Alright, Caspian, let's dance

15678911»

Comments

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    edited August 30



    That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors.   To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
     
    So what?
    LOL... kind of important question... 
    I wonder  why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
    It is still irrelevant to everything you have been complaining about. If they don't get additional investment... then that's that. It does not provide proof to any of your slander.
    Please provide proof of this "slander" you keep whining about, You continue to make this claim without backing it up.  Stating a negative opinion about a company, game or even a person is not slander.

    Mr Caspian is the one who has so far missed pretty much every self-initiated deadline.  He is the one that mocked his own customers for daring to doubt his ability to deliver a functional MMORPG in 18 months...   
    Post edited by Slapshot1188 on
    Gdemamivito11YashaX

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    edited August 30
    Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,433
    edited August 30
    No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
    No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook.  However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors.  Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer.  Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level.  And developers know that.
    As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.

    The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.

    The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.

    Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
    I understand completely, and have already mentioned that the fact the money invested is spread so thinly across a crowd is probably a large contributing factor to why there haven't already been lawyers involved in some instances (namely, the 3 EA titles that are actually one reference Sergei Titov).  The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue.  He's basing it on hype, and not a realistic analysis of the project.  Taking cash on marketing works when there's a definite product created that you're purchasing.  There isn't one here, only hopes and dreams.


    We've been discussing changes to the system itself to prevent this (did anyone really believe otherwise?), but that will inherently include holding developers accountable.  The basis of my argument is that the system places consumers in an incredibly disadvantaged position.  Of course developers are going to use the avenue if it's available, and they'll only adhere to rules imposed upon them as a general rule.  That's not even worth saying; it's human nature.  But thanks for defending the point that we all assumed was true, I guess?  And I'm not sure at all where I waxed poetic claiming we should attempt to change the developers and not the framework for which they present the projects.  You seem very intent on arguing red herrings.

    There's plenty of psychology on the effectiveness of marketing that renders yours claim that the problem is with the consumer a rather shaky one.  Many folks here like to claim themselves superior to it (though it's almost assuredly not the case), but I've yet to see anyone provide any real data or expert opinion to support the claim.  Appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason, and you see it being used heavily in crowdfunding  When there's a product available for the gamer to reason on (in spite of the emotional appeal produced by marketing), the consumer has a legitimate avenue to evaluate the product they're purchasing in spite of marketing.  The same isn't true for crowdfunding.  It's a large difference in information available at the time money is exchanged.

    EDIT- Also, your claim that consumers don't evaluate risk vs reward is, well, completely wrong.  As a general rule, they do.  What you maybe meant to say was many consumers evaluate the risk vs reward based upon emotional, rather than logical, evaluations.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    GdemamiIselin

    image
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778
    MadFrenchie said:
    The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue. 
    That is probably just your issue, not an issue of the principle or system.
    holdenfive
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    edited August 30
    Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
    So you have zero to support your personal attack.   I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander.  Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?

    Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!

    Post edited by Slapshot1188 on
    GdemamicraftseekerYashaX

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,433
    Gdemami said:
    MadFrenchie said:
    The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue. 
    That is probably just your issue, not an issue of the principle or system.
    Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.

    The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
    Gdemami

    image
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778
    Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.

    The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
    SJW then. Still, your problem only.
    MadFrenchieKyleranIselinSpottyGekkoShaighYashaXholdenfive
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,433
    Gdemami said:
    Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.

    The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
    SJW then. Still, your problem only.
    As always, we the community here at MMORPG.com thank you for letting us know we're on the right track by LOL'ing our posts and making incredibly insightful comments like this one.
    Slapshot1188KyleranIselinSpottyGekkoYashaXRufusUO

    image
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 806
    Gdemami said:
    Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.

    The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
    SJW then. Still, your problem only.
    Er... what does political correctness have to do with anything?  Or are we getting to the point where people just toss around the term "SJW" for everything they disagree with, now?
    Slapshot1188GdemamicraftseekerYashaX
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,274
    edited August 30
    Tiamat64 said:
    Gdemami said:
    Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.

    The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
    SJW then. Still, your problem only.
    Er... what does political correctness have to do with anything?  Or are we getting to the point where people just toss around the term "SJW" for everything they disagree with, now?
    Once the name calling starts you have "won" the discussion.

