And my point was it's irrelevant what term they used. Plans, promises, wishful thinking while taking a shit on lunch... If they made them publicly known and it garnered them cash, we have every right to question the grounds upon which they are asking for money to support their development.
You literally ignored the line of reasoning as to why (the fact that they knowingly created financial gain through their crowdfunding with these statements) and attempted to play more semantics. Again, equivocation.
One thing is to give them money based on what they said and are liable to, the game that is currently released, was and is pitched on its sphere of confirmed features, the ships, the planets, the AI and boarding, mining, bounty hunting, trading, cargo transport, missions, etc... All that are stated confirmed features.
Now if you give them money because they plan to have cookies in the game, they get a financial gain but not from promising you that you will actually have the cookies.
That would be like you giving them money influenced by the end of June 3.0's release date, ignoring the disclaimers that such is one rough estimate based on its schedule. O.o
And my point was it's irrelevant what term they used. Plans, promises, wishful thinking while taking a shit on lunch... If they made them publicly known and it garnered them cash, we have every right to question the grounds upon which they are asking for money to support their development.
You literally ignored the line of reasoning as to why (the fact that they knowingly created financial gain through their crowdfunding with these statements) and attempted to play more semantics. Again, equivocation.
One thing is to give them money based on what they said and are liable to, the game that is currently released, was and is pitched on its sphere of confirmed features, the ships, the planets, the AI and boarding, mining, bounty hunting, trading, cargo transport, missions, etc... All that are stated confirmed features.
Now if you give them money because they plan to have cookies in the game, they get a financial gain but not from promising you that you will have cookies.
That would be like giving them money based on the end of June 3.0's release date, ignoring the disclaimers that such is one rough estimate based on its schedule.
Except that's exactly what crowdfunding has become: sell the dream up front, whip your backers back to reality later.
The reason I'm adamant about arguing this point with you has little do to with how you feel about SC personally. It has to do with an overall outlook and direction of crowdfunding. We've already seen developers start making pie in the sky comments and reneging on them after taking in funding based upon these comments. We should be holding these developers responsible for their words here, not absolving them. We no longer have the suits at EA to shield us from the unrealistic.
Except that's exactly what crowdfunding has become: sell the dream up front, whip your backers back to reality later.
The reason I'm adamant about arguing this point with you has little do to with how you feel about SC personally. It has to do with an overall outlook and direction of crowdfunding. We've already seen developers start making pie in the sky comments and reneging on them after taking in funding based upon these comments. We should be holding these developers responsible for their words here, not absolving them. We no longer have the suits at EA to shield us from the unrealistic.
And they did, with the BASE game, all that is the fundamental core of what the game is, since KS and the stretch goals are exactly the core of what is the promise.
Now what I am talking here is that massive scope increase we had past-stretch goals, there's part of that that was put under confirmed features, PG Planets is the highlight of this, and what have been mentioned but not confirmed.
So when it comes to accountability, it should set on the former, not the later. It is one of the things I talk a lot with other Backers, what they plan SC to be and what they promise SC to be.
Except that's exactly what crowdfunding has become: sell the dream up front, whip your backers back to reality later.
The reason I'm adamant about arguing this point with you has little do to with how you feel about SC personally. It has to do with an overall outlook and direction of crowdfunding. We've already seen developers start making pie in the sky comments and reneging on them after taking in funding based upon these comments. We should be holding these developers responsible for their words here, not absolving them. We no longer have the suits at EA to shield us from the unrealistic.
And they did, with the BASE game, all that is the fundamental core of what the game is, since KS and the stretch goals are exactly the core of what is the promise.
Now what I am talking here is that massive scope increase we had past-stretch goals, there's part of that that was put under confirmed features, PG Planets is the highlight of this, and what have been mentioned but not confirmed.
So when it comes to accountability, it should set on the former, not the later. It is one of the things I talk a lot with other Backers on what they plan SC to be and what they promise SC to be.
Placing the responsibility on average gamers to try and gauge what a team can do in X amount of time with Y amount of money is ludicrous, in my opinion. It ignores one of the advantages of traditional funding; the folks who provided that funding had exponentially more knowledge and experience assessing the reality of the project. They also had more access and control over the project.
Are you attempting to assert that your average gamer should be as versed as traditional investors in the possibilities and realities of the project? If not, then you're shafting the average gamer by contending they should have the same level of responsibility in that role. It's akin to trying to convince Jerry Jones that he should allow the fans to choose what players they should draft. It's insane, because there are entire careers built around attempting to discern the most valuable picks and sometimes even these experts' picks don't pan out. In the same manner, the average gamer does not have the expertise to discern what kind of project scope is possible. We just don't have the training nor the insider knowledge to make an educated enough assessment of the developer, the appeal, or the restraints.
