Originally posted by ElirionLoth A developer asking people who like the game to post a positive review on a site? Sorry, not seeing the problem with that. He's not asking anyone to lie and also not asking anyone to omit the negatives.
Developer asked players to post positive reviews on steam to manipulate the score from " mostly positive " to " very positive ". If you don't see the problem with that, then I think your moral compass is off.
I think many over at SotA forums have lost track with reality and will do anything to please these seasoned developers. Sure many of these positive reviews is truthfully written but it make it no less a manipulation created by these developers to trick others to buy into a game that don't deserve the today reputation it has on steam.
Another reason why many have written a more positive review then deserved is protection of their investment, some have put thousands of dollars into this game.
Most views that do not agree with the bottom line are labled as toxic and cut out of the SotA forum. That is a fact. It has taken place on Steam also as Portalarium directly manage the community there.
Negative reviews have been removed from the Steam community due to players being to up front about their feelings, they are called trolls and banned, reviews removed. Not just that, but at least on one occasion the Portalarium Devs have removed a steam user from the community because "they didn't own the game" - when in actual fact, they did own the game and you can see it in their Steam profile.
Community management is being actioned directly by the people responsible for marketing & develpoing the game. That is bad news for us of course they are going to moderate it all to put them and their product in a positive light.
I just won a key to this game and even thou am deep into another game I plan on giving this game a fair shot. It looks very interesting and what they have done so far makes me really interested in it. I already plan on giving some cash a little every month once I do start playing it to help support the game. It won't be UO but I think it is as close we will ever get to an updated UO.
How anyone could possibly give this guy money after Tabula Rasa is mind boggling to me.
He sued NCSoft for 28 million dollars and he's asking you and me for our hard earned wages to build another game? Build your own damn game with your fortune and if it's good, then we'll buy it. Why average people give rich people their money to do what they want when they can afford to do it themselves is beyond me.
How anyone could possibly give this guy money after Tabula Rasa is mind boggling to me.
He sued NCSoft for 28 million dollars and he's asking you and me for our hard earned wages to build another game? Build your own damn game with your fortune and if it's good, then we'll buy it. Why average people give rich people their money to do what they want when they can afford to do it themselves is beyond me.
It's simple America's past time is to give rich people our money and then complain that the rich people have our money.
How anyone could possibly give this guy money after Tabula Rasa is mind boggling to me.
He sued NCSoft for 28 million dollars and he's asking you and me for our hard earned wages to build another game? Build your own damn game with your fortune and if it's good, then we'll buy it. Why average people give rich people their money to do what they want when they can afford to do it themselves is beyond me.
Do you actually have any knowledge of what went on in the Tabula Rasa development, or are you just attaching the two names together because you saw them on a box?
And getting a judgement doesn't have mean actually collecting the money from the loser. That could still be tied up in court. Absolutely no guarantee about it. Especially with NCSoft involved.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
How anyone could possibly give this guy money after Tabula Rasa is mind boggling to me.
The same could be said of any creative (in any industry) that has had a flop. A string of flops...ok, maybe. Then again, there are those comeback stories...
He sued NCSoft for 28 million dollars and he's asking you and me for our hard earned wages to build another game? Build your own damn game with your fortune and if it's good, then we'll buy it. Why average people give rich people their money to do what they want when they can afford to do it themselves is beyond me.
What does his personal finances have to do with anything? There are a ton of wealthy creatives who don't use their own money to produce their work, yet still reap profits for eternity. Hate it or love it, crowdfunding is here to stay. I'm actually looking forward to seeing how equity crowdfunding changes the game (see: www.fig.co).
The problem is morons who buy into a pre-alpha then give it a bad review because it's not as playable as they want it to be or it ismissing features. We back this game because we believe in what it can become, not because it is great NOW.
The problem is morons who buy into a pre-alpha then give it a bad review because it's not as playable as they want it to be or it ismissing features. We back this game because we believe in what it can become, not because it is great NOW.
The problem is morons who buy into a pre-alpha then give it a positive review cause developers asked for it. I believe in reviews that describe whats good or bad not positive reviews that inform us they have faith in these seasoned developers.
Aragon100 is on a crusade against this game since way before the game was even available in alpha/beta to play, so don't pay too much attention to his bashing posts.
Yeah, while the guys making the game and their community aren't exactly saints either but it's pretty clear Aragon is on some crazy train and with every post here he just gets laughed at.
So they're still in alpha and dev is basically publicly worrying they may run out of money prematurely? r.i.p. Lord British
Nope, they won't run out of money. In fact they just released a huge update to the game, it is in alpha but an alpha with more content than any current sandbox game. So take it how you like it. Don't fall for @Aragon100 's manipulation, he is on a journey to spread hatred towards SoTA since he believes Lord British promised to make a FFA Full loot gank game and now he backed down. It is @Aragon100 's belief though.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Aragon100 is on a crusade against this game since way before the game was even available in alpha/beta to play, so don't pay too much attention to his bashing posts.
