Then there would be legal repercussions for failing to finish. There isn't. And folks insist there shouldn't be. As such, if the game is being presented in a manner consistent with a released product, it can and should be judged as such.
Then, if the developer does get around to finishing it like they said, consumers can reassess.
There is a liability when there is not a disclaimer that you are buying as it is (just as steam early access), it can never be released if what you are selling is not available.
There's a product, not the product.
There hasn't been a single legal case to set precedent that any of these developers can be held accountable. Not for lack of animosity that might spawn such a lawsuit. Until such time that I see a legal precedent denoting that these developers will actually have to own up if they don't deliver their stated product, I'll continue to feel that a product being offered like a released game should be judged as such.
There hasn't been a single legal case to set precedent that any of these developers can be held accountable. Not for lack of animosity that might spawn such a lawsuit. Until such time that I see a legal precedent denoting that these developers will actually have to own up if they don't deliver their stated product, I'll continue to feel that a product being offered like a released game should be judged as such.
I'll continue feeling that when I buy one game that states they are one Alpha, that I will expect that game the issues one alpha implies, not being content-complete, not being properly optimized yet and facing issues that can be potentially gameplay breaking.
Meanwhile, you are free to continue judging Alpha games like they are released and shame them for being half-baked because you expect them to be fully-baked because of those reasons.
There hasn't been a single legal case to set precedent that any of these developers can be held accountable. Not for lack of animosity that might spawn such a lawsuit. Until such time that I see a legal precedent denoting that these developers will actually have to own up if they don't deliver their stated product, I'll continue to feel that a product being offered like a released game should be judged as such.
I'll continue feeling that when I buy one game that states they are one Alpha, that I will expect that game the issues one alpha implies, not being content-complete, not being properly optimized yet and facing issues that can be potentially gameplay breaking.
Meanwhile, you are free to continue judging Alpha games like they are released and shame them for being half-baked because you expect them to be fully-baked.
Lol, no smartass, I'm not expecting them to be full-baked. I'm expecting them not to monetize and present the game as if it were. That's the reason for judging them as if they are when they do present it that way. I'm not a fan of simply taking the word of someone whose entire job is to squeeze money out of me without looking deeper and considering it separate from the talk points offered by the very folks attempting to get me to part with my money.
No, it isn't. They're choice to offer the incomplete product in the same manner as a released one. You're just placing all the responsibility for shitty marketing and development techniques on the gamers. It's silly.
And YOU have chosen to buy the incomplete product. Is SC as one Alpha game being advertised as not being one Alpha yet a released game?!
It's on the freaking defenition of the word!
How you can you buy one Alpha and then complain the alpha game you bought has the issues the defenition IMPLIES?!
It isn't about it being an alpha, it's about them monetizing it and marketing it like it isn't.
They don't like it? Don't do it. Nobody needs their product. The industry sure doesn't, noted by the publishers' incredibly persistent lack of interest. If they want to hide behind that title while simultaneously asking for funds just the same as if it were completed, then they can be called on it.
As for your definition argument, it rings hollow. Games truly in alphas or betas don't release paid DLC, for example.
We are at the point where they are selling things that don't exist in games that don't exist and all they have working is a cash shop. Some of those things $10,000 or more.
That's pretty much how kickstarter works...
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Lol, no smartass, in not expecting them to be full-baked. I'm expecting them not to monetize and present the game as if it were. That's the reason for judging then as if they are if they do present it that way. I'm not a fan of simply taking the word of someone who's entire job is to squeeze money out of me without looking deeper and considering it separate from the talk points offered by the very folks who are offering them as an attempt to get me to part with my money.
I think the monetization factor is irrelevant to the stage of development of a game.
When one online game does early access phase, they have to support it financially as well, what some do either with a) in-game monetization and/or b) more expensive packages that give access to those phases.
For you that means the Alpha is one excuse and the game is released, for me it doesn't.