Except that's exactly what crowdfunding has become: sell the dream up front, whip your backers back to reality later.
The reason I'm adamant about arguing this point with you has little do to with how you feel about SC personally. It has to do with an overall outlook and direction of crowdfunding. We've already seen developers start making pie in the sky comments and reneging on them after taking in funding based upon these comments. We should be holding these developers responsible for their words here, not absolving them. We no longer have the suits at EA to shield us from the unrealistic.
I'm sure investors and suits were dealing with this long before the crowdfunding audience was. The problem with your premise is in development there are many things that would seem to work on paper and in theory, yet prove problematic or unfun later.
A lot of those problems would require a crystal ball to foresee. I completely understand the want to hold devs to their promises, however there is also a need to understand the inner complexities of development, especially for those who donate money to these companies, then in turn want to hold them accountable to everything they say..
We've seen this numerous times in the MMO industry. from SWG's battlegrounds to AOC's Bar Brawls, features get nixed because they're not working out. Not to mention whole games that have been scrapped because of this reality in development (titan, the agency, EQ next) etc...
With SC or anything else there are two sides to this story, both have legitimate reasons to state their case.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Except that's exactly what crowdfunding has become: sell the dream up front, whip your backers back to reality later.
The reason I'm adamant about arguing this point with you has little do to with how you feel about SC personally. It has to do with an overall outlook and direction of crowdfunding. We've already seen developers start making pie in the sky comments and reneging on them after taking in funding based upon these comments. We should be holding these developers responsible for their words here, not absolving them. We no longer have the suits at EA to shield us from the unrealistic.
I'm sure investors and suits were dealing with this long before the crowdfunding audience was. The problem with your premise is in development there are many things that would seem to work on paper and in theory, yet prove problematic or unfun later.
A lot of those problems would require a crystal ball to foresee. I completely understand the want to hold devs to their promises, however there is also a need to understand the inner complexities of development, especially for those who donate money to these companies, then in turn want to hold them accountable to everything they say..
We've seen this numerous times in the MMO industry. from SWG's battlegrounds to AOC's Bar Brawls, features get nixed because they're not working out. Not to mention whole games that have been scrapped because of this reality in development (titan, the agency, EQ next) etc...
With SC or anything else there are two sides to this story, both have legitimate reasons to state their case.
I can certainly agree that some things are unforeseen. But again, the developers chose crowdfunding because traditional investment would not support such a scope. That should already be an indicator that mayyyybbeee the scope is a little extensive. If I'm not mistaken, Chris has even indicated as much: he states one of the benefits of using crowdfunding is that he doesn't have to cut large swathes of his vision for the project out due to investor pressure. And, quite frankly, no individual crowdfunder has the power to put that pressure on Chris and CIG now. Crowdfunding seems to work much better with developers who are creating admittedly niche titles and simply need an indication that there is, in fact, a niche large enough to support their efforts. At over $141 million raised, Chris isn't creating a niche title anymore. Battlefield 4, for example, was created for only around $100 million.
Why consumers seem to always want to err on the side of producers in these matters baffles me. In crowdfunding, we have less control, we have less access, we have less resources to guide our spending on the hobby but are persuaded to spend more than we ever would've dreamed on traditionally funded projects, yet this is seen as an improvement over traditional funding? I'm beginning to feel strongly that crowdfunding would be better served as solely a gauge of popular support to nudge traditional investors in a certain direction, or for those smaller studios that are trying to cater to a passionate niche core of backers.
Are you attempting to assert that your average gamer should be as versed as traditional investors in the possibilities and realities of the project?
No, my point was simply locked to the reality of what was promised and confirmed to be part of the game, and what is beyond base game pitch and its stretch goals.
I'm not sure why you go on such a mad complex response over something to straightforward and simple as the amount of things that have been mentioned but not confirmed.
''locked to the reality of what was promised'' sounds simple enough. How real is a promise?
"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
Are you attempting to assert that your average gamer should be as versed as traditional investors in the possibilities and realities of the project?
No, my point was simply locked to the reality of what was promised and confirmed to be part of the game, and what is beyond base game pitch and its stretch goals.
I'm sure why you go on such a mad complex response over something to straightforward and simple as the amount of things that have been mentioned but not confirmed.
It's because you admit that the average gamer does not have the knowledge to properly assess the statements, plans, or promises of the developers, but you wish to hold them to the same level of responsibility for backing the project as those with the knowledge to properly vet and wade through the persuasive rhetoric. And, you wish to further absolve the developers for profiting off of the ignorance of the gamers compared to traditional investors. That's a strange position to defend, from the average gamer's point of view.
''locked to the reality of what was promised'' sounds simple enough. How real is a promise?
Being stated as one would be a start to make a real promise.
As you said it yourself, if the disclaimer is there, making it a possibility, then it is not a promise. Beyond that it will be up to each individual and their understanding of the English language to claim what was said was a promise or not.
