The general take away is more along the lines of start off by telling them what they want to hear since you can always find plausible sounding excuses later.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Any idiot who gave them money deserves to wait that long. It was obvious to anyone with a functional brain this was way beyond their scope, ability, and budget.
Now to just wait for the inevitable "Yeahhhh we're gonna take this money and run" update.
Any idiot who gave them money deserves to wait that long. It was obvious to anyone with a functional brain this was way beyond their scope, ability, and budget.
Now to just wait for the inevitable "Yeahhhh we're gonna take this money and run" update.
Why would anyone run nowadays?
You just tell your followers that you have to delay without any new release date and how much you need their support. Their support being money. Then you keep raking in for years and declare any critical voice to be a hater.
Any idiot who gave them money deserves to wait that long. It was obvious to anyone with a functional brain this was way beyond their scope, ability, and budget.
Now to just wait for the inevitable "Yeahhhh we're gonna take this money and run" update.
Why would anyone run nowadays?
You just tell your followers that you have to delay without any new release date and how much you need their support. Their support being money. Then you keep raking in for years and declare any critical voice to be a hater.
Someone gets it! Why would any crowd funded game launch when you make sustainable income not launching? Once a thing launches reality confines it which can result in a review of said thing which can drive away supporters. Staying in a state of hope, myth and idealistic expectations is safer. I say this for any crowd funded game. Seriously, what is the motivation to launch if you are taking in more than you are spending? Launch would be something I'd rush toward if my influx was slowing but trying to launch when the money in>out would logically be bad for business.
There is actually plenty of evidence. Just look at any launched game and compare their revenues to that which they secured via crowdfunding. Secondly, the vast majority take on private investors, who will want to see some sort of return on their investment. Third, games are already behind the 8 ball when it comes to hype because they have to generate hype very early on, but actually deliver much later than more traditional products, depending on their state of completion. So can they actually regenerate the hype necessary to sustain a product once launched?
You're assuming that the money is good, but we really have no idea what their revenues look like. Unfortunately, the best we have is an example of something like Star Citizen which is anomalous and would probably be discarded by any statistician and SotA, which is in financial distress despite being the "...second most crowdfunding game in history...". So, with that in mind, I'd be very concerned if the business strategy of one of these developers was anything but to get to market as quickly as possible with a viable product. By outward appearances, it would seem that it's simply not a viable business model to sit back and wait. Who knows, though, there isn't enough sample data, so maybe some of these companies are rolling in dough. I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.
The hype dies down eventually so they have to launch eventually, really. Of course, it might take a while for those developers themselves to actually realize that. The fact that they made such lofty promises in the first place shows they're quite detached from reality, after all.
But, because they have resources to build pretty design docs and screenshots/videos made exclusively to legitimize an unrealistically scheduled and budgeted vision, folks will continue to fall for it.
I agree with the intent of your statement, @MadFrenchie, but can't help think many developers simply have a misunderstanding of what a design doc actually is. Most of the "design documents" I have seen appear to be more like a "white paper". At least, that's how I'd classify them. That's what happens when colleges start by teaching coding languages rather than project management and design methodology as the basis of IT or CS degrees.
Again, P.T. Barnum has the last laugh here.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
But, because they have resources to build pretty design docs and screenshots/videos made exclusively to legitimize an unrealistically scheduled and budgeted vision, folks will continue to fall for it.
I agree with the intent of your statement, @MadFrenchie, but can't help think many developers simply have a misunderstanding of what a design doc actually is. Most of the "design documents" I have seen appear to be more like a "white paper". At least, that's how I'd classify them. That's what happens when colleges start by teaching coding languages rather than project management and design methodology as the basis of IT or CS degrees.
Again, P.T. Barnum has the last laugh here.
Interesting context, appreciate you bringing it into the discussion.
It bothers me that some folks see it as solely the fault of those who fall for it. Almost all of us fall for the power of marketing or the convincing opinion of an apparent authority figure or celebrity in some ways in our lives. There's an entire industry based around the very real psychological effects of marketing. It's the reason many AAAs will spend equal amounts developing and marketing a title.
