|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 11, 2014 7:04:47 GMT
When You Take A Player's Money, That Player Wants Some Fun In Return
A headline on Kotaku, which in turn is based on an article PC Gamer wrote in response to a thread on the DayZ forums.
An interesting bit of story that seems very similar to what 22cans is doing with Godus.
"You are not playing DayZ, you are playing development builds. Early development builds." is the response of DayZ's producer.
Its worth noting that DayZ is 11 months into a development cycle that is supposed to be lasting 3 years.
They point out that the developer makes a point, and that a game in development is gonna be rough around the edges.
They subsequently also point out that if you are SELLING something, you should do more than make promises to reassure your buyers.
And that if you are unable to do so. If you can't deliver a product that is WORTH buying, then perhaps you're using the wrong system.
The problems are two sides of the same coin - and apparently both sides aren't happy with the status quo.
And while this problem isn't present with all SEA and crowdfunded titles (by no means, there are plenty who are quite successfull at providing enjoyable content...)
It goes a long way to point out that for some developers, using SEA might not be the right way to run a business.
If you're unable to deliver content which is worthwhile, then perhaps you should've used a different method to start with.
"If both sides of the coin have a point, maybe the answer isn't to decide which one is "right". Maybe it's time to get a different coin."
Which I think is a fair point to make...
Something worth noting in comparison to Godus. DayZ has obvious warnings on both their store page (Its the first thing you see after the video's and screenshots) warning buyers that the game is still very much in development. Warning that people should not buy the game if they dislike this. Warnings that aren't exactly there for Godus.
Perhaps something worth noting going into the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Sept 11, 2014 9:29:50 GMT
I'm sorry but they are doing early access wrong. Companies should not start ea right at the start of their development so they have 3 years of buggy crap, no warning covers that off.
EA is about developers releasing their game in the later stages of development for play, testing and community input. If you can't make progress then don't release on ea. I'm probably not making my point well here but I think this is a massive cop out. As soon as you release on ea you create expectations, if you can't deal with those expectation don't release.
Maybe dayz fans are being impatient, I don't know but 3 years? Your going to have your game in ea for 3 years? How are people not going to be annoyed with waiting that long? Why not develop for 18 months and ea for 18 months? Does that not seem fair?
I'm pretty sure some of these companies are using ea disclaimer to cover up incompetence and greed.
End of rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Sept 11, 2014 12:11:51 GMT
I agree that far too many games go into SEA much too soon in the development process. The original intent of EA was to grant players an opportunity to try a game before it's official release, while the company completes and finalizes the build, not for testing prototypes - some little more than demo versions.
I feel that it has since been corrupted and bastardised by overzealousness and overeagerness, and to some degree, severe shortsightedness based on compulsive greed; on both sides, players and devs.
There will be a shift soon as the whole industry and community works to right the ship back onto an even keel, less the whole venture sinks spectacularly into an deep resentful legal abyss.
edit: Three years for an Early Access title is an insane amount of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Sept 11, 2014 12:23:42 GMT
My opinion on SEA has dropped through the floor since I bought Godus, and I believe it should not be allowed. At the very least it needs MUCH tighter regulations to protect consumers because right now it is ripe for abuse and exploitation, even by well-meaning developers.
I agree with Hardly that 3 years is a ridiculous length of time to be paying up-front for a game in development. Apart from anything else this completely distorts the usual amount of time a person would engage with a game. There are always exceptions obviously, but in most cases you buy a game, play until you've completed it/got bored with it, then shelve it and maybe revisit it again in a few months or even years.
SEA games expect users to engage with them for much longer. If people understand SEA they know that this is what they're getting themselves into, but to a typical consumer this is confusing. You're buying an unfinished product and it's crap. If you pick it up again in a few weeks, or months, or years, it might be slightly altered and have a bit more content but it's still probably a crappy unfinished product (MOST of the time). This doesn't really afford the consumer any benefit whatsoever. The vaunted benefit of "being a part of the development process" is not easily measured, and in some cases (um, Godus) does not seem to be present at all.
