Silent declaration of being disappointed by founder mass production

That's exactly what I've done but there are people telling me I have to do it in another way.


What would be fair? To give people the possibility to get founder forever? Because... what about the people that will miss the deadline of being gifted? Isn't that unfair also then?

What meaning does the word "Founder" have in your opinion and why has the team chosen exactly this word? Why did they chose another word for the backers that backed after a certain date and called them "Benefactor"? What was the sense behind defining a date and making a difference between backers?

Why can't you honor that the backers that backd in a very early phase did it with much more risk and that there have been rewards promised as reserved only to people that backed in that early stage? To tell the truth, I even didn't understand that they extended the deadline from April 7, 2013 several times until lastly May 20h, 2013.


I will quote several statments from Kickstarter:

"Only 2 Days Left to Get Your New BONUS REWARDS" (April 5, 2013, 2 days before end of Kickstarter)
=> Founders status only available until April 7, 2013

"And remind all your friends that haven't already pledged to come on out and get in on these Kickstarter-Only pledges before our campaign ends on Sunday morning!" (April 5, 2013, 2 days before End of Kickstarter)
=> Founders status only available until April 7, 2013

"There were many people that were unable to get their pledges processed correctly when the Kickstarter campaign closed on Sunday morning. We are extending a one-week grace period allowing people to make pledges for the same Kickstarter tiers on our SotA website. This grace period ends at end-of-day on Sunday, April 14." (April 9, 2013, 2 days after end of Kickstarter)

=> Founders status now available until April 14, 2013

"We took a cue from our buds over at Star Citizen and decided that those who pledged during our initial campaign (at $25 First Responder tier and above) can purchase further tiers, or upgrade existing ones, at the same price they were available during the Kickstarter campaign, thru April 7, 2014 (pending availability of limited tiers)!" (April 9, 2013, 2 days after end of Kickstarter)
=> Founders status available until April 14, 2013

"new backers after April 14th will only have access to the new tiers" (April 9, 2013, 2 days after end of Kickstarter)
=> Founders status available until April 14, 2013

"It is taking us a little longer than expected to get everyone migrated across and the new tier functionality integrated into the SotA website. We expect to have the new tiers ready to go early next week, so we are extending the grace period until then.
... new backers after the grace period ends will only have access to the new tiers." (April 16, 2013, 9 days after end of Kickstarter)
=> Founders status now available until about April 22/23, 2013

"In conjunction with the German game conference, we are extending the grace period for the original Kickstarter Pledge Tiers and prices through the rest of this week!" (April 24, 2013, 17 days after end of Kickstarter)
=> Founders status now available until April 28, 2013

"The extended grace period for the initial Kickstarter Tiers will end on Monday, May 20, 2013 at 12 pm CST. Remember, that if you pledge prior to the end of the grace period, you can upgrade your pledge and be locked in to the low Kickstarter prices and Exclusive Early Founder Rewards until April 7, 2014." (May 18, 2013, 41 days after end of Kickstarter)
=> Founders status now available until May 20, 2013


It was said that the Founders would have wanted this - but there they write it was because of Star Citizen.

Also it was said that only the backers that pledged during the initial campaign would be able to purchase further tiers or upgrade existing ones. How then is it possible that "new" Founders can do the same now?

Also they only said these could purchase further tiers/upgrade existing at the same (lesser than after it) price, but not that the new/upgraded owners would also get the Founder status and versions if they weren't Founders before?


Why haven't they just made further rewards (not worse or less worth or less nice than the Founder's) for people that pledged after the dead line or grace period so all of us would have very nice and worthy things but the early Founders get what they were promised: that their rewards would be available only until the end of the grace period.

 

This is a very good point.

 

There is nothing special about being a founder beyond supporting a game that you feel deserves support, nor should there be.

The kickstarter is about the game. It's not about you.

 

The only caveat is risk begats reward. It is entirely normal for early backers to receive better terms. Given that founder pledge amounts are lesser and the rewards more numerous. Now it seems that the original founders accepted additional risk with no greater compensation. That isn't exactly common.

 

Actually, if the kickstarter wasn't funded the risk would be nothing. So at that time the risk was very low compared to where it is now.

At this time, the TOS says that Portalarium can take all my money without finishing the game. If this were still at the kickstarter level I would at least have the option of nothing losing any money if the game didn't reach its funding goal.

 

Are you serious? 500 $ only for the game without doing it for myself also? Why then do they even reward us with things and not only with the game itself?

 

If they didn't reach the funding goal, right. But we all hoped that they would, even if we didn't know much about the game at this early stage. Being funded isn't a safety for a game to be successful.

 

If

There is less risk now than before, then everyone should be pleased that the success of the game is more likely now than it was before. Would you prefer that the development be struggling a bit more?

I think there is a lot of selfishness on display here, and it isn't very pretty.

