Honestly, do whatever you want with your money. It's your money, if you think you should spend it in this way, who am I to stop you? Though maybe giving it to the charity and knowing that you actually helped some poor people with it might give you a better feeling.
Unfortunately "get your funding sorted, find some other means" is not a viable business model.
Using preorders to help fund development is guaranteed to leave some people feeling cheated because development was unable to reach the state of completion and polish they feel they paid for, but at least enables the company to produce something. A few customers will feel cheated if the company does anything short of revolutionizing the entire feild (and some will feel cheated even then). A few will stand be the project until the lights shut off and no product has been made. As long as most of the people in the middle are satisfied, it's may no t be a good business model, but it's at least viable.
The Dark and Light and Mourning threads are NOT meant to place Mortal in the same light, just illustrate the loyal to the end fans. I could point out the people that would feel cheated no matter what, but that would probably earn me a moderator warning. Suffice it to say, there's at least one person banned by both Darkfall and Mortal (and IIRC, currently mentioning Xsyon in a positive light)
Instead of paying for 6 months for a game you don't have time to play, buyt starvaults shares. If you are lucky, you will sell them with some profit.
Bingo!
Either way you would be out that money. But the investment way you may make some...
Except that's the whole point of the OP. He'd rather contribute to the possibility of Mortal getting developed along the lines proposed than have the money.
you can call me a idiot i buy this game and i will pay for 6 month of subscription just for the sake of making a donation, MO dont call me to much and dont have to much time i already have 2 MMO to play eve+df .The logic question is why pay for something that is on XXX state why support this kind of business... well IMHO this is the only way to go for indie game developers that dont get a publisher, I also hate publishers that requests changes in the game content so any game like MO that survive is a proof that game dev's dont have to bend at accountants requests. I hope that other indie dev's are looking atm at MO and say if MO can do it we can do it
[mod edit]
I think that supporting this given project is a mistake, no matter how much one likes the genre - it sends the wrong message to aspiring developers that they can slip away with low quality, sloppy products. SV is not a charity, they have charged premium rates for their product and plan to charge absolutely unjustified mothly fee for that.
Had it been a free student project I would understand the urge to donate. As it is, they chose to play big, they are going to learn hard.
Unfortunately "get your funding sorted, find some other means" is not a viable business model. Using preorders to help fund development is guaranteed to leave some people feeling cheated because development was unable to reach the state of completion and polish they feel they paid for, but at least enables the company to produce something. A few customers will feel cheated if the company does anything short of revolutionizing the entire feild (and some will feel cheated even then). A few will stand be the project until the lights shut off and no product has been made. As long as most of the people in the middle are satisfied, it's may no t be a good business model, but it's at least viable. Dark and Light http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/246128/Anyone-else-miss-DNL.html Mourning http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/256491/the-game-is-alive-developed-en-spain-weee.html The Dark and Light and Mourning threads are NOT meant to place Mortal in the same light, just illustrate the loyal to the end fans. I could point out the people that would feel cheated no matter what, but that would probably earn me a moderator warning. Suffice it to say, there's at least one person banned by both Darkfall and Mortal (and IIRC, currently mentioning Xsyon in a positive light)
When I said "get your funding sorted, find some other means" what I meant was "ensure that you have the funds available to meet the scope of your project". Surely that is the whole definition of a viable business model? Make sure you spend what you have? For the Brits among us, just look at Portsmouth FC if you want an example of what I'm talking about. They spent more money than they had in an attempt to play with the big boys in the football league, and hoped to recover the deficit through improved income from cup competitions and higher league positions. Huge risk, terrible consequences. To me, SV are doing the same thing (on a smaller scale obviously).
SV are a small, inexperienced, low-budget team trying to create a blockbuster AAA MMO. There are people who might argue that MO isn't supposed to be a AAA title to compete with the likes of WoW, but SV's valuation of the product reflected in the fees they've set tell a different story. Regardless; whether you're an indie developer or a heavyweight like Blizzard, you do not reach for the stars if you have barely enough petrol to make it out of the garage.
To me, SV's intention to release this product in the state its in, at full price and with a monthly fee that is more than a lot of AAA MMOs says one thing: they made a horrendous misjudgement in the scope of their project and have run out of cash. Whether or not it was a rookie mistake on their part, or whether they did it intentionally, expecting pre-orders and fanboys to ease their lack of funding is still unacceptable whether you're an indie developer or not.
I don't know about you lot, but the moment you take someone's money in exchange for a service, you owe it to your integrity to provide them with appropriate quality. SV have charged premium prices for their product, and to provide anything less is unethical. I think it is a mistake to support unethical developers just because they're indie.
Like Portsmouth FC, Starvault tried to play with the big boys without the financial backing and expert professionals they enjoy, and embarked on an unsustainable cycle on the hope that their risk pays off and they can recover their losses. This is not how a business should be run, nor is it a healthy way to develop games.
