Right, but the reason those items are researched more heavily lies more with a long-term payment commitment, rather than a normal investigation into the purchase. You'll noticed you mentioned solely large ticket, financed items. Additionally, though the car salesman will attempt to make his product look as awesome ares possible, they also aren't offering the promise of ares car in the future; it's there, right in front of you, ready to be inspected to your heart's content.
Crowdfunded MMORPGs aren't cars or homes. They aren't as tangible; they don't have addresses nor do they exist in physical space. It's a much more abstract concept to attempt to investigate and evaluate. Crowdfunding developers don't even have to open their books to the consumer. It's not just that the consumer doesn't have a realistic chance to properly evaluate; they have no chance to properly evaluate until it's a post mortem. Then, it's too late.
Yeah but I also mentioned "hobby items".
Any time I buy something, if I'm concerned of the quality or whether or not I'm getting what I think I'm getting, I do a little research. I do this for restaurants as well.
I think this is just part of life.
Now it's true what you say that game companies are more difficult to research but I still don't think that's an excuse. If a company just pops up and says give us money and we'll give you x, y and z but there is no info, why would anyone do that?
It's easy enough to google the people involved and see what their pedigree is. If they have never done something then look at their presentation. If the game looks like it's very far along then it's possible you might get a final product. If it doesn't look like more than powerpoint then that's an issue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Your comment about restaurants doesn't jive with the analogy you seem to be attempting to pose.
For it to be accurate, you'd need to research the chef in the kitchen, just as you claim consumers should be researching project managers and involved employees in video game products in crowdfunding. Or, more apropos, you'd have to be referring (somehow) to doing your due diligence reference a diner that has yet to open, based upon the chefs they're hiring and those chefs' backgrounds, for the analogy to jive. I'd bet good money you don't do that for restaurants or any other item that's released. That's because you don't have to; you have a product itself to examine.
That's the thing: this isn't a simple business transaction. It's a promise based upon ideas. There's no product available at the time of purchase. You can't even compare it to research regarding released products or open businesses providing products, because they have not yet produced a product at all.
Your comment about restaurants doesn't jive with the analogy you seem to be attempting to pose.
For it to be accurate, you'd need to research the chef in the kitchen, just as you claim consumers should be researching project managers and involved employees in video game products in crowdfunding. Or, more apropos, you'd have to be referring (somehow) to doing your due diligence reference a diner that has yet to open, based upon the chefs they're hiring and those chefs' backgrounds, for the analogy to jive. I'd bet good money you don't do that for restaurants or any other item that's released. That's because you don't have to; you have a product itself to examine.
That's the thing: this isn't a simple business transaction. It's a promise based upon ideas. There's no product available at the time of purchase. You can't even compare it to research regarding released products or open businesses providing products, because they have not yet produced a product at all.
Yup! Sounds pretty risky, I wouldn't buy it if I were you.
Not sure why this even matters anymore. This studio has seriously compromised its own ability to generate funding for this title. How long do you think the piss-in-the-bucket million dollars they have is going to last them? If you ask me, I say all this crap they are putting out now is just laying the foundation for the inevitable "Well, we gave it our best shot" announcement......and they all know it.
That may be. Funding is always a potential problem with projects like these. Although their website indicates they have 3 million raised.
"May be"? Nahh, I'm calling it now. It's over. A thing like this is entirely dependent on momentum to sustain itself. And this project just doesn't have it.
Your comment about restaurants doesn't jive with the analogy you seem to be attempting to pose.
The poit being is that any time one does something, buys something, goes somewhere, etc, they should just do research.
I don't necessarily need to research the chef in the kitchen though in Boston that's not hard to do if you look into the restaurant.
The point is, if you are going to buy something, give money, invest in something, patronize something then you have to be an adult and either say "f*** it" I'll take my chances and accept the consequences or say "ok, these guys say they can do this, who are they, let's look into it."
Otherwise how do these people get through life? Do the constantly complain they were taken, that they had a bad experience, that they didn't get what they thought they would because 'they didn't know'"?
Maybe they do.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.
EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.
EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
Sorry for jumping in the middle of a such an intimate discussion!
But what do you mean by "you don't have to pledge money...."? Not being insulting or anything, I just want to make sure what you mean by that before stating my own opinion ^^
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.
EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
Sorry for jumping in the middle of a such an intimate discussion!
But what do you mean by "you don't have to pledge money...."? Not being insulting or anything, I just want to make sure what you mean by that before stating my own opinion ^^
It was in direct response to Sovrath's post. He mentioned that people should be researching the names behind the product before supporting it because, otherwise, how do they get through life?
