These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors.
This is pure hyperbole regarding the developers intentions AGAIN! Have an issue with Kickstarter sure but don't start badmouthing people with baseless accusations like that.
Besides you cannot compare investors who are looking to make a profit vs a gamer who is making a donation who is not looking to make a profit. Their risk profiles are completely different and a gamer will donate in situations that an investor would not invest. Not to mention the size of the investment vs average donation.
The vast majority of Kickstarter backers are willing to lose that money for the hope they simply get a product that the mainstream developers are not willing to produce. This is what it boils down to. Should there be a better infrastructure where backers own shares? That is worth looking into but not as a replacement for Kickstarter.
The size of the investment per backer is likely one of the few reasons there haven't already been lawyers involved in some cases.
It's not hyperbole, do you really think developers consider gamers more informed about the viability of a project than traditional investors? If so, you're calling them ignorant at best, stupid at worst.
The first part of the quoted text isn't even debateable- they are doing just that. Supplementing or forgoing traditional funding.
I would surmise that, if given the option, most backers would definitely take a return on investment if the game is successful. Do you have some sort of evidence that would suggest current backers would turn down the opportunity to make that money back if the game is successful? Otherwise, you're making the same type of argument you're railing against.
That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
So what?
LOL... kind of important question... I wonder why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
So what?
LOL... kind of important question... I wonder why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
In fact, a few months after the KS, Jeromy said that "they had already been approached by several potential investors".
Yes we know the cliched reason stated with every KS MMO project: "it needs to be made this way because regular funding sources won't fund this game that has everything you ever dreamed about and more."
The thing I always wonder though is whether it really is worth making. Not bring able to pass the investor test is an automatic red flag for me. It could be the idea is shit or the team doesn't inspire confidence or often, both.
I remember people in this forum once upon a time defending Greedmonger... yeah.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook. However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors. Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer. Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level. And developers know that.
I'm still excited to play Ashes of Elyria. I'd say the only game I'm more excited about is Chronicles of Creation. Gonna be a good Christmas!
Happy 2021 Christmas to you!
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook. However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors. Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer. Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level. And developers know that.
As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.
The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.
The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.
Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
So what?
LOL... kind of important question... I wonder why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
It is still irrelevant to everything you have been complaining about. If they don't get additional investment... then that's that. It does not provide proof to any of your slander.
That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
So what?
LOL... kind of important question... I wonder why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
It is still irrelevant to everything you have been complaining about. If they don't get additional investment... then that's that. It does not provide proof to any of your slander.
Please provide proof of this "slander" you keep whining about, You continue to make this claim without backing it up. Stating a negative opinion about a company, game or even a person is not slander.
Mr Caspian is the one who has so far missed pretty much every self-initiated deadline. He is the one that mocked his own customers for daring to doubt his ability to deliver a functional MMORPG in 18 months...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook. However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors. Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer. Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level. And developers know that.
As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.
The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.
The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.
Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
I understand completely, and have already mentioned that the fact the money invested is spread so thinly across a crowd is probably a large contributing factor to why there haven't already been lawyers involved in some instances (namely, the 3 EA titles that are actually one reference Sergei Titov). The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue. He's basing it on hype, and not a realistic analysis of the project. Taking cash on marketing works when there's a definite product created that you're purchasing. There isn't one here, only hopes and dreams.
We've been discussing changes to the system itself to prevent this (did anyone really believe otherwise?), but that will inherently include holding developers accountable. The basis of my argument is that the system places consumers in an incredibly disadvantaged position. Of course developers are going to use the avenue if it's available, and they'll only adhere to rules imposed upon them as a general rule. That's not even worth saying; it's human nature. But thanks for defending the point that we all assumed was true, I guess? And I'm not sure at all where I waxed poetic claiming we should attempt to change the developers and not the framework for which they present the projects. You seem very intent on arguing red herrings.
There's plenty of psychology on the effectiveness of marketing that renders yours claim that the problem is with the consumer a rather shaky one. Many folks here like to claim themselves superior to it (though it's almost assuredly not the case), but I've yet to see anyone provide any real data or expert opinion to support the claim. Appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason, and you see it being used heavily in crowdfunding When there's a product available for the gamer to reason on (in spite of the emotional appeal produced by marketing), the consumer has a legitimate avenue to evaluate the product they're purchasing in spite of marketing. The same isn't true for crowdfunding. It's a large difference in information available at the time money is exchanged.
EDIT- Also, your claim that consumers don't evaluate risk vs reward is, well, completely wrong. As a general rule, they do. What you maybe meant to say was many consumers evaluate the risk vs reward based upon emotional, rather than logical, evaluations.
Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
So you have zero to support your personal attack. I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander. Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?
Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.
The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
SJW then. Still, your problem only.
