Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Change is Good, Right? RIGHT? Iterative Process Explored in New Post - Saga of Lucimia - MMORPG.com

SBFordSBFord Associate Editor - News ManagerMMORPG.COM Staff LegendaryPosts: 27,518

imageChange is Good, Right? RIGHT? Iterative Process Explored in New Post - Saga of Lucimia - MMORPG.com

Saga of Lucimia News - In the latest Mondays in MMORPGs on the Saga of Lucimia site, the team takes a look at the iterative process in games. While iteration is needed for the health and longevity of any MMO, players balk at needed and necessary changes and often don't see behind the curtain about why things move along as they do. The post details player perceptions that change means "the design of a game = not the same game that was discussed or [was] 'advertised' by the company".

Read the full story here


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


«1

Comments

  • WellspringWellspring Member RarePosts: 715
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    Kyleran
    --------------------------------------------
  • RenfailRenfail Member RarePosts: 1,039
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    For a single player title, perhaps. 

    An MMORPG, on the other hand, is an ever-evolving process. Expansions change things. Players doing things that weren't intended, and thus wreaking havoc to the balance of gameplay, change things. There are a hundred/thousand/million things that affect the balance and evolution of an MMORPG, and as such, it's an ever-evolving project that is in a continual state of flux. 

    Everyone *should* understand that when they pick up an MMO to play. In fact, it's actually in many company's TOS (that things are always changing and nothing is set in stone). 

    To quote myself in the post: 

    "At the end of the day little things like your child changing his favorite color from black to green, your spouse changing their hairstyle or color, deciding to change from a pickup truck to a sedan, choosing a bicycle for the first 10 years of your adulthood and then graduating to a motorcycle…none of these things really affect who you are as an individual. They are simply iterations in the cycle of life.

    The same can be said for an MMORPG. The iterations that happen between the original concept, early design meetings, the development cycle, launch, post-launch, expansions, and beyond, are just the cycle of life for an MMO. Just as much as you can’t call your husband/wife a liar for changing their hair style five years after you got married (they are still the same person), you can’t call a developer a liar for changing things along the way, regardless if it’s during the development cycle of the first iteration of the live game, or post-launch."

    VladamirBegemotValdheim
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Creative Director | The Saga of Lucimia MMORPG
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 17,822
    edited April 16


    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...



    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.



    That's not the kind of change that the author is talking about.

    It's not about doing a KS for one type of game (example a 3D RPG) and then releasing something entirel different ( example - flight simulator)

    It's about how during development, and even after release MMOs evolve and change over time due to many factors. During early development - some ideas that seemed fine on paper, turn out to be a complete dud in reality - this is why some features get completely scrapped during development

    This is one of the things that makes MMOs unique - constant evolution and change.
    Post edited by DMKano on
    RenfailWellspring
  • WellspringWellspring Member RarePosts: 715
    Sorry, my statement was specific to crowdfunding and changes prior to release, which the article touches on as well with it's Star Citizen and SOTA examples.

    Changes after launch and expansions are all part of the process and I agree are fundamental to the success of any MMORPG.

    The difference between the two though, if you buy a game after launch, players have a chance to know what they're getting themselves into, as the core game is unlikely to change drastically. If you don't like the new expansion coming out for WOW then you're able to unsubscribe. If WOW said a specific race was going to be in the next expansion, so you pre-ordered, but it turns out they lied -- you have every right to a refund IMO. Many launched games also offer a free trial or limited refunds if your PC doesn't meet the system requirements.


    On the other hand, prior to launch you don't know anything about the game except what the dev studio tells you.

    When developers ask for KS money and make promises, they need to be held accountable. If they were open and said, "hey, we are making this game, which anything we say may change completely, and our release date could be 20+ years from now, but we want your money so we can build our dream MMO" then that's the contract they set.

    The issue is when developers say "We're targeting a release date of Dec 2017. We know it's ambitious, but we have been working on this project for 10+ years, and we have secrets that will speed up our development timeline that you don't know about. Trust us, hitting that release date should be the least of your concerns." Then a year later they say oh, actually we're not going to be done until at least 2019 at the earliest -- that's when I have a major problem.

