Golden Weapons, Armor, Houses Only For Seedinvest Bundles?

Doubtful. I typically see far more of the $600 version on display than the $10 version, and even then the $10 version will be in the home of someone who has clearly spent a lot more. The $10 version is nice for when Portalarium starts offering loot chests, as it gives them a nice lower end item to offer, but I wold bet a COTO that they make more revenue off the higher price version every time.

 

I'll leave the statement that you see more $600 versions then $10 versions stand on its own (maybe its just because they are bigger???).

 

And if you had had it around 2.5 years ago you would have had the option of taking part in the conversation that formed the basis of the current leveling system. I don't read the tea leaves as much these days and the powers that be took a lot of flak for admitting that dev+ is where the real decisions get made, but I haven't seen any indication that that practice has changed.

 

Sometimes I tour houses in a city to see how people are decorating and seeing what percentage of houses are being used to squat on a lot, the only time I typically see the small versions are in expensively decorated houses, often with the full size version on the lawn. I don't think I've ever walked into a house with a bunch of pledge stuff strewn about and seen a cheap version of an addon store item on a table or shelf. I guess it's possible that it isn't on display yet, but seems odd that they'd buy but not display it then.

 

I wish there was a gold mage robe. That would rock.

 

I'd like a nice shiny golden turd to display on my lawn please.

 

If Peter Molyneux were on the team you'd probably be able to eat a gold COTO and deposit a golden turd anywhere.

 

Portalarium has to make MONEY to do this, man. If they do not do the things they are doing, they can't pay the staff to create the content they create. Like Starman said... this is a pretty simple concept. We simply would not have the game I quite enjoy playing and testing right now if they decided to just give up on doing the things that make them the most money. This game is taking a while to create, and will be in development for years (WELL beyond the "release" date). That is perfectly fine. Complaining about HOW they make the money that sustains the ability to even create the game is not helping anyone. The game is moving along nicely, and I see wonderful improvements in it every month or two. I am quite happy with that. We're not in a race, here. Time is the one thing we (and the Devs) have on our side, since there is no ridiculously giant publisher like EA driving this game into an early grave.

 

Well said.

People tend to focus on one thing they hate even though there are probably hundreds they like.

I like 80% of this game which is why I have played it for 1.5 years with thousands of hours.

I expect when they are done, I will like 85% of it and 15% of it I may just hate. The fact is, others may love that 15% I hate.

So unlike others, I can live with 85%.

Has anyone here ever liked 100% of the things they have found in games? I friggen LOVED Fallout 4 and put over a 100 hours in it, but for me, I still hated 15% of it.

Seriously, this is all your own personal opinion. At this point in dev of SOTA, if you hate 50% of the game, then just go find a game you like more an play it, why get so bent out of shape about it, life is short and there is lots of games out there.

 

You can't argue religious conviction with facts and logic, @2112Starman.

 

I don't mind investors getting stuff, as long as I get a fully functioning awesome game. It's just eye candy anyway.

 

A company definitely has to earn money I agree. I personally wish they didn't choose to earn they way they do, since it does affect the social game play that (mega-transctions etc.) but that concern really isn't for this thread. Haha.

Not sure if time is really something they have on their side. Wouldn't the additonal time taken in development so far be one of the contributing factors in them having to seek additional funding?

Perhaps some people are voicing out their concerns due to what they perceive as mismanagement or misplanning. Since they believe that those factors would lead to a slower/inefficient development and hence the company burning through the funds they have.

This really isn't really a personal concern of mine but I just wanted to point out that port taking their time to do things probably makes everything more expensive.

@2112Starman, I probably have more that I dislike about the game than I like at the moment. But I like to stick around to see if things improve. After all, the game isn't launched yet so why jump the gun?

 

I hear you. This is a fair concern, for sure. I think they will find ways to make sure that they can continue development of this game for years. The leadership in this game has been around, and I have a general trust in their decisions and abilities. Even if I too do not love every aspect of this game. I'd say 85% like is pretty close for me too.

 

Richard opened up a new thread for discussion, post your questions on that topic:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...hard-garriott-lord-british.91215/#post-820650

 

Continuing development is the problem in my book. When flipping Unity assets is a more reliable revenue stream than selling a finished game, why would you ever finish the game?

 

I have to agree here. I'm 5 figures into this game too and SotA guild leader for one of the largest multi-game guilds out there and my feedback has been routinely ignored for years just like everyone else's, and that includes my Dev+ feedback. If there's a big club of elite whales then I ain't in it (to paraphrase George Carlin).

 

This isn't intended to be critical at all, but haven't companies done this before? I'm pretty sure Crowfall has done the exact same thing through seedinvest.

 

Crowfall has done this exact thing... They're on their second or third round.

 

Then u didn't spend enough.