Well since they are already running a sort of cash shop rmt operation,not sure how he figures it is any different with publishers taking part doing the same thing.It actually has nothing to do with the vision of the game,that is the BUSINESS side of the game.
Personally rmt activity is a definite NO go for me, i spent enough on TCG's to last me a lifetime.
I think what really happens in this industry is that Publishers are in a position to play hardball,they want as much of the profits as possible to the point it is a no risk venture.So i figure the reality is they cannot get a good deal for the business ,only one that makes sense for the publisher.
This is the road you enter as soon as you THINK you can build a game with gamer's money and HOPING you can get an investor that wants to play fair.This is like gambling and mostly with gamer's money.The same thing is happening with Star Citizen,just because they have over a 100 million,the end result is not going to be a 100 million dollar game,so tons of money is being wasted.
NONE of these crowd funded games are a good idea,they are like living in a dream world.Unless you have your own money to burn these are not good logical business practices,they ONLY temporarily work because we are playing with FREE money handed out by gamer's.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
How do you know they are all ready running short? Do you have access to their budget? My understanding from what Caspian said is they are only looking around to see what is out there right now. I didn't feel he said anything about needing funds right way.
I can only speak for myself, but I consider my self to be an investor in a game that I was willing to take a risk on. A game that I would love to see come to fruition because I am sick of all the cookie cutter games that are out there. And I am to assume that is exactly how the rest of the backers feel. In return, SBS is offering me a chance to help build the game, and the opportunity to try to survive the Dance of Dynasties.
In truth, it really won't be a big deal to me when I lose my County because there are going to be so many other things to explore in the game. We all knew the risk, and I was willing to take it.
Since so many statements are being made that are completely false about what Caspian said regarding this topic I decided to take the time to write it out to Quote him directly from the Video I posted earlier.
Could you cite a few of these false statements? Should be pretty easy if there are so many.
Since so many statements are being made that are completely false about what Caspian said regarding this topic I decided to take the time to write it out to Quote him directly from the Video I posted earlier.
Could you cite a few of these false statements? Should be pretty easy if there are so many.
Exactly. I'd love to know which of mine were completely false. Somehow I think this will end up like all the other claims.
You know what WAS false in this thread and never acknowledged or apologized for? When Mistichaze said there were 150,000 pledged accounts.
Lest someone think that the statements of Caspien cannot be wrong or counter itself I again remind you of this:
How much has been raised or promised from investors to date? How much of the additional $3 million will be covered by investors rather than players?
We’re not able to talk about investor relations right now. It’s not that we don’t want to. We can’t. Of the additional $2M – $3M, it’s our intention that all of it be covered by investors, or at least, not players. When we have more information we’ll release it to the community.
Is he raising more cash from the early players than planned? Sure. It's just resulting in an even bigger gap between the Ivory Tower "haves" and the people who might want to come after the 3 month Headstart (the have nots). People don't even know what advantages they want yet but are just stocking up on the EP currency. What started as a $1.2M gap has now grown to a near triple $3.4M gap... and will keep growing as long as they need the money.
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
Since so many statements are being made that are completely false about what Caspian said regarding this topic I decided to take the time to write it out to Quote him directly from the Video I posted earlier.
Q: If you get an investor in will any of this be compromised?
A: No! And I am pretty confident of that. Many people know that we have been looking at outside investment. In fact, we started in April of this year actively pursuing investors and over the last, I would say now eight months almost we have talked to some of the best well-known publishers in the world. Triple-A studio. We have also talked to a hand full of investors and I will be honest with you we've had publishers come to us and tell us everything from. "Your game is amazing but we just want to see it further in development" to "You game in nitch, we don't think it is going to be successful" all the way to "We love your game but we don't think it is going to be financially viable. So unless you add microtransactions as a way to generate additional revenue, we are not going to fund you".
And we have told everyone No, because we really do believe in the vision that we have created and we do believe in the game we are making. And so at this point, we are still crowdfunded. You know we are, ahh, still looking for investors. We are still waiting to find that one person or that collection of people out there who look at the game we are creating, the way we are creating it and are just in love with what we are trying to do. And we believe that that person is out there or those people are out there. But we don't want to alter the vision in order to do that.