    Point being, when it comes to crowdfunding, the devs set the terms. They can choose to be blatantly honest and risk their game not funding. Or they can sugar coat everything and promise the moon, guaranteeing that their game fully funds, but turn out to be liars in the process. Where's the accountability in that?
    LinifLiljnaSlapshot1188KyleranValdheim
    --------------------------------------------
  • LinifLinif Member UncommonPosts: 57
    Sorry, my statement was specific to crowdfunding and changes prior to release, which the article touches on as well with it's Star Citizen and SOTA examples.

    Changes after launch and expansions are all part of the process and I agree are fundamental to the success of any MMORPG.

    The difference between the two though, if you buy a game after launch, players have a chance to know what they're getting themselves into, as the core game is unlikely to change drastically. If you don't like the new expansion coming out for WOW then you're able to unsubscribe. If WOW said a specific race was going to be in the next expansion, so you pre-ordered, but it turns out they lied -- you have every right to a refund IMO. Many launched games also offer a free trial or limited refunds if your PC doesn't meet the system requirements.


    On the other hand, prior to launch you don't know anything about the game except what the dev studio tells you.

    When developers ask for KS money and make promises, they need to be held accountable. If they were open and said, "hey, we are making this game, which anything we say may change completely, and our release date could be 20+ years from now, but we want your money so we can build our dream MMO" then that's the contract they set.

    The issue is when developers say "We're targeting a release date of Dec 2017. We know it's ambitious, but we have been working on this project for 10+ years, and we have secrets that will speed up our development timeline that you don't know about. Trust us, hitting that release date should be the least of your concerns." Then a year later they say oh, actually we're not going to be done until at least 2019 at the earliest -- that's when I have a major problem.

    Point being, when it comes to crowdfunding, the devs set the terms. They can choose to be blatantly honest and risk their game not funding. Or they can sugar coat everything and promise the moon, guaranteeing that their game fully funds, but turn out to be liars in the process. Where's the accountability in that?
    I believe that I agree with you.

    Something core to the game is what you use to explain the game to someone (Read: Buyers). If you can't explain it like that anymore, then that's a big change in the scope and no longer what you paid for.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 24,180
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    I would say that's the huge issue with kickstarter. It's really a double-edged sword.

    Especially if most of the game isn't made yet.

    Developers ask for money and then once they get it they develop and over time they see certain things don't work so they cut/change them.

    Then the players go nuts because they gave money for something else.

    Sort of like publishers who back a game and want to make an investment but then see the developers taking the game in a different direction where they might not make their money back.

    I certainly hope some players see the irony.
    DMKanoRenfail



  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 17,822
    edited April 16
    Sovrath said:
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    I would say that's the huge issue with kickstarter. It's really a double-edged sword.

    Especially if most of the game isn't made yet.

    Developers ask for money and then once they get it they develop and over time they see certain things don't work so they cut/change them.

    Then the players go nuts because they gave money for something else.

    Sort of like publishers who back a game and want to make an investment but then see the developers taking the game in a different direction where they might not make their money back.

    I certainly hope some players see the irony.

    Exactly.

    What Kickstarters did - is they pulled back the curtains and exposed the reality of "early concept/early game" development to the general public.

    What has always been the case in game development is that during early stages of game's life - many ideas get scrapped and canned. Heck entire games would get scrapped entirely inside of the game studios and only very few would actually be made into full games. A recent example of this would be Amazon Game Studios Breakaway - a shit concept that normally would have been kept underwraps inside the game company and die there without the public ever knowing it even existed.

    That's the pre-kickstart world of game development - where majority of early concept ideas lived and died without the general public even having any ideas that they happened at all.

    People are used to  the idea is "I give you money, you give me what I paid for" - except when a game is not finished yet - this is a terrible expectation.

    The reality is - early concept game ideas failing - is supposed to happen, that's how it's always been in game development. 