It's because you admit that the average gamer does not have the knowledge to properly assess the statements, plans, or promises of the developers, but you wish to hold them to the same level of responsibility for backing the project as those with the knowledge to properly vet and wade through the persuasive rhetoric. And, you wish to further absolve the developers for profiting off of the ignorance of the gamers compared to traditional investors. That's a strange position to defend, from the average gamer's point of view.
What about the knowledge of the English language?
Like the guys who maintain this promise tracker and the "Mining in 3.0" labeled as a promise, what degree of ignorance would it take to read the information available on it and still claim it was promised?
Most of this are simply answers to Backer questions, the way the answers are given, either it is "we will have X feature", or "we plan to have X feature", does not require any knowledge side of understanding of English to know which one is the confirmation and which one is the possibility.
It's because you admit that the average gamer does not have the knowledge to properly assess the statements, plans, or promises of the developers, but you wish to hold them to the same level of responsibility for backing the project as those with the knowledge to properly vet and wade through the persuasive rhetoric. And, you wish to further absolve the developers for profiting off of the ignorance of the gamers compared to traditional investors. That's a strange position to defend, from the average gamer's point of view.
What about the knowledge of the English language?
Like the guys who maintain this promise tracker and the "Mining in 3.0" labeled as a promise, what degree of ignorance would it take to read the information available on it and still claim it was promised?
Most of this are simply answers to Backer questions, the way the answers are given, either it is "we will have X feature", or "we plan to have X feature", does not require any knowledge side of understanding of English to know wich one confirms the feature.
Well... Have you taken a look at the White House lately? It's been very, very well-proven that this isn't a matter of simply "understanding the English language"... Rhetoric is a powerful tool, and you don't have to be a 5th grader to fall for it.
And again, as @Distopia mentioned, suits more than likely deal with this on a daily basis. Only, as I've said repeatedly now, they are exponentially better equipped to discern the limitations of the project, meaning where the average gamer sees "We plan to have X feature" and goes "okay, sure, sounds cool!" the suit goes "Nuh uh, not with the way progress is going on the features we've already added." This is because they have (again) more experience, training, insider knowledge, control, and resources to reign in that unreasonable and focus development on the reasonable. They also have the small benefit of getting a financial return on their investment, as well. Backers don't get that, either. And before you say "the game is the return!", you'll have to explain to me why traditional investors aren't allowed/capable of enjoying the games they funded, too.
meaning where the average gamer sees "We plan to have X feature" and goes "okay, sure, sounds cool!" the suit goes "Nuh uh, not with the way progress is going on the features we've already added." This is because they have (again) more experience, training, insider knowledge, control, and resources to reign in that unreasonable and focus development on the reasonable. They also have the small benefit of getting a financial return on their investment, as well. Backers don't get that, either. And before you say "the game is the return!", you'll have to explain to me why traditional investors aren't allowed/capable of enjoying the games they funded, too.
You claim gamers don't have the knowledge and ability to understand, I'm contesting that this is a matter of understanding the English language. And this goes beyond gaming...
If this poor little ignorant gamers look at the schedule page and don't understand the disclaimers, making them expect the next update estimate release as a promise... is the one at fault the developer?!
meaning where the average gamer sees "We plan to have X feature" and goes "okay, sure, sounds cool!" the suit goes "Nuh uh, not with the way progress is going on the features we've already added." This is because they have (again) more experience, training, insider knowledge, control, and resources to reign in that unreasonable and focus development on the reasonable. They also have the small benefit of getting a financial return on their investment, as well. Backers don't get that, either. And before you say "the game is the return!", you'll have to explain to me why traditional investors aren't allowed/capable of enjoying the games they funded, too.
You claim gamers don't have the knowledge and ability to understand, I'm contesting that this is a matter of understanding the English language. And this goes beyond gaming...
Now, this would require quite the level of entitlement when we are talking about things that are beyond the PITCHED game and its STRETCH GOALS, the pitched game, and its stretch goals are the core promises.
If this poor little ignorant gamers look at the schedule page and don't understand the disclaimers, making them expect the next update estimate release as a promise... is the one at fault the developer?!
Who said they didn't understand the words written? I said that a suit would look at that and, using his resources and knowledge (YET again), make a judgement on the possibilities of this before approving funding/additional funding for such things. Why are you ignoring my point to attempt to argue this inane piece about reading comprehension?
It's not about reading comprehension. It's about the effect of the schedule on a gamer without the know-how to look at it and go "Yea, not likely". Gamers aren't equipped to make that assessment, so they're more susceptible to buying in according to what the developer claims is possible, rather than an objective and independent assessment of what's possible. CIG and company aren't oblivious to this fact. They know that placing things on that schedule indicates to gamers that it will be done, even if they don't "promise" it. Gamers have nothing to gauge this with other than the developer's word, because the vast, vast majority are completely ignorant of game design or, hell, even computer program design in general. Crowdfunding has melded development and advertising into this one, homogeneous beast. Expecting a gamer to attempt to navigate that with the expertise of a suit is silly.
