become. I don't think it's a problem that will be solved as easily as just removing those features, as the nature of micro-transactions is a result of many decades of compromise and industry-building for gaming. I believe that CoEs current monetary shop is not an indicator of a Pay-To-Win system, more like Pay-To-Exposit and for a game with such an interesting concept, why are we so toxic to something different?
At the end of the day, if you aren't willing to risk it or can't afford to risk it, then don't. But, there is no need to be so against something that really hasn't been done in this way before. Yes, it could go horribly wrong and everyone gets jaded against MMOs further.
But the thought of it going right feels so much better and would be oh so much fun to play.
Instead of joining the discussion on CoE forums and actually try to have a discussion with the developers, you go to MMORPG with click-bait and something taken out of context that then proceeds to get less people interested in the game because, well I don't know actually, why do you do that?
I mean I understand your concerns which have been disproved by Caspian saying he won't do it, which would have been solved if you had seen Caspian saying that anyone saying he would do it wasn't right, but the way you go about it is truly fascinating, you take it and post it as a fact, even though it clearly wasn't.
You never seize to surprise me anymore.
you know, I thought a lot about this. I have thought for a long long time, how cool it would be for GM (I se that term kind of loosely) type people who have more power to drift through the world and RP. Kind of like if Darth Vader and Yoda had been PLAYED by a RP'r from the devs in SWG. Maybe they are too iconic but I think you guys should get my drift. It would go a long way in immersion to have people with more power and ability than others.
Life is not equal footing. Virtual life is not equal footing. Playing a role in a game should not be equal footing NECESSARLY.
This comes with an awful lot of caveats and conditions though which are springing to mind as I write so I am coming back to this.
All that being said? If I invested 40K into a game, I'd want some serious benefits and not BS swag.
To Be Cont'd.....
Co-Founder of Elder Moot
SotA Founder
In those cases, however, the onus is entirely on the player to go into the game and achieve that status, and that it could be done by anyone from King to peasant.
"But people aren't equal in RL"... who gives a shit. Games are not real life and part of the appeal is precisely that you do have an even shot.
Or at least that was the case before money grubbing, wannabe developers started selling more and more privilege to the fools that don't even realize that their very own high-roller contribution is dooming the project to be a laughable POS.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
It really shouldn't boggle your mind. What your demonstrating is a bias whereby you're assuming that they are gaining something significant, when there is no indication of what they're actually getting because there is no product to verify that one way or another.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I don't know much about this game. What does it mean when they said they're giving him 5 kingdoms? Are kingdoms something people can attain through gameplay?
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC)
Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
Are you stalking me on this thread or is it just that you have designated yourself as protector of all things COE lol?
And nice attitude to have when giving money to a KS project "I'm not getting screwed because the screwing hasn't started yet"
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Not stalking at all. I'm just saying that you seem to be having a mind-blowing moment that you can't understand how people cannot see how something compromises the integrity of a game, but you're assuming that by someone donating $40k, the developer is somehow making compromises for those people. They aren't changing the game in any way. So I fail to see how it's compromising the integrity of the game.
With regards to the other post, he's expressing his expectation in the event that he were to spend that sort of money. I'd probably think the same myself. That's because the majority of us simply aren't in a position to spend $40k on a game. However, there are those who might find value in whatever it is that a person might get for $40k.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Yeah, it's apparently entirely open after release so anyone can own anything through hard work and what not. How easy/difficult it will be to sack these Kingdoms is completely up in the air, which is the reasoning for my post. Shit, Albion Online is a perfect example. Many people have been finding it impossible to maintain their land after their initial purchase of it because they can't make the in-game currency required fast enough to pay things like taxes, so they're losing it. Granted, it's only in Alpha, but it's a great example of how buying something for real money, in a game, might not be as much of an advantage as you think it is when you originally purchased it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Andrew Rossdengarsw): Guild Wars 2’s buy-to-play model especially stands out, as when old content’s cycled out, it’s free to help get new players into the gameworld. It feels the most fair still. I dislike the cash shop that often comes with games using this model, but as long as it sticks to cosmetics over lockboxes, I’m fine with it.
Who knows though. Maybe Chronicles of Elyria’s proposed model will be here next year.
Hahahaha!
The system where a 40K top donator just buys the available kingdoms and eventually he may end up as GM for his "support" will be the best business model in 2017.
Best business model for sure... just not for the players.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Additionally, I don't find it reasonable for anyone who actually has $40K to spend on a game to not expect fair value in return. We already know it buys you a Kingship or three, any other benefits can only be inferred and may not exist, but hard to believe there isn't some bonuses as well.
Reminds me of a long in development (perhaps vaporware titles) called Citadel of Sorcery. They too had some expensive KS/donation program tiers and they provided special access to said downers on the secret "inner workings" of the project and let them provide input.
Likely the $40K buyer has a bit more influence and accessibility to the developers than the average Joe, which can also be a cause for concern.
Oh well, only a year to go until launch, looking forward to clarifying all of this in person Soon™
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well, as it stands, they have nothing yet at all, so I'd say that it's a pretty good racket, lol. For the record, I think it was only $10k during their KS campaign, so that must have been a fucking bargain!!!
So, apparently, they get to design their own crest, and crown and also an event, boss and/or castle. Plus they get their name in the credits as a Design Advisor. So I guess that's a pretty cool perk. Would I do it if I was a Billionaire? Fuck yeah! A Millionaire? meh.... Maybe? As a Thousandaire? Not bloody likely. Although I'm sure there are some thousandaires who would got for it, for sure. I think it's these types of perks that bring out the whales. It's all about seeing their name in the lights!!! Let's not forget that there were 5 $10k packages of Pillars of Eternity sold through their KS and it's a single player game. So there's no advantage other than you got to help design some shit for the game.
All I'm saying is that you don't know what the motivation is of these backers because you aren't one. If one of these backers comes here and says that the developer explicitly told them that they would have a distinct advantage and they would guarantee their reign for X amount of time, THEN maybe we break out the pitch forks. However, all that we know for sure is what's listed on the package and that is that you "Start the game as a King or Queen...". To me that does nothing but point to the inevitability that you won't be there indefinitely.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------