    People just didn't know, with kickstarter - nothing changed - it just exposed this to everyone.
    Post edited by DMKano on
    SovrathRenfailKyleranVladamirBegemotValdheim
  • RenfailRenfail Member RarePosts: 1,039
    Sorry, my statement was specific to crowdfunding and changes prior to release, which the article touches on as well with it's Star Citizen and SOTA examples.

    Changes after launch and expansions are all part of the process and I agree are fundamental to the success of any MMORPG.

    The difference between the two though, if you buy a game after launch, players have a chance to know what they're getting themselves into, as the core game is unlikely to change drastically. If you don't like the new expansion coming out for WOW then you're able to unsubscribe. If WOW said a specific race was going to be in the next expansion, so you pre-ordered, but it turns out they lied -- you have every right to a refund IMO. Many launched games also offer a free trial or limited refunds if your PC doesn't meet the system requirements.


    On the other hand, prior to launch you don't know anything about the game except what the dev studio tells you.

    When developers ask for KS money and make promises, they need to be held accountable. If they were open and said, "hey, we are making this game, which anything we say may change completely, and our release date could be 20+ years from now, but we want your money so we can build our dream MMO" then that's the contract they set.

    The issue is when developers say "We're targeting a release date of Dec 2017. We know it's ambitious, but we have been working on this project for 10+ years, and we have secrets that will speed up our development timeline that you don't know about. Trust us, hitting that release date should be the least of your concerns." Then a year later they say oh, actually we're not going to be done until at least 2019 at the earliest -- that's when I have a major problem.

    Point being, when it comes to crowdfunding, the devs set the terms. They can choose to be blatantly honest and risk their game not funding. Or they can sugar coat everything and promise the moon, guaranteeing that their game fully funds, but turn out to be liars in the process. Where's the accountability in that?
    It's not lying. It's development. Scope can evolve or devolve. Things may prove harder to implement than first thought. Technology can change. A lead person on the team could get sick or leave the project, leaving the team in a state of "crap, we have to find someone to replace this person", and finding an equally talented replacement isn't as easy as just picking someone from a pile of resumes. 

    Even with 15 years of experience under my belt working on over 700 million dollar's worth of projects via the family business back in my construction days, one thing I learned over the years is that all you can ever really do is give an estimate of job completion. Exact dates are extremely difficult to pinpoint, and you never, ever want to commit to an exact date of completion, but rather a ballpark figure. 

    A great example is a large-scale project like building an airport. There are 200-300 people who work on these projects, with crews spread around electricians, plumbers, flooring, roofing, HVAC, etc. Let's say the eletricians have a problem with their supplier and their delivery is delayed by a week, so they can't get the work done they were supposed to get done by X date. Now the general contractor has to shuffle crews around to work around this delay, and in some cases not all of the crews are going to be able to accommodate due to conflicting schedules on other projects or other areas of the job, and that week-long delay could turn into three weeks, or six weeks, or whatever. By the time he's done rearranging schedules for the other 300 people on the project, the end date can change drastically.

    That's just the reality of project management on a large-scale project. It's not as simple as setting a date four years out from now and saying "that's our publication date", and then hitting it with exactness.

    I'm one of those patient people who is more than happy to wait two, three, four years, however long it takes for a developer to realize their final vision for a game. It's just a video game. It's not a life-threatening disease or a job offer or something that has an expiration date on it that somehow affects me on a personal level. 

    But I'm also on the other side of the fence as a developer, and realize the fallacy of giving exact dates for things. You never know what could crop up, the things that can change delivery dates. A good example of this is our upcoming Early Access 10. We wanted it out in March, but Robert + Richard (our two lead programmers) have all ended up moving homes during the March + April time frame, which has pushed our EA 10 back. 

    That's life. 

    Our timeline for graphical effects has also been pushed back, due to the fact we haven't been able to find a qualified FX person to come work with us. And it's not been for a lack of resumes; we just haven't found someone who really fits the bill. So as much as we want to have all these really cool special effects in, it's not as simple as picking someone from a stack of resumes. It has to be the right person for the job, just as much as we waited until we found @Elloa
    because she was the perfect fit for our community manager, as opposed to just going with the first resume that popped up. 