I owned the following games in Early Access:
- Don't Starve
- Plague Inc
- Flockers
- Godus
The first three of these were essentially feature-complete when I bought them. I hadn't actually noticed Don't Starve was in Early Access - the concept was so new to me at the time, I didn't really pay attention to it when I purchased the game. Plague and Flockers are still in Early Access but as far as I'm concerned they like a finished products. Godus is the only title that has been an enormous let-down and I feel it illustrates just how broken the concept of Early Access is.
When a game is in the early stages of development, the ONLY benefactor from Early Access is the developer. They get income without having produced anything. They can make whatever promises they want in order to secure a sale and they will not be held to account by any consumer-protection laws. In fact, according to the fine print they don't even have to produce a game at all. And yet they can attach any sales price they want. Even after consumers cry foul, developers can still brush them off with "well it isn't finished yet" and as they are not compelled to keep to any kind of timeframe for delivering the imaginary product, that's the end of that conversation.
Developers are also not obliged to provide any kind of progress reporting to the investors. If I invest money in a real-world business I expect to see financial reports demonstrating how my money is being put to good use and when I might expect to see some return. When customers invest in an Early Access game, their money disappears into a black box and they sit back and hope for the best. Some developers give regular, accurate reports of what development work is being done and what the short-term and long-term deliverables will be. Some (is this sounding familiar?) just pretty much ignore the customers altogether, not giving them anything more than the periodic marketing and PR bulletins that they pitch out once or twice a year.
The whole thing is exploitative and disgusting. I don't deny that there are some developers who handle it really well and that SEA has allowed the production of some truly great games, but there is far too much scope for abuse of the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 11, 2014 12:29:46 GMT
Not entirely true, SEA does serve as a basis for involving the community into the development process aswell.
Allowing those that are enthousiastic about a concept to "join in" early, provide the developer some extra cash and in return be included in the development process.
Be it by getting access to dev builds, by providing a direct line to the developers for mutual feedback on problems or idea's or simply by receiving development updates in the form of text or video.
And it is true that the length of SEA isn't necessarily pre-determinable. But this isn't because they start from scratch. Rather it is that they continue development PAST where they would normally launch their game.
Minecraft is the famous example, they kept it in beta for a very long time. Past where some people would say it was fair.
However that doesn't make SEA a blank slate to just do whatever you wish. You have to show results. And most importantly.
Its build around that interaction with your customers.
Most problems occur when the developers lock themselves away and only open the door briefly to throw out scraps in the form of updates.
This lack of communication is what breeds contempt.
Then there's a (luckily) rare few examples where someone went into the project unprepared and either ran into problems they couldn't solve or ran out of money.
I think that the concept of being able to support a project early isn't necessarily at fault.
Its the fact that a developer can just do as they wish and NOT communicate or provide progression that is a problem.
Since this allows for those with malicious intent and those that are incompetent to slip through the cracks.
A potentially "simple" solution would be to require any SEA developer to regularly show progress reports.
The longer a development cycle takes, the stronger the need to look at whether this project is progressing. If it is, then there shouldn't be a problem with development taking 3 years. As long as there actually is an actual increase in content and as long as communication keeps the players satisfied.
Its just hard to determine what level of progress is "good enough", where do you put the hard limit?
Is it sufficient to keep your customers satisfied?
Is there a different measure to look at when customers aren't satisfied?
Its not an easy question.
But its obvious that it goes wrong when the developer isn't willing to cooperate or communicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Sept 11, 2014 14:04:28 GMT
From my perspective _we_they have a bundle of poor comms issues here.
Lack of feedback et al have been present since the alpha.
The nuggets of details etc (useless gibberish in my opinion) that have made up maybe 97% of all feedback thus far have not been fit for purpose. I'm a dev in my day job and if I provided feedback like that it would be a serious issue.
