Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Pantheon's producer, Ben Dean interviewed

124»

Comments

  • achesomaachesoma Member RarePosts: 1,518
    achesoma said:

    So how are they paying these new people? 


    I imagine the same way they are paying the old people.  Is there some proof that their revenue stream is increasing?  If not that just increases the burn rate which increases the imperative to release earlier rather than later.


    With absolutely zero hesitation it is clear that their absolute BEST path forward is to get acquired by another company or land a whale of an investor who is going to take over the lion's share of the ownership.

     


    If they are truly are in that bad of shape then why wouldn't they have sold out already? Unless you think Ben is lying, they already had opportunities from interested parties that didn't match their philosophy. So why would they wait? Why waste a year of their time and all that money rebuilding their architecture only to just give majority ownership to someone else?
    Ungood

  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 324
    edited October 2020
    Huh? There could have been any number of reasons why a deal from a publisher hasn't gone through up to this point.

    The only thing that matters is that for the game to release a deal has to happen.  This has been known in the community for awhile and was basically confirmed by VR (with a positive spin) recently.

    We can all hope a publisher picks it up.  That could very likely lead to some compromises to the game.  We will have to assess that situation if and when it happens.

    The concern is that there are hundreds of other games on the market that have been compromised.  This one was supposed to be different.


    Slapshot1188
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 14,467
    edited October 2020
    achesoma said:


    If they are truly are in that bad of shape then why wouldn't they have sold out already? Unless you think Ben is lying, they already had opportunities from interested parties that didn't match their philosophy. So why would they wait? Why waste a year of their time and all that money rebuilding their architecture only to just give majority ownership to someone else?
    You asked a question and then ignored the answer.   You also ignored the very important question I asked in return.  Do you have any proof that their revenue stream is increasing over the last year?  If not, then what I said is an indisputable FACT:  If you add people/cost and do not increase your revenue then you just increased the burn rate which increases the imperative to release earlier rather than later.

    As for this response above:

    Do you know anything at all about the terms of the deals that were supposedly offered?  Anything at all about the valuation they were offered?   Anything at all about the proposed controlling interest?

    If you do not know any of that then you have no idea why they turned down any offers or if they were really legit offers at all. 

    We likely will never know.

    What we will know eventually is which of the three outcomes I listed earlier comes true.



    PS: When you say "wasting all that money" over the last year... are they not paying themselves salaries?  Is that not the major expenditure the company has? I do not think they would consider paying themselves as wasting the money :)  I do not know anything about Ben other than a quick google search.  It seems that his entire work history prior to becoming the Producer of this game has been in PR, Marketing and Community Management.  Needless to say, a core function of ALL those roles is to try and put a positive spin on anything and everything. 
     


    GdemamiBrainy

    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

  • achesomaachesoma Member RarePosts: 1,518
    achesoma said:


    If they are truly are in that bad of shape then why wouldn't they have sold out already? Unless you think Ben is lying, they already had opportunities from interested parties that didn't match their philosophy. So why would they wait? Why waste a year of their time and all that money rebuilding their architecture only to just give majority ownership to someone else?
    You asked a question and then ignored the answer.   You also ignored the very important question I asked in return.  Do you have any proof that their revenue stream is increasing over the last year?  If not, then what I said is an indisputable FACT:  If you add people/cost and do not increase your revenue then you just increased the burn rate which increases the imperative to release earlier rather than later.

    As for this response above:

    Do you know anything at all about the terms of the deals that were supposedly offered?  Anything at all about the valuation they were offered?   Anything at all about the proposed controlling interest?

    If you do not know any of that then you have no idea why they turned down any offers or if they were really legit offers at all. 

    We likely will never know.

    What we will know eventually is which of the three outcomes I listed earlier comes true.



