Should Benefactors get an equal amount of digital rewards as founders?

That's revisionist history. You can only make that statement because you know in retrospect that the Kickstarter succeeded. Going into the Kickstarter, we had no way of knowing (at first) if it would succeed, and money put into the SotA kickstarter was money you couldn't put into anything else. There was opportunity cost for everyone who pledged early.

 

There seems to be plenty of incentive to pledge, (Houses, land, etc.) Benefactors get what they pay for.

However I think the game will make plenty of money especially after its launch. What the devs really need is more testers. Incentives and rewards are good for people who want to buy them but if they really want to get more testers maybe they can open up a beta testing for the $10 pledge, but these testers would still have to buy the game since $10 only covers the cost of being a beta tester (downloads, data, etc).

So I think allowing beta testing for the lowest pledge possible will get more "testers". Maybe they could also get the special in game title of Alpha-Beta but that will be their only in game reward unless they choose to pledge higher.

 

I feel the need to correct this. As of the KS, some of the tiers promise 5 full episodes. By law, they have to fulfill that. Benefactor contributions may make the game better than it would have been had they not contributed, but they don't at all increase the likelihood of future releases. That is already set in stone.

Furthermore, if you had backed at the lowest level during the KS, you could have upped your pledge at a later date and remained a founder.

 

I think there's huge ongoing risk. We saw something this past week. It seems like we're dealing with a mature enough team which knows how to control scope and hit deadlines.

But most people are pledging for a multi-player experience. And that means both doing enough to get a large audience playing the game while, being exploit proof in terms of PvP / economy.

 

You missed my point. Future releases as in later game development from the Portalarium team, other titles that RG and the rest of his group may want to explore down the road. Again, the more support and eventual profit that the game company derives from SotA, the more we will likely enjoy from them in future.

Even the final goals of the Kickstarter were not fully met from contributions. There were still features and potential systems that RG wanted to include in the game.

 

You have to keep in mind too, the only reason some of these items are even available is because of some of our early creative founders. They pushed for items, different houses and the types of information that you see today. Huge credit to the shroud team for listening! Also the added rewards were used to get people to push their pledges and it sure worked. Just like Fire Lotus saying four lord spots were left and bam 4 spots vanished. If a store says the first one hundred people to check out get a free bag of chips.. Then only those people got the chips. Very much a right place right time thing. The founder perks are the shroud team's way of saying thank you for being some of the first people to believe in us and our idea. Why take that thank you away.

That rambling being said as a founder I appreciate each and every backer of this game and I don't care what level you pledged or when. I hope I get to meet everyone of you.

 

You are reading this wrong. People were pledging on the SotA website before the KS was over. Some of that 1/3rd belongs under the KS banner. If I remember correctly, the extended it until May, or something like that. Without an official number there is no way to really tell this. If I recall correctly, it was almost 2.5 million, because people were looking at the VR implementation. Beyond that, I don't know if any of the cash shop stuff shows up on the front page, but there could be plenty of Founders buying stuff from the cash shop that you are translating into Benefactor money.

 

Kickstarters would get refunded if the game did not get funded. However people who pledge large sums of money were doing so at great risk. In fact all Kickstarters pledged with a huge risk since there was only a proof of concept of the game.

People who pledge now can see all kinds of progress on the game and realize yeah this is a great game. The kickstarter group believed in the concept before there was any proof that the concept will work. In fact there still are some areas that have not been tested publicly, but it's clear that the pre-alpha was a huge success considering the point we are in development.

Since the pre-alpha was a huge success the risk isn't as big as pledging back in March of 2013 when it was all just a cool sounding concept.

 

This is well said. Basically, if the game didn't meet the goals before the KS date, we would not be having this conversation and SotA would remain a pipe dream. Give the early-birds their due to doing so during that time. I don't begrudge someone who has helped make me eager to enjoy this game.

 

I don't have a very strong opinion in either direction on this topic, however, I think your reasoning is a bit flawed. Here's why:
The website does not show what comes from Founders and what comes from Benefactors. Therefore both points 2 and 3 are null and void. I know several people who either 'guilt pledged' or pledged to one of the low tiers during the kickstarter, who later upgraded to Citizen or higher. This new money for upgraded pledges shows up on the homepage just like new backer's money does. Furthermore, so does the money form the add-on store, and I guarantee there are plenty of Founders who have bought items from there.