The SEA spin on it only compounds the problem. I'm wondering if the better model in SEA type cases is we stump up whatever or at least become obliged to stump up whatever, and its a pair of payments - the first immediate and they get their immediate (smaller) boost, and as we did for the KS side they get the rest of the chunk later when they are closer to completion. In between time that promise of later payment could in of itself be used to in some financial sense to secure actual hard cash. I don't doubt that is over simplistic I did mention I'm a developer! But often we get a chunk of change to start the development and the rest downstream. Sometimes no cash up front - but that's normal business/development horse trading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 11, 2014 14:23:12 GMT
You're looking at it from a traditional sense, where an investor or publisher is "funding" your dealings as a developer.
I think that there are some inherent values in that model that should be carried over into both crowdfunding and (Steam) Early Access models.
Most importantly the "contract" part. Anyone who backs a crowdfunding project or who buys/supports an Early Access title should have certain rights.
As these people are essentially the equivalent of what an investor is in the traditional model.
Now there are also inherent differences, so the two are not identical in position.
An investor "owns" the product they invested in, atleast untill other requirements within a contract are fullfilled.
A backer or supporter only "owns" that which was part of their mutual bargain - and can consider him/herself lucky if the endresult turns out better than expected.
So what does this come down to? Well in essence a number of things.
First and foremost of which, a developer has the *OBLIGATION* to keep their backers or supporters informed of the progress of what they paid for.
Secondly, a developer is *OBLIGATED* to fullfill the 'sold product' to the best of their abilities and when confronted with problems they are also *OBLIGATED* to find a mutually acceptable resolution to the best of their abilities.
This not only guarantees that you have a certain level of product in writing that is "sold" and is to be delivered to the buying party.
But it also means that the backer or supporter has a legal ground to subsequently hold the developer accountable to.
Third and finally, a developer is *OBLIGATED* to fullfill other promises made during their crowdfunding pitch or along the path of their development to the best of their abilities. This means that if a developer promises that the backers will be included in the process they can't just hide in an "ivory tower". Communication is key.
It is essential that such basic rules become part of crowdfunding and early access programs in the future.
However as long as the rulemaking is done by the companies and corporations, they will not uphold the best interests of the consumer.
Kinda like how (game)review and journalism has gone from providing factual information to educate and inform the population to propagandapieces and bought&paidfor articles.
|
|
|
|
Post by nerdyvonnerdling on Sept 11, 2014 14:51:48 GMT
I think part of the problem here is viewing yourselves as investors. You're not investors. You're customers. You didn't 'invest' in a game, you bought a product that came with plenty of caveats, depending on where/when you bought in, and at what price point. Re-working the term 'investor' to fill in for buying access to a subjective piece of entertainment is just as asinine as 22Cans odd and exclusive use of the term 'iterative', to me.
Absolutely they ought to be better at communication. They're not, and they aren't obligated to be, but it only hurts themselves, really. Absolutely they should be obligated to provide the product they sold to people, to fulfill the promises that they sold to people. Given that, due to how they work, they have no idea what the actual end state of the game is going to be, I don't think most of us see this as plausible except in only the loosest, flimsiest, shilly lawyerly-PR-BS-speak kind of way. Certainly not at all in the spirit it was pitched and sold to customers.
And that's their biggest problem. Given their 'iterative design' method, which was never, ever spelled out to people until way late in the game some time after George came on board, going through Kickstarter and SEA was a huge mistake for this project from a public relations point of view. They've hurt themselves, they've hurt their sales, and they've only themselves to blame.
