Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
PaleOne

Tone....Respect and Logic when dealing with the Dev's

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Emplehdog said:

All crowd funded games say the same thing. 

Perhaps they do but doesn't make it any less true. The fact that an indie Dev studio can make games and not be held to strict deadlines and rushed and made to finish products before they are done is HUGE draw. Its fine if you don't get that but again doesn't make it any less true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tark said:

Context is important. The "thats dumb" comment was in response to an unrealistic scenario. That person was trying to win a battle based on technicality rather than reality. Blair's response in context wasn't even that serious. I have casual discussion all the time and laugh something off as dumb, because it is. 

I think they do a great job considering some of the ignorant posters they have to deal with. 

The that's dumb comment came in response to my scenario of 10 people around a node. I put in node rather than motherload. which yes can fit 10 people easy and has the hits to even need it without great training and picks. I quickly edited it, but Blair jumped on it to score a cheap point. Notice he didn't answer whose stats are used if noone gets to 20% damage?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pang said:

Perhaps they do but doesn't make it any less true. The fact that an indie Dev studio can make games and not be held to strict deadlines and rushed and made to finish products before they are done is HUGE draw. Its fine if you don't get that but again doesn't make it any less true.

I do get that, but people will only stay patient with that for so long. If you backed any other games with kickstarter etc and have been let down.. you will most likely carry that disappointment over to the next game.. Crowfall hasn't done anything special in comparison to other crowd funded games, it may have a great vision but they alllll have a great vision lol. I'm simply saying after so long you have to hold them accountable and thats never gonna be pleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdfunding has just changed the 'who' when it comes to funding and has made things that used to happen behind closed doors visible to the public. No one used some sort of mystical 'their money' back in the day, they raised funds from some source looking to make investments (which ACE has been doing, they've done two separate raises besides crowdfunding). Usually by approaching a group that specialized in their area. That is how the now giant publishing companies came to dominate the game industry, they were the original sources of funding and bought up studios as they needed more funding or found themselves failing on a bad game. Delays, collapses, and cancellations all used to happen back when it was 'their money' but it was behind closed doors. The public only ever saw a fraction of the high profile ones and only saw projects announced when they were nearly done. Usually closer to the end of a typical 5 year dev cycle than at the start. 

The big companies will rarely risk money, they will pound out the same game over and over until we stop buying it then repeat the cycle on a new cash cow. Crowfunding has opened the option of going straight to the consumer and bypassing the publisher's restrictions and demands while reducing risk by spreading it over many small donations. If they fail the result is the same as the old days, someone is out of money, but at least now its individuals out of $100 or less instead of a company out of millions. This allows potentially riskier projects to gauge potential interest and possibly get made when they had little to no chance of being picked up by a publisher. But the trade off is that with public funding comes public scrutiny and the public is notoriously bad at understanding the reality of an industry they have never participated in. What we've been seeing with crowdfunding games is par for the course, some will fail, some will succeed, and some will go way out of scope and balloon their budgets. This is nothing new, surprising, or sinister, this is how business works.

If you don't want to participate or risk your money, that's completely fine. But if you do decide to support these sorts of projects, understand what your doing, how it works, why it's being done this way, and most importantly that you may never get your money's worth in the end.  Personally I find myself disappointed with the results of the old system and the companies that have been dominating for the last 15 years. So for me it's an easy choice, what I give is no major loss for me, and if the projects succeed it's a potential major gain in entertainment for me and many others.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Duffy said:

Crowdfunding has just changed the 'who' when it comes to funding and has made things that used to happen behind closed doors visible to the public. No one used some sort of mystical 'their money' back in the day, they raised funds from some source looking to make investments (which ACE has been doing, they've done two separate raises besides crowdfunding). Usually by approaching a group that specialized in their area. This is how the now giant publishing companies came to dominate the game industry, they were the original sources of funding. Delays, collapses, and cancellations all used to happen back when it was 'their money' but it was behind closed doors. The public only ever saw a fraction of the high profile ones and only saw projects announced when they were nearly done closer to the end of a typical 5 year dev cycle than at the start. 

The big companies will rarely risk money, they will pound out the same game over and over until we stop buying it then repeat the cycle on a new cash cow. Crowfunding has opened the option of going straight to the consumer and bypassing the publisher's restrictions and demands while reducing risk by spreading it over many small donations. If they fail the result is the same as the old days, someone is out of money, but at least now its individuals out of $100 or less instead of a company out of millions. This allows potentially riskier projects to gauge potential interest and possibly get made when they had little to no chance of being picked up by a publisher. But the trade off is that with public funding comes public scrutiny and the public is notoriously bad at understanding the reality of an industry they have never participated in. What we've been seeing with crowdfunding games is par for the course, some will fail, some will succeed, and some will go way out of scope and balloon their budgets. This is nothing new, surprising, or sinister, this is how business works.