As always, we the community here at MMORPG.com thank you for letting us know we're on the right track by LOL'ing our posts and making incredibly insightful comments like this one.
Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.
The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
SJW then. Still, your problem only.
Er... what does political correctness have to do with anything? Or are we getting to the point where people just toss around the term "SJW" for everything they disagree with, now?
Since I'm not currently backing any active development, I'm thinking it's not.
The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
SJW then. Still, your problem only.
Er... what does political correctness have to do with anything? Or are we getting to the point where people just toss around the term "SJW" for everything they disagree with, now?
Once the name calling starts you have "won" the discussion.
Well and of course an endless string of nonsensical LOLs leading the way to victory.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook. However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors. Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer. Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level. And developers know that.
As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.
The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.
The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.
Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
I understand completely, and have already mentioned that the fact the money invested is spread so thinly across a crowd is probably a large contributing factor to why there haven't already been lawyers involved in some instances (namely, the 3 EA titles that are actually one reference Sergei Titov). The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue. He's basing it on hype, and not a realistic analysis of the project. Taking cash on marketing works when there's a definite product created that you're purchasing. There isn't one here, only hopes and dreams.
We've been discussing changes to the system itself to prevent this (did anyone really believe otherwise?), but that will inherently include holding developers accountable. The basis of my argument is that the system places consumers in an incredibly disadvantaged position. Of course developers are going to use the avenue if it's available, and they'll only adhere to rules imposed upon them as a general rule. That's not even worth saying; it's human nature. But thanks for defending the point that we all assumed was true, I guess? And I'm not sure at all where I waxed poetic claiming we should attempt to change the developers and not the framework for which they present the projects. You seem very intent on arguing red herrings.
There's plenty of psychology on the effectiveness of marketing that renders yours claim that the problem is with the consumer a rather shaky one. Many folks here like to claim themselves superior to it (though it's almost assuredly not the case), but I've yet to see anyone provide any real data or expert opinion to support the claim. Appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason, and you see it being used heavily in crowdfunding When there's a product available for the gamer to reason on (in spite of the emotional appeal produced by marketing), the consumer has a legitimate avenue to evaluate the product they're purchasing in spite of marketing. The same isn't true for crowdfunding. It's a large difference in information available at the time money is exchanged.
EDIT- Also, your claim that consumers don't evaluate risk vs reward is, well, completely wrong. As a general rule, they do. What you maybe meant to say was many consumers evaluate the risk vs reward based upon emotional, rather than logical, evaluations.
No I said gamers that support crowdfunding have a much higher risk tolerance because they have no profit motive.
So what do you actually want, a way to legally sanction developers that do not adhere to campaign promises?
Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
So you have zero to support your personal attack. I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander. Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?
Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!
So basically you are retracting your claim that the developers are dishonest and incompetent?
No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook. However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors. Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer. Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level. And developers know that.
As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.
The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.
The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.
Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
I understand completely, and have already mentioned that the fact the money invested is spread so thinly across a crowd is probably a large contributing factor to why there haven't already been lawyers involved in some instances (namely, the 3 EA titles that are actually one reference Sergei Titov). The gamer doesn't have much of an idea what he's basing his financial decisions on; that's the issue. He's basing it on hype, and not a realistic analysis of the project. Taking cash on marketing works when there's a definite product created that you're purchasing. There isn't one here, only hopes and dreams.
We've been discussing changes to the system itself to prevent this (did anyone really believe otherwise?), but that will inherently include holding developers accountable. The basis of my argument is that the system places consumers in an incredibly disadvantaged position. Of course developers are going to use the avenue if it's available, and they'll only adhere to rules imposed upon them as a general rule. That's not even worth saying; it's human nature. But thanks for defending the point that we all assumed was true, I guess? And I'm not sure at all where I waxed poetic claiming we should attempt to change the developers and not the framework for which they present the projects. You seem very intent on arguing red herrings.
There's plenty of psychology on the effectiveness of marketing that renders yours claim that the problem is with the consumer a rather shaky one. Many folks here like to claim themselves superior to it (though it's almost assuredly not the case), but I've yet to see anyone provide any real data or expert opinion to support the claim. Appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason, and you see it being used heavily in crowdfunding When there's a product available for the gamer to reason on (in spite of the emotional appeal produced by marketing), the consumer has a legitimate avenue to evaluate the product they're purchasing in spite of marketing. The same isn't true for crowdfunding. It's a large difference in information available at the time money is exchanged.
EDIT- Also, your claim that consumers don't evaluate risk vs reward is, well, completely wrong. As a general rule, they do. What you maybe meant to say was many consumers evaluate the risk vs reward based upon emotional, rather than logical, evaluations.
No I said gamers that support crowdfunding have a much higher risk tolerance because they have no profit motive.