Lol, no smartass, in not expecting them to be full-baked. I'm expecting them not to monetize and present the game as if it were. That's the reason for judging then as if they are if they do present it that way. I'm not a fan of simply taking the word of someone who's entire job is to squeeze money out of me without looking deeper and considering it separate from the talk points offered by the very folks who are offering them as an attempt to get me to part with my money.
I think the monetization factor is irrelevant to the stage of development of a game.
When one online game does early access phase, they have to support it financially as well, what some do either with a) in-game monetization and/or b) more expensive packages that give access to those phases.
For you that means the Alpha is one excuse and the game is released, for me it doesn't.
They have to support it, but none of that means they should be given carte blanche. If they want to support it by monetizing and releasing it to the public like it's finished, they'll have to endure it being evaluated on that basis like big boys. Personal responsibility and all that.
Labels, in the end, are irrelevant when the developers actions, specifically regarding interfacing with consumers, don't support the label given. Alpha and beta products aren't given paid DLCs and the progress of players during testing of an incomplete game is not carried over to gold. Games that feature these items deserve to be reviewed as released titles.
your game can be in the brainstorming stage of development and if you make money from it you should receive both feedback AND criticism in full force. The "alpha" is already live making a lot of money so yeah....
Lol, no smartass, in not expecting them to be full-baked. I'm expecting them not to monetize and present the game as if it were. That's the reason for judging then as if they are if they do present it that way. I'm not a fan of simply taking the word of someone who's entire job is to squeeze money out of me without looking deeper and considering it separate from the talk points offered by the very folks who are offering them as an attempt to get me to part with my money.
I think the monetization factor is irrelevant to the stage of development of a game.
When one online game does early access phase, they have to support it financially as well, what some do either with a) in-game monetization and/or b) more expensive packages that give access to those phases.
For you that means the Alpha is one excuse and the game is released, for me it doesn't.
Why not just do the logical honest thing and call it an alpha release. If it's open and available to the public but an obviously unfinished state, you don't get to pretend it's not released.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
They have to support it, but none of that means they should be given carte blanche. If they want to support it by monetizing and releasing it to the public like it's finished, they'll have to endure it being evaluated on that basis like big boys. Personal responsibility and all that.
Labels, in the end, are irrelevant when the developers actions, specifically regarding interfacing with consumers, don't support the label given. Alpha and beta products aren't given paid DLCs and the progress of players during testing of an incomplete game is not carried over to gold. Games that feature these items deserve to be reviewed as released titles.
I am not saying it should be given a pass.
But if something is actively being developed and you are to criticize one Alpha, it's rather petty to aim at issues like optimization, polish and lack of content. Those should be included on our expectation of what are getting into when buying it.
They have to support it, but none of that means they should be given carte blanche. If they want to support it by monetizing and releasing it to the public like it's finished, they'll have to endure it being evaluated on that basis like big boys. Personal responsibility and all that.
Labels, in the end, are irrelevant when the developers actions, specifically regarding interfacing with consumers, don't support the label given. Alpha and beta products aren't given paid DLCs and the progress of players during testing of an incomplete game is not carried over to gold. Games that feature these items deserve to be reviewed as released titles.
I am not saying it should be given a pass.
But if something is actively being developed and you are to criticize one Alpha, it's rather petty to aim at issues like optimization, polish and lack of content. Those should be included on our expectation of what are getting into when buying it.
If the developer spends time creating new content outside the scope of the originally planned game, all the while the originally planned game's optimization, polish, and lack of content languish? They absolutely should be held accountable.
If a game has not implemented it's full range of territory control features, but allows players to buy in to claim land that won't be wiped after releasing to the general public with all the territory features included, they absolutely should be held accountable. It's a piss poor move driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them.
to me, it doesn't matter what excuse you come up with. A product is being sold to customers which means customers get to critique the said product. You cant sell something and expect people to not give you their critique of it. No company is above this. If you want to avoid criticism don't sell anything.
I don't care if you call it an Alpha, Early Alpha or Late Delta Test. If you sell it get ready for the critique.
