The Sword of Midras Question.

Well then, I know who'll be defending them when they do what I suggested in my final post.

At the end of the day the core fans, the ones who pledge from the start, are being burnt in droves and the polarity of the forums is showing it. The stretch goals failed, the addon store has propagated inequality between fans, but hey let's continue the way we're going.

 

please show me ONE comment from the initial announcement saying that they would be publishing an extended version in a better format cheaper latter

 

I will take each (hypothetical) instance and evaluate the evidence and make my own determination of my stance on the issue just as I've done with this one and others in the past.

 

Show me one that said they wouldn't. They're living up to their promise... They're giving me an item that may have More intrinsic value they the hardback edition that will be available through any book retailer anywhere.

 

They could have done that easily by releasing the same content, in a hard cover format called "blade of the avatar" with the original cover art. THAT would have been something special which would be rewarding those who supported this game. At this point you couldn't torture me enough to get me to support ANYTHING any of the people involved in this did ever again

Its on my list of worst ever purchases along with DNF and The Order

 

Given that they charged $45 for a print copy of Blade of the Avatar, I truly assumed hardcover was a given.

As for lumping in SotA with DNF, SotA hasn't released yet and makes huge strides every month. And launch titles usually improve over time as well.

 

Getting exhausted spending energy arguing this when people are just going to staple themselves to a response like "they did what they said".

Fine. let's go with that. They did what they said. Nothing more, nothing less. They didn't bother to clarify where required, and they presumably ignored (or failed to address) any ambiguity. Because that in itself is a "lawyer's promise". And just like ask us not to hold them to accountability in the face of dynamic outcomes, they certainly don't us to the same standard.

But if that's how they are going to do business; good luck to them. Because the key factor here is transparency. Not cost. Not expense. So the next group who comes along and does less, but with more transparency, can probably accrue the same amount in funding, if not more. And guess where people will go?

 

Except it's not the game play here which is the problem. Actually I would forgive more if it was the game play which sucked (bloodlines had a game breaking bug which stopped me playing the last level and I still play that, even played it before I found the fan made patch which fixed it), its this sort of behavior, the ever increasing amount of microtransactions for everything in spite of how much we paid to make the game happen, the attitude that a "reward" for supporting early (not to mention how MUCH was spent) is to give an inferior product and then "well if you want the full edition you can pay again and buy it again"

I used to play SI every 6 months or so because I loved that game, now I can't touch it without remembering how bitter this whole project makes me feel. I really wish I had never heard of it and I definitely wish I hadn't remembered and come back because the current changes are even worse than when I left before.

This is definitely on my pile of shame

 

Are you aware how much the average cost is for video game development in 2016?

Are you aware that the Port staff are working on the cheap?

It isn't greed needing to find revenue to literally pay the bills and develop the game. Now, I strongly disagree with how they've approached COTOs, but then again they said the add-on store wasn't covering their burn rate apparently.

 

Seems a bit extreme.

And not like looking at this in a realistic fashion. And just a little thought of the back process can help clarify.
Tracy wrote a story, Richard helped with the idea that itd be used as backstory for a new game he was working on.
They finished it, and before any publishers picked it up, Tracy offered it as reward in its "rough draft" form to early backers.
they gave it out.
Since Port isnt a publishing company, It was picked up by a publisher.
With a Publisher comes loosing (read: improving) some control over the book.
Things like revisions/edits/addtions/even title changes are all on the table in order to make publishers happy and feel as though its ready for public consumption. What also come are licensing deals (issues).

what you are holding Port to, is to buy us all copies of the book and send them to us, which in light that the book may or may not even had a publisher at the point in which a promise could or couldnt of been made, seems moot and petty.

 

Sorry, but where in my pledge did it say I was buying a "rough draft"? Where is that coming from or is that just the implication? The only part that compares to t hat is the "early access" to the game. Which is understandable. And that goes to my point. What's to stop them from simply charging us for patches if they are struggling?

No wonder Kickstarter has so many problems here in Australia. All this ambiguity and implication...

 

Lack of DRM does not allow them to give it away. That's like saying SotA is free for everyone because it doesn't have DRM. If you download the game without paying for it, it's still pirating. They may be aware that the DRM-free will make it more easily obtainable by people who don't wish to pay for it, but they still aren't giving it away.

The reward - Shroud of the Avatar.
The result - we got it. And people liked it (at least some did).

