I think the game is kinda fun. I don't play all the time because I can't find an objective, and if I were able to find a quest, it seems they aren't done that well. But it's not horrible.
I'm not trying to flannel anyone. Obviously there's the occasional oxygen sink like @postlarval, but there are plenty of intelligent folks wandering around here. You're obviously not braindead. I disagree with you, but you have valid and logical points. The only thing I object to is this idiotic idea that I write these things because I'm paid to. Folks who think that very clearly have no idea what people get paid for this sort of thing.
Good Lord, he represents this site with official articles and directly insults its members? How unprofessional. He deserves a suspension for that one, and should not be allowed to return until he apologizes.
Well, he's not any nastier than the toxic whale pod over on the SotA forums.
I also checked with the Unity Store, and you're not allowed to market assets derived from free ones found on their store (per 3.8i): https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms
Well that shows how well you can understand the agreement, this is about "decoding" an object you get and porting it to another "system" not talking about selling it in game. Many Unity Store assets that are not for "Cash Shops" have different EULA for the items in the store with those restrictions in place. But good job trying to use the same excuse that Port did when they tried to explain it away. This is allowed by the default EULA for the Unity Store unless the person puts up their own EULA about the item which many do but this item did not do at the time.
@Red_Thomas insulting readers (oxygen sink?) is not the proper way to make an argument. It undercuts whatever else you are posting and honestly would be moderated if it was posted by a reader.
Oh, no worries. I'm a big boy. I can handle it.
It's more rewarding to allow the community here the opportunity to see what Portalarium and its shills are really like.
They really just destroy themselves. No haters needed.
Trimmed the above a bit because we're both obviously a bit long-winded...
Short one first, the analogy. That's not really accurate at all, man. I don't like ice skating, but I appreciate the artistry. There are always things in every game that I don't really think is a good idea, but that doesn't keep me from being able to understand why developers would choose to do it, or why there are good reasons for doing it. Case in point, I thought CF should build Eternal Kingdoms first. They didn't, and I understood why. I've changed my mind on it slightly since, but there was never a point where my opposing opinion on the order of development kept me from understanding the reasons why it was a good idea.
Equity Crowdfunding is sort of the same thing. It's legal, and it's a good deal for companies. I completely understand why they'd want to do it. I especially approve of the fact that they're not using original campaign cash for publishing activities. I even think it's a good deal for backers who are spending money they would have spent anyway. I just don't support it as an investment, and I'm worried some backers may try to treat it that way. I think it's dangerous, so I just go out of my way to not encourage people to do it. I'm not really sure where you see the moral problem there...
I'm not putting you on blast for reading the financials and taking them the way you are. You're drawing a really clean and obvious conclusion, so sorry if it sounded like I'm talking down to you. I'm not, and you're not wrong exactly. It's just that it's a little more complex than it appears from the little bit of information in those sheets.
For instance, and you hit right on it, they have on-going raises. You mentioned the telethon things, but they have consistent revenue from the cash shop, too. Just do a little math:
2012: $1,919,275 raised from KS 2017: $11,668,242 currently per the webside
Divided by five years, that's over $1.9 million/year, or ~$162,500/month. They spend $230k/mth according to their investment sheet (which has to be correct, and I did the math to make sure it was a sane number based on what I know about their operation), and that leaves them $67,500 short. With $528k in their account, that'd be right at 8 months of runway.
That's if nothing else changed, but they're also moving into a publishing phase, which will mean distribution deals that will bring in immediate cash and nearly guaranteed more cash over time, even if the game isn't successful. Add to that, the fact that they can down size their team soon, if they decide they need to, and that'll cut their monthly expenses by a lot.
...and I don't know who you're talking about that's read that and thinks Port only has 2 months of operating capital, but they're just wrong. I'm not saying it's a great investment. Anything like venture capitalism by definition is a risky investment, which is precisely why I've said I don't like Title III. But I'm a business dude, so I talk to folks that do this sort of thing pretty often. No one's fist-pumping about the great opportunity in front of us, but no one that I know of between Austin and San Antonio thinks there's a major health problem with the company. If I hear a legitimate reason to be worried, I'll have no problem admitting it. Just don't think it's really there yet.
I'm not trying to flannel anyone. Obviously there's the occasional oxygen sink like @postlarval, but there are plenty of intelligent folks wandering around here. You're obviously not braindead. I disagree with you, but you have valid and logical points. The only thing I object to is this idiotic idea that I write these things because I'm paid to. Folks who think that very clearly have no idea what people get paid for this sort of thing.
Am I biased? Sure. I have zero problem admitting that. Several of these devs are friends, and there's just a lot about the project that I like, and I've never hid that from anyone. There's no such thing as unbiased. There's just people who lie about it, and I'm not one of those. This game isn't for everyone. Nothing wrong at all with not liking it. I do, though. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that anyone else is.
As you said yourself, you're biased. So, it doesn't matter what you say. You're not objective and we can't trust any of your words about that game. All you can do is, hurt the game. As you can see on steam, reddit and even their own forum. 90% agreed to that conclusion, the game sucks. End of story. They didn't even make what was promised on Kickstarter. Would you like to talk about their shady practices? Or maybe the bans just because players disagreed with the great Chris Spears?
Dude, we can find TONS of information, videos, threads and such about how this game is bad and poorly managed. And you, can you find anything positive about this game?
