Why doesn't CoE crowdfund the publisher?

Wellspring · January 2018

If they can't find a real publisher, why doesn't SBS let the players invest in the game and receive equity?

Crowfall did this even after finding outside investors through indiegogo equity. https://equity.indiegogo.com/offerings/artcraft-entertainment/

Fig also does "Democratized Publishing for video games". https://www.fig.co/

They have plenty of people willing to spend $10k to be a king. I imagine they would be willing to spend even more for if they had a chance at a monetary return on their investment. Thoughts?

some-clueless-guy · January 2018

Is it really a good idea to go from investors who expect a return on their investment to investors who are emotionally involved in the game?

Asking the players to "become" the publisher is essentially another form of investing: once you accept their money they can make requests. Whether one calls it investors or publishers the matter is that these individuals would have a personal stake in the success of the enterprise; often what is best for a game economically is not what is best for the whales and these "investors" would be no one but the whales.

We replace pressure on the devs to make as much money as possible with pressure to make the game more enjoyable for the whales, who at that point are to be considered partners.

I won't argue about what's best for CoE because I admit ignorance on the subject, but if we generalize as see what's best for games in general, I doubt this would be a good road to take.

Wellspring · January 2018

some-clueless-guy said:

Is it really a good idea to go from investors who expect a return on their investment to investors who are emotionally involved in the game?

Asking the players to "become" the publisher is essentially another form of investing: once you accept their money they can make requests. Whether one calls it investors or publishers the matter is that these individuals would have a personal stake in the success of the enterprise; often what is best for a game economically is not what is best for the whales and these "investors" would be no one but the whales.

We replace pressure on the devs to make as much money as possible with pressure to make the game more enjoyable for the whales, who at that point are to be considered partners.

I won't argue about what's best for CoE because I admit ignorance on the subject, but if we generalize as see what's best for games in general, I doubt this would be a good road to take.

I'm not too familiar on the subject either or how it has worked on other games that have used the FIG or Indiegogo Equity platform.

I agree, you don't want the "player investors" making the rules.

However, couldn't SBS give the public the ability to invest without them getting any say in the development or monetization of the game? They would simply receive the agreed upon return for their investment. And perhaps, they could voice opinions, but SBS would make all final decisions -- which isn't really much different than it is now with how SBS listens to community feedback from backers.

Edit: Spelling

Vrika · January 2018

To do that they'd need to disclose their financials, and if they're in a poor financial situation at this stage of development that might hurt their sales much more than they'd gain from investments.

some-clueless-guy · January 2018

Wellspring said:

some-clueless-guy said:

Is it really a good idea to go from investors who expect a return on their investment to investors who are emotionally involved in the game?

Asking the players to "become" the publisher is essentially another form of investing: once you accept their money they can make requests. Whether one calls it investors or publishers the matter is that these individuals would have a personal stake in the success of the enterprise; often what is best for a game economically is not what is best for the whales and these "investors" would be no one but the whales.

We replace pressure on the devs to make as much money as possible with pressure to make the game more enjoyable for the whales, who at that point are to be considered partners.

I won't argue about what's best for CoE because I admit ignorance on the subject, but if we generalize as see what's best for games in general, I doubt this would be a good road to take.

I'm not too familiar on the subject either or how it has worked on other games that have used the FIG or Indiegogo Equity platform.

I agree, you don't want the "player investors" making the rules.

However, couldn't SBS give the public the ability to invest without them getting any say in the development or monetization of the game? They would simply receive the agreed upon return for their investment. And perhaps, they could voice opinions, but SBS would make all final decisions -- which isn't really much different than it is now with how SBS listens to community feedback from backers.

Edit: Spelling

I think that unless the money invested is not refundable, which wouldn't make sense, they would always be in the awkward position where the whales could threaten to withdraw the money if things don't go their way.
These investing players would always have a say, even if the developers don't actually "listen" to their "advice" because they could always withdraw the money invested.

Sandmanjw · January 2018

People that donate, like to a kick starter, have zero rights. other than if they are promised a map a tee-shirt or whatever.

Investors are a legal entity and have legal rights and you have obligations to them.

Totally different animals.

EponyxDamor · January 2018

Sandmanjw said:

People that donate, like to a kick starter, have zero rights. other than if they are promised a map a tee-shirt or whatever.

Investors are a legal entity and have legal rights and you have obligations to them.

Totally different animals.

There are ways to crowdfund actual investors now.

Also, many crowdfunded games also take actual investments that are very large from individuals. Much larger than a typical donation, in exchange for stake in the company/ROI.