But that level of product research isn't needed throughout life, because it's not the same thing at all as advertisements for, say, deodorant or restaurants. Those things have a product you can experience, reviews-be-damned.
These crowdfunded MMORPGs have no such product. It's fundamentally different than researching a product on the shelf. It's fundamentally more difficult for the average gamer to judge a product's worth based on promises. It's fundamentally less consumer-friendly to ask consumers to put down money for a hope and a prayer.
They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.
EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
Sorry for jumping in the middle of a such an intimate discussion!
But what do you mean by "you don't have to pledge money...."? Not being insulting or anything, I just want to make sure what you mean by that before stating my own opinion ^^
It was in direct response to Sovrath's post. He mentioned that people should be researching the names behind the product before supporting it because, otherwise, how do they get through life?
But that level of product research isn't needed throughout life, because it's not the same thing at all as advertisements for, say, deodorant or restaurants. Those things have a product you can experience, reviews-be-damned.
These crowdfunded MMORPGs have no such product. It's fundamentally different than researching a product on the shelf. It's fundamentally more difficult for the average gamer to judge a product's worth based on promises. It's fundamentally less consumer-friendly to ask consumers to put down money for a hope and a prayer.
There are also laws and regulations that nearly guarantee a restaurant's food is at least edible and that a detergent will at least work to some extent.
Not so much with crowd funding, which is practically a giant loophole way to get around all those silly laws and regulations that have to do with that nonsense thing known as "investing".
Again, Sovrath... You're not the normal person. The vast majority of gamers do not spend time every day on a gaming forum following game development. And they shouldn't have to to avoid being taken by predatory developers attempting to wow them with nothing but buzzwords and empty promises.
I do realize the snake oil salesman isn't a 1 to 1 analogy, but my point was that the consumers are bombarded with too much marketing information to attempt to imply they're the only ones who can be held accountable in these situations. It's unrealistic.
I agree that consumers shouldn't need to be feel the need to be highly educated on a subject but somewhat yes.
The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer. The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.
There are other ways to get around the law even when it does exist,businesses are just very corrupt in trying to basically steal your money or manipulate your spending.
Someone mentioned the AVERAGE consumer and to that i say 100% correct because i see it almost everyday.Go look at twitch MOST of those streamers are trying to make money from streaming games "99% of them",they spend their entire day just streaming,they are not following other games or educating themselves on game design and what devs are capable of doing,they just see $$$ and look for the popular trends,which right now is Blizzard.
So we are at a point where so many are trying to make money from gaming,it is like auto mode,Blizzard is popular so buy their games and get the most viewers.The other natural choice is the top Esport $$$.So neither are picking games out of quality+Fun,they simply look for popularity and potential $$$ and it is a snowball effect and a really tough train to derail.
The point is of course that COE is one of those deceptive studios,there are ways,FAIR ways to sell a product and they are not using those methods,it is like most other corrupt businesses,give us money first then we might let you take a peek at an unfinished product.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer. The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.
The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.
If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate. Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back. But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer. The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.
The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.
If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate. Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back. But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
Not a good comparison, with the Corvette you are buying a clearly defined product, so very easy to tell what should be delivered.
With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
No it won't. Asking for 1M, raising 3M, delaying the game for at least a year and only "making progress " is not proof of competence.
1 million to 3 million is irrelevant. Complex projects always have delays, it is to be expected even when led by experienced projects managers. So yes the only factor that reflects on their competence is the actual game. The rest is just malicious slander.
You keep using that word... yet it's blatantly obvious you have no idea what it means. Slander is when you make false statements about someone (you are probably meaning LIBEL which is writing them). Saying that the guy miscalculated his timeline, belittled those who challenged that timeline and delayed his project by at least a year is neither slander nor libel. It's called FACT.
Ah, internet semantics. The holdout of everyone that has no point. No... you clearly have no idea what is being said. People get timelines wrong (even experienced project managers) and he posted an angry reply to a few internet trolls. While not desirable, none of that reflects on their competence to actually produce a game.
So yes, harping on that they are incompetent because some people (maybe you included?) got an angry reply because of a few internet trolls is slander. Now you are upset and trying to damage their reputation. It is pretty clear to me what your agenda is.
In the real world if you miss deadlines you have to answer to your boss or board of directors or investors and you can bet your ass that when those deadlines are missed by more than 100%, questions about competence would be the least of the project manager's worries. Loosing your job and being relplaced would be a very probable outcome.