If you don't want to participate or risk your money, that's completely fine. But if you do decide to support these sorts of projects, understand what your doing, how it works, why it's being done this way, and most importantly that you may never get your money's worth in the end.  Personally I find myself disappointed with the results of the old system and the companies that have been dominating for the last 15 years. So for me it's an easy choice, what I give is no major loss for me, and if the projects succeed it's a potential major gain in entertainment for me and many others.

I don't disagree with what you are saying,. you are just leaving out the fact that with crowd funding.. these indie Dev's can string the game out longer than it really takes.. micro charging you for random crap over and over.. the incentive is to make money,and if they have already made the bulk of the money... it's really so simple they won't complete it on time. And again I'm not just talking about Crowfall, if you want to understand the hostility of the players when they are talking to Dev's, maybe it's not just them being crazy, It's a symptom of feeling strung along. You sort of point out what I'm saying when you talk about how a lot of games would never be picked up by a major studio,.. that's exactly right. We are funding a game concept that a major company says has little chance of making it, they sell you the dream, talk about how they are players to and this is gonna be so great,.. give you a time line and then delay delay delay.. the exact reason the majors wouldn't pick it up... At what point do you hold them accountable.. and how would you do that after already giving them your money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, srathor said:

The that's dumb comment came in response to my scenario of 10 people around a node. I put in node rather than motherload. which yes can fit 10 people easy and has the hits to even need it without great training and picks. I quickly edited it, but Blair jumped on it to score a cheap point. Notice he didn't answer whose stats are used if noone gets to 20% damage?

 

I wasn't going to pick another fight with Tark, but yes this happened, exactly as srathor said. 

Blair called srathor "dumb", and belittled his position, when in fact he (Blair) had missed the case we were all concerned about but may not have said clearly, mother loads, and then tried to drive home all the "why's" of his incorrectly assumed scenario.

Confidence is good, but blind confidence bordering on arrogance is just off putting.

Forum posters aren't the professionals here, and so should not be expected to have as high of a standard as the Devs.

Rude is rude, on both sides.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Emplehdog said:

I don't disagree with what you are saying,. you are just leaving out the fact that with crowd funding.. these indie Dev's can string the game out longer than it really takes.. micro charging you for random crap over and over.. the incentive is to make money,and if they have already made the bulk of the money... it's really so simple they won't complete it on time. And again I'm not just talking about Crowfall, if you want to understand the hostility of the players when they are talking to Dev's, maybe it's not just them being crazy, It's a symptom of feeling strung along. You sort of point out what I'm saying when you talk about how a lot of games would never be picked up by a major studio,.. that's exactly right. We are funding a game concept that a major company says has little chance of making it, they sell you the dream, talk about how they are players to and this is gonna be so great,.. give you a time line and then delay delay delay.. the exact reason the majors wouldn't pick it up... At what point do you hold them accountable.. and how would you do that after already giving them your money?

The major companies were never given the chance with Crowfall, and that's a good thing.

The ACE founders development pedigree is high enough they probably could have walked this idea into any one of several studios and pulled the same investment bank, but the trade off, loss of control of the vision and upside, was too steep a price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KrakkenSmacken said:

The major companies were never given the chance with Crowfall, and that's a good thing.

The ACE founders development pedigree is high enough they probably could have walked this idea into any one of several studios and pulled the same investment bank, but the trade off, loss of control of the vision and upside, was too steep a price.

You mean having to work hard to put the game out on time was to steep... they also wouldn't take home that much money for themselves working for a larger studio with better resources =(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Emplehdog said:

You mean having to work hard to put the game out on time was to steep... they also wouldn't take home that much money for themselves working for a larger studio with better resources =(

I work dev, and you are so far off on that "on time" thing it's not even funny.  In 15 years of software development, I have seen exactly 1 project actually hit target deadlines with all features in.  What happens is that studios push things out faster and make a crappier product and simply cut features to reach deadlines, rather than make the best game they can.

Not to mention you not even reading my post because I talked about upside as in making more money.

Besides, ACE did something no other game company has ever done, they opened investment into the company for any player, not just registered investors, and gave up identical stock to the kind they own.

Maybe you're just upset you missed out on that opportunity.

