Don't worry guys, as others here have assured us, there's no need for concern about potential crowdfunding scams. It's a non-existent problem.
Now you're just being dramatic for the sake of it.
No one ever said that there aren't problems but people need to just use their head, know what they are getting into and if there are any doubts just "don't".
Also to have the right mindset. Even if a game launches, and on time no less, it's possible that it won't be the exact game promised due to changes in development.
You can only protect people from themselves "so much" before you have to start wondering if they would be better off being Soylent Green.
As for this game, I don't see those involved having been involved in anything that hit it out of the park.
Enclave was considered really good looking for its time, that's about it. So it's possible they can make a game but it might not be the omgfriggingodawesome" that people want it to be.
Sorry Sovrath, but these situations are exactly why regulations are created in the first place. Titov has a history of attempting to mislead and scam the public. The majority of video game consumers have very little knowledge of game engines, which is the connection to Titov that's alerted many of the posters here to the fact that this might not be on the level. Additionally, the public statements of the past titles regarding his involvement compared to the situation here creates enough smoke and mirror to fool the average consumer to the possibility of continued scamming by Titov. That's precisely why regulations are created to protect consumers.
We can stick our heads in the sand as far as we want because we all have a crowdfunded title that we, deep down, would love to see happen (even if we haven't personally funded it), but you can't, with a straight face, attempt to submit that Titov's run with crowdfunding isn't a poster child level indication that crowdfunding needs to move out of the wild west it's currently in (no pun intended).
Well, first of all, no one has proven that he is actually involved. Just the run of the mill gamer hunting fest.
But let's say he is the mastermind behind this game. Why not? Let's say that he is the puppet master behind everything, trying to keep his involvement a super secret.
Well, all a person needs to do is to sign up for open alpha and take a look themselves. If the game is to their liking, if it looks to be well on its way then it might be worth money. If it feels cheap, if it seems like they are cutting corners, then one can bide their time if they are still interested or "not get involved at all".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
You can only protect people from themselves "so much" before you have to start wondering if they would be better off being Soylent Green.
Is it really about protecting people from themselves or is it about someone needing to take up the slack left when mainstream gaming media does little more than just pass on news releases without investigation?
Seems to me like a huge part of using your head is having access to the relevant info. In this particular case we have a Kotaku article that raises some interesting questions but even that is a rare piece of investigative journalism where gaming is concerned. 99% of what is reported is just promotional or at best, neutral.
So who takes up the slack?
As I've always said, if there is not enough info then "don't".
But what people seem to do is "if there is not enough info then go ahead why not I'm sure everything will be fine even if one gets riled over the smallest thing and will most likely fly off the handle when x isn't picture perfect or y gets pushed back".
Of course we all benefit by real information and real news and more importantly accurate information.
But what tends to happen (and I see it on this site all the time) is that people take one person's opinion as gospel or dive in even though there is no indication they should be diving in and then they rush to the forums all wounded and complainy when things don't go the way someone said it would.
I'm starting to think people should just do what Kyleran says he does ... don't buy until released, case closed. This way no one gets riled, no one gets disappointed, they can read reviews, first person experiences and make their decision then.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Love the concept but is there really enough meat in a old wild west setting to not get boring fast? Then again battleground player unknown is the same repetitive buullshit and people love it
You'll see your comments are totally wrong. And from the official forums it seems the PvE side is actually going to be weak. Players actually are asking for more story style quests / quests period.
I don't know if the game will turn out good or just be Pvp shoot-fest, but with them saying they'll be different types of servers I think there'll be plenty to do, including exploring.
At the moment, there are enough red flags to not risk any money on the game, if the game releases and the reviews are good, then that is the time to buy in, not before under any circumstances, free trials are one thing but paying for early access, Not A Chance In Hell.
Don't worry guys, as others here have assured us, there's no need for concern about potential crowdfunding scams. It's a non-existent problem.
Now you're just being dramatic for the sake of it.
No one ever said that there aren't problems but people need to just use their head, know what they are getting into and if there are any doubts just "don't".
Also to have the right mindset. Even if a game launches, and on time no less, it's possible that it won't be the exact game promised due to changes in development.