This it the crux of the matter really. They are NOT employees working for an employer or investors. This is a Kickstarter project. The risk analysis is totally different. People following or supporting a Kickstarter project should expect timelines to be missed far more than a lower risk project for a commercial company. Kickstarter is pie-in-the-sky until something solid is actually produced. Trying to compare this to a regular commercial project means you have missed the boat.
MadFrenchie said:When you then become aggressive with your backers
He didn't get aggressive with backers. His backers are all on his forum talking about the game. He got upset with non-backers trying to defame his project. If an actual backer got caught in the crossfire that is unfortunate but the reply was always targetted at trolls. That is pretty clear.
Again, Sovrath... You're not the normal person. The vast majority of gamers do not spend time every day on a gaming forum following game development. And they shouldn't have to to avoid being taken by predatory developers attempting to wow them with nothing but buzzwords and empty promises.
I do realize the snake oil salesman isn't a 1 to 1 analogy, but my point was that the consumers are bombarded with too much marketing information to attempt to imply they're the only ones who can be held accountable in these situations. It's unrealistic.
I'm sorry I think people/backers/consumers etc need to take some responsibility for themselves.
If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate. Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back. But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
I am pretty sure all of these Kickstarters come with disclaimers that the listed features are the target, not the guaranteed product. If they don't that is a serious oversight but if not the comparison does not work at all.
No it won't. Asking for 1M, raising 3M, delaying the game for at least a year and only "making progress " is not proof of competence.
1 million to 3 million is irrelevant. Complex projects always have delays, it is to be expected even when led by experienced projects managers. So yes the only factor that reflects on their competence is the actual game. The rest is just malicious slander.
You keep using that word... yet it's blatantly obvious you have no idea what it means. Slander is when you make false statements about someone (you are probably meaning LIBEL which is writing them). Saying that the guy miscalculated his timeline, belittled those who challenged that timeline and delayed his project by at least a year is neither slander nor libel. It's called FACT.
Ah, internet semantics. The holdout of everyone that has no point. No... you clearly have no idea what is being said. People get timelines wrong (even experienced project managers) and he posted an angry reply to a few internet trolls. While not desirable, none of that reflects on their competence to actually produce a game.
So yes, harping on that they are incompetent because some people (maybe you included?) got an angry reply because of a few internet trolls is slander. Now you are upset and trying to damage their reputation. It is pretty clear to me what your agenda is.
Actually no it's NOT slander. Slander would be saying (not writing) something untrue. Missing your timeline by a year plus obviously "reflects on their competence" and is a true statement so not libel.
If you can't see that, the problem is on your side.
PS: His "angry reply" wasn't to a few internet trolls on this forum but rather to customers on his own forum. Perhaps you should go find the link previously provided and read it.
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
Actually no it's NOT slander. Slander would be saying (not writing) something untrue. Missing your timeline by a year plus obviously "reflects on their competence" and is a true statement so not libel.
If you can't see that, the problem is on your side.
PS: His "angry reply" wasn't to a few internet trolls on this forum but rather to customers on his own forum. Perhaps you should go find the link previously provided and read it.
Saying/writing = semantics, my man. Kickstarter timeliness are bunk and making a big deal of it is pointless. Their competency will be judged when they actually release a product, playable demo or whatever, not because they hurt your feelings.
It doesn't matter where he posted it. The CoE forum community at large does not seem to have taken it personally which seems to indicate that they know it was not targeted at them.
... People get timelines wrong (even experienced project managers) ...
There's a big difference between "getting it wrong" and making a totally crazed estimate that you and your tiny team are the ones who can produce an MMORPG in 18 months when no one else in the history of MMORPG development has ever done it anywhere near that quickly. One is honest unavoidable slippage but the 18 month hype was either delusional or a deliberate lie.
That's the point you seem to consistently avoid discussing: the degree of wackyness in the original estimate. It's not that all projects slip, it's that some projects lie about the estimated dates to make the eventual game seem more within grasp for potential funders.
"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
They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.
EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
This is what I mean by "get through life".
It's just not that hard "but apparently it is".
One doesn't have to pledge to anything if they don't want to. I've brought this up before but I'll do it again, in the arts, "pledging" is a major component of "the scene". Organizations receive money and the use that money for new projects, series, seasons, "whatever".
There is no "product" to evaluate. And one can look into the individuals or the organization (if it's been around) and see who the players are.
If it's a new organization then one will either have to look into the people involved or maybe get some sort of taster of what they can do.
In the case of these crowd funded games, "someone" is asking for money. Why would anyone just give them money if there is no evidence they can deliver? One either steps up to the plate and does their due diligence, they look at the examples offered and take a chance based on that, or they don't give money.
