Cost of the game

I don't have an issue with them selling limited housing in the cash shop.

 

The use of argumentum ad hominem needs to stop in this thread. Ten pages of it sprinkled throughout the thread is enough, please.

 

Unhand that squirrel!

 

???
Not directly but indirectly.
You want more housing.
More housing = higher supply
Higher supply = lower price
Lower price = less profit in the cash store
Less profit = no longevity

With a side dish of less possibility of funding E2 in a similar manner.

 

Oh dear, here come the people with slogans instead of experience. How well did Economists predict their own industry, for that matter? Remember how the US Deficit was supposed to disappear with tax cuts, but instead hit record highs under Reagan and the Bushes? The Savings and Loans scandal? Remember how Enron stock was supposed to be a safe buy... right up until investigative journalists were the ones instead to spot the warning signs of one of the largest bankruptcies and criminal cases in business history approaching?

But this isn't the place to debate some of the laughable understandings of real world politics; I can easily disprove that ridiculous slogan with a much more apt re-wording with reference to Shroud;

"If the financial sector understood games designing, they'd be making the games too."

When Richard Garriott et all worked in the industry under the previous standards of fundraising, did the financial backers then expect to give input on how to make the actual game itself? Or do you think they deferred to the more relevant talent and experience?

So what makes the financial backers now think they have the right, much less the actual talents required, to design a game today? Because here's the thing, no matter how capitalist the designers themselves are, the final product itself has to have a utopian, socialistic experience. Art is produced by the exceptional but enjoyed democratically and equally. You can hype it. You can over-price it. But it won't be recognised as Art unless the public embraces it. Everything else is just, like, your opinion man. So it is with Gaming; even when the hero of the game is fighting for his own selfish or even anti-social needs, you the consumer expect to be able to buy into that fantasy who ever you are. A game that does a background wealth check before you can play it is not widely considered a good game. If you don't understand equitable author insertion as being fundamental then, you have no idea at all how the wider games market works.

When the Ultima games were created, no matter how unique the Avatar was in game, the product itself was designed at every step of the way to be easier to play, more open ended and appealing because that's how a good game works, and more importantly, sells. Except for Ultima VIII and the jump puzzles. But the less said about them the better.

Whether the real world is like the produced Art or not is irrelevant; The world is nothing like the heavenly frescos that Michelangelo painted say, because the world as we have to live in it is made by the kind of financial and political minds on display here today. But that's why he's was an artist, and you're not, and you commission his art but then leave him too it.

The problem is of course is that the crowd-sourcing has blurred the lines on that; Which leads into the real issue here, which makes the throwing around of statistics largely pointless, because either...

The model is backers are also the consumers; in which case no crowd-sourced game can be expected to make a profit or take off beyond them, because it's purely a service to those who spent before completion.
Or,
The game is being designed for the Artist's vision or a much larger or wider market, in which case no matter how much someone backs, they can't be allowed to compromise the end design. The money spent is only to support that vision.

The second is how the market used to work; indeed it was assumed that it would guarantee the profits because people would want the resulting art, and the business of financing was an attempt to prove you could make it. The former is how some posters seem to think it should work now artists dabble in crowd sourcing. In reality any game which is made for purely the backers is going to get reamed by the wider media world, and won't long survive exhausting the attention span of those backers.

Right now Shroud development can't so easily be fit into one box or another, and what the final result will be we can't possibly know until the post launch sales are revealed and the market states what it thinks of the product as delivered; but the original poster is entirely right to have worries now. If the game is developed to try and please some of our resident Randian supermen, I and a lot more of us are going to just abandon the game... So even if some of those that are left are happy to rather be seen as rulers over a desert than servers in a living biosphere, what makes you think you'll meet the fundraising for Episode 2 as well? You might, and I state this as a hypothetical not a claim, much less a fact, if Portalarium have been skimming enough off your donations now to make enough profit to fund later episodes... if they've devoted every last dollar to making you feel as special as you demand though, they can't. Hard to spend money you don't have, isn't it?

"If capitalists really understood economics, they'd be socialists"

Gosh this sloganeering is easy, isn't it?