So right now we do rely on the community. We are crowdfunded and the online sales that are happening in our store. They do still sustain us and so we appreciated that the community is still extremely loyal to us and that at every opportunity are helping us to stay up and running. But no, we have no intention of changing the vision of the game to appease a publisher or an investor. That's not the way we are going to do it.
And there have been threads that have been started on the forums to which is, you know, we would rather this game stay crowdfunded, we would rather you guys not take investors or publishers. And the reality is, you know what guys we would rather that too. Ah, and as long as those sales keep coming through the online store then it removes the pressure for us to do that.
You know we never want to be put in the position where we have to make a decision. You know, do we sell the studio? You know, do we give it to an investor or publisher to let them do what they want with it? Verus closing the studio or just you know, continuing to rely on store sales. So as long as our revenue on the store is high and we are able to sustain on that, you know, we are happy to continue to be crowdfunded and have complete control over the game.
aa
This post opens up as if to correct misinformation, yet is nothing but a hypothetical "What IF". "What if COE finds and investor" But the only fact in the post seems to be an admission that COE has not yet found an investor.
This leads me to another question. What other meaningful topics can we possibly discuss about this game if there is no investor? Everything else, is rather pointless until then.
Since so many statements are being made that are completely false about what Caspian said regarding this topic I decided to take the time to write it out to Quote him directly from the Video I posted earlier.
Q: If you get an investor in will any of this be compromised?
A: No! And I am pretty confident of that. Many people know that we have been looking at outside investment. In fact, we started in April of this year actively pursuing investors and over the last, I would say now eight months almost we have talked to some of the best well-known publishers in the world. Triple-A studio. We have also talked to a hand full of investors and I will be honest with you we've had publishers come to us and tell us everything from. "Your game is amazing but we just want to see it further in development" to "You game in nitch, we don't think it is going to be successful" all the way to "We love your game but we don't think it is going to be financially viable. So unless you add microtransactions as a way to generate additional revenue, we are not going to fund you".
And we have told everyone No, because we really do believe in the vision that we have created and we do believe in the game we are making. And so at this point, we are still crowdfunded. You know we are, ahh, still looking for investors. We are still waiting to find that one person or that collection of people out there who look at the game we are creating, the way we are creating it and are just in love with what we are trying to do. And we believe that that person is out there or those people are out there. But we don't want to alter the vision in order to do that.
So right now we do rely on the community. We are crowdfunded and the online sales that are happening in our store. They do still sustain us and so we appreciated that the community is still extremely loyal to us and that at every opportunity are helping us to stay up and running. But no, we have no intention of changing the vision of the game to appease a publisher or an investor. That's not the way we are going to do it.
And there have been threads that have been started on the forums to which is, you know, we would rather this game stay crowdfunded, we would rather you guys not take investors or publishers. And the reality is, you know what guys we would rather that too. Ah, and as long as those sales keep coming through the online store then it removes the pressure for us to do that.
You know we never want to be put in the position where we have to make a decision. You know, do we sell the studio? You know, do we give it to an investor or publisher to let them do what they want with it? Verus closing the studio or just you know, continuing to rely on store sales. So as long as our revenue on the store is high and we are able to sustain on that, you know, we are happy to continue to be crowdfunded and have complete control over the game.
aa
This post opens up as if to correct misinformation, yet is nothing but a hypothetical "What IF". "What if COE finds and investor" But the only fact in the post seems to be an admission that COE has not yet found an investor.
This leads me to another question. What other meaningful topics can we possibly discuss about this game if there is no investor? Everything else, is rather pointless until then.
Hmm It always me how different people read different things from words.
To me I read that as they had a/some offer/s but turned it down because they didn't want to accept the terms and therefore they are running the risk of relying on crowd funding until they either run out of money or get an investor that also shares there vision or is at least willing to allow them to do continue along their current development plan.
best idea?? only time will tell I suppose.
might be a game to watch but looking at the threads popping up on the recent activity I don' think I will have to look hard to keep an eye on it.
Since so many statements are being made that are completely false about what Caspian said regarding this topic I decided to take the time to write it out to Quote him directly from the Video I posted earlier.
Could you cite a few of these false statements? Should be pretty easy if there are so many.
