Right now, with the lack of any hard evidence that this game even exists beyond a tech demo,
The game doesn't even exist as a tech demo yet. At most, there's the base programming that may or may not be complete for a MUD that may or may not be the training period for how to program a tech demo at some indeterminate time in the future.
Oh my, as hostile and up in arms some of the Naysayers are you would think they have something to lose. *Shrugs* The positive part in all this is the 16000 that have actually invested in the project remain hyped and ready for success.
I might be concerned if pledged members were so negative, but they are not.
You realize your posts actually support what Slap has been saying about the "Ivory Tower" don't you?
Oh my, as hostile and up in arms some of the Naysayers are you would think they have something to lose. *Shrugs* The positive part in all this is the 16000 that have actually invested in the project remain hyped and ready for success.
I might be concerned if pledged members were so negative, but they are not.
You realize your posts actually support what Slap has been saying about the "Ivory Tower" don't you?
If the pledged members were so positive then there should be no issue offering refunds right?
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
Oh my, as hostile and up in arms some of the Naysayers are you would think they have something to lose. *Shrugs* The positive part in all this is the 16000 that have actually invested in the project remain hyped and ready for success.
I might be concerned if pledged members were so negative, but they are not.
You realize your posts actually support what Slap has been saying about the "Ivory Tower" don't you?
I realize there are 16000 pledged members that aren't concerned as opposed to six posters here that seem to make it their first concern. Do the math.
In addition, when we do have concerns we -talk- to those that can make the changes. As opposed to ranting in external forums.
Oh my, as hostile and up in arms some of the Naysayers are you would think they have something to lose. *Shrugs* The positive part in all this is the 16000 that have actually invested in the project remain hyped and ready for success.
I might be concerned if pledged members were so negative, but they are not.
You realize your posts actually support what Slap has been saying about the "Ivory Tower" don't you?
I realize there are 16000 pledged members that aren't concerned as opposed to six posters here that seem to make it their first concern. Do the math.
In addition, when we do have concerns we -talk- to those that can make the changes. As opposed to ranting in external forums.
Do the math? Math for what? About how 16000 people feel?
Oh my, as hostile and up in arms some of the Naysayers are you would think they have something to lose. *Shrugs* The positive part in all this is the 16000 that have actually invested in the project remain hyped and ready for success.
I might be concerned if pledged members were so negative, but they are not.
You realize your posts actually support what Slap has been saying about the "Ivory Tower" don't you?
I realize there are 16000 pledged members that aren't concerned as opposed to six posters here that seem to make it their first concern. Do the math.
In addition, when we do have concerns we -talk- to those that can make the changes. As opposed to ranting in external forums.
What does math have to do with this? What you said might as well have been,
"We are all happily sitting around a circle passing Kool-Ade around" Nope, no problem here! Why? Cuz we're all invested, that's why.
If that is your interpretation of what I said there isn't much I can do about that. But I can assure you that when the community has issues, and they have. They discuss it with the Dev Team and often reach solutions. What I can't understand is why it seems to be such a huge concern to a handful of non- invested posters here?
Oh my, as hostile and up in arms some of the Naysayers are you would think they have something to lose. *Shrugs* The positive part in all this is the 16000 that have actually invested in the project remain hyped and ready for success.
I might be concerned if pledged members were so negative, but they are not.
You realize your posts actually support what Slap has been saying about the "Ivory Tower" don't you?
I realize there are 16000 pledged members that aren't concerned as opposed to six posters here that seem to make it their first concern. Do the math.
In addition, when we do have concerns we -talk- to those that can make the changes. As opposed to ranting in external forums.
Lets do some math, then, shall we?
CoE has raised $3.5 million so far, and started with a Kickstarter of $1.3mil and just under 11,000 backers in Q2 2016. Since then, it has raised $2.2mil and added about 5,000 backers in just under two years. That's a steady stream of $1.75mil/year at an average of $218/backer. This is actually a really good figure for SBS, as the average per backer for most other crowdfunded games is much, much lower. However, the average gain of backers per year is actually really low compared to most other crowdfunded games. While they grew their backers by nearly 50% in about 2 years, 50% of a relatively small number is still a relatively small number. Not to mention that JW stated he wanted to see CoE nearing at least 100,000+ backers by the end of 2017 ...
