Free speech doesn't have to exist... it a private message board for a gaming website.... however most MMO's flop... I support and spend money on the idea on this game and the hope in the 20-30% chance it becomes successful.
Free speech doesn't have to exist... it a private message board for a gaming website.... however most MMO's flop... I support and spend money on the idea on this game and the hope in the 20-30% chance it becomes successful.
www.twitch.tv/frosdtimes
You're correct I used the wrong language, I've fixed that. The fact remain communities only thrive when they are allowed to be open and honest. Communities fail when they are held back by over censorship.
I have my fair share of posts out of my 3000 arguing with the developers. I've personally never seen that you can't go against the devs and I do so alot at least imo.
Kind of crappy that a AAA game can hide their development completely and show nothing and still have everyone ready for a sure-fire release but CoE who constantly shares their work is a pipe dream. Must be frustrating as a developer. It's the classic plot theme of the rich kid not having try nearly as hard for the same results. Like a AAA game can literally only give a group of players it's name or sometimes even it's code name and that's all it takes.
I don't know anymore.
Part of this game succeeding is belief it will succeed. They have openly stated multiple times that they are looking for more funding -- thus we have sales, promotions, kickstarter anniversaries, etc.
If everyone agreed with you, miss miss, and everyone stopped believing it was possible, it would be a self fulfilling prophecy. They would receive no more money, interest would dry up, and the game would die.
Don't drop more money on a kickstarter than you're willing to watch burn.
I knew when i backed for their kickstarter in 2016 I could afford to lose $350 in support of an idea I thought sounded good, knowing full well it might be years before anything comes of it, and that I might not see any of the things promised.
Your post achieves nothing except to spread discontent and increase the chance the game will fail. By making this thread, you add fuel to a fire you claim to fear.
The main reason I try not to get too upset about the production time is that fact that Caspain said " This my first time making an MMO." in one of the very first video he put out to the public. I'm not going to pretend I fully understand the in and outs of running a studio or making your first mmo but if AAA game companies run into development issues (Blizzard, who has one of the top MMOs, had a MMO in development for years and had to scrap it.) it's only logical that SBS will run into trouble.
I think they SBS has gotten better at sharing information. Remember when Caspain said we were suppose to get that monthly newsletter? I would say Pepperidge farm remembers but that farmer died waiting for the newsletters ,but now we have Snipe sharing on a frequent bases with the community letter.
Posted By Vucar at 1:31 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
Part of this game succeeding is belief it will succeed. They have openly stated multiple times that they are looking for more funding -- thus we have sales, promotions, kickstarter anniversaries, etc.
If everyone agreed with you, miss miss, and everyone stopped believing it was possible, it would be a self fulfilling prophecy. They would receive no more money, interest would dry up, and the game would die.
Don't drop more money on a kickstarter than you're willing to watch burn.
I knew when i backed for their kickstarter in 2016 I could afford to lose $350 in support of an idea I thought sounded good, knowing full well it might be years before anything comes of it, and that I might not see any of the things promised.
Your post achieves nothing except to spread discontent and increase the chance the game will fail. By making this thread, you add fuel to a fire you claim to fear.
So because we have collectively already invested 7 million the only effective solution is to keep spending in order to prevent failure rather the acknowledge the failing and moving on?
The only time I've seen a thread like this be removed is when the commenters become very aggressive with each other, or the discussion ends up going no where with both sides being unwilling to see the other side of the argument. As long as that doesn't happen here I see no reason for this thread to be removed.
Friend Code: C8DF9C
I am optimistic that the game will be released. What I am less sure of is that it'll be everything we dreamed of, and when the release will be. I think many of us will breathe easier when CoE picks up an investor or two.
Friend Code: CB1D33
Posted By Nubz_Unite at 5:14 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
Posted By Vucar at 1:31 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
Part of this game succeeding is belief it will succeed. They have openly stated multiple times that they are looking for more funding -- thus we have sales, promotions, kickstarter anniversaries, etc.
