This is not in response to anyone's post in particular. Just feel like throwing my two measly cents in.
Trust and respect are things that need to be earned, imho.
Rich people, authority figures, merchandisers, and other varieties of different humans are not necessarily any more trustworthy than anyone else in the world. And, sadly, not even amateur or professional game developers are any more trustworthy than anyone in any other field of endeavor.
I've heard this phrase, 'trust but verify'. I think that saying is a crock. I say verify first, then maybe trust later. But I wouldn't ever trust any human 100% ever for anything. Even if someone isn't intentionally trying to screw us over, he or she can still make mistakes or disappoint us at any given moment.
I really don't know. I suspect that people that donate to crowdfunding development projects secretly want to design games, and perhaps believe that they can participate in the game creation process and have their ideas incorporated somehow. My gut feeling is that attitudes like this are somewhat self-delusional; developers have more ideas than they can possibly ever use (or fund or profit from) and have no use for other ideas. You never see a KS campaign start out by saying 'we want to bring your ideas to life'. The message, hidden or otherwise, is always 'we want to implement our ideas'.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Why does Charlie Brown keep trying to kick the football?
In my case I acknowledge it's silly... and hypocritical to back games I know will fail. I guess I hope to be wrong someday and live to see The Promised Game deliver...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
true for regular gaming a few years ago. Consider this:
Kerbal Space Program was developed by a company called Squad. Squad is NOT a game developer. Several years ago they decide to try something, they would let team members come up with any idea, any industry at all and if the team voted up they would allocate money and resources. Kerbal Space Program was that game.
It is considered one of the best games of 2015 (I think that is the year). People have been throwing money at kickstarters (although now its slow) mostly because they want something different.
Speaking for myself I dont invest in kickstarters but I will do early access. I want something for my money that I know I can download and play immediately. My mind set when buying a Early Access title is simple. 'does the current feature set look like its worth me buying'. I do NOT worry about the future, i assume it will never happen so its purely a pragmatic choice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
All of these games, that as a community we have funded that mostly seem to be going nowhere, that are hardly even a concept, let alone in development.. yet we have millions of $$ to throw in their direction.
This is absolutely crazy to me, and it's been going on awhile with pretty much no results to us, the gamers.
Take a look at how many of these MMOs (pre-kickstarter) are advertised like crazy, hyped up, and then fall flat on their faces a couple months after launch.
Without turning this post into a cesspool of trash talking or hurt feelings I'm going to leave a couple questions which I'm genuinely curious to hear your opinion about.
Are we that desperate for a new MMO?
What makes everybody think that things are going to change just because we are fronting all of the costs?
If you ask me, people are desperate for something new, something "good", but I feel like a lot of the negatives are not being considered, then again, who am I to tell you how to spend your money, maybe you can change my mind.. let's hear it.
Well, how many mmo's have been kickstarted, how many failed and how many are still in production?
I don't think kickstarting mmo's is an issue. I think kickstarting mmo's that don't show "enough" or at least don't show that developers have the technical know how and enough funds is an issue.
Another thing is that players need to be VERY clear on what kickstarting "anything" actually entails.
And while the whole idea is to advertise and get players "hyped up" for a project, players need to know that designs might change, that the financial needs of the project might change and that even if the developers try their hardest they might fail.
And if players aren't comfortable with that then they shouldn't give. They should also use a a bit more scrutiny when giving money. Not only look at the design that is offered but look at what the development team already has finished.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ive backed Pantheon, CU, Crowfall but I still remain skeptical about all 3.
Just because you back something, doesnt mean that you should become a blind supporter, no just the opposite - question everything, question every post the devs post on forums.
I think we run into issues of backers becoming far too biased and turning into pro-hype machines for whatever they backed - its this sports mentality that is IMO a much bigger problem.
Totally agree.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All game development is risky. Non-crowd funded games have about the same ratio of failure/cancellation as those crowd funded.
The main difference is not the risk of failure but the risk of player impatience. You backed an mmo. Mmo's take about an average of 5 years to develop. The only reason why a kickstarter company says they can develop on faster is because they are using modern gaming engine with fully integrated development tools. Even so, it is most likely that ANY project (outside of this genre or not) is delayed by 50-100%. The more complex the project the greater chance of delay. This is known to all experienced in project management. Sadly the minimal projected date of launch is typically hyped in order to increase chance of funding.