For comparison, another kickstarter MMO, Ashes of Creation, garnered
20,000 backers and $3.3mil in their initial KS campaign. Additionally,
AoC added just over 3,000 additional backers (and likely $495,000 additional funding, using the same backer pledge average as their initial KS campaign) during their
one-month "Summer Crowdfunding Campaign" from June-July of 2017; putting
AoC at about 23,000 backers/$3.8mil after less than 6 months compared to CoE's
16,000/$3.5mil after nearly two years. To date, AoC has achieved more funding and backers three times (316%) quicker than CoE (19 months vs 6 months) according to last reported figures. Compared to CoE, AoC has relatively
modest claims to innovation and features; however, unlike CoE, AoC has
already provided a working alpha demo after less than one year of game
development. CoE still hasn't even released alpha testing in their
VoxElyria test bed client after nearly two years of development.
Now, lets look at the size of CoE's development team. According to CoE's official wiki page, there are currently 23 developers/designers. Lets look at the average salary of game designers. According to Glassdoor.com, the average wage of a game designer is $68,000/year. I understand that this is not an official number, so lets give SBS a lot of wiggle room and go with the lowest wage according to the same site, which is at $46,000/year. This puts the development cost per year at $1,058,000/year at the lowest, $1,564,000 at average, and $1,311,000/year between average and low. This cost does not include sound engineers, composers, or community-based positions listed on the wiki page.
So, we can see by doing the math, that the outlook for the financial viability of SBS in creating CoE isn't looking great (unless they're paying their programmers/developers significantly less than even the lowest reported salary) -- Especially when we consider CoE's rate of attaining new backers is significantly lower than other crowdfunded games within the same genre. The developer salary cost alone is about the same as they are bringing in through crowdfunding each year. This doesn't even account for additional costs, such as purchase of art assets, engineering fees, development tools, game engine licensing, server hardware, and marketing fees -- which would likely put their overhead above their average yearly income thus far.
In conclusion, SBS really needs to land the major publisher that they were seeking, find additional ways to attract more backers, or expand the game's cash shop by adding additional things for current backers to purchase. Considering that their backer average is significantly higher than that of their competitors, it means that they will likely need new backers since they have likely milked current backers for what they're willing to contribute. Having severely negative press about the game dropping a key component of their development process is not helping them achieve additional backers, especially considering that they haven't met a single deadline yet and essentially only expanded their cash shop -- all while not providing a working alpha demo of a voxel-based test bed game.
Just thought I'd elaborate since you asked us to do some math.
(EDIT: I am willing to admit that these numbers may not accurately reflect the salaries, costs, total profits, or expenditures that SBS is operating at. However, I am willing to redo the math should more accurate numbers be provided with a source.)
Looks quite impressive how you pull out these numbers. But i think you don´t consider quite some things.
Just examples, the 23 designers you pull out of a unofficial, potentialy inaccurate community made source, there are positions that likely are no fulltime - i doubt the composer works 24/7, as well as JWs wife and others - , further are they a small crowdfunded indie development studio unlikely to offering the same sallaries as established - small or big - publishers, like the ones listed in your link. And there might could be some in the team willing to don´t work for the max sallary, if they want the project to succeed. Then you looked up for the sallaries for "game designer" - which are specialised positions, not the term for working in game development related positions in general. So, just a few unthought factors here.
The comparision with AoC doesn´t tell anything but, AoC pulls on the same mechanics all MMOs does and thus alone get more of the unboreable - or regrowing - grind-questing players out there. Whom are greatly cultivated thru many of the like games. Just adding nodes and economy is not rly innovative here. Thus, a playable alpha "zero" (which doesn´t look anywhere promising for me) isn´t nearly as hard to make, as most of that stuff is done manyfold elsewhere. More moving pictures means more moving cash. But SBS got a different approach in the development, not to get a playable alpha out, asap. Public relations, might not be the main feature of SBS, i have to admit, so that does quite some difference to intreped. The latter btw don´t seem as transparent to me as SBS, but i don´t really follow that project.
So, while your post does look like something, you don´t get the scope right and forget, or reject, many important factors, i think. But you did some math.
Looks quite impressive how you pull out these numbers. But i think you don´t consider quite some things.