If everyone agreed with you, miss miss, and everyone stopped believing it was possible, it would be a self fulfilling prophecy. They would receive no more money, interest would dry up, and the game would die.
Don't drop more money on a kickstarter than you're willing to watch burn.
I knew when i backed for their kickstarter in 2016 I could afford to lose $350 in support of an idea I thought sounded good, knowing full well it might be years before anything comes of it, and that I might not see any of the things promised.
Your post achieves nothing except to spread discontent and increase the chance the game will fail. By making this thread, you add fuel to a fire you claim to fear.
So because we have collectively already invested 7 million the only effective solution is to keep spending in order to prevent failure rather the acknowledge the failing and moving on?
To cut in, that's implying that acknowledgment = cut funding. I can complain about something and have it potentially changed and still support the project's release. The reverse however is NOT true. You cannot cut the game's funding and still change issues because there will no longer be a game to change in the first place.
If you as an individual don't think it's a good investment then by all means back out. Vucar even says this in the same post you quoted:
Don't drop more money on a kickstarter than you're willing to watch burn.
But to your question, yes, The only way to release a crowdfunded game is to crowdfund the game. If everyone stopped funding every time there was a hiccup the game wouldn't release and none of the changes they wanted would be relevant because there wouldn't be a game to change.
I don't know anymore.
Let me try to explain why people react the way they do sometimes. As harsh and unwarranted some responses can be to such criticism you have to understand posts like these are often largely based on assumptions and uneducated understanding of game development, often taking a hostile and demanding tone on top. Some people, even from a neutral perspective, aren't too fond of that.
Even if you yourself avoided a hostile tone you are still making a post largely based on assumptions. Neither are you really explaining what would within reason satisfy you. You're basically just complaining. Though I hope the more sincere tone will allow you to dodge the downvotes.
I get it though, many people, perhaps including yourself, are getting paranoid because SBS, like pretty much every other game developer out there, are terrible with estimating time frames. Thus many have called on them to stop giving dates, but others cry wolf if they don't so it's a no-win scenario for them. Still, their progress isn't slow by industry standards if compared to similar games. And they still got the publisher card they can pull for funding; although done too soon won't be beneficial so I would suggest not making them rush that, you really don't want loot boxes in a closed economy.
So what within reason are you expecting from them? They released gameplay footage from the pre-alpha build just some week ago. They are continuously communicating, way more than your average developer. Heck, we're currently tackling a crucial milestone towards the alpha, the domain and settlement selection. They are doing a lot.
If it's a hands-on experience you want would it have satisfied you to have the walk and talk pre-alpha they considered a year back? I doubt it honestly, and neither would it have benefited them; there's literally no feedback of worth that can be gathered from such a build. It would just added extra work for them. You can argue it would appeased some, but wasted time like that would angered others. Another no-win scenario for them.
I understand you concern and fear.
As in real life, everybody prefer to receive positive remarks than negative ones.
However both are usefulls but destructive at the same time :
Positive ones helps to keep the motivation high and keep the momentum going on. On the other hand, they doen't help the actual work to fit the objectives. It's like casting a kind of cloud of whisky that makes hard for the capitain to be sure she is heading into right direction.
Negative ones gives feedback of what is not going well, and needs to have a second thought, either because of intrinsic aspects (mostly technical), or because of extrinsic aspects (market evolution, market expectation, kinesthetic perceptions, ...).
It's hard to go back, but sometimes we have to walk some part of the way back, to find a better way or destination.
A motto could be : "When the sky is clear and the ship full of joy, know that the storm is coming for you to take hard decisions. When you are in the strongest part of the storm, know that you are heading to light for you to instill joy."
When the captain take such decision, just make sure to put enough positive feedback along the way because the team needs it. When the captain is sure to go in the right direction, show him that he may be wrong because her perception is not absolute.