Who said they didn't understand the words written? I said that a suit would look at that and, using his resources and knowledge (YET again), make a judgement on the possibilities of this before approving funding/additional funding for such things. Why are you ignoring my point to attempt to argue this inane piece about reading comprehension?
It's not about reading comprehension. It's about the effect of the schedule on a gamer without the know-how to look at it and go "Yea, not likely". Gamers aren't equipped to make that assessment, so they're more susceptible to buying in according to what the developer claims is possible, rather than an objective and independent assessment of what's possible. CIG and company aren't oblivious to this fact. They know that placing things on that schedule indicates to gamers that it will be done, even if they don't "promise" it. Gamers have nothing to gauge this with other than the developer's word, because the vast, vast majority are completely ignorant of game design or, hell, even computer program design in general. Crowdfunding has melded development and advertising into this one, homogeneous beast. Expecting a gamer to attempt to navigate that with the expertise of a suit is silly.
But that is not wrong to do if the disclaimers are there, I can understand them perfectly, I know some people will miss/ignore/misunderstand them, but that does not put them in the right because they did so. It's like reading (if even) and agreeing with one ToS.
You should note that none of what I am mentioning was used to actually gather funding for such things, everything that was presented on a direct public exposure for the crowdfund, was the pitched game and its stretch goals.
This is not the same as a stretch goal to fund the game, put in as a plan and not something that people paid for that they would be liable to deliver.
The layer where this mentions and unconfirmed features are is far from that, we're talking developer answers in a forum, chat, Reddit, Q&A shows and livestreams. I see this degree of interaction on many under development and even released games that are more open to talking about their plans for their game.
Who said they didn't understand the words written? I said that a suit would look at that and, using his resources and knowledge (YET again), make a judgement on the possibilities of this before approving funding/additional funding for such things. Why are you ignoring my point to attempt to argue this inane piece about reading comprehension?
It's not about reading comprehension. It's about the effect of the schedule on a gamer without the know-how to look at it and go "Yea, not likely". Gamers aren't equipped to make that assessment, so they're more susceptible to buying in according to what the developer claims is possible, rather than an objective and independent assessment of what's possible. CIG and company aren't oblivious to this fact. They know that placing things on that schedule indicates to gamers that it will be done, even if they don't "promise" it. Gamers have nothing to gauge this with other than the developer's word, because the vast, vast majority are completely ignorant of game design or, hell, even computer program design in general. Crowdfunding has melded development and advertising into this one, homogeneous beast. Expecting a gamer to attempt to navigate that with the expertise of a suit is silly.
But that is not wrong to do if the disclaimers are there, I can understand them perfectly, I know some people will miss/ignore/misunderstand them, but that does not put them in the right because they did so. It's like reading (if even) and agreeing with one ToS.
You should note that none of what I am mentioning was used to actually gather funding for such things, everything that was presented on a direct public exposure for the crowdfund, was the pitched game and its stretch goals.
This is not the same as a stretch goal to fund the game, put in as a plan and not something that people paid for that they would be liable to deliver.
The layer where this mentions and unconfirmed features are is far from that, we're talking developer answers in a forum, chat, Reddit, Q&A shows and livestreams. I see this degree of interaction on many under development and even released games that are more open to talking about their plans for their game.
Again, this is why you can't hold gamers to the same responsibility. The method by which they interact with backers as opposed to traditional investors is much different. And it is certainly not lending more control or information to backers than what suits get. I will grant CIG that they have become more open towards sharing inside information with backers, but again, the backers aren't equipped to consider that in any context other than "I wanna see this game happen, they're saying it can if I help fund it!" That's WHY they're backers, because they want to experience the grand vision Chris has put forth for the game. That's a very dangerous position to put the consumer in and also expect them to be able to make an objective and unemotional assessment of the statements made by the developers behind the vision. I don't see the equity in saying that we should not adjust the responsibilities of the involved parties accordingly.
Again, this is why you can't hold gamers to the same responsibility. The method by which they interact with backers as opposed to traditional investors is much different. And it is certainly not lending more control or information to backers than what suits get. I will grant CIG that they have become more open towards sharing inside information with backers, but again, the backers aren't equipped to consider that in any context other than "I wanna see this game happen, they're saying it can if I help fund it!" That's WHY they're backers, because they want to experience the grand vision Chris has put forth for the game. That's a very dangerous position to put the consumer in and also expect them to be able to make an objective and unemotional assessment of the statements made by the developers behind the vision. I don't see the equity in saying that we should not adjust the responsibilities of the involved parties accordingly.