Lets save time. No you can't, because there is none.
And you, can you find anything positive about this game?
Well one thing of positive that this game did bring about is that 99% of us won't back any project by Chris/Richard/Starr again. So there is that. Some of the systems they were "going" to develop would have been nice too but they took the "easy" way and just said making everyone PvP flagged for guild warfare is delivering guild warfare. What other game would allow that kind of 'system' to be a feature.
The ideas of the game have merit but they didn't deliver those ideas they thought how can I do this without doing this and say that I did it. Again, the top people in the company are at fault. I don't really fault any of the others tho I dislike Berek cause he doesn't apply the rules across the board fairly but he is just following orders which is what this game was kickstarted about not having to do. Cause they said EA/NCSoft/Corp Overlords always were to blame in the games failure never them. And here we have a "game" without that and they still failed to deliver. So yes the positive about this game is that everyone sees these guys have no clue what or how to do things and nobody but themselves to blame.
But then again I'm not really disagreeing with you just pointing out my view.
Trimmed the above a bit because we're both obviously a bit long-winded...
I had to trim yours too because otherwise these huge quotes are breaking the forum formatting.
Here's the thing; you went into detail about the other sources of income, which you listed as being Add On Store Sales. This is potential, not guaranteed earning again; it's what people HOPE will occur again, but there's no guarantee it will. What we know is that they have 2 months of security, and an unknown amount of future income.
However when we try and predict how much operating income they'll gather, we have to look at possibilities; and this is where your moral qualms about the SeedInvest are vital. Because we're not talking about different classes of object, related but separate entities like an Ice Skater and the Art Of Skating. We're talking about the exact same object: The ability of individual people to give Portalarium money. You state you worry that a SeedInvest is asking too much of that ability to pay. The Add On Store, the Telethons, The Blood Reliquary sales though, they're all drawing on the exact same source of funding, indeed the exact same individuals. It's the same thing.
If it turns out those exact same individuals are able and willing to pay, the SeedInvest will come off, and the Telethons will make the same money too. Portalarium might get 8 more months then. If your own moral qualms about asking people to spend too much is right, either the SeedInvest won't be successful, or it will and there will be a hidden personal cost to the people you're worrying about. SHOULD they get 8 more months if that's the case though? How much destruction to a person's real life in exchange for time would be an acceptable ratio?
This is why I pointed out that unless you think they have some other money hidden somewhere, arguing about 8 months or any other figure above 2 goes directly against that part of your own argument; any time they are buying is morally questionable at best, and maybe even doomed at worse. But there are already hints even the Telethon money was dropping before now; I think the last one was down to $80k from the $110k the SeedInvest claims as an average? It may be that they're already burning people too much as it is.
Worse than this, the SeedInvest is hiding a huge amount of spending Portalarium is committed too but has to somehow budget from that limited future player base too; it's not just advertising and publishing etc... they still haven't produced any of the hundreds of thousands of physical rewards promised in the Kickstarter either. Episode 2 requires a second successful Kickstarter before they'll even start development. Episodes 3-5 haven't even been mentioned. We know from the Russian publishing deal they've promised some of those future profits to those publishers too...
My view is they've already become morally compromised far too much. But the reason they're going even further, to a point even you would question, is because they can no longer continue on the same funding model they had before.
Our conclusions are inherent in your own moral worries: The reason Portalarium are pushing for a SeedInvest and then some sort of vaguely defined "Launch" is because they're losing, not gaining players. And they have no other source of income. You accept that; see past your own bias and think about the consequences of that, and how it would shape what is happening. The income they're getting isn't enough to get anywhere near feature complete even for Episode 1 now. And the game itself isn't good enough to survive on it's own. The SeedInvest is a Hail Mary throw trying to get enough money in to launch the advertising/publishing blitz and from that try and get enough new players in to raise those Add On Store / Telethon figures back up, and then keep on staggering towards the finish line.
Now Portalarium probably thinks that the game IS good enough as it currently is. You seem to feel so. Some people genuinely do, but that's not the issue. They've ran numerous free trials though and still aren't breaking "500 Concurrency" as Chris Spears said in the recent Reddit AMA... that's why objective facts indicate that even their lowest projection of $5m profit on the SeedInvest is ridiculously optimistic. People just don't like the basic game, not even on a free trial; 80% of players weren't even getting past the first 2 hours.
So... if the SeedInvest does fail, which you should actually want if your moral qualms are genuine, how much longer do they actually have? I'll admit, it will indeed be more than 2 months; Because I'm totally genuine too that the backers are an almost literal cult; many of them will fund it for no other reason than to spite the Outsiders. And some of you from genuine love too, of course. But most of us already left the project because it was turned into something we never wanted. Their ability to sell it in the future requires attracting an audience they'll never, ever get.
I just don't get why if it's increasingly immoral, and logically ever more foolish and likely to leave backers even more badly burned than ever before, you can put all of that aside because you love what's just a computer game. I deeply admire Lord British too, but if Ultima taught us anything it should be that the Virtues aren't based upon how much we think we'll get something we like out of them.
Red Thomas out of curiosity do you research some of the finer details yourself or do you just ask the people at Portalarium for what to make your articles about? You seem to be clueless on some finer details that people that have been following the game absolutely know. These details mind you would not be the ones that Portalarium would talk about or want to be known. If you truly are trying to by somewhat unbiased writer (even though you said your bias) would you ever speak truthfully about the truth if it was lame blast pasted right infront of your nose? Just for the sake of your own credibility?