Now about your fear. In this story, we are all virtual bits and bytes on a machine. But true humans show their faces on the camera, and this is real. Shipehunter understand that people have to cling to something. That is why he is showing us so many "Shinies". Shiny events are quite new in term of CoE dev life. So despite their lack of "polls" during key decisions, they keep working hard with people near the burnout frontier, so understand it's really hard for them to hear/read people litteraly saying they don't trust them. With what you paid, you have access to exclusive forum. Just check the video after Christmas 2018 and what Vye said about the team...
What I can advise to you, is when you think that the game dev is going into a direction that doesn't match what you're dreaming about just raise you shield and run in front of the storm and explain your view whatever the community reply.
When you do that, you enter a process of creation, you are slightly moving the ship to another heading. It's really heavy I know, but it's really helpfull because, you'r bringing your perception, your dream, and your faith into this big ship.
At the end, we all want to make our dream come true. You paid for it right ? So fight for it, but stay courteous and ignore grumpy people. Courteous people are always heard.
I take the opportunity to bring to the captain something :
More polls on the community to check their dreams would be much appreciated. Before to poll the use of open questions to try & create the main bullet of the poll would be usefull.
I would have prefered high fantasy races (appearance) than those we have now depsite I like the cultur and biome idea SBS developped around the "tribes".
I would have prefered a world with more continents and islands, but I'll content myself with that one.
I would have prefered a partial dispatching of settlements and industries left up to players choice, but let's see how the story will be written.
That's just my own dream, but I keep tuned to the global dream.
My hopes are that SBS will provide us tools that gives us a tremedous amount of freedom to design our world during the exposition on a customized architecture aspect, and that the I.A. will be high enough to allow good tactical management of the armies during offlines phases.
I look forward to sit into my house hearing the fire cracking while watching a breathtaking view of the rain over the landscape outside...
Posted By Vucar at 4:31 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
Part of this game succeeding is belief it will succeed. They have openly stated multiple times that they are looking for more funding -- thus we have sales, promotions, kickstarter anniversaries, etc.
If everyone agreed with you, miss miss, and everyone stopped believing it was possible, it would be a self fulfilling prophecy. They would receive no more money, interest would dry up, and the game would die.
Don't drop more money on a kickstarter than you're willing to watch burn.
I knew when i backed for their kickstarter in 2016 I could afford to lose $350 in support of an idea I thought sounded good, knowing full well it might be years before anything comes of it, and that I might not see any of the things promised.
Your post achieves nothing except to spread discontent and increase the chance the game will fail. By making this thread, you add fuel to a fire you claim to fear.
Gotta agree with Vucar and this one. There's no guarantees that we'll get anything close to the dream game everyone wants, but jumping on the doom and gloom train this early on won't help anything.
That said, I'm not much for blind optimism either. I've followed a fair few ambitious MMO projects, most of which have either already failed or are still in development after nearly a decade. The three I'll mentioned by name are of particular note in their similarities to CoE.
FireFall was an ambitious sci-fi MMO set to feature 1st and 3rd person gameplay in a persistent open world, along with a slowly expanding 'fog of war' style mechanic where players could push back and explore a storm covering the planet's surface to reveal new areas and story content over the game's lifetime.
FireFall was successfully crowdfunded, it had an extremely ambitious scope, an unproven but passionate dev team, and it had an open development cycle. Close to launch, the game shifted scope and released as a generic theme park MMO with some minor dynamic questing elements. The servers shut down a few years after that.
Eternal Crusade was going to be a Planetside-style MMO shooter with emphasis on large-scale PvP battles and a persistent open world that could dynamically change hands between 4 warring factions.
Eternal Crusade was successfully crowdfunded, it had an ambitious but achievable scope, an unproven but passionate dev team, and an open development cycle. Halfway through the alpha the developers ran out of funding and were forced to sign with a publisher, who demanded the game be launched that year. So the concept was cut back to a standard lobby shooter, with a server select screen disguised as a world map. The servers are still up, but will be shut down when their contract expires in a year or so.