I'll also add that there are plenty of companies and corporations that view the concept of upholding the best interest of the consumer and their employees as being tantamount to maintaining a successful business. Of course there are plenty who do not, and it's up to consumers to hold them responsible and change, or choose to do business elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Sept 11, 2014 15:12:48 GMT
I'm not a customer I am a kickstarter backer. If I wanted to have been a customer I might have opted for SEA had we had a whiff of it back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 11, 2014 15:36:23 GMT
I think part of the problem here is viewing yourselves as investors. You're not investors. You're customers. You didn't 'invest' in a game, you bought a product that came with plenty of caveats, depending on where/when you bought in, and at what price point. Re-working the term 'investor' to fill in for buying access to a subjective piece of entertainment is just as asinine as 22Cans odd and exclusive use of the term 'iterative', to me. Absolutely they ought to be better at communication. They're not, and they aren't obligated to be, but it only hurts themselves, really. Absolutely they should be obligated to provide the product they sold to people, to fulfill the promises that they sold to people. Given that, due to how they work, they have no idea what the actual end state of the game is going to be, I don't think most of us see this as plausible except in only the loosest, flimsiest, shilly lawyerly-PR-BS-speak kind of way. Certainly not at all in the spirit it was pitched and sold to customers. And that's their biggest problem. Given their 'iterative design' method, which was never, ever spelled out to people until way late in the game some time after George came on board, going through Kickstarter and SEA was a huge mistake for this project from a public relations point of view. They've hurt themselves, they've hurt their sales, and they've only themselves to blame. I'll also add that there are plenty of companies and corporations that view the concept of upholding the best interest of the consumer and their employees as being tantamount to maintaining a successful business. Of course there are plenty who do not, and it's up to consumers to hold them responsible and change, or choose to do business elsewhere. You're not an investor - however your position is *SIMILAR* to that of an investor. You hand over money, in exchange for goods and/or services rendered in the future. And while you can't guarantee any ROI - you should have assurances to a delivery of whatever you backed, bought or otherwise supported. So while we can spend hours debating the correct usage of words. At the end of the day one thing remains. As a backer, you effectively entered a contract with whomever held the crowdfunding. And as a buyer in early access you *BOUGHT* a product and a sale is a simplified contract (exchange of goods and/or services rendered...) While any such rules and obligations aren't set down right now, they should be. Right now, crowdfunding and early access are build on a mutual understanding and respect. The idea that you're not going to be scammed. Apparently we need to get that mutual understanding in print, for it to be legally binding and for shady individuals to stop taking advantage of it. What we're looking at right now, is 22cans saying "but we fullfilled these requirements" and the 'technically' did. As any statement such as "The PC version won't be dumbed down." and "The PC version will be the most beautiful." Are insanely subjective and open to interpretation. Its quite clear that the concept of mutual understanding and respect is being taken advantage of by following promises to the letter rather than in spirit. And while there is a limited number of things we can do to force 22cans to comply, we can enlighten ourselves and adjust the methods so that in the future a company like 22cans can't pull this off again. Atleast not in this fashion. Similarly, putting the burden of proof with consumers is a backwards and silly method. Its a habit being created by those who stand to gain the most and want to secure there position by giving themselves the least amount of responsibility towards their product. |
|
|
|
Post by nerdyvonnerdling on Sept 11, 2014 16:50:04 GMT
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. As it pertains to Godus, I'll say, my expectation when I bought the game was, given it was in early access, that it was a project 'in development' and would take some time. Given how it was promoted on Steam initially, at the time I was unaware of the mobile development, and was under the general impression that we'd get a compelling game in the vein of Populous, Dungeon Keeper, etc.
As a customer, I'll say, my opinion is that, as it stands, the product is pretty terrible. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. More than that, I would (and have) actively recommend that people not buy it, at all.
My opinion of the company is a bit separate from the product, itself, I think. I've said on here that, given the way 22Cans communicated to consumers for this project, there is no way I'd buy another product from this company again, and specifically from any project headed by Molyneaux. It is very easy to see why Kickstarter backers feel jaded, coerced, and borderline frauded by 22Cans, and I say that as someone who isn't a Kickstarter backer.
Communication and public relations are what have done 22Cans wrong in my eyes, and it's all their own doing. They should have been open about their development process from the get-go, not relying on a hail-mary explanation of 'iterative design' from George many months after the fact in what was hard to see as anything other than just reactionary response to customer backlash. Given their development method, they never should have painted a picture of features for a game that they, themselves, have no idea what the end product will look like. Their sales pitch gave the impression of a game that is far, far removed from what it currently is, and frankly, possibly can be. No way, for example, you can have a persistent game you can play at home on your pc, then continue to play while on the bus, or whatever example Jack used in those early videos. FTP mobile ensures that the game is and will always be fundamentally different than what was pitched. Which brings me to the biggest point -
They should have been open about the mobile version being FTP from the get-go. That they were not is damning. That they were so cagey and dishonest to Kickstarter backers when questioned on the issue is the nail in the coffin for me, personally, and again, I'm not even a Kickstarter backer. I cannot for the life of me believe that they're incompetent, so they must have known that pitching the mobile version as FTP would have hurt their sales/Kickstarter status. No ifs ands or buts about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Sept 12, 2014 20:55:37 GMT
I am no attorney but if I was I would take a case of how they did not meet the promise for the backers. I would put it to a trial of peers and explain that while the PC game has no shop it does have all the mechanics of a F2p game. Which was expressly told to us that the PC game would not be. I think anyone with half of brain in their head doing jury duty could see through the bullshit of Invest to Play and week long timers. The same type of long ass timers that are in their mobile F2p. People are not as stupid as PM seems to think they all are. We don't buy the bullshit and we all have our wading boots on. They are getting irritating having to walk through so much crap for so long too. I don't know how much longer it will be but at some point I have a feeling they are going to piss off the wrong gamer and find themselves in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Sept 12, 2014 21:03:17 GMT
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. As it pertains to Godus, I'll say, my expectation when I bought the game was, given it was in early access, that it was a project 'in development' and would take some time. Given how it was promoted on Steam initially, at the time I was unaware of the mobile development, and was under the general impression that we'd get a compelling game in the vein of Populous, Dungeon Keeper, etc. As a customer, I'll say, my opinion is that, as it stands, the product is pretty terrible. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. More than that, I would (and have) actively recommend that people not buy it, at all. My opinion of the company is a bit separate from the product, itself, I think. I've said on here that, given the way 22Cans communicated to consumers for this project, there is no way I'd buy another product from this company again, and specifically from any project headed by Molyneaux. It is very easy to see why Kickstarter backers feel jaded, coerced, and borderline frauded by 22Cans, and I say that as someone who isn't a Kickstarter backer. Communication and public relations are what have done 22Cans wrong in my eyes, and it's all their own doing. They should have been open about their development process from the get-go, not relying on a hail-mary explanation of 'iterative design' from George many months after the fact in what was hard to see as anything other than just reactionary response to customer backlash. Given their development method, they never should have painted a picture of features for a game that they, themselves, have no idea what the end product will look like. Their sales pitch gave the impression of a game that is far, far removed from what it currently is, and frankly, possibly can be. No way, for example, you can have a persistent game you can play at home on your pc, then continue to play while on the bus, or whatever example Jack used in those early videos. FTP mobile ensures that the game is and will always be fundamentally different than what was pitched. Which brings me to the biggest point - They should have been open about the mobile version being FTP from the get-go. That they were not is damning. That they were so cagey and dishonest to Kickstarter backers when questioned on the issue is the nail in the coffin for me, personally, and again, I'm not even a Kickstarter backer. I cannot for the life of me believe that they're incompetent, so they must have known that pitching the mobile version as FTP would have hurt their sales/Kickstarter status. No ifs ands or buts about it. I believe it was geared to hardcore PC gamers because they knew it was their best chance to meet the goal. If they had pitched it to mobile F2p gamers, it would have flooped. The whole point of a F2p game is that you don't have to PAY for it. DeNa was brought in way to soon after the kickerstarter for it not to have been in the works beforehand. This is deceptive and shows bad faith and if they don't produce the product they promised, as I said, I do believe that their could be some sort of class action suit. Insulting the backers and community or blaming us in any way will only cost them more money since it will show more damages done to us by 22cans. They can fix this and avoid that completely if they only just make the game they described in the kickstarter. I am not really even pissed, I'm just fed up. |
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Sept 12, 2014 21:17:12 GMT
I believe it was geared to hardcore PC gamers because they knew it was their best chance to meet the goal. If they had pitched it to mobile F2p gamers, it would have flooped. The whole point of a F2p game is that you don't have to PAY for it. DeNa was brought in way to soon after the kickerstarter for it not to have been in the works beforehand. This is deceptive and shows bad faith and if they don't produce the product they promised, as I said, I do believe that their could be some sort of class action suit. Insulting the backers and community or blaming us in any way will only cost them more money since it will show more damages done to us by 22cans. They can fix this and avoid that completely if they only just make the game they described in the kickstarter. I am not really even pissed, I'm just fed up. I'll just drop this here and see how that tracks with your statement: My response (since I haven't gotten a response to it on that forum): I'm sure they're thrilled with the direction with this project. While I'm post KS and have never been able to meet these people, I'm willing to bet that they didn't expect a f2p title when they backed it. You know as well as I that everyone backing this game on KS came in with the expectation that the mobile release would be a simplified version of pc. The lion's share of the complaints about the f2p aspect of mobile is for this very reason. Most of us have adjusted and are now trying to figure out how we can get 22Cans to actually split the 2 projects apart. Once mobile was released f2p, this became 2 projects whether or not you guys want to admit it. To work, the pc version is going to have to be turned into a separate edition with its own exclusive mechanics. It'll never fly as a glorified port of a f2p game with patches hiding the f2p mechanics. While the exclusivity of custom naming might be a trivial thing, the issue surrounding it drives home all of the problems the community keeps addressing. The pc version hasn't been more than a footnote since this game went green on KS. Even the initial SEA release was little more than a port of a mobile test build. All I have to do is look at the two builds side by side to know what's been the focus since day 1. All the excuses, rationalizations, and technicalities won't hide this fact forever; as if it ever really did. |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Sept 12, 2014 21:31:24 GMT
I will start by saying "you" means 22cans and not you personally.
George have you read the posts on the Alpha and Beta backers boards? The majority were quite pissed to find a game appearing mainly mobile with F2p mechanics. Also I will point out a fact you keep forgetting. We asked if this was going to be the case and was point blank LIED to about it. It was completely denied. Many backers backed the game for how it was described and never once in kickstarter was any F2p mentioned ever. If you feel that many backers would have backed for a F2p mobile then why did you not present it as such? You presented it a non F2p game and then made one and then insult us by claiming you never did.
We asked you about the F2p when DeNa was announced. You denied it.
We asked you about the F2p when gems were in Alpha build. You denied it.
We asked you about the F2p when the timers got longer.You denied it.
PM and Jack stated they hated any type of FB Farmville game and would never make a game like that. Godus is actually like Farmville. Long timers, dreadful chores, unattainable goals .....all of which can be bought for money in mobile F2p. The PC version lacks a shop and throws in a POD to go around it but it still just a mobile F2p watered down for PC.
PM has a lot of nerve by telling that we should accept and like the mobile F2p game he is making when he did not have the nads to present one on his own Kickstarter. I guarantee you that I would have never backed it if it has ever mentioned anything about a F2p at all.
I am highly willing to bet that if you sent a email to all your backers on and off the forums, you would hear that from the majority of them. I would almost dare PM to do it, and then if I was wrong I would eat my words. I know he never would, because it would prove our point. Next time PM tries to do a kickstarter for a game, I suggest he list it as a mobile F2p because while the mobile gamers might not be aware of this debacle, the PC gamers that read any of the reviews are. I would be curious to see if he met that goal next time around. I wouldn't bet a penny on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nerdyvonnerdling on Sept 12, 2014 22:32:56 GMT
Yeah, that's some nonsense on his part. While it may be technically true that 'many kickstarter backers supported Godus as a mobile project', it's entirely irrelevant in this context, because the 'mobile project' they were supporting was drastically, drastically different than the FTP game you see now. As Qetesh says, a quick look at the kickstarter comments spells that out quite clearly. They did not knowingly support a FTP game, and most, by a wide margin, would not have supported Godus had they known it's mobile side would be FTP.
So IF, and it's a big IF, there are kickstarter backers who actually are stoked about Godus mobile being FTP, the use of the word 'many' is spurious, and them having been 'very vocal' can be roughly translated to 'we got a few positive emails as direct feedback'.
Which is pretty underwhelming.
I will say with that steam thread, George is right to point out that the particular specific issue being discussed - ie, 'naming stuff' - is totally trivial. Everyone else in that thread is completely correct to point out that that isn't really the point, however. It ain't really about 'naming stuff'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deth on Sept 12, 2014 22:42:10 GMT
They out and out said you had to have a separate key, which is one of the reasons I pledged higher, to play on PC and mobile. So by that alone they made it seem as F2P was not a factor at the time. Now only if there was some way we could prove they had other plans at the time. Then we would have them for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Sept 12, 2014 22:47:51 GMT
What is most upsetting is the fact that their was no mention of a F2p, then they denied it was one, and now they claim we should be fine with it. I again ask, if you wanted to make a F2p and you had a deal with DeNa, then why did you not state so on your kickstarter if you are proud of what you did? Have their been any successful F2p kickstarters, and if so, why did you use your non F2p as a point of reference for what Godus was going to be?
This all really boils down to being mislead. The longer this has been going on, the more I am starting to feel it was done knowingly and with direct attempt to defraud the backers. When they try to claim otherwise all it does it make me angry about it again. You promised me toothpaste and gave me denture cream, now you want me to believe that many people promised toothpaste are enjoying their denture cream? You went after people deliberately that brushed their teeth too, you never mentioned anything about denture cream. If you want to make denture cream then you should have had the decency to tell people it was denture cream. Now PM also is telling his gamers, they should embrace the denture cream and calling us bullies. We have every right to demand our toothpaste and not be happy with the denture cream and to scream it from the rooftops.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deth on Sept 12, 2014 23:42:50 GMT
I don't know maybe it is my forgiving nature, thought honestly I am really annoyed with them over all or maybe I am just feeling the Devils advocate right now, but I do not think they were planning F2P during the Kickstarter but once they release what they had to the Alpha then opened it to beta and saw how much back lash they were getting and thought "Oh crap. They want more of a game we can make right now we need some quick cash to keep going. Lets do F2P." Though on the other hand they did say they had other sources of cash during the kickstarter did they not? Who knows maybe they were planning F2P from the beginning and had an early deal with DeNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Sept 12, 2014 23:48:17 GMT
I don't know maybe it is my forgiving nature, thought honestly I am really annoyed with them over all or maybe I am just feeling the Devils advocate right now, but I do not think they were planning F2P during the Kickstarter but once they release what they had to the Alpha then opened it to beta and saw how much back lash they were getting and thought "Oh crap. They want more of a game we can make right now we need some quick cash to keep going. Lets do F2P." Though on the other hand they did say they had other sources of cash during the kickstarter did they not? Who knows maybe they were planning F2P from the beginning and had an early deal with DeNA. I believe the deal with Dena came out quite early right after the boards opened to backers so I just that to believe. I also find it hard to believe since it is coming from the same person that claimed to hate Farmville F2p after the deal for DeNa was revealed. This was told to the backers to reassure us that Godus would not be a F2p. |
|