I also checked with the Unity Store, and you're not allowed to market assets derived from free ones found on their store (per 3.8i): https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms
Well that shows how well you can understand the agreement, this is about "decoding" an object you get and porting it to another "system" not talking about selling it in game. Many Unity Store assets that are not for "Cash Shops" have different EULA for the items in the store with those restrictions in place. But good job trying to use the same excuse that Port did when they tried to explain it away. This is allowed by the default EULA for the Unity Store unless the person puts up their own EULA about the item which many do but this item did not do at the time.
Pretty sure taking something from the Unity editor and rendering it in the game counts... Could be wrong. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm still pretty confident that's how it works because while it makes sense to offer free assets to modders, it doesn't make as much sense to just allow actual game developers to use assets like that without paying for them somehow.
Again, could be wrong, because maybe I didn't ask the right question. Just that with two different people from two different States (and neither remotely related to Portalarium) telling without any pause or equivocation that you have to pay for "free" Unity Store assets if you charge for them in any way, I have to think that's how it actually works.
Trimmed the above a bit because we're both obviously a bit long-winded...
Trimming Inception...
RE: The point on equity crowdfunders and cash shop/telethon customers being the same people, that's true, but I think you missed where my point was. I don't object to it being the same people exactly. I certainly don't object to people spending money where they want. There's another crowdfunded game that's gotten insane money from their community. I wouldn't call it a scam exactly, but I strongly disapprove of a number of their practices, which is why I don't write about the project. That said, I have no problem with people buying stuff from their cash shop.
You're out money either way, which is your point I think, and you're right. My objection isn't that. I object to the linking that to anything like an investment. I have zero problem with folks spending money on anything they want. I do have a problem with selling shares of a company to people who aren't accredited investors. I've done some angel investing, and maybe 1 in 20 or so are successful. That's what Title III effectively is.
If someone wants to spend $2k buying a house in a game, I say go for it. If you only had $1k, and you spend the other grand because you were thinking you'd get some financial return on your investment later, I'm not really okay with that.
w/r to the existing capital and runway... They have five years of track record, and I'm pretty sure there's someone out there tracking month-to-month revenue. I'm not sure where it's at, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find that and see how they're trending. They're not going to go to $0 over night, though. So, while you're technically correct that they have two-months runway in the bank, I don't think that's really very realistic.
I'm not encouraging anyone to invest, and I'm not a fiduciary even if I were. I'm not really even saying whether they're net positive month-to-month. I don't know whether they are or not. I'm strictly saying that the two-months to death idea is very unrealistic by even the most conservative estimates. Personally, I think they're on the healthy side. I don't see them becoming suddenly bullish, or anything. That said, you're point about the physical rewards is an exceptional point. I'd meant to ask about that during a recent visit and it'd slipped my mind. Not sure what the costs there would be, but it's definitely something that would change the numbers significantly. Good catch.
Lastly, for the moral comment. I really appreciate the comment and question. It's not unfair to say that a lot of people don't like the game, and many never will. And you're certainly not unfair in noting that fans are incredibly die-hard where LB and the franchise are concerned, and to the point where they'll ignore things.
To me, people backing a project that they like (whether I think it's a good project or not) isn't really a moral issue. If it were, I'd be writing about several other projects that I think honestly do border on scams. What matters whether the backers like what they have or not, and it seems like those who do play SotA like it a lot.
Contrary to what other folks seem to think, there's no such thing as an unbiased arbiter of what a "good" game is. A good game is a game the individual enjoys. I have a few esoteric preferences that I'm fairly sure aren't common among MMORPG.com readers. If someone enjoys a game and wants to support it, I have no moral issues with that.
In fact, I suspect the next few years will be a series of games most people won't like, but that have small hardcore followings. We're kind of getting to a point where innovations are more likely to come from smaller projects swinging for the fences and supported by smaller audiences. I don't see any major moral conflict with small groups of dedicated fans supporting projects, or with noting the things that project does that I think happens to be particularly interesting or innovative.
Also, whether backers are burned or not is really up to them. Some people are certainly not going to be happy, but that's the risk you take from crowdfunding and preordering. If enough people like the direction, the project continues. The immorality would be trying to convince people who like something that they should hate it just because their current opinion doesn't conform with the mob. I'd rather try to understand what they like about it, and try to find things about the given project that I like. Not for everyone, but that's one of the things I enjoy.
Red Thomas out of curiosity do you research some of the finer details yourself or do you just ask the people at Portalarium for what to make your articles about? You seem to be clueless on some finer details that people that have been following the game absolutely know. These details mind you would not be the ones that Portalarium would talk about or want to be known. If you truly are trying to by somewhat unbiased writer (even though you said your bias) would you ever speak truthfully about the truth if it was lame blast pasted right infront of your nose? Just for the sake of your own credibility?
There's no such thing as an unbiased writer. Everyone has things they like or don't like. There are things about SotA that I do and don't like, and I've talked about both.
If the "finer details" you're talking about are general forum drama and stuff like that, no. I don't really care about any of that. I'm not particularly interested in general gossip and flamewars.
