Crowfall aka Play2Crush aka Shadowbane II aka Nostalgia Online

[Malakili]

Variations on a theme, then.

[schild]

You have to wonder if all of this is just planned from the beginning and they assume it will be better for the buzz surrounding the project if they low ball it, then add in all the stuff they wanted to do anyway as "stretch goals" so it looks like the thing is overperforming instead of just barely meeting the base goal.

This is how every gaming kickstarter should be run. Strip the description, add features already planned as stretch goal. Then announce you're making them anyway even if you don't hit the stretch goal. Cults support that sort of behavior.

[LC]

I thought kickstarter was a good idea in the beginning. A tool to help indie developers fund projects that would otherwise never be made. Now it's just a scheme for industry vets to milk more money from gamers by selling off things that were given out for free in the past.

[Paelos]

You have to wonder if all of this is just planned from the beginning and they assume it will be better for the buzz surrounding the project if they low ball it, then add in all the stuff they wanted to do anyway as "stretch goals" so it looks like the thing is overperforming instead of just barely meeting the base goal.

Of course it's planned. They had a number in their head (I'm guessing 4-6M) that it would take it get it done. I think $8M is probably more realistic, but we'll see. They already had about $3M in venture capital with their initial pull and the extra investor money. The Kickstarter puts them in that area they need to make the core game in their mind.

I don't think the KS will get above 2M, which is what I'm guessing is the ceiling. Probably around 1.5M is more likely when they finish. It's still more than enough for a small team to work for a couple of years without worrying about payroll. I think hiring more staff after the KS was always the plan, because they need polish teams for the polish items.

[Nija]

It just seems disingenuous to have a kick starter for the 'core game' and not an actual game. They know and even SAY that the amount on kick starter won't be able to fund the entire game. They went with a safe amount that would possibly get funded and that is all.

It's like you're participating in a kick starter for the Unreal Engine, but somehow you were tricked to believe you were backing Unreal Tournament.

[Threash]

The core game is an actual game though, the rest is just extra rulesets.

[Draegan]

A lot of you are making assumptions. The core game is the player housing section and the free for all PvP world with various rulesets and win conditions.

What stuff isn't included is the faction stuff and gvg stuff.

[Gimfain]

I think its good that they did a kickstarter for the game. People have asked for PvP sandboxes for quite some time and said they would pay for it, and now they can. I haven't seen anything in the pledges that will ruin the game for those that don't pledge.

The benefits of kickstarter far outweighs the failures, and usually its incompetence and not malicious intent that cause kickstarters to fail.

[Merusk]

I think its good that they did a kickstarter for the game. People have asked for PvP sandboxes for quite some time and said they would pay for it, and now they can.

And in incredibly small numbers but with large payouts. Almost $100 per backer. Kinda proving that it's a small but vocal group that's always been asking for these games. I hope it works for them, because they're going to need to lean on those whales long-term.

[Teleku]

Looking back, average pledge for major single player games on kickstarter (wasteland and project eternity and the like) range in into the $50 to $60 range per pledge.  For games they know they'll be able to get on steam for $20 to $30 (and then much cheaper within months). When you bring in the online aspect (and thus longer term gain) people are going to shell out more.  Average on hex was almost $130.  

Hell, the average pledge across all of kickstarter for all projects in history comes out to around $75 a pledge.  It's the nature of the beast.  People who use kickstarter are doing so to either support an idea and/or hope to gain all sorts of limited perks and collectable shit.  Most people who just look at kickstarter as a preorder opt out, not want to risk it.  

So I don't really think you can judge much based on kickstarter averages for most projects.

[Tannhauser]

I think its good that they did a kickstarter for the game. People have asked for PvP sandboxes for quite some time and said they would pay for it, and now they can.

And in incredibly small numbers but with large payouts. Almost $100 per backer. Kinda proving that it's a small but vocal group that's always been asking for these games. I hope it works for them, because they're going to need to lean on those whales long-term.

Eh, just make ganker specials like buy 8 teabags for the price of 10 and 'Learn 2 play noob' emotes for $15.

[ezrast]

The "core module" vs "everything else" stuff feels like a bizarre smokescreen. Unless they're letting players run shards or have access to authoring tools, the distinction is strictly relevant to internal design and means jack all to consumers. A feature is either in the game or it isn't. Am I buying a complete game or aren't I?

edit: yeah, I know we just went over this. "Deck of cards" my ass, though.

[Draegan]

I dunno, it sounds exactly what they are saying.

[tazelbain]

The "core module" vs "everything else" stuff feels like a bizarre smokescreen. Unless they're letting players run shards or have access to authoring tools, the distinction is strictly relevant to internal design and means jack all to consumers. A feature is either in the game or it isn't. Am I buying a complete game or aren't I?

edit: yeah, I know we just went over this. "Deck of cards" my ass, though.

