Ethyrial: Echoes of Yore Releases a Month-Long Open Alpha in Coordination with Their Kickstarter Cam

System

Ethyrial: Echoes of Yore Releases a Month-Long Open Alpha in Coordination with Their Kickstarter Campaign | MMORPG.com

Ethyrial: Echoes of Yore is an indie game that has graced our Indie MMO Spotlight through the insistence of our community. Swedish developer Gellyberry Studios is determined to make this fantasy MMORPG completely subscription-based, but in order to do that, they'll need plenty of funding to continue development. To that end, they have started a Kickstarter campaign, where they are asking for a funding goal of a mere 63,000 dollars (60,000 euros).

Read the full story here

slowz2secret

Surprisingly, I'm having fun with this one, I've found some bugs that I reported already, the devs are very active on steam and reddit

Falcomith

Game is great. I have been helping in testing the last 2 alphas and this current one. Such a refreshing breath of fresh air in the genre. The devs communicate well, they listen and interact with the community in their Discord and in game. They have been applying suggestions from the community into their game. They are not shy to try the suggestions if it sounds like it would work with their systems and direction, they are taking the game.
So come on over. Get in the action and download it from Steam and try what they have available to test now and get in on the fun.

Talemire

Absolutely love this game so far. I feel like they have the recipe to make a true impact on the genre. The next Runescape, I'm calling it.

strawhat0981

Looks kinda cool, I'll give it a shot

maros

Installed, created account, created character. In the 1st interaction my chat bubble got immediately overlapped by NPC's. I also couldn't click a highlighted choice. Repported the bug, realized how clunky the movement is, Uninstalled.

ashiru_1978

I can't get over the fact that it's a bunch of Unity Store assets and they aren't even making any effort to modify them beyond what they originally are. Other than that top-down perspective for an MMORPG has always been a huge turn off for me.

Falcomith

ashiru_1978 said:

I can't get over the fact that it's a bunch of Unity Store assets and they aren't even making any effort to modify them beyond what they originally are. Other than that top-down perspective for an MMORPG has always been a huge turn off for me.

They are a very small indie team. And they do mention that on their Kickstarter page. If they raise €400,000....

Reaching this goal in our budget will allow us to hire a 3D studio to assist with the overhaul and creation of new 3D assets to populate the world of Irumesa.


Unique 3D Assets

Foliage & fauna models and textures unique to the landscape and fantasy world of Irumesa
Creation of unique tile textures to give the landscape of Irumesa more depth
An assorted list of 3D assets to enrichen the variety and options for our level designers, in turn allowing them to create more unique landscapes. And to add... €250,000 "From a visual and performance standpoint, we consider our current character models to be the biggest thing we'd want to improve with a bigger budget. As a result of this, the jump to this pledge goal is spent towards hiring 3D Studio assistance to rework our character models as well as some of the most important visual assets in Ethyrial. "

Slapshot1188

Open Alpha... letting people see what exists and play it themselves BEFORE plunking down money..

... what an amazing idea!

maskedweasel

Slapshot1188 said:

Open Alpha... letting people see what exists and play it themselves BEFORE plunking down money..

... what an amazing idea!

Yes definitely, except... well... if we go by their projected earnings on kickstarter, they'll fall short of their goal. Not saying that no alpha would have been better, but we've seen before that selling a promise somehow works for a lot of indie developers.

Slapshot1188

maskedweasel said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Open Alpha... letting people see what exists and play it themselves BEFORE plunking down money..

... what an amazing idea!

Yes definitely, except... well... if we go by their projected earnings on kickstarter, they'll fall short of their goal. Not saying that no alpha would have been better, but we've seen before that selling a promise somehow works for a lot of indie developers.

May or may not end up being better for the developer.  It's undoubtedly better for the consumer.

I also think they have their Kickstarter setup in a manner that does not really incentivize folks to jump in.  There is no real Fear Of Missing Out.   It's setup so you play the game, decide, and then buy or do not buy.   From a marketing perspective I probably would have scattered some limited packages on there, but as a consumer this is about the best you can ask for.

I haven't tried it myself but I will.

