Is a lack of understanding of the development process really the issue?

Early Access / Crowd Funding

Is not something new, neither is game development.... However Early Access and Crowd Funding has changed game development. Its changed the rules you no longer develop test polish and release prior to prying eyes seeing the project now you toss together a bare bones skeleton, toss it onto kickstarter a few days before you company goes belly up and cross your fingers you get a Million dollars....

^^^^ That doesnt work in the old version of creating a game, you needed to show your investors something with some meat and hope they liked the idea and then you worked within the confines they gave you....

EA wouldn't pull the trigger on Ultima Online until they saw the proof of concept which was 50,000 people paying 5 dollars to beta the game!!!

But a bunch of random people on the internet will give you 2 million via kickstarter with nothing other then "Richard Gariott" is making the game....


So is this a good thing?!? Sure more small development teams can find a way to aquire capital to maybe create a great game! "Kerbal Space Program" Springs to mind....

However for every success story their is another disaster story!

For example SpaceBase DF9 a game bye DoubleFine a developer thats been around for over 10 years.
Who basically didn't even remotely deliver on what they promised and called it finished and dumped the source code to the game online and ran....

Atleast they opened up the source code to modders could try and do something with the

project...

Worse yet are the dozens of examples where the developer just goes dark, not to be heard from again.

Or there is the never ending early access development....
Examples:
Day Z - Likely will never finish, and still to this day isn't even half the game that the Mod that inspired it was!
Airmech
Rust - Its come a long way or has it>?
Project Zomboid
Space Engineers - Probally the best of this list but many could argue the game in its current form is more buggy and unplayable then every before....

The Point I am making is that the Gaming Consumer is getting burnt with the early access / crowd funding methods that are enabling alot of bad stuff to happen!

The consumer you have crowd funded from is your boss, you can claim development will take 6 years but if the Boss says Bull, we want it now how is that any different then rushing out Ultima 8 when EA said we need to ship for christmas!!! Did you say No development takes X amount of time you just don't understand.... No you couldnt do that in the old school form of game development...

Well perma Alpha and beta early access games are not Kosher, gamers are tired of the stalling, and excuses, and we are as a group getting less and less willing to wait and more and more vocal. Now maybe Sota isn't the offender that DayZ is but at what point do we draw the line as a consumer?!?

This whole system is headed for a loggerhead as something has gotta give!

When will it finally collapse on itself...
The day Star Citizen releases and you have 150M+ Reasons of why that game can't and won't live up to the hype....

^^^^ That day will likely be the nail that sinks this whole methodology of game production!!!

Its time to go back to normal development and subscriptions please....


**** I believe Sota is a strange example in that a large portion of sota players are not "Serious Gamers" There an old school group of gamers that remember a day long ago and as such likely don't have alot of experience with the Day Z's of the world; I believe people like this are often some of the fierce champions of the game we see here in the forum as they simply havent been burnt enough bye this gaming trend... ****

 

You list alot of games that suits your opinion; there's also games that are succesful as well .. maybe list them as well?

 

nay...

keep moving forward, making mistakes, and learning from them then evolving... rather than moving backwards.

besides no one is forcing you to take part in this model of development... you don't like it don't participate in it.

problem solved?

 

*snip* of something I already posted in the thread...
So is this a good thing?!? Sure more small development teams can find a way to aquire capital to maybe create a great game! "Kerbal Space Program" Springs to mind....

Here are some other examples:
Prison Architect
Xenonauts
Don't Starve

all fully released, all fully fleshed out and accomplished there roadmap....

I can add another quandry to this list;
Battle Brothers

They actually accomplished there roadmap and fully released but a dev made an out of context statement early on in the development and now that game is being crucified for not following thru on its promises....
Even though it fully released and covered in development road map that consumer is irate because there is no mod support that a developer said would be a cool thing for the game and they would try to put it in...
Optimum word is try... It ended up no feasible but the player base doesn't care... as far as there concerned Battle Brothers didn't live up to its bargain....