Yea, um... I'm having trouble trying to figure out what mistakes mystichaze's Caspien quote is trying to correct. I read through the whole thing and my brain aches now because Caspien but it doesn't seem to contradict anything anyone really said in this thread.
How do you know they are all ready running short? Do you have access to their budget?
Wizardry said "sort", not "short". Note the missing 'h'. There is a huge difference between those two words.
See? Is specifically pointing out the contradiction in someone else's post instead of just quoting them entirely and leaving others to find the contradiction that isn't actually there so hard to do?
https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/23081/a-thought-on-selling-coe-to-potential-publishers "During last nights multi-hour impromptu Q&A Caspian expressed some frustration in his attempts to market COE to potential publishers. He described publishers that refused to read his 8 page comparison of COE to other MMOs, publishers that wanted loot crates and micro transactions, and publishers simply not understanding the appeal COE has for so many."
Wow... now we know why all the focus is on selling stuff in the store.
Looks like other folks have the same concerns discussed here. They have "pre-sold" the product to their most loyal customers along with tons of "sparks" to last for years. There seems to be a question about the viability of the business model.
sooo... how could you NOT realize that before? ^^
publishers wanna SELL games, obvious reason is obvious
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Hmm It always me how different people read different things from words.
To me I read that as they had a/some offer/s but turned it down because they didn't want to accept the terms and therefore they are running the risk of relying on crowd funding until they either run out of money or get an investor that also shares there vision or is at least willing to allow them to do continue along their current development plan.
best idea?? only time will tell I suppose.
might be a game to watch but looking at the threads popping up on the recent activity I don' think I will have to look hard to keep an eye on it.
Yes, they did ask Caspien to make certain changes and we know what those changes were because Caspien stated them. They were primarily requesting changes to the business model or changes to some of the systems. Because CoE's business model as it is is ridiculously unsustainable and some of the systems are stupid, which is a large part of the point in this discussion. A publisher in negotiations asking for specific changes is an entirely different thing from the "Caspien rejected them because they wanted more control of the game"
When a person says CoE's business model is not going to work or certain aspects of CoE's systems are dumb and any publisher can see that from a mile away, It doesn't matter whether those publishers outright rejected Caspien or whether they asked for changes to those and Caspien rejected it. Either way, it shows that publishers know CoE's business model and certain things about it are horrible. This isn't a case of a big bad publisher trying to take control of the game and freedom away from an indie developer and their vision. This is a case of publishers saying "This thing about the game is terrible and needs changing." and Caspien saying "No." followed by the publisher saying "Yea, okay, I'm outta here."
A publisher would have to be foolish to take CoE as it is right now. That's why they're asking for those changes in the first place. The base point, that most people can see CoE's failure from miles away if it doesn't change, doesn't differ because of that. If anything, publishers asking for specific changes (instead of asking for control of the game) supports the argument that CoE needs changes (who woulda thought?)
Well since they are already running a sort of cash shop rmt operation,not sure how he figures it is any different with publishers taking part doing the same thing.It actually has nothing to do with the vision of the game,that is the BUSINESS side of the game.
Personally rmt activity is a definite NO go for me, i spent enough on TCG's to last me a lifetime.
I think what really happens in this industry is that Publishers are in a position to play hardball,they want as much of the profits as possible to the point it is a no risk venture.So i figure the reality is they cannot get a good deal for the business ,only one that makes sense for the publisher.
This is the road you enter as soon as you THINK you can build a game with gamer's money and HOPING you can get an investor that wants to play fair.This is like gambling and mostly with gamer's money.The same thing is happening with Star Citizen,just because they have over a 100 million,the end result is not going to be a 100 million dollar game,so tons of money is being wasted.
NONE of these crowd funded games are a good idea,they are like living in a dream world.Unless you have your own money to burn these are not good logical business practices,they ONLY temporarily work because we are playing with FREE money handed out by gamer's.
Having been on the publishing side more than a few times, I would like to state that it is not unreasonable for a publisher to expect to make a return on their investment. If you are asking someone to put resources and money on the line for your product, they have to reasonably believe that they are going to not only get that investment back, but they are going to make a profit as well.