I remember when you had to apply for an alpha/beta test like a job and if you got in you were in free of charge and even sometimes get invited to QA at the actual game studio. Now they get paid to have you test the game for them and expect you to not critique it during the process.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
and we are free to label critique and opinions that suggests it is reasonable for people to ever expect alpha games to play like finished games for what they are - nonsense.
alpha access is a privilege granted by the developer and whether you pay them or they pay you for that privilege is irrelevant.
trying to twist it that just because you chose to pay for that privilege means you should expect and even demand a finished quality game despite all disclaimers to the contrary is completely absurd.
When you buy into the game, you are buying into the final launched version as deemed complete and ready to launch by the developer when they decide it meets all conditions needed.
In crowdfunding this means you may need to wait a long time for these conditions to be decided by the developer, there are no guaranteed dates. If you don't like it then don't fund games that are crowdfunded. Complaining on forums will get you nowhere.
I don't care if you call it an Alpha, Early Alpha or Late Delta Test. If you sell it get ready for the critique.
So buy one half-baked product that is disclaimed as such, then go complain that the product you bought is half-baked?
I figured out the solution:
- Sell games that aren't released. - Don't let anyone play anything until a final version. - No criticism!
Win/Win, in fact, several do this and they get away from all criticism simply because there's nothing to play while still selling it.
Seems only way gamers will be happy without devs facing backlash for releasing early versions of their game.
except in star citizen's case you are not even buying a half baked product. . .
even when the game releases in the year 2525 (if man is still alive) people still won't be buying a product, but a limited use license to a service. . .
thank the Maker I got my money back from this fiasco.
except in star citizen's case you are not even buying a half baked product. . .
even when the game releases in the year 2525 (if man is still alive) people still won't be buying a product, but a limited use license to a service. . .
thank the Maker I got my money back from this fiasco.
I guess I and the other backes will be playing the game, hell they already are, if what CIG is doing and releasing is fun and provides people entertainment and the gameplay they expect, for those who care for a game, that's the whole point.
to me, it doesn't matter what excuse you come up with. A product is being sold to customers which means customers get to critique the said product. You cant sell something and expect people to not give you their critique of it. No company is above this. If you want to avoid criticism don't sell anything.
I don't care if you call it an Alpha, Early Alpha or Late Delta Test. If you sell it get ready for the critique.
I remember when you had to apply for an alpha/beta test like a job and if you got in you were in free of charge and even sometimes get invited to QA at the actual game studio. Now they get paid to have you test the game for them and expect you to not critique it during the process.
First: If the "alpha" was not available I suggest there would be various posters saying stuff like: there is no game; its all jpegs; islands in the sun; there is no code. Well I don't need to suggest it happened!
So they have to put something out there. And of course its unfinished. With bugs. People don't need to "play" it but if they do - and CiG did not include the ability to report bugs I suggest there would be posts about CiG being stupid; to highhanded etc. Wekk I don't need to suggest ...
So - maybe - the reason there is this "alpha" with voluntary testers is because of people complaining.
Second as far as the product being sold - and people will say it is being sold - the legal position is very grey. Even in th EU were consumer protection is typically stronger than in the US. If you do some research into crowd funding and consumer protection there are a host of issues. Lots of papers out there.
Is the seller a "business" notably for profit or does the seller have the status of an enterprising "individual". Remember all crowdfunded money is to be used to develop the game. Afterwards it may make money but that is later. Contrast to an athlete say who raises money to enter the Olympics. All money for training. Afterwards ... talk shows, book deals etc. Oh - and both pay tax!
And then the status of the backer. If backers have the status of buyers then if SC is not delivered a buyer can seek redress same as if they had ordered from a store etc. If their status is that of an investor however and SC is not delivered then it comes down to have CiG made all reasonable endeavours. The end result may be the same of course but the way things would b handled are very different.
And everything is made more complicated because of the cross-border nature of things.
I would like to see it better defined. Its not. Like I said various papers and legal opinions out there. In summary though crowdfunding - in general - is an area in which the adage "buyer beware" applies.
If the developer spends time creating new content outside the scope of the originally planned game, all the while the originally planned game's optimization, polish, and lack of content languish? They absolutely should be held accountable.
