New Pledge Rewards, New Pledge Tiers, Player Owned Towns & Stretch Goal Store Megapost

I'm all for a Founder Rate, and i'm sure the SotA would LOVE to see a nice chunck of cash flow in in a week or two...
I still say if you don't see what you want DEMAND IT!!!

 

Can I fish from the new boats?

 

I don't see why not. They mentioned fishing off of our houseboats even if they don't move.

 

I'm surprised that this thread isn't busier already.

 

I think the people ready to drop $500+ on the game are already in Dev+. So adding new housing tiers, etc. doesn't matter as much to everyone else. The bigger debates are over game mechanics.

 

Well a bunch of things concern me about this - less the specific items so I'll try to summarize.

It seems to me reading the opening post that this has basically come about because they are running out of money - or at least they need more of it to deliver on their promises. The result is a whole slew of new tiers to encourage backers to pledge more, new things that will obviously be for sale (character slots for example), and this crazy new stretch-goal-store-system I am still having difficulty understanding. (as far as I can tell it basically seems to be sort of "pledge for a teapot, but if we don't sell enough of them you won't actually be able to make tea in it" sort of deal)

If they don't have enough money to finish the game then I guess they need to raise some more. But my concerns are this: first - everything in that list seems to be orientated at getting more money out of CURRENT backers. Nothing there seems to suggest any change in strategy to bring in NEW backers. And while some people here are happy to be asked to pledge even more money and then thank the devs for it, I think the community has generally already given enough - certainly above and beyond what most developers could expect from their fanbase.

My other concern is what happens if in four months time they are still running short of money. What bits of the game will they feel they have to partition off and sell to the community in order to secure the funding? inventory space? limited recipe lists/books that can only be expanded through purchases? Of course you'll be able to get it in game with gold too but it'll come with a rental fee! (applying that to character slots seems absolutely crazy to me, by the way)

My other thoughts concern specifics of a few systems and how they are open for abuse or could become unmanageable but I imagine it is well worn territory and partly speculation.

 

Although many of these changes are aimed at existing backers, don't you think that a diverse menu of pledge levels will appeal to new backers as well?
Shroud will garner attention at E3, and when people come to check out the site, they'll have many price points to fit varying budgets.

I think new backers will want the same sort of things existing backers have been asking for.

NOWHERE does Portalarium say they've burned through all the money and need more.
They just say they want to ensure continued increase in funds.
They're running a business, and have the long term goal of putting out at least 5 episodes. The more money they bring in, the more secure the future of the game is.

 

***************
Ashlynn, well I am very repetitive today, never did we have enough money. Games the magnitude of this game will cost at least $28 - 30 mil to make. This is a good thing getting more money into the game so we can have all our cool features implemented. I do not want a half a$$ed game made because of lack of funding. I want the ride able persistent mounts, stables, taming, interactivity, secret doors and walls, and great looking avatar, unique ness and specialness galore. So for anyone who speaks against more funding, just wait it out, don't contribute more cash if you don't want or can't, it's all good, but let us get this game the money it needs to give us the game we want. I was a little bit on the side of caution at the beginning from being a first time kickstarter, but I get it now. The possibilities of this game are too great to be penny pinching, give us 40mil we need it. I'm not saying to pledge more but realize you are in the middle of a fundraiser, it's about the money at the moment. *****cheers*****

 

You might be right. But I'm pretty skeptical. I understand the appeal of the pledges to the long term, die hard fans. (Many of whom are now in their 40s.) But I think new players will want to know about graphics and gameplay.

I think showing how a group of players conquer and area and grow it into a town is compelling. But simply buying towns and houses really isn't.

 

My proposal is going along with the description of the Kickstarter pitch and the stretch goal, to allow for town sieges.

I own town X. And I have an access list to allow my guild/friends/etc in the town. But it isn't LOCKED. You're not on the access list. You can invade my hex. Maybe I have defenses like NPC towns. If you try to enter a restricted hex and you're not on the access list, then you get a warning. If you enter regardless of the warning, then you're flagged for PvP. The town defenses (paid guards, etc) will attack you. And players in the town can attack you to defend the town. But if you are successful in invading, then you can shut down town services with a successful raid.

 

@ashlynn
To be honest, I'm pretty excited about the add on store changes. Not that I will be making many purchases, but because it gives the community an opportunity to voice what they want developed by speaking with their purchases.

They don't just offer digital items with those purchases, they offer a deeper gaming experience when met. Something thats a little different than the existing store items.

Granted, it might take months or potentially years to meet some of the stretch goals but for the long run I think it will be a positive thing.

It also gives Portalarium a way to gauge the popularity of a stretch goal and it will allow them to plan ahead for its completion.

 

Player towns no longer can own a nd control the hex, but it seems that towns can be flagged and controlled for things like pvp ownership or wars.