It boils down to an overload of information for the individual. The brain looks for ways to offload time needed to evaluate a financial decision by making assessments of the value of the decision based on incomplete information because there's simply not enough time in the day to do thorough research for every purchasing decision you make. Ceding to a perceived authority on the subject is a very common way the brain "cuts corners" to focus on more immediate concerns.
But, because they have resources to build pretty design docs and screenshots/videos made exclusively to legitimize an unrealistically scheduled and budgeted vision, folks will continue to fall for it.
I agree with the intent of your statement, @MadFrenchie, but can't help think many developers simply have a misunderstanding of what a design doc actually is. Most of the "design documents" I have seen appear to be more like a "white paper". At least, that's how I'd classify them. That's what happens when colleges start by teaching coding languages rather than project management and design methodology as the basis of IT or CS degrees.
Again, P.T. Barnum has the last laugh here.
Interesting context, appreciate you bringing it into the discussion.
It bothers me that some folks see it as solely the fault of those who fall for it. Almost all of us fall for the power of marketing or those he convincing opinion of an apparent authority figure or celebrity in some ways in our lives. There's an entire industry based around the very real psychological effects of marketing. It's the reason many AAAs will spend equal amounts developing and marketing a title.
It boils down to an overload of information for the individual. The brain looks for ways to offload time needed to evaluate a financial decision by making assessments of the value of the decision based on incomplete information because there's simply not enough time in the day to do thorough research for every purchasing decision you make. Ceding to a perceived authority on the subject is a very common way the brain "cuts corners" to focus on more immediate concerns.
Because we're all responsible for the choices we make. No one is a captive victim here. Everyone has the choice to just shrug it all off, move on, and enjoy other games or forms of entertainment.
Ceding to an authority is a choice made. Not everyone does it and if so then they should choose carefully. You talk as if people are entitled to take in more than they can handle and then shove the responsibility for their choices onto others. No, just no.
If we were talking about life needs, then it would be different, but we're not. We're talking about frivolity and distraction - entertainment.
This, again, ignores the entire industry built specifically on convincing folks, through psychological factors, to purchase a product.
Marketing is, in most cases, based not on objective facts about the product, but subjective boasting about the product from the company creating it.
Did you check the calories of the last soft drink you purchased? You may have gotten more (or less, depending upon your weight preferences) bang for your buck if you had chosen your other favorite drink; it has more (or less) calories.
Do you wear deodorant? You realize that isn't something that anyone needs, right? We were convinced by marketing that it was necessary and that folks who don't wear it are either disgusting or weirdos.
Father's day?? There wasn't even a classical religious rite to base that on; it was 100% marketing.
The world is rife with financial decisions made with incomplete information; when was the last time you ready through the complete TOS for the game you're currently playing? Now, multiply that times every program you have on your PC. Have you read all applicable license agreements and terms? Did you research every product on your PC against all competitors to compare and contrast the features reference the pricepoint? No? Then you're making decisions based on incomplete information, too. That's not to say you get to shirk all blame. But why present a false dichotomy?
When those standing to profit step in and use marketing as an attempt to convince you to make a financial decision, they get to share the blame if their attempts are less than realistic or genuine, specifically when they attempted to market themselves as an authority.
But, because they have resources to build pretty design docs and screenshots/videos made exclusively to legitimize an unrealistically scheduled and budgeted vision, folks will continue to fall for it.
I agree with the intent of your statement, @MadFrenchie, but can't help think many developers simply have a misunderstanding of what a design doc actually is. Most of the "design documents" I have seen appear to be more like a "white paper". At least, that's how I'd classify them. That's what happens when colleges start by teaching coding languages rather than project management and design methodology as the basis of IT or CS degrees.
Again, P.T. Barnum has the last laugh here.
Interesting context, appreciate you bringing it into the discussion.
It bothers me that some folks see it as solely the fault of those who fall for it. Almost all of us fall for the power of marketing or those he convincing opinion of an apparent authority figure or celebrity in some ways in our lives. There's an entire industry based around the very real psychological effects of marketing. It's the reason many AAAs will spend equal amounts developing and marketing a title.