    There are an infinite number of things that go into development of any large-scale project, not just gaming, and it is never as simple as "here's a publication date". 
    Valdheim
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Creative Director | The Saga of Lucimia MMORPG
  • RenfailRenfail Member RarePosts: 1,039
    DMKano said:

    Exactly.

    What Kickstarters did - is they pulled back the curtains and exposed the reality of "early concept/early game" development to the general public.

    What has always been the case in game development is that during early stages of game's life - many ideas get scrapped and canned. Heck entire games would get scrapped entirely inside of the game studios and only very few would actually be made into full games. A recent example of this would be Amazon Game Studios Breakaway - a shit concept that normally would have been kept underwraps inside the game company and die there without the public ever knowing it even existed.

    That's the pre-kickstart world of game development - where majority of early concept ideas lived and died without the general public even having any ideas that they happened at all.

    People are used to  the idea is "I give you money, you give me what I paid for" - except when a game is not finished yet - this is a terrible expectation.

    The reality is - early concept game ideas failing - is supposed to happen, that's how it's always been in game development. 

    People just didn't know, with kickstarter - nothing changed - it just exposed this to everyone.
    This. 

    Kickstarter simply exposed this reality (early iterations/things changing/evolving/etc.) to customers, and many who are accustomed to only ever seeing the finished product haven't quite adjusted yet. 
    Valdheim
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Creative Director | The Saga of Lucimia MMORPG
  • WizardryWizardry Member EpicPosts: 13,970
    HAha ,the gamer can't see behind the curtain?

    I would liek to reverse that statement  and state that the developers are the ones who can't see deep enough into the design they are suppose to be making and usually end up something CHEAP,LAZY and often tons of ideas that make NO SENSE.Oh and do i need mention copy cat,i mean geesh gaming in general is bandwagon jumping every month.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • WellspringWellspring Member RarePosts: 715
    Yes delays happen, but in "real life" the general contractor building the airport doesn't get fully paid until the job is completed. Also, any contractor can get fired for causing the delay. They also have to follow the original blueprint. If a blueprint change is needed, they needs to get approval. Accountability.

    Crowdfunding has allowed the dev team to get paid upfront for a job to be completed years later, and they don't have to follow their own blueprint?

    No one is forcing the dev studio make any promises. They set their own blueprint. If they can't give an accurate release date, then simply don't give one.

    Or at least say it in an accurate manor, such as, "If all of the stars align and development goes perfectly according to our vision with 0 delays, then our earliest projected launch date is Dec. 2017. If anything doesn't go according to plan, then it will be much later".

    Dev studios don't have to go the crowdfunding route. It's a business choice. If they don't want to be held accountable to their own words, then they can self-fund.
    LinifKyleran
    --------------------------------------------
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 5,779
    Sovrath said:
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    I would say that's the huge issue with kickstarter. It's really a double-edged sword.

    Especially if most of the game isn't made yet.

    Developers ask for money and then once they get it they develop and over time they see certain things don't work so they cut/change them.

    Then the players go nuts because they gave money for something else.

    Sort of like publishers who back a game and want to make an investment but then see the developers taking the game in a different direction where they might not make their money back.

    I certainly hope some players see the irony.
    That is why some of us don't pay until they have a released product and we can see if we like it or not.
    MendelLiljnaKyleran
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 1,640
    Wizardry said:
    HAha ,the gamer can't see behind the curtain?

    I would liek to reverse that statement  and state that the developers are the ones who can't see deep enough into the design they are suppose to be making and usually end up something CHEAP,LAZY and often tons of ideas that make NO SENSE.Oh and do i need mention copy cat,i mean geesh gaming in general is bandwagon jumping every month.
    Doesn't matter the ideas are good or bad or lazy or cheap. Gamers cannot see behind the curtains, same as the audience doesn't see behind the curtains. Replace the word "gamer" with "eater" or "movie-goer" then you'd realize what @DMKano means.


    SovrathValdheim
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • RenfailRenfail Member RarePosts: 1,039
    Sovrath said:
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    I would say that's the huge issue with kickstarter. It's really a double-edged sword.

    Especially if most of the game isn't made yet.