Why making personal insults? Nothing to say about developers asking for positive reviews?
Usually when you have no comments on the subject whatsoever it is only personal insults left.
Are you just fine with the developer manipulated positive steam reviews?
My impression of the steam page is that the devs are trying hard to be transparent and upfront about the game. The first thing you read on the store front page, in the part where every other steam game seems to try and put their sales pitch is:
"WARNING: THIS GAME IS EARLY ACCESS PRE-ALPHA. PLEASE DO NOT PURCHASE IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME AND ARE PREPARED TO HANDLE PERIODIC WIPES, SERIOUS ISSUES AND INCOMPLETE CONTENT. "
You have to actually scroll down and read the fine print about the game description, quite a refreshing change. Also looks it will be a b2p title, which is pretty stellar.
Except they stated in the latest update to read all the negative reviews before buying the game, encouraging people to see both sides. But honestly nobody should pay attention to most of the steam reviews, you can see positive reviews that are trying to be "funny" 99% of the time for a game that is horrible, saying things like "Game uninstalled well" with a positive review. Or negative reviews that basically say, why are you reading the reviews go play the game. It's a flawed system simply because people don't care about actually assessing products anymore. Game developers can encourage anyone to go review something positively if they like it, it isn't out of the ordinary and shouldn't affect whether or not you should support a company. Read all the reviews that are actually reviewing it, and then move on from that point if reviews matter to you.
Aragon100 is on a crusade against this game since way before the game was even available in alpha/beta to play, so don't pay too much attention to his bashing posts.
Why making personal insults? Nothing to say about developers asking for positive reviews?
Usually when you have no comments on the subject whatsoever it is only personal insults left.
Are you just fine with the developer manipulated positive steam reviews?
There's absolutely no insult in my post. In didn't call you a name or something, and I didn't attack you personally but the content of your posts here on the SotA forum, which is definitely not forbidden. And readers can verify your post history easily, you started to post negatively and bash the game way before the game even opened to players.
I'm just warning readers to take what you say with a big grain of salt, since you are obviously negatively biased against this game to the point of keeping posting here and bashing it even though you have no intention to play it.
And still you refuse to tell the readers here your opinion on developers trying to manipulate this game to have a better rate over at steam, interesting.
I'm sure you have an opinion just as i have. It is good to have a forum like this where developers cant ban you for writing what i see as the truth about this game.
I think you should remove your pink-coloured glasses and see this game for what it is.
The majority of the backers, including myself, are waiting until launch to dive deep into the game. I've played some of the earlier releases, R13, R14, R15, and I'm playing R21 daily. The game is evolving into exactly what I've wanted: a sandbox singleplayer game that I can play with a great community of friends.
The new combat changes in R21 have really attracted my attention, and honestly I've never seen the population this high before. It speaks volumes to their progress getting closer to beta.
Explain how it was manipulating rather than making uneducated "if" "then" statements. He asked people that already like the game to express their views on a web site. He didn't ask them to post multiple reviews or some other devious tactic. How was his request manipulative?
You changed the words from positive reviews to "express your views" two entirely different ideals.
Then the question WHY?
This is the age of the internet,there is no need to ask people to post or express their views,it will happen without doubt and without their asking. So it brings about the question of intent,and imo it is VERY obvious what the intent was and should be obvious to anyone else.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
When you are pushing a partisan crowd to leave positive reviews with the intention of changing the overall rating of your game, it skirts the line of what is acceptable imo.
Originally posted by MellowTigger I agree that SOTA is disappointing at the moment. I've donated far too much money to their campaign (kickstarter and later), but I'm disliking the interface these days. I still think they have good ideas, and I'm still looking forward to the final result. The in-between process, though, finally got too painfully annoying to continue. It's like their idea of a GUI is frozen 20 years in the past. I posted on their forum many weeks ago explaining what features (or lack of) disappointed me, and I mentioned that I'd be back in 2016 to see how things progressed. I haven't been back since.
I sometimes worry Lord British and Brad McQauid are stuck in time and don't understand things are not the same as they were years ago. I'm waiting to see a final game before I give either any money.
So am I. Aren't these guys selling land plots the same way Star Citizen is selling ships? It seems as a great scheme for developers but a horrible model for consumers.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
First lets just all be honest.. It is more likely someone that dislikes a game will post a negative review then someone that enjoys and likes a game to post a positive review. Most people that enjoy games do not go around posting postive views on said games. Because if that was indeed true then these games that sell millions of copies would have millions of reviews. Reality of the situation is that most people that will take the time to post a review on a game do so because they dislike the game and feel the need to tell others the same. Rarely is it the other way around where people that are enjoying a game go around positioning positive reviews.