 

That's true, and the early community is very special and I'm happy they supported the game the way they did. However, I don't think that having a few more people that are also special become founders will do anything but strengthen this game and this community.

 

But it has been funded so the risk is live... and to quote a wise man:

Exactly. I'm still riding the risk that they complete the game and I actually like it. I'm not sitting on a $40 pledge either. I'm mostly happy with the risk here and mostly happy with the reward, that's why I backed. Earlier investment means increased opportunity-cost so I've incurred greater opportunity-cost for naught it would seem.

 

The game wasn't struggling this time last week, so this new modification seems unnecessary imo. I'm not saying it is the worst thing ever, nor am I against more dollars coming. In fact I can even see a good argument for allowing founders to gift the founder status to benefactors. I do, but that's not to say that I'm completely happy with it. I'm worried about gaming the system and any knock-on effects, it isn't entirely obvious to me that this can only result in a positive outcome.

e.g. you are a founder but now your wife wants to play the game but she would automatically be a benefactor. On the one hand boohoo to your wife, but on the other I wouldn't be too fussed if she was a founder too.

If I was running Portalarium I might have said something like: founders can gift founder status to the benefactors that they recruited and not just to anyone. Furthermore, I'd probably prevent the newer founders from granting founder status to newer players. I.e. some sort of compromise.


As per my previous post, there is still a risk to me that I don't enjoy the game.

 

@Jatvardur

That's very true. But don't most investments come with unforeseen risk?

 

Always. Which is why I have a degree of ambivalence about this. I see some sense in what they are doing but not championing 100%.

Anecdote:
I recently agreed to invest in a friend's startup. I signed the documents but was slow to wire the money. He reminded me that interest accumulates from the day the contract was signed not the day I wired him the money. I could dispute that the nature of the contract (convertible debt) would convert to equity long before he'd ever have to pay me any theoretical interest. But as a point of integrity I got the payment sorted ASAP.

 

I didn't enjoy UO. I only played for a few weeks.

But the fact that it's still alive after what 17 years, and people still talk about it all the time...that's a good indicator for me that this game (SotA) will benefit greatly from all the mistakes of UO. In addition, the uncomfortable business decisions that Portalarium has made over the last year or so (and I agree this counts as one of them if you were an original founder) are still mild.

I'm very impressed with the team here and I think this will all prove to be a small bump in the road. I think SotA will be a game many of us play for years and years to come.

 

The extras sweeten the deal. If you put down $500 for the sake of the goodies, then I think you wasted your money.

 

I think it's up to me what I think to be worth giving my money for, isn't it? At the time I gave it I thought I knew what I would get (if, what I hoped, the game would be founded and successful) and exactly that was the reason why they told us we would get these things exclusively. And I wouldn't have pledged only for the rewards, that's clear. But never would have spent so much money without them.

 

One thing I think will happen as a result is the College of Arms is going to get a lot busier handling submissions & helping with designs.

 

As you well said its meaningless to make any thread regarding disapointment, and its not because your are going to get your thread deleted or else, they just simply ignore this threads and just pretend they don't exist and just "administrate" them as any other one, delete "unapropiate" comments etc.

I was kinda disapointed when I saw that the things I was suposedly going to get as a kickstarter backer that where labeled as "collector/collectionist" and LIMITED for the kickstarter campaign are just beeing sold in the store nowdays and I mean the book, coin etc.

But we are the minority and even if we where a 90% or more I'm sure they'll just send us/post an autogenerated message saying "we are sorry bla bla bla bla bla *insert good guy fluffy words here* but we aren't changing anything".

 

Not just exclusivity, but opportunity-cost.


If anyone wishes to sell me Google shares at the IPO price that would be great. I'd gladly pay double. I totally didn't miss the boat there... c'mon... you're just being selfish.


Facetiousness aside, it is etiquette that earlier backers pay less. It isn't a sacrosanct law by any means. I also believe it is important to attract new players (investors essentially) but people understand that paying $1100 for Google now is not as good as paying $100, yet people still invest because they believe that things will be good going forward.

 

If they say exclusively it must be exclusively, there's no other way around of the meaning of the word, unless in their village they have another term that is the oposite/different to the rest of the world.

Selfish you say... pfff... Its like if they sell you a ring that is it suposed made by a unique ultra-rare material that doesn't longer exis, crafted by a dead artist and that the ring "mold" was only used for other 5 rings made by the same artist and that the "mold" was then destroyed. You feel all happy with your unique ring that has its collector value and you even sleep huging it.

Then a month later they are selling the same ring with the same material and you find out there is no suposedly dead artistits just the same guy, and he just tells you "OH DON'T BE SELFISH *WINKIE FACE*".

"BUT the collector value is just worth less than watered used paper!" *You claim*

"SHHH DON'T BE SELFISH, HERE HAVE A BADGE OF HONOR FOR BEEING THE FIRST ONE BUYING THE RING" *The craftsman says*