    PS: When you say "wasting all that money" over the last year... are they not paying themselves salaries?  Is that not the major expenditure the company has? I do not think they would consider paying themselves as wasting the money :)  I do not know anything about Ben other than a quick google search.  It seems that his entire work history prior to becoming the Producer of this game has been in PR, Marketing and Community Management.  Needless to say, a core function of ALL those roles is to try and put a positive spin on anything and everything. 
     



    I have no clue what their revenue stream is but I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming they're broke and I'm asking for proof. Neither of us know how much money they have from investors or pledges. That's my whole point. I'm asking how you know they are broke. How do you know what their burn rate is?
    Kyleran

  • WellspringWellspring Member EpicPosts: 1,464
    <snip>

    It’s not at all the same thing.  Let me ask you this way: He is saying that he has enough funding right now to literally pay the staff for many years (the long time). But he doesn’t have the money to hire more people today?  

    I find that highly questionable.  Yes there are some scenarios where it can be true, but most are very unlikely.  

    <snip>

    @Slapshot1188, your logic is sound, except for the "right now" misconception. Ben didn't say "right now", and assuming those two words changes everything.

    Statement rewritten, with "right now" omitted:

    "He is saying that he has enough funding to literally pay the staff for many years (the long time)."


    Back to your question: Why he doesn't have the money to hire more people today?

    Now, I think the conclusion is obvious...

    The studio must be living month-to-month, paycheck-to-paycheck, through crowdfunding and/or investor(s).

    @achesoma no one can say for sure if they are broke or not. But through logic you can deduce that they are at (or exceeded) their comfortable burn rate threshold. Otherwise, they would use any excess funds to hire more people to accomplish their desire to get the game done better & faster.

    httpspreviewreddithrdz4p9y4av51pngwidth1855formatpngautowebps0f27c139373f12f7e80e983aceb0e7dd3c0a71cc




    achesomaGdemamiKyleranYashaX
    --------------------------------------------
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 14,467
    achesoma said:
    achesoma said:


    If they are truly are in that bad of shape then why wouldn't they have sold out already? Unless you think Ben is lying, they already had opportunities from interested parties that didn't match their philosophy. So why would they wait? Why waste a year of their time and all that money rebuilding their architecture only to just give majority ownership to someone else?
    You asked a question and then ignored the answer.   You also ignored the very important question I asked in return.  Do you have any proof that their revenue stream is increasing over the last year?  If not, then what I said is an indisputable FACT:  If you add people/cost and do not increase your revenue then you just increased the burn rate which increases the imperative to release earlier rather than later.

    As for this response above:

    Do you know anything at all about the terms of the deals that were supposedly offered?  Anything at all about the valuation they were offered?   Anything at all about the proposed controlling interest?

    If you do not know any of that then you have no idea why they turned down any offers or if they were really legit offers at all. 

    We likely will never know.

    What we will know eventually is which of the three outcomes I listed earlier comes true.



    PS: When you say "wasting all that money" over the last year... are they not paying themselves salaries?  Is that not the major expenditure the company has? I do not think they would consider paying themselves as wasting the money :)  I do not know anything about Ben other than a quick google search.  It seems that his entire work history prior to becoming the Producer of this game has been in PR, Marketing and Community Management.  Needless to say, a core function of ALL those roles is to try and put a positive spin on anything and everything. 
     



    I have no clue what their revenue stream is but I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming they're broke and I'm asking for proof. Neither of us know how much money they have from investors or pledges. That's my whole point. I'm asking how you know they are broke. How do you know what their burn rate is?
    Actually that is incorrect.   This whole conversation started because you claimed (and this is an exact quote):  "Things can't be that financially dire if VR is still hiring people. Just last year they hired Kyle Olsen (Lead Programmer). And this year they hired Tyler Stokes (Associate Game Designer)."  That is a claim.

