Thoughts about Stretch Goals

Do you have any experience in the software development field?

Do you have any experience running a business and providing all that is required for 30+ employees to be able to function?

If this goal was $25 000 and then because Portalarium understated the actual development costs for this feature, they gimped either this feature, or other core features, would you then complain about that?

If it seems 'tacky' please provide your reasons, if your reasons are based on feelings without experience I ask that you take some time to explore development costs, overhead costs & some of the challenges faced in software development.

Using KS as examples of stretch goals isn't truly valid as with a little research it's easy to find projects where unrealistic goals cause the projects to fail, greatly exceed their delivery dates or fail to provide all the features promised.

I have a few years experience from about 15 years ago, none of the stretch goals being offered seem out of line with what I'd expect in terms of true cost to develop, test and implement the features described.

The costs of development loosely are developer time, testing time and overhead. My experience leads me to understand that some rough estimates are that 'time to test development' = 'time to develop' & overhead = 'employee salary'. Remember that 'time testing' always adds to 'time developing' and is included in the 'time testing' factor.

Portalarium isn't hiring inexperienced people (and nor should they as I'm expecting a polished professional game and not some first time out indy game) and with the small team they have initial testing is being done by the devs themselves as best I can tell, let's use the industry average for game developers as the base dollar amount in the cost calculations. From this page and given a team of 1 Business/Legal, 5 Producers (Associate thru Executive), 2 Audio Designers (it always seems there's fewer of those guys) and 8 each of Programmers, Developers & Artists you get an average weekly salary of $1694 let's call it $1750 (I'm hoping Portalarium isn't treating their team as 'average'). Note that my math assumes a 50 week work year.

When you add overhead and test time to development time you get $7000/team member/week of development. Now lets build a team to work on a stretch goal. 1 Producer, & 2 each of Programmers, Developers & Artists, let's treat Business/Legal and Audio as incidental. That gives a total of $49,000 per week again lets round up a little to make it easy and cover any other incidentals I've missed and say $50,000/week for a team to work on stretch goals.

Given the current stretch goals it breaks down like this:

Boats........................$500,000 = 10 weeks development

Elves as a player race....$300,000 = 6 weeks development

Flexible placement.......$250,000 = 5 weeks development

Mounts......................$250,000 = 5 weeks development

Pack Animals...............$100,000 = 2 weeks development

Now these are numbers based off my WAGs (Wild A** Guess) but I'll gladly put them up against any of the other SWAGs (Silly Wild A** Guess) I've seen in this thread as to which is closer to reality.

I don't see the goals as being greedy, and I do see those who post "I want this feature but think that goal is too high" as possibly wanting something for nothing (or at least far less).

I would remind everyone these pledges are voluntary and should they succeed in getting features into the game for episode one that otherwise wouldn't have made it, then those who've pledged have benefited us all.

I'm more than welcome to discussing this with people who'll offer more than feeling and wild assumptions about the costs associated with these goals. Anyone else should really be asking 'Does posting feelings and wild assumptions really help the discussion?' Go ahead and post your feelings and wild assumptions just understand that it doesn't help you get taken seriously.

YMMV

 

Thank you for this good explanation

 

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not concerned with the costs. I don't doubt anything so far. I'm concerned with the approach to increasing funding and I'm concerned with my suddenly some implied core features are now stretch goals.

First point: it was stated that SOTA required around $5 million in funding for the game to be completed. Obviously with a +/-. The important part is that it met its Kickstarter goal. That means there is enough to FINISH this game. That is the principle of Kickstarter. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...iotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-whats-the-big-idea)

Second point: "The Ultimate RPG". This term was thrown around so much with so much implication that we'd see mounts and boats in the game. Perhaps not in the first episode, but at least in the next and at least part of the budget to launch the game. Then it (along with other goals) are announced later as entirely seperate features that might not even make it to the game.

You sound experienced with software development, so let's assume your assessment is correct. In that case it's understandable that unimportant features, such as multi-asset placement, become stretch goals. But why is there suddenly not enough for what were implied as core features. And sorry, "don't lawyer me bro" is not a valid excuse. That may be applicable for the specifics of a feature, but not the absence of features.

And this is before we even discuss the pricing of individual items of goals.

Now I don't have a terrible amount of experience in software development. But projects? You bet. The assets I work with start in the magnitude millions also. And when a client asks for a top of the line aircraft (at least as good as all the other aircraft out there) for $49 million, I don't then turn around and tell him the engines will cost a seperate $10 million, even though it was implied the aircraft would operate like any other aircraft prior. It's probably a little more technical than that, so I'd prefer my experience not be analysed here. I'm more concerned with what is going on with this campaign.

Either way, my experience is quite irrelevant at this point. As a simple consumer, it seems that far too much is implied for something that should be more defined as it is launched. It is a product, not an investment.

My ultimate gripe is the approach to these goals. Now people extended their initial pledges hoping to provide more for a better game. But our pledges essentially don't count. As the stretch goals are done completely different to a more successful approach such as what we've seen with Star Citizen. That is any purchases and pledges contribute to increasing the total budget of the game. And this is where my opinion is derived from. SC has enourmous success. It seems like SOTA wants to do things differently with clearly limited success. Those goals are hardly moving and they are features everyone should want. I don't have a problem with the pricing. I have a problem with the approach.

EDIT:

I suppose in retrospect, if I knew that this feature stretch goal direction was going to happen, my initial pledge would have been hundreds of dollars less. I'd have pledged enough to receive the premium game and then spent the rest donating on goals. But, like other projects, I assumed the goals would be part of the total funding, most were heavily implied as included and therefore I increased my pledge hoping to push the game further than it aimed.

And thank you for the concise estimates too. Especially if this is based on your own relevant experience. Hearing different perspectives, especially if they help redefine my expectations and what I consider a realistic perspective, is what I seek.

 

I'm sure this has being said before, but I want to say it again to add more volume to it:
Please please let me buy stuff from the add-on store and contribute to the stretch goal I want. You see, I have plans to spent a little more money on the game, and I also want to contribute to a stretch goal (Flexible placement), but the options I have don't interest me. What I care about is a new plot and new houses. I'm withholding the money for now since I don't have to spent it right away, one of the reasons being I was looking for flexible placement to have any interesting stuff to sale (for my interests there isn't).

But why does it have to be connected? I'm willing to support the game a little further and I want to support a stretch goal, but the rewards I get from it are not very interesting right now.

 

The horse & packhorse's will be summoned creature's so if you have a stable it will only contain a non usable animal, this is not UO. Most MMO's now use a summoned mount once you dismount it vanishes.

 

Where did you read this? So just to clarify, in other words, we're getting the same "magic mount" mechanic we see in other games?

 

On Darkstar's post New Pledges

See below copied from that Post.

STRETCH GOAL STORE ITEMS:

• Horse Mounts (non combat): Goal = $250,000
  • Description: Players can ride horses around the game!
  • Rules:
    • There will be some kind of summon mount emote / key
    • When mount appears you automatically vault into the saddle
    • Cannot fight while mounted. If you are hit / enter combat while on horseback you are knocked from your horse
    • Mounts cannot be ridden indoors or underground
  • Mounts Stretch Goal Full Package: $100 (package discount)
    • White Foal (baby horse) non-combat pet: $20
    • Black Foal (baby horse) non-combat pet: $20
    • Buckskin Foal (baby horse) non-combat pet: $20
    • Riding Outfit Female: $20
    • Riding Outfit Male: $20
    • Saddle House Decoration: $10

 

Hi this is my first visit and i'm feeling well after reading members reviews