It boils down to an overload of information for the individual. The brain looks for ways to offload time needed to evaluate a financial decision by making assessments of the value of the decision based on incomplete information because there's simply not enough time in the day to do thorough research for every purchasing decision you make. Ceding to a perceived authority on the subject is a very common way the brain "cuts corners" to focus on more immediate concerns.
Because we're all responsible for the choices we make. No one is a captive victim here. Everyone has the choice to just shrug it all off, move on, and enjoy other games or forms of entertainment.
Ceding to an authority is a choice made. Not everyone does it and if so then they should choose carefully. You talk as if people are entitled to take in more than they can handle and then shove the responsibility for their choices onto others. No, just no.
If we were talking about life needs, then it would be different, but we're not. We're talking about frivolity and distraction - entertainment.
This, again, ignores the entire industry built specifically on convincing folks, through psychological factors, to purchase a product.
Marketing is, in most cases, based not on objective facts about the product, but subjective boasting about the product from the company creating it.
Did you check the calories of the last soft drink you purchased? You may have gotten more (or less, depending upon your weight preferences) bang for your buck if you had chosen your other favorite drink; it has more (or less) calories.
Do you wear deodorant? You realize that isn't something that anyone needs, right? We were convinced by marketing that it was necessary and that folks who don't wear it are either disgusting or weirdos.
Father's day?? There wasn't even a classical religious rite to base that on; it was 100% marketing.
The world is rife with financial decisions made with incomplete information; when was the last time you ready through the complete TOS for the game you're currently playing? Now, multiply that times every program you have on your PC. Have you read all applicable license agreements and terms? Did you research every product on your PC against all competitors to compare and contrast the features reference the pricepoint? No? Then you're making decisions based on incomplete information, too. That's not to say you get to shirk all blame. But why present a false dichotomy?
When those standing to profit step in and use marketing as an attempt to convince you to make a financial decision, they get to share the blame if their attempts are less than realistic or genuine, specifically when they attempted to market themselves as an authority.
Whenever I see the old "no one needs to use it if they just act responsibly" argument I think I'm hearing that we should just let heroin dealers be since the real problem is the users.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
All of those decisions I choose to make. If I make a decision based on incomplete information then that's my choice.
There's no incongruency here. I rarely drink soda and I read the labels on most everything I buy so I understand the difference between "no sugar added" "lite" and "reduced sugar" on the same product.
I learn from bad decisions and try to make better ones. I take the information presented, even from biased sources and research that when necessary, when it matters. That's a choice I also make. I researched the NordicTrack because it's expensive. I didn't research much when I bought "Kingdoms and Castles" because it was just a few dollars and I didn't care past watching a few YouTube videos.
It's the perspective I think you're ignoring here.
I disagree that I am. Again, companies devote massive amounts of money solely to marketing (even video game and soda companies) for one reason: it works.
Marketing dollars do nothing to improve the merits of the product itself. The money only improves the chances that a consumer will buy the product based not on an objective review of the product against competitors, but based upon the feeling and information the marketer provides. Marketers don't want you independently verifying their products.
Those same marketers are literally able to use defenses like "the consumer is dumb for listening to us!" in court: Coca-Cola literally promised that their Vitaminwater would boost your immune system and fight free rads, but none of that even began to approach what could be distantly construed as true. It's sugar water. When called out, Coca-Cola acted surprised that anyone would believe what they were saying about a product they marketed as a health drink. That defense worked, despite all of Coca-Cola's marketing being basically a big flashing sign that said "this is delicious AND healthy! Buy it!"
Do you remember the Watch Dogs fiasco? Yet, you blame the players completely for buying the product and being misled? It's not that black and white, and ignoring either side's part is being disingenuous.
Edit- I sometimes think auto-correct is a step backwards for smart phones. >.<
Consumers are literally being bombarded by marketing and advertisement every minute of every day. To act as if anyone can independently verify such claims in every aspect is to be wilfully ignorant of how much we all depend on company marketing to help us make purchasing decisions.