I'm not going to excuse people because they can't run their lives.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This is why I don't buy or invest in anything. At all. Everything I own or make is from my own doing. This protects me from having to research every purchase/investment and trying to know everything!
In fact, I'm posting this message from a toaster I built myself. I live in the woods and pretty much built my own little civilization. It took a lot of study (a la Ark Engrams) and I learned a lot of things I didn't need to know... but look at me now! It's MY toaster and no snake-oil-salesman tricked me!
They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.
EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
This is what I mean by "get through life".
It's just not that hard "but apparently it is".
One doesn't have to pledge to anything if they don't want to. I've brought this up before but I'll do it again, in the arts, "pledging" is a major component of "the scene". Organizations receive money and the use that money for new projects, series, seasons, "whatever".
There is no "product" to evaluate. And one can look into the individuals or the organization (if it's been around) and see who the players are.
If it's a new organization then one will either have to look into the people involved or maybe get some sort of taster of what they can do.
In the case of these crowd funded games, "someone" is asking for money. Why would anyone just give them money if there is no evidence they can deliver? One either steps up to the plate and does their due diligence, they look at the examples offered and take a chance based on that, or they don't give money.
I'm not going to excuse people because they can't run their lives.
Pre-ordering and making pledges to Kickstarter are believed to be the same by many. Which is obviously wrong.
But... Devs are also enjoying this mistake and are not eager to differentiate it clearly because we can be sure, if everyone were completely aware of the difference between the two, campaigns wouldn't be getting as many supporters as they are getting now.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer. The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.
The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.
If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate. Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back. But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
Not a good comparison, with the Corvette you are buying a clearly defined product, so very easy to tell what should be delivered.
With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
Only, that's the issue in and of itself.
There's nothing at all to hold a developer to. People can talk about personal responsibility all they like, and I agree, but it doesn't excuse a system that's ripe for predatory marketing schemes all because you guys like to think of yourselves as too smart to fall for marketing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary permeating throughout our lives).
They're attempting to sell you on an idea for a product. When the description of that product is grossly inaccurate, or the folks building the project spend funds simply to further hype the product (while giving timelines to the public from a position of authority on the project), they can and should be held responsible for the timelines given.
Some folks think that, because this is software development, they shouldn't be held responsible for self-imposed deadlines. It's asinine.
The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer. The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.
The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.
If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate. Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back. But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
Not a good comparison, with the Corvette you are buying a clearly defined product, so very easy to tell what should be delivered.
With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
Only, that's the issue in and of itself.
There's nothing at all to hold a developer to. People can talk about personal responsibility all they like, and I agree, but it doesn't excuse a system that's ripe for predatory marketing schemes all because you guys like to think of yourselves as too smart to fall for marketing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary permeating throughout our lives).
They're attempting to sell you on an idea for a product. When the description of that product is grossly inaccurate, or the folks building the project spend funds simply to further hype the product (while giving timelines to the public from a position of authority on the project), they can and should be held responsible for the timelines given.
Some folks think that, because this is software development, they shouldn't be held responsible for self-imposed deadlines. It's asinine.
I agree the whole system has to change, especially when it comes down to video games.
But what's your suggestion? How do you think it's possible to hold them responsible after they missed a deadline?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Comments
Any time I buy something, if I'm concerned of the quality or whether or not I'm getting what I think I'm getting, I do a little research. I do this for restaurants as well.
I think this is just part of life.
Now it's true what you say that game companies are more difficult to research but I still don't think that's an excuse. If a company just pops up and says give us money and we'll give you x, y and z but there is no info, why would anyone do that?
It's easy enough to google the people involved and see what their pedigree is. If they have never done something then look at their presentation. If the game looks like it's very far along then it's possible you might get a final product. If it doesn't look like more than powerpoint then that's an issue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
For it to be accurate, you'd need to research the chef in the kitchen, just as you claim consumers should be researching project managers and involved employees in video game products in crowdfunding. Or, more apropos, you'd have to be referring (somehow) to doing your due diligence reference a diner that has yet to open, based upon the chefs they're hiring and those chefs' backgrounds, for the analogy to jive. I'd bet good money you don't do that for restaurants or any other item that's released. That's because you don't have to; you have a product itself to examine.
That's the thing: this isn't a simple business transaction. It's a promise based upon ideas. There's no product available at the time of purchase. You can't even compare it to research regarding released products or open businesses providing products, because they have not yet produced a product at all.
Yup! Sounds pretty risky, I wouldn't buy it if I were you.
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
----------------
I don't necessarily need to research the chef in the kitchen though in Boston that's not hard to do if you look into the restaurant.
