Thoughts about Stretch Goals

I'm not sure how I think. I don't think that is a bad idea at all. However that might need further analysis to see if that would work.

I still think that if the stretch goals allow us to bump up our pledges then more people will buy into them. Why not? If we went by the traditional model we would be uping our normal pledges to gain stretch goals one by one.

So why not choose the stretch goal you like, but it still counts toward your pledge. That only sounds reasonable.

 

It seems to me that lots of threads are getting locked because of this talk. Can we give it a break? Lets not lock another please. *pleads*

 

Well we all screw up from time to time. So do we go forward or not? I could be just as mad as you, and have on occasion. Whatever the reason we can choose to back these guys or not.

If not then we are out of our luck. However they could still come through on these stretch goals, but have a little bit more time to do so.

They are raising money to be able to build the game we need. Which is not simple considering the small budget they have to work with.

 

Read the post I made earlier about what a kickstarter goal actually MEANS, it means the total amount of money NEEDED to provide the product. Not part of it, not a fraction, the total and the total they stated they needed was 1,000,000 which was provided. Everything else was a bonus and they stated that they could provide this if they had another million which was also provided.

 

In before the lock!

 

Woohoo, I haven't seen an IBTL since I used to frequent the Turbine forums...

 

Well technically they didn't reach the $2million on kickstarter.

Do you really want to get into that debate with them in 6 months? Let's spare us all some extra time, and lets have this project go forward. This 2 mil stretch goal will be nice if they finish most of it.

 

As far as words, and semi-promises, and all those changable things, lets just give it some grace. Let's see what happens. Right now they are focusing hard on combat.

Combat is a core game component. Lets join in on this and give them feedback while they do it.

 

Firstly that's irreverent, they stated that the money collected was across both kickstarter and the website, secondly do you remember a thread from Dalis where he decided to drop the 2.25 and 2.5 million even though the money had been raised? Even THEN they stated they would honor the 2 million. Sorry they used up there grace at that point

 

YEP. I remember it all as clear as day. You either have to accept it or be angry about it. There's no point in going nuts over it. They said what they said, and aparently things change. lets go forward. We don't know what will be delivered, but each release is better and better.

 

In fact we might not all interpret the stretch goal the same way! What if their interpretation is different than the majority of us, like the lighthouse thing? I think we gotta let it go.


EDIT: Got that in before the lock.

 

It seems like a lot of people are upset over unrealistic expectations. I don't want to do that anymore either.

 

It was made in one of the video interviews I watched on YouTube, I've watched close to 20 of these in the last few weeks so I don't remember clearly which one it was. I will start going back through those and see if I can find the link to the vid to post and post the timestamp when the comment gets made.

Depending on the circumstances of how a comment is made I give more or less leeway, a big post on an important topic gets less leeway on the accuracy of it's comments, whereas a 5 second comment in a vid that's a floor interview at a gaming or tech convention get's a great deal more. It has to do with how much time the commentator has to prepare the comment.

Can I ask in what manner the comment that horses were a never planned for the game was made?

The other thing that I consider especially when comparing two seemingly contradictory comments is the timing. This is the development process and it does change, so something that was decided a year ago may have changed at some point. As open as Portalarium is trying to be here (and I for one am enjoying the window on the process that we have) I don't expect to have access to or input on each and every single decision made. So that's another area where I give them some leeway.

I'll do what I can to find that comment, and for my other comments, as always YMMV

 

I'm wondering if you are mistaking a pledge for a purchase?

A pledge is where you voluntarily support something you wish to aid it's process, whatever that process may be. It is fairly common amongst all the various types of pledge drives to offer enticements to pledge at a higher level, for instance PBS has a similar system in it's pledge drives. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a voluntary form of support, you don't have to pledge if you don't want to support.

A purchase is where you voluntarily give money for the exchange of an item or service. You don't have to make said purchase but if you do you have the right to item offered for sale. If that item is unavailable or unusable you have the right for it to be replaced or your money refunded.

I don't look at the stretch goal pledges as purchasing the items being offered as inducements but as support for pushing these items up the development schedule to get them into the game in a timely fashion. As such I am only willing to pledge with money that I don't mind using as a donation, a willingly offered gift to aid in the creation of these items. I'm not forced to make these gifts and while I will enjoy the small inducements that are offered they aren't the reason I make such a gift.

As I've stated before my small knowledge of computer software design leads me to believe that the goal levels set for these features is a reasonable estimation of the development costs necessary to create these features. That coupled with the fact that Portalarium has stated that for any goal not met by the release of episode 1, I can change my gift into credits for the add-on store where I have made purchases and intend to make future purchases, seems pretty reasonable to me.