So even when you do the job you can still end up in a stick pickle...

When you make the consumer your boss the lines just get all blurry and there is no black and white anymore!

 

Did I say I didnt like it? No I did not, infact I was a very vocal supporter of a way to give the AAA developers some competition and maybe get them to stop feeding us more regurgitated crap. And get them to use some ingenuity and think up some fresh stuff....

Sadly its like having a green fee box at a golf course, great idea in concept but there are always those few that make it not feasible for the rest!

The question is How do you police it... How do you the consumer that invested X amount of cash into a crowd funded game say enough is enough....
When the developer can infinitely say we are not finished yet or you don't understand our process, go away, or sorry we need more time. As the developer knows that they have free reign to do as they please....

I am currently seeing a larger and larger section of this forum that are saying hey we expected X and we have only seen Y.... When does it go from the consumer is being pushy and uneducated about the development process too, wait a second maybe our boss the consumer isn't happy! And we need to start doing something a bit more definite to fix that.

 

I did not kickstart this game.

I have only given to one kickstarter coe, and I consider that money gone. I supported the idea and if they succeed in making it I get a copy and some souls or something. if it fails I get nothing.

that's all. even if they do make it there is no promise I will love it or even like it.

I may get a game that I may or may not like.

its as simple as that in my mind.

 

Some successes I can think of:

Thimbleweed Park
Wasteland 2
Wasteland 3 (in dev.)
Bard’s Tale 4 (in dev.)
Shadowrun Returns and sequels

 

To address the actual question in the thread title..

Understanding the process may not be the beginning or end of all things but can help refine expectations and perceptions and bring them more in line with reality. Of course, there are many other factors to consider. I have however seen time and again where perceptions are just simply off and unrealistic expectations come to disappointment because someone just doesn't "get it". A classic example would be expectations regarding SotA's budget, ever changing balancing issues and all the confusion around the development schedules for various features.

 

I don't see this as much of a model issue as I see it as an expectation issue.

We as the people that pledged to the Kickstarter are not investors. We are pre ordering waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in advance. We can not expect a finished product until it is time for a finished product.

There has to be some middle ground at the same time. During the dev process they need to incorporate a release of something we can hold. Something we can use to direct our expectations.

Port is doing that with SotA but I don't know if it was fully understood that it was needed.

 

It's too early to tell what will happen as none of us are fortune tellers. However, I do feel that the game is lacking serious, hardcore gamers (this does not include hanging out for hours on end socializing). I also agree that a lot of people are trying to relive that "feeling" they had when playing UO. The unfortunate thing about that is, no game will ever compare with our first experiences with MMOs, UO or otherwise. It's called "chasing the dragon."

 

That would be me. I'm not even sure what Day Z is but it doesn't sound appealing. I donated to Portalarium because I have faith in the team and directions of SotA. Sure, I often judge the game on its promises and potentials. I do so because I believe in the integrity of Richard Garriott et. al.

I find that many posters are more cynical than I am. I don't see doom. I play, I enjoy myself and I adapt to changes on the way forward. I play casually with my wife, regularly spend money in the add-on store and feel privileged to have seen game development from the ground up.

I'm sure that SotA will be successful and will carry their plans forward - despite the cynicism and hyper-criticism of "Serious Gamers".

I doubt I am alone.

 

You are not alone.
I backed this game because of Richard Garriott et. al.
I haven't been disappointed with what I've spent nearly 300 hours playing. Nor have I been wowed, but the game is not complete and I've been playing a work in progress this whole time.

I enjoy the game, have no issues with it that would cause me to stop playing. I felt my money is well spent.

 

Here is exactly what I am talking about, you good sir havent done anything wrong you believe in Lord British and why not he's done some great things but, what about all the gamer that don't know who he is??? (Is that possible???) Yes it is as most gamers under 30 likely have no clue until some like you or me tells them the guy that made UO and then there like OH him!!!

