I think that's the point...... People DON'T invest in something unless they're confident that they can make their money back.
No.
Investors who invest into something like this are typically high risk takers. They accept that 4 out of 5 of their investments will turn out to be bad, because if even one is successful they can get high enough profits to offset their losses.
You mad because you thought the game would never see the light of day. Even madder because it's looking more and more like Brad and team are going to pull it off.
Good thing for you is you don't have to spend a penny, you will even get a free trail. If you like the game you can buy the game and pay a sub like the rest of us..
Great ain't it.
I think you missed the point. He's not mad at all about the funding and is actually responding to me saying that it's entirely possible that the investor is a high-risk investor and is willing to take a risk on something like Pantheon in hopes of large returns later. I don't think the point of his post went right over your head.
Even my post had nothing to do with the game not being made, it was surrounding the dangers of bringing on investors. My point is that there is historical precedence where investors have, effectively, ruined the original concept of a game and I sincerely hope that they haven't given up too much in the way of preferred stock in order to secure that funding. Also they've stated that they are ramping up for series B funding, so taking on more investors. So these sorts of things make me worry, again, because there is precedence where investors have influenced the original vision in favor of a more marketable one.
However, @Nanfoodle has said that their CEO indicated that they would only be taking on investors interested in their vision of the game, so that's encouraging.
Honestly, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. If I'm wrong and you didn't miss the point then I obviously missed whatever point you were trying to make there.
I think that's the point...... People DON'T invest in something unless they're confident that they can make their money back.
No.
Investors who invest into something like this are typically high risk takers. They accept that 4 out of 5 of their investments will turn out to be bad, because if even one is successful they can get high enough profits to offset their losses.
You mad because you thought the game would never see the light of day. Even madder because it's looking more and more like Brad and team are going to pull it off.
Good thing for you is you don't have to spend a penny, you will even get a free trail. If you like the game you can buy the game and pay a sub like the rest of us..
Great ain't it.
Meh, the best part for most haters (me included) will be if it DOES see the light of day, so we can finally see who's proven right or wrong on how successful it is. I'd personally be annoyed if it didn't see the light of day (actually, as it is, the sooner it sees the light of day, the better so all these silly pointless debates can finally be put to rest and, again, we can see who was right and who was wrong).
You mad because you thought the game would never see the light of day. Even madder because it's looking more and more like Brad and team are going to pull it off.
Honestly, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. If I'm wrong and you didn't miss the point then I obviously missed whatever point you were trying to make there.
It's not your fault that you can't see his point. Ad hoc attacks tend to be rather pointless.
If it is too different from EQ1, that will indeed be the reason it fails. They can add as many things on top of it as they want, but the fundamental game needs to be in place if they hope to have similar success.
The farther they stay from the mainstream, the better they will do. That means heavily cooperative, social, immersive and challenging. If they compromise and inject too much convenience, it will put them in competition with currently available games, and they will suffer.
If it is too different from EQ1, that will indeed be the reason it fails. They can add as many things on top of it as they want, but the fundamental game needs to be in place if they hope to have similar success.
The farther they stay from the mainstream, the better they will do. That means heavily cooperative, social, immersive and challenging. If they compromise and inject too much convenience, it will put them in competition with currently available games, and they will suffer.
Can I borrow your crystal ball? Statements like this are hilarious.
If it is too different from EQ1, that will indeed be the reason it fails. They can add as many things on top of it as they want, but the fundamental game needs to be in place if they hope to have similar success.
The farther they stay from the mainstream, the better they will do. That means heavily cooperative, social, immersive and challenging. If they compromise and inject too much convenience, it will put them in competition with currently available games, and they will suffer.
The game could fail for any number of reasons. It being different from EQ is not necessarily one of them. The core community coming across as prickly domineering douchbags would definitely be a reason. At least that's one you have some control over.
Setting up the game for a fall if it doesn't meet your personal requirements of being like EQ is ridiculous.
I agree with you on this mostly because of my previous experiences with nostalgia. It seems like you remember things much differently than what they are/were. Like I tried the original Final Fantasy last year or something and I didn't make it more than a couple hours, even though it's one of my favorite games ever.