But this is not one investor > developers relation so it shouldn't be the same method, the norm of crowdfund is not very different from a normal game dev > community interaction.
In terms of gamers it's all very random. The entitlement is huge, we see many gamers buying one early access game at steam and refunding it because it's buggy, crashy and/or performs bad while leaving angry rant reviews about it; the disclaimers that one early access game implies are there ignored by such people, the program keeps on running as before independent of such ignorance.
Side of the gamer sphere, as my original point is pretty much the guys maintaining this tracker ignoring the context and the full factual information when painting something as a promise, now there's someone who doesn't have that excuse, resulting in misinformation.
Again, this is why you can't hold gamers to the same responsibility. The method by which they interact with backers as opposed to traditional investors is much different. And it is certainly not lending more control or information to backers than what suits get. I will grant CIG that they have become more open towards sharing inside information with backers, but again, the backers aren't equipped to consider that in any context other than "I wanna see this game happen, they're saying it can if I help fund it!" That's WHY they're backers, because they want to experience the grand vision Chris has put forth for the game. That's a very dangerous position to put the consumer in and also expect them to be able to make an objective and unemotional assessment of the statements made by the developers behind the vision. I don't see the equity in saying that we should not adjust the responsibilities of the involved parties accordingly.
But this is not one investor > developers relation so it shouldn't be the same method, the norm of crowdfund is not very different from a normal game dev > community interaction.
In terms of gamers it's all very random. The entitlement is huge, we see many gamers buying one early access game at steam and refunding it because it's buggy, crashy and/or performs bad while leaving angry rant reviews about it; the disclaimers that one early access game implies are there ignored by such people, the program keeps on running as before independent of such ignorance.
Side of the gamer sphere, as my original point is pretty much the guys maintaining this tracker ignoring the context and the full factual information when painting something as a promise, now there's someone who doesn't have that excuse, resulting in misinformation.
Right, it's very similar to dev > community interaction, which is the problem, because they aren't just the community when they're propping you up with the funds to complete the project. They're more akin to investors that, oddly enough, have waived any right to a financial return (also mind-boggling to me, honestly). Only, they are in an inherently disadvantaged position when compared to traditional investors assessing a project and its progress. It only follows that there needs to be a counterbalance to that to maintain an equity in the relationship as defined by their effective roles in the project, not by the drummed up label we wish to put on their new, hybrid role of fan and piggy bank.
Right, it's very similar to dev > community interaction, which is the problem, because they aren't just the community when they're propping you up with the funds to complete the project. They're more akin to investors that, oddly enough, have waived any right to a financial return (also mind-boggling to me, honestly). Only, they are in an inherently disadvantaged position when compared to traditional investors assessing a project and its progress. It only follows that there needs to be a counterbalance to that to maintain an equity in the relationship as defined by their effective roles in the project, not by the drummed up label we wish to put on their new, hybrid role of fan and piggy bank.
Counterbalance will be the continuous progress of this game through the direction of its promise. It's about the game, its dev progress, and its delivery within updates.
I think it's a very sad state of affairs when you have people raising money, considerable amounts of money, by making statements that are made to sound as good as a promise and then you have people defending the failure to deliver on those things by saying that technically it wasn't a promise.
There's quite a list of things from the initial pitch that have been walked back on. If those things were brought up people would defend their absence by pointing to ambiguous comments claiming they will be implemented at a later date.
Ergo, you have people defending the absence of what they call a "maybe" by pointing out that it was not a promise and then defending the absence of promises by pointing to a "maybe". Amusing stuff.
The list being maintained by the Goons .. VERY bad idea. The Goons and SomethingAwful.com are well known for metagaming, propaganda and manipulation. And they are proud of it. Take a look at EVE Online for their modus operandi. The SA forum is a forum for trolls ... and also proud of it. The Goons and their spawning ground SA are a dedicated anti-SC group for years now ... and also proud of that.
Something to keep in mind before a decision is made to keep this as a sticky post or not.
I think it's a very sad state of affairs when you have people raising money, considerable amounts of money, by making statements that are made to sound as good as a promise and then you have people defending the failure to deliver on those things by saying that technically it wasn't a promise.
There's quite a list of things from the initial pitch that have been walked back on. If those things were brought up people would defend their absence by pointing to ambiguous comments claiming they will be implemented at a later date.
Ergo, you have people defending the absence of what they call a "maybe" by pointing out that it was not a promise and then defending the absence of promises by pointing to a "maybe". Amusing stuff.
Eh? what yo mean "as good as a promise"? It's either a promise or not. Saying "I hope", "we would like to", to me, isn't a promise. There's a chance it could or could not happen. If you interpret it as a promise, that's on you i'm afraid.
