Stretch-Goal Store + Pledge = win/win

Yep, it's a lot of detail. There's a certain "other game" where characters (up until 2 years ago, IIRC) stood on the horses. Like circus riders. And horses get stuck in water, even very shallow puddles. While this game is not as professionally run as SoTA, it's been years like this and is apparently a huge pain to code. I'll be happy with foals as pets, though I kind of wish that Portalarium was not listening to all the demanding backers and trying to make everyone happy. (Even me)

 

This is my concern also. I don't think Portalarium is setting those costs looking to make a profit, at least i hope they are not. I just do not understand how this can cost so much.

 

I dunno, just feels that some of the marketing is just a little strange at times. The most popular stretch goal by far will be mounts and that has already fizzled out, less and less people will be tempted by this.

It's also like the 10% addition to pledge value.......one of my accounts is at Lord level, this offer doesn't tempt me in the slightest to upgrade to Lord Marshall because I don't save a penny, it just means I end up with pledge worth slightly more than required. I decided last week to start my 7th account because I fancied a row house at Ancestor level, I just pledged up to Patron and il top it up later. I honestly believe a nice simple 10% off pledges would have a much greater impact or even the 10% going as credits to the ingame store.

 

I think the prices are intentionally set that high and not all of that money would go towards that particular stretch goal. But as long as it helps the game ...

I see it that way:
Customer asked for feature.
Portalarium says, we do not want to implement this feature (either in Episode 1 or forever).
Portalarium now offers a compromise with the stretch goals related to these mostly asked features.
And for sure, implementing these features is a lot of work outside of the original plan, so don't make them reachable too easy, hence the high total. If enough customers vote with their money pro stretch goal, Portalarium will bite the sour apple and integrate this feature on top.
Which I think is fine.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

I too have doubts about the costs they do seem rather high. I mean I understand implementing these things is not easy or free but still the prices definitely seem to high. I mean I think it would be more reasonable for instance for both mounts and pack animals to be $250,000 total that I could see. $300k for elves seems a bit high too but I guess it depends on exactly what they would do with an elf player race. I mean it could mean a whole bunch of new story quests have to be made and so on. Not to mention would there be any elven cities? and so on. It would be nice if maybe someone from Portalarium broke down the costs that could go along way towards helping us understand why these things are costing so much.

 

And that is exactly what I'm concerned about. Set prices so high that it raises funds but would take so long to hit that the goals would be programmed inline with episode 2 (probably exactly what I would do if it were my business).. At which point you could argue that they were already planned into the build.

If the prices that are set are realistic then fine....at which point I would say they need to have a re-think on raising funds becuase this simply isn't working. The die hard fans will always buy the items, it isn't those who need to be convinced.

 

Bad idea.

Instead what the devs should do is make stretch goals more appealing so if people are making choices between pledges and tiers, there's equal reason to pick either or. Right now, I agree that if you have an extra $20 or so and it's going to move you to the next pledge tier, that's the way to go. But if the stretch goals offered more than, for example, a choice of saddle bag house decorations, then maybe it would make more sense to pick the stretch goal.

The whole idea is to make these choices harder, not easier.

 

I don't know about Austin cost of living, but that seems about right (salary plus benefits, etc). We also have to take into account that each 'extra' will push the release date back a bit or require a lot of overtime and rushing. So we're talking extra bills: rent of possible extra space, utilities, extra computers, the cost of taking time to hire more people.

I think it's actually good that gamers see what each game can and does cost. So many people these days are on the 'games should be free/cheap' wagon, because they don't see what it all costs. Lots of studios do have plenty of money, sure, but it's not all a fast way to earn the big bucks.

 

I feel that they honestly don't want to have any of the stretch goal store items in episode one ..

I think the unrealistic price is unrealistic for a reason, and thats why for 20 bucks you can have a horse neah a Foal for your yard or to follow you around .. Its a good idea from a business standpoint as if you pay for example a painter 200 bucks to paint your living room but found out said painter painted some elaborate painting that he or she has no intention to reproduce anytime soon .... that person would say hmm yes I painted that ... and no i don't plan to do another or one right now because I am busy with x amount of projects . If you said aww come on . .. he/she would finally say NO! or to keep it friendly and you a client they would say Weeeellll , if you wanted that it would cost you 7 k .....nowing you would say Oh! no thinks please continue with our current agreement .

 

That makes some sense to me. But then I think about Star Citizen.

47 Million! Really?

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

Look at those stretch goals. They're all like 250k-500k apart from one another. That's completely consistent with what SOTA is doing...only 1) SOTA is not Star Citizen as it doesn't have $47 Million, and 2) SOTA is only now beginning to segment money between overall pledges and new stretch goals.

So I like your reasoning a bit...but I really think that SOTA is just trying to find new ways to crowd source this project.

 

This here may very well be true.
I think Chris Roberts of Star Citizen has said something like a crowdfunded AAA game (whatever a AAA game is) would require about 25 million dollars.

I don't think many people that joined the Kickstarter expected a AAA game (I didn't anyway).
But the SotA Kickstarter never gave any indication that if the Kickstarter goal was only "just" reached the game produced would be a barebones, graphically low quality game that one e.g. would not be able to jump in with your character.

