This will break the game. And no, I'm not trolling.

Here let me compare this a little:

"What am I missing? As long as people are able to strangle each other, murder is going to be part of life, there is nothing you can do to stop it.... kinda logical "

It is simply a question of what the majority of players want to regard as acceptable.

 

I haven't written any negative reviews. I'm just speaking the truth. In fact I'm a big supporter of this game and come on these threads with postitive new ideas. I don't come on here to troll.

Tell me what's wrong with saying Selling Gold is equivalent to selling power?

 

Nothing wrong with your opinion........however ........

"It should be plane as day to see that selling gold is selling power. If it isn't then I will encourage everybody on this site to comment on every website that does a review of SotA and tell the world to WATCH OUT THEY SCAMMED US. "

.....Is just plain wrong and a selfish act.

 

These actions should be expected in any public campaign, I'm not stating that @Isaiah is selfish, all I'm saying is that taking actions that alienate certain sectors of your player base has consequences ...

I personally would not promote SoTA to other players from other games I play ... Portalarium selling gold in game seems counter to my personal preference

I know Portalarium has not made a public statement on the issue but I'm letting them know how it would affect me as a player

I also want to reiterate that I am a supporter of the store and means for Portalarium generating funds post launch of episode one but I strongly feel that selling gold in game is a huge mistake

 

I dunno, I think people will formulate their own opinions if they want to buy gold and what that will mean in their gaming experience. We won't need people yelling it from the rooftops. The game reviewers will do that job quite nicely.

 

If a games gets developed in a way in which someone disagrees with....... There is a huge difference between not promoting the game because it no longer has your interest.....compared to actively discouraging people playing, giving bad reviews and basically stating that the business scammed people.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, there will be just as many people who agree with purchasing gold or who don't even care about it compared to those who strongly disagree. In development you can't please everyone, and if something occurs that you view as a "show stopper".... Just walk away, you don't have to play.....and remember there will be many players who will enjoy it.

Once again no one has even said that this is even going to happen, I just find it a little sad due to the persistent negative assumptions and that some people act like the development team haven't hot a clue what they are doing.

 

@darkstarr @richardgarriot @chris @dallas @firelotus

I have liked everything in this game so far except a few issues that I made sure to give them my honest feedback on. These are the issues that are my only concerns to date (#'s 1-3 are resolved for me personally):

1. most of us were under the impression that lighthouses on a waterfront would be an addition to our house on our waterfront property, not an either or. So we pledged with this hope. (oh well they are making up for it with good waterfront properties)
2. We were told on a live dev hangout that Tracy Hickman would start delivering chapter of the book back in July, but instead we hear nothing from him until he launched his own kickstarter for his board game (I felt like that his earlier promise should have taken priority, but oh well I put it behind me, and now the book is really good so far so all's well).
3. We were told that dev+ would be privy to development information, and be updated on development weekly (we complained, but "they did listen" and started doing more dev+ stuff. I think it's mutually beneficial for all.).
4. HOWEVER Above all we were told there will be no selling of power. I WOULD NEVER HAVE PLEDGED IF I THOUGHT THEY WOULD SELL GOLD. This would be the worst lie of all. (so Portalarium please listen this time too, and come up with a compromise that is mutually beneficial for all of us)

Truth is they have been listening, and I'm not hear to lie to them and pat their back and hope everything turns out. I'm here to express my concerns so they can get good feedback. Nobody likes to be the one to share a bad report or speak up when it might make them look like the bad guy. I'm no different.

Maybe most people are hoping Portalarium falls in love with them because they praise them and never say anything bad at all... who knows these do-gooders might be hoping that they will get a free upgrade to Duke or at least worst case they don't get their account messed up because they weren't a troll on the forums. (I Hope they don't hate me either, but I would rather take the chance to speak the truth).

So yes I am taking a risk by speaking like this on the forums. They might not like me, but if they want to get good feedback they ought to take all of our opinions into account (especially the ones that we are passionate about because there are likely many others who are too scared to say anything that might be interpreted as contrarian).



***************

My reason is simple. I'm not concerned about my pledge, because that money is already gone. I'm concerned about the game's success. If people pooh pooh the game and don't play, then what kind of ongoing multi-player experience will there be? What will PvP be like if people quit after playing the storyline? And what's the likelihood that another game will actually have a classless system and has as good of a storyline, and has selective multi-player, and all the other cool things SotA brings to the table (just minus the selling of power)? Not very likely!

See the thing is Portalarium makes money if people stay or leave (one time fee). However I'm of the belief that they would make more money if people stick around because the more people who stick around and keep playing the greater the numbers of people who buy stuff in the online store over time. So don't run people off by selling gold, and being greedy, or speaking half-truths. Be open AND HONEST with us Portalarium.