If a game has not implemented it's full range of territory control features, but allows players to buy in to claim land that won't be wiped after releasing to the general public with all the territory features included, they absolutely should be held accountable. It's a piss poor move driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them.
In the context of Star Citizen the developers have been held accountable to people who were not happy 'originally planned game's optimization, polish, and lack of content languish' in the only way that matters. They asked for a refund and were given them.
If a game has not implemented it's full range of territory control features, but allows players to buy in to claim land that won't be wiped after releasing to the general public with all the territory features included, they absolutely should be held accountable. It's a piss poor move driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them.
You seem to complain about something with no knowledge about it. all you can buy is a 'scroll' that allows you to claim land. Not land itself, land can not be claimed until the ability has been implemented within game to claim it. for claims of territory claim should be wiped before release I would have to ask why? it can be shown that any land claimed on a planet will be a drop in the ocean of available space. but even if it wasn't, so what. There is always the option of purchasing the land off the player who has the spot you want or engaging in warfare with them to acquire it. Everyone has the same option to purchase a scroll for land claim, so why the faux outrage? And once again, if you don't like it, hold them accountable and claim a refund. The rest of the backers will happily move on with playing the game and enjoying themselves.
"driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them." is there another reason people sell things?
alpha access is a privilege granted by the developer and whether you pay them or they pay you for that privilege is irrelevant.
...
Nonsense.
No-one pays you for YOU to have a privilege "Here, please let me pay you to upgrade to first class..."
And this isn't a privilege in this case, its a method for funding development.
People can decide for themselves if they're getting their money's worth from the thing they bought. If not, let them refund, and they have nothing to complain about.
Noone would argue that SC is in Alpha if it is handled like one. It seems to me that they either don't care or don't know how to adress the game breaking bugs that are in the game since the first iteration of 2.0. CIG itself is hyping their releases up with video demos of features in a closed dev environment and tend to release them to public either buggy or not existant (wan't the sand worm demo supposed to be 3.0?). They are showing of features in their own environment without any idea how to integrate them into the main branch just to hype their game up and sell more assets. Alpha means get the game mechanic stable and playable then test if its working out - if done integrate the next feature. CIG is integrating half baked stuff on half baked other stuff - the depth of the bugs has reached a critical mass a long time ago, fixing underlying systems will break other stuff above it. The only remedy would be start over with a new codebase and get your work streamlined.
At the moment it is not a sapling that will grow into an oak with many interesting branches to explore. Star Citizen is the cancer that has been topped with glitter.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
alpha access is a privilege granted by the developer and whether you pay them or they pay you for that privilege is irrelevant.
...
Nonsense.
No-one pays you for YOU to have a privilege "Here, please let me pay you to upgrade to first class..."
And this isn't a privilege in this case, its a method for funding development.
People can decide for themselves if they're getting their money's worth from the thing they bought. If not, let them refund, and they have nothing to complain about.
Do you own the plane? are they your staff? can you be forcibly removed from that plane at any time? Yes it is a privileged granted to you. Also if a company pays you for your time, they can also remove you at any time. A privilege granted.
Just because Star Citizen exists does not grant you the right to access it's alpha. You pay money, but you are paying for the privilege of access granted to you by the company. They can revoke that access at any time, your claim for a refund after that is another case entirely.
The fact that the funds received are used for development is an aside. They could ask for same funds for development without providing any access until the game is finished. Just because they choose not to as they are likely to raise greater funds is irrelevant.
If the developer spends time creating new content outside the scope of the originally planned game, all the while the originally planned game's optimization, polish, and lack of content languish? They absolutely should be held accountable.
If a game has not implemented it's full range of territory control features, but allows players to buy in to claim land that won't be wiped after releasing to the general public with all the territory features included, they absolutely should be held accountable. It's a piss poor move driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them.
In the context of Star Citizen the developers have been held accountable to people who were not happy 'originally planned game's optimization, polish, and lack of content languish' in the only way that matters. They asked for a refund and were given them.
