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

Upcoming Campaign Faction Choice

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Jah said:

 

Thanks Jah, I found that very interesting. I understand his reasoning and he did what his role required him to do. I still hate Trammel and what it did to my most beloved game of all time.

Ultima Online has been the most true Sandbox experience I have had. Trammel was a storm that washed away the sand.

Reasoning for Trammel and new player experience is made evident with my first experience with UO:

Log in, walk through town asking for some guidance as I was like 12 and new to video games. Guy says he will help and opens a portal. I walk through the portal, guy follows me, dispels portal, kills me and recalls away...........Now I am a ghost asking anyone I can see "How do I revive?". All they can read is ooOOo OoooO OoooOo.

 

Share this post


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

Log in, walk through town asking for some guidance as I was like 12 and new to video games. Guy says he will help and opens a portal. I walk through the portal, guy follows me, dispels portal, kills me and recalls away...........Now I am a ghost asking anyone I can see "How do I revive?". All they can read is ooOOo OoooO OoooOo.

Those were good times, indeed. I forgot about the ooOOOoo oooOOO stuff. LOL!


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Well, I honestly don't care what you care about, but since you don't care what ACE want's, why should they and us not just ignore you completely?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who admits they don't care what ACE want's, and also admits they only plan on playing the game a couple of months, is completely wasting both their time and ours by posting on the forum. There are enough dedicated players and posters with the same views on FF, hardcore, etc, that do care about the game, that can represent those views.

The only reason to respond to you is to keep pointing out to other posters the enigma that is a pre-alpha poster who is apathetic towards the success of the game.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Colest said:

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.

This one of those question that are just so wrong we cant even try to answer... How do you argue with someone that can say that seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Colest said:

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.

The vision and the Dev are the same thing though... and it has nothing to do with being a cheerleader or whatever clever title you want to give someone who doesn't think the same way. Some of the most harshest critics of the game are also some of the biggest fans of the game AND the dev, its not at all black and white like you want to make it.

Yes we should care about the Dev because they are the ones ultimately making the game. with our support and feedback of course. To want the game to succeed is to want the dev to succeed. If all one cares about is the end product the question of why one is here at such an early stage is a valid one. Obviously he cares enough about the dev and the process to be here posting so I think he might be being just a bit disingenuous for the sake of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pang said:

Yes we should care about the Dev because they are the ones ultimately making the game. with our support and feedback of course. To want the game to succeed is to want the dev to succeed.

This is conflating what I said. I never said no one should care about the Devs. I specifically said:

18 hours ago, Colest said:

Why should he care what the devs want?

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.

Edited by Colest

Share this post


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

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 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 benefit us is predicated on the notion that the money goes back into the game.

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.

You have a strange idea of "no transparency", and your comment lost all credibility at that point.

 

Share this post


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

You have a strange idea of "no transparency", and your comment lost all credibility at that point.

 

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.

Edited by Colest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Colest said:

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.

This is actually all fair, especially from a wise cynic's perspective.

However, I'm betting on the men and women themselves. Particularly JTC.

That dude will not go out like a chump, I assure you. I don't think Gordon or the rest will either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Colest said:

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.

Big budget companies that churn out clone MMO's like a production line hire in house testers yes. ACE is a small indie dev hence why they used kickstarter to begin with.

and yes making games for any dev is a risk, thats obvious not sure we need text walls to reaffirm that though.

Share this post


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

Big budget companies that churn out clone MMO's like a production line hire in house testers yes. ACE is a small indie dev hence why they used kickstarter to begin with.

and yes making games for any dev is a risk, thats obvious not sure we need text walls to reaffirm that though.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Colest said:

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.

From the back of napkin approach all the financials are available for some of us.  However we are not owed any type of financial spreadsheet as a part of being transparent.  Transparency is the realm of keeping us abreast of development and goals, not the financials.  If you wanted quarterly earnings reports, then I would have invested in the company when they were offering shares.

But none of that has anything to do with testing of the faction mechanic in the first CW.  Months ago someone else complained about not having guild systems, and I laid out how guild systems would be a follow on to the faction subset.  Coding wise it would be easier to have 3 static factions to test before opening up N+ guilds for testing.  If they can get mechanics correct for combat within factions, then they can move on to trying it for guilds.

There is a lot of good progression that is taking place, and some things are being deliberately not balanced so "testing" can be pushed forward.  How did the OP about 2v1 factions get turned into this?


lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think the devs are too transparent, and then people project their own biases onto what the devs say and misinterpret it and then manufacture complaints that shouldn't exist at all and have nothing to do with what the devs actually said. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

However we are not owed any type of financial spreadsheet as a part of being transparent.  Transparency is the realm of keeping us abreast of development and goals, not the financials.  If you wanted quarterly earnings reports, then I would have invested in the company when they were offering shares.

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.

1 hour ago, Teufel said:

Transparency is the realm of keeping us abreast of development and goals, not the financials.

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.

Edited by Colest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Colest said:

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.

Thank you for explaining to people why we shouldn't care about what the devs want as consumers. You broke down your points in a well thought out argument that is easy to follow.

Do most people care what the producers of their food wanted when they go grocery shopping? Should I care what the developers wanted when they created Hello Kitty Island Adventure? As a consumer I will keep using my money for what I want, not what suppliers want. I bet suppliers love you guys though who put your wants second to theirs.

3 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You have a strange idea of "no transparency", and your comment lost all credibility at that point.

 

You have a strange way of pulling one piece of a long argument out and discrediting someone for it. You took one statement from a block of text and are using it to ignore everything he said. This is a great way to argue when you can't debate his other valid points. You have already done this twice to me.