This doesnt change the fact that these gamers are cynical with good reason they have been burned time and again far more often because there gamers....
So its easy for you to be positive and yet a big wide audience to be negative... And now we take a small peak into part of the divide...

You are also far more willing to trust in him and your willing to give him more slack because you trust that sota will become something....

Well I am somewhere inbetween the group I am pointing out and you.... I am that guy thats older but has spent most of his life gaming so in a way I bridge that gap...

And from my perspective I understand your faith... At the same time I understand gamers and there not the most forgiving group there fickle and they quickly except the word of there favorite youtubers...

And social media will never except pay to win... (which brings up the next debate)
sota is not pay to win.... Well its not pay to win in the eyes of the older generation.
But it most definately is in the eyes of the younger generation....

The Housing and vendor model that sota has capitalized on with the older backers can only go so far at some point we have to make this game friendly to the larger audience, meaning we have to appeal to the younger gamer and the fact is they will never buy into the Pricing on the housing..... You could get some of the younger gamers who would begrudgingly give it a try if there was a house in the "Gamer Price range" 0-40 dollars... But there isn't a house at that price point, even the most daring of youger gamers will never except an Shop with $85 dollars being the lowest price point for a house in a video game....

They will simply say I could buy Xcom2 and Civ6 with that money and be garunteed fun....

 

well yes and no to the last part pertaining money. Most gamers younger than me (28) that I know would not spend a dime on the game for any reason (beyond buying in) to these people its a bonus when everything is super expensive cause you can be sure they will sacrifice school/friends/job to get those "end game" items for free either for the achivement alone or for making money

also I dont get the pay to win argument. Assuming getting the big house and tons of gold is winning, you can buy gold in any MMO that is because players are always selling. P2w in my book is when you have gear/weapons that is only obtainable with RL cash or pets that need constant upgrades(rl caash)

Sota offers nothing my character needs
sure I'll spend cash cause I want to for various reasons. yet my friend who started long after me with an account he got on sale for like $17 (all the money he has in) is at my lvl and skills also has more gold.. and ive spent some 2-3000usd, now if this was p2w I should have the edge even tho I might be slacking more in game but no its only what you do in game that counts for a damn concerning power (cosmetic isnt pay to win is what im trying to say. imo.)

 

Early access or not, p2w or not, I've still put more hours into Sota than anything else on my Steam list and I've been around since about 6 months before persistence (though I dabbled briefly with earlier releases, it was never a log-in-every-day thing). The number of hours of enjoyment I've gotten out of the game speaks for itself, really.

A lot of the games mentioned in this thread are the sorts of things that you play for a couple of weeks and beat it, or get bored, not the sort of thing to keep you interested for months or years. I think thats an important distinction, a single player game with a 50-60 hour campaign vs. an MMO to keep you interested and investd for years.

Regarding P2W? I woudn't call it P2w in the classical sense, we're not being sold "xp potions" or "money" or "high end gear" or any sort of temporary BS 7-day crap by Portalarium, and I'm grateful for this. However because of the embracing of RMT, if you did want to throw some money at the game - you can buy XP, you can buy money, and you can buy gear, from other players, for real cash. This money doesn't benefit development but rahter goes into the pocket of the player providing the xp/money/gear service. I'm not judging this at all - it is what it is, but its hard to convince someone that the game is NOT pay to win, when you can throw money at it and get your character boosted up, geared up, etc without any effort yourself. I guess the caveat here is that someone has to earn that XP or that money, maybe not you, but the other player . Its not just someone editing a database in exchange for payment.

On the other side of the coin though, some of the people I have seen achieve the most in this game have invested very little beyond the box price and have earned everything through in-game play. And these players are some of the most far along of anyone I know. Sota is versatile like this.