CU built an engine from scratch. That is the first sign that it will push the average 5 year development cycle. Others are using popular engines but also had to guild their development team. That alone will increase development time significantly.
Once someone is actually educated about the reality of the project's development time, the real question becomes one of expertise and funding. Do they have the expertise and funding to reach their goals? Games like CU, Crowfall and Pantheon for example do indeed seem to have the development team in place to do so. They also appear to now have secured the funding to do so as well. This leaves only time.
So, if properly educated about all factors required to understand the chance of a project's success the only real factor left is player patience ... and what I am mostly reading from players across these boards is that they have no fucking patience at all.
I've never thought highly of Kickstarter. Seems hyped. Many people were making "indie" games before kickstarter, using different methods. Derek Smart, for example, took over many of the business duties when he created his 3000ad series, allowing him to circumvent an otherwise merciless system. Some game makers would go smaller scale and release shareware or freeware (and open source). Daimonin is a good example of an indie MMO released long before Kickstarter, based largely on a open source community.
We also have ot keep in mind it's potentially easier now to create games with all of the engines and free resources online. This is especially true if game makers go small scale. Dwarf Fortress would be an example. It used a text-based interface precisely to reduce deelopment time. Its creator actually made a 3d game BEFORE he started Dwarf Fortress. This was nearly 15 years ago. He relied on his own money and on donations.
I have paid good money for a lot of games, collector's editions of games, game related swag like map or art books, and subscriptions to games that completely sucked and that I promptly quit.
So even when there for sure is a game, it is often a piece of shit.
You can hold off spending money until a game is actually available, but it's still a gamble.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
We also have ot keep in mind it's potentially easier now to create games with all of the engines and free resources online. This is especially true if game makers go small scale. Dwarf Fortress would be an example. It used a text-based interface precisely to reduce deelopment time. Its creator actually made a 3d game BEFORE he started Dwarf Fortress. This was nearly 15 years ago.
Only if the developers are clear who their player base is and they develop accordingly.
Look at Pantheon. It has an "indy" look and won't be able to match AAA expectations but players keep pointing it out.
There is a small, specific group of players for that game.
So, while it's easier to make games the expectations of many players are very high.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Why does Charlie Brown keep trying to kick the football?
In my case I acknowledge it's silly... and hypocritical to back games I know will fail. I guess I hope to be wrong someday and live to see The Promised Game deliver...
Maybe try taking a more positive tack. I know the games could fail. I've done a few mmos now from alpha to post launch and none, not a single one, since the early days has ever ended up like it started. But when I go into a project I am all in. I want it to succeed.
I do bring up what I see as problem points, but in the end it's because I want to see a better version end up at release (eg: Pantheon combat). What I don't do is tear down the team or project in a crucible of fire to see if it survives. Fuck that. It's hard enough to just survive as it is without people who are supposed to be behind you subtly tearing it all down. I don't want to be that guy who is always complaining, always negative, always tearing down. It's not helpful or productive to a project.
On the other hand it's not helpful to live in an echo chamber either. A project with a lot of potential can be ruined by a bunch of sycophants drooling over their association with a well known figure. Raph Koster summed it up well (and I paraphrase) - projects without critical feedback will be troubled, but the feedback needs to be presented in a way that builds the project and team not tears it down.
Luckily they have folks like you to keep building them up. Nothing wrong with that if it's what floats your boat. I believe that if you're asking for people to give you money years in advance of delivering a product you should be prepared to put on your big boy pants and face the heat. If random MMORPG forum guy's criticism is going to damage your game project I'd have to say that it probably wasn't built on a firm foundation after all.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Why does Charlie Brown keep trying to kick the football?
In my case I acknowledge it's silly... and hypocritical to back games I know will fail. I guess I hope to be wrong someday and live to see The Promised Game deliver...
Maybe try taking a more positive tack. I know the games could fail. I've done a few mmos now from alpha to post launch and none, not a single one, since the early days has ever ended up like it started. But when I go into a project I am all in. I want it to succeed.
