Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Shroud of the Avatar - Offline is On - MMORPG.com
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Shroud of the Avatar - Offline is On - MMORPG.com
Shroud of the Avatar development moves into another quarter with a Title III raise underway and developer Portalarium looking to make a big pivot towards a publishing phase. Red Thomas makes his way back from Austin to let you know how crazy the next few months could become.
Comments
People place art assets on the asset store for free to get their work recognized. These are talented people just starting out on their art careers and are trying to get their names out there and show their work. For Portalarium to just take it and sell for their own profit is so amazingly unethical that it honestly makes me sick to my stomach.
If these are the kind of people you want to support with your money, then by all means do it. But dont come back later crying about how greedy and corrupt the game industry is after you helped to support that kind of behavior.
"For Richard especially, the offline portion of the game has always been every bit as critical to the initial vision as providing space for player communities online.
Up until this year, offline work was mostly just about making it functional and leaving the balance and ensuring the “fun-ness” until later. "
_______________________
It really is like listening to people in a Cult when trying to understand supportive claims about Shroud of the Avatar. The author here literally ascribes every possible position to everyone within a few short lines, all of which directly contradict statements given before and after.
So the author was glad offline was put aside for online Add On Store sales; only later he says how wonderful it is they're now focusing on that and he'll love it so much. Not that Lord British has ever been doing that of course, and they've been working on offline every month...! Except no, very next sentence, it's been in pure maintenance mode so far, and indeed the economy for offline isn't even designed yet. But quests are nearly done! Except it's the same quests in the MMO part, but I'll claim it was designed for single player and class that as the work I've said they were doing on that all along! But wait, how can you make the quests have more "fun-ness" if they're identical to the MMO and ARGH GOD MY BRAIN HURTS WITH ALL THE COMPLETELY TWISTED LOGIC.
Here's the actual facts; Portalarium actually agrees that MMO funding via the Add On Store has ALWAYS been more important. The Single Player WAS in maintenance mode at best; Lord British might think he's designing a deep RPG, but as soon as he's out the office it's back to designing a Real Money Trading focused online marketplace. There's even a quote from Chris Spears I don't have to hand right now where he outright says they focus on the Add On Store because that's what the players want and seems to bring the money in.
Questing has no "fun-ness" because questing in this game is bollocks. Not because it's online or off, but because the basic game is messy, badly designed, grind obsessed bollocks.
However it was good to see at least that even Red Thomas is raising an eyebrow about the current funding methods, and states that just because the players want to bankrupt themselves, perhaps they shouldn't be encouraged to do so...? And the reason Portalarium want a SeedInvest, which so far doesn't look like it will succeed, is because they're running out of money FAST. 2 months from bankruptcy on current expenditure in fact. Hence all the sudden "We're about to finish the game! Final polish!"
Except it's not final polish if you've still not finalised the XP decay or even basic combat systems, is it? They're still, $18m and 4 years late, desperately trying to make a game people even want to play. Even the SeedInvest independent auditing warns this is likely to be a terrible, terrible investment because it can see that when you realise the unfinished physical rewards from Kickstarter aren't budgetted for, and even the minimum sales of $5m worth of games Portalarium delusionally think they're going to get aren't likely to appear, the whole project looks like it will never, ever generate a return.
Look, Red... it's really rather simple. I know you love the Port guys and gals... but they made a crap game that was the complete opposite of what most Kickstarters actually thought they were backing, and very few new people want to pick up as it is. All the hate filled community behaviour since, and Chris Spears unprofessional antics on these forums and at Reddit didn't help, it's true... but the truth is, Single Player Offline isn't much fun because the whole game isn't, and they honestly weren't paying much attention to that part anyway.
That pretty much guarantees the article is Portalarium-sanctioned marketing bullshit.
Get a clue and find someone else to write these pieces. This guy has zero credibility.
~~ postlarval ~~
No, I think you're misreading. I've never thought the offline portion of the game was a good business move. I still don't. Just because I plan to play it and expect in some ways that it'll be a better experience for me in no way contradicts that statement. My liking or disliking something has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not it's a successful business move. I hate Call of Duty, but it's cheap to make and a great revenue generator.
You're also incorrect to assume that because offline hasn't gotten a lot of attention until the last year or so that it wasn't important. I spoke with Richard just before their Kickstarter campaign, and later with Starr when he came on board. I've always said I thought that was a needless money sink, but they've both always thought it was important to what they were doing. That doesn't preclude them from making the intelligent business decision to focus up front on the things that will generate revenue for them. If you've read any of my Crowfall articles, you'll know that I've actually put them on blast for NOT doing that.
Both are tiny dev teams, and they can't do everything in parallel. To assume on piece comes second because it's less important is pretty faulty reasoning. You effectively took two completely different points in both cases and are suggesting they conflict. They're just unrelated points.
The important point you have seemed to miss there is that there are several places in just this one article where I specifically disagree with Richard, Chris, and/or Starr. I have no problem saying when I think they're wrong, but that doesn't prevent me from understanding why they think they're right.