You can only protect people from themselves "so much" before you have to start wondering if they would be better off being Soylent Green.
As for this game, I don't see those involved having been involved in anything that hit it out of the park.
Enclave was considered really good looking for its time, that's about it. So it's possible they can make a game but it might not be the omgfriggingodawesome" that people want it to be.
Sorry Sovrath, but these situations are exactly why regulations are created in the first place. Titov has a history of attempting to mislead and scam the public. The majority of video game consumers have very little knowledge of game engines, which is the connection to Titov that's alerted many of the posters here to the fact that this might not be on the level. Additionally, the public statements of the past titles regarding his involvement compared to the situation here creates enough smoke and mirror to fool the average consumer to the possibility of continued scamming by Titov. That's precisely why regulations are created to protect consumers.
We can stick our heads in the sand as far as we want because we all have a crowdfunded title that we, deep down, would love to see happen (even if we haven't personally funded it), but you can't, with a straight face, attempt to submit that Titov's run with crowdfunding isn't a poster child level indication that crowdfunding needs to move out of the wild west it's currently in (no pun intended).
Well, first of all, no one has proven that he is actually involved. Just the run of the mill gamer hunting fest.
But let's say he is the mastermind behind this game. Why not? Let's say that he is the puppet master behind everything, trying to keep his involvement a super secret.
Well, all a person needs to do is to sign up for open alpha and take a look themselves. If the game is to their liking, if it looks to be well on its way then it might be worth money. If it feels cheap, if it seems like they are cutting corners, then one can bide their time if they are still interested or "not get involved at all".
And we will have a hard time determining it, because of the reasons @Iselin mentioned. How can you expect consumers to be able to make an informed decision in that case?
What you're submitting is that people avoid crowdfunding unless they can vet the folks behind it... But point me to a single MMORPG crowdfunded project that has someone behind it that doesn't have a failed project/controversy in their recent history and/or a large gap in information regarding the viability of the project and the ability for the team to get the project completed in the manner and timeframe in which they're advertising. Those projects are few and far between.
Consumers aren't investors. The average consumer isn't monitoring a company's legal representation to gauge whether an obviously predatory developer (Titov) might be more involved than he seens. And if we can't depend upon journalists to stay on top of this and make it widely available, regulation should pick up the slack to at least ensure consumers have reliable and consistent access to such information.
Don't worry guys, as others here have assured us, there's no need for concern about potential crowdfunding scams. It's a non-existent problem.
Now you're just being dramatic for the sake of it.
No one ever said that there aren't problems but people need to just use their head, know what they are getting into and if there are any doubts just "don't".
Also to have the right mindset. Even if a game launches, and on time no less, it's possible that it won't be the exact game promised due to changes in development.
You can only protect people from themselves "so much" before you have to start wondering if they would be better off being Soylent Green.
As for this game, I don't see those involved having been involved in anything that hit it out of the park.
Enclave was considered really good looking for its time, that's about it. So it's possible they can make a game but it might not be the omgfriggingodawesome" that people want it to be.
Sorry Sovrath, but these situations are exactly why regulations are created in the first place. Titov has a history of attempting to mislead and scam the public. The majority of video game consumers have very little knowledge of game engines, which is the connection to Titov that's alerted many of the posters here to the fact that this might not be on the level. Additionally, the public statements of the past titles regarding his involvement compared to the situation here creates enough smoke and mirror to fool the average consumer to the possibility of continued scamming by Titov. That's precisely why regulations are created to protect consumers.
We can stick our heads in the sand as far as we want because we all have a crowdfunded title that we, deep down, would love to see happen (even if we haven't personally funded it), but you can't, with a straight face, attempt to submit that Titov's run with crowdfunding isn't a poster child level indication that crowdfunding needs to move out of the wild west it's currently in (no pun intended).
Well, first of all, no one has proven that he is actually involved. Just the run of the mill gamer hunting fest.
But let's say he is the mastermind behind this game. Why not? Let's say that he is the puppet master behind everything, trying to keep his involvement a super secret.