Star Citizen is planned to be a persistent open universe sandbox MMO with spaceships, ground vehicles, FPS combat, in-depth professions, and a permadeath system. It's essentially CoE in space, with slightly less emphasis on player-driven society, and about 30 times the production value.
Star Citizen was successfully crowdfunded to the tune of over 200 million USD, has an insanely ambitious scope, an unproven but passionate dev team, and features an open development cycle. It's still in development after 7 years with little to show for it besides some impressive planet generation tech, some clunky combat mechanics, and a veritable fleet of pretty but mostly useless spaceships.
CoE ticks a lot of the same boxes as these 3 projects. It's a crowdfunded game with a massively ambitious scope, an unproven but passionate dev team, and an open development cycle.
That's not to say CoE is doomed to either abject failure or a bloated development timeline, but the way I see it, a bit of skepticism this early on might save a lot of disappointment later on down the line. Put as much money into the project as you feel is appropriate, but keep in mind that it is a gamble.
Referral Code: 912EC9
Posted By Takeda_Shinukage at 4:27 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
I have my fair share of posts out of my 3000 arguing with the developers. I've personally never seen that you can't go against the devs and I do so alot at least imo.
Kind of crappy that a AAA game can hide their development completely and show nothing and still have everyone ready for a sure-fire release but CoE who constantly shares their work is a pipe dream. Must be frustrating as a developer. It's the classic plot theme of the rich kid not having try nearly as hard for the same results. Like a AAA game can literally only give a group of players it's name or sometimes even it's code name and that's all it takes.
AAA games normally fund development entirely on their own, asking little or nothing of their customers until the game is well on the way to delivery, so your comparison is invalid.
You must all be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to get angry. JAMES 1:19 NLT
Posted By Nubz_Unite at 5:14 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
Posted By Vucar at 1:31 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
Part of this game succeeding is belief it will succeed. They have openly stated multiple times that they are looking for more funding -- thus we have sales, promotions, kickstarter anniversaries, etc.
If everyone agreed with you, miss miss, and everyone stopped believing it was possible, it would be a self fulfilling prophecy. They would receive no more money, interest would dry up, and the game would die.
Don't drop more money on a kickstarter than you're willing to watch burn.
I knew when i backed for their kickstarter in 2016 I could afford to lose $350 in support of an idea I thought sounded good, knowing full well it might be years before anything comes of it, and that I might not see any of the things promised.
Your post achieves nothing except to spread discontent and increase the chance the game will fail. By making this thread, you add fuel to a fire you claim to fear.
So because we have collectively already invested 7 million the only effective solution is to keep spending in order to prevent failure rather the acknowledge the failing and moving on?
You personally don't have to invest any more money, but collectively if the player base doesn't continue to spend this game may well never be delivered.
SC proves even getting nearly unlimited funding beyond anyone's wildest dreams is no guarantee the game will deliver, or at least any time in the near future.
At this point it really comes down to a matter of faith, and as with most software projects it will have to either launch what they have or close down once the funding runs out.
You must all be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to get angry. JAMES 1:19 NLT
Posted By Kyleran at 7:20 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
Posted By Takeda_Shinukage at 4:27 PM - Tue Sep 17 2019
I have my fair share of posts out of my 3000 arguing with the developers. I've personally never seen that you can't go against the devs and I do so alot at least imo.
Kind of crappy that a AAA game can hide their development completely and show nothing and still have everyone ready for a sure-fire release but CoE who constantly shares their work is a pipe dream. Must be frustrating as a developer. It's the classic plot theme of the rich kid not having try nearly as hard for the same results. Like a AAA game can literally only give a group of players it's name or sometimes even it's code name and that's all it takes.
AAA games normally fund development entirely on their own, asking little or nothing of their customers until the game is well on the way to delivery, so your comparison is invalid.
Funding source is really irrelevant. All it takes is for one to go on steam or any similar publishing platform and see that any non-AAA game has this issue crowdfunded or not... The second a non-AAA goes even semi-quiet you have tinfoil hats flying.
I don't know anymore.