You're also wrong about them running out of money. The business side of MMOs is actually what I'm most interested in, I just don't get to write about it as often because most people don't care about that sort of thing. I follow a number of Austin projects, and everyone has a pretty good idea of where everyone else stands. SotA isn't anywhere near running out of money. You're just saying that because you've seen the investment sheet, and this is another prime example of why I don't like Title III raises.
The ones I know of either weren't free or were significantly reworked/re-rigged.
You think the story is almost done and just needs a little polish.....have you played any games in the last 20 years? This is not a good storyline in anyway!
I keep reading your articles and wonder what game you are playing? What gifts do you get from the devs in order to write these? The only time you have even been a little critical is this article about the crowdfunding.
You mention that it's the first time you heard about them reusing models? Weird because I'm pretty sure it was brought up in another of your glowing reviews for this.
I won't even get started in your bizarre belief they shouldn't focus on any offline though they have been quietly working away at it? They have done nothing on it, matter of fact, what we are going to get is an offline MMO. Oh fun. Somewhere along the line they decided the kickstarter stuff was too much to follow and that they had reached that goal of what they promised(a lie of course). You in the past have pretended not to know what the kickstarter said so I bet you have no idea about that.
Nah, what was I thinking. He another anchor with too short a chain, just like Richard, Chris, and Starr.
~~ postlarval ~~
Like this one?
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/are-people-here-really-ok-with-this-sort-of-thing.81211/
Tell me, how much work they put on that one?
Don't be absurd. Clearly they altered the size, especially on the $50 Giant Horse Statue!
What makes me sad is that most of the game ended up coming off to me as monetary ploy, not as an adventurous journey with heart and soul. I made the unfortunate mistake of backing this game way back when. But all I've seen is Crowdfunding and Seedinvesting sucker after sucker, running telethon after telethon, selling empty virtual town after city, monetizing free assets for a price in-game, heck even trying to sell Lord British's blood.
Whole thing's been a huge disappointment.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
MMORPG.com is just a big of a shill as these people writing these puff-pieces for DOA crowd funded MMOs. In order to stay operating MMOPRG.com needs ad revenue, which requires companies to want to pay them money to advertise. If they told the truth and only allowed unbiased authors on this platform MMORPG.com would have no revenue and no content.
You want unbiased and real reviews? Sorry, they don't exist.
I... just... I mean... what? I'm just saying that, because I've seen the investment sheet, where they have to list their finances?!
Well yes, obviously I am. Are you saying they're hiding money somewhere else that they didn't declare to SeedInvest? But surely that would be a major financial crime to do so whilst asking for new investors? I just assumed their financials there would be honest. I mean if they declare they're spending 280-310k a month, and they're sitting on less than 600k, that's how many months of operating capital do they have left?
Sure they can get more money in from telethons... that's why they're running 3 in quick succession AND the SeedInvest to try and raise that money. But why would they be doing so if they were nice and secure as you claim?
So far however it looks like everyone else who has read the SeedInvest agrees with the analysis (that you don't dare refer too) that it's an unbelievably unhealthy risk to invest in this Project. Most of the money looks like it's come in from the same old fans again.
Are you counting the SeedInvest funding by the way in the security you just assured us they have? Because you just declared that was one area you disagree strongly with them on.
It really is rather a simple point; the rest of your post and OP was the usual flibbertygibberting around how you Still Believe. We all KNOW you love the game. Do we have to explain that we know, and have no problem with people who love things...? The point is you apparently love it even though right in the middle of the article you state you're morally opposed to the only thing that's apparently keeping your own hopes alive.
Come on, many of us are at least as smart as you are. Instead of trying to flannel us, is it really that hard to admit we might just have a point every now and then...?
ANALOGY ALERT.
Tell you what, I'm morally opposed to it, and I think it would be wrong and evil to do, but if kidnapping you and making you listen to I dunno, Nyan Cat on endless repeat gets you to agree with us, well I think the ends justify the means. What a wonderful world it will be on that day! Etc.
But I'm still morally opposed to kidnapping! I just want everyone to know that.
Not that we have to do it. In my head Red Thomas already agrees with us endlessly! We just decided to turn to kidnapping because mumble mumble mumble.
That's honestly your argument. You see it as "I agree on some things, disagree on others". We see it as patronizing to either your claimed moral qualms, or everyone else when you so easily sweep aside actual facts because you want to believe in some potential future that isn't even assured if the SeedInvest actually works. Which so far, it may not.
I... just... I mean... what? I'm just saying that, because I've seen the investment sheet, where they have to list their finances?!
Well yes, obviously I am. Are you saying they're hiding money somewhere else that they didn't declare to SeedInvest? But surely that would be a major financial crime to do so whilst asking for new investors? I just assumed their financials there would be honest. I mean if they declare they're spending 280-310k a month, and they're sitting on less than 600k, that's how many months of operating capital do they have left?
Sure they can get more money in from telethons... that's why they're running 3 in quick succession AND the SeedInvest to try and raise that money. But why would they be doing so if they were nice and secure as you claim?
So far however it looks like everyone else who has read the SeedInvest agrees with the analysis (that you don't dare refer too) that it's an unbelievably unhealthy risk to invest in this Project. Most of the money looks like it's come in from the same old fans again.