    Developers ask for money and then once they get it they develop and over time they see certain things don't work so they cut/change them.

    Then the players go nuts because they gave money for something else.

    Sort of like publishers who back a game and want to make an investment but then see the developers taking the game in a different direction where they might not make their money back.

    I certainly hope some players see the irony.
    That is why some of us don't pay until they have a released product and we can see if we like it or not.
    Which is an entirely valid option and probably the most intelligent choice for those who are hard-lined on their stance about "exact" publication dates. 

    Meanwhile, I'm 40 bucks into dozens of in-development games and none the worse for my spending. Things will finish when they finish, and meanwhile I've got dozens of other games I'm playing in the meantime. 
    VladamirBegemot
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Creative Director | The Saga of Lucimia MMORPG
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 24,180
    Sovrath said:
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    I would say that's the huge issue with kickstarter. It's really a double-edged sword.

    Especially if most of the game isn't made yet.

    Developers ask for money and then once they get it they develop and over time they see certain things don't work so they cut/change them.

    Then the players go nuts because they gave money for something else.

    Sort of like publishers who back a game and want to make an investment but then see the developers taking the game in a different direction where they might not make their money back.

    I certainly hope some players see the irony.
    That is why some of us don't pay until they have a released product and we can see if we like it or not.
    Truth is, for the people who DO pay, they need to actually understand what they are paying for.

    As Kano pointed out, people are used to paying for something and getting something for it. Crowdfunding is not exactly that. One is essentially funding a project that on paper looks good to them. But too many people can't wrap their heads around that.

    And then the crying starts.
    RenfailConstantineMeruspantaroblueturtle13VladamirBegemotValdheim



  • LinifLinif Member UncommonPosts: 57
    I thought the difference between buying via a Publisher and investing in a KS for the consumer is the difference in protection.

    From a publisher, you can't put money towards the product until a point where it is going to come out. At this point, you know what you're buying.

    From a Kickstarter, you put in money so early it's essentially from a point of faith and it's a gamble if you'll ever see anything from it.

    From a publisher, there's the contract for consumer protection.

    From a Kickstarter, there's the Kickstarter ToS...

    Is it as simple as saying "Don't invest in crowdfunds if you don't want to gamble", yet people seem to think crowdfunded games are the way forward. How do we, as the consumers, deal with this?


    I'm a skeptic on crowdfunding, I'll admit that. But it seems like the Consumers are the ones being screwed by this method with little return. Maybe it is a case of the bad ones ruining it for others, but it is happening, so we need a solution?
    Wellspring
  • WellspringWellspring Member RarePosts: 715
    Renfail said:
    Sovrath said:
    I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...

    Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
    I would say that's the huge issue with kickstarter. It's really a double-edged sword.

    Especially if most of the game isn't made yet.

    Developers ask for money and then once they get it they develop and over time they see certain things don't work so they cut/change them.

    Then the players go nuts because they gave money for something else.

    Sort of like publishers who back a game and want to make an investment but then see the developers taking the game in a different direction where they might not make their money back.

    I certainly hope some players see the irony.
    That is why some of us don't pay until they have a released product and we can see if we like it or not.
    Which is an entirely valid option and probably the most intelligent choice for those who are hard-lined on their stance about "exact" publication dates. 

    Meanwhile, I'm 40 bucks into dozens of in-development games and none the worse for my spending. Things will finish when they finish, and meanwhile I've got dozens of other games I'm playing in the meantime. 

    It's not about "exact" publication dates. It's being hard-lined on honesty.

    The issue with KS today, is dev studios are promising things to their backers (whether it's release dates, specific game engines, features, etc.), then later -- after they fail to deliver -- they claim "oh, these were charitable donations. We have no obligation to fulfill our word b/c we used KS and you should have known better".

    My point is just because you use a crowdfunding platform, it should not give you free reign to make a bunch of promises during your campaign and not have to deliver on any of them.



    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?

    Dev studios should have the integrity to stand by their word. The guise of KickStarter should not give them blanket protection for lying.

    I understand things change in development. If you go the crowdfunding route, and you fail to fulfill a PROMISE, you should at least have the honor to make it right. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it's good business.
    Kyleran
    --------------------------------------------
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 24,180
    edited April 16




    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?


    um "yes".

