Founders, Benefactors, and doing the right thing

That is a very solid point. Things like this are the point of pledge drive; however, there is also a lot to say on the "buzz" just the campaign itself generating. Though it is a valid argument than if there is no "rush" then people may hold back. If this happened during the SOTA Kickstarter, and the campaign failed then none of us might be having this conversation at all.

However, the number of Founders is much greater than Benefactors, and there is still a limited engagement. As such I wonder how many new Founders we are already adding. Looking at the marketplace threads we are talking how many? A few dozen? A hundred or so? We had 22,322 KS backers by the end of the KS campaign, and that does not include the ones from the SOTA site before the cut off. We are at 27,338 backers now. When you start looking at those numbers how "exclusive" were Founders? We were already around 90% or more of the total backers.

So in the long run this is making another time-limited event, and one that will probably be more productive than the sale or limited availability of AddOn Store items. I think leaving it up to individual Founders to pass this on was the right move: at least the better of two evils. But the more I look at things does getting upset or disappointed over this make sense when we have had so little movement on adding new backers since the campaign ended?

 

The truth is Portalarium found themselves in a sticky situation when this issue came to light. Most of us Founders were probably unaware we could gift Benefactors "Founder status". (I certainly wasn't.) It's not about exclusivity, it's about keeping a promise made to the Founders long ago. The fact that it generates additional income for Portalarium and eases tensions between the Founder and Benefactor groups (many of whom were bitter about missing out on the Founder benefits) are a big plus. Since DarkStarr assured us that date of initial pledge is factored in to lot placement, those of us who backed early are still rewarded for our support.

I personally did not charge my Benefactor friends for the upgrade. I did this as a favor to them and absorbed the cost myself. Sure, I'm losing money on this (despite the referral credit) but I'm glad knowing that my friends are happy to receive their Founder benefits and it has strengthened our bond as a group. Quite frankly, I am growing tired of all of this bickering between the Founder and Benefactor groups on the forums. Can't we all just get along?

 

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...-by-founder-mass-production.7116/#post-118691

I'm thinking it's more like folks didn't take into consideration what that exactly meant and how they might feel about it, glossed over it and now others see an advantage and human nature takes over...

There's no reason Portalarium needed to put blinking arrows and neon on this small part of the KS to watch out for later on... sheesh ppl, you are getting a taste of the game right now don't you realise!! this is life and you've been spoon feed exclamation points and quest chains all your life..

Also, I'd like a Add-on for some to buy a sense of humor and a mirror

 

Yes, there is plenty more to say. Where does it indicate that these players can assign founder status and rewards to any existing backer (and then they too can turn around and do the same - that is in direct contradiction to "Kickstarter backers can do this.") The update speaks of the initial kickstarter pricing levels for the tiers - not the rewards, and not assigning founder status which can then be passed on.

Also, that update speaks of upgrading tiers. Then shouldn't knights need to upgrade to lord, for example?

Yes... of course. That is the point of a cutoff. You already pledged, and one can assume you were happy with what you received for that pledge when you made it. And based on what that update link says, the only thing you should have missed on is the original tier pricing, not founder status or rewards. Because I am a founder, I could have paid, myself, ("gift") founder pricing for a friend, instead of having to pay the current pricing. Because they missed the cutoff, though, they are NOT founders and should receive the current prizes.

 

I believe we should stop looking at the tree and see the forest. The tree being the Founders' losing their "special" status and the forest being the game's funding. Remember that Portalarium people make a living out of this and its not like they are doing it just for fun.

When at first read about the Benefactor to Founder upgrade path, I was rather upset thinking that it gives the founders free bonus. Then I sat and thought about it and reminded myself that although $3mil might be enough to fund the game, the studio already has running costs, so the $3mil is actually much less. The free bonus to the Founders can be taken as a compensation for populating their numbers with Benefactors. As it was already mentioned, the amount of Founders overcomes the Benefactors almost 4 to 1, so was the Founder status that much rare? Not really.

 

...And that's really what this is all about. The exclusive club got a little bigger.

Nevermind the fact that I've paid over 2k for various pledges and items. Forget that I was only a month shy of being a founder before the cutoff (having not heard about this game before that time). And don't even think about the good this is actually doing for the game itself (all the extra money, people, and further inclusion in the community).

Dame Lori, you've obviously provided a very positive influence on this game and you've been recognized for it. But please don't think that other people are any less deserving of rewards because of an arbitrary cutoff date. I can totally understand why original founders would feel like their world is caving in on them right now. But what I can't understand is why any of them would pretend for a moment that other people who are willing to pay money and help this game are any less worthy.

 

Remarkable sense of customer appreciation you bring. The reward for those who pledged the Founder rewards at the appropriate time prior to the deadline should be have their support belittled and the value of those rewards (which were paid for legitimately as promised during the KS) removed to allow others after the fact.

Thou shalt sacrifice thine rewards, or thou will have none. Sounds quite Oppressive to me.