I think that people need to think of Pantheon as the spiritual successor to EQ1, not a replica of EQ1. In the later case you get a bunch of people unhappy because it's not what they remember, and another chunk of people who are unhappy because it's not exactly like EQ1 (because they are still playing EQ1).
My hope is that they have established reasonable expectations with their investors. I mean he just did Vanguard a decade ago, right? And it was a veritable flop, in the eyes of investors, even though it was high-concept. I think that was mostly due to misaligned expectations.
If it is too different from EQ1, that will indeed be the reason it fails. They can add as many things on top of it as they want, but the fundamental game needs to be in place if they hope to have similar success.
The farther they stay from the mainstream, the better they will do. That means heavily cooperative, social, immersive and challenging. If they compromise and inject too much convenience, it will put them in competition with currently available games, and they will suffer.
The game could fail for any number of reasons. It being different from EQ is not necessarily one of them. The core community coming across as prickly domineering douchbags would definitely be a reason. At least that's one you have some control over.
Setting up the game for a fall if it doesn't meet your personal requirements of being like EQ is ridiculous.
You seem to be in a habit lately of trying to narrowly interpret something people say, and pin them down on it. That won't work with me, bud.
I didn't say there is no other reason Pantheon could fail than differing from EQ. However, as the vast majority of Pantheon's current audience are fans awaiting a game like EQ, failing to produce something that is fundamentally similar will, without a doubt, cost them dearly.
If that isn't apparent to you, I don't know what to tell you.
If it is too different from EQ1, that will indeed be the reason it fails. They can add as many things on top of it as they want, but the fundamental game needs to be in place if they hope to have similar success.
The farther they stay from the mainstream, the better they will do. That means heavily cooperative, social, immersive and challenging. If they compromise and inject too much convenience, it will put them in competition with currently available games, and they will suffer.
The game could fail for any number of reasons. It being different from EQ is not necessarily one of them. The core community coming across as prickly domineering douchbags would definitely be a reason. At least that's one you have some control over.
Setting up the game for a fall if it doesn't meet your personal requirements of being like EQ is ridiculous.
You seem to be in a habit lately of trying to narrowly interpret something people say, and pin them down on it. That won't work with me, bud.
I didn't say there is no other reason Pantheon could fail than differing from EQ. However, as the vast majority of Pantheon's current audience are fans awaiting a game like EQ, failing to produce something that is fundamentally similar will, without a doubt, cost them dearly.
If that isn't apparent to you, I don't know what to tell you.
See my previous post, I think that's basically what he was getting at was that the continual association with EQ could end up being more detrimental than any other factor.
Honestly, people have been screaming for an open-world sandbox MMO that is group-centric and difficult. People haven't been screaming for another EQ. I think that drawing comparisons actually hurt games. Name me one single game that was a "WoW Killer" that actually succeeded in living up to that name? I think that's what he's getting at, anyway.
You seem to be in a habit lately of trying to narrowly interpret something people say, and pin them down on it. That won't work with me, bud.
I didn't say there is no other reason Pantheon could fail than differing from EQ. However, as the vast majority of Pantheon's current audience are fans awaiting a game like EQ, failing to produce something that is fundamentally similar will, without a doubt, cost them dearly.
If that isn't apparent to you, I don't know what to tell you.
The problem with this kind of demand is that they could create a mirror replica of every system in EQ, yet still fail at providing the EQ experience people are looking for. Because people are looking to relive past glories, rather than simply play a similar game. They're expecting the experience the community provided rather than the experience the devs did.
This is the inherent problem with trying to recreate any MMO really, you can recreate every feature, yet it's largely up to the playerbase in the end to provide the atmosphere they remember.
Post edited by Distopia on
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You seem to be in a habit lately of trying to narrowly interpret something people say, and pin them down on it. That won't work with me, bud.
I didn't say there is no other reason Pantheon could fail than differing from EQ. However, as the vast majority of Pantheon's current audience are fans awaiting a game like EQ, failing to produce something that is fundamentally similar will, without a doubt, cost them dearly.
If that isn't apparent to you, I don't know what to tell you.
The problem with this kind of demand is that they could create a mirror replica of every system in EQ, yet still fail at providing the EQ experience people are looking for. Because people are looking to relive past glories, rather than simply play a similar game. They're expecting the experience the community provided rather than the experience the devs did.
