Let us pledge AGAINST a stretch-goal

I think it would be neat to be able to pledge against a stretch-goal (for example, "elves as a playable race" ). The rewards could be of the same kind (or maybe no rewards, it would be an ethical pledge ) but the money pledged would lower the total amount for that stretch-goal.

It would mean more money for Portalarium and maybe the "stretch-goal wars" could encorage people to pledge.

What do you think?

 

I don't like that particular stretch goal either, but there is no reason to be able to lower the pledge amount for it. Just don't support it; its got a LONG ways to go before it can be implemented, if ever.

I'd rather focus on the stretch goals that I *do* support, like Mounts, Boats and Pack Animals, than seek to deny someone else of their goal.

 

I think that since they are so hard to meet, making them harder is not a good decision. I would feel really betrayed, if I had put money into it and it counted for nothing.

 

I too don't care for elves and I hope it does not happen, but I think a pledge-against feature would foster too much negativity and might create some accusations that Port was purposefully trying to collect money while having no intentions on following through.

 

We don't need more "wars" within the community, as divided as it is already. We shouldn't be fighting like that and pledging against the goals of others like this. If there's some other goal that you want the team to work on, please do propose it as some of the best ideas can come out of even the smallest voice here. Who knows, it may even be more popular than the current ones! This is a creative community and we can do wonderful things when we band together.

 

I like this idea, but if I might make a suggestion....

Maybe there could be two or three stretch goals attached to a pool of money and there could be a vote as to where the money goes first. Once that goal is done, if any money is left over it can go towards goal two and so on.

I know this could be contentious especially in light of the recently voiced concerns about shadow accounts on the forums.... Maybe they could drop this into the Founder + forums to keep things a bit more even?

Just my thoughts, but great idea OP!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is not a good idea.

 

So you basically want to be able to sabotage a stretch-goal? Nah, I don't like that idea.

Better to have a "dwarves as a playable race" stretch goal and have it compete against the elves stretch goal.

 

Aren't there enough goals already?

 

Yes, I admit that my idea is not a very good one. And I also agree that the community is already divided. But I think there should be a way to fine-grain (even more) where pledges are spent. Maybe a monthly official poll on the implemented features. Or, like Ned888 said...

What I really mean is that Portalarium should find a better way to raise the rate of pledges because it dropped a lot after the end of the grace-period and it has not really take-off with the stretch-goals. Much more money needs to be raised to assure long-term survival of SotA.

And I think the best way to accomplish that is letting the backers have even more options when deciding on what features their money is going to be spent.

 

Isn't it enough, that money talks, if it comes to implement a stretch goal? I don't see it as a good idea as all the others here, if a few people with big pockets can nullify the concerted efforts of several other players.
What we want is a community which sticks together, not one, which is divided by the amount of money the spent on the game even more than through the current cosmetics.

 

I have a very nice horse and pack horse in UO

I have a most excellent Horse and Warsteed in Lotro

I think I will walk in SOTA

 

I think that by not pledging to a stretch goal you ARE pledging against it. You can save your money until there is a stretch goal that you want to support and then dump it into that.

Personally, I really like the Pack Animal Stretch Goal the most, followed closely by Horse Mounts. I'm not big on the Elves, Ships or Flexible Housing, but there are parts of those stretch goals that I'm attracted to so I have only purchased what I really want.

However, I can see where some stretch goals would not get any money from me at all. Virtual Reality would be a great example of this. I realize it's the future, but it seems a very distant future, one where I'm probably collecting a social security check and trying not to die of Cancer or Alzheimer's. So I'll let my future grand kids pay for that.

 

Personally I think they have too many stretch goals at the same time. None of them seem to be doing very well.

 

I think that's less about having too many, and more about what they're offering.

For example, if they said everyone that contributes to the Horse Mount stretch goal will get a teachable horse breeding skill in game...I'll bet we'd see the needle move quite a bit.

If the devs said that everyone that contributes to the Elves as a playable race stretch goal would get a teachable "transformation" skill that allowed players to turn other characters on their account into an Elf...again, how much money would come in?

The stretch goals are not designed correctly, imo.

They could have 1000 stretch goals and the money would never stop flowing if they actually offered something exclusive and rare to the game worth buying.

 

I just have to say the prices for these stretch goals is ridiculous.

$100,000 for freaking pack animals.

My studio has made entire games for that.

Oh, and if these insanely high goals aren't met, we don't even get the feature but they keep our money and give us non-functional items that are not nearly worth the price paid.

I vote against the whole system by not giving them another dime.

 

They want to make a profit....I have no problem with that part of it. But taking 100k from people that contribute, giving them very little in return, and then giving everyone in the game the end product...that's not a very good marketing/business strategy.

 

I have a problem with that part of it.

Profit should come after the game is done and they've done a worthy job of creating a game people want to buy and play, not from the fundraising for the development of the game.

 

It's a business so profit has to be baked into the cake. They also have to forecast what they'll need for a rainy day. They're not going to be successful "making the game" and then saying, "hey guys we'd like to take a profit from all our great work now".

Plus, it's a stretch goal. So they're segmenting that money on the side for things that were never supposed to be in Episode I anyway. AND, if the stretch goal is met even without you never contributing a dime (I've contributed several dimes btw) you still get the product. So what in the world could you be complaining about?

 

Sorry, but this is not how crowdfunding is supposed to work. Profit is not "baked into the cake." On the contrary, most Kickstarters bake a loss into the cake. It is standard.

You are essentially helping a business fund product development, and for this you receive a reward, typically at or below cost. Through this method, the business is able to privatize the profits but socialize the risk. The profits are not supposed to come from the fundraising portion, but from the sale of the product after it is completed. It is dubious to profit from the fundraising portion.