I do bring up what I see as problem points, but in the end it's because I want to see a better version end up at release (eg: Pantheon combat). What I don't do is tear down the team or project in a crucible of fire to see if it survives. Fuck that. It's hard enough to just survive as it is without people who are supposed to be behind you subtly tearing it all down. I don't want to be that guy who is always complaining, always negative, always tearing down. It's not helpful or productive to a project.
On the other hand it's not helpful to live in an echo chamber either. A project with a lot of potential can be ruined by a bunch of sycophants drooling over their association with a well known figure. Raph Koster summed it up well (and I paraphrase) - projects without critical feedback will be troubled, but the feedback needs to be presented in a way that builds the project and team not tears it down.
Trustworthy. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You had to go spoil a perfectly good malapropism.
"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
I think the trend needs to go from heres my money to I am nwo an inestor in your company and I want a part of the profits when the game launches.....Kickstarter is an absolute disaster of an investment...no adventure capitalist would ever touch a kickstarter venture.
Without fully thinking it through, this sounds a little better. :P
When all is said and done, more is always said than done.
A fool and his money are soon parted. Companies used to have to provide a return on investment, whether it was in the form of loan interest, profit sharing, stock, what have you. People had to have confidence that their investment would pay off. These were financial contracts with rules and oversight and consequences for violations.
With crowdfunding, you're only expected to deliver the product. No return on investment. No rules-- you can lie and cheat your backers with zero consequence. You can spend 3 years pretending you're making a game and then just disappear. It's a grifter's paradise. People will pay for a vague concept of a game instead of a finished or near-finished product.
Half of the games that get traditional funding end up being complete crap. Now we're throwing money at the games that didn't make that cut?
One reason I question these games is what are they selling with the KS and how are they going to earn moving forward if their base has already spent their money on development.
The word you were looking for was trusting not trustworthy. That is more like we are trustworthy meaning a person others can trust but what you meant was that we were easily trusting others.
I've never thought highly of Kickstarter. Seems hyped. Many people were making "indie" games before kickstarter, using different methods. Derek Smart, for example, took over many of the business duties when he created his 3000ad series, allowing him to circumvent an otherwise merciless system. Some game makers would go smaller scale and release shareware or freeware (and open source). Daimonin is a good example of an indie MMO released long before Kickstarter, based largely on a open source community.
We also have ot keep in mind it's potentially easier now to create games with all of the engines and free resources online. This is especially true if game makers go small scale. Dwarf Fortress would be an example. It used a text-based interface precisely to reduce deelopment time. Its creator actually made a 3d game BEFORE he started Dwarf Fortress. This was nearly 15 years ago. He relied on his own money and on donations.
Derek Smart has also never produced a good game and is one of the least credible individuals in the entire gaming industry. It's confounding anyone listens to him at all.
All of these games, that as a community we have funded that mostly seem to be going nowhere, that are hardly even a concept, let alone in development.. yet we have millions of $$ to throw in their direction.
This is absolutely crazy to me, and it's been going on awhile with pretty much no results to us, the gamers.
Take a look at how many of these MMOs (pre-kickstarter) are advertised like crazy, hyped up, and then fall flat on their faces a couple months after launch.
Without turning this post into a cesspool of trash talking or hurt feelings I'm going to leave a couple questions which I'm genuinely curious to hear your opinion about.
Are we that desperate for a new MMO?
What makes everybody think that things are going to change just because we are fronting all of the costs?
If you ask me, people are desperate for something new, something "good", but I feel like a lot of the negatives are not being considered, then again, who am I to tell you how to spend your money, maybe you can change my mind.. let's hear it.
Question 1: Yes
Question 2: Because with things like kickstarter, the market/playerbase determines which games get made, not corporate bean counters sitting at mahogany tables in high rises in San Francisco who are only concerned about making profit hand over fist.
To elaborate, the issue right now is the industry has become extremely risk averse. They (especially the big ones like Activision, EA, etc) are generally unwilling to try out game ideas or games in general that are not mainstream enough and that may not appeal to the broadest possible audience. This is why you get Call of Duty 752, Mass Effect 987, Star Wars This or That. They are *safe* bets to make money. Now that doesn't mean the game can't be good, but the issue is they have been generally more and more crap because they know they have a loyal and trusting playerbase which will buy the next installment like lemmings every year because of the hype train and wanting to be in the cool kids crowd.
