Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

I'm amused by the Financial Services Authority renaming themselves to the Financial Conduct Authority. Presumably to avoid being confused with the Free Syrian Army. Now I'm going to confuse them with the Ferengi Commerce Authority. 

[Retropunch]

The way development works, sometimes putting too many resources into a single task can cause delays. However, you can add more parrallel projects without interference, usually. Therefore star citizen's module system/stretch goals

You, and the following posts seem to miss the point completely. Rallying about pushing the gfx boundaries or (totally wtf "economy of the future" just goes wildly off tangent here. Nobody`s denying the right for these things to exists - it`s just that the way the stretch goal driven crowdfunding model is deeply flawed and in extreme cases like this, dishonest.

Imagine you can only make basic 3d models unless you hire a new graphic designer - that designer costs 20,000. Do you decide to set the initial goal higher to get him on board anyway (meaning you might not get the funding at all) or do you decide to let the consumer base choose whether or not they care enough about advanced 3d models, whilst still making sure the game gets enough funding anyway?

I don't get what part of it is deeply flawed, or flawed at all. The company starts off with a premise for a game which is small and achievable, and then they set stretch goals for what would make the game even better if they had the resources. That makes complete sense from both a consumer and business point of view.

I do agree that SOME games have poor stretch goals, and that some are unfortunately putting most of the game as stretch goals, but that's individual projects. Star Citizen doesn't seem like that - the stretch goals are for the most part not 'core gameplay'. Those that you might argue are a core part (like alien language) are well suited to stretch goals, as you would presumably need to hire someone who can do that sort of thing.

I also personally hate the idea of anyone telling anyone what they can spend their money on (as long as it's not illegal and they are an adult capable of basic mental capacity). I'll reiterate it - who are we to choose what is worthy of money and what isn't? For me, I think that games are a worthy purchase - others see games as the same level of frivolity as gambling or drugs. Would you prefer to set arbitrary limits on how much we are allowed to spend on virtual products? how would you define a virtual product as 'worth the money'?  - it's all relative

[Mattk50]

The way development works, sometimes putting too many resources into a single task can cause delays. However, you can add more parrallel projects without interference, usually. Therefore star citizen's module system/stretch goals

Sure, because adding more things that then need to be fit into other things, all made by different subsidiaries is completely unlikely to cause delays, quality loss and interfere at all...no sir, never happened before.

Your argument is that the devs are stupid for not stuffing funding and developers into a single task, but in parallel development it will cause "quality losses and delays"? Is this for real? I think you have more than a few wires crossed there.


the rest of your post makes a bunch of assertions with no underlying justification, except for a few points that had already been commented on. This includes claiming crowdfunding is flawed and dishonest. Oh, and by the way, you should declare more ideas to be fallacies following well placed elipse, its working really well for you.

[Shadowlord]

[Tellemurius]

The way development works, sometimes putting too many resources into a single task can cause delays. However, you can add more parrallel projects without interference, usually. Therefore star citizen's module system/stretch goals

Sure, because adding more things that then need to be fit into other things, all made by different subsidiaries is completely unlikely to cause delays, quality loss and interfere at all...no sir, never happened before.

You, and the following posts seem to miss the point completely. Rallying about pushing the gfx boundaries or (totally wtf "economy of the future" just goes wildly off tangent here. Nobody`s denying the right for these things to exists - it`s just that the way the stretch goal driven crowdfunding model is deeply flawed and in extreme cases like this, dishonest.

Pretending everything is AOK is common amongst gaming public these days and betrays partially well-meaning naivety and also gamer`s variation of Stockholm Syndrome - we`ve been done over by Big Boys of AAA world like  EA for so long that when alternatives appeared people just blindly follow and let themselves to be exploited. I mean: "yes, it is charging extortionate amounts for virtual items - who are we to say that's not worthy of spending money on?"...ummm, what? Dude, if not "we" then who else is supposed to say something? We are the consumers, the ones who are supposed to be in charge, not the other way around...and also humans with some sort of moral compass.  You might as well say it`s junkie`s or gambler`s choice to spend their money on whatever they like and who are we to judge. And if you think it`s a far-out comparison you might want to read this:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-18-driving-ambition-pcars-crowdfunding-and-the-fsa

And then, the usual "this game would`ve  never been made otherwise" which goes in hand with "pushing boundaries"...this is a fallacy and reason why I said y`all missed the point. Games have been pushing boundaries and being made since day one and that`s why I quoted the olden well-organised studio model operating within reasonable budget that kept on delivering games and improving in sequels and addons.  The fact that this game has been crowdfunded does not mean it could be done in similar way - after all they got multiple times over what they asked for shortly after the initial funding ended. Why not deliver a finished product as promised? And then start adding more stuff? At least most of Kickstarter projects have the goals limited (though new fashion is too keep the Paypal lines open) - whie SC is just a bottomless pit.

Simply put, stretch goals are the bane of crowdfunding. Too nebulous and easy to exploit - "so my game costs a million to make but for another 200k I will add a player house and a companion" (and also reserve the right to whatever delays are necessary)...yep, nothing wrong with that, right? Oh, I know "but look at this, that or this game, we wouldn`t have got more stuff"...ooops, GOTO 10, I`m afraid

Still don't see an issue with this goal model, they made their choice on how they will be funded and people are throwing their cash at them. Is it wrong what people spend their cash on?

Each stretch goal met is paying for more designers and programmers to handle these tasks. I already made my remark on how much work is being outsourced. For example, the large module stretch goals were handed out to separate studios so they can build them up along the original development.

Even now all of their stretch goals have been met and currently sitting 15 million over the last one and still growing. If goals were so important why put more cash in it once they been met?

[Mattk50]

There's nothing wrong with trying to convince people not to blow their cash on a scam, but if people know all the facts already and know the underlying reasoning, well it is their money and often small amounts people just dont care. But your reasoning has to be solid to begin with if you think your going to convince anyone *cough*. Beggar's certainly isn;t.