    You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!

    If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.

    I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.

    That's what creative work is about.

    But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.

    This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.

    But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.


    Post edited by Sovrath on
    RenfailConstantineMerusVladamirBegemot



  • WellspringWellspring Member RarePosts: 715
    Sovrath said:




    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?


    um "yes".

    You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!

    If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.

    I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.

    That's what creative work is about.

    But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.

    This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.

    But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.


    What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.

    Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.

    If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
    --------------------------------------------
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 24,180
    edited April 16

    What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.

    Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.

    If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
    This is unfortunately a huge issue with trying to sell "anything". One must make the customer excited to "buy".

    However, with development it's just a bit different than buying a final product.

    At the time they make their pitch, they fully intend on including "x". Then, over time things change and they realize "x" really needs to be "y" or "x" needs to change because of "z".

    This is just reality. It reminds me of little kids screaming "YOU PROMISED".

    I'm pretty sure that a good many parents made promises only to realize those promises had to be altered.

    In the end a dose of "let the buyer beware" is in order.

    What they "should" do is make their pitch but include a disclaimer that any portion of the game/design might change over the course of development.

    If they don't include that then that is negligent on the developers part. It still doesn't let the buyer off the hook.

    Do your research, know what you are getting into, always be willing to accept "worse case scenario" and if one can't then don't give money.

    Players are not excused from being adults/responsible for their money.
    Post edited by Sovrath on
    RenfailWellspring



  • WellspringWellspring Member RarePosts: 715
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:




    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?


    um "yes".

    You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!

    If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.

    I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.

    That's what creative work is about.

    But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.

    This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.

    But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.


    What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.

    Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.

    If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
    This is unfortunately a huge issue with trying to sell "anything".

    At the time they make their pitch, they fully intend on including "x". Then, over time things change and they realize "x" really needs to be "y" or "x" needs to change because of "z".

    This is just reality. It reminds me of little kids screaming "YOU PROMISED".

    I'm pretty sure that a good many parents made promises only to realize those promises had to be altered.

    In the end a dose of "let the buyer beware" is in order.

    What they "should" do is make their pitch but include a disclaimer that any portion of the game/design might change over the course of development.

    If they don't include that then that is negligent on the developers part. It still doesn't let the buyer off the hook.

    Do your research, know what you are getting into, always be willing to accept "worse case scenario" and if one can't then don't give money.

    Players are not excused from being adults/responsible for their money.
    I agree.

    And yes, with any crowdfunded game, there's always the risk that the developers will be negligent and run off with everyone's money. So definitely don't make a gamble you aren't willing to lose. Because it is a gamble.

    At the same time, it doesn't mean we as gamers have to find it acceptable when a company deceives it's backers. Or think of it as a "GOOD" thing, as the article implies.
    --------------------------------------------
  • RenfailRenfail Member RarePosts: 1,039
    edited April 16
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:




    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?


    um "yes".

    You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!

    If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.

    I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.

    That's what creative work is about.

    But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.

    This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.

    But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.


    What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.

    Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.

    If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
    This is unfortunately a huge issue with trying to sell "anything".

    At the time they make their pitch, they fully intend on including "x". Then, over time things change and they realize "x" really needs to be "y" or "x" needs to change because of "z".

    This is just reality. It reminds me of little kids screaming "YOU PROMISED".

    I'm pretty sure that a good many parents made promises only to realize those promises had to be altered.

    In the end a dose of "let the buyer beware" is in order.

    What they "should" do is make their pitch but include a disclaimer that any portion of the game/design might change over the course of development.

    If they don't include that then that is negligent on the developers part. It still doesn't let the buyer off the hook.

    Do your research, know what you are getting into, always be willing to accept "worse case scenario" and if one can't then don't give money.

    Players are not excused from being adults/responsible for their money.
    I agree.

    And yes, with any crowdfunded game, there's always the risk that the developers will be negligent and run off with everyone's money. So definitely don't make a gamble you aren't willing to lose. Because it is a gamble.