    Well and of course an endless string of nonsensical LOLs leading the way to victory.

    Fortunately I'm a LOL collector. 

    B)
    Post edited by Kyleran on
    Slapshot1188MadFrenchieRufusUO

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778
    edited August 30
    Tiamat64 said:
    Er... what does political correctness have to do with anything? 
    That acronym stands for Social Justice Warrior, not Political Correctness Warrior and as such include other types of hypocrisy too.
    Post edited by Gdemami on
    MadFrenchieIselinSlapshot1188ShaighYashaXholdenfive
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    edited August 31
    No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
    No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook.  However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors.  Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer.  Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level.  And developers know that.
    As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.

    The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.

    The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.

    Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
    I understand completely, and have already mentioned that the fact the money invested is spread so thinly across a crowd is probably a large contributing factor to why there haven't already been lawyers involved in some instances (namely, the 3 EA titles that are actually one reference Sergei Titov).  The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue.  He's basing it on hype, and not a realistic analysis of the project.  Taking cash on marketing works when there's a definite product created that you're purchasing.  There isn't one here, only hopes and dreams.


    We've been discussing changes to the system itself to prevent this (did anyone really believe otherwise?), but that will inherently include holding developers accountable.  The basis of my argument is that the system places consumers in an incredibly disadvantaged position.  Of course developers are going to use the avenue if it's available, and they'll only adhere to rules imposed upon them as a general rule.  That's not even worth saying; it's human nature.  But thanks for defending the point that we all assumed was true, I guess?  And I'm not sure at all where I waxed poetic claiming we should attempt to change the developers and not the framework for which they present the projects.  You seem very intent on arguing red herrings.

    There's plenty of psychology on the effectiveness of marketing that renders yours claim that the problem is with the consumer a rather shaky one.  Many folks here like to claim themselves superior to it (though it's almost assuredly not the case), but I've yet to see anyone provide any real data or expert opinion to support the claim.  Appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason, and you see it being used heavily in crowdfunding  When there's a product available for the gamer to reason on (in spite of the emotional appeal produced by marketing), the consumer has a legitimate avenue to evaluate the product they're purchasing in spite of marketing.  The same isn't true for crowdfunding.  It's a large difference in information available at the time money is exchanged.

    EDIT- Also, your claim that consumers don't evaluate risk vs reward is, well, completely wrong.  As a general rule, they do.  What you maybe meant to say was many consumers evaluate the risk vs reward based upon emotional, rather than logical, evaluations.
    No I said gamers that support crowdfunding have a much higher risk tolerance because they have no profit motive.

    So what do you actually want, a way to legally sanction developers that do not adhere to campaign promises?
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
    So you have zero to support your personal attack.   I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander.  Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?

    Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!

    So basically you are retracting your claim that the developers are dishonest and incompetent?
    KyleranYashaX
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,433
    edited August 31
    No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
    No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook.  However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors.  Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer.  Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level.  And developers know that.
    As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.

    The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.

    The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.

    Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
    I understand completely, and have already mentioned that the fact the money invested is spread so thinly across a crowd is probably a large contributing factor to why there haven't already been lawyers involved in some instances (namely, the 3 EA titles that are actually one reference Sergei Titov).  The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue.  He's basing it on hype, and not a realistic analysis of the project.  Taking cash on marketing works when there's a definite product created that you're purchasing.  There isn't one here, only hopes and dreams.


    We've been discussing changes to the system itself to prevent this (did anyone really believe otherwise?), but that will inherently include holding developers accountable.  The basis of my argument is that the system places consumers in an incredibly disadvantaged position.  Of course developers are going to use the avenue if it's available, and they'll only adhere to rules imposed upon them as a general rule.  That's not even worth saying; it's human nature.  But thanks for defending the point that we all assumed was true, I guess?  And I'm not sure at all where I waxed poetic claiming we should attempt to change the developers and not the framework for which they present the projects.  You seem very intent on arguing red herrings.

    There's plenty of psychology on the effectiveness of marketing that renders yours claim that the problem is with the consumer a rather shaky one.  Many folks here like to claim themselves superior to it (though it's almost assuredly not the case), but I've yet to see anyone provide any real data or expert opinion to support the claim.  Appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason, and you see it being used heavily in crowdfunding  When there's a product available for the gamer to reason on (in spite of the emotional appeal produced by marketing), the consumer has a legitimate avenue to evaluate the product they're purchasing in spite of marketing.  The same isn't true for crowdfunding.  It's a large difference in information available at the time money is exchanged.