And, unless you think that marketers should be allowed to lie directly to your face about a product with immunity, the companies share in the blame when they create unrealistic or misleading expectations. They have infinitely more resources to buy marketing than you have time to independently verify all the products you consider buying every day of your life. This incongruity in resources needed for two antagonistic transaction entities is the very reason things like false advertising are illegal.
"We're working on it and should have some very good results to show you, soon."
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
This project was fairly well organized from a marketing perspective. That generally bodes well. They discussed their lofty "gaming savior" ideas and then demonstrated how they'd like that vision to look in the game.
In my experience well organized centrally driven projects tend to be more enjoyable and better odds for success. There's no guarantees but a more organized project is always welcome to me.
Marketing has absolutely no correlation to game quality.
If Mr. Caspian had spent more time working on REALISTIC project gantt charts maybe he wouldn't have had to delay the project by a year.. and counting.
Give me $50k budget and I could have made an awesome sizzle reel, a slick web site and a kick ass powerpoint filled with buzzwords and lofty goals (I'd handle the PPT... the $50k would be to pay some artsy folks for the other parts). I'd have as much a chance of having delivered a functional game by 2017 as Caspian apparently did.. which was ZERO.
Post edited by Slapshot1188 on
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
the real question is, which comes out first, this or star citizen?
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Consumers are literally being bombarded by marketing and advertisement every minute of every day. To act as if anyone can independently verify such claims in every aspect is to be wilfully ignorant of how much we all depend on company marketing to help us make purchasing decisions.
And, unless you think that marketers should be allowed to lie directly to your face about a product with immunity, the companies share in the blame when they create unrealistic or misleading expectations. They have infinitely more resources to buy marketing than you have time to independently verify all the products you consider buying every day of your life. This incongruity in resources needed for two antagonistic transaction entities is the very reason things like false advertising are illegal.
Education is key. I'd wager the majority of social media users dont even realize its not a social platform, its for marketing and advertising. The education systems of the world are absurdly behind the net driven reality we are struggling to keep up with and its showing in the worst possible ways starting with a flat out rejection of said reality.
Luckily we have people like gdemami to set us all straight with his insight.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Consumers are literally being bombarded by marketing and advertisement every minute of every day. To act as if anyone can independently verify such claims in every aspect is to be wilfully ignorant of how much we all depend on company marketing to help us make purchasing decisions.
And, unless you think that marketers should be allowed to lie directly to your face about a product with immunity, the companies share in the blame when they create unrealistic or misleading expectations. They have infinitely more resources to buy marketing than you have time to independently verify all the products you consider buying every day of your life. This incongruity in resources needed for two antagonistic transaction entities is the very reason things like false advertising are illegal.
Education is key. I'd wager the majority of social media users dont even realize its not a social platform, its for marketing and advertising. The education systems of the world are absurdly behind the net driven reality we are struggling to keep up with and its showing in the worst possible ways starting with a flat out rejection of said reality.
Luckily we have people like gdemami to set us all straight with his insight.
as soon as you say "social media users" and education, well thats asking a lot to have those words together in the same sentence. I mean these are the same ppl that believe facebook articles written by russian and ukrainian hackers.
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
All of those decisions I choose to make. If I make a decision based on incomplete information then that's my choice.
There's no incongruency here. I rarely drink soda and I read the labels on most everything I buy so I understand the difference between "no sugar added" "lite" and "reduced sugar" on the same product.
I learn from bad decisions and try to make better ones. I take the information presented, even from biased sources and research that when necessary, when it matters. That's a choice I also make. I researched the NordicTrack because it's expensive. I didn't research much when I bought "Kingdoms and Castles" because it was just a few dollars and I didn't care past watching a few YouTube videos.
It's the perspective I think you're ignoring here.
I disagree that I am. Again, companies devote massive amounts of money solely to marketing (even video game and soda companies) for one reason: it works.
Marketing dollars do nothing to improve the merits of the product itself. The money only improves the chances that a consumer will buy the product based not on an objective review of the product against competitors, but based upon the feeling and information the marketer provides. Marketers don't want you independently verifying their products.