This is the inherent problem with trying to recreate any MMO really, you can recreate every feature, yet it's largely up to the playerbase in the end to provide the atmosphere they remember.
It's not as complicated as you make it out to be.
You're right, it was the atmosphere and community that made it as great as we remember it. However, that was the inherent result of the games design. It wasn't just random happenstance as you make it seem. The community and player interaction aspect of the game thrived as a direct result of the dangerous world, heavily cooperative gameplay, and slower progression.
See my previous post, I think that's basically what he was getting at was that the continual association with EQ could end up being more detrimental than any other factor.
Pretty much what happened with Shroud of the Avatar. A lot of people gravitated toward it expecting it to be UO 2.
Reminds me of a quote I heard in a music documentary when an artist said, "The great thing about being a superstar is that everyone knows who you are. The bad thing is now you have to continually live up to yourself."
You're right, it was the atmosphere and community that made it as great as we remember it. However, that was the inherent result of the games design. It wasn't just random happenstance as you make it seem. The community and player interaction aspect of the game thrived as a direct result of the dangerous world, heavily cooperative gameplay, and slower progression.
Again, totally not random.
I didn't say it was random, I said even with the same features and design things can turn out differently on a community level. Especially early on, when impressions are being made.
Each server typically has it's own community created atmosphere, in SWG as an example people were a lot different on Bloodfin than they were on Eclipse, the entire social structure and what players gravitated toward was different (regardless of it being the same exact game). There are a lot of factors that tie into that, the types of guilds that are present, the mentality of the overall base of players, be they the RP types, the hardcore raider types, competitive elitist types so on and so forth.
There's no guarantee you'll end up in the same type of community you were in over a decade ago. Not because it's random but because the make up of players can have the same effect as features it all goes together to create what it becomes. Hence it's best to go into any new game expecting just that, a new game with new experiences, not recreating old ones. The latter rarely works out.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I can truly say i am in the same boat as many,hoping the game will turn out really good. However and honestly,how many people truly feel the game will be any better than say Vanguard? Right now EQ1,EQ2 and Vanguard do not have any worthwhile player base,meaning very few accept the work done.
So even if we got say Vanguard with fewer bugs,is that good enough?IDK i am not so sure what it will take to create a selling point that MANY will like.Will people just accept another same old different skin or only the old school faithful?
I have a gut feeling that because the market is so void of quality content,MANY will jump in but it will not last for long,which has been a common trend the last many years.I have this gut feeling because i do not see a strong selling point,yes i see more than say Crowfall or a couple other incoming games but not enough.
Even my most hoped game ,waiting many years,let me down "FFXIV",EQ2 went downhill,SOE and EQ NEXT disappeared,NOTHING has given me hope THAT really good game is incoming anytime soon.
Fingers still crossed.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Comments
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
I think you missed the point. He's not mad at all about the funding and is actually responding to me saying that it's entirely possible that the investor is a high-risk investor and is willing to take a risk on something like Pantheon in hopes of large returns later. I don't think the point of his post went right over your head.
Even my post had nothing to do with the game not being made, it was surrounding the dangers of bringing on investors. My point is that there is historical precedence where investors have, effectively, ruined the original concept of a game and I sincerely hope that they haven't given up too much in the way of preferred stock in order to secure that funding. Also they've stated that they are ramping up for series B funding, so taking on more investors. So these sorts of things make me worry, again, because there is precedence where investors have influenced the original vision in favor of a more marketable one.
However, @Nanfoodle has said that their CEO indicated that they would only be taking on investors interested in their vision of the game, so that's encouraging.
Honestly, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. If I'm wrong and you didn't miss the point then I obviously missed whatever point you were trying to make there.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Meh, the best part for most haters (me included) will be if it DOES see the light of day, so we can finally see who's proven right or wrong on how successful it is. I'd personally be annoyed if it didn't see the light of day (actually, as it is, the sooner it sees the light of day, the better so all these silly pointless debates can finally be put to rest and, again, we can see who was right and who was wrong).
It's not your fault that you can't see his point. Ad hoc attacks tend to be rather pointless.
The farther they stay from the mainstream, the better they will do. That means heavily cooperative, social, immersive and challenging. If they compromise and inject too much convenience, it will put them in competition with currently available games, and they will suffer.