Well, all a person needs to do is to sign up for open alpha and take a look themselves. If the game is to their liking, if it looks to be well on its way then it might be worth money. If it feels cheap, if it seems like they are cutting corners, then one can bide their time if they are still interested or "not get involved at all".
And we will have a hard time determining it, because of the reasons @Iselin mentioned. How can you expect consumers to be able to make an informed decision in that case?
What you're submitting is that people avoid crowdfunding unless they can vet the folks behind it... But point me to a single MMORPG crowdfunded project that has someone behind it that doesn't have a failed project/controversy in their recent history and/or a large gap in information regarding the viability of the project and the ability for the team to get the project completed in the manner and timeframe in which they're advertising. Those projects are few and far between.
Consumers aren't investors. The average consumer isn't monitoring a company's legal representation to gauge whether an obviously predatory developer (Titov) might be more involved than he seens. And if we can't depend upon journalists to stay on top of this and make it widely available, regulation should pick up the slack to at least ensure consumers have reliable and consistent access to such information.
For most people "yes" they should stay away. They give money to projects when they don't know enough AND they are the type of people who seem, when all is said and done, a bit risk averse.
Now, I've yet to be burned in a kickstarter but if was I was I wouldn't go yelling on forums or making it my life's work to bring the developers down.
It's so simple. Do a "little" research. Just a little. If someone stopped you on the street and said they were going to feed the hungry little children but couldn't offer anything other than their word, why would you give them money?
If a game studio says they are going to make x game but you don't know if any of their people ever released a game why would you?
Looking up the work of these people one can see they have worked in the industry and at least one was head of a game that actually released to decent/"ok" reviews. So that says to me that something will be released.
Didn't take much effort to learn that.
I'm not advocating that people should only give money if they have the developers' actual schedule/plans in hand.
Just see who the people are and assess whether or not you yourself are really averse to risk. If you are and can't take the project veering off course then "don't". If you can do it and can accept losing 50 or whatever dollars then just see who is involved. Chances are if they have done a project then they can do another. Then look at what they offer as evidence of where they are in the project.
So look at Pantheon. I didn't give money. Why? Not because I didn't think they could develop, it but because they couldn't show me anything concrete enough. So no money to them.
Yet I did give money to Agony because they DID have a concrete example that one could try.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
And yet, people donate money to folks without ever confirming the money is going where the people say. Ever had the parents of a little league team taking up donations for the team? Did you vet the team behind the donations prior to giving?
Fact is still that everyone, you and me included, are forced to make financial decisions every day about items we know little about. More specifically, about items of which we know very little about the company producing them or the folks involved.
You're advocating that, for some reason, video gaming should be different. The only compelling reasoning behind that is the increased danger of the consumer being taken advantage of. But that doesn't decrease the need for oversight, it increases it.
My question is is it accurate with U.S.Western history. It just isn't something i want to play.
From their FAQ: Q: Will this be in US historical context? If so, which time period (Pre-Civil War, Post Civil War, or late west (Big Jake Style) or Will this be "alternate universe" Wild west where the story line revolves around a huge undiscovered territory that just opened up?| A: WWO is based on the old west of the late 1800s, early 1900s, but it's not historically correct and will not reference on any real world events.
And yet, people donate money to folks without ever confirming the money is going where the people say. Ever had the parents of a little league team taking up donations for the team? Did you vet the team behind the donations prior to giving?
Fact is still that everyone, you and me included, are forced to make financial decisions every day about items we know little about. More specifically, about items of which we know very little about the company producing them or the folks involved.
You're advocating that, for some reason, video gaming should be different. The only compelling reasoning behind that is the increased danger of the consumer being taken advantage of. But that doesn't decrease the need for oversight, it increases it.
It's not really the same is it?
The people asking for money for little league are in your community, they are "there" as part of what is going on, mostly likely parents, you can literally walk up to them and talk to them and you know where they live. They most likely have been doing it for a bit and even if they haven't, there is a treasurer and a board that is also responsible.
Yes you are correct, we make financial decisions every day and you essentially just gave the example of "why I would give to a little league team". There is already a history for the organization, there are people who actually receive the money and sometimes there are background checks.