If my mate said, I hope to get to x event by 9pm, and I go out my way to buy us tickets based on that maybe, If he turns up later, I can't then have a go at him as he never said he would be there at 9. While you can say he got your hopes up and probably should have no said anything, you were the one you bought a ticket based on a maybe.
Also think you're jumping the gun in the second and last part as so far they've only been talking about features that weren't promised, they haven't moved on to ones that were an actual promise, but if you want to get that going, a list of them would be useful to start
Herase said:Eh? what yo mean "as good as a promise"? It's either a promise or not. Saying "I hope", "we would like to", to me, isn't a promise. There's a chance it could or could not happen. If you interpret it as a promise, that's on you i'm afraid.
If my mate said, I hope to get to x event by 9pm, and I go out my way to buy us tickets based on that maybe, If he turns up later, I can't then have a go at him as he never said he would be there at 9.
Also think you're jumping the gun in the second and last part as so far they've only been talking about features that weren't promised, they haven't moved on to ones that were an actual promise, but if you want to get that going, a list of them would be useful to start
We're not talking about "We would like to...." We are talking about definitive statements that stop just short of literally saying "promise", that is what I'm referring to when I say "as good as a promise".
Your mate is not a business selling you an item, your mate is not using embellished wording to make himself or his intentions or his product sound better than they really are with the express intention of receiving more money. There are different expectations written in law when it comes to personal and business statements.
I'm just highlighting the contradictory nature that people use, their desire to defend the project quite often leads to them contradicting other points they try to make.
If you want to look at previous definitive statements you only need to look at the pitch videos/kickstarter list and various other media from around that period, there's also been more than enough examples of things over time. Lots of money was taken on repeated usage of "Star Citizen will have..." "Star Citizen will do..." and so on. It was one of my personal gripes right from the beginning because it is endemic with developers and yet here is a game claiming to go far beyond what most developers would want to do and they are still making promises, there is no way they would be certain they could deliver on all of these things.
Eh? what yo mean "as good as a promise"? It's either a promise or not. Saying "I hope", "we would like to", to me, isn't a promise. There's a chance it could or could not happen. If you interpret it as a promise, that's on you i'm afraid.
Also think you're jumping the gun in the second and last part as so far they've only been talking about features that weren't promised, they haven't moved on to ones that were an actual promise, but if you want to get that going, a list of them would be useful to start
Yup, or it is or it isn't, my point lies a lot on this silly tracker on things manipulated and twisted as a promise when there clearly wasn't one.
The extreme point he made is ridiculous, when there is simply both sides of the spectrum, what was promised and confirmed, this is pretty much the pitched game, they haven't been talking anything mostly about features not confirmed, in fact on they have confirmed a number of features instead, in highlight PG Planets and all the bits that are coming with it like more focused survival mechanics.
Comments
Now if you give them money because they plan to have cookies in the game, they get a financial gain but not from promising you that you will actually have the cookies.
That would be like you giving them money influenced by the end of June 3.0's release date, ignoring the disclaimers that such is one rough estimate based on its schedule. O.o
Except that's exactly what crowdfunding has become: sell the dream up front, whip your backers back to reality later.
The reason I'm adamant about arguing this point with you has little do to with how you feel about SC personally. It has to do with an overall outlook and direction of crowdfunding. We've already seen developers start making pie in the sky comments and reneging on them after taking in funding based upon these comments. We should be holding these developers responsible for their words here, not absolving them. We no longer have the suits at EA to shield us from the unrealistic.
Now what I am talking here is that massive scope increase we had past-stretch goals, there's part of that that was put under confirmed features, PG Planets is the highlight of this, and what have been mentioned but not confirmed.
So when it comes to accountability, it should set on the former, not the later. It is one of the things I talk a lot with other Backers, what they plan SC to be and what they promise SC to be.
Placing the responsibility on average gamers to try and gauge what a team can do in X amount of time with Y amount of money is ludicrous, in my opinion. It ignores one of the advantages of traditional funding; the folks who provided that funding had exponentially more knowledge and experience assessing the reality of the project. They also had more access and control over the project.
Are you attempting to assert that your average gamer should be as versed as traditional investors in the possibilities and realities of the project? If not, then you're shafting the average gamer by contending they should have the same level of responsibility in that role. It's akin to trying to convince Jerry Jones that he should allow the fans to choose what players they should draft. It's insane, because there are entire careers built around attempting to discern the most valuable picks and sometimes even these experts' picks don't pan out. In the same manner, the average gamer does not have the expertise to discern what kind of project scope is possible. We just don't have the training nor the insider knowledge to make an educated enough assessment of the developer, the appeal, or the restraints.
I'm sure investors and suits were dealing with this long before the crowdfunding audience was. The problem with your premise is in development there are many things that would seem to work on paper and in theory, yet prove problematic or unfun later.