Can I borrow your crystal ball? Statements like this are hilarious.
I agree with you on this mostly because of my previous experiences with nostalgia. It seems like you remember things much differently than what they are/were. Like I tried the original Final Fantasy last year or something and I didn't make it more than a couple hours, even though it's one of my favorite games ever.
I think that people need to think of Pantheon as the spiritual successor to EQ1, not a replica of EQ1. In the later case you get a bunch of people unhappy because it's not what they remember, and another chunk of people who are unhappy because it's not exactly like EQ1 (because they are still playing EQ1).
My hope is that they have established reasonable expectations with their investors. I mean he just did Vanguard a decade ago, right? And it was a veritable flop, in the eyes of investors, even though it was high-concept. I think that was mostly due to misaligned expectations.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
You seem to be in a habit lately of trying to narrowly interpret something people say, and pin them down on it. That won't work with me, bud.
I didn't say there is no other reason Pantheon could fail than differing from EQ. However, as the vast majority of Pantheon's current audience are fans awaiting a game like EQ, failing to produce something that is fundamentally similar will, without a doubt, cost them dearly.
If that isn't apparent to you, I don't know what to tell you.
See my previous post, I think that's basically what he was getting at was that the continual association with EQ could end up being more detrimental than any other factor.
Honestly, people have been screaming for an open-world sandbox MMO that is group-centric and difficult. People haven't been screaming for another EQ. I think that drawing comparisons actually hurt games. Name me one single game that was a "WoW Killer" that actually succeeded in living up to that name? I think that's what he's getting at, anyway.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The problem with this kind of demand is that they could create a mirror replica of every system in EQ, yet still fail at providing the EQ experience people are looking for. Because people are looking to relive past glories, rather than simply play a similar game. They're expecting the experience the community provided rather than the experience the devs did.
This is the inherent problem with trying to recreate any MMO really, you can recreate every feature, yet it's largely up to the playerbase in the end to provide the atmosphere they remember.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's not as complicated as you make it out to be.
You're right, it was the atmosphere and community that made it as great as we remember it. However, that was the inherent result of the games design. It wasn't just random happenstance as you make it seem. The community and player interaction aspect of the game thrived as a direct result of the dangerous world, heavily cooperative gameplay, and slower progression.
Again, totally not random.
Pretty much what happened with Shroud of the Avatar. A lot of people gravitated toward it expecting it to be UO 2.
Reminds me of a quote I heard in a music documentary when an artist said, "The great thing about being a superstar is that everyone knows who you are. The bad thing is now you have to continually live up to yourself."
~~ postlarval ~~
I didn't say it was random, I said even with the same features and design things can turn out differently on a community level. Especially early on, when impressions are being made.
Each server typically has it's own community created atmosphere, in SWG as an example people were a lot different on Bloodfin than they were on Eclipse, the entire social structure and what players gravitated toward was different (regardless of it being the same exact game). There are a lot of factors that tie into that, the types of guilds that are present, the mentality of the overall base of players, be they the RP types, the hardcore raider types, competitive elitist types so on and so forth.
There's no guarantee you'll end up in the same type of community you were in over a decade ago. Not because it's random but because the make up of players can have the same effect as features it all goes together to create what it becomes. Hence it's best to go into any new game expecting just that, a new game with new experiences, not recreating old ones. The latter rarely works out.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
However and honestly,how many people truly feel the game will be any better than say Vanguard?
Right now EQ1,EQ2 and Vanguard do not have any worthwhile player base,meaning very few accept the work done.
So even if we got say Vanguard with fewer bugs,is that good enough?IDK i am not so sure what it will take to create a selling point that MANY will like.Will people just accept another same old different skin or only the old school faithful?
I have a gut feeling that because the market is so void of quality content,MANY will jump in but it will not last for long,which has been a common trend the last many years.I have this gut feeling because i do not see a strong selling point,yes i see more than say Crowfall or a couple other incoming games but not enough.
Even my most hoped game ,waiting many years,let me down "FFXIV",EQ2 went downhill,SOE and EQ NEXT disappeared,NOTHING has given me hope THAT really good game is incoming anytime soon.
Fingers still crossed.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.