Just examples, the 23 designers you pull out of a unofficial, potentialy inaccurate community made source, there are positions that likely are no fulltime - i doubt the composer works 24/7, as well as JWs wife and others - , further are they a small crowdfunded indie development studio unlikely to offering the same sallaries as established - small or big - publishers, like the ones listed in your link. And there might could be some in the team willing to don´t work for the max sallary, if they want the project to succeed. Then you looked up for the sallaries for "game designer" - which are specialised positions, not the term for working in game development related positions in general. So, just a few unthought factors here.
The comparision with AoC doesn´t tell anything but, AoC pulls on the same mechanics all MMOs does and thus alone get more of the unboreable - or regrowing - grind-questing players out there. Whom are greatly cultivated thru many of the like games. Just adding nodes and economy is not rly innovative here. Thus, a playable alpha "zero" (which doesn´t look anywhere promising for me) isn´t nearly as hard to make, as most of that stuff is done manyfold elsewhere. More moving pictures means more moving cash. But SBS got a different approach in the development, not to get a playable alpha out, asap. Public relations, might not be the main feature of SBS, i have to admit, so that does quite some difference to intreped. The latter btw don´t seem as transparent to me as SBS, but i don´t really follow that project.
So, while your post does look like something, you don´t get the scope right and forget, or reject, many important factors, i think. But you did some math.
Prophecy of doom is so 90s! ;P
@dadazar ; Don't you think they should offer a refund option to the 16,000 people that pledged? The SpatialOS was used as a selling point that would make it possible for them to have such revolutionary features. Since folks from the Ivory Tower think all 16,000 are supportive and happy with the change there would be no harm in offering refunds right? I mean, if its really true that everyone is on board and happy then none of them would refund and there would be no risk right? The only reason not to offer refunds is if you think people are going to use it, but happy people don't ask for refunds.
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
A Nail in the coffin for me it seems. I considered backing this awhile ago, but decided to wait and see given the scale of the job. Now they are changing perhaps the most important cog in the development machine with some in-house project... They paraded the solution and only now turn around to say "It's too expensive, even with discounts."
@Slapshot1188 - how much crowdfunding projects are there, which do refunds? It´s in the nature of crowdfunding (and it´s still a sort of), that there are risks involved. You can´t blame the studio for you not realising this.
@Slapshot1188 - how much crowdfunding projects are there, which do refunds? It´s in the nature of crowdfunding (and it´s still a sort of), that there are risks involved. You can´t blame the studio for you not realising this.
Again. The only reason not to offer refunds is if you think people will use them. If the 16,000 backers are all happy then there is no risk. The Ivory Tower has stated that the 16,000 backers are happy.
Also, you must not look outside of CoE much... both CU and AoC offer refunds.
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
A Nail in the coffin for me it seems. I considered backing this awhile ago, but decided to wait and see given the scale of the job. Now they are changing perhaps the most important cog in the development machine with some in-house project... They paraded the solution and only now turn around to say "It's too expensive, even with discounts."
It's just short of total incompetence.
One could argue they long ago passed that point
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
@Slapshot1188 - how much crowdfunding projects are there, which do refunds? It´s in the nature of crowdfunding (and it´s still a sort of), that there are risks involved. You can´t blame the studio for you not realising this.
Again. The only reason not to offer refunds is if you think people will use them. If the 16,000 backers are all happy then there is no risk. The Ivory Tower has stated that the 16,000 backers are happy.
Also, you must not look outside of CoE much... both CU and AoC offer refunds.
You love your Ivory Tower, don´t you. I just say it´s not unusual to not offer refunds, as that would increase monetary risk and administration efforts. There is no "only reason". Do Intrepid got some sort of backup from publishers? I can´t find their companys homepage to see history and affiliations.
Oh wow, Intrepid is not so new, and got pretty established backup.
"For a period of three years, Lionhead established satellite companies, including Big Blue Box Studios (developers of Fable), Intrepid Games (developers of B.C., long since suspended due to a massive overrun) and Black & White Studios (who have taken responsibility for the continuation of the Black & White series). Lionhead proper was working on three games: Fable, Black & White 2 and The Movies."
A Nail in the coffin for me it seems. I considered backing this awhile ago, but decided to wait and see given the scale of the job. Now they are changing perhaps the most important cog in the development machine with some in-house project... They paraded the solution and only now turn around to say "It's too expensive, even with discounts."
Oh wow, Intrepid is not so new, and got pretty established backup.
"For a period of three years, Lionhead established satellite companies, including Big Blue Box Studios (developers of Fable), Intrepid Games (developers of B.C., long since suspended due to a massive overrun) and Black & White Studios (who have taken responsibility for the continuation of the Black & White series). Lionhead proper was working on three games: Fable, Black & White 2 and The Movies."