Slapshot1188 · January 2018

I think another struggling game (SotA) tried this... I don’t think it was very successful.

Interesting idea though. I just think there’s a lot of regulations around it which would consume a lot of resources which they don’t have to spare.

Slapshot1188 · January 2018

Beyond that though there are other things a publisher brings to the table such as PR and Marketing.

OrangeBoy · January 2018

https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/23507/2018-the-year-of-the-beard-challenge

Wtf

Superman0X · January 2018

The only reason for them not to do this, is that they do not believe that they would be able to raise enough funds to publish. The real question is why they do not believe that they could convince people to give enough money to fund he publishing.

Various forms of fundraising are available. Look at games like Star Citizen, who have raised hundreds of millions to develop and publish their game. Then you have all the companies that have recently done ICO's to raise funds for products. There are many examples of companies raising funds from the crowd.

Slapshot1188 · January 2018

OrangeBoy said:

https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/23507/2018-the-year-of-the-beard-challenge

Wtf

Classic CoE

EponyxDamor · January 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

OrangeBoy said:

https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/23507/2018-the-year-of-the-beard-challenge

Wtf

Classic CoE

Taking bets on the number of beards required to get CoE to launch ...

Or on the chances of SBS saying that the beard was never an integral part of the campaign, and that they've decided to part ways with said beard, opting instead to use a small, furry animal (that they made by hand in seven days' time) as a replacement for the beard.

(EDIT: Its at least some sort of push for funding. However, they really need to start reaching out for new backers rather than inward towards current backers.)

Wellspring · January 2018

I don't believe the beard thing is an official SBS sanctioned fundraising event. It's just one of the kings (backers) who created it.

EponyxDamor · January 2018

Wellspring said:

I don't believe the beard thing is an official SBS sanctioned fundraising event. It's just one of the kings (backers) who created it.

Well, kudos to the community members for putting effort into getting more funding for CoE. Still, I wonder how many beards it would take ...

GeezerGamer · January 2018

He's probably run out of gas with regard to crowd funding. We'll see in the immediate months ahead if his ability to generate funds has taken a hit or not.

Slapshot1188 · January 2018

GeezerGamer said:

He's probably run out of gas with regard to crowd funding. We'll see in the immediate months ahead if his ability to generate funds has taken a hit or not.

The more they raise now by the same people buying more perks... the larger the gulf between the have and have nots at launch.

They need a serious change to their monetization scheme. It’s a plan for inevitable failure.

GeezerGamer · January 2018

OrangeBoy said:

https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/23507/2018-the-year-of-the-beard-challenge

Wtf

The Five Million Dollar Beard

EponyxDamor · January 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

GeezerGamer said:

He's probably run out of gas with regard to crowd funding. We'll see in the immediate months ahead if his ability to generate funds has taken a hit or not.

The more they raise now by the same people buying more perks... the larger the gulf between the have and have nots at launch.

They need a serious change to their monetization scheme. It’s a plan for inevitable failure.

Above all else, I don't understand the reluctance to include cosmetic cash shop items or remodeling their monetization model in order to reach a compromise with a publisher. Why are cosmetic items so terrible, worth laying people off over, and risking the studio's financial liability in order to avoid when they're already selling distinct in-game advantages in the cash shop?

Makes no sense to me.

Ungood · January 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

GeezerGamer said:

He's probably run out of gas with regard to crowd funding. We'll see in the immediate months ahead if his ability to generate funds has taken a hit or not.

The more they raise now by the same people buying more perks... the larger the gulf between the have and have nots at launch.

They need a serious change to their monetization scheme. It’s a plan for inevitable failure.

I have not spent a cent on this game yet. So keep that in mind as I ask this question.

So what if the haves, have more then the have-nots, isn't the whole point, there will be paupers and kings.

GeezerGamer · January 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

GeezerGamer said:

He's probably run out of gas with regard to crowd funding. We'll see in the immediate months ahead if his ability to generate funds has taken a hit or not.

The more they raise now by the same people buying more perks... the larger the gulf between the have and have nots at launch.

They need a serious change to their monetization scheme. It’s a plan for inevitable failure.

I'm going to agree with you but for 1 caveat.

I don't think they will get to that point of inevitable failure.

They need to overcome the issue of imminent failure 1st.

Tiamat64 · January 2018

Ungood said:

Slapshot1188 said:

GeezerGamer said:

He's probably run out of gas with regard to crowd funding. We'll see in the immediate months ahead if his ability to generate funds has taken a hit or not.

The more they raise now by the same people buying more perks... the larger the gulf between the have and have nots at launch.