Yes, later they published an expanded/directors/enhanced whatever edition. This happens with movies often, but with books also you get the "edition" that you purchased. No future editions are guaranteed to you because you bought the First Edition. No doubt there are those (a minority perhaps) that would want the BotA as the collectible limited run edition and be upset that their reward was replaced by a mass market paperback. Sometimes a new prologue is added, or chapters changed in new editions, we got a "first edition."

We didn't get a trimmed down version of the book - we got the book, they wrote it, it's done. They had to write bonus chapters to get a publishing deal, and probably the publisher wasn't going to agree to giving away 40k copies (or however many) of the book.

I would like the 8 dollar midras book or whatever, but it's not why I backed the game. I would love if some arrangement was worked out for purchasers of BotA. I really would. I'm not sure that is in Portalarium's power short of spending backer money to purchase these books for qualifying backers (something I wouldn't be in favour of).

@High Baron Asguard, I recommend taking a day to cool down before doing anything too hasty... it looks like you got egged on a little bit here but I'd just take a step back for a bit.

 

The reality is that since the Kickstarter, SotA has had tons and tons of free rewards added to people's pledges.

The Kickstarter said you'd get the serialized novel he wrote for the campaign, and that happened. A different version of the book is being put out by a published with additional material.

 

No, serialized meant, that the book was being released to us chapter by chapter, just like episodes in a serial tv-show.

 

The issue here is less about the book deal itself, and more about transparency and the ambiguity of various pledge rewards.

With this example, all of the talk on the forums from the moment last November, when the new trilogy of books was announced, was that we expected to be receiving these books as part of this reward, or at the least the first book since it's just an edit of what was already written.

Portalarium had seven months to talk with us about it and whether it would be possible to keep it in as our reward, and why it maybe couldn't be possible. Instead, they kept silent while dealing with the publisher, and 7 months later, after the deal was concluded, just told us how things are, with no real explanation or apologies. Lack of transparency. Lack of consideration of our feelings. Hence - angry mob of backers who should be their strongest supporters.

The wording for this reward is ambiguous. Based on the wording alone, The Sword Of Midras could be included, or it could not be included. In the past, the team usually sided with the founders/backers when making these decisions to clear up ambiguity. This time, they are siding with a publisher. It represents a shift in precedence for Portalarium as a company going forward, and that's a little scary, since many of us have invested thousands of individual dollars 'because' they aren't siding with publishers, but relying on us for these things.

For future thought: When something that could fall under a reward's wording doesn't, it requires careful clarification and community involvement, so we all understand the decision and continue to support the team moving forward.

 

I am not understanding this continued pattern of no acknowledgement of changes ,and no apologies.

 

I think most people are okay with Portalarium selling an "extended edition" book and are not bothering to post about it...which is why this thread is only 4 pages over the course of a weekend (I have seen much longer threads in a much shorter period). I know I have been upset by somethings that have happened in the past however, at the end of the day you're not going to be able to please everyone.

Personally, I have no problem with Portalarium selling an extended edition book. They are still delivering exactly what they said would be delivered with pledges. The Blade of the Avatar novel. They didn't say all extended and future titles will be included at any pledge level. This really isn't that foreign of a concept in my personal opinion. As Andernut pointed out...look at the movie industry. This is no different.

I think its a great idea to potentially reach a larger audience...and a larger audience will potentially bring in more funding. I support that 100%.

 

Exactly this. Clearly some people have no issue with this and that's ok. I'm glad that you didn't have the expectation I had. What I, and a couple of others, am asking is that Port be clear about what they promise, and more importantly, what they don't promise. Now there are some people who feel betrayed or let down by the company that I placed a lot of faith in. No amount of facepalming, argueing or commenting will change that. All I ask is transparency and some word from Portalarium explaining what happened. Did they intend this from the start? Did we read the pledge incorrectly? Did things change?

Surely this isn't an unreasonable request?

 

edit: link substituted for one with more comedy impact:


original link:

Spoiler

 

Just a small FYI. This was the announcement that this would happen back in May last year.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=50566

If you follow the link above you will also find the R17 postmortem where it was talked about a short bit.

It was then also mentioned in the following telethon:
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=52974
where Tracy was joining in as well.

So back then I didn't get why anyone would want to keep the addon store purchase and recommended everyone to melt theirs, since the published one was sure to have a better finish and an actual editor.


In hindsight it is clear that some more information and an update of the FAQ could have prevented some of this fallout. (The FAQ as always is sorely in need of an update, in this case to promote the SoM book).
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?page_id=19#faq_82
But it is also clear that Portalarium tried to inform the players about this, although as with most information it is not directly available unless you have followed the project closely and know where to look.