    At the same time, it doesn't mean we as gamers have to find it acceptable when a company deceives it's backers. Or think of it as a "GOOD" thing, as the article implies.
    The post in no way, shape, or form implies that it is a good thing for companies to deceive their customers. 

    What it does say is that certain players need to understand the fact that in-development games change over the course of the years they are in development, that nothing is set in stone, that even post-launch an MMORPG can change, and people should treat those iterative processes and evolutionary changes like they do their spouse changing their hair style or color. 

    A design concept changing over time is not deceitful; it's the same thing as your spouse saying "I want to grow my hair out". 

    Still the same spouse. Just a slightly different look. 
    Post edited by Renfail on
    WellspringKyleran
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Creative Director | The Saga of Lucimia MMORPG
  • WellspringWellspring Member RarePosts: 715
    Renfail said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:




    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?


    um "yes".

    You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!

    If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.

    I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.

    That's what creative work is about.

    But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.

    This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.

    But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.


    What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.

    Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.

    If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
    This is unfortunately a huge issue with trying to sell "anything".

    At the time they make their pitch, they fully intend on including "x". Then, over time things change and they realize "x" really needs to be "y" or "x" needs to change because of "z".

    This is just reality. It reminds me of little kids screaming "YOU PROMISED".

    I'm pretty sure that a good many parents made promises only to realize those promises had to be altered.

    In the end a dose of "let the buyer beware" is in order.

    What they "should" do is make their pitch but include a disclaimer that any portion of the game/design might change over the course of development.

    If they don't include that then that is negligent on the developers part. It still doesn't let the buyer off the hook.

    Do your research, know what you are getting into, always be willing to accept "worse case scenario" and if one can't then don't give money.

    Players are not excused from being adults/responsible for their money.
    I agree.

    And yes, with any crowdfunded game, there's always the risk that the developers will be negligent and run off with everyone's money. So definitely don't make a gamble you aren't willing to lose. Because it is a gamble.

    At the same time, it doesn't mean we as gamers have to find it acceptable when a company deceives it's backers. Or think of it as a "GOOD" thing, as the article implies.
    The post in no way, shape, or form implies that it is a good thing for companies to deceive their customers. 

    What it does say is that certain players need to understand the fact that in-development games change over the course of the years they are in development, that nothing is set in stone, that even post-launch an MMORPG can change, and people should treat those iterative processes and evolutionary changes like they do their spouse changing their hair style or color. 

    A design concept changing over time is not deceitful; it's the same thing as your spouse saying "I want to grow my hair out". 

    Still the same spouse. Just a slightly different look. 
    Yeah, I'm completely fine with that.

    The point I've been to make, is if something IS presented to backers as being set in stone, it needs to either be delivered as promised or other agreeable arrangements need to be made (such as refunds for example). To do other wise, is unacceptable business practices IMO.
    --------------------------------------------
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 24,180
    Renfail said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:




    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?


    um "yes".

    You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!

    If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.

    I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.

    That's what creative work is about.

    But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.

    This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.

    But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.


    What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.

    Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.

    If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
    This is unfortunately a huge issue with trying to sell "anything".

    At the time they make their pitch, they fully intend on including "x". Then, over time things change and they realize "x" really needs to be "y" or "x" needs to change because of "z".

    This is just reality. It reminds me of little kids screaming "YOU PROMISED".

    I'm pretty sure that a good many parents made promises only to realize those promises had to be altered.

    In the end a dose of "let the buyer beware" is in order.

    What they "should" do is make their pitch but include a disclaimer that any portion of the game/design might change over the course of development.

    If they don't include that then that is negligent on the developers part. It still doesn't let the buyer off the hook.

    Do your research, know what you are getting into, always be willing to accept "worse case scenario" and if one can't then don't give money.

    Players are not excused from being adults/responsible for their money.
    I agree.

    And yes, with any crowdfunded game, there's always the risk that the developers will be negligent and run off with everyone's money. So definitely don't make a gamble you aren't willing to lose. Because it is a gamble.