Those same marketers are literally able to use defenses like "the consumer is dumb for listening to us!" in court: Coca-Cola literally promised that their Vitaminwater would boost your immune system and fight free rads, but none of that even began to approach what could be distantly construed as true. It's sugar water. When called out, Coca-Cola acted surprised that anyone would believe what they were saying about a product they marketed as a health drink. That defense worked, despite all of Coca-Cola's marketing being basically a big flashing sign that said "this is delicious AND healthy! Buy it!"
Do you remember the Watch Dogs fiasco? Yet, you blame the players completely for buying the product and being misled? It's not that black and white, and ignoring either side's part is being disingenuous.
Edit- I sometimes think auto-correct is a step backwards for smart phones. >.<
First, I'm not blaming anybody for anything. That's you. Where did I say I blame anyone? I never said it was black and white either. I've said the opposite. Saying people need to be responsible for their decisions doesn't mean any of it is simple and easy.
I'm saying people need to take personal responsibility for their decisions. You keep implying that is a one-sided proposition (which I've not said). Why would only some people be responsible for their choices and actions? I've never said companies, advert agencies, publishers, and marketing entities shouldn't be held accountable or responsible for their actions either.
It's not my job to hold the rest of the world accountable for every injustice I perceive and I certainly don't feel obligated to judge everyone and justify any scenario you try to distill down to a simple binary. In many scenarios both parties are culpable to a greater or lesser degree. Don't expect me to justify any of that one way or another.
On the streets on NYC you can buy a "gold" bracelet for $50. Or play a game of 3 card Monte. Or maybe even buy a copy of the hot new movie that just opened for $4. Every single day hundreds of people (usually tourists) buy or play these things which of course ends with the discovery that they've been had.
As a guy who grew up in NY I can shake my head and say those folks should have known better... but the world is full of trusting... perhaps naive folks. Is it their fault? I dunno... maybe? But I DO know it's the fault of the scammer.
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
Then I misunderstood your argument Torval. I've never attempted to say that it is a binary choice, either; my point was to say it isn't so simple and there are a multitude of other factors that affect it. It's a spectrum, on which developers have been consistently turning the dial towards themselves with such timelines and pie-in-the-sky promises.
I don't generally let information in unless it passes the truth test. In my job I analyze and migrate large amounts of medical data between systems. Data has quality and in order to be useful it has to pass a bar. I treat most information and data that way. Anytime I see a claim the one of the first things I think is, "Oh yeah? Prove it."
I would've generally guessed, based upon your post history, that you would take such a rational viewpoint to things. You show the same here, and I do mean that in a positive way.
My issue with the marketing comes from something Tim mentioned: the internet has provided a means for advertising to reach us in ways never before possible, and governing bodies are either too slow or too timid to keep up. It's an issue that would serve us all well to attempt to resolve; not just for silly little things like video gaming, but for things that matter (like science topics and social issues).
But we may be digressing too deeply into philosophy at this point.
There is a large difference between making a decision with a lack of full information and making one while being bombarded with misinformation.
In Canada we've had a weekly TV show running for 45 years now called "Marketplace" that is all about exposing deceptive and fraudulent business practices (they actually have a lot of their shows online now: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/ )
Whether we're savvy enough to make informed decisions or not is not really a big part of the problem. Sophisticated manipulations and slick scams are.
EDIT: this episode about fake testimonials is a particularly good one
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Whether we're savvy enough to make informed decisions or not is not really a big part of the problem. Sophisticated manipulations and slick scams are.
Games are not under a major conspiracy to deceive, it's just the nature of development being highly unpredictable on all tiers, but big companies get away with NOT telling dates, or not even announcing the existence of the game for years, only announcing a date when the release is close, just like E3, 6 months - 1 year.
Crowdfunding doesn't get away with that, and there's a pressure to give dates right from the beginning, what faces on a far higher degree of exposure as that fluctuates.
People do not consider, that especially in Kickstarter the dates given are Estimates, one can't simply read from one estimate what they want so they later claim they've been deceived like the developer had made guarantees on it.
If people do not want to take that risk, then they should NOT buy into Kickstarter or Early Access, you should look for stuff like Pre-order programs instead.