TheDalaiBomba

Slapshot1188 said:

maskedweasel said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Open Alpha... letting people see what exists and play it themselves BEFORE plunking down money..

... what an amazing idea!

Yes definitely, except... well... if we go by their projected earnings on kickstarter, they'll fall short of their goal. Not saying that no alpha would have been better, but we've seen before that selling a promise somehow works for a lot of indie developers.

May or may not end up being better for the developer.  It's undoubtedly better for the consumer.

I also think they have their Kickstarter setup in a manner that does not really incentivize folks to jump in.  There is no real Fear Of Missing Out.   It's setup so you play the game, decide, and then buy or do not buy.   From a marketing perspective I probably would have scattered some limited packages on there, but as a consumer this is about the best you can ask for.

I haven't tried it myself but I will.

Not every idea for a game needs to be funded.

I agree with Slap: this is a huge improvement over most crowdfunding campaigns out of the gate.

If it falls flat, then the market is working to curb unappealing ideas and the game idea didn't deserve funding.

lahnmir

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

maskedweasel said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Open Alpha... letting people see what exists and play it themselves BEFORE plunking down money..

... what an amazing idea!

Yes definitely, except... well... if we go by their projected earnings on kickstarter, they'll fall short of their goal. Not saying that no alpha would have been better, but we've seen before that selling a promise somehow works for a lot of indie developers.

May or may not end up being better for the developer.  It's undoubtedly better for the consumer.

I also think they have their Kickstarter setup in a manner that does not really incentivize folks to jump in.  There is no real Fear Of Missing Out.   It's setup so you play the game, decide, and then buy or do not buy.   From a marketing perspective I probably would have scattered some limited packages on there, but as a consumer this is about the best you can ask for.

I haven't tried it myself but I will.

Not every idea for a game needs to be funded.

I agree with Slap: this is a huge improvement over most crowdfunding campaigns out of the gate.

If it falls flat, then the market is working to curb unappealing ideas and the game idea didn't deserve funding.

The game will release, regardless of meeting their KS target or not, they are quite open about that. Got me a package, support your hobbies guys.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

TheDalaiBomba

lahnmir said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

maskedweasel said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Open Alpha... letting people see what exists and play it themselves BEFORE plunking down money..

... what an amazing idea!

Yes definitely, except... well... if we go by their projected earnings on kickstarter, they'll fall short of their goal. Not saying that no alpha would have been better, but we've seen before that selling a promise somehow works for a lot of indie developers.

May or may not end up being better for the developer.  It's undoubtedly better for the consumer.

I also think they have their Kickstarter setup in a manner that does not really incentivize folks to jump in.  There is no real Fear Of Missing Out.   It's setup so you play the game, decide, and then buy or do not buy.   From a marketing perspective I probably would have scattered some limited packages on there, but as a consumer this is about the best you can ask for.

I haven't tried it myself but I will.

Not every idea for a game needs to be funded.

I agree with Slap: this is a huge improvement over most crowdfunding campaigns out of the gate.

If it falls flat, then the market is working to curb unappealing ideas and the game idea didn't deserve funding.

The game will release, regardless of meeting their KS target or not, they are quite open about that. Got me a package, support your hobbies guys.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Cool, well at the very least it will have a full release to market so it can be judged on complete merits, instead of the myriad of so many other crowdfunding MMORPGs that are largely pipe dreams hoping for a pile of crowdfunded cash to give them job security.

Slapshot1188

TheDalaiBomba said:

lahnmir said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

maskedweasel said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Open Alpha... letting people see what exists and play it themselves BEFORE plunking down money..

... what an amazing idea!

Yes definitely, except... well... if we go by their projected earnings on kickstarter, they'll fall short of their goal. Not saying that no alpha would have been better, but we've seen before that selling a promise somehow works for a lot of indie developers.

May or may not end up being better for the developer.  It's undoubtedly better for the consumer.

I also think they have their Kickstarter setup in a manner that does not really incentivize folks to jump in.  There is no real Fear Of Missing Out.   It's setup so you play the game, decide, and then buy or do not buy.   From a marketing perspective I probably would have scattered some limited packages on there, but as a consumer this is about the best you can ask for.