 

eh, or they could just do what they more or less did, row homes are open cheap housing that lured people into cities in the first place. now the suburbs are for the "rich" and the city "condos" are for the richer.

When you talk that there is no median or midline in this, you're kind of crazy. I kind of like the brigand tents merely for the reason it's a really cheap buy-in; and in fact was a really cheap buy in, even in Ultima Online.

There can be rewards cheaper, and in vastly disproportion areas --- that said, what's stopping a roaming camp of players living somewhat like gypysies from existing? Or --- preventing a zone for players more in the likes of massive row homes, since really --- I wanna be where I can more or less exploit as many players per unit space as possible since it's more less the nickel and dime business that produces the most profit, the most competition, and usually the most friendships.

That said, I think the people that bought rewards at the price they paid them at shouldn't regret them, but that certainly doesn't exclude an idea to have cheaper rewards later that may have some type of low-tier perk.

Right now it's 225(or 275) for ancestor, which gives you a row home lot; How about a tent lot? And you want to be honest, They don't have to be "caravan tents" they can be tee-pee's.

I think grim is going on a better segment here about how expensive that buy in is; granted --- in the longer term it isn't, but at large people have to fight their resistance to more or less be duped. (or suffer buyers regret) (we got a forum for that!)

From a regular pledge of 45 stand point; Just to get all the releases is another 100 bucks. And that's neat, I really just like to play, but... you know, getting some 10 dollar donation items, some 20 dollar donation items. There's a reason why economically these things worked for other things... *coughs* free shards *coughs* because some people might only come up with an extra 10,20 at the end of the week.

As far as policing and what not; I don't think much of it, since really, I love the voice of "you can't"; because really, with a little innovation, I more or less came out with a rather on-the-spot response to what is more or less an issue of currently "limited design".

another huge segment of awesomeness is more or less that we have no unique-self-zone; and that said; it can literally just be a "campground" for self, and "story characters" and maybe just a "chest" and a "bed" sort of like in breath of fire 3; when Ryu is crossing the desert. Granted, I'd say for this idea even that is lavish, but the idea is merely to bring up, that there are probably plenty of ways for them to make it alluring for a wider audience of people short of "slashing prices" when really --- I don't want to devalue anybodies rewards for what they are. I don't really think it has to come to that.

 

Is anyone honestly surprised?

The majority of comments on systems let alone housing come back to one thing, what can my character get from this, not what is best for the game.

The Dev's need to be able to differentiate the two.

 

Now, imagine if everyone brought up what people said, saying nice things here in the forums and perhaps other forums where they don't say as many nice things. I think everyone is entitled to state their opinions and be heard. Now, this doesn't mean made up stuff, but housing is a major issue....it's brought up a lot in other forums out there.

It's an understood necessity to raise funds however....just wish there was a way to not make it so absolute. Yes, I know there will be other ways to get a house, but it won't be as easy.

 

My only view on all of this at the moment is that if portalarium want to raise more funds for the game they should add more interesting housing and other stuff to the add-on store and make the stretch goals have at least some form of usefulness to them from the start. So here is my take on things (feel free to pull all of this apart):

*Add ons*
The add-on store is all well and good but by phasing out many of the interesting house designs (I would like a barn conversion or one of the fire lotus inn style houses) and other items with the weekly sales we are now left with a handful of houses and other items I am less interested in, many others who joined the party late will also feel the same. These items were sold extra cheep during the last change sales (50% off plus in many cases and extra 20%), bring them back at the 50% off rate most bought them for initially and leave them there. Otherwise make some more stuff that's actually worth paying for.

*Stretch goals*
This has been said many times already in other threads - the way stretch goal items are now they add little value to anyone's game-play. Make boats open up fast travel links on the map, make horses work overland and make the stretch goal for their use in scenes, make the housing items decoratable and the stretch goal adjustable placement, make the pack animals a minimal pack now and decent roaming storage when the goal is achieved. As they stand now most of the things on there are as useful as a chocolate fireguard and that's why they aren't selling.