So what do you actually want, a way to legally sanction developers that do not adhere to campaign promises?
More apropos, a legal requirement to provide more than marketing to consumers considering supporting the project. If you're going to solicit funds from a group of folks who are not trained to properly consider your project, extra care should be taken to make pertinent information clear and consistent. Craz mentioned nutrition information earlier in the thread; it's the same principle. General consumers aren't nutritionists; so we provide an easy to understand chart to present the information in a way that's useful to the consumer. General consumers also aren't project managers or software developers. A framework to provide a more realistic view of the project's viability and estimated timeline is a great place to start.
It would also provide the developers a concrete goal to work towards (and be held accountable to). No more nebulous "well now you guys want us to do this, so that takes more time!" Additions to the original scope can and should be something that's focused on after the original vision is completed for backers to assess the desire to even fund additions to the project. Paid DLCs during crowdfunded development comes to mind.
As badly as you and some others seem to want to convince us that holding developers responsible for their own words and actions is a witch hunt, it's really just not.
And you absolutely did say gamers aren't analyzing the decision on a risk vs. reward basis, it's in the quote I included in my post.
Feel free to go read your posts again. Proof is right there. Constantly insinuating nefarious intent when it is clearly not the case.
So you have zero to support your personal attack. I see. Having a negative opinion of a game or company and discussing their failures is not slander. Let's stick to discussing the game shall we?
Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!
So basically you are retracting your claim that the developers are dishonest and incompetent?
That's not what I said. I said they either knowingly said incorrect things or were incompetent. Not both. I think I previously said that I think it's the latter. Just incompetence.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
It's not hyperbole, do you really think developers consider gamers more informed about the viability of a project than traditional investors? If so, you're calling them ignorant at best, stupid at worst.
The first part of the quoted text isn't even debateable- they are doing just that. Supplementing or forgoing traditional funding.
I would surmise that, if given the option, most backers would definitely take a return on investment if the game is successful. Do you have some sort of evidence that would suggest current backers would turn down the opportunity to make that money back if the game is successful? Otherwise, you're making the same type of argument you're railing against.
I wonder why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Nothing further has been said about that...
The thing I always wonder though is whether it really is worth making. Not bring able to pass the investor test is an automatic red flag for me. It could be the idea is shit or the team doesn't inspire confidence or often, both.
I remember people in this forum once upon a time defending Greedmonger... yeah.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.
The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.
Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
Mr Caspian is the one who has so far missed pretty much every self-initiated deadline. He is the one that mocked his own customers for daring to doubt his ability to deliver a functional MMORPG in 18 months...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
We've been discussing changes to the system itself to prevent this (did anyone really believe otherwise?), but that will inherently include holding developers accountable. The basis of my argument is that the system places consumers in an incredibly disadvantaged position. Of course developers are going to use the avenue if it's available, and they'll only adhere to rules imposed upon them as a general rule. That's not even worth saying; it's human nature. But thanks for defending the point that we all assumed was true, I guess? And I'm not sure at all where I waxed poetic claiming we should attempt to change the developers and not the framework for which they present the projects. You seem very intent on arguing red herrings.
There's plenty of psychology on the effectiveness of marketing that renders yours claim that the problem is with the consumer a rather shaky one. Many folks here like to claim themselves superior to it (though it's almost assuredly not the case), but I've yet to see anyone provide any real data or expert opinion to support the claim. Appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason, and you see it being used heavily in crowdfunding When there's a product available for the gamer to reason on (in spite of the emotional appeal produced by marketing), the consumer has a legitimate avenue to evaluate the product they're purchasing in spite of marketing. The same isn't true for crowdfunding. It's a large difference in information available at the time money is exchanged.
EDIT- Also, your claim that consumers don't evaluate risk vs reward is, well, completely wrong. As a general rule, they do. What you maybe meant to say was many consumers evaluate the risk vs reward based upon emotional, rather than logical, evaluations.
Personally I can't wait until the Elyria Mud release date comes!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The backer has two items to clue him in on what he's actually purchasing: assumptions and hype.
Well and of course an endless string of nonsensical LOLs leading the way to victory.
Fortunately I'm a LOL collector.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So what do you actually want, a way to legally sanction developers that do not adhere to campaign promises?
It would also provide the developers a concrete goal to work towards (and be held accountable to). No more nebulous "well now you guys want us to do this, so that takes more time!" Additions to the original scope can and should be something that's focused on after the original vision is completed for backers to assess the desire to even fund additions to the project. Paid DLCs during crowdfunded development comes to mind.
As badly as you and some others seem to want to convince us that holding developers responsible for their own words and actions is a witch hunt, it's really just not.
And you absolutely did say gamers aren't analyzing the decision on a risk vs. reward basis, it's in the quote I included in my post.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018