    I simply pointed out that hiring 2 people in 2 years is not a sign of financial stability.  You then tried to deflect with questions about how they were paying the new people to which I asked about the revenue stream and burn rate.   
    GdemamiBrainy

    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

  • achesomaachesoma Member RarePosts: 1,518
    achesoma said:
    achesoma said:


    If they are truly are in that bad of shape then why wouldn't they have sold out already? Unless you think Ben is lying, they already had opportunities from interested parties that didn't match their philosophy. So why would they wait? Why waste a year of their time and all that money rebuilding their architecture only to just give majority ownership to someone else?
    You asked a question and then ignored the answer.   You also ignored the very important question I asked in return.  Do you have any proof that their revenue stream is increasing over the last year?  If not, then what I said is an indisputable FACT:  If you add people/cost and do not increase your revenue then you just increased the burn rate which increases the imperative to release earlier rather than later.

    As for this response above:

    Do you know anything at all about the terms of the deals that were supposedly offered?  Anything at all about the valuation they were offered?   Anything at all about the proposed controlling interest?

    If you do not know any of that then you have no idea why they turned down any offers or if they were really legit offers at all. 

    We likely will never know.

    What we will know eventually is which of the three outcomes I listed earlier comes true.



    PS: When you say "wasting all that money" over the last year... are they not paying themselves salaries?  Is that not the major expenditure the company has? I do not think they would consider paying themselves as wasting the money :)  I do not know anything about Ben other than a quick google search.  It seems that his entire work history prior to becoming the Producer of this game has been in PR, Marketing and Community Management.  Needless to say, a core function of ALL those roles is to try and put a positive spin on anything and everything. 
     



    I have no clue what their revenue stream is but I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming they're broke and I'm asking for proof. Neither of us know how much money they have from investors or pledges. That's my whole point. I'm asking how you know they are broke. How do you know what their burn rate is?
    Actually that is incorrect.   This whole conversation started because you claimed (and this is an exact quote):  "Things can't be that financially dire if VR is still hiring people. Just last year they hired Kyle Olsen (Lead Programmer). And this year they hired Tyler Stokes (Associate Game Designer)."  That is a claim.

    I simply pointed out that hiring 2 people in 2 years is not a sign of financial stability.  You then tried to deflect with questions about how they were paying the new people to which I asked about the revenue stream and burn rate.   
    I was responding to a claim that angel investors money was only to get to pre alpha which was 3 years ago. And they had enough funds to hire 2 people after that. 
    Nanfoodle

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 9,609
    edited October 2020
    achesoma said:
    achesoma said:


    If they are truly are in that bad of shape then why wouldn't they have sold out already? Unless you think Ben is lying, they already had opportunities from interested parties that didn't match their philosophy. So why would they wait? Why waste a year of their time and all that money rebuilding their architecture only to just give majority ownership to someone else?
    You asked a question and then ignored the answer.   You also ignored the very important question I asked in return.  Do you have any proof that their revenue stream is increasing over the last year?  If not, then what I said is an indisputable FACT:  If you add people/cost and do not increase your revenue then you just increased the burn rate which increases the imperative to release earlier rather than later.

    As for this response above:

    Do you know anything at all about the terms of the deals that were supposedly offered?  Anything at all about the valuation they were offered?   Anything at all about the proposed controlling interest?

    If you do not know any of that then you have no idea why they turned down any offers or if they were really legit offers at all. 

    We likely will never know.

    What we will know eventually is which of the three outcomes I listed earlier comes true.



    PS: When you say "wasting all that money" over the last year... are they not paying themselves salaries?  Is that not the major expenditure the company has? I do not think they would consider paying themselves as wasting the money :)  I do not know anything about Ben other than a quick google search.  It seems that his entire work history prior to becoming the Producer of this game has been in PR, Marketing and Community Management.  Needless to say, a core function of ALL those roles is to try and put a positive spin on anything and everything. 
     