No brainer, if I was a little league fan I would take the risk.
for developers? It runs the gamut from experienced developers to new "wannabee" developers. Some are just asking for additional funds and some are asking for the entire amount. Some have something to show and some are essentially giving a power point example.
Goes back to my example in another thread where a woman, at Christmas was asking for money at South Station. Anyone can just set up a table and ask. So one person asked for her credentials as she was an unknown and lo and behold she was a scammer.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
And yet, people donate money to folks without ever confirming the money is going where the people say. Ever had the parents of a little league team taking up donations for the team? Did you vet the team behind the donations prior to giving?
Fact is still that everyone, you and me included, are forced to make financial decisions every day about items we know little about. More specifically, about items of which we know very little about the company producing them or the folks involved.
You're advocating that, for some reason, video gaming should be different. The only compelling reasoning behind that is the increased danger of the consumer being taken advantage of. But that doesn't decrease the need for oversight, it increases it.
It's not really the same is it?
The people asking for money for little league are in your community, they are "there" as part of what is going on, mostly likely parents, you can literally walk up to them and talk to them and you know where they live. They most likely have been doing it for a bit and even if they haven't, there is a treasurer and a board that is also responsible.
Yes you are correct, we make financial decisions every day and you essentially just gave the example of "why I would give to a little league team". There is already a history for the organization, there are people who actually receive the money and sometimes there are background checks.
No brainer, if I was a little league fan I would take the risk.
for developers? It runs the gamut from experienced developers to new "wannabee" developers. Some are just asking for additional funds and some are asking for the entire amount. Some have something to show and some are essentially giving a power point example.
Goes back to my example in another thread where a woman, at Christmas was asking for money at South Station. Anyone can just set up a table and ask. So one person asked for her credentials as she was an unknown and lo and behold she was a scammer.
You're assuming a lot. Here in Nashville, I do not know the parents personally nor am I even familiar with the team. It's not uncommon for folks to give to things like this; I remember being a child and my parents doing the same for our team.
And that situation is something easily understandable for every consumer. Software development is a highly technical industry where the vast majority of consumers have only a basic knowledge of what goes into creating the product they enjoy. The law protecting consumers takes this onto account in other industries, for better or worse.
You're trying to make a case that crowdfunding should go unchecked or unmonitored, the only benefit of that situation being for scammers or hopelessly in over their head "wannabes" at the expense of the consumer. What's the upside? You get to wax poetic about the freedoms of the interwebs?
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
And yet, people donate money to folks without ever confirming the money is going where the people say. Ever had the parents of a little league team taking up donations for the team? Did you vet the team behind the donations prior to giving?
Fact is still that everyone, you and me included, are forced to make financial decisions every day about items we know little about. More specifically, about items of which we know very little about the company producing them or the folks involved.
You're advocating that, for some reason, video gaming should be different. The only compelling reasoning behind that is the increased danger of the consumer being taken advantage of. But that doesn't decrease the need for oversight, it increases it.
The simple fact is that there is nothing illegal going on here. And there is no possible legislation that can stop what many suspect is happening here.
It's not illegal to make shoddy video games. It's not illegal to obfuscate the ownership of companies by using a cascade of shell companies. It's not illegal to create a new company every six months and reskin your previous game, make a few changes and sell it as a new game.
If you tried that with consumer goods, you would most likely rapidly go bankrupt. But with software, it's easy.
Kotaku's article is pure speculation. Very plausible in my opinion, but still just speculation.
And yet, people donate money to folks without ever confirming the money is going where the people say. Ever had the parents of a little league team taking up donations for the team? Did you vet the team behind the donations prior to giving?
Fact is still that everyone, you and me included, are forced to make financial decisions every day about items we know little about. More specifically, about items of which we know very little about the company producing them or the folks involved.
You're advocating that, for some reason, video gaming should be different. The only compelling reasoning behind that is the increased danger of the consumer being taken advantage of. But that doesn't decrease the need for oversight, it increases it.
The simple fact is that there is nothing illegal going on here. And there is no possible legislation that can stop what many suspect is happening here.