*Housing*
I think trying to make housing available to all is a noble goal, but the way currently things are it would greatly devalue the current pledges making a lot of customers unhappy who spent many $$$ if you started lowering pledge costs and making the current lot deeds available at far lower prices.

The devs have talked about renting rooms out to other players in our own houses, why not simply have some NPC inns in each town that provide really low rent rooms (housing) for players - give them a couple of containers, allow a 25-50 item deco limit and situate them near to areas containing crafting stations and public vendors. Stick it in pledge goals at explorer £135 that you can get a tenancy deed that allows you to stay in an inn rent-free (to be refreshed once every 2 months), provided by Lord British himself for services to the kingdom. The players pledging at this level are in the game for the long haul (this is the level that gives all 5 episodes), so why not make them feel at home, they may not get a house of their own but they will be a permanent member of one of the towns and have somewhere to display their greatest treasures.

This level of pledge is far more attainable and desirable for its content and I could see more players stumping up beyond the initial $45 to get it. In line with the other 2 deed pledges, give knights and/or knight marshalls an added tenancy deed they can use or pass to a friend.
(yes, yes, I am a KM and this would benefit me but I am going up to lord next month so I am not asking for this out of pure greed *smiles*, I will get my second deed anyway)

Your thoughts on these ideas, daft as they may be?

Edit: after thinking about the rented rooms a little more in the inns, why not make those instanced so there are as many as required and allow party members to zone into your room (whoever enters first sets which room if more than one player stays at the same inn). This would allow them to be placed within even the busiest areas of a major town/city.

 

That is ALOT of nice words and ofcourse much of it is spot on, However i have absolutely zero clue on how you managed to de-rail your chain of thoughts into this, because it has absolutely nothing to do with what i wrote, and what i wrote cant even remotely be missunderstood to anything close to what you just discussed with yourself.

Something i think you and me can agree on, is that Crowdfunding like this should/is a non-profit thing mostly, at the very least for those who donate money towards the project.
Noone should be expecting to MAKE MONEY out of donating money, but what it seems we is NOT agreeing on ( Atleast thats the only logical conclusion ) is that rewards should be based on the amount you donated. because THAT was what i was arguing , and i will continue to do so.

Fact: People who pledge more than others should get more rewards than those other people, but not get an advantage.
Fact: Splitting up the pledge amount into equal portions where everyone get the same by paying the same ( but smaller amounts ) does ***NOT** equal more money towards the game.

When it comes to crownfunding a game like this, a more capitalistic way is needed, like the one we have today. Some pledge more but get more.

That is the only thing i am discussing, nothing more nothing less.

And please, i live in what probably is the worlds most Socialistic country ever, i know very much what im talking about. I know enough to say that it doesnt work, but then again, the world is not black or white, there are rooms in between , and thats where i think we should be, not only with this game but in general.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure how you can speak for the way I think about it. That is not accurate.

I was after an additional tier of housing. This is only an example, but if you had 10% in each tier of housing, but a lesser percentage in the highest tiers (making them more rare), and that limit is set to 1000 houses (an example of course), you would still have 1000 houses. The people at the lowest end of the tier may eventually want to upgrade to a higher tier. But it would be harder because there would be less available at that tier.

In your equation, including a low tier of housing would amount to that. It never worked like that in UO, and it won't work like that in SotA either.

The other thing I have been saying for a long time - let's not limit the amount of housing to just 10% of the population, but hope they will produce enough for a majority - say, 75% of the people who play. If you limit the number of top tier houses, it will make those houses coveted for both the lower tier crowds and the homeless.

 

Anything 1500 and up should be rarer. If you don't like it go to a f2p. People thinking they should get the same as someone with deeper pockets are wrong. If u want more you pay for it. It's universal and sota will not and is not immune to this. Someone that paid 100 dollars wants a luxury home? Get ready to work your butt off. And when u get your deed and your house Plan I wouldn't expect anyone to roll over and let you take the corner lot. You will reside in a player town until you raise a mountain of gold to move someone out of Kingsport or owls head ect. Ect.
Alot of people get offended by this and that's silly, you will always be weaker than some. Even kings fall. Top tier houses has to be limited and kept special. That's why I purchased what I did because 90% won't have my design. I'd do more money but for the perks it's like 5% or less impact on my game play. I visited my house like 2 times since release. All this banter is exactly that overblown rubbish.