    EDIT- Also, your claim that consumers don't evaluate risk vs reward is, well, completely wrong.  As a general rule, they do.  What you maybe meant to say was many consumers evaluate the risk vs reward based upon emotional, rather than logical, evaluations.
    No I said gamers that support crowdfunding have a much higher risk tolerance because they have no profit motive.

    So what do you actually want, a way to legally sanction developers that do not adhere to campaign promises?
    More apropos, a legal requirement to provide more than marketing to consumers considering supporting the project.  If you're going to solicit funds from a group of folks who are not trained to properly consider your project, extra care should be taken to make pertinent information clear and consistent.  Craz mentioned nutrition information earlier in the thread; it's the same principle.  General consumers aren't nutritionists; so we provide an easy to understand chart to present the information in a way that's useful to the consumer.  General consumers also aren't project managers or software developers.  A framework to provide a more realistic view of the project's viability and estimated timeline is a great place to start.

    It would also provide the developers a concrete goal to work towards (and be held accountable to).  No more nebulous "well now you guys want us to do this, so that takes more time!"  Additions to the original scope can and should be something that's focused on after the original vision is completed for backers to assess the desire to even fund additions to the project.  Paid DLCs during crowdfunded development comes to mind.

    As badly as you and some others seem to want to convince us that holding developers responsible for their own words and actions is a witch hunt, it's really just not.

    And you absolutely did say gamers aren't analyzing the decision on a risk vs. reward basis, it's in the quote I included in my post.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    Gdemami

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
    So you have zero to support your personal attack.   I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander.  Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?

    Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!

    So basically you are retracting your claim that the developers are dishonest and incompetent?
    That's not what I said.  I said they either knowingly said incorrect things or were incompetent.  Not both.  I think I previously said that I think it's the latter.  Just incompetence.
    GdemamiYashaX

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 806
    Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
    So you have zero to support your personal attack.   I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander.  Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?

    Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!

    So basically you are retracting your claim that the developers are dishonest and incompetent?
    That's not what I said.  I said they either knowingly said incorrect things or were incompetent.  Not both.  I think I previously said that I think it's the latter.  Just incompetence.
    Of course, there's also always the possibility that they were both anyways.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.
    KyleranYashaX
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    Tiamat64 said:
    Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
    So you have zero to support your personal attack.   I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander.  Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?

    Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!

    So basically you are retracting your claim that the developers are dishonest and incompetent?
    That's not what I said.  I said they either knowingly said incorrect things or were incompetent.  Not both.  I think I previously said that I think it's the latter.  Just incompetence.
    Of course, there's also always the possibility that they were both anyways.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.
    True... but in my eyes if you miss your 18 month ETA by at least 12 months that's incompetence.   And no that's not slander.
    GdemamiYashaX

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,274
    Tiamat64 said:
    Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
    So you have zero to support your personal attack.   I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander.  Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?

    Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!

    So basically you are retracting your claim that the developers are dishonest and incompetent?
    That's not what I said.  I said they either knowingly said incorrect things or were incompetent.  Not both.  I think I previously said that I think it's the latter.  Just incompetence.
    Of course, there's also always the possibility that they were both anyways.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.
    True... but in my eyes if you miss your 18 month ETA by at least 12 months that's incompetence.   And no that's not slander.
    I'd call it more of an error in judgement as they pointed to miscalculating the amount of time get hire new resources and get them up to speed.

    A good project manager knows this and many would likely agree management rarely comprehends this point, almost always misjudging the time and effort to secure good help.

    MJ did it for CU, took several years and opening a branch in Seattle to find the talent he needed.

    Saying someone is incompetent is more or less stating they never did, nor ever will be able to accomplish a task.

    You might be able to infer from the first failure they may never be able to competently plan and stick to a schedule, but in this regard Caspian joins a long line of software devs including MJ, Richard, and Chris to name a few.

    Now Richard's competency to deliver a good game, particularly SotA is definitely called into question at this point.

    For Chris Roberts his competency to actually ship a released game is in question particularly with SQ42 which there's no valid reason I can see not to have delivered by now other than not properly directing his vast resources to make it happen.