 

You are completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with being "less deserving" or "exclusive clubs" and it is offensive to reduce this issue to such. This is about the trust of the team of a Kickstarter project, and the detrimental effect this has not only on this project, but on crowd funded projects in general, as was touched on earlier in the thread. The "worthiness" of the individual is a moot point. The point is that the team needed X amount of funds in March, and to achieve that they awarded certain items as incentive, and it was clear that you needed to pledge by a certain date to receive that incentive. The wording of the update indicated that *pricing* would be available to founders after kickstarter. That has now been taken back.

A lot of people gave money upfront with no clue where this game was headed. If we could have waited almost a year to do so, many people would have waited to see if it was worth their money. And the game may not have been funded. That is why there are cutoffs and incentives and why the trust of the team to carry out their initial promises is important.

Please do not insult me by claiming that I feel others are less deserving of digital items. Thank you.

 

Drocis, I really think it's unfair (and unwarranted) to apply such a negative motive in such generalized way. Knowing many founders (and benefactors) I can tell you that not one of them think of themselves as more worthy.

Joe
The Unseen Dragon

 

I think ill make a new one for each of these threads.

 

If you feel that people should have founder level access then what's your beef again? You can't have it both ways. You can't say how outraged you are that people are becoming founders after the deadline and at the same time express being a victim of your own argument.

What you and others are failing to understand is that ultimately this is a business and the terms of service of this business grant Portalarium the power to do whatever they want, whenever they want. I don't like that either, but I still have faith that the dev team will do "the right thing" overall. In this case, I think that letting current founder know that they can get a referral bonus of $25 if they help bring in new business or upgrade a non-founder account is a fair business practice.

 

Then founders should leave the new founders out of this. I'm insulted by some of the things I've seen written about "the new people" and that they should NOT be given these rewards because of a date.

If original founders want to be upset about this, ok voice your opinion. But please don't act like "the new people" are a part of the problem or that we somehow shouldn't have access. I've been here for months and I've never complained about not being a Founder. Please don't complain about me being a founder now.

 

Where did I say I think new people should have founder level rewards? I don't think that. However, that has zero to do with "worthiness" of the person. It has to do with how Kickstarter projects need to function in order to achieve funding before development begins.

Where did I say I was outraged? Perhaps it's not clear through text, but I was attempting to have a calm, mature discussion about the ramifications of the current issue at hand, and instead I'm seeing snarky gifs and insults from people who do not know me at all and would rather make personal flames than discussing the matter.

I was hoping to provide Portalarium an alternate perspective and some thoughts for future decisions, because I don't want to see the project harmed again. I'm going to sign out of this discussion now, as I don't think this thread is beneficial to the project anymore.

 

I prefer 'red snapper' myself, but that's besides the point...


Can you or anyone else that is complaining here really honestly state that they understood the implications of the fine print stated on the KS website when you pledged? .. others did and took advantage before now

You only NOW feel slighted because you are seeing in hindsight, as they say... never a good position to be arguing from as it's all uphill, you step on EVERYONES toes.

ah, well.. squeeky wheel gets the oil

I honestly can say, I don't care either way.. and I've seen this argument soooo many times it's now got blood moss on it. I like that I was able to give more money.

 

@gracekain @seon @Drocis @Nuemcy and @anyone else who is saying that raising money is a good thing for the game, and that founders are just complaining about losing exclusivity.

I agree with that, it was right there in my original post. It sucks, but its not even close to being my main complaint.

Now tell me why it is better for the game to have founders be middle-man type figures, and have benefactors go through them as they do now instead of just giving everyone the fair option to upgrade themselves on the account page?

I have accepted the fact that there will be lots of founders now and that's ok. I have no problem with more people getting the rewards, even though I don't agree with it.

Why do we need to go through this ridiculous 'gifting' and merging process where people need to risk doing a financial transaction with a complete stranger on the internet?

Since the upgrades are allowed, and happening anyways, what possible downside is there to simple allowing all benefactors to upgrade?

How is this current process fair to those benefactors who don't always check forums, or who are not comfortable doing a money change through a stranger?

Don't you think it would be better for the game to give every benefactor the same option, in a safe and controlled and fair way, rather than only those willing to put up money to another forum member?

How many of you honestly believe that the referral credits being given out for this process right now are the way a referral credit was originally intended to be used?


The people getting screwed over the most here are not the founders, its the benefactors who would rather pay Portalarium directly, and as a result, get inferior tiers of rewards and pay more for those inferior tiers.

 

How can I give this more than a like??

 

Umbrae, I'm glad you posted these numbers. It's one of the things that's been on my mind since this started. There were so many founders before any of this it was pretty much all of us. Adding a few more friends to the mix isn't going to make us less special. When game two gets released we're all going to look back on this and laugh.

 

the amount of posts on this thread and other threads popping up about the topic would seem to suggest that it is on a lot of people's minds. Feel free to actually contribute to the conversation and provide some answers to these questions.

 

@AdamZax

The reason it is better to have more founders than less is because more people will be rooted into this game at an early stage as opposed to less.

It is true that the spirit of what you and other original founders believed about the kickstarter campaign is not what has occurred and for that I have great empathy for how that makes you feel. But we've seen this happen several times, including in housing priority and the reuse of the darkstar moondial, just to name a few examples.

I totally agree with original founders saying "I don't like this" when they don't like something. Please carry on.

 

I thought i had already addressed this, but maybe it was in another thread.