 

The thing is you just put what is good for you ahead what is good for the game, kind of proof in point. I think the high end things bringing in money is needed, just because they need more money. But I do see a fault that those who pay feel and direct design to max benefit them, however the devs have to be aware of this and take player advice with a grain of salt.

 

It's not like they won't have new house plans after release. Most games keep adding content after release via cashshop. Prepaying players should have and will have something exclusive to use or trade. All most all the games iv bought early access and have received exclusive in game items. None which turned off the free to play or late players and it most certainly didn't stop new players from joining into the community. I'd suspect the same in this case. Huge houses will still be buy able via in game or real cash but my house will be finite but still tradeable if one chooses.

 

Hmm... I might be off, that is what I got from the old topic. Should have included quotes, sometimes one miss the meaning.
*goes back*
this is what you are refering to then?
"If they had offered a tier where everyone could buy a house at a $50 range (an apartment or shared building), I'd bet you'd see a lot more people who backed it."
Then that has already happened once with Row lots. And you are right, it helped a bit. But not that much. Mostly it helped as a stepping stone to get people addicted. It did create some bad feel amongst higher bidders though, but some of them got their lots adjusted up or added something at the same time and then it was good again.

While what you are suggesting with the $50 would probably be more problematic this time round.

For example the Row lots are $85 in the addon store, and they are so far a failure to bring in cash (40ish sold of a 1000 offered). Should take off at launch when pledges are gone but not to get cash for development.

But you do bring up another good point which is upgrading. Right now we can easily upgrade using the pledges etc. Come live launch that will no longer be possible.
Which I see as an issue, since you need to sell your smaller lot to buy a larger one. This makes people 'stuck' in their tiers.

 

I just cleaned out some of this thread. The personal attacks, aggressive comments and passive aggressive insults need to stop now. Please keep the thread on topic and keep it within the forum rules.

 

Yeah, this thread stinks!

 

Yes, I noticed the row lots aren't really selling. 40 out of 1000. Probably because people would rather have a tax-free lot at this stage. (I know I did) Or maybe people still don't consider that affordable.

Back when I played UO, there were a lot of houses, all the way from one room cabins to max storage plots, available on Ebay. Most went for $100 or more because it was so difficult to find a house for a period of time. Personally, I paid $250 because no matter what I did or where I went, I just couldn't upgrade to a max storage house.

Point being, I would've gladly upgraded if I could, and if the market is kept a bit tight, it will do the same in this game.

I don't really understand why higher level backers would be upset over the townhouse additions to the game. I'd think there would be lots of room for growth and keeping property value if the market was kept competitive. I don't see how row houses would lessen the value of higher tier homes. And personally, I'd think people would want to upgrade at some point.

Like in UO, even though I had a max storage house, it would've been pretty nice to own a castle after playing the game for 10 years. It never happened because there was never land for one. Maybe once the numbers of subscribers fell into the pit, it could be done. By then, I'd moved on.

 

During Kickstarter the names of deeds actually meant something.
Villages would only have village lots. Towns would only have town lots. Cities would only have city lots.
So originally the only way to live in a city was to get a really high pledge.
This changed dramatically when they started designing scenes. Then it turned out to be the other way around with the center of cities mostly consisting of row lots.
But it's all fine - all the upper tiers got really huge additional stuff. In some cases a quadruple size increase.

Let's see how renting rooms turns out, might be that you get those flats but not through the dollar store but through in game gold.

Agreed on the upgrade thingie.

 

So maybe you could explain to me how this was devaluing property. Only the high level backers could live in a city. If they were to never make more affordable housing, then all there would ever be would be high level backers in cities, right? In addition, cities are so tiny, how would there be enough housing for even a fraction of the subscribers? It must be a tough job on the part of Portalarium to balance needs and attract more people. They haven't been able to attract enough at the higher tiers nor the lower tiers, as far as I can tell. But then, I really don't know since I don't keep track of the figures. I'm only talking based on my own perceptions.