The point is, if you are going to buy something, give money, invest in something, patronize something then you have to be an adult and either say "f*** it" I'll take my chances and accept the consequences or say "ok, these guys say they can do this, who are they, let's look into it."
Otherwise how do these people get through life? Do the constantly complain they were taken, that they had a bad experience, that they didn't get what they thought they would because 'they didn't know'"?
Maybe they do.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
But what do you mean by "you don't have to pledge money...."? Not being insulting or anything, I just want to make sure what you mean by that before stating my own opinion ^^
But that level of product research isn't needed throughout life, because it's not the same thing at all as advertisements for, say, deodorant or restaurants. Those things have a product you can experience, reviews-be-damned.
These crowdfunded MMORPGs have no such product. It's fundamentally different than researching a product on the shelf. It's fundamentally more difficult for the average gamer to judge a product's worth based on promises. It's fundamentally less consumer-friendly to ask consumers to put down money for a hope and a prayer.
Not so much with crowd funding, which is practically a giant loophole way to get around all those silly laws and regulations that have to do with that nonsense thing known as "investing".
The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer.
The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.
There are other ways to get around the law even when it does exist,businesses are just very corrupt in trying to basically steal your money or manipulate your spending.
Someone mentioned the AVERAGE consumer and to that i say 100% correct because i see it almost everyday.Go look at twitch MOST of those streamers are trying to make money from streaming games "99% of them",they spend their entire day just streaming,they are not following other games or educating themselves on game design and what devs are capable of doing,they just see $$$ and look for the popular trends,which right now is Blizzard.
So we are at a point where so many are trying to make money from gaming,it is like auto mode,Blizzard is popular so buy their games and get the most viewers.The other natural choice is the top Esport $$$.So neither are picking games out of quality+Fun,they simply look for popularity and potential $$$ and it is a snowball effect and a really tough train to derail.
The point is of course that COE is one of those deceptive studios,there are ways,FAIR ways to sell a product and they are not using those methods,it is like most other corrupt businesses,give us money first then we might let you take a peek at an unfinished product.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate. Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back. But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
So yes, harping on that they are incompetent because some people (maybe you included?) got an angry reply because of a few internet trolls is slander. Now you are upset and trying to damage their reputation. It is pretty clear to me what your agenda is.
If you can't see that, the problem is on your side.
PS: His "angry reply" wasn't to a few internet trolls on this forum but rather to customers on his own forum. Perhaps you should go find the link previously provided and read it.
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
It doesn't matter where he posted it. The CoE forum community at large does not seem to have taken it personally which seems to indicate that they know it was not targeted at them.
That's the point you seem to consistently avoid discussing: the degree of wackyness in the original estimate. It's not that all projects slip, it's that some projects lie about the estimated dates to make the eventual game seem more within grasp for potential funders.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
It's just not that hard "but apparently it is".
One doesn't have to pledge to anything if they don't want to. I've brought this up before but I'll do it again, in the arts, "pledging" is a major component of "the scene". Organizations receive money and the use that money for new projects, series, seasons, "whatever".
There is no "product" to evaluate. And one can look into the individuals or the organization (if it's been around) and see who the players are.
If it's a new organization then one will either have to look into the people involved or maybe get some sort of taster of what they can do.
In the case of these crowd funded games, "someone" is asking for money. Why would anyone just give them money if there is no evidence they can deliver? One either steps up to the plate and does their due diligence, they look at the examples offered and take a chance based on that, or they don't give money.
I'm not going to excuse people because they can't run their lives.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
In fact, I'm posting this message from a toaster I built myself. I live in the woods and pretty much built my own little civilization. It took a lot of study (a la Ark Engrams) and I learned a lot of things I didn't need to know... but look at me now! It's MY toaster and no snake-oil-salesman tricked me!
I'm so lonely out here.
But... Devs are also enjoying this mistake and are not eager to differentiate it clearly because we can be sure, if everyone were completely aware of the difference between the two, campaigns wouldn't be getting as many supporters as they are getting now.
There's nothing at all to hold a developer to. People can talk about personal responsibility all they like, and I agree, but it doesn't excuse a system that's ripe for predatory marketing schemes all because you guys like to think of yourselves as too smart to fall for marketing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary permeating throughout our lives).
They're attempting to sell you on an idea for a product. When the description of that product is grossly inaccurate, or the folks building the project spend funds simply to further hype the product (while giving timelines to the public from a position of authority on the project), they can and should be held responsible for the timelines given.
Some folks think that, because this is software development, they shouldn't be held responsible for self-imposed deadlines. It's asinine.
But what's your suggestion? How do you think it's possible to hold them responsible after they missed a deadline?