It's not illegal to make shoddy video games. It's not illegal to obfuscate the ownership of companies by using a cascade of shell companies. It's not illegal to create a new company every six months and reskin your previous game, make a few changes and sell it as a new game.
If you tried that with consumer goods, you would most likely rapidly go bankrupt. But with software, it's easy.
Kotaku's article is pure speculation. Very plausible in my opinion, but still just speculation.
I wouldn't call their article pure speculation, they've listed many factual but perhaps coincidental parallels and tie ins, with the speculation being what conclusions might be drawn from the facts.
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
First off, if it isn't obvious to everyone that he is involved I have to question your thought process.
Since everyone knows his past escalades, if you are going to throw money at this game, know that there is a very good chance that you probably won't get your moneys worth. With that in mind, nothing wrong for those that want a game in this genre to try it out. Any MMO developed this quickly is going to be filled with giant holes, so don't come here whining about them.
This game is a total cash grab scam. If you don't realize that then I suppose you deserve to lose your money. That's what keeps these guys going, after all. Maybe I should open my own game studio.
As long as you agree to pay me $A / A% you can use my game engine and As long as you pay me $B / B% you can use my art assets and As long as you pay me $C / C% you can use my web site templates and ... .... .... As long as you pay me $Z / Z% you can use my step-by-step how to set a game up guide
but please note that the guide has been updated on page 1 to say that you must clearly state that I am not involved. Which I am not. You are simply licensing various tools from me.
Comments
But let's say he is the mastermind behind this game. Why not? Let's say that he is the puppet master behind everything, trying to keep his involvement a super secret.
Well, all a person needs to do is to sign up for open alpha and take a look themselves. If the game is to their liking, if it looks to be well on its way then it might be worth money. If it feels cheap, if it seems like they are cutting corners, then one can bide their time if they are still interested or "not get involved at all".
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
But what people seem to do is "if there is not enough info then go ahead why not I'm sure everything will be fine even if one gets riled over the smallest thing and will most likely fly off the handle when x isn't picture perfect or y gets pushed back".
Of course we all benefit by real information and real news and more importantly accurate information.
But what tends to happen (and I see it on this site all the time) is that people take one person's opinion as gospel or dive in even though there is no indication they should be diving in and then they rush to the forums all wounded and complainy when things don't go the way someone said it would.
I'm starting to think people should just do what Kyleran says he does ... don't buy until released, case closed. This way no one gets riled, no one gets disappointed, they can read reviews, first person experiences and make their decision then.
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
Aloha Mr Hand !
http://www.mmorpg.com/wild-west-online
You'll see your comments are totally wrong. And from the official forums it seems the PvE side is actually going to be weak. Players actually are asking for more story style quests / quests period.
I don't know if the game will turn out good or just be Pvp shoot-fest, but with them saying they'll be different types of servers I think there'll be plenty to do, including exploring.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
What you're submitting is that people avoid crowdfunding unless they can vet the folks behind it... But point me to a single MMORPG crowdfunded project that has someone behind it that doesn't have a failed project/controversy in their recent history and/or a large gap in information regarding the viability of the project and the ability for the team to get the project completed in the manner and timeframe in which they're advertising. Those projects are few and far between.
Consumers aren't investors. The average consumer isn't monitoring a company's legal representation to gauge whether an obviously predatory developer (Titov) might be more involved than he seens. And if we can't depend upon journalists to stay on top of this and make it widely available, regulation should pick up the slack to at least ensure consumers have reliable and consistent access to such information.
Now, I've yet to be burned in a kickstarter but if was I was I wouldn't go yelling on forums or making it my life's work to bring the developers down.
It's so simple. Do a "little" research. Just a little. If someone stopped you on the street and said they were going to feed the hungry little children but couldn't offer anything other than their word, why would you give them money?
If a game studio says they are going to make x game but you don't know if any of their people ever released a game why would you?
Looking up the work of these people one can see they have worked in the industry and at least one was head of a game that actually released to decent/"ok" reviews. So that says to me that something will be released.
Didn't take much effort to learn that.
I'm not advocating that people should only give money if they have the developers' actual schedule/plans in hand.