Oh wow, Intrepid is not so new, and got pretty established backup.
"For a period of three years, Lionhead established satellite companies, including Big Blue Box Studios (developers of Fable), Intrepid Games (developers of B.C., long since suspended due to a massive overrun) and Black & White Studios (who have taken responsibility for the continuation of the Black & White series). Lionhead proper was working on three games: Fable, Black & White 2 and The Movies."
Looks quite impressive how you pull out these numbers. But i think you don´t consider quite some things.
Just examples, the 23 designers you pull out of a unofficial, potentialy inaccurate community made source, there are positions that likely are no fulltime - i doubt the composer works 24/7, as well as JWs wife and others - , further are they a small crowdfunded indie development studio unlikely to offering the same sallaries as established - small or big - publishers, like the ones listed in your link. And there might could be some in the team willing to don´t work for the max sallary, if they want the project to succeed. Then you looked up for the sallaries for "game designer" - which are specialised positions, not the term for working in game development related positions in general. So, just a few unthought factors here.
The comparision with AoC doesn´t tell anything but, AoC pulls on the same mechanics all MMOs does and thus alone get more of the unboreable - or regrowing - grind-questing players out there. Whom are greatly cultivated thru many of the like games. Just adding nodes and economy is not rly innovative here. Thus, a playable alpha "zero" (which doesn´t look anywhere promising for me) isn´t nearly as hard to make, as most of that stuff is done manyfold elsewhere. More moving pictures means more moving cash. But SBS got a different approach in the development, not to get a playable alpha out, asap. Public relations, might not be the main feature of SBS, i have to admit, so that does quite some difference to intreped. The latter btw don´t seem as transparent to me as SBS, but i don´t really follow that project.
So, while your post does look like something, you don´t get the scope right and forget, or reject, many important factors, i think. But you did some math.
Prophecy of doom is so 90s! ;P
For reference, the salary I chose for game designer is actually a relatively low/average compared to other salaries, such as developer or programmer. If you have references/sources to use for your own conjecture, feel free to provide them and I will redo the math, as I stated. Needless to say, I am not willing to simply assume SBS is not paying their employees at least the lowest reported salary within their given fields.
Also, I did exclude almost 20% of the positions listed on CoE's wiki; which, by the way, is linked by moderators of the game when asked what size the team is. Compared to the official kickstarter page/SoE, it shares many of the same names and positions. For reference, the original kickstarter page listed 16 team members, in the latest SoE, SBS claims it added at *least* 4 new members, and at least 9 others are listed in the news updates about added team members. So, 28 (the number that the wiki states) is actually not far from that. Unless, of course, several of those team members have left the project already ...
Again, if you'd like to provide more concrete numbers, I would be happy to run them as well.
Also, you dismiss the comparison to AoC's crowdfunding success in one post, only to do the same in your next post and consider SBS's a success when, in fact, it is significantly lower than AoC's. You also seem surprised that AoC received more funding because they had previous experience in developing games (specifically MMOS) ... Its weird how people put more trust into a team that has some experience, huh?
Looks quite impressive how you pull out these numbers. But i think you don´t consider quite some things.
Just examples, the 23 designers you pull out of a unofficial, potentialy inaccurate community made source, there are positions that likely are no fulltime - i doubt the composer works 24/7, as well as JWs wife and others - , further are they a small crowdfunded indie development studio unlikely to offering the same sallaries as established - small or big - publishers, like the ones listed in your link. And there might could be some in the team willing to don´t work for the max sallary, if they want the project to succeed. Then you looked up for the sallaries for "game designer" - which are specialised positions, not the term for working in game development related positions in general. So, just a few unthought factors here.
The comparision with AoC doesn´t tell anything but, AoC pulls on the same mechanics all MMOs does and thus alone get more of the unboreable - or regrowing - grind-questing players out there. Whom are greatly cultivated thru many of the like games. Just adding nodes and economy is not rly innovative here. Thus, a playable alpha "zero" (which doesn´t look anywhere promising for me) isn´t nearly as hard to make, as most of that stuff is done manyfold elsewhere. More moving pictures means more moving cash. But SBS got a different approach in the development, not to get a playable alpha out, asap. Public relations, might not be the main feature of SBS, i have to admit, so that does quite some difference to intreped. The latter btw don´t seem as transparent to me as SBS, but i don´t really follow that project.