I recall discussing this very same back when they started to sell pre-orders before beta, but here it goes again. I do think that the arguments that are stating that a company should have a viable strategy and sufficient means to match the scope of their project are right, in a sense. The big IF in here is due to different kind of economies that these companies are. I think that it is ABC of economics that when investors are lowering their risks they start from periphery, i.e., areas furthest from wherever you have your company based.
This leads to a situation where e.g. countries in Northern Europe may have it relatively hard to find venture capital when starting a business, especially during economic recession. Taking Mortal Online as an example, their business plan might have been relatively solid when they originally started the project back in 2007 when there were no signs of Lehman Brothers filing a bankruptcy. There was venture capital on the market and MMOGs must have appeared as a relatively safe yet lucrative form of investment. When the recession hit, the first market to see the taps of venture capital closed were these aforementioned peripheries, Sweden amidst them.
The situation of Star Vault could in many ways be compared to that of Aventurine. I could imagine that Darkfall was relatively close to turn into an actual vaporware hadn't there been a massive influx of state money to the company. In this similar situation Star Vault were left out of options: no state funding and not a chance to get venture money. The only source of income they could come up with was either a) sell the product to a publisher; or b) sell the product to the players. They chose the latter and that form of funding lasted up till this point. Mortal Online didn't turn into vaporware but it is not as polished as the developers at Mortal Online would certainly have wanted.
One can certainly question whether it is rational in the first place to start with such a massive project with a new company when you cannot possibly have any revenues for a long long time. It is a risk much like that Portsmouth FC example, although for all the different reasons. Both illustrate what happens to companies that lack a proper backup plan, but I could imagine that would the guys at Star Vault have predicted global recession, they wouldn't be making computer games. Maybe MMO-market would need to have some smaller publishers to reduce this seemingly nigh unsurmountable barrier that prevents small companies from developing good sandbox games. Nonetheless, I think that OP's investment to the game is understandable if he genuinely finds that sandbox games are threatened.
you can call me a idiot i buy this game and i will pay for 6 month of subscription just for the sake of making a donation, MO dont call me to much and dont have to much time i already have 2 MMO to play eve+df .The logic question is why pay for something that is on XXX state why support this kind of business... well IMHO this is the only way to go for indie game developers that dont get a publisher, I also hate publishers that requests changes in the game content so any game like MO that survive is a proof that game dev's dont have to bend at accountants requests. I hope that other indie dev's are looking atm at MO and say if MO can do it we can do it
[mod edit]
I think that supporting this given project is a mistake, no matter how much one likes the genre - it sends the wrong message to aspiring developers that they can slip away with low quality, sloppy products. SV is not a charity, they have charged premium rates for their product and plan to charge absolutely unjustified mothly fee for that.
Had it been a free student project I would understand the urge to donate. As it is, they chose to play big, they are going to learn hard.
I don't think Cosy's view is out of the ordinary for any sandbox, indie or not. Sandboxes are about players interacting with the game world and choosing the path that it takes.
In a quest-based game, you know where the player will be and what he will be doing, for most of the time he is in the game. This makes it easier to develop large amounts of content.
In an open world with player interacting it’s much more difficult to say exactly how resources should be spent.
I think a sandbox fails when they fail to develop the open world based on player interaction, after launch.
Comments
Honestly, do whatever you want with your money. It's your money, if you think you should spend it in this way, who am I to stop you? Though maybe giving it to the charity and knowing that you actually helped some poor people with it might give you a better feeling.
Unfortunately "get your funding sorted, find some other means" is not a viable business model.
Using preorders to help fund development is guaranteed to leave some people feeling cheated because development was unable to reach the state of completion and polish they feel they paid for, but at least enables the company to produce something. A few customers will feel cheated if the company does anything short of revolutionizing the entire feild (and some will feel cheated even then). A few will stand be the project until the lights shut off and no product has been made. As long as most of the people in the middle are satisfied, it's may no t be a good business model, but it's at least viable.
Dark and Light http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/246128/Anyone-else-miss-DNL.html
Mourning http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/256491/the-game-is-alive-developed-en-spain-weee.html
The Dark and Light and Mourning threads are NOT meant to place Mortal in the same light, just illustrate the loyal to the end fans. I could point out the people that would feel cheated no matter what, but that would probably earn me a moderator warning. Suffice it to say, there's at least one person banned by both Darkfall and Mortal (and IIRC, currently mentioning Xsyon in a positive light)
Bingo!
Either way you would be out that money. But the investment way you may make some...
Except that's the whole point of the OP. He'd rather contribute to the possibility of Mortal getting developed along the lines proposed than have the money.
I think that supporting this given project is a mistake, no matter how much one likes the genre - it sends the wrong message to aspiring developers that they can slip away with low quality, sloppy products. SV is not a charity, they have charged premium rates for their product and plan to charge absolutely unjustified mothly fee for that.
Had it been a free student project I would understand the urge to donate. As it is, they chose to play big, they are going to learn hard.
You'll buy the game and subscribe for 6 months? Good job, you will be paying for maybe a quarter of an hour of extra work on the game...