How much is reasonable? Well lets look at some comparables. If you publish on Steam/Apple Store/ Google Store/ etc they get 30% of all sales just for listing/distributing and taking money for your product. This doesn't include any infrastructure, support, marketing on in this case, cash investment in your development team. Depending on how much of all of this you need from a publisher, they may take as much as 50-90% of the gross to cover all of the costs (including Steam/Apple/Google/etc), leaving you with only a small amount of the gross. If done correctly, this will actually be a higher net than if you had done it yourself.
Developers take a risk when they invest funds over multiple years to make a game. If they can make a good product with the time/money alloted, they should be able to recover the investment, as well as make a profit. If a publisher is added later in the process, they have to determine the risk associated with the project, based on how it has progressed so far, and what can be expected in the future. The less confident they are about the outcome, the less likely they are to want to commit their own resources too it.
If you want to cut a good deal with a publisher, come to them with a product that doesnt need them... but could benefit from their leverage. Any publisher would be happy to take on a successful project in order to accelerate/increase its success, in return for a share of the profits.
Hmm It always me how different people read different things from words.
To me I read that as they had a/some offer/s but turned it down because they didn't want to accept the terms and therefore they are running the risk of relying on crowd funding until they either run out of money or get an investor that also shares there vision or is at least willing to allow them to do continue along their current development plan.
best idea?? only time will tell I suppose.
might be a game to watch but looking at the threads popping up on the recent activity I don' think I will have to look hard to keep an eye on it.
Yes, they did ask Caspien to make certain changes and we know what those changes were because Caspien stated them. They were primarily requesting changes to the business model or changes to some of the systems. Because CoE's business model as it is is ridiculously unsustainable and some of the systems are stupid, which is a large part of the point in this discussion. A publisher in negotiations asking for specific changes is an entirely different thing from the "Caspien rejected them because they wanted more control of the game"
When a person says CoE's business model is not going to work or certain aspects of CoE's systems are dumb and any publisher can see that from a mile away, It doesn't matter whether those publishers outright rejected Caspien or whether they asked for changes to those and Caspien rejected it. Either way, it shows that publishers know CoE's business model and certain things about it are horrible. This isn't a case of a big bad publisher trying to take control of the game and freedom away from an indie developer and their vision. This is a case of publishers saying "This thing about the game is terrible and needs changing." and Caspien saying "No." followed by the publisher saying "Yea, okay, I'm outta here."
A publisher would have to be foolish to take CoE as it is right now. That's why they're asking for those changes in the first place. The base point, that most people can see CoE's failure from miles away if it doesn't change, doesn't differ because of that. If anything, publishers asking for specific changes (instead of asking for control of the game) supports the argument that CoE needs changes (who woulda thought?)
I was looking specifically at this one
"Your game is amazing but we just want to see it further in development"
If this is in fact true (only the devs know), it shows that a publisher might be happy with the business model, but just wants to see if the product is indeed viable.
Maybe like Superman0X just here:
If you want to cut a good deal with a publisher, come to them with a product that doesnt need them... but could benefit from their leverage. Any publisher would be happy to take on a successful project in order to accelerate/increase its success, in return for a share of the profits.
If you want to cut a good deal with a publisher, come to them with a product that doesnt need them... but could benefit from their leverage. Any publisher would be happy to take on a successful project in order to accelerate/increase its success, in return for a share of the profits.
^^^ this right here
because CoE uses a different financial model and introduces different game mechanics, publishers are understandably wary of it - as stated above, the ONLY thing that they are interested in, is a healthy return on their investment, and a game that makes a bold move off the beaten path of theme park mmo's isn't of interest to them, unless that game bleats like a sheep and comes back into the fold
Caspian on the other hand is dedicated to seeing the project through without compromising his vision for it, not my vision, not your vision
It is a smart and savvy business move to start looking for an investor/publisher earlier on the process since he can still afford to be picky
It also has the benefit of the project being further developed - and the more developed and closer to launch the game moves towards, the less of a financial risk it becomes for financial investors
the less of a risk it is, the less say they have in altering the initial concept
basically this thread has devolved into dogs chasing their own tails, the same points being made by both sides
i've made my comments, countered concerns with my own recollections of what caspian has said, countered a concern about the lifespark model with facts and figures, countered a concern about people joining a pvp territory game mmo with citing an existing historical precedent
i don't expect to change folks minds that are in the 'glass is half empty' side of the debate, and accept that my counters will be dismissed by them
personally i don't think i have any more to add to this particular thread currently, and find the developing repetitiveness of it counter productive
ty for bringing the points up and allowing me to counter them, and unless something fresh comes up in this thread to address, i'll see you in the next thread and leave you to it
"Your game is amazing but we just want to see it further in development"
Ah. Most of us probably just see that as a really polite way of saying "Your game's scope is impossible and the game will never be finished". Or, to dial it back a little, telling someone something like that is the equivalent of saying you don't trust them to be able to finish the game and they'll have to prove you wrong.