So, while your post does look like something, you don´t get the scope right and forget, or reject, many important factors, i think. But you did some math.
Prophecy of doom is so 90s! ;P
For reference, the salary I chose for game designer is actually a relatively low/average compared to other salaries, such as developer or programmer. If you have references/sources to use for your own conjecture, feel free to provide them and I will redo the math, as I stated. Needless to say, I am not willing to simply assume SBS is not paying their employees at least the lowest reported salary within their given fields.
Also, I did exclude almost 20% of the positions listed on CoE's wiki; which, by the way, is linked by moderators of the game when asked what size the team is. Compared to the official kickstarter page/SoE, it shares many of the same names and positions. For reference, the original kickstarter page listed 16 team members, and in the latest SoE, SBS claims it added at *least* 4 new members. So, 28 (the number that the wiki states) is actually not far from that. Unless, of course, several of those team members have left the project already ...
Again, if you'd like to provide more concrete numbers, I would be happy to run them as well.
Also, you dismiss the comparison to AoC's crowdfunding success in one post, only to do the same in your next post and consider SBS's a success when, in fact, it is significantly lower than AoC's. You also seem surprised that AoC received more funding because they had previous experience in developing games (specifically MMOS) ... Its weird how people put more trust into a team that has some experience, huh?
yea, can´t argue much the sallary topic now.
But the comparison with Intrepid was not that they got more experience, SBS are no newbees neither engeneering-wise, but about the infrastructural roots and backup they might have company-wise. That, and the easier to get out alpha from AoC, considered, i just noted at the side, that one might see SBS with their niche and unusual concept indeed as successful so far. It´s a relation.
Why do you pull out the sidenote and don´t answer to the relevant arguments, like the different scope and easier to attract players and easier to bring out moving pictures and the backup arguments?
No, it isn't, but anyone that is paying attention would notice that even now that our event has finished the pledge total keeps increasing. That suggests to me that we have new pledges joining daily with still a year+ before launch. In addition, the bulk of members are expected to join after launch because some aren't as willing to take a risk as others.
Why do you pull out the sidenote and don´t answer to the relevant arguments, like the different scope and easier to attract players and easier to bring out moving pictures and the backup arguments?
I did address the scope in the original post you quoted, unless you missed it:
"Compared to CoE, AoC has relatively
modest claims to innovation and features; however, unlike CoE, AoC has
already provided a working alpha demo after less than one year of game
development."
I already addressed it, which is why I didn't feel the need to repeat myself.
Why do you pull out the sidenote and don´t answer to the relevant arguments, like the different scope and easier to attract players and easier to bring out moving pictures and the backup arguments?
I did address the scope in the original post you quoted, unless you missed it:
"Compared to CoE, AoC has relatively
modest claims to innovation and features; however, unlike CoE, AoC has
already provided a working alpha demo after less than one year of game
development."
I already addressed it, which is why I didn't feel the need to repeat myself.
Just for clarity guys... AoC has nothing to do with Intrepid Games but rather Intrepid Studios...
So both AoC and CU are tiny self started indie developers making MMORPGs. Both are confident enough to offer refunds. Again, SpatialOS was advertised as the foundation of the game and people have stated (on forums and Discord) that it was why they believed the promises were remotely possible.
So again, since they changed the fabric the game was built on, their direct crowdfunding competitors offer refunds, and they claim all 16,000 pledged people are happy.... shouldn’t they offer a refund? If the supporters are happy then nobody would use it so no harm done. Obviously there is a fear that if offered a chance, people would ask for a refund.
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
Why do you pull out the sidenote and don´t answer to the relevant arguments, like the different scope and easier to attract players and easier to bring out moving pictures and the backup arguments?
I did address the scope in the original post you quoted, unless you missed it:
"Compared to CoE, AoC has relatively
modest claims to innovation and features; however, unlike CoE, AoC has
already provided a working alpha demo after less than one year of game
development."
I already addressed it, which is why I didn't feel the need to repeat myself.
Heh, but that was my arguments about.
"modest claims"
vs
"AoC pulls on the same mechanics all MMOs does and thus alone get more of the unboreable - or regrowing - grind-questing players out there.."
which also plays into the alpha they already got out. And i further argued
"Thus, a playable alpha "zero" (which doesn´t look anywhere promising for me) isn´t nearly as hard to make, as most of that stuff is done manyfold elsewhere. More moving pictures means more moving cash. But SBS got a different approach.."