It's wiggle room to sell the big idea with tons of features and deliver the small idea limited feature plus it room to do additional KS for the "expansion" modules.

[Nija]

An average of $100/ea to deliver a small idea. Nice work to everyone involved.

[Falconeer]

Some strange new stuff about the "Campaign Embargo", which is... uh.. you better read it yourself. Lots to read but hey, theorycrafting is the best part. At least these seem to be really NEW concepts.

Basically, during a campaign you elect some items that you want to save at the end of the campaign. So you put those items in an "embargo vault", and when the campaign ends, based on your performace, a % of those items will go home with you, the rest will be destroyed. And the only place where you can "upload" your items to your embargo vault is a physical place that will have more ambushes than pixels. Interesting.

Campaign Embargo FAQ

How are rewards determined at the conclusion of a campaign?

Players can place items, resources, and materials into Embargo – basically, this is a way of “uploading” items to your Account Bank inside a Campaign. This can only be done at certain specific locations inside a Campaign, and items placed there are basically “in quarantine” until the Campaign is over.

When the world is destroyed at the end of a Campaign, some portion of the player’s winnings (i.e. the contents they have placed inside their Embargo vault) will be transferred into that player’s Account Bank. The number of items transferred depends on how well that player fared within the Campaign.

What is the Account Bank? How does it work?

Each player has an Account Bank, which can be used to transfer items between characters on that account. The account bank cannot be accessed when your character is locked into a Campaign.

How does the Account Bank related to the Embargo Vault?

The account bank exists at the account level – meaning that all of your characters share one account bank. The vault is Campaign specific, meaning that each Campaign will have a different Embargo area. At the end of the Campaign, depending on how well you (and your team) did, some number of item(s) will be moved from the Embargo into your Account Bank. The rest of the items will be lost.

What determines the number of items that can be placed in the Embargo Vault?

The size of the Embargo Vault changes based on Campaign type. As a general rule, longer and more risky Campaigns will have larger Embargo Vaults (higher risk leads to higher reward).

The primary factor that determines the size (and loss factor) of the Embargo is how well your team (faction or guild) finished in the Campaign, as well as your individual contribution to the Campaign.

The length of time spent in a Campaign will be used to scale the final results. This is done to prevent players from waiting until the last moment and then jumping on the winning team of a Campaign just to get the reward. (In fact, Players who join at the very end may get no reward -- even if their team is victorious.)

We really believe in the concept of risk vs reward. The more difficult the ruleset of a Campaign – and the longer of a commitment the player is required to make -- the larger the potential payout from the Embargo.

Add this to the fact that the more rare crafting materials are more plentiful in the difficult Campaigns, and we should have a risk/reward ratio that is quite compelling.

Where is the embargo located in the campaign?

To place item(s) into the Embargo Vault, players must physically transfer those items to a particular type of Point of Interest known as a Summoning Circle. The Summoning Circle acts like a giant bank, and can be found in only the most hostile areas. (Thematically, you could think of these like the giant IO towers from TRON).

We are certain that these areas will be incredibly deadly, as they make fantastic ambush spots – other players will know that this is a location players will gravitate towards, and that they will be heavily laden with items when they come. This system also ties well into the Caravan system (currently at stretch goal) to haul stuff to the Embargo. Items placed within an Embargo Vaults cannot be removed. You can’t use Summoning Circles to “teleport” items around the map.

Is the Embargo Vault specific to a player?

Yes! Each player will have their own Embargo Vault to fill, in each Campaign. Players will need to balance how much of the world’s resources are dedicated to helping the team win, versus how much they want to scavenge for themselves. Having a full Embargo Vault isn’t going to help maintain control of the structures in a world!

Are the contents of the embargo safe?

Yes. If you can make it safely inside the Summoning Circle, then any items you place inside your Embargo Vault will be locked there until the conclusion of the Campaign. It is just like a bank in many respects. (Except at the end of the campaign you can lose the stuff anyway.... what kind of a joke bank is that?!)

Some of the Rulesets call for 20% reward how does this work for items?

For materials and resources it is easy – we can just adjust the size of the material stack that each player is entitled to. For equipment, we will have to work out some other means of scaling the rewards.

Do I have any control over which item(s) are kept and which item(s) are lost from my Embargo?

Maybe. Right now our design is simple: we will randomly select which item(s) and materials will be released and which item(s) and materials will be lost. We could certainly change this design later, to give preferential treatment to certain items based on rarity, size, value or player preference.

[Threash]

Nothing that weird about it, instead of giving you a predetermined reward for winning you get to pick what your reward is.

[HaemishM]

Nothing that weird about it, instead of giving you a predetermined reward for winning you get to pick what your reward is might be if the RNG is good to you.

Fixed that for you.

[Paelos]

I'm picturing some version of that thing in the middle of hunger games.