Pillars of Eternity was a perfect example. The game literally got shut down by the publishers because it would have had to have been a "Mature" rating, which meant that places like Wal-Mart wouldn't sell it. Also, "Mature" rated games (at least til witcher) traditionally don't do as well financially as lesser rated games. The witcher series would NEVER have been made by a company like EA, literally never. Once it got popular they would have been happy to jump on the bandwagon because then it would be an established IP with a reasonably safe assumption of sales.
What's happening in the game industry would be like if the book industry refused to publish anything that wasn't written by an already New York times best selling author. How much innovation and new things do you think you would get if the only books released each year were from a half dozen to a dozen different authors and publishers refused to publish books from new authors or in genres that were more niche?
Edit: I should elaborate a bit more. 20 years ago, a company could make a game, and let's say they spent 1 million to make it, and ultimately made 1.8 million in profit. Ok, cool, we made a profit, we paid our employees, customers were happy, we have money to put towards making another game. All is good. Those days are gone, now, what happens is you have executives going well, if the budget for this game is 1 million, we need to make at least 10 million, or it's not "worth" us making the game. I really wish I would have saved the article, but there was a statement from the then CEO of EA who was talking about how they had like 57 different projects going, and they were going to trim it down to the "5 or 6 most profitable".
Now, I get it, they're a business, their job is to make money, and to give a return to their investors. That being said, there is art in game making, and art isn't always strictly about money.
Post edited by Hrimnir on
"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."
Why does Charlie Brown keep trying to kick the football?
In my case I acknowledge it's silly... and hypocritical to back games I know will fail. I guess I hope to be wrong someday and live to see The Promised Game deliver...
Maybe try taking a more positive tack. I know the games could fail. I've done a few mmos now from alpha to post launch and none, not a single one, since the early days has ever ended up like it started. But when I go into a project I am all in. I want it to succeed.
I do bring up what I see as problem points, but in the end it's because I want to see a better version end up at release (eg: Pantheon combat). What I don't do is tear down the team or project in a crucible of fire to see if it survives. Fuck that. It's hard enough to just survive as it is without people who are supposed to be behind you subtly tearing it all down. I don't want to be that guy who is always complaining, always negative, always tearing down. It's not helpful or productive to a project.
On the other hand it's not helpful to live in an echo chamber either. A project with a lot of potential can be ruined by a bunch of sycophants drooling over their association with a well known figure. Raph Koster summed it up well (and I paraphrase) - projects without critical feedback will be troubled, but the feedback needs to be presented in a way that builds the project and team not tears it down.
Luckily they have folks like you to keep building them up. Nothing wrong with that if it's what floats your boat. I believe that if you're asking for people to give you money years in advance of delivering a product you should be prepared to put on your big boy pants and face the heat. If random MMORPG forum guy's criticism is going to damage your game project I'd have to say that it probably wasn't built on a firm foundation after all.
There's no luck about it. Projects need people who want it to succeed. The best of ideas don't just happen. They take a lot of work, effort, and iteration. There are always people there to throw stones. They always have these great justifications why them trying to drag everyone down around them is really for the better. No worries, like I've said before, the noise you people make is mostly irrelevant and your points are ignored.
You don't even have to be KS project for this to happen. I've worked with a lot of open source projects and they don't even get funding except maybe through a paypal button. And yet there are no lack of shitbags that like to hang around and drag the project down. They have their justifications too.
Your whole mindset is about building up and tearing down. You've just implied and admitted that you like tearing these down and justify it on the pretense of money. It isn't about building up or tearing down. It's about participating positively in a project to see it to success. What you want is to identify any problem and then chase that, and hopefully in your eyes the project will fail accordingly. You mission is accomplished.
What I've always wondered is if you just get your kicks tearing other people's stuff down or if you have industry associations and do it like Kano because you've ties with AAA devs and pubs?
Anyway, since you put so much effort into tearing these things down I thought you might appreciate the opportunity to consider being a positive contributor instead of the negative. No one thinks you or anyone here will damage a project. Your input is pretty much irrelevant unless you take the propaganda smear campaign to the next level like Smart did with SC/CIG.