If a game has not implemented it's full range of territory control features, but allows players to buy in to claim land that won't be wiped after releasing to the general public with all the territory features included, they absolutely should be held accountable. It's a piss poor move driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them.
You seem to complain about something with no knowledge about it. all you can buy is a 'scroll' that allows you to claim land. Not land itself, land can not be claimed until the ability has been implemented within game to claim it. for claims of territory claim should be wiped before release I would have to ask why? it can be shown that any land claimed on a planet will be a drop in the ocean of available space. but even if it wasn't, so what. There is always the option of purchasing the land off the player who has the spot you want or engaging in warfare with them to acquire it. Everyone has the same option to purchase a scroll for land claim, so why the faux outrage? And once again, if you don't like it, hold them accountable and claim a refund. The rest of the backers will happily move on with playing the game and enjoying themselves.
"driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them." is there another reason people sell things?
That example wasn't directed at SC in specific, it just used the territory control as an example of an advantage some players would have in a territory control game if they got first pick at the land available. It was to illustrate why one of the general criteria employed to determine whether one should consider the project as a released product is when a persistent headstart is given to players for purchasing.
CIG itself is hyping their releases up with video demos of features in a closed dev environment and tend to release them to public either buggy or not existant (wan't the sand worm demo supposed to be 3.0?).
Show me the features demoed that aren't part of 3.0, and show me those supposed bug-free 3.0 demos they did. And no, the worm demo was not part of 3.0, neither any update or release was given to that (hence labeled as tech demo).
Alpha means get the game mechanic stable and playable then test if its working out - if done integrate the next feature. CIG is integrating half baked stuff on half baked other stuff - the depth of the bugs has reached a critical mass a long time ago, fixing underlying systems will break other stuff above it.
That example wasn't directed at SC in specific, it just used the territory control as an example of an advantage some players would have in a territory control game if they got first pick at the land available. It was to illustrate why one of the general criteria employed to determine whether one should consider the project as a released product is when a persistent headstart is given to players for purchasing.
Please accept my humble apology. I should have read it all in context.
Comments
Meanwhile, you are free to continue judging Alpha games like they are released and shame them for being half-baked because you expect them to be fully-baked because of those reasons.
That's pretty much how kickstarter works...
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/When one online game does early access phase, they have to support it financially as well, what some do either with a) in-game monetization and/or b) more expensive packages that give access to those phases.
For you that means the Alpha is one excuse and the game is released, for me it doesn't.
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
Labels, in the end, are irrelevant when the developers actions, specifically regarding interfacing with consumers, don't support the label given. Alpha and beta products aren't given paid DLCs and the progress of players during testing of an incomplete game is not carried over to gold. Games that feature these items deserve to be reviewed as released titles.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/But if something is actively being developed and you are to criticize one Alpha, it's rather petty to aim at issues like optimization, polish and lack of content. Those should be included on our expectation of what are getting into when buying it.
If a game has not implemented it's full range of territory control features, but allows players to buy in to claim land that won't be wiped after releasing to the general public with all the territory features included, they absolutely should be held accountable. It's a piss poor move driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them.
I don't care if you call it an Alpha, Early Alpha or Late Delta Test. If you sell it get ready for the critique.
I remember when you had to apply for an alpha/beta test like a job and if you got in you were in free of charge and even sometimes get invited to QA at the actual game studio. Now they get paid to have you test the game for them and expect you to not critique it during the process.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
I figured out the solution:
- Sell games that aren't released.
- Don't let anyone play anything until a final version.
- No criticism!
Win/Win, in fact, several do this and they get away from all criticism simply because there's nothing to play while still selling it.
Seems only way gamers will be happy without devs facing backlash for releasing early versions of their game.
alpha access is a privilege granted by the developer and whether you pay them or they pay you for that privilege is irrelevant.
trying to twist it that just because you chose to pay for that privilege means you should expect and even demand a finished quality game despite all disclaimers to the contrary is completely absurd.
When you buy into the game, you are buying into the final launched version as deemed complete and ready to launch by the developer when they decide it meets all conditions needed.