    I have no clue what their revenue stream is but I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming they're broke and I'm asking for proof. Neither of us know how much money they have from investors or pledges. That's my whole point. I'm asking how you know they are broke. How do you know what their burn rate is?
    Actually that is incorrect.   This whole conversation started because you claimed (and this is an exact quote):  "Things can't be that financially dire if VR is still hiring people. Just last year they hired Kyle Olsen (Lead Programmer). And this year they hired Tyler Stokes (Associate Game Designer)."  That is a claim.

    I simply pointed out that hiring 2 people in 2 years is not a sign of financial stability.  You then tried to deflect with questions about how they were paying the new people to which I asked about the revenue stream and burn rate.   
    If you take VR at their word and we have no reason not too because VR has been forward with how things are going even when it looks bad for them. At VR word, VR can continue making the game at a slow speed. VR has said they are in that state of making the game slowly to conserve funds. So adding new people would fit in that model. What they can afford at their slow rate of development. We will never have full numbers as this is not something they should disclose.

    Pre-Alpha 5 will take some time, then after that Alpha 1 will be getting the game polished to show off to investors. VR is not going to risk the next bit of development that has a plan set up to get more investors. So the new people must fit in that budget of getting at least Alpha 1 done. 
    Post edited by Nanfoodle on
    achesomaKyleran
  • achesomaachesoma Member RarePosts: 1,518
    Nanfoodle said:
    achesoma said:
    achesoma said:


    If they are truly are in that bad of shape then why wouldn't they have sold out already? Unless you think Ben is lying, they already had opportunities from interested parties that didn't match their philosophy. So why would they wait? Why waste a year of their time and all that money rebuilding their architecture only to just give majority ownership to someone else?
    You asked a question and then ignored the answer.   You also ignored the very important question I asked in return.  Do you have any proof that their revenue stream is increasing over the last year?  If not, then what I said is an indisputable FACT:  If you add people/cost and do not increase your revenue then you just increased the burn rate which increases the imperative to release earlier rather than later.

    As for this response above:

    Do you know anything at all about the terms of the deals that were supposedly offered?  Anything at all about the valuation they were offered?   Anything at all about the proposed controlling interest?

    If you do not know any of that then you have no idea why they turned down any offers or if they were really legit offers at all. 

    We likely will never know.

    What we will know eventually is which of the three outcomes I listed earlier comes true.



    PS: When you say "wasting all that money" over the last year... are they not paying themselves salaries?  Is that not the major expenditure the company has? I do not think they would consider paying themselves as wasting the money :)  I do not know anything about Ben other than a quick google search.  It seems that his entire work history prior to becoming the Producer of this game has been in PR, Marketing and Community Management.  Needless to say, a core function of ALL those roles is to try and put a positive spin on anything and everything. 
     



    I have no clue what their revenue stream is but I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming they're broke and I'm asking for proof. Neither of us know how much money they have from investors or pledges. That's my whole point. I'm asking how you know they are broke. How do you know what their burn rate is?
    Actually that is incorrect.   This whole conversation started because you claimed (and this is an exact quote):  "Things can't be that financially dire if VR is still hiring people. Just last year they hired Kyle Olsen (Lead Programmer). And this year they hired Tyler Stokes (Associate Game Designer)."  That is a claim.

    I simply pointed out that hiring 2 people in 2 years is not a sign of financial stability.  You then tried to deflect with questions about how they were paying the new people to which I asked about the revenue stream and burn rate.   
    If you take VR at their word and we have no reason not too because VR has been forward with how things are going even when it looks bad for them. At VR word, VR can continue making the game at a slow speed. VR has said they are in that state of making the game slowly to conserve funds. So adding new people would fit in that model. What they can afford at their slow rate of development. We will never have full numbers as this is not something they should disclose.

    Pre-Alpha 5 will take some time, then after that Alpha 1 will be getting the game polished to show off to investors. VR is not going to risk the next bit of development that has a plan set up to get more investors. So the new people must fit in that budget of getting at least Alpha 1 done. 
    Exactly. I haven’t seen any concrete reason not to believe Ben or VR team. 
    Nanfoodle

  • xpsyncxpsync Member EpicPosts: 1,852
    edited October 2020
    Nanfoodle said:
    VR stance on partnerships is they have truned away investors because they did not have the same goals and ideals. They do currently have have angel investors.