Like I said, if you are going to ask other people to give you money to fund your project you should be able to take some heat. So far all the games I have called out have failed. As you said, it's not because of ME. It's because they were ill-prepared or blatant Greedmongers. When the games I call out start proving me wrong and become successful then come back and show me. Until then, I will challenge the status quo and push for more accountability and solid plans.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
Trust and respect are things that need to be earned, imho.
Rich people, authority figures, merchandisers, and other varieties of different humans are not necessarily any more trustworthy than anyone else in the world. And, sadly, not even amateur or professional game developers are any more trustworthy than anyone in any other field of endeavor.
I've heard this phrase, 'trust but verify'. I think that saying is a crock. I say verify first, then maybe trust later. But I wouldn't ever trust any human 100% ever for anything. Even if someone isn't intentionally trying to screw us over, he or she can still make mistakes or disappoint us at any given moment.
I really don't know. I suspect that people that donate to crowdfunding development projects secretly want to design games, and perhaps believe that they can participate in the game creation process and have their ideas incorporated somehow. My gut feeling is that attitudes like this are somewhat self-delusional; developers have more ideas than they can possibly ever use (or fund or profit from) and have no use for other ideas. You never see a KS campaign start out by saying 'we want to bring your ideas to life'. The message, hidden or otherwise, is always 'we want to implement our ideas'.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
In my case I acknowledge it's silly... and hypocritical to back games I know will fail. I guess I hope to be wrong someday and live to see The Promised Game deliver...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
yes
true for regular gaming a few years ago. Consider this:
Kerbal Space Program was developed by a company called Squad. Squad is NOT a game developer. Several years ago they decide to try something, they would let team members come up with any idea, any industry at all and if the team voted up they would allocate money and resources. Kerbal Space Program was that game.
It is considered one of the best games of 2015 (I think that is the year).
People have been throwing money at kickstarters (although now its slow) mostly because they want something different.
Speaking for myself I dont invest in kickstarters but I will do early access. I want something for my money that I know I can download and play immediately. My mind set when buying a Early Access title is simple. 'does the current feature set look like its worth me buying'. I do NOT worry about the future, i assume it will never happen so its purely a pragmatic choice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well, how many mmo's have been kickstarted, how many failed and how many are still in production?
I don't think kickstarting mmo's is an issue. I think kickstarting mmo's that don't show "enough" or at least don't show that developers have the technical know how and enough funds is an issue.
Another thing is that players need to be VERY clear on what kickstarting "anything" actually entails.
And while the whole idea is to advertise and get players "hyped up" for a project, players need to know that designs might change, that the financial needs of the project might change and that even if the developers try their hardest they might fail.
And if players aren't comfortable with that then they shouldn't give. They should also use a a bit more scrutiny when giving money. Not only look at the design that is offered but look at what the development team already has finished.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Totally agree.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The main difference is not the risk of failure but the risk of player impatience. You backed an mmo. Mmo's take about an average of 5 years to develop. The only reason why a kickstarter company says they can develop on faster is because they are using modern gaming engine with fully integrated development tools. Even so, it is most likely that ANY project (outside of this genre or not) is delayed by 50-100%. The more complex the project the greater chance of delay. This is known to all experienced in project management. Sadly the minimal projected date of launch is typically hyped in order to increase chance of funding.
CU built an engine from scratch. That is the first sign that it will push the average 5 year development cycle. Others are using popular engines but also had to guild their development team. That alone will increase development time significantly.
Once someone is actually educated about the reality of the project's development time, the real question becomes one of expertise and funding. Do they have the expertise and funding to reach their goals? Games like CU, Crowfall and Pantheon for example do indeed seem to have the development team in place to do so. They also appear to now have secured the funding to do so as well. This leaves only time.
So, if properly educated about all factors required to understand the chance of a project's success the only real factor left is player patience ... and what I am mostly reading from players across these boards is that they have no fucking patience at all.
You stay sassy!
Oh you! I think it's when we always made curfew!
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
----------------
We also have ot keep in mind it's potentially easier now to create games with all of the engines and free resources online. This is especially true if game makers go small scale. Dwarf Fortress would be an example. It used a text-based interface precisely to reduce deelopment time. Its creator actually made a 3d game BEFORE he started Dwarf Fortress. This was nearly 15 years ago. He relied on his own money and on donations.