So, i feel i had relativised your main argument in the comparison of AoC and CoE.
Comments
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
In addition, when we do have concerns we -talk- to those that can make the changes. As opposed to ranting in external forums.
CoE has raised $3.5 million so far, and started with a Kickstarter of $1.3mil and just under 11,000 backers in Q2 2016. Since then, it has raised $2.2mil and added about 5,000 backers in just under two years. That's a steady stream of $1.75mil/year at an average of $218/backer. This is actually a really good figure for SBS, as the average per backer for most other crowdfunded games is much, much lower. However, the average gain of backers per year is actually really low compared to most other crowdfunded games. While they grew their backers by nearly 50% in about 2 years, 50% of a relatively small number is still a relatively small number. Not to mention that JW stated he wanted to see CoE nearing at least 100,000+ backers by the end of 2017 ...
For comparison, another kickstarter MMO, Ashes of Creation, garnered 20,000 backers and $3.3mil in their initial KS campaign. Additionally, AoC added just over 3,000 additional backers (and likely $495,000 additional funding, using the same backer pledge average as their initial KS campaign) during their one-month "Summer Crowdfunding Campaign" from June-July of 2017; putting AoC at about 23,000 backers/$3.8mil after less than 6 months compared to CoE's 16,000/$3.5mil after nearly two years. To date, AoC has achieved more funding and backers three times (316%) quicker than CoE (19 months vs 6 months) according to last reported figures. Compared to CoE, AoC has relatively modest claims to innovation and features; however, unlike CoE, AoC has already provided a working alpha demo after less than one year of game development. CoE still hasn't even released alpha testing in their VoxElyria test bed client after nearly two years of development.
Now, lets look at the size of CoE's development team. According to CoE's official wiki page, there are currently 23 developers/designers. Lets look at the average salary of game designers. According to Glassdoor.com, the average wage of a game designer is $68,000/year. I understand that this is not an official number, so lets give SBS a lot of wiggle room and go with the lowest wage according to the same site, which is at $46,000/year. This puts the development cost per year at $1,058,000/year at the lowest, $1,564,000 at average, and $1,311,000/year between average and low. This cost does not include sound engineers, composers, or community-based positions listed on the wiki page.
So, we can see by doing the math, that the outlook for the financial viability of SBS in creating CoE isn't looking great (unless they're paying their programmers/developers significantly less than even the lowest reported salary) -- Especially when we consider CoE's rate of attaining new backers is significantly lower than other crowdfunded games within the same genre. The developer salary cost alone is about the same as they are bringing in through crowdfunding each year. This doesn't even account for additional costs, such as purchase of art assets, engineering fees, development tools, game engine licensing, server hardware, and marketing fees -- which would likely put their overhead above their average yearly income thus far.
In conclusion, SBS really needs to land the major publisher that they were seeking, find additional ways to attract more backers, or expand the game's cash shop by adding additional things for current backers to purchase. Considering that their backer average is significantly higher than that of their competitors, it means that they will likely need new backers since they have likely milked current backers for what they're willing to contribute. Having severely negative press about the game dropping a key component of their development process is not helping them achieve additional backers, especially considering that they haven't met a single deadline yet and essentially only expanded their cash shop -- all while not providing a working alpha demo of a voxel-based test bed game.
Just thought I'd elaborate since you asked us to do some math.
(EDIT: I am willing to admit that these numbers may not accurately reflect the salaries, costs, total profits, or expenditures that SBS is operating at. However, I am willing to redo the math should more accurate numbers be provided with a source.)
Looks quite impressive how you pull out these numbers. But i think you don´t consider quite some things.
Just examples, the 23 designers you pull out of a unofficial, potentialy inaccurate community made source, there are positions that likely are no fulltime - i doubt the composer works 24/7, as well as JWs wife and others - , further are they a small crowdfunded indie development studio unlikely to offering the same sallaries as established - small or big - publishers, like the ones listed in your link. And there might could be some in the team willing to don´t work for the max sallary, if they want the project to succeed. Then you looked up for the sallaries for "game designer" - which are specialised positions, not the term for working in game development related positions in general. So, just a few unthought factors here.
