Colest

Testers
  • Content count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Colest

  • Rank
    Magpie

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

212 profile views
  1. Maybe you should talk to older Eve players so they can tell you how much better the current system has been for the game.
  2. Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on for the skill queue argument, logging in for each pip is not going to be a great experience for people starting out with the game. Many F2P games that have an optional sub model with really big inconveniences for free players have had a very big problem with retaining new players. I'll float the notion that if they're going to copy Eve so extensively with this skill system that going with Eve's queuing system would be a happy medium.
  3. By failed to deliver I did indeed mean a poorly made socksty game came from it. I'm loath to link clickbait articles but none really illustrate the point as well as this article. Really googling failed kickstarter video games gives you all the answers you could need.
  4. Their initial KS pitch was launch by 2016, IIRC. Then that was turned into a soft-launch. Then that was pushed back to 2017. Now it's end of 2017. This is not unusual but within the framing of a kickstarter project, this is the start of how a great many projects died or failed to deliver. Being in "Pre-Alpha" this close to the supposed soft-launch some are predicting the soft-launch will be pushed back again and it's just not a good look for some people. I'm well aware it's illegal but mass sharing of trade secrets happens all the time in the financial world. The investment lingo "Black Edge" and "Grey Edge" are very common subjects regarding where intel comes from. An NDA or compliance agreement is only worth it's weight if you're caught violating it.
  5. Questions were significantly better this time than the past couple Q&A's. Thanks to whoever for either asking better questions or to ACE for not filtering out "hard" or in-depth questions.
  6. To use your restaurant analogy, telling me to invest in something to see how financially sound it is is akin to telling someone they need to buy a sandwich to see the Food Safety Inspection Report. I'll buy the game when I see something fun and permanent. I know why they're not being completely open and I don't hold it against them that they aren't doing so. It's the safest thing to keep some info close to their chest. I am challenging the notion that "ACE is being transparent about the finances" when really they're doing just what they are legally and contractually required to do and nothing more. I'm not upset about it nor do I think I'm owed anything. But I can also understand why some people are skeptical. An ambitious kickstarter project that is SUPER behind their projected start date with no hard launch in site all the while they continue to push their fundraising efforts, even the most zealous of fans must admit from someone who isn't just IMMEDIATELY sold on the game that this is something to at least not overlook. Said group of people catch constant poorly made socks from people like Krakken with unnecessary condescending remarks that are devoid of logic like "invest in the game to see how financially sound it is." Furthermore, it's disingenuous to say "ACE is being financially transparent with their investers" because keeping the information away from public eyes is missing the definition transparency by leaps and bounds. The point of transparency is to have publicly available info, otherwise the term has no meaning since any meeting of two or more people associated with any company can be argued to be "transparency." In addition to that, the argument that it keeps prying eyes off their trade secrets is a poor argument because someone associated with a rival can simply invest individually and funnel information. Lastly, I've never challenged their developmental transparency. It seems to be conflated into my argument, either inconspicuously or for insidious reasons, but from my very first reply in this thread I've have been taking to task transparency only in relation to finances. How is something that every single publicly traded company does an unrealistic expectation?
  7. So there's information available that you can't divulge to the public that addresses some of my points but you can't tell me about this info. And this is transparent how? Furthermore, people like @ClockworkOrange are supposed to be completely complacent in their questions with the game's financial status because people like @KrakkenSmacken make snide comments about people not being privy to the cool kids club? If they are keeping that info gated behind a paywall then that's kind of the opposite of transparency.
  8. What is with people in this thread and being unable to read what I type? Here, I will pull out the excerpt for you. Read it very carefully please: This is what I said. That if they got more money there would be no transparency. I elaborated on this when someone challenged me on it: This is pretty well reasonably assumed BECAUSE this additional money they'd accumulate wouldn't be through Kickstarter or Indiegogo unless they've found some sort of loophole or a third major crowd-funding source to hit. And it's absurd to say there has been transparency regarding the game's funding so having a race to the bottom-esque argument that they're being transparent because, to borrow from what @Teufel said, they are using "back of napkin approach" to the financials is hardly an argument to defend the counterpoint that you've been frantically trying to prop up which is that ACE has been completely open and honest with us about the funding of the game. So if you want to take the time and read what I said instead of constructing strawmen then feel free to challenge me with a reasonable argument. Otherwise, keep warming that bench and take your own advice. EDIT: For the record, in order for a goalpost moving fallacy to have occurred one needs to supply evidence in an argument so that the arguing party can say it doesn't count. You supplied no evidence but rather just pulled a sentence out of context and said my entire point was invalid.