 

I think the vast majority of people out there aren't going to drop hundreds of dollars on a game. That's why most games don't cost hundreds of dollars. The people with that sort of faith in Garriot and the team have already made those kinds of pledges so now I think they need to focus on bringing in more players who can only/are only prepared to pledge small amounts instead of trying to get people to spend thousands of dollars - something which is earning the game a reputation in some cirlces and not an entirely positive one. But as I said - there is no indication of any change in strategy besides "get people to pledge more."

That's a real head in the sand comment there in my opinion. Sure, it's not explicitly stated but it is heavily implied that they need more money to deliver throughout the entire post.

I'm not saying they should stop fundraising but I find their strategy at this stage questionable.

 

What would you suggest as an alternative?

There's a tradition at the place I work that I'm rather fond of. Don't bring a problem to the boss without a proposed solution.

 

In the first post of this thread, DarkStarr said the stretch goals from the Kickstarter will be developed first before any future stretch goals.

 

Check my unofficial FAQ,

PvP is slated for R11 currently.

 

Ok, I finally read al 10 pages.

@ Darkstarr
As for the Founder Pricing - I do not agree with it. As a Founder right now if I want to upgrade from Citizen to Knight, or Duke to LoTM, etc. I still have to pay Benefactor price because the April 7th deadline is now over. Period!!! So if you want Knight Marshal or Lord Marshal from whatever tier you are currently at, you pay just like an Adventurer to a Knight tier would. Just because the tier wasn't there before April 7th, doesn't mean you should get a discount now.

As for upgrading from Knight to Knight Marshal and from Lord to Lord Marshal, I do think there should be a Founder addition to the two new tiers. 1) Autographed Property Deed for Knight Marshal and Lord Marshal. 2) Exclusive Title:
Your in-game avatar will receive the honorific title of "Knight Marshal/Lord Marshal " to be proudly displayed in gold colored font for all to see (title visibility controlled by player). No special pricing, no discount, just pay the $2200 asking price.

I think this is fair. Not trying to open up the Benefactor vs. Founder wounds again, but Founders should be able to show their status in game even at the Knight or Lord Marshal tier with the gold title. At lease give us that. I also have to give credit to Koldar for asking about the signed deeds.

But I also noticed that the Knight's tier level does not get a signed deed? It's not in the pledge description anymore if they did? I thought they did, but not there now.

Now, for stretch goal store. How will this affect the Single Player Offline play? Will the full mounts and things be active or will that need to wait until the goal is met?

 

I don't want to open a can of worms but why is it questionable? Have you ever heard of a start-up and what they do to raise funds? Most start-ups lean on extremely rich people called Venture Capitalists to take a percentage ownership in the company and give nothing in return. Most companies only goal is not to actually turn a profit from sales but actually sell the company in something called an exit strategy to a bigger company. Most companies fail. An EXTREMELY slight percentage of the games that are developed are actually profitable and even fewer turn out to be EXTREMELY successful such as games like UO, EverQuest, WoW, and MineCraft. The thing that sets these games apart is that they had wide adoption early-on where most games do not. Minecraft was free early on and asked for no backers but it got a huge cult following quick. Ultima Online offered something that had never been seen before at that time and got huge publicity. Now anyone can build an MMORPG with a minimal amount of money but only a few have the backing to be successful. A great way to judge how well the game will be perceived is the community that backs it. If a game can raise $4mm without ever actually giving anyone a fully functioning game it shows they are on the right track but what next?

From the limited research I have done Portalarium isn't a big company and has very few titles. So what would you suppose they do? Build a bunch of small games that are moderately successful to raise the money? Go ask venture capitalists for the money and sell of a large percentage of their company? It's a gamble no matter what they do but at least by having the community help to fund it they know that there is a backing so that if they do need funding in the future they have solid backing to show.

And how does this help us gamers? We have the most valued properties and items in the game. If this game ever reaches over a million users just think of what your early backing was worth? If it never reaches that number and you chose to pledge a couple hundred bucks can you call it a loss? I know I have lost more at the casino in a weekend because I knew going in that if I lost it it wasn't going to change my life, but if it was successful I knew how much fun I would have (or profit I would gain).

 

My brain is still recovering from sifting through 60+ pages of the Dev+ megapost so forgive me if this has already been pointed out.

Personally I think palantirs sounds so much cooler but.. yeah.

Also I'm seriously not liking fixed skill affinities. Rather if we have those at all I'd rather to be able to someone choose. Especially for humans. My thinking on the matter is brought to you by this shameless plug.

Natural Talents/Skill Affinity (Dev+)

 

I don't care for demands. People ask, and devs take it into consideration and often have acted on many suggestions thus far. Demanding is entitlement. We are helping them fund their game, we are providing feedback - and they listen to our feedback. Just because I contribute to profit at work and have a voice in the way the company runs, doesn't mean I make DEMANDS from the boss. Demands and ultimatums are counter-productive. Constructive feedback is constructive.