Now, there are a few things that are currently Founder-only that I think it would add to the game experience overall that I think they 'ought' to open up to Benefactors for the sake of generating more interest; the coats of arms specifically (yes I'm biased >.>) has developed into such a point. The last name is not as big of a draw, but I think would be find to open up, as would some of the in-game items like the crafting tools and weapons (perhaps, since Founders get two, Benefactors could get one, to keep it fair to Founders?). However, there are some digital/in-game items that I specifically don't think should be opened up; first and foremost, the 'Founder' armor/cloak etc.

However, the dividing line here, is that the 'Founder only rewards', with the exception of property, are what the kickstarter folks pledged on. All of the other stuff was added later. You can see the original kickstarter pledge rewards on the kickstarter page still if you wish. In other words, it's not that they offered previously Founder-status rewards to Benefactors; rather, when they gave things to Benefactors, they gave them all to Founders as well. This makes the issue of opening any of those Founder rewards up to anyone else problematic at best.




*As I said, I have no particularly strong opinion on the topic, just trying to get the conversation to base on facts as best as possible instead of just emotion.

 

The thing to remember is not only were you not sure if the game would be made, but you had a much lesser sense of WHAT game would be made. You put your faith in a man and his much smaller team, and believed in them and what they could do. You were either following them closely enough through the times when he'd faded out of the lime light, or believed in what he'd done in the past enough that simply him saying "would you help" got you to help.

While I'm thankful for those who came later, I think the hard core fans who were there at the beginning deserve at least a partial nod for believing in him blindly.

 

well your opinion does count. You also get everything you pay for though. If you got a knight's pledge you get the village rent free lot with a big house on it. If you don't want the Lord's house and a rent free town lot then don't get it. You don't have to have it. If you're saying you would get it if you get a golden title I don't know what to tell you then. The golden titles are for kickstarter backers.

However in my opinion I like hearing your opinion. Anybody who says your opinion doesn't count is just being a troll.

 

Again I am not complaining, but some one should pull the tier rewards off of the kick start page, or at least hide them. It is a little misleading when you do not realize there is a difference between what you get as a Founder and a Benefactor. I honestly did think I was getting the rewards just at a higher price. Again I realize this is my fault.

 

LOLZ.

Reading comprehension FTW.

This poll is more a classic study in the ADD response of people to forum polls.

NO. They should not get the same rewards, as their RISK was greatly diminished AFTER the project was funded by the FOUNDERS.

So you should enjoy the full set of rewards because you might help fund some other goal, maybe, at some future time, perhaps?

Then why didnt you just fund it from the start? Angel investors typically make larger % ROIs because they take the upfront risk, while IPO investors typically receive less. Why should this be different?

 

As I stated in several other posts, that is not my position. I believe Founders deserved the extra perks that were provided by investing prior to the end of the Kickstarter.

 

I do see your point. How can A founder get a benefactor reward if it was just for benefactors? This was not stated on the kick start right? So by them taking a benefactor reward should not there be an option for a benefactor to take a founder reward. Just saying.

 

Ouch i voted no...but i meant yes....first come first serve...the better....that is life...if all is equal, there is not a good a better and a best....aka no economy nothing.

Duke Lordy

 

And I totally agree it is absolutely silly, being a Founder and a Knight pledge myself.

We got a house, the bene house might be "better" but so what? I get both. The bene only gets the one. Why complain?

It is the few "entitled" founders you are talking about, and trust me, I got a list, that we could do with a little less "interaction" with in a wide variety of topics.

Double-edged sword: it takes alkynes to make up the world (yes a chemistry pun, deal with it)

 

Kuno Brauer I did not see that thread! Nothing much to add, but I did at least give it a like

Atlaua (MGT470) I always hate when people tell other people not to comment on things "because it doesn't affect you". Some Founders have done it, especially in topics like the one you mentioned; the PvPers do it to those to whom that is not the primary preferred play style. Everyone (who can keep things civil and not argue based on pure emotion or spew slander/insults/threats) deserves to be heard, and on any topic... because every aspect will affect every player, whether directly or indirectly.

 

again its about the fact that the founder stuff is supposed to be better. Not that the benefactors stuff is supposed to be crap but envy was one of the selling points that RG pushed so its no wonder that people expect it to be enviable