Print

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

[motorbitch]

It was originally $30

it was not. 9.99$ at release.

Lol @ blaming Paradox for the disaster that was SoTS2. I mean, Kerberos went over their deadlines several times already and what could Paradox do? Shovel money at them for another year (at which point the game's still not finished). Paradox did the right thing here and gave all kinds of free stuff and I believe even refunds.

many programms take longer to finish then planned. but paradox had to insist on their release date and forced it to be released.
but few information on this topic has been made public. aside of the fact that kerberos does not get any money for seales of sots2. and as kerberos employees are no employees of paradox, it most likely was a fixed sum contract.
in witch case it would not had cost paradox a dime to give them more time.
but you seem to have much better insight then i have, or anyone outside paradox and kerberos for that matter.
do you mind sharing your source?

[Lord Snow]

Not a chance i'm funding this. bought sots2 at release because i loved sots1, learned the lesson.

[Tellemurius]

http://www.shacknews.com/article/60685/fort-zombie-screenshots-hit-the
sorry both of us was wrong, i knew they were trying to charge alot for the game when quality was below subpar.

[motorbitch]

you may noticed you read a preview there. this pice of information is not true, the actual release price was 9.99$.
your oppinion seems to be a melange of 2. hand informations, where you extracted what you hoped to find.

anyway, i do have an update on these that are concearned kerberos could just snatch the money, its a statement by the lore artist of the team:

The game and its Perks will be delivered regardless. The Perk items were carefully selected to be manageable, and the game is progressing well. 

--Arinn

post can be found here:
What if The Pit does not meet its goal?

[BurnedToast]

If the game is going to be released regardless.... then what do they need $60,000 for?! Give us money so we can finish the game... that we can finish regardless of if you give us money or not?

[motorbitch]

they need the money to pay the bills. they are going to make this game no matter what, but if they do not earn money with, it will be impossible to make further games.

[Shades]

If the game is going to be released regardless.... then what do they need $60,000 for?! Give us money so we can finish the game... that we can finish regardless of if you give us money or not?

They want to make it without a publisher, they can certainly get a publisher to give them what they need if the indiegogo fails.
However if they can manage it without the publisher they are in a much stronger position for the next game.

[Rez]

At the risk of being a dick:

They're in the position of not being under a contractual obligation to a publisher, which has the benefit(?) of not forcing them to adhere to a release schedule.

And honestly, after SOTS2 and zombie fort, do you really think they'll have an easy time finding a publisher to back them?  The studio has 3 distinct games released, 2 of which were bombs.

[forsaken1111]

they need the money to pay the bills. they are going to make this game no matter what, but if they do not earn money with, it will be impossible to make further games.

Well, I imagine they'd quite like to eat each day and have equipment to work on.

Likely they're saying that the could eventually finish the game without the money, but the money will assist them in finishing it in a more timely manner and likely at a higher quality.

[Shades]

And honestly, after SOTS2 and zombie fort, do you really think they'll have an easy time finding a publisher to back them?  The studio has 3 distinct games released, 2 of which were bombs.

As fair as I am aware they all made profit for the publisher in question (paradox) and so I don't see any reason they wouldn't get funding for another game.

Of course as my opinion of the video game industry is that about 95% of released titles are bombs that shouldn't have seen the light of day, at least until they were fixed, then 1 out of 3 is ahead of the curve

[forsaken1111]

In its current state, I'd say Fort Zombie is solid if mediocre. SOTS2 is very playable in its new 'release' state. I came back to it after nearly 8 months and it is far different. The turn generation could use some optimization, and the UI is still a bit slow but the game itself is solid. I played a while with a friend over the weekend and the multiplayer, which previously would be a 50/50 dice roll each turn of whether it would desync and crash, now works flawlessly... or at least it did for us over Hamachi. Did not try the online lobby system, but then I usually don't use those.

[motorbitch]

the lobby system of sots2 is being transfered from gayspy to steam.
this is because gayspy is shutting down some services sots2 uses, and at the moment, there are some problems due to this (mostly affecting the visibility (or better invisibility) of other players in the lobby.

[motorbitch]

a playable demo version the pit just has been released for public testing. you can dowload it from a mirror posted in this thread.

note that this version does not support other than english versions of windows yet. to make it work with any other language, follow this workaround.

[Robosaur]

its p. fun but lacking atm

[motorbitch]

of cause its "leaking". its a playable alpha.

This Alpha Demo offers only about 10% of the game’s total contentBut it should give players a good feel for the Roguelike gameplay, with the retro art style and the skill-based RPG aspects. While The Pit keeps getting bigger as you go deeper, and you will encounter more and more threats, weapons, and devices from the SotSverse, the first 5 floors - even at this alpha stage - will be an excellent way for gamers to tell if The Pit is for them. And it's just plain fun!