Port does give me schedule of things they intend to do over the next several months. It's a draft version of what eventually becomes the post the whole community sees, and I base my article partly on that. You may not have noticed, but my articles are nearly always, "this is what they've done recently" and "this is what they're planning to do next." There's not really any "finer details" to that.
Occasionally, I'll take a detour into something I find interesting. Transitioning to a publishing mode and starting a Title III campaign is interesting, but it's not really part of the quarterly schedule. I intentionally don't talk with the team about their money situation other than very general questions occasionally. So all the posts above to @Aron_Swordmaster were from my reading/guessing. In part, I don't ask about that stuff in case I want to invest, because then it'd be insider trading. When I do get that sort of information, I don't share it because this isn't an investment site and that sort of information is dangerous to folks who don't have the experience to use it correctly.
Pretty sure taking something from the Unity editor and rendering it in the game counts... Could be wrong. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm still pretty confident that's how it works because while it makes sense to offer free assets to modders, it doesn't make as much sense to just allow actual game developers to use assets like that without paying for them somehow.
Again, could be wrong, because maybe I didn't ask the right question. Just that with two different people from two different States (and neither remotely related to Portalarium) telling without any pause or equivocation that you have to pay for "free" Unity Store assets if you charge for them in any way, I have to think that's how it actually works.
Here is an example of a Q&A, notice that they talk about Unity-chan and how its limited to fan-made games not "commercial" ones. The statue has no such restriction on it. Again I have talked to people who do make games using unity and this is what they have said. Official Q&A says the same thing, your free to do it so long as your not using "Restricted Assets" which the Unity-chan has.
I find it funny that 2 different people from 2 different states told you the same thing cause this is something that people have known about for years. That Official Q&A is over 2 years old and the other one is 5 years. The 3 people I asked about when this was on the forums said yep its allowed because it doesn't have restrictions on it so nothing the artist could do if they wanted to.
Pretty sure taking something from the Unity editor and rendering it in the game counts... Could be wrong. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm still pretty confident that's how it works because while it makes sense to offer free assets to modders, it doesn't make as much sense to just allow actual game developers to use assets like that without paying for them somehow.
Again, could be wrong, because maybe I didn't ask the right question. Just that with two different people from two different States (and neither remotely related to Portalarium) telling without any pause or equivocation that you have to pay for "free" Unity Store assets if you charge for them in any way, I have to think that's how it actually works.
Here is an example of a Q&A, notice that they talk about Unity-chan and how its limited to fan-made games not "commercial" ones. The statue has no such restriction on it. Again I have talked to people who do make games using unity and this is what they have said. Official Q&A says the same thing, your free to do it so long as your not using "Restricted Assets" which the Unity-chan has.
I find it funny that 2 different people from 2 different states told you the same thing cause this is something that people have known about for years. That Official Q&A is over 2 years old and the other one is 5 years. The 3 people I asked about when this was on the forums said yep its allowed because it doesn't have restrictions on it so nothing the artist could do if they wanted to.
Well, the one in CA works for CIG and they don't use Unity, but I can't imagine she hasn't used it before. The other in Austin has been around for a while. I'd be really shocked if he was wrong about it.
But like I said, not really my AO. All I could do is a quick google and ask around.
You seem to know what you're talking about and have links, so I'll take your word for it. Consider me corrected.
Red Thomas, there's biased, and then there's BIASED. Being an investor (through crowdfunding) in the game and having friends on the development team, both of which I believe you've said are the case for you (correct me if I'm wrong), may mean that you're not the best choice for someone to write these articles. That is, unless MMORPG.com just wants to put out puff pieces. Maybe someone who is given a free press account and isn't personally involved with the developers.
Red Thomas out of curiosity do you research some of the finer details yourself or do you just ask the people at Portalarium for what to make your articles about? You seem to be clueless on some finer details that people that have been following the game absolutely know. These details mind you would not be the ones that Portalarium would talk about or want to be known. If you truly are trying to by somewhat unbiased writer (even though you said your bias) would you ever speak truthfully about the truth if it was lame blast pasted right infront of your nose? Just for the sake of your own credibility?
Dude he doesn't even play this game much. He's buddies with the devs and puts out articles for em. If he at least played this game he'd see how crap it is unless of course he's financially invested in the game like the whales there and try to hype it to get somebody to play it. Everytime I look at a new release it's a ghost town and the game still like it was 3 years ago, not much change except uncloned areas. Combats still crap, loot is crap, mobs are crap, UI is crap, animations are crap etc etc etc. Nothing to do but grind mobs and dance and emotes. This cheap asset flip games more like a cheap and worse version of Sims
This sort of practice has already been covered ad nauseam and industry vets like the venerable Brad McQuaid have even acknowledged that it's not uncommon. This shit happens. The fact that you've managed to figure out Google makes me hopeful for the future, but the fact that you didn't use it for anything other than proving your own agenda saddens me.
Half way there CHAMP!!! Go that extra mile! Maybe you'll get a gold star next time!
Red Thomas, there's biased, and then there's BIASED. Being an investor (through crowdfunding) in the game and having friends on the development team, both of which I believe you've said are the case for you (correct me if I'm wrong), may mean that you're not the best choice for someone to write these articles. That is, unless MMORPG.com just wants to put out puff pieces. Maybe someone who is given a free press account and isn't personally involved with the developers.
I'm a backer, but not an investor. Haven't decided whether to invest or not yet.