I haven't tried it myself but I will.

Not every idea for a game needs to be funded.

I agree with Slap: this is a huge improvement over most crowdfunding campaigns out of the gate.

If it falls flat, then the market is working to curb unappealing ideas and the game idea didn't deserve funding.

The game will release, regardless of meeting their KS target or not, they are quite open about that. Got me a package, support your hobbies guys.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Cool, well at the very least it will have a full release to market so it can be judged on complete merits, instead of the myriad of so many other crowdfunding MMORPGs that are largely pipe dreams hoping for a pile of crowdfunded cash to give them job security.

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

TheDalaiBomba

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incidentally: this is why I have always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

XeroKnight

I backed it as well. Definitely fits with the kinds of games that interest me these days. I'm tired of the on the rails experience you get with most MMORPGs out and the PvP gankfests that most sandbox MMOs devolve into. I'm hoping this one turns out well.

Slapshot1188

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incudentally: this is why I gave always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

Agree on all points.

KnightFalz

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incidentally: this is why I have always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

There is nothing shady about it. Supporters are simply confusing the intent to make a game they can kickstart or otherwise fund with the guarantee that is will someday be.

There is no guarantee anything will come out of something so speculative, and not much in the way of recourse if a good faith effort to make is so can be established.

Putting money toward anything that may be is high risk. One shouldn't put anything into such that they can't afford to lose outright without jeopardizing their financial security as there is a very real chance that intended to be made will never come.

TheDalaiBomba

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incidentally: this is why I have always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

There is nothing shady about it. Supporters are simply confusing the intent to make a game they can kickstart or otherwise fund with the guarantee that is will someday be.

There is no guarantee anything will come out of something so speculative, and not much in the way of recourse if a good faith effort to make is so can be established.

Putting money toward anything that may be is high risk. One shouldn't put anything into such that they can't afford to lose outright without jeopardizing their financial security as there is a very real chance that intended to be made will never come.

It's a more predatory form of monetization for gamers.  It's higher risk for gamers, less responsibility for devs.  Objectively, it's a worse situation for gamers to be in economically.  The more prevalent it becomes, the worse it is for gamers.

Your comment about it being speculative is the very point.  You don't go to Wal-Mart, put $50 down on the description of a new rod and reel, then wait 4 years to see if it happens.  You go there, you examine the products available and their prices, and you make a decision.  Putting $50 down for the chance of a new rod and reel is an objectively worse situation for consumers.

It is no different in video games.

Edit: it is BEYOND time that we stop acting as if devs don't realize how silly the crowdfunding idea is and are taking advantage of it, even the good ones: "Wait, you mean a publisher demands actual deadlines and a finished product that sells well?  But I can shovel that responsibility onto gamers and have no responsibility other than to give it the ole college try?  Yea, I'll take number two." - every dev with a game pitch not good enough to get traditional funding, and we gamers eat it up because "Every once in a whole, there's a good one!"  And why not?  You will have an army of apologists directly out of the gate, and a core of fervent apologists defending you until the day the entire thing folds.  And the best part?  Those apologists will *continually* give you money so long as you continue claiming you're "working" on it.


There are good games released every year completely funded by publishers.  Some of the good ones funded by gamers probably would've been funded by publishers if they weren't competing with literal hundreds of EA or otherwise crowdfunded titles.  We are making poor consumer purchasing decisions, and the market is growing more predatory to accommodate it.

Slapshot1188

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incidentally: this is why I have always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

There is nothing shady about it. Supporters are simply confusing the intent to make a game they can kickstart or otherwise fund with the guarantee that is will someday be.

There is no guarantee anything will come out of something so speculative, and not much in the way of recourse if a good faith effort to make is so can be established.

Putting money toward anything that may be is high risk. One shouldn't put anything into such that they can't afford to lose outright without jeopardizing their financial security as there is a very real chance that intended to be made will never come.

Its certainly shady when reality does not patch the pitch.  If someone tells you it will take 18 months to launch a game because of the progress they already made, and 5 years pass as well at 10 times the budget stated... well..  That's shady... at a minimum.