"Your game is amazing but we just want to see it further in development"
Ah. Most of us probably just see that as a really polite way of saying "Your game's scope is impossible and the game will never be finished".
Telling someone something like that is the equivalent of saying you don't trust them to be able to finish the game and they'll have to prove you wrong.
To be fair though if this was said to him you don't actually know what context it was said in, it could quite easily be a paraphrase of a more in depth conversation he had.
Note I said if it was said to him because there is no evidence to prove it was apart from what he has said. But i find if he was being as candid about investors and publishers as I gathered from the transcript I can't see it being a false statement.
If you want to cut a good deal with a publisher, come to them with a product that doesnt need them... but could benefit from their leverage. Any publisher would be happy to take on a successful project in order to accelerate/increase its success, in return for a share of the profits.
^^^ this right here
because CoE uses a different financial model and introduces different game mechanics, publishers are understandably wary of it - as stated above, the ONLY thing that they are interested in, is a healthy return on their investment, and a game that makes a bold move off the beaten path of theme park mmo's isn't of interest to them, unless that game bleats like a sheep and comes back into the fold
Caspian on the other hand is dedicated to seeing the project through without compromising his vision for it, not my vision, not your vision
It is a smart and savvy business move to start looking for an investor/publisher earlier on the process since he can still afford to be picky
It also has the benefit of the project being further developed - and the more developed and closer to launch the game moves towards, the less of a financial risk it becomes for financial investors
the less of a risk it is, the less say they have in altering the initial concept
basically this thread has devolved into dogs chasing their own tails, the same points being made by both sides
i've made my comments, countered concerns with my own recollections of what caspian has said, countered a concern about the lifespark model with facts and figures, countered a concern about people joining a pvp territory game mmo with citing an existing historical precedent
i don't expect to change folks minds that are in the 'glass is half empty' side of the debate, and accept that my counters will be dismissed by them
personally i don't think i have any more to add to this particular thread currently, and find the developing repetitiveness of it counter productive
ty for bringing the points up and allowing me to counter them, and unless something fresh comes up in this thread to address, i'll see you in the next thread and leave you to it
You said counter 6 times.
So I will agree with the tl;dr: You counter - We don't find it convincing
PS: Additionally you have the same issue as Haze: You invested into this game so your view is biased. If this game doesn't succeed you will lose money so you will twist anything said into something positive.
"Your game is amazing but we just want to see it further in development"
Ah. Most of us probably just see that as a really polite way of saying "Your game's scope is impossible and the game will never be finished". Or, to dial it back a little, telling someone something like that is the equivalent of saying you don't trust them to be able to finish the game and they'll have to prove you wrong.
Polite or not, at the end of the day, "not yes" still equals "no".
The next step is to get funding. Until that is accomplished, there is little else to discuss that hasn't been talked about on these boards for years now, under different threads titled...... "What's your dream MMO?" Or something of the like.
PS: Additionally you have the same issue as Haze: You invested into this game so your view is biased. If this game doesn't succeed you will lose money so you will twist anything said into something positive.
Yes, we did invest in the game, just like the other 40 to 50 thousand investors, but to assume we did so without researching and weighing the pros and cons is just naive since we are the ones taking the risk.
As investors, of course, we don't want to see the project fail. Does that mean we are biased and blind to the possible cons? No, and when there are legitimate concerns it is brought up in the forums and discussed with developers (Often resulting in a change or further clarification). But to be honest I haven't seen anything in these forums that raises a red flag for me or makes me second guess my decision to take a chance on SBS.