They need a serious change to their monetization scheme. It’s a plan for inevitable failure.

I have not spent a cent on this game yet. So keep that in mind as I ask this question.

So what if the haves, have more then the have-nots, isn't the whole point, there will be paupers and kings.

Not that the game's going to live long enough for it to matter, but hypothetically, if the game DID live, then without a cash shop, kings and paupers will relatively pay the same amount of $30 per year (perhaps even less for kings because they'll be in a position to prevent their deaths).

Now, in general, PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE BEING PAUPERS. That should go without saying. So theretically, a game where there are a few kings thanks to them buying in before the cash shop closed (which is the current plan) and everyone else is a pauper is going to dissaude a lot of people from playing the game.

The end result is you'll have a few kings who brought their castles while the castles were up for sale before the game was released, and only a few paupers because people don't like being paupers.

Considering that those few kings will only be providing the game with $30 a year per king at that rate, that is not a good thing for the life of the game.

Really, the fact that "kings and paupers" hurts the player base is a well-known fact. Look at the pros and cons section of this business presentation (from an actual company that uses the pay-to-win business model) and they explicitly list "lower player base" and "shorter player retention" as a con for having a pay-to-win system (pay-to-win = pay-to-king in CoE's case). The pros, however, is they get a truckton of money from those whales/kings.

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1016417/-100-000-Whales-An

In CoE's case, once the cash shop closes, they no longer get a truckton of money from their kings. At that point, they're basically the same as R2game's business model with all the pros of "Lower player base" and "lower player retention" and none of the pros of "Kings are (note the present tense, not the past tense) giving them lots and lots of money!"

The whole "King before the game even releases, and then no more money from kings" business model is likely another major reason why the game can't get a publisher. As shown by R2Game's presentation, THE GAME COMPANIES ALREADY KNOW THAT PAY-TO-WIN HURTS THE PLAYER BASE, and CoE's version of Pay-to-win model doesn't even bring the benefit of getting a truckton of money from the whales post-release! Why does Caspien keep complaining about them proposing a cash shop and loot boxes for the game? It's BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET MONEY FROM THE KINGS, who otherwise won't be giving any more money (beyond a hilariously pathetic $30 per month if that much) after the game is released under the current model.

But that's just the business side of things. From the player base's side of things, again, no one likes being a pauper. Well, most people don't at least.

So the model sucks for investors (NO MONEY!) and it sucks for the majority of the players (BE A PAUPER). It's the worst of both worlds!

Ungood · January 2018

Tiamat64 said:

Ungood said:

Slapshot1188 said:

GeezerGamer said:

He's probably run out of gas with regard to crowd funding. We'll see in the immediate months ahead if his ability to generate funds has taken a hit or not.

The more they raise now by the same people buying more perks... the larger the gulf between the have and have nots at launch.

They need a serious change to their monetization scheme. It’s a plan for inevitable failure.

I have not spent a cent on this game yet. So keep that in mind as I ask this question.

So what if the haves, have more then the have-nots, isn't the whole point, there will be paupers and kings.

Not that the game's going to live long enough for it to matter, but hypothetically, if the game DID live, then without a cash shop, kings and paupers will relatively pay the same amount of $30 per year (perhaps even less for kings because they'll be in a position to prevent their deaths).

Now, in general, PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE BEING PAUPERS. That should go without saying. So theretically, a game where there are a few kings thanks to them buying in before the cash shop closed (which is the current plan) and everyone else is a pauper is going to dissaude a lot of people from playing the game.

The end result is you'll have a few kings who brought their castles while the castles were up for sale before the game was released, and only a few paupers because people don't like being paupers.

Considering that those few kings will only be providing the game with $30 a year per king at that rate, that is not a good thing for the life of the game.

Really, the fact that "kings and paupers" hurts the player base is a well-known fact. Look at the pros and cons section of this business presentation (from an actual company that uses the pay-to-win business model) and they explicitly list "lower player base" and "shorter player retention" as a con for having a pay-to-win system (pay-to-win = pay-to-king in CoE's case). The pros, however, is they get a truckton of money from those whales/kings.

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1016417/-100-000-Whales-An

In CoE's case, once the cash shop closes, they no longer get a truckton of money from their kings. At that point, they're basically the same as R2game's business model with all the pros of "Lower player base" and "lower player retention" and none of the pros of "Kings are (note the present tense, not the past tense) giving them lots and lots of money!"