Mendel

I took a short look at Ethyrial yesterday.  It's got some distinct issues, but some potential charm.

Visually, this alpha is a mess.  From the character creation to the environment, it's just a bit wonky.  Want a male character without facial hair?  Not possible.  The isometric view blocks some important items -- dead rats, chests, ladders, etc.  It would probably be better to have a 100% Top Down view as opposed to the isometric view.  This smacks of more store-bought visuals -- not going to cut it in a modern game.

The interface, especially talking to NPCs is non-intuitive.  You have to click on the NPC and type in something, even a simple 'Hi' to start a conversation.  I almost liked the idea at first; full sentence text parsing seemed like a throwback to the Microprose days.  Unfortunately, the click and type interface was a bit cumbersome.

There are lots of objects in the Port, but each only has 3 options in the interface: Inspect, move to, and use.  Open or close a door with use.  Search a haystack: use.  Loot a corpse: use.  The use function is overused.  If you wanted to simply Take some hay or Burn some hay, there isn't a distinction.  That severely limits objects to having only a single function.

The lighting was particularly dark.  I don't know if there was a gamma or brightness setting to correct this issue, I didn't mess around with the settings at all.

Probably the biggest issue was the deserted game.  I never saw another person; it was like I was playing a single player game, or a private instance of an online game.

Slapshot1188

Torval said:

Slapshot1188 said:

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incidentally: this is why I have always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

There is nothing shady about it. Supporters are simply confusing the intent to make a game they can kickstart or otherwise fund with the guarantee that is will someday be.

There is no guarantee anything will come out of something so speculative, and not much in the way of recourse if a good faith effort to make is so can be established.

Putting money toward anything that may be is high risk. One shouldn't put anything into such that they can't afford to lose outright without jeopardizing their financial security as there is a very real chance that intended to be made will never come.

Its certainly shady when reality does not patch the pitch.  If someone tells you it will take 18 months to launch a game because of the progress they already made, and 5 years pass as well at 10 times the budget stated... well..  That's shady... at a minimum.

It isn't shady though because the risk and proposition are clear up front. It's very risky with virtually no accountability which is a huge problem, but I wouldn't call it shady. The promises are all wrapped in a huge warning that it may not come out as predicted or at all. That's why I always recommend gamers not buy into early access, this included.

These guys aren't really that different. Saying they're going to launch anyway isn't much of a consolation if it ends up being trash like Shroud of the Avatar or Project Gorgon. And it still hasn't launched and may not, so there is no guarantees there.

Might as well wait until release, but some people just can't and will complain anyway when it comes out a half-baked flop that shutters a short ways down the road. But gamers often behave like addicts and exhibit little self-control. If it's going to be popular then it will be there when it launches.

Disagree.  There is no way that ALL these Kickstart games underestimate their development timelines by 400%.  Maybe the initial wave when they were overly optimistic… but today they KNOW they are lying.  And that’s shady.  At minimum 

Also… letting you try it right now before buying is a huge step.  If you dislike it now… don’t buy it!  

Mendel

Slapshot1188 said:

Torval said:

Slapshot1188 said:

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incidentally: this is why I have always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

There is nothing shady about it. Supporters are simply confusing the intent to make a game they can kickstart or otherwise fund with the guarantee that is will someday be.

There is no guarantee anything will come out of something so speculative, and not much in the way of recourse if a good faith effort to make is so can be established.

Putting money toward anything that may be is high risk. One shouldn't put anything into such that they can't afford to lose outright without jeopardizing their financial security as there is a very real chance that intended to be made will never come.

Its certainly shady when reality does not patch the pitch.  If someone tells you it will take 18 months to launch a game because of the progress they already made, and 5 years pass as well at 10 times the budget stated... well..  That's shady... at a minimum.

It isn't shady though because the risk and proposition are clear up front. It's very risky with virtually no accountability which is a huge problem, but I wouldn't call it shady. The promises are all wrapped in a huge warning that it may not come out as predicted or at all. That's why I always recommend gamers not buy into early access, this included.

These guys aren't really that different. Saying they're going to launch anyway isn't much of a consolation if it ends up being trash like Shroud of the Avatar or Project Gorgon. And it still hasn't launched and may not, so there is no guarantees there.