---
Waiting for: GW2
*thumbs up*: GW, Eve(, WoW)
*thumbs down*: MO, GA, FE
When I said "get your funding sorted, find some other means" what I meant was "ensure that you have the funds available to meet the scope of your project". Surely that is the whole definition of a viable business model? Make sure you spend what you have? For the Brits among us, just look at Portsmouth FC if you want an example of what I'm talking about. They spent more money than they had in an attempt to play with the big boys in the football league, and hoped to recover the deficit through improved income from cup competitions and higher league positions. Huge risk, terrible consequences. To me, SV are doing the same thing (on a smaller scale obviously).
SV are a small, inexperienced, low-budget team trying to create a blockbuster AAA MMO. There are people who might argue that MO isn't supposed to be a AAA title to compete with the likes of WoW, but SV's valuation of the product reflected in the fees they've set tell a different story. Regardless; whether you're an indie developer or a heavyweight like Blizzard, you do not reach for the stars if you have barely enough petrol to make it out of the garage.
To me, SV's intention to release this product in the state its in, at full price and with a monthly fee that is more than a lot of AAA MMOs says one thing: they made a horrendous misjudgement in the scope of their project and have run out of cash. Whether or not it was a rookie mistake on their part, or whether they did it intentionally, expecting pre-orders and fanboys to ease their lack of funding is still unacceptable whether you're an indie developer or not.
I don't know about you lot, but the moment you take someone's money in exchange for a service, you owe it to your integrity to provide them with appropriate quality. SV have charged premium prices for their product, and to provide anything less is unethical. I think it is a mistake to support unethical developers just because they're indie.
Like Portsmouth FC, Starvault tried to play with the big boys without the financial backing and expert professionals they enjoy, and embarked on an unsustainable cycle on the hope that their risk pays off and they can recover their losses. This is not how a business should be run, nor is it a healthy way to develop games.
$90 of sub + $60 for the game...
Fans really like this game even if they aren't going to play it!
Let's hope not. What a nightmare.
$90 of sub + $60 for the game...
Fans really like this game even if they aren't going to play it!
Don't use word 'fans' if there has only been one guy that might do so. Ofc people play the game if they are subscribed.
You can burn me, but i wont die.
I recall discussing this very same back when they started to sell pre-orders before beta, but here it goes again. I do think that the arguments that are stating that a company should have a viable strategy and sufficient means to match the scope of their project are right, in a sense. The big IF in here is due to different kind of economies that these companies are. I think that it is ABC of economics that when investors are lowering their risks they start from periphery, i.e., areas furthest from wherever you have your company based.
This leads to a situation where e.g. countries in Northern Europe may have it relatively hard to find venture capital when starting a business, especially during economic recession. Taking Mortal Online as an example, their business plan might have been relatively solid when they originally started the project back in 2007 when there were no signs of Lehman Brothers filing a bankruptcy. There was venture capital on the market and MMOGs must have appeared as a relatively safe yet lucrative form of investment. When the recession hit, the first market to see the taps of venture capital closed were these aforementioned peripheries, Sweden amidst them.
The situation of Star Vault could in many ways be compared to that of Aventurine. I could imagine that Darkfall was relatively close to turn into an actual vaporware hadn't there been a massive influx of state money to the company. In this similar situation Star Vault were left out of options: no state funding and not a chance to get venture money. The only source of income they could come up with was either a) sell the product to a publisher; or b) sell the product to the players. They chose the latter and that form of funding lasted up till this point. Mortal Online didn't turn into vaporware but it is not as polished as the developers at Mortal Online would certainly have wanted.
One can certainly question whether it is rational in the first place to start with such a massive project with a new company when you cannot possibly have any revenues for a long long time. It is a risk much like that Portsmouth FC example, although for all the different reasons. Both illustrate what happens to companies that lack a proper backup plan, but I could imagine that would the guys at Star Vault have predicted global recession, they wouldn't be making computer games. Maybe MMO-market would need to have some smaller publishers to reduce this seemingly nigh unsurmountable barrier that prevents small companies from developing good sandbox games. Nonetheless, I think that OP's investment to the game is understandable if he genuinely finds that sandbox games are threatened.
I think that supporting this given project is a mistake, no matter how much one likes the genre - it sends the wrong message to aspiring developers that they can slip away with low quality, sloppy products. SV is not a charity, they have charged premium rates for their product and plan to charge absolutely unjustified mothly fee for that.
Had it been a free student project I would understand the urge to donate. As it is, they chose to play big, they are going to learn hard.
I don't think Cosy's view is out of the ordinary for any sandbox, indie or not. Sandboxes are about players interacting with the game world and choosing the path that it takes.
In a quest-based game, you know where the player will be and what he will be doing, for most of the time he is in the game. This makes it easier to develop large amounts of content.
In an open world with player interacting it’s much more difficult to say exactly how resources should be spent.
I think a sandbox fails when they fail to develop the open world based on player interaction, after launch.