Would you back a Developer who does not tell you what he will create

i have been treating sota as a hybrid of this already: that plus volunteering opinions on what was released for early access, and giving ideas for possible future implementations..

i can not put a number on this. too many variables.
HOWEVER: to help you along as i see what you are getting at, i'd spend the price of one video game if i trusted that dev.

simple answer:
no.

why:
i'd require early access, and a forum to provide feedback on what was developed and released.
what they do with the feedback, wouldn't matter much to me.

long answer:
it is all about providing the devs with the perspective of pure-player as opposed to dev-player, which can get convoluted from time to time even without knowing it.. many devs who switch hats to player, testing their work before release, have a tendancy to keep their dev hat on, so they don't actually get the full pure-player viewpoint. that has been known to be quite literally at odds with the dev-player POV and that is the pivotal moment that the player-dev will miss something that would be glaringly critical to the pure-player. it happened way too often in ESO, whcih is one reason they created the psjic test server in the first place - they realized they lost perspective and needed to get back on track very quickly - but they also couldn't listen to everyone, as that would cause way too much variance and "cruft" so to speak.
please note: i'm not saying devs going into player mode is bad, just that the transformation generally tends not to be total enough for the very much needed perspective changes.

yeah, that would have been tough but doable. i see that as the biggest hurdle, as well.

 

No. Not a chance.

 

I don't like spending money without knowing what I'm getting in return. Heck, even when the devs tell you what you'll supposedly get, you still get the risk of being burnt. Watching the not-so-long-ago No Man's Sky fiasco from afar was a soul crushing experience even though I had no financial stakes in it.

I once did go by celebrity developer(s), and I got Hellgate: London. It was a decent game but it was riddled with bugs and had horrible management. I wouldn't say I made a mistake of pre-ordering... but I am sure as hell glad I didn't invest in the "lifetime" membership deal.

I don't think I would invest the money if I went by Richard Garriott's name alone. As much as I respect the man, he doesn't have a good history of making games that are accessible to play. I'm primarily talking about the interface. Even Ultima 7 (his best in terms of player accessibility) is, as far as my standards go, a complete nightmare to navigate.

I had to see what he was doing with SotA before I had any confidence in the team to put a decent product.

Then I got good news for you: There's been a Mac version for roughly 10 years.

 

During Kickstarter I pledged at the Developer Level. I did so on the strength of Richard Garriott's past output. I was an avid fan of UO and played for over a decade. That said, I'm not a gamer and probably spend less than [edit change 10 to 5] 5 hours a week in SotA. It is the only game I play.

On the other hand I was eager to witness the development of a game from dream to reality. I believe that in a capitalist society one votes with their dollars. I wanted this game to succeed not only as a vision of RG, but as a new, more connected way of development.

I've since spent several hundred dollars more, as addons and a second Citizen pledge for my wife ( as casual a gamer as I). You may think it's crazy to spend so much and $1000 may seem like a lot of money. For some it is, for me it is not - it is discretionary, disposable cash (a benefit of retirement from a lucrative career). Cash that I've gladly spent because SotA's success will encourage more independent, non-mega-corporate development. I didn't and don't expect to get my money's worth in return. Neither do I expect a return on my donations to child care, microfinancing, wild habitat protection, or diabetes treatment and research.

 

Well, great for Mac users then.

 

1 & 2: Yes, depending on how much was said about the broad nature of the plans. That was the basis on which I signed up for SotA - I heard about a new game by RG based on the Ultima games (though not in a legally actionable sense) and that was enough information to get me interested. Since the game was still in early planning then I expected it to go through large changes i.e. 'development'.

3: Yes. If my opinion is sought and if I can be bothered, I'll give it. Otherwise, I'm not leading the project, I don't have sight of the budget or resourcing or technical or creative issues, I'm not taking responsibility for the successes and failures, so I won't be surprised if my opinion is disregarded. The whole process of feeding us titbits from an early stage was more than I really expected and it persuaded me to pledge higher as I saw the overall very positive progress being made towards a final game that I still see as worth backing.

 

1) Prety sure that is what I have done with Star Citizen even though I knew what the game is about very roughly, same with SotA. I backed both games because I knew what Chris Roberts did and what Lord British did.

2) Probably not as much if I did not know anything about the game and if I was spending the money only on the game, without any info probably $50-$100 give nthat I at least knew the game will be DRM free.

3) Wel, yes. I backed few other games and even though they allow participation I simply did not have time to test them and I wait(ed) for finished products.
Back in old days it was possible to trade games and in the old days I remember a lot of games had free demo that contained sometimes quite a big chunk of the game.

As for getting more money, there are always rare physical items and time spent with devs, but the production and distribution of those rewwards is very costly compared to game assts that can be partly or fully used in the actual game.

BY the way most Kickstarter projects accept polayer feedback but stil lcan do as they please with their game, it just very nice for developers to get early feedback. Some handle it better than others.

 

I also pledged into Star Citizen on hopes it may be great. I have spent maybe 1 hour in the game and probably wont again for several month. But, its worth $50 for me alone in a gamble of hope that it will be great.