Whenever I see the old "no one needs to use it if they just act responsibly" argument I think I'm hearing that we should just let heroin dealers be since the real problem is the users.
Games are not under any conspiracy to deceive, it's just the nature of development being highly unpredictable on all tiers, but big companies get away with NOT telling dates, or not even announcing the existence of the game for years, only announcing a date when the release is close, just like E3, 6 months - 1 year.
Crowdfunding doesn't get away with that, and there's a pressure to give dates right from the beginning, what faces on a far higher degree of exposure as that fluctuates.
People do not consider, that especially in Kickstarter the dates given are Estimates, one can't simply read from one estimate what they want so they later claim they've been deceived like the developer had made guarantees on it.
Seriously? Did you really think that COE and all the features they described were doable in 18 months?
Don't confuse legitimate delays with deliberate lies designed to increase interest because the announced launch date is more appealing to potential donors if it's sooner rather than later.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Whether we're savvy enough to make informed decisions or not is not really a big part of the problem. Sophisticated manipulations and slick scams are.
Games are not under a major conspiracy to deceive, it's just the nature of development being highly unpredictable on all tiers, but big companies get away with NOT telling dates, or not even announcing the existence of the game for years, only announcing a date when the release is close, just like E3, 6 months - 1 year.
Crowdfunding doesn't get away with that, and there's a pressure to give dates right from the beginning, what faces on a far higher degree of exposure as that fluctuates.
People do not consider, that especially in Kickstarter the dates given are Estimates, one can't simply read from one estimate what they want so they later claim they've been deceived like the developer had made guarantees on it.
If people do not want to take that risk, then they should NOT buy into Kickstarter or Early Access, you should look for stuff like Pre-order programs instead.
You act as if no business plan need be built to get traditional finding. The opposite is true; highly experienced investors are more stringent, not less.
Big companies don't "get away" with not giving dates; they're just not giving dates out to us because we're not the ones funding the endeavor.
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Now to just wait for the inevitable "Yeahhhh we're gonna take this money and run" update.
You just tell your followers that you have to delay without any new release date and how much you need their support.
Their support being money.
Then you keep raking in for years and declare any critical voice to be a hater.
There is actually plenty of evidence. Just look at any launched game and compare their revenues to that which they secured via crowdfunding. Secondly, the vast majority take on private investors, who will want to see some sort of return on their investment. Third, games are already behind the 8 ball when it comes to hype because they have to generate hype very early on, but actually deliver much later than more traditional products, depending on their state of completion. So can they actually regenerate the hype necessary to sustain a product once launched?
You're assuming that the money is good, but we really have no idea what their revenues look like. Unfortunately, the best we have is an example of something like Star Citizen which is anomalous and would probably be discarded by any statistician and SotA, which is in financial distress despite being the "...second most crowdfunding game in history...". So, with that in mind, I'd be very concerned if the business strategy of one of these developers was anything but to get to market as quickly as possible with a viable product. By outward appearances, it would seem that it's simply not a viable business model to sit back and wait. Who knows, though, there isn't enough sample data, so maybe some of these companies are rolling in dough. I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.
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
----------------
Again, P.T. Barnum has the last laugh here.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It bothers me that some folks see it as solely the fault of those who fall for it. Almost all of us fall for the power of marketing or the convincing opinion of an apparent authority figure or celebrity in some ways in our lives. There's an entire industry based around the very real psychological effects of marketing. It's the reason many AAAs will spend equal amounts developing and marketing a title.
It boils down to an overload of information for the individual. The brain looks for ways to offload time needed to evaluate a financial decision by making assessments of the value of the decision based on incomplete information because there's simply not enough time in the day to do thorough research for every purchasing decision you make. Ceding to a perceived authority on the subject is a very common way the brain "cuts corners" to focus on more immediate concerns.
Marketing is, in most cases, based not on objective facts about the product, but subjective boasting about the product from the company creating it.
Did you check the calories of the last soft drink you purchased? You may have gotten more (or less, depending upon your weight preferences) bang for your buck if you had chosen your other favorite drink; it has more (or less) calories.
Do you wear deodorant? You realize that isn't something that anyone needs, right? We were convinced by marketing that it was necessary and that folks who don't wear it are either disgusting or weirdos.
