courant101

That could be an interesting thing to try, not sure that the chance to get a great game in the end would be so high though. 100 or 1,000 different people who do not necessarily have any experience in game development nor the same opinion about what makes a game great, deciding to lead a sizeable and complex project like a MMO over several years, what can possibly go wrong? On the other end, if we did buy an existing studio (like ACE), one that already aims to create the game that a decent amount of backers want to play, then at least we have more chance to get the game we all want I believe, and maybe even get a return on the investment when it succeeds. Let's say the current investors want to keep the shares they already own and the valuation of the studio is around $20 million, well we would need to find maybe 300 backers who want to invest ~$5K, (1,5M), 500 x ~$1K (500K), 1K x $500 (500K), 10K x $250 (2M), 20,000 x $150 (3M) and the rest in smaller pledges. I'm aware that it is more than the triple of the total pledges for CF, but it's not unreasonable imo to think that people would be willing to give more money if they own a part of a company they love (just that indiegogo campaign that received very little media attention collected more than $600K and there was no guarantee that the investors would ever see their money again). Also if we take a look at a relatively small crowdfunded game like Shroud of the Avatar, they already have over $10 million in backers' pledge, so that amount isn't impossible to obtain. Regarding the founders of some projects taking the money and running away with it, I haven't seen a studio that relies on crowdfunding doing that yet. I know a few crowdfunded games that will never see the light of the day, but it's not because of fraudulent actions (afaik) but rather because of the lack of funding or some major issues that made it difficult for the team to continue working on the project.

Btw we could always buy ACE! 10,000 backers * $1,000 = $10,000,000

It seems to me like it's how it happened, I haven't checked the announcements but that's how I remember it roughly. Since we know why the delays happen though it's easier for us to understand and accept those delays imo. They worked longer than expected on combat to get it right and to make sure it feels great / is fun. They worked longer on destruction of structures so the performances get better. They worked longer on animations because of some of the changes made (power prediction, 8-directions movement (backward, strafing...), animation lock / root motion / body split, etc.). They worked longer on back-end server tech to improve performances. And so on. At this point they could have decided to scrap structure destruction entirely, told us that the combat is "satisfying", turn the game into a 20vs20 MOBA, etc. and rush Crowfall out as quickly as possible to cash in on Steam, like so many other projects have done. Instead they're still working hard to bring their original vision to the backers as promised, even though it's a lot more difficult than they expected. I can understand the disappointment but I think it's important to remember that ACE is visibly doing all they can to fulfill their promises and the original vision. It's not like they're not trying. They're selling parts of their company they took time and effort to build so they get enough funding to pay their developers' salaries. I fail to see what ACE could have done differently to please their supporters. The mini campaigns (Throne War module) as revealed in this news are a bit different than what is available now. (more details) The solution used in Siege Perilous for wall destruction does not rely on voxels afaik. There are plenty of different reasons for developers to make games. Some of them I'm sure do it purely because of the love of making games. I have however not said, nor do I think, that ACE is creating Crowfall purely because of the love of making games. Here's what was written (public discussion on Discord):

Urahara I agree with you on many of the points you make, however I'm confident there are still a large number of studios that care about creating innovative and high quality games. It may just be that the ones we hear the most about are those that have the largest marketing budget and are pushed by people who care about the profit first and foremost. Hundreds of indie studios are out there trying to create novelty and push boundaries with new tech or design, it's just harder to find them than the clones continually advertised on the web.

It may be seen as a positive thing for the actual backers and fans of Crowfall, I think it really depends on which company would acquire the studio and what are their intentions. If they want to develop and operate Crowfall according to the original vision pitched by Todd and Gordon and fulfill the promises ACE has made over the last two years, then it may indeed be something some people find positive. How I've understood the Indiegogo comments and what was said subsequently in the interview is that if they get the right price, they'll sell. So we don't really know when or if it's going to happen. We can surely speculate that nobody is interested in throwing that kind of money now. I still have hope for Crowfall, ACE have shown times and times again that they're fully committed to its success and that they want to do the things right (constant communication with backers, beyond excellent customer service (Tyrantic ), fulfillment of many of their promises, development generally in accordance with their original vision, EU partnership with a distributor that seems to care about Crowfall (rather than picking the one just offering big $$$), etc.). They seem to do absolutely all they can to make Crowfall as great as possible. There were bumps on the road, lot of them, MMO development is extremely challenging, but they keep going and seem to be willing to complete the project they've started even if, from what I've seen, it's a lot more difficult and costly than they originally planned. Yes that's also what I believe, and I hope it's still how they see things too. It may indeed be a lack of common sense on my side, I was under the impression that Todd and Gordon were committed to keep control over the studio and the "vision" of Crowfall for a long long time. That's what I had understood from their communications. It's only recently (Indiegogo comments) that I've seen them talk about the eventuality of being acquired, and it seems they have been talking about that a lot in the last two months, so my alarm bell ringed.