 

No.

My experience with Star Citizen is why. That developer outlined specific elements of gameplay, and has deviated wildly from them. They've broken (ahem "amended") their own terms of service repeatedly, rather then honoring their end of the bargain. When even going on a developer's word about what they are going to develop isn't enough to ensure they will do as they say (and one I used to respect!), there is no way I would ever give a developer money with no strings attached.

 

Thinking about this, I'd almost preferred to pledge sight unseen to certain developers. One's that really shaped the industry and innovated. Like RG; if he'd said 'I'm making a new game, give me $250 and your in for whatever it is' I'd probably be down. Same with the bioware doctors and guy behind system shock/bioshock. If they said, 'were gettin' the band back together, help us fund it' I'd probably pay. As long as the leadership had produced something innovative that worked, I think sight unseen with no community input is worth a small monetary risk.

 

Well, there are things the developers would like to do, but then reality kicks in. Good luck to all those who are backing Chronicles of Elyria.

 

I would back Richard Garriott in making a game regardless of what type of game.

As far as it goes, SotA I feel has met my expectation for atmosphere, which is what I expected.

I never spent any time playing or reading before pledging.

 

The crucial part here would also be how much a person can spare on something that they won't be seeing substance for awhile. If people can spend $500 a year for cartons of cigarettes or $10k of bottles of alcoholic drinks that they pee out a few hours later, perhaps $250 on a project made by a group of well known developers might be worthwhile?

For those who live paycheck to paycheck, they might be better saving up money to buy gifts for the loved ones instead and wait for the game to come out to buy it at fixed cheaper price.

 

1. I did this twice Tabula Rasa, and SotA. Tabula Rasa I preordered the game, blindly. SotA, I was a originally kickstarter backer at the Royal Artisan level the day I found out about it. Both purchases Just based on Richard Garriots name.
Tabula Rasa I played for less than a week. SotA I still keep trying to force myself to play it because I have so much money invested in it, however end of the day I just don't have fun so currently I just log in every couple months to refresh my house, just in case it turns around into something I want to play.

2. the rule going forward is no more than $100 on any game ever again. However that rule only exists because I payed for a Royal Lord Marshall for myself, and a Royal Baron 3 for my wife in SotA, when we thought the game was going to be more than it is.
Right now they are in the polish stages, and honestly it's not the game I thought it would be. If I had known then what I know now, I would have left the pledge at Royal Artisan just as a tribute to Richard Garriot and walked away. Not blaming anyone one for my purchase
we knew we were taking a gamble, unfortunately it didn't work out for us. Lesson learned.

3. Sure. Just never with so much money as we spent on SotA.

 

In my experience many of the people who blow 500 a year on cancer sticks or are buying a 24-pack a week of cheap beer are also living paycheck-to-paycheck.

 

You are fooling yourself into thinking this is not possible. Wurm Online which is the only other medieval simulator worthy of competing with SOTA has a living biome in it's sandbox. If you leave the game your holdings fall into ruins and the forest eventually reclaims the land until someone else cuts down the trees and start all over again.

Ultimate Online originally had similar ecosystem, but it was removed because players grinded it away. In Wurm Online that can also happen, but players have to suffer consequences of their and others actions.

I have not played it for years, but it would be fun to log back on and see if my vineyard won the battle with the forest. Your thesis is that is not fun game play, but in kickstarters that stick to their visions of their niche market - such as a medieval simulator with a single player story and a multiplayer shard economy it is entirely possible to find a market of players that will enjoy that game play, although not necessarily the case for a worldwide MMO with a global economy funded by RMT cashshop....

Just as AAA publishers have written off survival genre because it is not fun to play or technology is not there yet, yet it is one of the most popular kickstarter, early access genre because it is fun to play for >some< and technology certainly is possible.

 

SOTA devs are very guilty of this, I have never heard any of them say they test releases as a naked noob grinding their way up. If they want to test crafting, they gift themselves resources rather than grind for them, if they want to test housing by making demos, they gift themselves resources rather than grind for them. The only way they monitor the grind is reading the subjective opinion on the forums, but backing that up with objective watcher analysis of what players are doing vs. what players are saying.

Of course the reason is that if they are playing the game for real, then they are doing that as a full time job rather than coding the game as their full time job, but maybe they should stop to think how they can make a game that can played along with a full time job so they can actually test it....

 

BT started that way. didn't want to get 'devved out' as i call it. i remember he wouldn't just give himself stuff, be it armor or gear, or stats, etc. he wanted the player experience.

that was early on in his port career though - not sure what he's doing nowadays lol

its funny you say that - i've seen a lot of the devs logout of steam for an hour or three, then come back in later in the night. i ask what they're doing back online, and they said they were gonna go play the game instgead of just working on it. - no idea if they were playing with a normal account or dev account....but i've seen them come back to play, and sometimes to playtest too.

 

I think most people only want to back an artist only after they are dead.

 

That's what they say about decomposing composers, there is less of them every day.