The comparision with AoC doesn´t tell anything but, AoC pulls on the same mechanics all MMOs does and thus alone get more of the unboreable - or regrowing - grind-questing players out there. Whom are greatly cultivated thru many of the like games. Just adding nodes and economy is not rly innovative here. Thus, a playable alpha "zero" (which doesn´t look anywhere promising for me) isn´t nearly as hard to make, as most of that stuff is done manyfold elsewhere. More moving pictures means more moving cash. But SBS got a different approach in the development, not to get a playable alpha out, asap. Public relations, might not be the main feature of SBS, i have to admit, so that does quite some difference to intreped. The latter btw don´t seem as transparent to me as SBS, but i don´t really follow that project.
So, while your post does look like something, you don´t get the scope right and forget, or reject, many important factors, i think. But you did some math.
Prophecy of doom is so 90s! ;P
The only reason not to offer refunds is if you think people are going to use it, but happy people don't ask for refunds.
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
It's just short of total incompetence.
Also, you must not look outside of CoE much... both CU and AoC offer refunds.
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
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
I just say it´s not unusual to not offer refunds, as that would increase monetary risk and administration efforts. There is no "only reason".
Do Intrepid got some sort of backup from publishers? I can´t find their companys homepage to see history and affiliations.
16000 is not enough
"For a period of three years, Lionhead established satellite companies, including Big Blue Box Studios (developers of Fable), Intrepid Games (developers of B.C., long since suspended due to a massive overrun) and Black & White Studios (who have taken responsibility for the continuation of the Black & White series). Lionhead proper was working on three games: Fable, Black & White 2 and The Movies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionhead_Studios
No comparision to the small SBS studio. Well, acutaly considering that. SBS do quite well.
It's not "just short" on anything.
Folks this is why you don’t send the angry mob out to shut down critics. Too funny. I laughed out loud.
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
Also, I did exclude almost 20% of the positions listed on CoE's wiki; which, by the way, is linked by moderators of the game when asked what size the team is. Compared to the official kickstarter page/SoE, it shares many of the same names and positions. For reference, the original kickstarter page listed 16 team members, in the latest SoE, SBS claims it added at *least* 4 new members, and at least 9 others are listed in the news updates about added team members. So, 28 (the number that the wiki states) is actually not far from that. Unless, of course, several of those team members have left the project already ...
Again, if you'd like to provide more concrete numbers, I would be happy to run them as well.
Also, you dismiss the comparison to AoC's crowdfunding success in one post, only to do the same in your next post and consider SBS's a success when, in fact, it is significantly lower than AoC's. You also seem surprised that AoC received more funding because they had previous experience in developing games (specifically MMOS) ... Its weird how people put more trust into a team that has some experience, huh?
But the comparison with Intrepid was not that they got more experience, SBS are no newbees neither engeneering-wise, but about the infrastructural roots and backup they might have company-wise. That, and the easier to get out alpha from AoC, considered, i just noted at the side, that one might see SBS with their niche and unusual concept indeed as successful so far.
It´s a relation.
Why do you pull out the sidenote and don´t answer to the relevant arguments, like the different scope and easier to attract players and easier to bring out moving pictures and the backup arguments?
"Compared to CoE, AoC has relatively modest claims to innovation and features; however, unlike CoE, AoC has already provided a working alpha demo after less than one year of game development."
I already addressed it, which is why I didn't feel the need to repeat myself.
So both AoC and CU are tiny self started indie developers making MMORPGs. Both are confident enough to offer refunds. Again, SpatialOS was advertised as the foundation of the game and people have stated (on forums and Discord) that it was why they believed the promises were remotely possible.
So again, since they changed the fabric the game was built on, their direct crowdfunding competitors offer refunds, and they claim all 16,000 pledged people are happy.... shouldn’t they offer a refund? If the supporters are happy then nobody would use it so no harm done. Obviously there is a fear that if offered a chance, people would ask for a refund.
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
"modest claims"
vs
"AoC pulls on the same mechanics all MMOs does and thus alone get more of the unboreable - or regrowing - grind-questing players out there.."
which also plays into the alpha they already got out. And i further argued
"Thus, a playable alpha "zero" (which doesn´t look anywhere promising for me) isn´t nearly as hard to make, as most of that stuff is done manyfold elsewhere. More moving pictures means more moving cash. But SBS got a different approach.."
So, i feel i had relativised your main argument in the comparison of AoC and CoE.