W/r to bias, no one covers an industry for long and doesn't make friends. Those sports casters you see on tv interview the athlete and then they go to dinner. "Scoops" come from those relationships.
If you really look at what I write, your problem isn't with my bias, but just because you disagree. Because you disagree, I'm wrong. Because I'm writing things you think are wrong, it's obviously because I'm biased.
In fact, there are things this team, and others, have done that I disagreed with. I've never minded pointing that out in any of my articles.
Besides, these aren't reviews. It's informational updates on the project, and bias is even less relevant than a review. I'm not going to do the review precisely because I may invest and that would be a conflict of interest.
This sort of practice has already been covered ad nauseam and industry vets like the venerable Brad McQuaid have even acknowledged that it's not uncommon. This shit happens. The fact that you've managed to figure out Google makes me hopeful for the future, but the fact that you didn't use it for anything other than proving your own agenda saddens me.
Half way there CHAMP!!! Go that extra mile! Maybe you'll get a gold star next time!
I'm confused. I thought the point was that this wasn't right and making money of free products was a problem. Now it's so standard of a practice that I should have known about it?
So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated.
Maybe it's the attempt at sarcasm. The message is muddied a bit there
This sort of practice has already been covered ad nauseam and industry vets like the venerable Brad McQuaid have even acknowledged that it's not uncommon. This shit happens. The fact that you've managed to figure out Google makes me hopeful for the future, but the fact that you didn't use it for anything other than proving your own agenda saddens me.
Half way there CHAMP!!! Go that extra mile! Maybe you'll get a gold star next time!
I'm confused. I thought the point was that this wasn't right and making money of free products was a problem. Now it's so standard of a practice that I should have known about it?
So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated.
Maybe it's the attempt at sarcasm. The message is muddied a bit there
"So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated."
I choose option C: It's fairly common AND it's shady.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This sort of practice has already been covered ad nauseam and industry vets like the venerable Brad McQuaid have even acknowledged that it's not uncommon. This shit happens. The fact that you've managed to figure out Google makes me hopeful for the future, but the fact that you didn't use it for anything other than proving your own agenda saddens me.
Half way there CHAMP!!! Go that extra mile! Maybe you'll get a gold star next time!
I'm confused. I thought the point was that this wasn't right and making money of free products was a problem. Now it's so standard of a practice that I should have known about it?
So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated.
Maybe it's the attempt at sarcasm. The message is muddied a bit there
"So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated."
I choose option C: It's fairly common AND it's shady.
I don't know why it's shady. I can easily hire a freelancer to do this stuff for me at the same or similar price. If you're not a fan of the sale of digital items at all, then I can totally understand. However, if you're suggesting that a game is bad because it's reselling assets back to the user that it bought somewhere, then it's laughable. I'd honestly question the knowledge of the person making that argument..... and I did.
People seem to think that they are making a fucking KILLING!!!! What they don't consider is that, 1) what is the license for that item and do they need to pay royalties, 2) What are the costs to put it into the game, 3) How many people are actually buying it? In the end, someone like WoW fucking DESTROYS someone like SotA when it comes to cash store assets. Even their free fucking pony, lol. Yes! WoW makes back more money/$ spent on every one of their cash shop mounts than SotA would be likely to make on even their free unity story asset. It's not even close. I believe I did a breakdown on this before, but can't find the spreadsheet. You can search the SotA forums here for the analysis, though.
Outwardly, it might appear shady, but it's unfortunate that people seem to be so good at google and less good at actual research. They don't seem to consider the why, it's just all about grabbing your pitchforks and joining the witch hunt.
What's really fucking crazy is that even with all these cheap store assets, SotA can't managed to make enough money to sustain development. Oh! And it's not because they've got gold plated desks and shit either, lol. It's because people don't buy shit!
This sort of practice has already been covered ad nauseam and industry vets like the venerable Brad McQuaid have even acknowledged that it's not uncommon. This shit happens. The fact that you've managed to figure out Google makes me hopeful for the future, but the fact that you didn't use it for anything other than proving your own agenda saddens me.
Half way there CHAMP!!! Go that extra mile! Maybe you'll get a gold star next time!
I'm confused. I thought the point was that this wasn't right and making money of free products was a problem. Now it's so standard of a practice that I should have known about it?
So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated.
Maybe it's the attempt at sarcasm. The message is muddied a bit there
"So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated."
I choose option C: It's fairly common AND it's shady.
I don't know why it's shady. I can easily hire a freelancer to do this stuff for me at the same or similar price. If you're not a fan of the sale of digital items at all, then I can totally understand. However, if you're suggesting that a game is bad because it's reselling assets back to the user that it bought somewhere, then it's laughable. I'd honestly question the knowledge of the person making that argument..... and I did.
People seem to think that they are making a fucking KILLING!!!! What they don't consider is that, 1) what is the license for that item and do they need to pay royalties, 2) What are the costs to put it into the game, 3) How many people are actually buying it? In the end, someone like WoW fucking DESTROYS someone like SotA when it comes to cash store assets. Even their free fucking pony, lol. Yes! WoW makes back more money/$ spent on every one of their cash shop mounts than SotA would be likely to make on even their free unity story asset. It's not even close. I believe I did a breakdown on this before, but can't find the spreadsheet. You can search the SotA forums here for the analysis, though.
