Four Years (or, Why free passes re: development have to stop)

Simply to satisfy my curiosity. No ulterior motive.

I disagree with his opinion of the state of the game and the development team. I don't see any characterization of the forums in the original post with which to agree or disagree.
Could you please point out what you're talking about?

 

Rufus- Here is the quote I am responding to.

It wasn't in the OP. I misspoke and will go back to change my response to avoid future confusion.

Clearly, such an environment would be counterproductive. However, just as clearly, this is not the type of "environment" we have here.

Perhaps, possibly, there might be some individuals here with such an attitude. (Though I don't see much evidence for it.) However, it is quite plain that the notion that "the devs can do no wrong" is not widespread enough here to make the claim that it constitutes an environment.

Indeed, many have made- and continue to make- the assertion that the devs are hypersensitive to criticism and suggest THAT is the reason the game is behind schedule.

Repeatedly- in this thread and elsewhere- I see people actually *in the know* attempting to explain how the development process really works. Often times, they produce stats and evidence to back up their claims. Yet still, none of this seems to sway the opinions of those with differing views.

 

For the sake of clarity, This account belonged to Frederick Glasgow previously. I purchased all his accounts, so what he may have posted before will be different than what I post or my views. When I make my money back, I am returning his accounts to him and I am sure he will be back when he recovers from his strokes stating his opinions again.
But in the mean time, I am one of the ones who sold their account. Mainly because my business won't allow me the time I need. Frederick and I talk many times a week thru email. We were discussing the ongoing sale of his items and the forums were brought up. He said he disliked some things happening on the forums and he usually read pretty much everything back then. And this I was in agreement with him, but a lot of threads give way to people complaining about one thing or many things,without any suggestions or solutions given.
If a employee of mine came to me with a complaint, they all know they better have a suggestion or solution in mind to fix it. Obviously, most here are backers to some extent. No matter which applies,some of the same people to the forums to complain about the game or the development team. Am I saying asking questions or giving concerns is a bad thing,no I am not. I know almost everyone is really a consumer or customer if you will. If I send a email to Walmart complaining about something,they don't ask that I include a solution to my issue to help them fix it. Of course Walmart has more than 30 or so employees that RG has.
But in saying all of this, I have been there and the development team is pretty small,which is no ones fault, it is just where they are at the moment. So if our desire is to truly help the game move forward and get released to the public,instead of just listing a complaint,why can't we make a suggestion of change and list an example of what we saw somewhere else which may benefit the game,or how a process might be done?
The more we help the development of the game,the better for everyone. And although eventually I will not be here and Frederick will get his accounts back, it is still in my best interest as far as a member of the overall gaming community to help when I can. I hope my view of :Bring a complaint,bring a suggestion doesn't sound to far fetched to everyone. Anyway, that's all I have.

 

This is the wrong way to look at things. We are not employee's or co-workers. The reason this is wrong is if I go out to eat and order food but it tastes bad do I have to say this has too much of this and not enough of that? No I say I dislike it because it doesn't taste like whatever meal I ordered or it tastes bad. I have said that and they sent it back to the kitchen and I get the same thing again that tastes better 75% of the time. Could have been bad meat, new cook or something else. But to say you have to come up with the fix is making your backers do the work to fix your issue. And I will say this doesn't work as they could have something else in mind we can't see or hasn't been deployed yet. If your only taking reviews of people who leave bad ones with how to fix it then your going to be very sad to see 99% of bad reviews don't include this type of information nor should they.

If I say this feels off or bad and doesn't flow with the game and 5 people tell me to come up with a solution or be quiet then your removing feedback because they are not doing the job of the developer. If I point out how something doesn't work and show why its broken and doesn't work, why do I then have to go and figure out how to make it work? This is why you want feedback on things. Some things could be simple like add a button to make all skills go into maintain mode as a suggestion but to say because I feel one skill tree is overpowered because at level 50 of one skill vs another that does the same damage this one gives 2 debugs vs this ones 3 I should have to balance that aspect of the game? Well I will but you have to give me full formulas of damage and skills and everything else with it but they don't give us that we can only see what they show us so we have to point out these issues. Yes some might be abstract on the problem but the feedback is what the devs need not details on how to fix it. Because as they showed with this free weekend most of the problems they raised were noted in Steam Reviews that have been ignored and people said its not valid anymore because the person hasn't played in a year or more. Yet here we are changing some of those very same systems that people wrote about years ago.

 

That is a valid point, even their trial of the free trial likely cost them future customers because of a poor reaction on social media. The devs only need to look at the awful release of No Mans Sky which cost them 99% of their player base to know that this is something that you cannot recover from. The No Mans Sky release numbers are not climbing back up despite two very solid 1.x releases with features that the dev has admitted was cut because they ran out of money and Sony forced their hand in releasing with their marketing. This is a case where RG needs to listen to DS and Lum, that EP1 release should be defined by kickstarter commitments, and not by when RG thinks the story needs to be done (July) thinking they can release missing features later.

 

That change is not because of SOTA forum feedback. The new player experience is a topic that gets you moderated around here by those those that report your threads as being argumentative and critical and trolling. The only reason the devs made this change is because someone summarized new player feedback that cut/pasted reviews from more open forums, so the devs watched new players to see if it was true. This is something that could have been done many months ago had a number of us been allowed to make our points without getting moderated.

 

It's an interesting analogy, which I can speak to from direct experience working in the restaurant industry.

While it is true that the overarching goal of the restaurant is to serve food and drink that people enjoy and that keeps them coming back, the reality is that a small percentage of patrons are simply impossible to please.