Are we defensive when uninvested players are trying to so hard to publicly slander the game, of course, and we are going to intervene to try to show an alternative perspective.
Investing in any crowdfunded game is risky, we all know that, but it is up to the individuals as to whether or not they want to assume that risk.
PS: Additionally you have the same issue as Haze: You invested into this game so your view is biased. If this game doesn't succeed you will lose money so you will twist anything said into something positive.
Yes, we did invest in the game, just like the other 40 to 50 thousand investors, but to assume we did so without researching and weighing the pros and cons is just naive since we are the ones taking the risk.
As investors, of course, we don't want to see the project fail. Does that mean we are biased and blind to the possible cons? No, and when there are legitimate concerns it is brought up in the forums and discussed with developers (Often resulting in a change or further clarification). But to be honest I haven't seen anything in these forums that raises a red flag for me or makes me second guess my decision to take a chance on SBS.
Are we defensive when uninvested players are trying to so hard to publicly slander the game, of course, and we are going to intervene to try to show an alternative perspective.
Investing in any crowdfunded game is risky, we all know that, but it is up to the individuals as to whether or not they want to assume that risk.
only thing I would say here, and I'm not having a go, it's a donation not an investment.
Crowd funding it donating or pledging money definately not investing.
PS: Additionally you have the same issue as Haze: You invested into this game so your view is biased. If this game doesn't succeed you will lose money so you will twist anything said into something positive.
Yes, we did invest in the game, just like the other 40 to 50 thousand investors, but to assume we did so without researching and weighing the pros and cons is just naive since we are the ones taking the risk.
As investors, of course, we don't want to see the project fail. Does that mean we are biased and blind to the possible cons? No, and when there are legitimate concerns it is brought up in the forums and discussed with developers (Often resulting in a change or further clarification). But to be honest I haven't seen anything in these forums that raises a red flag for me or makes me second guess my decision to take a chance on SBS.
Are we defensive when uninvested players are trying to so hard to publicly slander the game, of course, and we are going to intervene to try to show an alternative perspective.
Investing in any crowdfunded game is risky, we all know that, but it is up to the individuals as to whether or not they want to assume that risk.
For clarity you didn't invest in anything. You donated money.
You guys always like to come and use words like slander but you all never seem to really understand what that word means. IMHO you aren't here to provide an alternative perspective to "slander". I think you are here because Caspien said it didn't look right for him to try and shut down skeptics but that you guys should go forth and do it for him. Otherwise it is an amazing instance of coincidental timing as you appeared right after his call to arms. Be that as it may, we always welcome debate. Dleatherous has been a great addition to the community and I hope he expands to other forums outside this one. On the other hand, as pointed out multiple times you have yet to apologize nor even acknowledge your spreading of misinformation proven not just by myself, but also Dleatherous. You have made several statement and when others have asked you to support them you simply go on and ignore it and make other unsubstantiated claims. I think it's really "rich" to criticize others for spreading misinformation while doing it yourself and not even acknowledging it when so proven. When he called out my mistake in stating 5 servers vs 4 I didn't hesitate to acknowledge him...
So to get us back on track I will ask you: Are you not at all concerned that Caspien has been actively looking for a publisher but has been unable to find one thus far?
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
Comments
Personally rmt activity is a definite NO go for me, i spent enough on TCG's to last me a lifetime.
I think what really happens in this industry is that Publishers are in a position to play hardball,they want as much of the profits as possible to the point it is a no risk venture.So i figure the reality is they cannot get a good deal for the business ,only one that makes sense for the publisher.
This is the road you enter as soon as you THINK you can build a game with gamer's money and HOPING you can get an investor that wants to play fair.This is like gambling and mostly with gamer's money.The same thing is happening with Star Citizen,just because they have over a 100 million,the end result is not going to be a 100 million dollar game,so tons of money is being wasted.
NONE of these crowd funded games are a good idea,they are like living in a dream world.Unless you have your own money to burn these are not good logical business practices,they ONLY temporarily work because we are playing with FREE money handed out by gamer's.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I can only speak for myself, but I consider my self to be an investor in a game that I was willing to take a risk on. A game that I would love to see come to fruition because I am sick of all the cookie cutter games that are out there. And I am to assume that is exactly how the rest of the backers feel. In return, SBS is offering me a chance to help build the game, and the opportunity to try to survive the Dance of Dynasties.