Outwardly, it might appear shady, but it's unfortunate that people seem to be so good at google and less good at actual research. They don't seem to consider the why, it's just all about grabbing your pitchforks and joining the witch hunt.
What's really fucking crazy is that even with all these cheap store assets, SotA can't managed to make enough money to sustain development. Oh! And it's not because they've got gold plated desks and shit either, lol. It's because people don't buy shit!
You seem a little too personally invested in this subject to be honest. Your responses are pretty hostile and out of perspective to the post you are replying to.
To me, it's shady if you get a FREE store asset and then resell that asset in your game for $50. I don;t care if they include them in game, but charging $50 for a horse statue they got free is shady. Honestly I don't give a crap if you agree or not.
PS: Also note that I didn't say the game was bad because they resell assets, or any other silly straw man argument you threw in there. If you want to know MY feelings on the game go read my review on these forums from my first play through. It has nothing to do with store bought assets.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This sort of practice has already been covered ad nauseam and industry vets like the venerable Brad McQuaid have even acknowledged that it's not uncommon. This shit happens. The fact that you've managed to figure out Google makes me hopeful for the future, but the fact that you didn't use it for anything other than proving your own agenda saddens me.
Half way there CHAMP!!! Go that extra mile! Maybe you'll get a gold star next time!
Comments
However, remember the behavior is inherited.
As Chris Spears does, so does his community.
~~ postlarval ~~
Well that shows how well you can understand the agreement, this is about "decoding" an object you get and porting it to another "system" not talking about selling it in game. Many Unity Store assets that are not for "Cash Shops" have different EULA for the items in the store with those restrictions in place. But good job trying to use the same excuse that Port did when they tried to explain it away. This is allowed by the default EULA for the Unity Store unless the person puts up their own EULA about the item which many do but this item did not do at the time.
Oh, no worries. I'm a big boy. I can handle it.
It's more rewarding to allow the community here the opportunity to see what Portalarium and its shills are really like.
They really just destroy themselves. No haters needed.
~~ postlarval ~~
As you can see on steam, reddit and even their own forum.
90% agreed to that conclusion, the game sucks. End of story.
They didn't even make what was promised on Kickstarter.
Would you like to talk about their shady practices? Or maybe the bans just because players disagreed with the great Chris Spears?
Dude, we can find TONS of information, videos, threads and such about how this game is bad and poorly managed. And you, can you find anything positive about this game?
Lets save time. No you can't, because there is none.
Well one thing of positive that this game did bring about is that 99% of us won't back any project by Chris/Richard/Starr again. So there is that. Some of the systems they were "going" to develop would have been nice too but they took the "easy" way and just said making everyone PvP flagged for guild warfare is delivering guild warfare. What other game would allow that kind of 'system' to be a feature.
The ideas of the game have merit but they didn't deliver those ideas they thought how can I do this without doing this and say that I did it. Again, the top people in the company are at fault. I don't really fault any of the others tho I dislike Berek cause he doesn't apply the rules across the board fairly but he is just following orders which is what this game was kickstarted about not having to do. Cause they said EA/NCSoft/Corp Overlords always were to blame in the games failure never them. And here we have a "game" without that and they still failed to deliver. So yes the positive about this game is that everyone sees these guys have no clue what or how to do things and nobody but themselves to blame.
But then again I'm not really disagreeing with you just pointing out my view.
I had to trim yours too because otherwise these huge quotes are breaking the forum formatting.
Here's the thing; you went into detail about the other sources of income, which you listed as being Add On Store Sales. This is potential, not guaranteed earning again; it's what people HOPE will occur again, but there's no guarantee it will. What we know is that they have 2 months of security, and an unknown amount of future income.
However when we try and predict how much operating income they'll gather, we have to look at possibilities; and this is where your moral qualms about the SeedInvest are vital. Because we're not talking about different classes of object, related but separate entities like an Ice Skater and the Art Of Skating. We're talking about the exact same object: The ability of individual people to give Portalarium money. You state you worry that a SeedInvest is asking too much of that ability to pay. The Add On Store, the Telethons, The Blood Reliquary sales though, they're all drawing on the exact same source of funding, indeed the exact same individuals. It's the same thing.
If it turns out those exact same individuals are able and willing to pay, the SeedInvest will come off, and the Telethons will make the same money too. Portalarium might get 8 more months then. If your own moral qualms about asking people to spend too much is right, either the SeedInvest won't be successful, or it will and there will be a hidden personal cost to the people you're worrying about. SHOULD they get 8 more months if that's the case though? How much destruction to a person's real life in exchange for time would be an acceptable ratio?
This is why I pointed out that unless you think they have some other money hidden somewhere, arguing about 8 months or any other figure above 2 goes directly against that part of your own argument; any time they are buying is morally questionable at best, and maybe even doomed at worse. But there are already hints even the Telethon money was dropping before now; I think the last one was down to $80k from the $110k the SeedInvest claims as an average? It may be that they're already burning people too much as it is.
Worse than this, the SeedInvest is hiding a huge amount of spending Portalarium is committed too but has to somehow budget from that limited future player base too; it's not just advertising and publishing etc... they still haven't produced any of the hundreds of thousands of physical rewards promised in the Kickstarter either. Episode 2 requires a second successful Kickstarter before they'll even start development. Episodes 3-5 haven't even been mentioned. We know from the Russian publishing deal they've promised some of those future profits to those publishers too...