Might as well wait until release, but some people just can't and will complain anyway when it comes out a half-baked flop that shutters a short ways down the road. But gamers often behave like addicts and exhibit little self-control. If it's going to be popular then it will be there when it launches.

Disagree.  There is no way that ALL these Kickstart games underestimate their development timelines by 400%.  Maybe the initial wave when they were overly optimistic… but today they KNOW they are lying.  And that’s shady.  At minimum 

Steam says the planned release date for this is April 2023.  If they do hit this date, the game will fail... hard.  One year isn't enough time to make the necessary graphic corrections, much less fix any issues that are discovered in this April 2022 Alpha period.

It may not be shady or lying (but could be), but underestimating the amount of work needed is unprofessional.  I think we customers deserve better estimations from all game developers.  It may be time customers begin to demand that.

Slapshot1188

Mendel said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Torval said:

Slapshot1188 said:

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Yeah the video says they are launching next April.  It’s only a question of how much they add to the game between now and then.  This would depend on the funds raised.

To be completely fair, though: it could still fall flat on release.

I hope it doesn't, because it's doing crowdfunding in a way that respects gamers.  But with the sheer volume of games in the virtual ether now, they will have a tough time if they don't replace all the Unity placeholder assets mentioned.  It will take a lot more than the general Kickstarter goal for them to achieve that by their own standards.


Incidentally: this is why I have always felt the deluge of EA and crowdfunded games aren't actually healthy for gamers or the industry.

In many instances, the funding chances are less about a realistic game being described, and more about pie in the sky promises to make folks salivate.  These EA and crowdfunded games getting away with those promises actually hurt the chances of a game like this.  It takes resources (money) from the total pool of available cash in the market based on marketing alone, instead of any substance.

That's the thing about tacitly accepting a shady business practices in a market: you almost always guarantee the practice becomes more prevalent.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, no matter how hard consumers may wish it.

There is nothing shady about it. Supporters are simply confusing the intent to make a game they can kickstart or otherwise fund with the guarantee that is will someday be.

There is no guarantee anything will come out of something so speculative, and not much in the way of recourse if a good faith effort to make is so can be established.

Putting money toward anything that may be is high risk. One shouldn't put anything into such that they can't afford to lose outright without jeopardizing their financial security as there is a very real chance that intended to be made will never come.

Its certainly shady when reality does not patch the pitch.  If someone tells you it will take 18 months to launch a game because of the progress they already made, and 5 years pass as well at 10 times the budget stated... well..  That's shady... at a minimum.

It isn't shady though because the risk and proposition are clear up front. It's very risky with virtually no accountability which is a huge problem, but I wouldn't call it shady. The promises are all wrapped in a huge warning that it may not come out as predicted or at all. That's why I always recommend gamers not buy into early access, this included.

These guys aren't really that different. Saying they're going to launch anyway isn't much of a consolation if it ends up being trash like Shroud of the Avatar or Project Gorgon. And it still hasn't launched and may not, so there is no guarantees there.

Might as well wait until release, but some people just can't and will complain anyway when it comes out a half-baked flop that shutters a short ways down the road. But gamers often behave like addicts and exhibit little self-control. If it's going to be popular then it will be there when it launches.

Disagree.  There is no way that ALL these Kickstart games underestimate their development timelines by 400%.  Maybe the initial wave when they were overly optimistic… but today they KNOW they are lying.  And that’s shady.  At minimum 

Steam says the planned release date for this is April 2023.  If they do hit this date, the game will fail... hard.  One year isn't enough time to make the necessary graphic corrections, much less fix any issues that are discovered in this April 2022 Alpha period.

It may not be shady or lying (but could be), but underestimating the amount of work needed is unprofessional.  I think we customers deserve better estimations from all game developers.  It may be time customers begin to demand that.

The difference is that you are able to go see the game as it exists right now.  If you aren’t happy with what you see do not but it… since they said it’s launching next year no matter what.

Im not buying it… but do think this is a much more customer friendly approach as opposed to fake videos, PowerPoints, high pressure FOM and all the rest.