So for a dev to ask people that ARE ENJOYING the game to post a review saying they are enjoying the game is not out of line. Heck lets all be big boys and be honest. Most review sites are biased anyways to the companys that pay to keep there websites running. Your not going to take say $500k from blizzard for ad space and then turn around and post a huge negative review on said game / company. It's just not going to happen / the website will not stay around for long doing so.
So myself I see nothing wrong with a company asking its players (that are enjoying the game) to post up a review saying so.
I'd punish the devs just like any other company for exploiting review systems. Steam should kick them off their client until these practices are halted.
If this indeed did happen then instantly you would more then likely see 75% of the steam games disappear in that case. Cause this is way way more common then you think. But you know ultimately you as the player gets to decide do you post the positive review or a negative review. They are NOT making you do anything.
Now if they themselfs where going out and posting the reviews to change the outcome that is a different story. But at the end of the day noone is doing anything they do not want to do.
I'd punish the devs just like any other company for exploiting review systems. Steam should kick them off their client until these practices are halted.
Agree they should remove them.
But gladly it seems they instead got their deserved punishment from their player base. Out of 631 reviews they now only have a "mixed" reputation and developers have lowered the price for the game by half.
Seems trying to manipulate their Steam reputation was not such a good idea.
Comments
Most views that do not agree with the bottom line are labled as toxic and cut out of the SotA forum. That is a fact. It has taken place on Steam also as Portalarium directly manage the community there.
Negative reviews have been removed from the Steam community due to players being to up front about their feelings, they are called trolls and banned, reviews removed. Not just that, but at least on one occasion the Portalarium Devs have removed a steam user from the community because "they didn't own the game" - when in actual fact, they did own the game and you can see it in their Steam profile.
Community management is being actioned directly by the people responsible for marketing & develpoing the game. That is bad news for us of course they are going to moderate it all to put them and their product in a positive light.
http://shroudunlimited.boards.net/
https://insanemembrain.wordpress.com/
Yep I have been following it for a while now.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
He sued NCSoft for 28 million dollars and he's asking you and me for our hard earned wages to build another game? Build your own damn game with your fortune and if it's good, then we'll buy it. Why average people give rich people their money to do what they want when they can afford to do it themselves is beyond me.
And getting a judgement doesn't have mean actually collecting the money from the loser. That could still be tied up in court. Absolutely no guarantee about it. Especially with NCSoft involved.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
What does his personal finances have to do with anything? There are a ton of wealthy creatives who don't use their own money to produce their work, yet still reap profits for eternity. Hate it or love it, crowdfunding is here to stay. I'm actually looking forward to seeing how equity crowdfunding changes the game (see: www.fig.co).
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/steam-review-request.21397/
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
r.i.p. Lord British
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Usually when you have no comments on the subject whatsoever it is only personal insults left.
Are you just fine with the developer manipulated positive steam reviews?
"WARNING: THIS GAME IS EARLY ACCESS PRE-ALPHA. PLEASE DO NOT PURCHASE IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME AND ARE PREPARED TO HANDLE PERIODIC WIPES, SERIOUS ISSUES AND INCOMPLETE CONTENT. "
You have to actually scroll down and read the fine print about the game description, quite a refreshing change. Also looks it will be a b2p title, which is pretty stellar.
I'm sure you have an opinion just as i have. It is good to have a forum like this where developers cant ban you for writing what i see as the truth about this game.
I think you should remove your pink-coloured glasses and see this game for what it is.
The new combat changes in R21 have really attracted my attention, and honestly I've never seen the population this high before. It speaks volumes to their progress getting closer to beta.
Then the question WHY?
This is the age of the internet,there is no need to ask people to post or express their views,it will happen without doubt and without their asking.
So it brings about the question of intent,and imo it is VERY obvious what the intent was and should be obvious to anyone else.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It seems as a great scheme for developers but a horrible model for consumers.
http://www.entropiapartners.com/?r=22415
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
So for a dev to ask people that ARE ENJOYING the game to post a review saying they are enjoying the game is not out of line. Heck lets all be big boys and be honest. Most review sites are biased anyways to the companys that pay to keep there websites running. Your not going to take say $500k from blizzard for ad space and then turn around and post a huge negative review on said game / company. It's just not going to happen / the website will not stay around for long doing so.
So myself I see nothing wrong with a company asking its players (that are enjoying the game) to post up a review saying so.
If this indeed did happen then instantly you would more then likely see 75% of the steam games disappear in that case. Cause this is way way more common then you think. But you know ultimately you as the player gets to decide do you post the positive review or a negative review. They are NOT making you do anything.
Now if they themselfs where going out and posting the reviews to change the outcome that is a different story. But at the end of the day noone is doing anything they do not want to do.
But gladly it seems they instead got their deserved punishment from their player base. Out of 631 reviews they now only have a "mixed" reputation and developers have lowered the price for the game by half.
Seems trying to manipulate their Steam reputation was not such a good idea.