Are you counting the SeedInvest funding by the way in the security you just assured us they have? Because you just declared that was one area you disagree strongly with them on.
It really is rather a simple point; the rest of your post and OP was the usual flibbertygibberting around how you Still Believe. We all KNOW you love the game. Do we have to explain that we know, and have no problem with people who love things...? The point is you apparently love it even though right in the middle of the article you state you're morally opposed to the only thing that's apparently keeping your own hopes alive.
Come on, many of us are at least as smart as you are. Instead of trying to flannel us, is it really that hard to admit we might just have a point every now and then...?
ANALOGY ALERT.
Tell you what, I'm morally opposed to it, and I think it would be wrong and evil to do, but if kidnapping you and making you listen to I dunno, Nyan Cat on endless repeat gets you to agree with us, well I think the ends justify the means. What a wonderful world it will be on that day! Etc.
But I'm still morally opposed to kidnapping! I just want everyone to know that.
Not that we have to do it. In my head Red Thomas already agrees with us endlessly! We just decided to turn to kidnapping because mumble mumble mumble.
That's honestly your argument. You see it as "I agree on some things, disagree on others". We see it as patronizing to either your claimed moral qualms, or everyone else when you so easily sweep aside actual facts because you want to believe in some potential future that isn't even assured if the SeedInvest actually works. Which so far, it may not.
AMEN
[Edit:]
Looked into it. Besides the obvious little bit of work (shading, re-sizing, a little remodeling, ect) that went into it, the asset wasn't free.
Called a friend who work for another company in CA to double-check, and apparently it's not uncommon for "free" assets in the Unity Store to only be free unless you're planning to monetize them somehow. eg, you can use them for mods, but if they're used in a pay-for game or as a cash-shop asset like this one, they do cost something.
I also checked with the Unity Store, and you're not allowed to market assets derived from free ones found on their store (per 3.8i): https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms
Trimmed the above a bit because we're both obviously a bit long-winded...
Short one first, the analogy. That's not really accurate at all, man. I don't like ice skating, but I appreciate the artistry. There are always things in every game that I don't really think is a good idea, but that doesn't keep me from being able to understand why developers would choose to do it, or why there are good reasons for doing it. Case in point, I thought CF should build Eternal Kingdoms first. They didn't, and I understood why. I've changed my mind on it slightly since, but there was never a point where my opposing opinion on the order of development kept me from understanding the reasons why it was a good idea.
Equity Crowdfunding is sort of the same thing. It's legal, and it's a good deal for companies. I completely understand why they'd want to do it. I especially approve of the fact that they're not using original campaign cash for publishing activities. I even think it's a good deal for backers who are spending money they would have spent anyway. I just don't support it as an investment, and I'm worried some backers may try to treat it that way. I think it's dangerous, so I just go out of my way to not encourage people to do it. I'm not really sure where you see the moral problem there...
I'm not putting you on blast for reading the financials and taking them the way you are. You're drawing a really clean and obvious conclusion, so sorry if it sounded like I'm talking down to you. I'm not, and you're not wrong exactly. It's just that it's a little more complex than it appears from the little bit of information in those sheets.
For instance, and you hit right on it, they have on-going raises. You mentioned the telethon things, but they have consistent revenue from the cash shop, too. Just do a little math:
2012: $1,919,275 raised from KS
2017: $11,668,242 currently per the webside
Divided by five years, that's over $1.9 million/year, or ~$162,500/month. They spend $230k/mth according to their investment sheet (which has to be correct, and I did the math to make sure it was a sane number based on what I know about their operation), and that leaves them $67,500 short. With $528k in their account, that'd be right at 8 months of runway.
That's if nothing else changed, but they're also moving into a publishing phase, which will mean distribution deals that will bring in immediate cash and nearly guaranteed more cash over time, even if the game isn't successful. Add to that, the fact that they can down size their team soon, if they decide they need to, and that'll cut their monthly expenses by a lot.
...and I don't know who you're talking about that's read that and thinks Port only has 2 months of operating capital, but they're just wrong. I'm not saying it's a great investment. Anything like venture capitalism by definition is a risky investment, which is precisely why I've said I don't like Title III. But I'm a business dude, so I talk to folks that do this sort of thing pretty often. No one's fist-pumping about the great opportunity in front of us, but no one that I know of between Austin and San Antonio thinks there's a major health problem with the company. If I hear a legitimate reason to be worried, I'll have no problem admitting it. Just don't think it's really there yet.
I'm not trying to flannel anyone. Obviously there's the occasional oxygen sink like @postlarval, but there are plenty of intelligent folks wandering around here. You're obviously not braindead. I disagree with you, but you have valid and logical points. The only thing I object to is this idiotic idea that I write these things because I'm paid to. Folks who think that very clearly have no idea what people get paid for this sort of thing.
Am I biased? Sure. I have zero problem admitting that. Several of these devs are friends, and there's just a lot about the project that I like, and I've never hid that from anyone. There's no such thing as unbiased. There's just people who lie about it, and I'm not one of those. This game isn't for everyone. Nothing wrong at all with not liking it. I do, though. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that anyone else is.
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
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot