Dyvim
Bronze Knight of the Realm
- 1,420
- 195
Exactly my reaction to the trailblazer buy in to EQ:NL, too
Exactly my reaction to the trailblazer buy in to EQ:NL, too
There are an amazing amount of good games made at a30m budget.It's people trying to stop others from a catastrophe. Crowd funding is pyramid schemes for a new generation.
Also, you have no doubts? No doubts at all that someone can put together a AAA multiplayer game with $30M in 2013-2016?
Pretty sure I read somewhere that they would allow you to keep going beyond your final death but the cost would be... prohibitive. A reflection on both the relative wealth of the individual in society and the high cost of keeping a dead man alive. You can call it a cash grab if you will as part of the FTP model. To me it sounds like they will make it an unreasonably expensive amount to discourage its use. I'm sure that won't stop many but it should stop most from doing that. Including me... and I now own a fleet. In fact I refuse to spend any money on in game credits once game is launched. I'll buy the expected Mission Disks (mini expansions) but that's it.I've made full family trees for characters back when I role-played more, and I actually enjoy the thought of doing it again. But I know most people don't enjoy that, which is why I don't see this current system making it live. Or at least without some way of bypassing it, whether it be using in-game or real currency(and I think we all know which of those methods it would go...).
It's EVE-Lite not EVE. Insurance means you get the ship back in stock form or all of it including all mods if in UEE space. They want it to work just like car insurance. Which is both scary and hilarious but quite fitting.The game isnt F2P.
Tuco, the plans for death penalty are having to remake a new character that inherits your assets and standings, with a penalty to the latter. This penalty only happens every x deaths too, not every time. Doesnt sound too punishing to me. Although I guess losing ships is implied too, with being blown up in space and all.
Yes. And like every F2P game, you can play the base game for free, or spend some cash for some extras, often to get some leg up on free players. I can choose to play the game for free, or to get some advance on you for 20$.for something that should be free to play anyway.
Yes selling items for cash whatever they advance your "gaming expierience" is one thing.Yes. And like every F2P game, you can play the base game for free, or spend some cash for some extras, often to get some leg up on free players. I can choose to play the game for free, or to get some advance on you for 20$.
If you think your early adopters are replacing QA, you're delusional (well, if SOE thinks that, they're even more delusional, since they're supposed to be professionals).and thereby killing any QA jobs
You have a right to your own opinions but you don't have a right to your own facts. Claiming that all we have seen is trailers is false. We already have a Hanger module with some basic functionality with some of the original ships. It's not much but it gives you a very rough idea of the scope of the game. Many here and elsewhere are waiting for the dog fighting module before they commit a penny. That's fine.Yes selling items for cash whatever they advance your "gaming expierience" is one thing.
Selling Alpha/Beta/Early access / leet beta infoz / secret sauze and thereby killing any QA jobs (well given SoE even got any) is an eintire different story. And dont tell me you forked over the 100 bucks cause you wanted the super cool backpack or whatever in game item on a game we have seen nothing but trailers yet.
He was answering the derail about the quote-parallel-unquote between SC's quickstarter and EQN's founder packs.Claiming that all we have seen is trailers is false. We already have a Hanger module with some basic functionality with some of the original ships.
I like the death penalty system and I'm looking forward to no respawns and death actually having a meaning. It's not too draconian, but there should be repercussions.They could easily just allow you to reload the settings of the deceased into char creation - anyone that wants to retain their look can do that anyway by going through the same motions. The thing people will hang themselves over is the loss of standings or contacts due to death, which I am fine with. It's a death penalty and those are required imo. I just dont want it to be too time-consuming to remake the same character if they force me to do it once per month.
It doenst matter what i think, or you or this board in general. It only matters what the suits running the company think they can com through with, and lately no matter what shit they throw at the gaming community some will gladly lap it up, shrug and move on.If you think your early adopters are replacing QA, you're delusional (well, if SOE thinks that, they're even more delusional, since they're supposed to be professionals).
I guess death penalty wont be too harsh and follow EVEs respawn/cloning model, maybe with rising revive/save costs.I like the death penalty system and I'm looking forward to no respawns and death actually having a meaning. It's not too draconian, but there should be repercussions.
This is really the only thing I like about crowdfunding, in that a dev can create the game he wants without required 'respawns' due to possible player loss, or other mandated 'suit' changes such as creating your sandbox MMO for consoles as well as PCs.
Yes, and I still have hopes for this game. What concerns me beyond the whole hopium dealer angle that Chris has taken is that the only controls on spending are on the company itself and Chris Roberts in particular. The modern studio system where the overloards are EA, Activision etc sucks for game innovation but they do help to keep costs under control - in the context of the entertainment industry that is (even the most cost efficient game company looks like a leaking sieve compared to the "real" world private sector).There are an amazing amount of good games made at a30m budget.
Dyvim is talking generally or about Landmark there I think.Dyvim what suits? Last time I checked CIG had no board of directors or any of that bullshit overhead. It's up to Chris. He decides if he wants the game/company to sink or swim.
The death penalty is planned so you wake up in a hospital bed and depending on how you were injured your body would reflect it. Missing arm/leg etc that is then replaced with a cybernetic. After so many deaths the body "gives up" and you die for good unless you spend retarded amounts of money to keep going one or two more times. They really don't want anyone going on forever. Of course like anything that's subject to change. A vocal minority don't like that. The silent majority pile on the cash. Lets see who wins. Personally I hope they keep it the way they planned it. I think that's perfect and it adds a level of real danger and mortality as well as morality that even EVE doesn't have.
If he delivers a good game the man deserves to set aside a mill for a nice car! Honestly though, after seeing the wasteful spending corporate game productions allow themselves and the dissapointing results in the MMO genre, I think Roberts can do no worse. It's not like with publisher-made games I could object to Smed or Kotick buying their yacht, so I'm no worse off with Roberts not having any supervision. On the contrary, with publishers *I know* those that call the shots do not have the quality or longevity of the game at heart. With crowdfunding there's at least a chance for that.Yes, and I still have hopes for this game. What concerns me beyond the whole hopium dealer angle that Chris has taken is that the only controls on spending are on the company itself and Chris Roberts in particular. The modern studio system where the overloards are EA, Activision etc sucks for game innovation but they do help to keep costs under control - in the context of the entertainment industry that is (even the most cost efficient game company looks like a leaking sieve compared to the "real" world private sector).
But there arenocontrols on this game. Chris can spend the money however he wants. If he put out a 8 bit, dos game and took the rest of the cash to buy a yacht, there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is the downside of crowdfunded games.
I don't think Chris is going to do that, I actually believe his passion for the game and genre will temper that impulse. But that doesn't mean the cash will be effectively used. His 33 million dollar game will probably be much less than a similar game produced in conventional way. What gives him the edge is that no existing studio was willing make the kind of game Chris and the rest of us wants, at any cost.