In truth, it really won't be a big deal to me when I lose my County because there are going to be so many other things to explore in the game. We all knew the risk, and I was willing to take it.
You know what WAS false in this thread and never acknowledged or apologized for? When Mistichaze said there were 150,000 pledged accounts.
Lest someone think that the statements of Caspien cannot be wrong or counter itself I again remind you of this:
How much has been raised or promised from investors to date? How much of the additional $3 million will be covered by investors rather than players?
We’re not able to talk about investor relations right now. It’s not that we don’t want to. We can’t. Of the additional $2M – $3M, it’s our intention that all of it be covered by investors, or at least, not players. When we have more information we’ll release it to the community.
http://massivelyop.com/2016/09/28/interview-chronicles-of-elyrias-jeromy-walsh-on-post-kickstarter-funding/-------
Is he raising more cash from the early players than planned? Sure. It's just resulting in an even bigger gap between the Ivory Tower "haves" and the people who might want to come after the 3 month Headstart (the have nots). People don't even know what advantages they want yet but are just stocking up on the EP currency. What started as a $1.2M gap has now grown to a near triple $3.4M gap... and will keep growing as long as they need the money.
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
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
An investor will only get a profit if the object they invested into turns out to be a success.
This leads me to another question. What other meaningful topics can we possibly discuss about this game if there is no investor? Everything else, is rather pointless until then.
To me I read that as they had a/some offer/s but turned it down because they didn't want to accept the terms and therefore they are running the risk of relying on crowd funding until they either run out of money or get an investor that also shares there vision or is at least willing to allow them to do continue along their current development plan.
best idea??
only time will tell I suppose.
might be a game to watch but looking at the threads popping up on the recent activity I don' think I will have to look hard to keep an eye on it.
TL;DR CoE will probably never come out because the dev team was stupid with planning/finances so unless they convince a publisher it's game over
Wizardry said "sort", not "short". Note the missing 'h'. There is a huge difference between those two words.
See? Is specifically pointing out the contradiction in someone else's post instead of just quoting them entirely and leaving others to find the contradiction that isn't actually there so hard to do?
publishers wanna SELL games, obvious reason is obvious
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
When a person says CoE's business model is not going to work or certain aspects of CoE's systems are dumb and any publisher can see that from a mile away, It doesn't matter whether those publishers outright rejected Caspien or whether they asked for changes to those and Caspien rejected it. Either way, it shows that publishers know CoE's business model and certain things about it are horrible. This isn't a case of a big bad publisher trying to take control of the game and freedom away from an indie developer and their vision. This is a case of publishers saying "This thing about the game is terrible and needs changing." and Caspien saying "No." followed by the publisher saying "Yea, okay, I'm outta here."
A publisher would have to be foolish to take CoE as it is right now. That's why they're asking for those changes in the first place. The base point, that most people can see CoE's failure from miles away if it doesn't change, doesn't differ because of that. If anything, publishers asking for specific changes (instead of asking for control of the game) supports the argument that CoE needs changes (who woulda thought?)
How much is reasonable? Well lets look at some comparables. If you publish on Steam/Apple Store/ Google Store/ etc they get 30% of all sales just for listing/distributing and taking money for your product. This doesn't include any infrastructure, support, marketing on in this case, cash investment in your development team. Depending on how much of all of this you need from a publisher, they may take as much as 50-90% of the gross to cover all of the costs (including Steam/Apple/Google/etc), leaving you with only a small amount of the gross. If done correctly, this will actually be a higher net than if you had done it yourself.
Developers take a risk when they invest funds over multiple years to make a game. If they can make a good product with the time/money alloted, they should be able to recover the investment, as well as make a profit. If a publisher is added later in the process, they have to determine the risk associated with the project, based on how it has progressed so far, and what can be expected in the future. The less confident they are about the outcome, the less likely they are to want to commit their own resources too it.
If you want to cut a good deal with a publisher, come to them with a product that doesnt need them... but could benefit from their leverage. Any publisher would be happy to take on a successful project in order to accelerate/increase its success, in return for a share of the profits.