In crowdfunding this means you may need to wait a long time for these conditions to be decided by the developer, there are no guaranteed dates. If you don't like it then don't fund games that are crowdfunded. Complaining on forums will get you nowhere.
even when the game releases in the year 2525 (if man is still alive) people still won't be buying a product, but a limited use license to a service. . .
thank the Maker I got my money back from this fiasco.
If the "alpha" was not available I suggest there would be various posters saying stuff like: there is no game; its all jpegs; islands in the sun; there is no code. Well I don't need to suggest it happened!
So they have to put something out there. And of course its unfinished. With bugs. People don't need to "play" it but if they do - and CiG did not include the ability to report bugs I suggest there would be posts about CiG being stupid; to highhanded etc. Wekk I don't need to suggest ...
So - maybe - the reason there is this "alpha" with voluntary testers is because of people complaining.
Second as far as the product being sold - and people will say it is being sold - the legal position is very grey. Even in th EU were consumer protection is typically stronger than in the US. If you do some research into crowd funding and consumer protection there are a host of issues. Lots of papers out there.
Is the seller a "business" notably for profit or does the seller have the status of an enterprising "individual". Remember all crowdfunded money is to be used to develop the game. Afterwards it may make money but that is later. Contrast to an athlete say who raises money to enter the Olympics. All money for training. Afterwards ... talk shows, book deals etc. Oh - and both pay tax!
And then the status of the backer. If backers have the status of buyers then if SC is not delivered a buyer can seek redress same as if they had ordered from a store etc. If their status is that of an investor however and SC is not delivered then it comes down to have CiG made all reasonable endeavours. The end result may be the same of course but the way things would b handled are very different.
And everything is made more complicated because of the cross-border nature of things.
I would like to see it better defined. Its not. Like I said various papers and legal opinions out there. In summary though crowdfunding - in general - is an area in which the adage "buyer beware" applies.
You seem to complain about something with no knowledge about it. all you can buy is a 'scroll' that allows you to claim land. Not land itself, land can not be claimed until the ability has been implemented within game to claim it. for claims of territory claim should be wiped before release I would have to ask why? it can be shown that any land claimed on a planet will be a drop in the ocean of available space. but even if it wasn't, so what. There is always the option of purchasing the land off the player who has the spot you want or engaging in warfare with them to acquire it. Everyone has the same option to purchase a scroll for land claim, so why the faux outrage? And once again, if you don't like it, hold them accountable and claim a refund. The rest of the backers will happily move on with playing the game and enjoying themselves.
"driven solely by intent to get folks to pay them." is there another reason people sell things?
No-one pays you for YOU to have a privilege "Here, please let me pay you to upgrade to first class..."
And this isn't a privilege in this case, its a method for funding development.
People can decide for themselves if they're getting their money's worth from the thing they bought. If not, let them refund, and they have nothing to complain about.
It seems to me that they either don't care or don't know how to adress the game breaking bugs that are in the game since the first iteration of 2.0.
CIG itself is hyping their releases up with video demos of features in a closed dev environment and tend to release them to public either buggy or not existant (wan't the sand worm demo supposed to be 3.0?).
They are showing of features in their own environment without any idea how to integrate them into the main branch just to hype their game up and sell more assets.
Alpha means get the game mechanic stable and playable then test if its working out - if done integrate the next feature. CIG is integrating half baked stuff on half baked other stuff - the depth of the bugs has reached a critical mass a long time ago, fixing underlying systems will break other stuff above it.
The only remedy would be start over with a new codebase and get your work streamlined.
At the moment it is not a sapling that will grow into an oak with many interesting branches to explore.
Star Citizen is the cancer that has been topped with glitter.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
Just because Star Citizen exists does not grant you the right to access it's alpha. You pay money, but you are paying for the privilege of access granted to you by the company. They can revoke that access at any time, your claim for a refund after that is another case entirely.
The fact that the funds received are used for development is an aside. They could ask for same funds for development without providing any access until the game is finished. Just because they choose not to as they are likely to raise greater funds is irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_and_incremental_development
It's not waterfall development.