Go watch the Murder of Crow series, especially Gordon's three parter, to see just what makes ACE tick.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i dont agree much with @Emplehdog, his point about Q&As is solid. I am in a point i dont even care about them now. I dont care for Q&As so just add something to the game. Where is our assassin? How many Streams/Q&As since they said assassin is coming soon?

I actually prefer a juicy update like the one we had on AI today than all the scattered info we get from Q&As. At least the updates are meaningful since they show us where you are and where you are heading.

Edited by BarriaKarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill put my foot in my mouth when they give a a date the game will be released.. and then release it 2 months early.. until then they are the same as the rest.. employed and looking to stay employed as long as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A typical triple A game with a large team (usually around 100 or more people when all is said and done) will take 5+ years and cost $50+ million before marketing. You don't seem many crowdfunding efforts getting even close to that kind of money or team size. Therefore you should not expect the same results on the same timescales (pointedly we are still well within 5 years). Even if they are scaling things down or cutting corners in the end the stuff that eats up a lot of the upfront time and money isn't all that different despite the 'size' of the projects (Engine, Hardware, Art, Overhead, etc..).

Delays happen, they are a well known factor that cannot be negated, and delays cost money. The only way to circumvent a delay is to cut or get more funding. What should they cut to keep the schedule? Or should they try to keep revenue streams going to offset the cost of likely delays to keep the feature set intact? In the publisher model companies still fall behind and request more funds, sometimes they get it and sometimes they don't. But if they cut and they release a mediocre game everyone hates it and reinforces the publishers safe bets. Nothing new or innovating comes from safe bets, someone has to try and fail, that's how business works. This stuff is not stamping out identical cogs in a factory, it's as much art as science. The inability to plan perfectly for the unknown is a known risk. Take some time to read about Scrum and Mythical Man Months, you'll find plenty of explanations and examples about why software creation works the way it does and the patterns it follows.

They are selling a dream, that's how 'investing' (yes this is not real investing, but it' the spirit of the idea) works. If you cannot handle it, then do not participate. I'm not arguing with you because I don't understand how you feel, I'm trying to explain to you that it isn't any different than how it was before and if it still bothers you then perhaps this sort of endeavor is not for you. The sort of things that are making you feel the way you do are going to happen when making a video game, no ifs, ands, or buts. Either figure out a way to brace yourself or don't go near them until they're done. You'll be much happier. I would still argue it's better, even with a few losses under my belt.

This project could fail. There could come a point where they haven't made enough progress towards their goals and can't convince anyone to give them more money. Are we there yet? No, based on historical references we're pretty far from that point.

Edit: I saw it after I posted: I can tell you the odds are incredibly high that everyone working on this game makes less than if they worked for a publisher churning out the same old dross. For reference I work in a 'cheap' area of the country and it costs a bit over $1 mil per 10 employees per year just in salary/benefits for mid level developers. That's not including overhead like licensing tools, office space, hardware, utilities, etc... If you look at salaries in the industry for the area they are in and start doing math you'll see just how limited their budget really is and why they keep actively seeking additional funding.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowbane was sustainable but Wolfpacks deal with UBI made it too expensive

 

Todd has learned from his mistakes and came up with a way to make it work this time.

But ant entrepreneur will tell you ( I own three companies myself) It isn't just the product its the deal that makes an investment sound.

 

If they wanted to just make money they wouldn't be making a pvp oriented siege game....


www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Duffy said:

A typical triple A game with a large team (usually around 100 or more people when all is said and done) will take 5+ years and cost $50+ million before marketing. You don't seem many crowdfunding efforts getting even close to that kind of money or team size. Therefore you should not expect the same results on the same timescales (pointedly we are still well within 5 years). Even if they are scaling things down or cutting corners in the end the stuff that eats up a lot of the upfront time and money isn't all that different despite the 'size' of the projects (Engine, Hardware, Art, Overhead, etc..).

Delays happen, they are a well known factor that cannot be negated, and delays cost money. The only way to circumvent a delay is to cut or get more funding. What should they cut to keep the schedule? Or should they try to keep revenue streams going to offset the cost of likely delays to keep the feature set intact? In the publisher model companies still fall behind and request more funds, sometimes they get it and sometimes they don't. But if they cut and they release a mediocre game everyone hates it and reinforces the publishers safe bets. Nothing new or innovating comes from safe bets, someone has to try and fail, that's how business works. This stuff is not stamping out identical cogs in a factory, it's as much art as science. The inability to plan perfectly for the unknown is a known risk. Take some time to read about Scrum and Mythical Man Months, you'll find plenty of explanations and examples about why software creation works the way it does and the patterns it follows.