 

Edited by ClockworkOrange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colest said:

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.

Two important points (the main body of your post is fairly accurate):

ACE is not a publicly traded company therefore they are not required to publish their financials publicly (which you may have been implying, just clarifying), this is often considered a perk as competitors will not have access to information that can be used to hurt you. But more importantly depending on the internal structure they do not necessarily have to answer to a board or shareholders as a public company would. This detail is very very important for the next point.

Software is almost never delivered in a complete state according to a preset timeline. It just does not happen that often. This is especially true of complex software, of which a typical video game is considered very complex. The only ways to arrive at a hard deadline is to know your task so perfectly (as in literally the same thing you've done before, copy paste and slap a new name done before), buffer incredibly broadly (which is sort of cheating because now you're selling a plan at a much higher cost that will not reflect reality), crunching salary employees (basically a different version of the buffer item), or by cutting. The first rarely happens, the second only happens in companies that have so much cash that a deadline is just a polite suggestion anyways, which mainly leaves the last two options as common. Short crunches can be fine, but often only save you days to weeks. Long term crunching is manipulating your employees so you can use the buffer technique without actually paying out for it and is generally frowned upon nowadays. Thus the real solution to a deadline is usually to cut. When you have to answer to people about why they aren't making money their desire is going to be to push you to deliver a product now versus putting more money in the pot. You might get away with a few delays if you can justify them well, but you usually only get that play a few times. So the solution is to cut, and the consumer rarely benefits from cuts done in the interest of saving time and thus money.

The important takeaway though is that this stuff has been happening since forever in the gaming industry. We just usually didn't even get an announcement until the majority of the work (as in a few years) was done and they were well on their way to deciding between crunching and what cuts to make. Crowd funding and open development has brought a lot of the process into the public's view and it's just not a clear-cut and pretty thing, it's messy and complex. Part of the reason these projects are using crow funding is to try and push towards completeness instead of straight profit value. So if you expect hard deadlines and deliverables on something this complex, then you will be disappointed by these sort of projects.

Someone may notice I did not mention hiring more people, that ties somewhat into the buffer solution, but even if you have the cash to do it, there is a point where more people are no longer beneficial to the process. Take a look at Mythical Man Month if you want more info about that.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Colest said:

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.

You're the one throwing around the logical fallacies, moving the goal posts.

Quote

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

You started by saying "no transparency" with no clarification, and then when I challenged that moved it to "quarterly earning reports". If they produced those for you, which would be stupid for them to do because that's confidential company information, then you would probably have moved the goalposts again to asking how Todd spends his lunch money. 

But of course you probably are smart enough to realize that sort of thing is confidential information, and no private company would ever publicly release it, so your safe up on your soap box trumpeting your complaints knowing the company can't and won't call you out on it.

3 hours ago, ClockworkOrange said:

You have a strange way of pulling one piece of a long argument out and discrediting someone for it. You took one statement from a block of text and are using it to ignore everything he said. This is a great way to argue when you can't debate his other valid points. You have already done this twice to me.

 

And I will keep doing it.

If the opening premise and assumption is inaccurate (no transparency), all the reasoning based on it has no foundation. In this case he also concluded the paragraph with the same claim of lack of transparency. Since that is provably false, arguing with the rest of his points would be like trying to explain gravity to someone who bases all their assumptions about gravity on a flat earth that is constantly accelerating. With a foundation that horribly inaccurate, the no transparency claim is exactly that, that there is literally no reason in the world to address the rest of the arguments it's based on.

For evidence of transparency, simply go to the YouTube channel for Crowfall.  The plethora of live streams, fly on the wall, murder of crows, the candor of the interviews, and all the small details we get to see are solid evidence that there is far more transparency with ACE than you and Colest are giving credit for.

There is also transparency to people who are not staff that you are not privy to. The existence that information is public knowledge, if the details are still obscured, in the form of the ACE Development Partners and ACE Investors forums. 

FYI, ACE is literally the first company to push for full share equality with customers. Those that invested have identical stock type to the founders. They could have gotten the money from "registered" investors who can afford to drop hundreds of thousands at once, but they elected to give their supporters and players that opportunity, with much more additional hassle and difficulty, including several problematic SEC hurdles.  

I suppose it's pointless to say "trust me" to you, but as an outsider and investor, (thanks ACE), I can say that in my opinion ACE is managing MY investment money rather well, and making the best choices they can for the game. I have "skin in the game" as it were, far more than a single copy and your hope of a couple of months of entertainment. If any group should be worried about them simply padding their nests it should be the investors who post on this forum that have sunk real money into the project, and have a vested interest in them turning a profit.

Since you don't see any of us freaking out about the financials, maybe there simply isn't anything to freak out about to begin with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In comparison to the majority of you guys I am a new backer, I only committed to Crowfall this year (2017) largely because I needed to have a decent amount of development and progress achieved to give me the confidence in pulling the trigger. I am very happy with ACE, their delivery, communication, direction etc, I am genuinely excited for the product. 

My only caveat is the Devs remain true to their vision and maintain complex and challenging systems, for the game to last it has to have strong PVP mechanics as this is what started the interest for the kickstarter in the beginning, do not water it down to compensate for the masses. Please don't carebear!!

 

Edited by Atome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You started by saying "no transparency" with no clarification, and then when I challenged that moved it to "quarterly earning reports". If they produced those for you, which would be stupid for them to do because that's confidential company information, then you would probably have moved the goalposts again to asking how Todd spends his lunch money. 

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:

18 hours ago, Colest said:

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.

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:

15 hours ago, Colest said:

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.

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.

On 4/22/2017 at 9:52 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

I'm just going to ignore you now

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.

Edited by Colest

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...