    Mark J, no free ride here, I know about all of the challenges thus far, but they should all be resolved so no good excuse to not have a fairly solid delivery timeline after 4 years,  and certainly a date for CB1.  (Same goes for SC and the long overdue 3.0 alpha version.)

    So Caspian gets a break for now, at least from me but 2 years from now if still not released or at a published delivery date then his competence will be called into question.
    ConstantineMerusSedrynTyrosGdemami

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    I said the same thing to MJ.  Sorry, but either you knew your estimate was off by a huge amount and chose to say otherwise, or you didn't know which is incompetent.  Someone can be incompetent and still eventually finish a task.  I like these synonyms:
    inept, unskillful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, unprofessional, bungling, blundering, clumsy, 
    substandard, inferior, ineffective, deficient, inefficient, ineffectual, wanting, lacking, leaving much to be desired

    I think most of those apply.


    MadFrenchieYashaXGdemami

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    I said the same thing to MJ.  Sorry, but either you knew your estimate was off by a huge amount and chose to say otherwise, or you didn't know which is incompetent.  Someone can be incompetent and still eventually finish a task.  I like these synonyms:
    inept, unskillful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, unprofessional, bungling, blundering, clumsy, 
    substandard, inferior, ineffective, deficient, inefficient, ineffectual, wanting, lacking, leaving much to be desired

    I think most of those apply.


        you left out Feckless.............. :)
    SedrynTyrosConstantineMerus
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    Scorchien said:
    I said the same thing to MJ.  Sorry, but either you knew your estimate was off by a huge amount and chose to say otherwise, or you didn't know which is incompetent.  Someone can be incompetent and still eventually finish a task.  I like these synonyms:
    inept, unskillful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, unprofessional, bungling, blundering, clumsy, 
    substandard, inferior, ineffective, deficient, inefficient, ineffectual, wanting, lacking, leaving much to be desired

    I think most of those apply.


        you left out Feckless.............. :)
    Damn... I'm incompetent too... but I'm not asking people to give me millions of dollars based on that :)
    ScorchienYashaXKyleran

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778
    MadFrenchie said:
     If you're going to solicit funds from a group of folks who are not trained to properly consider your project, extra care should be taken 
    The one that needs to take extra care is you - your money, your responsibility. You feel some information is missing? No problem, don't pledge.

    You are still deliberately ignoring that you are not an investor nor consumer, you are a donor therefore devs owe you nothing.
    Slapshot1188SedrynTyrosholdenfive
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    edited September 4
    More apropos, a legal requirement to provide more than marketing to consumers considering supporting the project.  If you're going to solicit funds from a group of folks who are not trained to properly consider your project, extra care should be taken to make pertinent information clear and consistent.  Craz mentioned nutrition information earlier in the thread; it's the same principle.  General consumers aren't nutritionists; so we provide an easy to understand chart to present the information in a way that's useful to the consumer.  General consumers also aren't project managers or software developers.  A framework to provide a more realistic view of the project's viability and estimated timeline is a great place to start.

    It would also provide the developers a concrete goal to work towards (and be held accountable to).  No more nebulous "well now you guys want us to do this, so that takes more time!"  Additions to the original scope can and should be something that's focused on after the original vision is completed for backers to assess the desire to even fund additions to the project.  Paid DLCs during crowdfunded development comes to mind.

    As badly as you and some others seem to want to convince us that holding developers responsible for their own words and actions is a witch hunt, it's really just not.

    And you absolutely did say gamers aren't analyzing the decision on a risk vs. reward basis, it's in the quote I included in my post.
    My exact words were: "The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high." I qualified that statement with the last bit.

    It actually has nothing to do with not wanting to hold developers responsible. I just get annoyed with the the wild insinuations by some.

    By all means advocate for a different structure for crowdfunding.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    I said the same thing to MJ.  Sorry, but either you knew your estimate was off by a huge amount and chose to say otherwise, or you didn't know which is incompetent.  Someone can be incompetent and still eventually finish a task.  I like these synonyms:
    inept, unskillful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, unprofessional, bungling, blundering, clumsy, 
    substandard, inferior, ineffective, deficient, inefficient, ineffectual, wanting, lacking, leaving much to be desired

    I think most of those apply.


    They provided adequate reason for at least part of the delay.
Sign In or Register to comment.