"Your game is amazing but we just want to see it further in development"
If this is in fact true (only the devs know), it shows that a publisher might be happy with the business model, but just wants to see if the product is indeed viable.
Maybe like Superman0X just here:
If you want to cut a good deal with a publisher, come to them with a product that doesnt need them... but could benefit from their leverage. Any publisher would be happy to take on a successful project in order to accelerate/increase its success, in return for a share of the profits.
^^^ this right here
because CoE uses a different financial model and introduces different game mechanics, publishers are understandably wary of it - as stated above, the ONLY thing that they are interested in, is a healthy return on their investment, and a game that makes a bold move off the beaten path of theme park mmo's isn't of interest to them, unless that game bleats like a sheep and comes back into the fold
Caspian on the other hand is dedicated to seeing the project through without compromising his vision for it, not my vision, not your vision
It is a smart and savvy business move to start looking for an investor/publisher earlier on the process since he can still afford to be picky
It also has the benefit of the project being further developed - and the more developed and closer to launch the game moves towards, the less of a financial risk it becomes for financial investors
the less of a risk it is, the less say they have in altering the initial concept
basically this thread has devolved into dogs chasing their own tails, the same points being made by both sides
i've made my comments, countered concerns with my own recollections of what caspian has said, countered a concern about the lifespark model with facts and figures, countered a concern about people joining a pvp territory game mmo with citing an existing historical precedent
i don't expect to change folks minds that are in the 'glass is half empty' side of the debate, and accept that my counters will be dismissed by them
personally i don't think i have any more to add to this particular thread currently, and find the developing repetitiveness of it counter productive
ty for bringing the points up and allowing me to counter them, and unless something fresh comes up in this thread to address, i'll see you in the next thread and leave you to it
Note I said if it was said to him because there is no evidence to prove it was apart from what he has said.
But i find if he was being as candid about investors and publishers as I gathered from the transcript I can't see it being a false statement.
So I will agree with the tl;dr:
You counter - We don't find it convincing
PS: Additionally you have the same issue as Haze:
You invested into this game so your view is biased.
If this game doesn't succeed you will lose money so you will twist anything said into something positive.
The next step is to get funding. Until that is accomplished, there is little else to discuss that hasn't been talked about on these boards for years now, under different threads titled......
"What's your dream MMO?"
Or something of the like.
PS: Additionally you have the same issue as Haze:
You invested into this game so your view is biased.
If this game doesn't succeed you will lose money so you will twist anything said into something positive.
Yes, we did invest in the game, just like the other 40 to 50 thousand investors, but to assume we did so without researching and weighing the pros and cons is just naive since we are the ones taking the risk.
As investors, of course, we don't want to see the project fail. Does that mean we are biased and blind to the possible cons? No, and when there are legitimate concerns it is brought up in the forums and discussed with developers (Often resulting in a change or further clarification). But to be honest I haven't seen anything in these forums that raises a red flag for me or makes me second guess my decision to take a chance on SBS.
Are we defensive when uninvested players are trying to so hard to publicly slander the game, of course, and we are going to intervene to try to show an alternative perspective.
Investing in any crowdfunded game is risky, we all know that, but it is up to the individuals as to whether or not they want to assume that risk.
Crowd funding it donating or pledging money definately not investing.
You guys always like to come and use words like slander but you all never seem to really understand what that word means. IMHO you aren't here to provide an alternative perspective to "slander". I think you are here because Caspien said it didn't look right for him to try and shut down skeptics but that you guys should go forth and do it for him. Otherwise it is an amazing instance of coincidental timing as you appeared right after his call to arms. Be that as it may, we always welcome debate. Dleatherous has been a great addition to the community and I hope he expands to other forums outside this one. On the other hand, as pointed out multiple times you have yet to apologize nor even acknowledge your spreading of misinformation proven not just by myself, but also Dleatherous. You have made several statement and when others have asked you to support them you simply go on and ignore it and make other unsubstantiated claims. I think it's really "rich" to criticize others for spreading misinformation while doing it yourself and not even acknowledging it when so proven. When he called out my mistake in stating 5 servers vs 4 I didn't hesitate to acknowledge him...
So to get us back on track I will ask you: Are you not at all concerned that Caspien has been actively looking for a publisher but has been unable to find one thus far?
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