 

The Dev team can act to resolve some of these issues ... problems arise when they are not forth coming with information ... not sure why they don't, I really try not to worry too much about it

... I assume that they have their reasons ... but this topic is one that they can release info now as apposed to later; and there is reason for concern considering that LG is not apposed to "facilitating" the process as a means to "discourage" gold farming ...

the logic eludes me when you consider possible negative repercussions to the game-play experience (which is what I care about the most - a game that is still a game - not one influence by who has the most cash)

 

ABSOLUTELY AGREE! Having done software development/engineering for 20 years, I can absolutely, empirically say this is an inherent truism, and not just in development or design =0

However, I can also say, without proper communication, to whomever the client(s) are e.g. executives, investors, etc..., leaving things as black holes in the design process, leads to the exact result you are seeing now.

I realize, they have stated they are "discussing" it internally. Well, this is 8 months after the design process had started. One could already throw up a red flag right there and say this is a fundamental question they should have answered before the KS even started.

To have a non-answer at this point does not inspire confidence.

Well, like I said, maybe they do, maybe they don't. Letting things hang is not good for anyone. This type of non-committal communication, after a half-cocked statement was made, has been seen quite a few times at this point. This just keeps happening again and again.

I understand the fluid nature of design AND development. The ones where there were no plan, very hectic. Kind of seeing the same reactions here, no time to talk, quick answers to satiate a group of people, and long periods before you have a proper answer to resolve the acrimonious dispute that brews between.

I have also seen what proper roadmaps, design documents, requirement analysis, etc etc... bring to the table.

That is not to say they do not have a system internally, nor that they are potentially disorganized.

But we are missing some really fundamental answers for things that should have been in the core design of the project at this point.

I am sorry for all the people who will dismiss my post out of sheer faith, and those that will argue with me even with 2 decades of actual experience in the same field of software production (and don't fool yourself, software is software, design is design).

But I know quite a number that absolutely agree from what we are seeing out here.

 

I couldn't agree more with Isaiah's post.

These parts above especially. No one who is raising objections (me included) wants to chase off customers or be seen as a troll or bad guy, including the OP. These concerns absolutely must be raised. It's the least they owe backers, transparency. How can anyone make an informed decision if they plan to invest more in a game or not if they don't have all the facts? It's not possible.

If we're all silent, and just keep nodding our heads, we might be popular with others that this doesn't matter to, we might not have our posts closely watched and under suspicion of sabotage.

You know, many of us have actual valid concerns that should be answered sooner rather than later. And not using some post with alleged "democratic" voting rights, that's buried deep in thousands of threads, just to be able to connect with the management team to ask the question.

 

They have already stated that they will not discuss this topic for the moment and that it will be addressed later. Like with all areas that are not released when the public want for which I'm sure they have many good internal reasons.

I think that some people could consider that the game design is a democracy ........ It isn't really, however, they have a plan, they share it, change it and draw on some feedback and take everyone with them on the experience. I don't believe that their business plan falls into the same 'sharing' category.

 

You also quoted only a portion of my post (which has 6 likes so far). You provide no context.

This type of comment is an example of a manipulation technique used to villanize a person who is making a good point. Twist the meaning and change the focus of the conversion by focusing on a snipet of what was said.

I hope poralarium reads all of the comments and makes their own decisions. I also encourage all of the readers of this forum to also read the posts all the way through before making any decisions and what is right or wrong.

 

I agree that some business decisions have to be first made in house ... totally get that ... however they could also put out a document that states when they plan to address matters ...

Even if they come to us and say, we are not ready, we will push back our response to this date ..

The issue for me is "how" they are handling the matter; being non committal on a reasonable question is not a good communication practice

 

I'm glad you shared your opinion. I'm operating on Lord British's own desire that he wanted to listen to the community and make the kind of game we wanted.

So let them listen and use whatever they want to use, if they don't like our opininon fine but I will not be silenced by somebody who doesn't like my opinion.

Are you a member of Portalarium? If you are then turn on your red name, otherwise we all ought to share our opinions and hope for the best. I respect your opinion, so please do the same with me without making personal attacks thank you.

 

They have backers to answer to if they want a successful game. But apart from that, no one asked for a democracy. We asked for transparency so we can know what to do, or not to do, with our investment dollars.

 

Being non-committal is better for fundraising. The more people can fill in the blanks with their own wants and desires, the more likely they'll throw down money on the project.

 

And then again, it could be a pot/kettle thing.

 

In which case you should consider how you post.

Like many people I skim read and extract the highlights. Your post translates into:

- I don't agree with the sale if gold
- I view sale of gold as a show stopper
- I will not promote the game if I beleive a show stopper as been built into the game
- I will actively seek to post negative feedback about the game if I view a show stopper is built
- I will happily and publicly call Portalarium "scammers" if I see a show stopper
- I want the game my way or not at all
- I don't care if others still like the development or not


That is how your post translates.

 

In particular, any traditional investor would have wanted that information as part of their business plan and any software publisher would have either wanted a concept or told them that they will be in charge of that aspect and that the publisher will call the shots on the business model.