[Torinak]

Nothing that weird about it, instead of giving you a predetermined reward for winning you get to pick what your reward is might be if the RNG is good to you.

Fixed that for you.

Can't wait for the cash shop item of "increase chances of keeping things"...

[Lucas]

[Paelos]

Can't wait for the cash shop item of "increase chances of keeping things"...

Diabolical. I approve.

[Sophismata]

Can't wait for the cash shop item of "increase chances of keeping things"...

Diabolical. I approve.

edit: piece of shit iPhone won't let me copy image paths
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/08/26

[Threash]

Something good might come out of this after all!

[Paelos]

I miss SWG too.

[schild]

Not a soul involved with the NGE or what went on during that period at SOE is ever going to tell/know/reveal the full story.

Missing SWG is like missing the Flying Toasters screensaver.

[Merusk]

Not a soul involved with the NGE or what went on during that period at SOE is ever going to tell/know/reveal the full story.

Missing SWG is like missing the Flying Toasters screensaver.

Oh sure they will. And it will in no way be a pandering one sided account that paints them as the hero and Lucasarts and SOE upper management as the problem to their golden vision. Nor will it be a decade old telling redrafted after each private discussion prior to that point.

It all would have been perfect if it weren't for those meddling suits.

[Hutch]

That thread originated because someone figured out that Walton was "responsible" for Trammel in UO. Apparently, there are still some PK misanthropes out there who have been nursing a grudge about it for 15 years.

Here is the story he gave on that topic.

Yes, I'm the person who is responsible for bringing you Trammel and the dilution the original UO.

And I regret some (but not all) of the outcome.  My charter as the VP of Online at Origin Systems (and Executive Producer of UO), was to grow the game.  The unforgiving play environment that made UO so intense was clearly driving away between 70+% of all the new players that tried the game within 60 days.  The changes we came up with to address this problem were a compromise, mostly driven by fiscal, technological and time reasons.

The good:  After the change which broke the game space into PvP and PvE worlds, the player base and income nearly doubled (we went from 125k to 245k subs).  So from a fiscal responsibility standpoint it was a totally winning move.

The bad:  Without the "sheep to shear" the hard core PvP'ers were disenfranchised.  They didn't like preying on each other (hard targets versus soft targets), and they became a smaller minority in the overall game.  The real bad though was that the intensity and "realness" of the game for all players was diminished.  This was the major unintended consequence.

There's more at the link. Nothing new. The sheep were escaping to games where they weren't locked in a cage with a bunch of psychopaths. Origin didn't want UO to bleed out. Thus a compromise.

In a sense, Trammel already existed, before it was created in UO.

[Velorath]

We need someone to post that negative subscription graph right now.

[Falconeer]

That thread originated because someone figured out that Walton was "responsible" for Trammel in UO. Apparently, there are still some PK misanthropes PvP players out there who have been nursing a grudge about it for 15 years.

Here we are.

[Paelos]

Missing SWG is like missing the Flying Toasters screensaver.

I couldn't mine the flying toasters.

[UnSub]

That thread originated because someone figured out that Walton was "responsible" for Trammel in UO. Apparently, there are still some PK misanthropes PvP players out there who have been nursing a grudge about it for 15 years.

Here we are.

They are ready for us:

We are specifically making our game for players who will like the kind of experience we will create, not trying to cast a wide net to get a mass market audience.  We want the folks who will appreciate an intense gaming experience with real risk, winning *and* losing.  While we want as many players who are engaged in our game as possible, we won't need millions of players to make our game work.

(From the same thread as the UO recount.)

[Falconeer]

The good:  After the change which broke the game space into PvP and PvE worlds, the player base and income nearly doubled (we went from 125k to 245k subs).  So from a fiscal responsibility standpoint it was a totally winning move.

The bad:  Without the "sheep to shear" the hard core PvP'ers were disenfranchised.  They didn't like preying on each other (hard targets versus soft targets), and they became a smaller minority in the overall game.  The real bad though was that the intensity and "realness" of the game for all players was diminished.  This was the major unintended consequence.

We are specifically making our game for players who will like the kind of experience we will create, not trying to cast a wide net to get a mass market audience.  We want the folks who will appreciate an intense gaming experience with real risk, winning *and* losing.  While we want as many players who are engaged in our game as possible, we won't need millions of players to make our game work.

Highlighted what matters to us. There were even back then about 125k willing to play the game (UO) with its original intensity and "realness". If these folks can pull that number in 2015, they will have done their job and Gordon Walton will be forgiven for Trammel.

[Typhon]

I really hope they deliver a solid game because I'm dying to know what the real-world subscriber base is for this type of game.

[Paelos]

I think it's 100k. People scoffed at that earlier but the market has expanded and plenty of people are looking for something that isn't just another WoW veneer.