My view is they've already become morally compromised far too much. But the reason they're going even further, to a point even you would question, is because they can no longer continue on the same funding model they had before.
Our conclusions are inherent in your own moral worries: The reason Portalarium are pushing for a SeedInvest and then some sort of vaguely defined "Launch" is because they're losing, not gaining players. And they have no other source of income. You accept that; see past your own bias and think about the consequences of that, and how it would shape what is happening. The income they're getting isn't enough to get anywhere near feature complete even for Episode 1 now. And the game itself isn't good enough to survive on it's own. The SeedInvest is a Hail Mary throw trying to get enough money in to launch the advertising/publishing blitz and from that try and get enough new players in to raise those Add On Store / Telethon figures back up, and then keep on staggering towards the finish line.
Now Portalarium probably thinks that the game IS good enough as it currently is. You seem to feel so. Some people genuinely do, but that's not the issue. They've ran numerous free trials though and still aren't breaking "500 Concurrency" as Chris Spears said in the recent Reddit AMA... that's why objective facts indicate that even their lowest projection of $5m profit on the SeedInvest is ridiculously optimistic. People just don't like the basic game, not even on a free trial; 80% of players weren't even getting past the first 2 hours.
So... if the SeedInvest does fail, which you should actually want if your moral qualms are genuine, how much longer do they actually have? I'll admit, it will indeed be more than 2 months; Because I'm totally genuine too that the backers are an almost literal cult; many of them will fund it for no other reason than to spite the Outsiders. And some of you from genuine love too, of course. But most of us already left the project because it was turned into something we never wanted. Their ability to sell it in the future requires attracting an audience they'll never, ever get.
I just don't get why if it's increasingly immoral, and logically ever more foolish and likely to leave backers even more badly burned than ever before, you can put all of that aside because you love what's just a computer game. I deeply admire Lord British too, but if Ultima taught us anything it should be that the Virtues aren't based upon how much we think we'll get something we like out of them.
Pretty sure taking something from the Unity editor and rendering it in the game counts... Could be wrong. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm still pretty confident that's how it works because while it makes sense to offer free assets to modders, it doesn't make as much sense to just allow actual game developers to use assets like that without paying for them somehow.
Again, could be wrong, because maybe I didn't ask the right question. Just that with two different people from two different States (and neither remotely related to Portalarium) telling without any pause or equivocation that you have to pay for "free" Unity Store assets if you charge for them in any way, I have to think that's how it actually works.
RE: The point on equity crowdfunders and cash shop/telethon customers being the same people, that's true, but I think you missed where my point was. I don't object to it being the same people exactly. I certainly don't object to people spending money where they want. There's another crowdfunded game that's gotten insane money from their community. I wouldn't call it a scam exactly, but I strongly disapprove of a number of their practices, which is why I don't write about the project. That said, I have no problem with people buying stuff from their cash shop.
You're out money either way, which is your point I think, and you're right. My objection isn't that. I object to the linking that to anything like an investment. I have zero problem with folks spending money on anything they want. I do have a problem with selling shares of a company to people who aren't accredited investors. I've done some angel investing, and maybe 1 in 20 or so are successful. That's what Title III effectively is.
If someone wants to spend $2k buying a house in a game, I say go for it. If you only had $1k, and you spend the other grand because you were thinking you'd get some financial return on your investment later, I'm not really okay with that.
w/r to the existing capital and runway... They have five years of track record, and I'm pretty sure there's someone out there tracking month-to-month revenue. I'm not sure where it's at, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find that and see how they're trending. They're not going to go to $0 over night, though. So, while you're technically correct that they have two-months runway in the bank, I don't think that's really very realistic.
I'm not encouraging anyone to invest, and I'm not a fiduciary even if I were. I'm not really even saying whether they're net positive month-to-month. I don't know whether they are or not. I'm strictly saying that the two-months to death idea is very unrealistic by even the most conservative estimates. Personally, I think they're on the healthy side. I don't see them becoming suddenly bullish, or anything. That said, you're point about the physical rewards is an exceptional point. I'd meant to ask about that during a recent visit and it'd slipped my mind. Not sure what the costs there would be, but it's definitely something that would change the numbers significantly. Good catch.
Lastly, for the moral comment. I really appreciate the comment and question. It's not unfair to say that a lot of people don't like the game, and many never will. And you're certainly not unfair in noting that fans are incredibly die-hard where LB and the franchise are concerned, and to the point where they'll ignore things.
To me, people backing a project that they like (whether I think it's a good project or not) isn't really a moral issue. If it were, I'd be writing about several other projects that I think honestly do border on scams. What matters whether the backers like what they have or not, and it seems like those who do play SotA like it a lot.
Contrary to what other folks seem to think, there's no such thing as an unbiased arbiter of what a "good" game is. A good game is a game the individual enjoys. I have a few esoteric preferences that I'm fairly sure aren't common among MMORPG.com readers. If someone enjoys a game and wants to support it, I have no moral issues with that.
In fact, I suspect the next few years will be a series of games most people won't like, but that have small hardcore followings. We're kind of getting to a point where innovations are more likely to come from smaller projects swinging for the fences and supported by smaller audiences. I don't see any major moral conflict with small groups of dedicated fans supporting projects, or with noting the things that project does that I think happens to be particularly interesting or innovative.