A lot of those problems would require a crystal ball to foresee. I completely understand the want to hold devs to their promises, however there is also a need to understand the inner complexities of development, especially for those who donate money to these companies, then in turn want to hold them accountable to everything they say..
We've seen this numerous times in the MMO industry. from SWG's battlegrounds to AOC's Bar Brawls, features get nixed because they're not working out. Not to mention whole games that have been scrapped because of this reality in development (titan, the agency, EQ next) etc...
With SC or anything else there are two sides to this story, both have legitimate reasons to state their case.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I can certainly agree that some things are unforeseen. But again, the developers chose crowdfunding because traditional investment would not support such a scope. That should already be an indicator that mayyyybbeee the scope is a little extensive. If I'm not mistaken, Chris has even indicated as much: he states one of the benefits of using crowdfunding is that he doesn't have to cut large swathes of his vision for the project out due to investor pressure. And, quite frankly, no individual crowdfunder has the power to put that pressure on Chris and CIG now. Crowdfunding seems to work much better with developers who are creating admittedly niche titles and simply need an indication that there is, in fact, a niche large enough to support their efforts. At over $141 million raised, Chris isn't creating a niche title anymore. Battlefield 4, for example, was created for only around $100 million.
Why consumers seem to always want to err on the side of producers in these matters baffles me. In crowdfunding, we have less control, we have less access, we have less resources to guide our spending on the hobby but are persuaded to spend more than we ever would've dreamed on traditionally funded projects, yet this is seen as an improvement over traditional funding? I'm beginning to feel strongly that crowdfunding would be better served as solely a gauge of popular support to nudge traditional investors in a certain direction, or for those smaller studios that are trying to cater to a passionate niche core of backers.
I'm not sure why you go on such a mad complex response over something to straightforward and simple as the amount of things that have been mentioned but not confirmed.
"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
It's because you admit that the average gamer does not have the knowledge to properly assess the statements, plans, or promises of the developers, but you wish to hold them to the same level of responsibility for backing the project as those with the knowledge to properly vet and wade through the persuasive rhetoric. And, you wish to further absolve the developers for profiting off of the ignorance of the gamers compared to traditional investors. That's a strange position to defend, from the average gamer's point of view.
As you said it yourself, if the disclaimer is there, making it a possibility, then it is not a promise. Beyond that it will be up to each individual and their understanding of the English language to claim what was said was a promise or not.
Like the guys who maintain this promise tracker and the "Mining in 3.0" labeled as a promise, what degree of ignorance would it take to read the information available on it and still claim it was promised?
Most of this are simply answers to Backer questions, the way the answers are given, either it is "we will have X feature", or "we plan to have X feature", does not require any knowledge side of understanding of English to know which one is the confirmation and which one is the possibility.
Well... Have you taken a look at the White House lately? It's been very, very well-proven that this isn't a matter of simply "understanding the English language"... Rhetoric is a powerful tool, and you don't have to be a 5th grader to fall for it.
And again, as @Distopia mentioned, suits more than likely deal with this on a daily basis. Only, as I've said repeatedly now, they are exponentially better equipped to discern the limitations of the project, meaning where the average gamer sees "We plan to have X feature" and goes "okay, sure, sounds cool!" the suit goes "Nuh uh, not with the way progress is going on the features we've already added." This is because they have (again) more experience, training, insider knowledge, control, and resources to reign in that unreasonable and focus development on the reasonable. They also have the small benefit of getting a financial return on their investment, as well. Backers don't get that, either. And before you say "the game is the return!", you'll have to explain to me why traditional investors aren't allowed/capable of enjoying the games they funded, too.
If this poor little ignorant gamers look at the schedule page and don't understand the disclaimers, making them expect the next update estimate release as a promise... is the one at fault the developer?!
Who said they didn't understand the words written? I said that a suit would look at that and, using his resources and knowledge (YET again), make a judgement on the possibilities of this before approving funding/additional funding for such things. Why are you ignoring my point to attempt to argue this inane piece about reading comprehension?
It's not about reading comprehension. It's about the effect of the schedule on a gamer without the know-how to look at it and go "Yea, not likely". Gamers aren't equipped to make that assessment, so they're more susceptible to buying in according to what the developer claims is possible, rather than an objective and independent assessment of what's possible. CIG and company aren't oblivious to this fact. They know that placing things on that schedule indicates to gamers that it will be done, even if they don't "promise" it. Gamers have nothing to gauge this with other than the developer's word, because the vast, vast majority are completely ignorant of game design or, hell, even computer program design in general. Crowdfunding has melded development and advertising into this one, homogeneous beast. Expecting a gamer to attempt to navigate that with the expertise of a suit is silly.