YMMV

 

I don't see this as an issue. I know of other KS drives where there were multiple income streams during the drive as well. On these drives where stretch goals, while not met by the official KS total but met once the other incomes streams were included, have either been indicated as stretch goal met or have had that stretch goal promise delivered. The Dust Babylon KS is one such case, they had a secondary "pledge through your local game store" drive at the same time and used both these streams to determine which stretch goals had been met.

The SotA KS page indicates the $2million goal as met. I've not seen any indication from Portalarium that they intend to renege on this promise. I will state up front that I've only just skimmed DarkStarr's recent posts over in the thread "So yet another unannounced change" so I may be incorrect. But on the face of it I see this as a complete non-issue.

YMMV

 

I'm not saying they never planned on reaching their goals. If they choose to deliver all of their stretch goals there still going to be people who complain because of one reason or another anway.

My point is that we could just come to the state of mind to give them an allowance to do what is important, build the game. Let's give them leeway to just build the damn game, and not nitpick over everything. If that's going to happen we will have to let go of some of our expectations. I'M TALKING ABOUT HELPING OURSELVES OUT MENTALLY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME LAYING OFF THEM.

 

Of course - and for the record, I agree that the amount of leeway that should be allowed on a particular statement varies with the circumstances.

My post, here, shows a couple of examples of how I got the original idea that horses would be included in a future episode. It was in this thread, which discussed the likelihood of ever seeing horses in-game.

In that same thread, @Caliya referenced a comment from @Chris that was posted on June 9 this year in response to complaints about the game on another website. That comment can be found here. In it, he says this:

"The stretch goals were things that were requested by players that we don't currently have in our scope. We have multiple fast travel system so mounts were not something we ever planned on having but players have requested them enough we are giving them an opportunity to demonstrate how many people really want them."

As Caliya stated:

Although I was disappointed, having hoped that some of the things in the stretch goal store would be implemented regardless at some future point, I would have to agree with her. As I'd said in my own post, it seemed reasonably logical to think that 'not for Episode 1' carried an implication that things would be in a future episode instead, but Chris states mounts were "not something we ever planned". It's a long and well thought out reply, not something dashed off in a hurry to respond to the original commenter, so I'd have to presume that some thought was given to it.

Of course, it may be that they've now changed their minds about not including mounts at all - I guess that would depend on the timing of Chris' comment relative to others.

I don't wish to sound like I'm accusing anyone of subterfuge - misunderstandings happen, and perhaps someone in Portalarium just needs to check their phrasing a little more carefully in future, to help avoid them?

Edit: Isaiah, I'm happy to give them the time they need to make the game we want. I'd just like some official clarification of when or if they intend to implement some of these things if the stretch goal is NOT met. I don't much care if it's not in Episode 1 - I want a working core game for that, and while a few bells and whistles would be nice they're not as important. It just needs to be good enough not to crash and burn in the reviews after release...

 

Thanks for clarifying things, Karrolanth. As I was basing my opinions off a spoken interview where the topic of horses was just brushed on lightly, it may well be that without a successful stretch goal we may never see horses in the game.

The fact that they responded to community interest and added it as a stretch goal is encouraging to me. I believe we're still closer to a year away from final release of episode 1 rather than 3 months, I think we still have lots of time to meet the goal.

For me horses isn't necessarily about fast travel, over short distances horses can be faster but over longer trips they really aren't that much of an increase. My desire for horses is based in functional and aesthetic reasons unrelated to travel speed and relies on my experience that travelling by horse can alter the gear you can take and how exhausting the trip is. Even then the benefits of horses is relatively small. On the aesthetic side, personally I find the view from the saddle always beats the view from my feet.

 

The current goal of multiple asset placements seems the most tacky of all. They seriously need so much funds for a technical marvel to simply enhance a system of lot placement that already exists?

 

I'd be ecstatic with $250k for the Boats stretch goal - it's currently at $500k.

Back to the Flexible Placement stretch goal - my primary interest is the Stable and it's ability to house mounts ( & pack animals I think). Currently the goal hierarchy is :

Mounts [ $250k ] --> Stable [ $250k] = $500k to have working stables for mounts
Pack animals [ $100k] --> Stable [ $250k] = $350k to have working stables for (fully functional ) Pack animals

Building stretch goals that synergize is a good thing , it gives people more incentive to string together goals that - in the end - give the initial goal more value. Also, players with a lot of yardage in their lots can set up "parking spaces" for mounts for other players without this facility & charge for the service as well.

The big question in my mind is what possible added functionality stables can add to the equation that will make meeting the $250k additional goal really worthwhile? If i can just let my pack animals & mounts roam safely & freely in my yard why should I bother worrying about meeting a stretch goal that's 2x or more the expense ( & effort )?