    Agreed, their goals are radically different than vr's in that they want to finish the game and their idea's were to release it. :)
    Your legend ends here and now! - (Battles Won Long Ago)

    Remember your ABC's, Always Be Casting! - Preheat 2021

    Currently Playing; WOW, SWG:L

  • BrainyBrainy Member RarePosts: 873
    achesoma said:

    Also, as you mention, they might be close to a publisher deal. So according to your own belief, they are meeting the criteria to launch the game. Ben specifically mentions turning down potential partners that didn't share their philosophy to avoid the "negative influence" as you put it.


    I think you are seriously misunderstanding these potential partners.  You really think they want creative control?  More likely these are investment firms that want equity, or some return on investment in a very short term.

    How do you know they are not being offered a pretty small amount of money with requirement of 10% ROI within 1 year?  or 50% of revenue for 1st year with a requirement to enter early access within a year? 

    I doubt any investor wants to run the game.  I bet this money they have been offered has some huge consequences relating to a release date that they know they cant meet.

    I just don't see some publisher going to throw a bunch of money at the game for them to make the game of their dreams.
    TorvalGdemamiMendelNanfoodle
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 9,609
    Brainy said:
    achesoma said:

    Also, as you mention, they might be close to a publisher deal. So according to your own belief, they are meeting the criteria to launch the game. Ben specifically mentions turning down potential partners that didn't share their philosophy to avoid the "negative influence" as you put it.


    I think you are seriously misunderstanding these potential partners.  You really think they want creative control?  More likely these are investment firms that want equity, or some return on investment in a very short term.

    How do you know they are not being offered a pretty small amount of money with requirement of 10% ROI within 1 year?  or 50% of revenue for 1st year with a requirement to enter early access within a year? 

    I doubt any investor wants to run the game.  I bet this money they have been offered has some huge consequences relating to a release date that they know they cant meet.

    I just don't see some publisher going to throw a bunch of money at the game for them to make the game of their dreams.
    There is no guess work in this. Unless its an angel investor, money comes with strings. We just have to hope VR picks the strings that will best deliver the game they want to make. I hope a studio that has experience making games is the path this ends up on. I think some direction maybe a good thing for VR.  
    KyleranBrainy
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,863
    Brainy said:
    achesoma said:

    Also, as you mention, they might be close to a publisher deal. So according to your own belief, they are meeting the criteria to launch the game. Ben specifically mentions turning down potential partners that didn't share their philosophy to avoid the "negative influence" as you put it.


    I think you are seriously misunderstanding these potential partners.  You really think they want creative control?  More likely these are investment firms that want equity, or some return on investment in a very short term.

    How do you know they are not being offered a pretty small amount of money with requirement of 10% ROI within 1 year?  or 50% of revenue for 1st year with a requirement to enter early access within a year? 

    I doubt any investor wants to run the game.  I bet this money they have been offered has some huge consequences relating to a release date that they know they cant meet.

    I just don't see some publisher going to throw a bunch of money at the game for them to make the game of their dreams.

    I see the VR situation as a company that wants to remain as independent as possible.  So, they aren't willing to put ownership (in any aspect) of their company on the table because they fear they will lose control of their idea.  It's likely that they see this as 'betting on themselves', but the lack of serious investment money from outside sources is endangering their dream as much as anything.  VR appears to be trying to dictate the terms, but they're they ones that need the money.

    Eventually, the ones with money win.  The money men will keep their money, and VR will keep their ideas and struggle along with their nickle and dime budget.  Stubbornness won't get a game made.  Everyone loses, especially the fans.



    BrainyGdemami

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

Sign In or Register to comment.