When we talk about the early access and the development process -
Has early access changed the industry? Absolutely.
Have people been 'burned' by investing in abandoned projects? Absolutely
Do some projects turn out fantastically? Again absolutely.

If you invest in the project then you need to believe in the project. I can probably count the number of EA games I've invested in to this extent on 1 hand. That's why I'm here doing my part to give feedback, report bugs, and be part of the community. For me release was when things became persistent, we're here now, building a legacy.

 

I think if you consider agile development the problem is the persistence. Once you are persistence your sandbox is launched no matter how twisted a marketing guy may shroud it with words.

It should be expected that people complain, because it generally will be published unfinished. If that is a good strategy... I am not so sure. We can still hope people dont get totally scared away from the reviews out there.

Portalarium does very little to combat those concerns. If e.g. they would introduce their detailed plans for PvP and people would like the idea presented... I am sure some would be patient enough and complain less. However what we know so far what to expect was underwhelming for me. I dont have a reason to believe it will be good, as most features in that regard have been underwhelming so far:

PvP Zones, Guild Wars, PvP flag combat.
We dont know anything about that.. whats its purpose within the world? No info has been given on that.. other than dont lawyer me

 

I think the solution is more "under construction" signs in game. Complemented with "Placeholder - expect drastic changes".

(I think I've been saying this since early 2015).

This because if expectations are an issue, do something about them.
If I see an "under construction" sign on a feature then my expectations on the current state of the feature is set much lower.

The game used to get lots of flack for the similar look of the scenes - but after they put in the "under construction" blockades in the cloned scenes much of that criticism went away - and rightly so since the cloned scenes were later uncloned.

For instance, if I enter the game and think this is the final version and vision of things like:

• Fishing
• Agriculture
• Refining
• Cooking (brewing)
• Skill trees
• Guild wars
• Etc

Then I would be mad to and write the game off as a loss. The Reason why I don't is that I have knowledge from outside the game that they are "under construction" and will eventfully get worked on.

However we can't expect the average users to spend a lot of time outside the game to find out such things.

So if I got that message in game when testing such a feature then expectations can be adjusted closer to the experience.

 

To think an investment in a Kickstarter is always a bullet proof business is naive.
To think that all promisses made during a kickstarter campaing are going to be fulfilled is also naive.

That's business. Having a good founded kickstarter is a walk on a thin red line between marketing that promisses all, development that tries to do the possible, the consumer that wants all and now.
The truth is always somewhere between all groups of interest. Money business is never a honest business -the sooner people learn this, the sooner they avoid beeing disapointed.

 

I don't get the point of this thread.

Everyone who bought in on the kickstarter, which literally wasn't even opened until a solid kernel of what the whole MMO would be about with supporting evidence of what had already been completed, have known the whole time about the status of this game and how it would continue to develop over time.

The team has been incredibly forthcoming with the development process of this game and within the last 6 months, it's really moved along exceptionally well. I'm extremely pleased with my early kick in, enough so that I happily invested through Seedinvest, if it made sense, I would have kicked in at a much higher amount too, but... eh... sometimes money isn't always that available.

Is the game complete? No.

Will it appeal to everyone? No. What MMO appeals to everyone?

Here's the big question... what big name house will support, publish and develop an MMO like this one, in this day and age? Every new MMO on the market can effectively be a reskin of the most recent one released with updated graphics, etc. ,etc. They are all "Theme Parks". They are geared to keep player engaged for a period of time from 1 to 3 years and hopefully as the players continue with the game, they will be sucked into buying in with upgrades/updates to the MMO.

Many/most MMOs are also moving towards supporting the casual gamer, whether on console or PC. This is how/why Theme Park MMOs thrive. Low buy in, easy to play, simple mechanics, simple reward progression...

All of that is almost assuredly why this MMO had to be crowd sourced, just like why Star Citizen also had to be crowd sourced. Big Publishing houses don't want to put weight/money behind a game that while it will have some space for casual players, it does require a little more buy-in of time for the players.