They will complain about the food or service as a matter of course. It's in their basic nature to never be satisfied no matter how far others bend over backwards to please them.

A restaurant which tries to cater to the small percentage of patrons who will complain no matter what is doomed to failure.

It is a much better option to get those patrons out of your establishment, and into your competitor's establishment ASAP so that way they can complain about them and not you.

 

I think you might want to re read your own post and hold yourself more accountable. You certainly said far, far more than "stuff isnt always perfect."

Again, hold yourself more accountable. You did not simply say "this is not OK." Youre also part of the greater "echo chamber" of pure complaint without anything constructive to add. My confrontation is based around your accusation that people are giving them some sort of "free pass" (whatever that really means, your original argument isnt very intelligible).

Many of us are trying to explain to you that we comprehend the challenge theyre facing, and the resources theyre throwing at the challenges. Those of us in this camp are satisfied with how things are. You arent. Thats basically the end of that argument.

BTW - to everyone else - I am no cheerleader. I am a sanity-balancer.

 

This forum lacks the emojis necessary to demonstrate the smile this put on my face

 

Given RG's statements that "the game will be developed forever," then "launch" provides me with pure indifference. Cant see how things will change for me before or after. The only benefit I see: more marketing, and more players! Thats it. Continuous Delivery of quests, content, items, mobs, scenes, etc - what does it matter if its "launched" or not if data is persistent?

 

Maybe because the kickstarter has said it has a launch date. Words have meaning, even if you choose not to want to use them. The devs have said many times the word "launch".

 

An undeveloped one. Though, Ive never once heard anyone say that. Dont you dare accuse me of it either, you would be very wrong .

/me thinks of blue aura for quest givers and pukes

 

To you. Not to me. I dont care . I strongly prefer the current nomenclature, and dont like the old school, corporate nomenclature of "launch dates" and such. Nor do I see a point in holding anyone to it, what power does it bring you?

 

It's important to consider the way SotA is being developed and how that has increased development time. While SotA never came close to Kickstarter's projected release date, there WAS a playable release 1 year on. SotA has remained playable throughout. This, to me, is an incredible feat.

Portalarium does not have the luxury of yanking a system to rebuild it. As such, many of the things we see are bare bones, half-baked or placeholders. For someone who has not observed development from the beginning (or just doesn't understand their iterative process), it may seem that what they see is what they're going to get. Take Agriculture as an example. It's clunky and frustratingly repetitive; frankly, it is horrible. On the other hand, it works - we have agriculture and that is better than not having it.

Many have witnessed the iterative approach Portalarium takes. Many more see what is presented to them and assume that's how it will remain. This, to me, is one of the major contributors to criticism. I don't blame the critics. Nor do I call the apologists "fanboys" for trying to point out the iterative development cycle and SotA's hopeful future.

Being able to play an unfinished game presents problems that are being solved as we watch. How to communicate if the player is seeing an early iteration or a completed system? How many times must a system be redesigned in place to allow continued function with other changing systems? How to maintain a large enough element of FUN to keep the community around; a community that Portalarium needs to survive, both financially and psychologically.

These questions fascinate me, as has watching the sausage being made. I eagerly await Episode One post mortem, when we can hear about lessons learned, unanticipated outcomes, and what they've learned along the way.

P.S. The Agile development process means that many details are not even designed yet. How does this uncertainty lead to player frustration?

 

I love how people extrapolate ideas to such extremes! Never said I dont care about anything. But I give zero ***** about "launch" date.

 

By proxy you are only interested in your side of the argument, which is not very good for debate. So you are only here to impress your will and not consider anyone else s feelings on the matter.

 

Lets take this one step further shall we. The kickstarter was made by experienced game developers. They used their own expertise to come up with that time line. Do they themselves not know how long a game of this caliber takes?

 

You said it yourself, these are experienced game developers. Would you more quickly come to that conclusion, or is it perhaps more reasonable to assume that, as money keeps flowing in, they are able to make a bigger and better product for their new company's debut in the industry?

 

I just noticed Elder Scrolls Online released instanced player housing in February 2017. Considering ESO was in a released state for years - and that player housing was first announced for development by ESO somewhere around August 2015 - perhaps we (the Sota community) aren't appreciating the time it truly takes to implement these complicated features.

All I'm saying is it's tough to criticize timelines when we truly have no idea the work it takes to implement meaningful change.

 

Many have been comparing the development timeline of this title to those of similar titles built by Blizzard, and EA, and Bethesda with full corporate support...

Let's instead compare to other big crowd-funded titles...

Star Citizen's kickstarter started on October 18, 2012. They've to date raised in excess of $140 million dollars. They have multiple international studios.
Crowfall's kickstarter started on February 24, 2015. They're currently seeking additional investors... I believe they're in their second round of trying to sell high-risk, low-return shares that dilute with each additional round.

It's possible Crowfall is far advanced of SotA... I don't know... The concept of Crowfall sounded like my own personal gaming hell, so I declined the chance to back it. It's now in Early Access - 4 according to their web site. Buying a $70 package will get you in, though the base $45 package will leave you waiting for launch day.

Star Citizen on the other hand, I did back... and despite 6 more months of development, and in excess of 10x the budget, Shroud of the Avatar is far and away the more complete game. I would be roundly surprised if Star Citizen launched this Decade, if at all.

I also backed Bard's Tale IV, though for a microscopic amount in comparison to either Shroud or Star Citizen... That money was fire-and-forget as the development is closed, and I'm not likely to hear anything substantive about it until it's released.

Again, I'm satisfied (if not Happy) with the state of development of Shroud of the Avatar. They are on-par, it not vastly ahead, of the other major crowd-funded titles.