So even when there for sure is a game, it is often a piece of shit.
You can hold off spending money until a game is actually available, but it's still a gamble.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Only if the developers are clear who their player base is and they develop accordingly.
Look at Pantheon. It has an "indy" look and won't be able to match AAA expectations but players keep pointing it out.
There is a small, specific group of players for that game.
So, while it's easier to make games the expectations of many players are very high.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Luckily they have folks like you to keep building them up. Nothing wrong with that if it's what floats your boat. I believe that if you're asking for people to give you money years in advance of delivering a product you should be prepared to put on your big boy pants and face the heat. If random MMORPG forum guy's criticism is going to damage your game project I'd have to say that it probably wasn't built on a firm foundation after all.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
skip to 0:24
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You had to go spoil a perfectly good malapropism.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Without fully thinking it through, this sounds a little better. :P
Other possibilities: Kickmedownsomecharityplease or Hopes&Dreams R Us
With crowdfunding, you're only expected to deliver the product. No return on investment. No rules-- you can lie and cheat your backers with zero consequence. You can spend 3 years pretending you're making a game and then just disappear. It's a grifter's paradise. People will pay for a vague concept of a game instead of a finished or near-finished product.
Half of the games that get traditional funding end up being complete crap. Now we're throwing money at the games that didn't make that cut?
Good point, I wrote this at like 11pm my time and was about to go sleep lol. Oh well.
Some pretty interesting posts here.. it's neat to see how everybody feels about the topic.
Derek Smart has also never produced a good game and is one of the least credible individuals in the entire gaming industry. It's confounding anyone listens to him at all.
Question 1: Yes
Question 2: Because with things like kickstarter, the market/playerbase determines which games get made, not corporate bean counters sitting at mahogany tables in high rises in San Francisco who are only concerned about making profit hand over fist.
To elaborate, the issue right now is the industry has become extremely risk averse. They (especially the big ones like Activision, EA, etc) are generally unwilling to try out game ideas or games in general that are not mainstream enough and that may not appeal to the broadest possible audience. This is why you get Call of Duty 752, Mass Effect 987, Star Wars This or That. They are *safe* bets to make money. Now that doesn't mean the game can't be good, but the issue is they have been generally more and more crap because they know they have a loyal and trusting playerbase which will buy the next installment like lemmings every year because of the hype train and wanting to be in the cool kids crowd.
Pillars of Eternity was a perfect example. The game literally got shut down by the publishers because it would have had to have been a "Mature" rating, which meant that places like Wal-Mart wouldn't sell it. Also, "Mature" rated games (at least til witcher) traditionally don't do as well financially as lesser rated games. The witcher series would NEVER have been made by a company like EA, literally never. Once it got popular they would have been happy to jump on the bandwagon because then it would be an established IP with a reasonably safe assumption of sales.
What's happening in the game industry would be like if the book industry refused to publish anything that wasn't written by an already New York times best selling author. How much innovation and new things do you think you would get if the only books released each year were from a half dozen to a dozen different authors and publishers refused to publish books from new authors or in genres that were more niche?
Edit: I should elaborate a bit more. 20 years ago, a company could make a game, and let's say they spent 1 million to make it, and ultimately made 1.8 million in profit. Ok, cool, we made a profit, we paid our employees, customers were happy, we have money to put towards making another game. All is good. Those days are gone, now, what happens is you have executives going well, if the budget for this game is 1 million, we need to make at least 10 million, or it's not "worth" us making the game. I really wish I would have saved the article, but there was a statement from the then CEO of EA who was talking about how they had like 57 different projects going, and they were going to trim it down to the "5 or 6 most profitable".
Now, I get it, they're a business, their job is to make money, and to give a return to their investors. That being said, there is art in game making, and art isn't always strictly about money.
"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
Like I said, if you are going to ask other people to give you money to fund your project you should be able to take some heat. So far all the games I have called out have failed. As you said, it's not because of ME. It's because they were ill-prepared or blatant Greedmongers. When the games I call out start proving me wrong and become successful then come back and show me. Until then, I will challenge the status quo and push for more accountability and solid plans.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018