Trust and Doing the Right Thing (regarding Early Founder Pledge Gifts/Transfers)

Interesting subject - thought I might voice my opinion.

At first look wagram is right - the quotes posted by dallas are indeed from the period after the KS campaign ended; that is, after all pledges were paid for. So you might make the case that the "contract" (so to speak) between project creator & backers was unilaterally changed by Portalarium without giving a chance for original backers to withdraw their pledges if they did not agree with the changes.

However, a careful look at Kickstarter's Terms of Use reveals that there is a legally binding contract between creators and backers based on rewards. This means that backers are entitled to whatever the creator promised during the original Kickstarter campaign - it does not say anything on exclusivity or that only backers should get the rewards. What this means, in practical terms:

- Creators can sell anything they want off Kickstarter, related to a KS project or not, including the original KS rewards
- Original backers are entitled to at least everything the creator promised during the campaign at the previously agreed pledge levels and amounts - anything less is a breach of contract
- However, if the project fails or the creator is not able to fulfill the promised rewards - only Kickstarter backers are entitled for a refund from the creator

So it all ends up on whether exclusivity is considered a reward or not. I think it is very difficult to make a case for the first, as there are several cases of successful KS projects that were turned into retail products - exclusivity in this case would mean that only KS backers are entitled to it, which is certainly not in the spirit.

To sum it up: although KS backers have the right to demand that the project rewards are delivered exactly as promised, they do not, however, have the right to demand that anyone else do not get the same rewards at the same or even different conditions they originally got. Very important to note: Kickstarter aims to bring a project to fruition, it is not a marketplace for products - these are very different concepts with very different implications.

Just my two cents

 

When talking lots and houses, i dont think they are items in a pack. they are items attached to the account. they can be given away, sold in game (with "Tax" to act as a gold sink), etc. Not sure, but im guessing via a menu interface.

They are not bound, but dont think its possible to take them either. Although having little model houses could be fun for decorating!

 

What I meant was in the form of deeds when I was mentioning lots and housing. The "what not" was in reference to the prosperity items.

 

I'm split when it comes to the items being bound / unbound. I think its fairly obvious that anything that identifies you as a Founder (KS/N) should be account bound and unable to be given to another player or sold. Such as your shields and armor, starter gear, crown etc. That already isn't the case with the two plants where you can give the seeds to other people. I'm not sure if its one of those cases where when you use the plant it dies, gives you a seed and cycles or it actually can spread to all the people who get seeded. And the Darkstarr salute is teachable which surprised me.

Items off the Item Store itself, I have no issue with being unbound. Retain them as being unlootable but allow them to be securely traded player to player. Its how players that aren't able to afford to buy things with RL money can still gain them through ingame money or services. However I've seen hyperinflation happen or trouble balancing the value of something in real $ versus game gold. I guess we'll get an idea of the values once we know how much lots will cost ingame so we can compare them to the hundreds or thousands of dollars they go for in the item store.

 

Why bother implementing crafting into the game at all then, we can sit back let someone buy us everything we need from the shop and sell them to us all for worthless in game gold, I think maybe they would want some real $$ for doing that.
So what do we do with all the wood/iron/hides we get just dump them because none will want to buy your Pickaxe of Grinding when they can have a Prosperity one that never needs repair.

 

I concede the point with the Prosperity items. I'd been thinking more of the deeds / houses / random objects d'junk from there. I'd been under the impression Prosperity was primary for the base gathering resources (your larch, iron and rabbit hides) rather than the more exotic or important resources (ironwood, orichalcum, dragon hide) which would require more advanced gathering implements that they'd need to craft.

Having unbreakables is unusual for me to see on the store.

 

Many games with F2P components operate this way with no problem.

In SWTOR, Cartel Coins cost real money. Some players spend real currency on the cartel market to turn around and sell those items for in game currency. Players over time effectively establish market price for much in game currency they're willing to spend for cartel market items.

The system only continues to work like that so long as players on both sides feel like continuing at those rates. If people aren't spending more real currency, then these items don't end up being sold for in game currency.

That being said, cartel market items can't be crafted, and usually are vanity/appearance items. With SotA, the "Prosperity" items can be crafted in game (or equivalents). There is less incentive to spend real money, since the item will likely be worth less in game currency when others are crafting them.

 

Nice Post I'm sure Kickstarter will be very pleased that a company as decided it can create its own rules and run a separate funding campaign during the Official Kickstarter campaign, which could lead to a lot of damage to the crowdsourcing public that support 1000's of projects a year. And damage Kickstarters credibility.

Now if Bethesda/Turbine/EA games offered a pre order deal were you get a few extra perks before a certain date, then 2 days after the close said we had a few people that wanted to buy some extra's for family & friends but were a bit short of cash so out of the goodness of our hearts we have decided to extend the offer for one year plus we will also give a $25 reward plus a couple of perks not even those that pre ordered early will get.
I have read many posts calling Publishing houses in the forums so the chances of them making a mistake like that are unlikely.