    At the same time, it doesn't mean we as gamers have to find it acceptable when a company deceives it's backers. Or think of it as a "GOOD" thing, as the article implies.
    The post in no way, shape, or form implies that it is a good thing for companies to deceive their customers. 

    What it does say is that certain players need to understand the fact that in-development games change over the course of the years they are in development, that nothing is set in stone, that even post-launch an MMORPG can change, and people should treat those iterative processes and evolutionary changes like they do their spouse changing their hair style or color. 

    A design concept changing over time is not deceitful; it's the same thing as your spouse saying "I want to grow my hair out". 

    Still the same spouse. Just a slightly different look. 
    Yeah, I'm completely fine with that.

    The point I've been to make, is if something IS presented to backers as being set in stone, it needs to either be delivered as promised or other agreeable arrangements need to be made (such as refunds for example). To do other wise, is unacceptable business practices IMO.
    The thing is, I don't see how something like a crowdfunding platform for a video game can ever be set in stone.

    The best thing for possible backers (at this point as this isn't new, we know the pitfalls) is to always assume that everything is subject to change.
    Renfailpantaro



  • RenfailRenfail Member RarePosts: 1,039
    Sovrath said:
    Renfail said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:




    If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?


    um "yes".

    You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!

    If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.

    I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.

    That's what creative work is about.

    But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.

    This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.

    But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.


    What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.

    Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.

    If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
    This is unfortunately a huge issue with trying to sell "anything".

    At the time they make their pitch, they fully intend on including "x". Then, over time things change and they realize "x" really needs to be "y" or "x" needs to change because of "z".

    This is just reality. It reminds me of little kids screaming "YOU PROMISED".

    I'm pretty sure that a good many parents made promises only to realize those promises had to be altered.

    In the end a dose of "let the buyer beware" is in order.

    What they "should" do is make their pitch but include a disclaimer that any portion of the game/design might change over the course of development.

    If they don't include that then that is negligent on the developers part. It still doesn't let the buyer off the hook.

    Do your research, know what you are getting into, always be willing to accept "worse case scenario" and if one can't then don't give money.

    Players are not excused from being adults/responsible for their money.
    I agree.

    And yes, with any crowdfunded game, there's always the risk that the developers will be negligent and run off with everyone's money. So definitely don't make a gamble you aren't willing to lose. Because it is a gamble.

    At the same time, it doesn't mean we as gamers have to find it acceptable when a company deceives it's backers. Or think of it as a "GOOD" thing, as the article implies.
    The post in no way, shape, or form implies that it is a good thing for companies to deceive their customers. 

    What it does say is that certain players need to understand the fact that in-development games change over the course of the years they are in development, that nothing is set in stone, that even post-launch an MMORPG can change, and people should treat those iterative processes and evolutionary changes like they do their spouse changing their hair style or color. 

    A design concept changing over time is not deceitful; it's the same thing as your spouse saying "I want to grow my hair out". 

    Still the same spouse. Just a slightly different look. 
    Yeah, I'm completely fine with that.

    The point I've been to make, is if something IS presented to backers as being set in stone, it needs to either be delivered as promised or other agreeable arrangements need to be made (such as refunds for example). To do other wise, is unacceptable business practices IMO.
    The thing is, I don't see how something like a crowdfunding platform for a video game can ever be set in stone.

    The best thing for possible backers (at this point as this isn't new, we know the pitfalls) is to always assume that everything is subject to change.
    Which is why I'm 40 dollars into multiple games without having an issue of when they come out, or what features may have evolved from the original pitch. 

    I'm a gamer. I love playing games. All games.

    I also understand that crowdfunded games are subject to change between my time of backing and the time of publiation. That's a given; developers don't have to specifically state it to me, as I fully understand that I'm backing an idea for a game, not an actual, finished product. And ideas will absolutely change over time, and should, as more data is plugged into the equations.

    I also know that MMORPGs change over time, so I'm never upset when a game like EQ2 changes combat, or EQ1 added AA, or when LOTRO went F2P (I was a wee bit sad about that one, but upset? Not in the least. Still a great game that I enjoy playing). 


    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Creative Director | The Saga of Lucimia MMORPG
Sign In or Register to comment.