How are we who are not developers supposed to know what amount of money is needed?
We can only calculate the basics, like salaries multiplied with employees, rent etc, and even that would be pure guesswork.

If person I have faith in says an apple costs 2 dollars I believe him.
I have faith in Richard Garriot and hope he will succeed brilliantly in this endeavor.

 

I saw people suggest that stretch goal store should add to your pledge tier and the response that this would impact past people upgrading.

I think you should be able to go to a stretch goal page and spend money towards that goal by:
1. Purchase stretch-goal specific add-ons.
2. Upgrade your pledge through that section (just regular rewards but you are choosing a specific goal)
3. Purchase store-items through that stretch goal section - make those items non-refundable.

If I go buy 10 Baron Accounts, aside from the physical items that need to be produced, this should not cost Portalarium any more to provide than if I go spend 38k in the stretch goal store on foals. Even if they only let 60% of a pledge upgrade go to a stretch goal - this would provide more meaningful ways to push for a stretch goal than buying, say 1500 foals.

 

As for the amounts of money required for the stretch goals in the stretch goal store, I think they seem quite accurate.

But I am quite sad that they chose the stretch goal store way of trying to get stretch goals funded.

I have written elsewhere that I believe Star Citizens voting system for the next stretch goal is a better way,
where every single dollar spent on anything is also bringing us closer to the next stretch goal (like during the Kickstarter).
(I apologize for repeating it here, I won't do it again)

And in such a voting system the required funds for a stretch goal would probably have to be double to what they are in the stretch store today, to be able to go towards normal development as well.
But that wouldn't have been a problem because every dollar would have counted.
And everyone would feel that they contribute to the next goal regardless of what they purchase.

But Portalarium knows about that way and they don't like it for some reason.
They must feel the current stretch store way gives them more control of where the money goes or something.
And after a certain point in time you can't change ways even if perhaps you want to.

Unfortunatley the stretch store way moves so slowly in comparison to the other every dollar counts way that that in itself make one (me atleast) feel something is wrong.

 

My husband brought up this topic of realism in reaching the horse mount stretch goal the day before you posted this. Horses! Or maybe not?

He's a physicist and always calculating and would be a good stock broker if his conscience would allow it. (It doesn't) He's been following the dollar amounts generated every day. So yes, you're right, it could take more than 2 years to reach those goals at the stretch rate, and that's on the more positive side. It could take far longer than that, if ever, on the negative side of calculations.

Nothing is said about what those dollars will be used for if stretch goals aren't met. No deadline has been set, so it could be left in limbo indefinitely? People get non-functional items for their dollars if the goal isn't met.

One of the things I said (not in that thread but another that got deleted) was horses do not seem to be bringing in new backers but making new backers invest more. I said it less tactfully. I would think they want to focus on bringing in more backers under the pledge tiers, as you suggest. Not straining the pocketbooks of current backers, that is sure to leave a bitter taste, especially if things don't pan out.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you don't want them to use your pledge money for development of systems you don't want (I'm assuming horses, or stretch goal items). So in the previous comment, when you say they should not be separate, that's the part that confuses me.

The stretch goals are separate from pledge tiers, so that they don't spend dev costs on things other people don't want, but only on the item that investors want.

The real question in my mind is, what happens to those stretch goal dollars if the goal isn't met? Someone pays full price for the promise of a useful element, but only gets a fairly useless item instead. In other words, it's a gamble. It seems reasonable to ask that the money is attached to the pledge tier, but that could only happen if they decide to abandon the stretch goal because it will take way too long, if ever. But I believe they think getting a cosmetic item is still what you get for the money you invested if it doesn't achieve the stretch goal.

This way, pledgers aren't investing in development of items they don't want. I think the main problem is they set the bar way too high to reach the stretch goal. It shouldn't cost that much to develop a rideable mount, for example. Two programmers for a full year shouldn't cost $250,000 so the only conclusion I can draw is they really are trying to make a huge profit.

 

Cool video. Makes me think someone's probably already developed a horse package for the software package they use, and it would probably just be a matter of purchasing that package, not designing it from scratch. But what do I know? I have no insider knowledge if they want to hire someone to program horses from scratch. I only know there's a horse already in the game in Owl's Head.

 

And yet, they have all kinds of endless resources to continue, with every single update, to add house after house. The KS didn't mention such extensive housing, and personally, I think they've invested way, way too much time in housing.

 

Maybe they should've created an actual bare minimum game before stretching themselves "too thin" and continuing to add items before even meeting original goals?

 

Me either, so they shouldn't have said so.

 

An unreachable stretch goal price is not a reasonable compromise.

 

I'll tell you why...

Greed.

Portalarium is asking us to pay for 100% of their development costs. Not only do they get to socialize the risk, but they also get to privatize the profits. Most crowdfunding campaigns are used to raise money to help fund product development and backers are almost always given products at or below cost in exchange for the very real benefit to the business of minimizing risk in the new endeavor. That arrangement has always been part of the ethics of crowdfunding and it is the pattern you will see time and time again.

Here, what is happening is they are expecting us to pay for products well above their cost to produce, and there's an additional in-built chance that their value will be almost completely lost if a certain arbitrary but artificially high dollar amount is not reached in the overall fundraising for that category of product. In effect, they are profiting off the fundraising phase and that is dubious.

If saying that gets me banned, then so be it.