They are selling a dream, that's how 'investing' (yes this is not real investing, but it' the spirit of the idea) works. If you cannot handle it, then do not participate. I'm not arguing with you because I don't understand how you feel, I'm trying to explain to you that it isn't any different than how it was before and if it still bothers you then perhaps this sort of endeavor is not for you. The sort of things that are making you feel the way you do are going to happen when making a video game, no ifs, ands, or buts. Either figure out a way to brace yourself or don't go near them until they're done. You'll be much happier. I would still argue it's better, even with a few losses under my belt.

This project could fail. There could come a point where they haven't made enough progress towards their goals and can't convince anyone to give them more money. Are we there yet? No, based on historical references we're pretty far from that point.

Edit: I saw it after I posted: I can tell you the odds are incredibly high that everyone working on this game makes less than if they worked for a publisher churning out the same old dross. For reference I work in a 'cheap' area of the country and it costs a bit over $1 mil per 10 employees per year just in salary/benefits for mid level developers. That's not including overhead like licensing tools, office space, hardware, utilities, etc... If you look at salaries in the industry for the area they are in and start doing math you'll see just how limited their budget really is and why they keep actively seeking additional funding.

This.

Also, as a guy with access to the investor pages, all I can say is that we see things we are not allowed to talk about out here, but I think it's safe to give my opinion on what I am seeing, and in my opinion everything I am seeing is pointing towards them reaching their goals.

When you see them all depressed or trying to put on a brave face during Q&A sessions, instead of looking as giddy as school girls at their first dance, then would be the time to worry.

Besides, @Emplehdog, how much skin do you have in this game that you're so upset about?  Most players probably have less than a nice dinner out, so really how upset can you personally justify being?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

This.

Also, as a guy with access to the investor pages, all I can say is that we see things we are not allowed to talk about out here, but I think it's safe to give my opinion on what I am seeing, and in my opinion everything I am seeing is pointing towards them reaching their goals.

When you see them all depressed or trying to put on a brave face during Q&A sessions, instead of looking as giddy as school girls at their first dance, then would be the time to worry.

Oh? I will trust you in this one since the opinion of an outsider is credible.

Why they dont share more of that stuff is what comes in my mind though. I believe you can tell us the reason why that isnt made public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, makkon said:

No criticism - no progress

Re-read the OP.

You missed it entirely. Specifically, he DID point out how constructive/productive/practical critisism works.

As opposed to the alternative which is basically useless, and impedes Progress by virtue of it's self-involved nature.


“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BarriaKarl said:

Oh? I will trust you in this one since the opinion of an outsider is credible.

Why they dont share more of that stuff is what comes in my mind though. I believe you can tell us the reason why that isnt made public?

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect SEC regulations. They had quite a few SEC flaming hoops to go through to offer what they did with microventures.

If they didn't lock it down, they couldn't be candid with the investors about that side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone here is both an investor and a player.  So it is understandable that everyone feels the weight of their opinions should carry a bit more weight than a typical player.  But our job as investors is to help them succeed, not incessantly gripe about the latest change (or lack thereof) that affect your individual play style or player goals.  I am all for challenging the devs to make a fun and sustainable game.   I think by and large the community does a pretty good job of presenting their points respectfully.

I have NOT seen any indication that devs are "taking a fat check" and developing at their leisure so as to stretch out the process for continued salaries.  I don't think that is what this team is about.  They seem to have a lofty vision and that vision is going to take time.  I have seen progress in the very short time I invested.  I see that each test cycle a different track is taken so that no two tests are the same.  I support this team and have a high degree of confidence that the end product will live up to mine and their expectations.  In the end, it's just sixty bucks for me.  Those that invested more made a risk vs reward decision.  If you aren't getting what you thought you would I have no sympathy.  Welcome to life, where sometimes you don't get what you wanted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, srathor said:

The that's dumb comment came in response to my scenario of 10 people around a node. I put in node rather than motherload. which yes can fit 10 people easy and has the hits to even need it without great training and picks. I quickly edited it, but Blair jumped on it to score a cheap point. Notice he didn't answer whose stats are used if noone gets to 20% damage?

 

Perhaps, but at the same time its probably more likely that you said node, Blair saw node, and therefore he responded to node. The "cheap point" is conjecture at best and I haven't seen a pattern of behavior from Blair to even entertain that idea. You weren't the only one in that thread coming up with unlikely scenario's.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...