I agree, and they mention something similar in the interview. On the other hand, they also say: "Somebody comes in and wants to offer stupid money [...] because they may be able to create more value than we can." "That's where it actually makes sense. If somebody comes in and offers you [5 extra business ?] that seems crazy for us but the reason is if they have marketing muscles and a distribution network and the ability to reach players, that they can get 10x what we're sitting on, then it's a really smart play for them and smart play for us."

In the interview they've said that they received lucrative offers that were declined due to the potential of hindering the original vision they wanted to create. From what I've understood they do not specify if it was an investment, distribution, acquisition or other kind of deal. I haven't missed that part, but until we get a confirmation the offer they declined was to "buy the brand", I think it's not indicative of how they would react to such exit opportunity.

"The shares being offered are preferred shares, which means that you are buying a portion of the company's potential. The most likely scenario is that this potential could be realized through a liquidity event, such as an acquisition or an IPO (initial public offering)." "The most likely liquidity event in our space and for independent developers, however, is acquisition. It's not unreasonable to believe that, if our game is a hit, we will have any number of suitors that would be interested in acquiring ArtCraft." "Our goal is to build value, and to ensure that our shareholders (which includes the founders, the employees and our previous investors, too!) have a way to "cash in" on that value. There are three ways that this can happen: the Board could elect to pay dividends, our company could be acquired, and/or through an initial public offering (IPO). In my experience, "creating tremendous value" is the challenge. If you create something valuable, exit opportunities will often present themselves." "There are three scenarios where you (and we) will see a return on our investment: the Board may elect to pay dividends in the future, we could be acquired by another company, and/or we could do an initial public offering (IPO)." "You make an ROI the same way that we (the founders, the employees and the other preferred investors) do; we do the best we can to build tremendous value and then we realize that value through dividends, acquisition or initial public offering (IPO)." https://app.microventures.com/crowdfunding/artcraft-entertainment?referral_code=indiegogo "Every accredited investor, the first thing they ask is What is your exit strategy [for your company]? [...] We're never going to make money out of this company unless our investors make up money out of the company. How most game companies exit? Most game companies eventually get bought by some bigger fish." "This is my fourth start-up. My first company I've ever did, I got a piece of advice from the CEO at the time, because I immediately, as a young buck, I was like "I want to make money, what's our exit, what's our exit?" And he told me: "Your job as an entrepreneur is not to think about your exit. Your job is to think about how to create a company that is incredibly valuable, because if you do that exit opportunities will present themselves." If you make something really valuable, you'll find a way to get money out of it. So I kinda always carried out with me." "The other adage that I think is very good is: Companies are bought, they're not sold. If any start-up goes looking for a buyer, by definition they are going to get a worse deal than if they're "not for sale" and somebody calls and says "I want to buy you" and they say "I'm sorry, we're not for sale". That's the negotiation position you want to be in, to be in a position where you are "not for sale" because then, for somebody to change your mind, they've to throw a stupid number at you." "We're in this to eventually see a big win, we're just not in a hurry, we want the biggest win possible at the best point." "We know what our business is worth today, somebody comes in and offers twice what it is worth [...] if we go wow, that's taking a year off the table, or two years off the table, what the business would be worth then, we would be crazy not to take the money. We are entrepreneurs, we're looking at all the time." "Somebody comes in and wants to offer stupid money [...] they may be able to create more value than we can." "[Q: Does the players have any interest in your cashing in early and how does that impact on development?]" "No [...] It's highly unlikely that it's going to happen early." "To be more specific, the numbers don't make sense until post launch." "We care about the players and we want the players to have the right things. We wouldn't do a deal, unless we thought it would be good for the brand." "Chain of events: You've got the vision that we sold, you've got an audience now that is expecting this vision and bought on that vision, if somebody was to come in and buy us, and immediately starts to betray that vision, those players are gone, which means what they bought has no value, which means nobody wins. So that full chain of events would be terrible, I have no interest in going down that path." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67sVTxx_Iz8

Very interesting update, lot of info. The temple allows for really cool screenshots! Hopefully more POI/dioramas will have this kind of visual appeal.

Si j'ai bien compris les fonctions de Nyazoi seront les mêmes que celles de Paisen actuellement (traduction, modération, animation, etc.), la principale différence je crois c'est que Paisen bossait directement pour ArtCraft alors que dans le cas de Nyazoi, c'est pour Travian. Bienvenue Nyazoi, j'espère que tu te plairas ici. Paisen je te souhaite le meilleur pour les futurs projets!

I like this footage showing the duelist vs. ranger PvP. I've only watched / picked videos from 16th-22nd though, that one got uploaded on jan 13th. The Knight one is great too but the FPS meter is bugged at 19fps and one of my goals was to show the improvements in performances.

Yea I ended up cutting a lot, every time there was a glitch or downtime (character stunned, stuck in the air, rubberbanding, etc.). Next time I'll try to get longer sequences and I guess with more stable servers and bug fixes as you said it should help.

Footage pulled from Lokialpha, Scooter8987, Rietz, Destrin and Anthrage StormRider Twitch/Youtube channels.

Hopefully this one gets bumped up in the priority list.