  9. Of course we're not owed it but assuming everything is peachy because we don't see it is flawed logic. I was pointing out that the financial transparency that we have thus far is only what is required by ACE from using Kickstarter and Indiegogo. So it's disingenuous to say "ACE is being transparent" when they are really just paying the price of admission for crowd-funding. Also quarterly earnings reports for a publicly traded company are public. If you google "X quarterly earnings" where X is any given publicly traded company you can find a PDF of their latest quarterly earnings. To my knowledge there aren't any for Artcraft Entertainment but maybe they're owned by a bigger company in which case it probably wouldn't be very telling about the financials for Crowfall. I stand to be corrected on this though. In general, it's a backwards notion for someone say to "You can find out how financially sound this is by investing in it." That's beside the point, though. My point was that crowd-funded projects fail because of (either) mismanagement and/or lack of accountability. Of course we don't want that to be the case here but it's completely unknown for us, based on the information we have, as to whether or not that happens. Almost everyone on the boards, myself included, want this project to succeed but there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical or at least cautiously optimistic and poo-pooing people who are cautiously optimistic is just as toxic as people coming on here and saying this game is gonna fail because of it's current state in pre-alpha. I don't disagree they've been more upfront than most companies, especially MMO companies, about their developments and I appreciate that. I would argue that half of goal-setting is figuring out a timeline for completion so you can judge your success or failure, which ACE is vehemently against doing at least publicly, so in that regard they are not ahead of the curve. The best we have is soft-launch by end of the year but both what constitutes a soft-launch for Crowfall and when "by the end of the year" is are nebulous. In addition their commitment to that nebulous time frame is not really ironclad. I haven't seen launch marketing or any sort of public preparations for launch so it could just as easily be pushed back again as it has been the past couple times. It's a complete crap shoot to try and pin down what they are aiming for as a going gold date, if they have a date they're aiming for. DISCLAIMER EDIT: It's possible they could have elaborated more on the soft-launch or the date in a recent Q&A that I missed. I skim them because I don't have the time to watch them in their entirety. So I stand to be corrected if they've made a more hard-line commitment in either of those areas.
  10. It needed to be spelled out because you and Bananahammock insisted on quoting something I didn't say and I was explaining in as precise of terms as possible why I said what I said.
  11. Hey if you want to produce a spreadsheet that shows production costs, upkeep costs, salaries, investment sources, and a breakdown of where any given dollar in for the Crowfall project goes then I'm all for it. I have yet to see such a document. Hell I'd even be moderately satisfied with quarterly earnings reports. The microventures hogwash hardly is keeping anyone honest and numerous projects launched from that site have failed precisely because of no accountability. Also this is a textbook strawman fallacy. Address the whole argument or go back to keeping quiet.
  12. This is conflating what I said. I never said no one should care about the Devs. I specifically said: Bolded the important part you omitted for emphasis. What the devs want and what they deliver are two different things. What the devs want and what their kickstarter pitch was are two different things. The devs want a lot of things that aren't synonymous with anything a normal consumer should care about directly. The devs want more funding. It's an indirect benefit at best for you or I if the devs get more funding. The promise is more funding leads to a better game but there's no transparency there so we have to take them on their word. The devs want people to donate their time to test the game, something most companies pay for. Again an indirect benefit for you or I. The promise is more time to test leads to the game getting released sooner and more stable but this keeps getting a wrench thrown in it when they introduce new fundamental systems to the game. Not that I'm complaining, because I'm sure this will also be taken out of context, that race/classes were introduced or that they push new technology for new powers (like directional attacks). But, redoing things they've done before requires retesting those things so player testing time is a constantly accruing debt because of ACE's production habits. ACE wants the game to be a blockbuster but again the benefit is indirect for you or I as the success is predicated on the notion that an undisclosed percentage of the money goes back into the game, something again we have no transparency regarding. All of these assumptions about benefiting from the devs benefiting shouldn't necessarily be assumed to be true, ESPECIALLY from a kickstarter project. Gordon's track record is pretty good in this regard and I'm less skeptical than I would be because of him being attached to the project but, just as it's naive for a business person to believe everything they hear in a sales pitch at face value, it's naive to believe everything that was pitched to us and continues to be pitched at us regarding the game at face value. Furthermore, I think some people in this thread need a good dose of reality. Many of the projects some of the people on this development team have been apart of in the past had HUGE aspirations and they fell shy in many categories, to the point where some people felt they didn't deliver on the game they promised. In addition, kickstarter projects have a recurring motif of lack of accountability + big aspirations = undelivered promises. I want the game as they've described it to come to fruition and succeed but that's not synonymous with caring about what the devs want.
  13. I get you feel the compulsive need to insulate any thread from negativity by painting naysayers with a broad brush but I guarantee you ACE is reading what they say. Dismissing it because you don't agree with it is immature. He paid for, or has been supporting, a game that is taking a direction that he doesn't like. Why should he care what the devs want? Why should anyone care what the devs want? People bought into this game for the vision presented and the only care the majority of people here have is that the end product (mostly) delivers on that vision. You're deluding yourself if you think everyone is supposed to be a cheerleader.
  14. I understand this. Never said anything contrary to that.