You should note that none of what I am mentioning was used to actually gather funding for such things, everything that was presented on a direct public exposure for the crowdfund, was the pitched game and its stretch goals.
This is not the same as a stretch goal to fund the game, put in as a plan and not something that people paid for that they would be liable to deliver.
The layer where this mentions and unconfirmed features are is far from that, we're talking developer answers in a forum, chat, Reddit, Q&A shows and livestreams. I see this degree of interaction on many under development and even released games that are more open to talking about their plans for their game.
Again, this is why you can't hold gamers to the same responsibility. The method by which they interact with backers as opposed to traditional investors is much different. And it is certainly not lending more control or information to backers than what suits get. I will grant CIG that they have become more open towards sharing inside information with backers, but again, the backers aren't equipped to consider that in any context other than "I wanna see this game happen, they're saying it can if I help fund it!" That's WHY they're backers, because they want to experience the grand vision Chris has put forth for the game. That's a very dangerous position to put the consumer in and also expect them to be able to make an objective and unemotional assessment of the statements made by the developers behind the vision. I don't see the equity in saying that we should not adjust the responsibilities of the involved parties accordingly.
In terms of gamers it's all very random. The entitlement is huge, we see many gamers buying one early access game at steam and refunding it because it's buggy, crashy and/or performs bad while leaving angry rant reviews about it; the disclaimers that one early access game implies are there ignored by such people, the program keeps on running as before independent of such ignorance.
Side of the gamer sphere, as my original point is pretty much the guys maintaining this tracker ignoring the context and the full factual information when painting something as a promise, now there's someone who doesn't have that excuse, resulting in misinformation.
Right, it's very similar to dev > community interaction, which is the problem, because they aren't just the community when they're propping you up with the funds to complete the project. They're more akin to investors that, oddly enough, have waived any right to a financial return (also mind-boggling to me, honestly). Only, they are in an inherently disadvantaged position when compared to traditional investors assessing a project and its progress. It only follows that there needs to be a counterbalance to that to maintain an equity in the relationship as defined by their effective roles in the project, not by the drummed up label we wish to put on their new, hybrid role of fan and piggy bank.
There's quite a list of things from the initial pitch that have been walked back on. If those things were brought up people would defend their absence by pointing to ambiguous comments claiming they will be implemented at a later date.
Ergo, you have people defending the absence of what they call a "maybe" by pointing out that it was not a promise and then defending the absence of promises by pointing to a "maybe". Amusing stuff.
The list being maintained by the Goons .. VERY bad idea. The Goons and SomethingAwful.com are well known for metagaming, propaganda and manipulation. And they are proud of it. Take a look at EVE Online for their modus operandi. The SA forum is a forum for trolls ... and also proud of it. The Goons and their spawning ground SA are a dedicated anti-SC group for years now ... and also proud of that.
Something to keep in mind before a decision is made to keep this as a sticky post or not.
Have fun
Eh? what yo mean "as good as a promise"? It's either a promise or not. Saying "I hope", "we would like to", to me, isn't a promise. There's a chance it could or could not happen. If you interpret it as a promise, that's on you i'm afraid.
If my mate said, I hope to get to x event by 9pm, and I go out my way to buy us tickets based on that maybe, If he turns up later, I can't then have a go at him as he never said he would be there at 9. While you can say he got your hopes up and probably should have no said anything, you were the one you bought a ticket based on a maybe.
Also think you're jumping the gun in the second and last part as so far they've only been talking about features that weren't promised, they haven't moved on to ones that were an actual promise, but if you want to get that going, a list of them would be useful to start
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals
Anything else - "promise" or not - is open to interpretation and manipulation.
Have fun
We're not talking about "We would like to...." We are talking about definitive statements that stop just short of literally saying "promise", that is what I'm referring to when I say "as good as a promise".
Your mate is not a business selling you an item, your mate is not using embellished wording to make himself or his intentions or his product sound better than they really are with the express intention of receiving more money. There are different expectations written in law when it comes to personal and business statements.
I'm just highlighting the contradictory nature that people use, their desire to defend the project quite often leads to them contradicting other points they try to make.
If you want to look at previous definitive statements you only need to look at the pitch videos/kickstarter list and various other media from around that period, there's also been more than enough examples of things over time. Lots of money was taken on repeated usage of "Star Citizen will have..." "Star Citizen will do..." and so on. It was one of my personal gripes right from the beginning because it is endemic with developers and yet here is a game claiming to go far beyond what most developers would want to do and they are still making promises, there is no way they would be certain they could deliver on all of these things.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/13/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter/
The extreme point he made is ridiculous, when there is simply both sides of the spectrum, what was promised and confirmed, this is pretty much the pitched game, they haven't been talking anything mostly about features not confirmed, in fact on they have confirmed a number of features instead, in highlight PG Planets and all the bits that are coming with it like more focused survival mechanics.