The whole "King before the game even releases, and then no more money from kings" business model is likely another major reason why the game can't get a publisher. As shown by R2Game's presentation, THE GAME COMPANIES ALREADY KNOW THAT PAY-TO-WIN HURTS THE PLAYER BASE, and CoE's version of Pay-to-win model doesn't even bring the benefit of getting a truckton of money from the whales post-release! Why does Caspien keep complaining about them proposing a cash shop and loot boxes for the game? It's BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET MONEY FROM THE KINGS, who otherwise won't be giving any more money (beyond a hilariously pathetic $30 per month if that much) after the game is released under the current model.

But that's just the business side of things. From the player base's side of things, again, no one likes being a pauper. Well, most people don't at least.

So the model sucks for investors (NO MONEY!) and it sucks for the majority of the players (BE A PAUPER). It's the worst of both worlds!

I don't know, most War games I play, I see lots of people that don't want to the be the "leader" and would rather be a grunt on the battle field.

Maybe PvE gamers all want to be the "Chosen One", but that is often not the case for PvP games, as the more higher up you are, the larger the target on your back.

As for post game release, I am sure there will be an Item Mall of sorts, just nothing like "Loot Boxes", which will make the game more level for those just starting, but still reward those that backed it with unique rewards.

It would be rather hilarious if they didn't have a store post launch at all. Not sure how he plans that, even with 30 a year, that is not much, most games need to gouge you for at least 20 a month to be profitable. (might be why he is having backer issues, not enough money gouging)

But I don't know his vision or plan, but as it stands,I don't see any problem with selling advantages to the people willing to invest in the game, and making such advantages unique to them, that is what they get for putting faith in the game when others would not.

If it bothers you that those people will be ahead of you in this game, invest now and do what you can to be a king, if you think the game will fail, what do you care? It's not your money, and all those people are just kings of vaporware.

EponyxDamor · January 2018

Kingship and royalty is all well and good, certainly in the realm of being pay-to-win, or certainly at least have an advantage IMO; however, the worst part of the game's launch plan/monetization model still remains to be the "exposition" phase.

Seriously. Three months head start. No wipe. With a one-month no PVP grace period? That alone is waaaaaaaay worse than any possible P2W mechanics the game might include in the cash shop.

What a turn off to interested players who cannot afford to risk money backing a project. A whole three months that people will want to play the game, but simply can't due to not backing/pre-ordering. Furthermore, it may place SBS in a rather odd financing predicament, where for three months they likely won't have much funding ... Or will at least have significantly less than they would have otherwise at "launch".

I imagine this was also a major point of contention with "publishers", if they ever managed to make it through the entire 8 page pitch SBS put together.

Ungood · January 2018

EponyxDamor said:

Kingship and royalty is all well and good, certainly in the realm of being pay-to-win, or certainly at least have an advantage IMO; however, the worst part of the game's launch plan/monetization model still remains to be the "exposition" phase.

Seriously. Three months head start. No wipe. With a one-month no PVP grace period? That alone is waaaaaaaay worse than any possible P2W mechanics the game might include in the cash shop.

What a turn off to interested players who cannot afford to risk money backing a project. A whole three months that people will want to play the game, but simply can't due to not backing/pre-ordering. Furthermore, it may place SBS in a rather odd financing predicament, where for three months they likely won't have much funding ... Or will at least have significantly less than they would have otherwise at "launch".

I imagine this was also a major point of contention with "publishers", if they ever managed to make it through the entire 8 page pitch SBS put together.

Again, that 3 months just gives them time to learn the game, and their role, no one wants a 'newb' King trying to figure out what to do. So yes, that grace period is there so they can L2P.

And look, not to be rude, but reality check, no one cares about people who can't spend money on their product, not the backers, not the developers, and above all, not the publishers, who are all about making the game as profitable as possible, and if that means selling big things to big spenders to make money, then that is what they will gladly do.

CoE is not special, in fact the fact that they don't want to sell "Loot boxes" is about as fair as you could get in a game, but every game company is out there to make money, none of them are a Welfare Home for broke gamers, so it stands to reason that they want everyone to pay.

Its really a question of what that is worth to you, if its not worth enough to you to spend some money on it, then it can't be worth all that much in the end of things.

Always made a laugh that people would spend thousands of hours of their life on a game, and fuss that it was not worth money, so.. that thousand hours of your life was not worth anything huh?

genaknosc · January 2018

Vrika said:

To do that they'd need to disclose their financials, and if they're in a poor financial situation at this stage of development that might hurt their sales much more than they'd gain from investments.

This guy gets it.

Howdy, Stranger!

Why doesn't CoE crowdfund the publisher?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Why doesn't CoE crowdfund the publisher?

Comments