Father's day?? There wasn't even a classical religious rite to base that on; it was 100% marketing.
The world is rife with financial decisions made with incomplete information; when was the last time you ready through the complete TOS for the game you're currently playing? Now, multiply that times every program you have on your PC. Have you read all applicable license agreements and terms? Did you research every product on your PC against all competitors to compare and contrast the features reference the pricepoint? No? Then you're making decisions based on incomplete information, too. That's not to say you get to shirk all blame. But why present a false dichotomy?
When those standing to profit step in and use marketing as an attempt to convince you to make a financial decision, they get to share the blame if their attempts are less than realistic or genuine, specifically when they attempted to market themselves as an authority.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Marketing dollars do nothing to improve the merits of the product itself. The money only improves the chances that a consumer will buy the product based not on an objective review of the product against competitors, but based upon the feeling and information the marketer provides. Marketers don't want you independently verifying their products.
Those same marketers are literally able to use defenses like "the consumer is dumb for listening to us!" in court: Coca-Cola literally promised that their Vitaminwater would boost your immune system and fight free rads, but none of that even began to approach what could be distantly construed as true. It's sugar water. When called out, Coca-Cola acted surprised that anyone would believe what they were saying about a product they marketed as a health drink. That defense worked, despite all of Coca-Cola's marketing being basically a big flashing sign that said "this is delicious AND healthy! Buy it!"
Do you remember the Watch Dogs fiasco? Yet, you blame the players completely for buying the product and being misled? It's not that black and white, and ignoring either side's part is being disingenuous.
Edit- I sometimes think auto-correct is a step backwards for smart phones. >.<
And, unless you think that marketers should be allowed to lie directly to your face about a product with immunity, the companies share in the blame when they create unrealistic or misleading expectations. They have infinitely more resources to buy marketing than you have time to independently verify all the products you consider buying every day of your life. This incongruity in resources needed for two antagonistic transaction entities is the very reason things like false advertising are illegal.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
If Mr. Caspian had spent more time working on REALISTIC project gantt charts maybe he wouldn't have had to delay the project by a year.. and counting.
Give me $50k budget and I could have made an awesome sizzle reel, a slick web site and a kick ass powerpoint filled with buzzwords and lofty goals (I'd handle the PPT... the $50k would be to pay some artsy folks for the other parts). I'd have as much a chance of having delivered a functional game by 2017 as Caspian apparently did.. which was ZERO.
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
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
as soon as you say "social media users" and education, well thats asking a lot to have those words together in the same sentence. I mean these are the same ppl that believe facebook articles written by russian and ukrainian hackers.
As a guy who grew up in NY I can shake my head and say those folks should have known better... but the world is full of trusting... perhaps naive folks. Is it their fault? I dunno... maybe? But I DO know it's the fault of the scammer.
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
My issue with the marketing comes from something Tim mentioned: the internet has provided a means for advertising to reach us in ways never before possible, and governing bodies are either too slow or too timid to keep up. It's an issue that would serve us all well to attempt to resolve; not just for silly little things like video gaming, but for things that matter (like science topics and social issues).
But we may be digressing too deeply into philosophy at this point.
Whether we're savvy enough to make informed decisions or not is not really a big part of the problem. Sophisticated manipulations and slick scams are.
EDIT: this episode about fake testimonials is a particularly good one
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2015-2016/testimonials
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Crowdfunding doesn't get away with that, and there's a pressure to give dates right from the beginning, what faces on a far higher degree of exposure as that fluctuates.
People do not consider, that especially in Kickstarter the dates given are Estimates, one can't simply read from one estimate what they want so they later claim they've been deceived like the developer had made guarantees on it.
If people do not want to take that risk, then they should NOT buy into Kickstarter or Early Access, you should look for stuff like Pre-order programs instead.
Don't confuse legitimate delays with deliberate lies designed to increase interest because the announced launch date is more appealing to potential donors if it's sooner rather than later.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Big companies don't "get away" with not giving dates; they're just not giving dates out to us because we're not the ones funding the endeavor.