Just see who the people are and assess whether or not you yourself are really averse to risk. If you are and can't take the project veering off course then "don't". If you can do it and can accept losing 50 or whatever dollars then just see who is involved. Chances are if they have done a project then they can do another. Then look at what they offer as evidence of where they are in the project.
So look at Pantheon. I didn't give money. Why? Not because I didn't think they could develop, it but because they couldn't show me anything concrete enough. So no money to them.
Yet I did give money to Agony because they DID have a concrete example that one could try.
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
Fact is still that everyone, you and me included, are forced to make financial decisions every day about items we know little about. More specifically, about items of which we know very little about the company producing them or the folks involved.
You're advocating that, for some reason, video gaming should be different. The only compelling reasoning behind that is the increased danger of the consumer being taken advantage of. But that doesn't decrease the need for oversight, it increases it.
Q: Will this be in US historical context? If so, which time period (Pre-Civil War, Post Civil War, or late west (Big Jake Style) or Will this be "alternate universe" Wild west where the story line revolves around a huge undiscovered territory that just opened up?|
A: WWO is based on the old west of the late 1800s, early 1900s, but it's not historically correct and will not reference on any real world events.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
All in all, I'd rather see some new blood and idea's than someone coming from Company X, bringing the same old idea's with them.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
The people asking for money for little league are in your community, they are "there" as part of what is going on, mostly likely parents, you can literally walk up to them and talk to them and you know where they live. They most likely have been doing it for a bit and even if they haven't, there is a treasurer and a board that is also responsible.
Yes you are correct, we make financial decisions every day and you essentially just gave the example of "why I would give to a little league team". There is already a history for the organization, there are people who actually receive the money and sometimes there are background checks.
No brainer, if I was a little league fan I would take the risk.
for developers? It runs the gamut from experienced developers to new "wannabee" developers. Some are just asking for additional funds and some are asking for the entire amount. Some have something to show and some are essentially giving a power point example.
Goes back to my example in another thread where a woman, at Christmas was asking for money at South Station. Anyone can just set up a table and ask. So one person asked for her credentials as she was an unknown and lo and behold she was a scammer.
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
And that situation is something easily understandable for every consumer. Software development is a highly technical industry where the vast majority of consumers have only a basic knowledge of what goes into creating the product they enjoy. The law protecting consumers takes this onto account in other industries, for better or worse.
You're trying to make a case that crowdfunding should go unchecked or unmonitored, the only benefit of that situation being for scammers or hopelessly in over their head "wannabes" at the expense of the consumer. What's the upside? You get to wax poetic about the freedoms of the interwebs?
I think this pre-order is about $50 bucks, if so I could set fire in an ash tray and feel the same about it.
For some this is a lot of money, do they shouldn't risk it.
Some feel the same way about $5K, I've got friends who drop that in casinos, me $100 is my gambling limit.
All said I think I'll stick with my policy and wait post final release plus 6 months, don't have a good feeling on this one.
"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
It's not illegal to make shoddy video games. It's not illegal to obfuscate the ownership of companies by using a cascade of shell companies. It's not illegal to create a new company every six months and reskin your previous game, make a few changes and sell it as a new game.
If you tried that with consumer goods, you would most likely rapidly go bankrupt. But with software, it's easy.
Kotaku's article is pure speculation. Very plausible in my opinion, but still just speculation.
"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
Since everyone knows his past escalades, if you are going to throw money at this game, know that there is a very good chance that you probably won't get your moneys worth. With that in mind, nothing wrong for those that want a game in this genre to try it out. Any MMO developed this quickly is going to be filled with giant holes, so don't come here whining about them.
It's rare when almost everyone on this site agrees on something and this is one of those times.
As long as you agree to pay me $A / A% you can use my game engine and
As long as you pay me $B / B% you can use my art assets and
As long as you pay me $C / C% you can use my web site templates and ...
....
....
As long as you pay me $Z / Z% you can use my step-by-step how to set a game up guide
but please note that the guide has been updated on page 1 to say that you must clearly state that I am not involved. Which I am not. You are simply licensing various tools from me.