Also, whether backers are burned or not is really up to them. Some people are certainly not going to be happy, but that's the risk you take from crowdfunding and preordering. If enough people like the direction, the project continues. The immorality would be trying to convince people who like something that they should hate it just because their current opinion doesn't conform with the mob. I'd rather try to understand what they like about it, and try to find things about the given project that I like. Not for everyone, but that's one of the things I enjoy.
If the "finer details" you're talking about are general forum drama and stuff like that, no. I don't really care about any of that. I'm not particularly interested in general gossip and flamewars.
Port does give me schedule of things they intend to do over the next several months. It's a draft version of what eventually becomes the post the whole community sees, and I base my article partly on that. You may not have noticed, but my articles are nearly always, "this is what they've done recently" and "this is what they're planning to do next." There's not really any "finer details" to that.
Occasionally, I'll take a detour into something I find interesting. Transitioning to a publishing mode and starting a Title III campaign is interesting, but it's not really part of the quarterly schedule. I intentionally don't talk with the team about their money situation other than very general questions occasionally. So all the posts above to @Aron_Swordmaster were from my reading/guessing. In part, I don't ask about that stuff in case I want to invest, because then it'd be insider trading. When I do get that sort of information, I don't share it because this isn't an investment site and that sort of information is dangerous to folks who don't have the experience to use it correctly.
Here is an example of a Q&A, notice that they talk about Unity-chan and how its limited to fan-made games not "commercial" ones. The statue has no such restriction on it. Again I have talked to people who do make games using unity and this is what they have said. Official Q&A says the same thing, your free to do it so long as your not using "Restricted Assets" which the Unity-chan has.
I find it funny that 2 different people from 2 different states told you the same thing cause this is something that people have known about for years. That Official Q&A is over 2 years old and the other one is 5 years. The 3 people I asked about when this was on the forums said yep its allowed because it doesn't have restrictions on it so nothing the artist could do if they wanted to.
Well, the one in CA works for CIG and they don't use Unity, but I can't imagine she hasn't used it before. The other in Austin has been around for a while. I'd be really shocked if he was wrong about it.
But like I said, not really my AO. All I could do is a quick google and ask around.
You seem to know what you're talking about and have links, so I'll take your word for it. Consider me corrected.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Quoted for Ignorance!
This sort of practice has already been covered ad nauseam and industry vets like the venerable Brad McQuaid have even acknowledged that it's not uncommon. This shit happens. The fact that you've managed to figure out Google makes me hopeful for the future, but the fact that you didn't use it for anything other than proving your own agenda saddens me.
Half way there CHAMP!!! Go that extra mile! Maybe you'll get a gold star next time!
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
----------------
W/r to bias, no one covers an industry for long and doesn't make friends. Those sports casters you see on tv interview the athlete and then they go to dinner. "Scoops" come from those relationships.
If you really look at what I write, your problem isn't with my bias, but just because you disagree. Because you disagree, I'm wrong. Because I'm writing things you think are wrong, it's obviously because I'm biased.
In fact, there are things this team, and others, have done that I disagreed with. I've never minded pointing that out in any of my articles.
Besides, these aren't reviews. It's informational updates on the project, and bias is even less relevant than a review. I'm not going to do the review precisely because I may invest and that would be a conflict of interest.
So is this common and okay, or is this shady practice that shouldn't be tolerated.
Maybe it's the attempt at sarcasm. The message is muddied a bit there
I choose option C: It's fairly common AND it's shady.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I don't know why it's shady. I can easily hire a freelancer to do this stuff for me at the same or similar price. If you're not a fan of the sale of digital items at all, then I can totally understand. However, if you're suggesting that a game is bad because it's reselling assets back to the user that it bought somewhere, then it's laughable. I'd honestly question the knowledge of the person making that argument..... and I did.
People seem to think that they are making a fucking KILLING!!!! What they don't consider is that, 1) what is the license for that item and do they need to pay royalties, 2) What are the costs to put it into the game, 3) How many people are actually buying it? In the end, someone like WoW fucking DESTROYS someone like SotA when it comes to cash store assets. Even their free fucking pony, lol. Yes! WoW makes back more money/$ spent on every one of their cash shop mounts than SotA would be likely to make on even their free unity story asset. It's not even close. I believe I did a breakdown on this before, but can't find the spreadsheet. You can search the SotA forums here for the analysis, though.
Outwardly, it might appear shady, but it's unfortunate that people seem to be so good at google and less good at actual research. They don't seem to consider the why, it's just all about grabbing your pitchforks and joining the witch hunt.
What's really fucking crazy is that even with all these cheap store assets, SotA can't managed to make enough money to sustain development. Oh! And it's not because they've got gold plated desks and shit either, lol. It's because people don't buy shit!
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
----------------
To me, it's shady if you get a FREE store asset and then resell that asset in your game for $50. I don;t care if they include them in game, but charging $50 for a horse statue they got free is shady. Honestly I don't give a crap if you agree or not.
PS: Also note that I didn't say the game was bad because they resell assets, or any other silly straw man argument you threw in there. If you want to know MY feelings on the game go read my review on these forums from my first play through. It has nothing to do with store bought assets.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Talk about ignorance!
~~ postlarval ~~
This is a vicious cycle of lies and propaganda.