Portalarium are developing this game. They are also the Publishers of this game so should take that responsibility and get things right, they have worked and dealt with Publishers s in their time would they say its ok if it was them making the mistake.

 

Many of you seem to hold opinions on various aspects of this situation which is no surprise.

But for me it isn't about ingame items or houses. It's more that while some of us scraped up what we could in REAL cash to support the kickstarter project, especially during that last 24 hour push - and also keep in mind not all of us have huge disposable incomes, we have others here who are blatantly exploiting this system for their own personal gain. Then those people have the gall to claim they are doing it for the good of the game. And on top of that this behavior is not only being condoned but is being facilitated through the official marketplace forum.

You think that isn't going to leave a bitter taste in some people's mouths? Seriously?

 

Yup, it's this lack of integrity that makes it harder to "just let it go." It is kind of shady for backers to do this on a large scale but whatever. Portalarium's decision to make this a matter of policy moves into "fairly shady" territory. We'll see what they do this Spring when the promotion is over. They have a chance to really turn this around for the better. I know that it will be challenging to attract people without making those of us that have already kicked in with almost nothing to show for it.

I recommend that you put together some sort of focus group that includes backers and perspective backers to help you put together a compelling package that will attract new players and possible tempt some of us to throw in some more.

 

I'm not ready to assume anything on the part of Portalarium, but I agree that integrity is the topic of concern. This has already been stated before in this thread (and in others), but the same people keep accusing anyone open to discussing this topic of being selfish and greedy, so its worth saying again:

This isn't a matter of pixels, exclusivity, or unhappy backers. Its a discussion about the implications of prior mistakes and how to address them, not for the individual's sake, but for Portalarium's sake.

 

And integrity rightfully is the topic of concern because the ends justifying the means does not really inspire confidence. Look at the history of Portalarium for one. Their pilot game is a quick cash grab casino game (which apparently must still be pulling in money). Then they come up with another Facebook game, Ultimate Collector: Garage Sale, only to rake in money through a collaboration with Zynga before discontinuing it. I don't blame anyone for being wary about Portalarium's business practices. Hell, I'm bracing for the news that SotA development is being discontinued after episode 1 in order to help fund a space training camp for space tourists.

 

They've openly said this came about as part of a bug in their website software.

Attacking their integrity seems unfounded.

 

Like you, I don't have a huge disposable income like others do. This is why I utilize this system in place to help me bridge the gaps between certain pledge tiers. It seems to make me feel a whole lot better instead of bashing the creators for making a single mistake way back during Kickstarter. There comes a point where people just need to forgive others, not because they deserve forgiveness, but because you deserve peace.

 

Saying that I was attacking them seems unfounded.

 

You said they lacked integrity and this policy was shady. How is that not an attack?

 

I explained that I feel that a display of lack of respect for those with limited resources contributing also showed a lack of integrity in my opinion. It was also my opinion that this policy is shady (glitch or no.) If expressing my opinion of their actions or lack there of is an attack on Portalarium would that make their lack of respect or negligence however you want to look at it an attack on us? Seriously. I am just pointing out what they did and talking about how I feel about it. They made a mistake or something. I don't think either of us are attacking each other.

 

For the sake of worthwhile discussion, here is the bulk of the foundation for a casual consideration of, and not an attack on, Portalarium's integrity (in chronological order):

1. Portalarium publicizes their prior endorsement of Founder gifting.
2. A few people accuse Portalarium of selling out their Founders by allowing new backers to gain Foundership.
3. Portalarium kindly explains that, in the KS, the bonus ability to gift Founder pledges to players after the deadline, is present, and has been present since the before the deadline.
4. Players rejoice (except for wagram).
5. Everyone moves on, and Portalarium gives some loot to their now "Royal Founders".
6. Wagram keeps raising his point, to the discontent of others, and a new question surfaces.
7. Being that Portalarium had promised a mechanism for the generation of founder pledges after the KS, why did they also market these pledges as "Kickstarter-Only"?

1-6 is old news, but 7 is the current point of consideration. Going from there, I think its safe to assume that Portalarium made an oversight by not predicting how players would use their gifting powers for profit, and as such, didn't realize how available Founder pledges would be after the deadline. I don't blame them for making a human error, and I commend them for trying to make it right. At this point, I'm more worried about what we're going to do when Darkstarr slays Lord British.

So that means that I'm actually defending Portalarium's integrity, but that isn't the point. The point is that we should be able to discuss controversial topics without stigmatizing them.

 

It is only shady or lacks integrity if it wasn't a glitch and they intentionally lied. There is no evidence this is the case. Accusing them of lying is an attack on their character.

Once they discovered the glitch, what should they have done that wouldn't be shady in your eyes?

Should they have told players who had Founder rewards they suddenly would no longer have this rewards? Should they have penalized people who pledged these to others? Wouldn't this piss more people off in the long run and hurt the project?

RG has decades of history of being transparent and honest in dealing with his fans. He continues to do so with this community. Attacking the integrity of his company is out of line.

 

He still posts on here? I put him on my ignore list months ago.