QUOTE(Kidicarus @ Oct 24 2012, 11:48 AM)
So while everyone one is kickstarting this and that, I thought I'd give this a deserved bump. It's made by a small team of 9, it's got mechs, it's only multiplayer but it's free to play while remaining totally indie. How did they fund this? They had a business plan and they managed to get financed through that.
That's more honest than saying, hey give me some cash so that i just might a game that you like. The more money you give me, the more meaningless trash you might get. Micro-transactions are just more honest and are no different that my my days spent in cigarette smoke filled arcades shoving 20sen coins into money eating machines.
Rant aside. Hawken. Mechs. I might never play it because its multi player but damn doesn't it look good enough to eat to you?
QUOTE(Cheesenium @ Oct 24 2012, 01:17 PM)
Firstly, it depends on who is kickstarting a project, if it is someone who has a proven track record, like Obsidian, Uber, or Chris Roberts, i do not see whats wrong with putting money in some game that doesnt exist. If any of these kickstarter is remotely similar to my experience with Project CARS, you are not just doing a really advance preorder of a game. You are paying to fund the game as an investor and also a voice to influence the development of the game. What kind of game will it be? Is it a free to play or one of payment? Is it gonna be a hardcore game or it is built for idiots on 360s who cant take anything complex? The way Project CARS is, i am very happy with the state of the game.
And most of the time, these kickstarters are making things that people want, from old school RPGs, large scale RTS to space combat games that not many traditional publisher or investor would want to fund it. No doubt one of these projects will fail, but i rather invest a small amount of money, than paying these greedy publishers or free to play developers to make another boring brown and bloom shooter or another "free" to play game.
I rather pay for these games that havent even started production, than getting into another money ripping free to play games. These free to play games are designed in a way that you have to keep paying money or grind the crap out of it to get maximum enjoyment out of it. I have heavily invested in one free to play games, the notorious NFS World which made me reluctant to start another one because it will cost me more than a few full priced retail games, all just for one game. Thankfully, i manage to reduce the ratio of real money to virtual money in NFS World that made the game felt more value the money than the way it was.
HAWKEN does look really good, but will i pay for it? Unlikely.
QUOTE(Kidicarus @ Oct 24 2012, 02:01 PM)
As much as I enjoy reading your diatribes, this game is free. They are asking you to try and if you like, pay for like optional stuff.
to respond individually to your paragraphs:
There was user involvement through forums, alphas and betas. However, I actually think that crowdsourcing ideas is actually worse than crowdsourcing finance. You don't have to look far to see the power of focus testing and user involvement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Idol_finalistsThis game is in a genre that people "do not want"/fallen out of favour, mechwarrior type mechs etc.
2 benefits of kickstarter without having to "invest", and they didn't even have to be chris roberts, tim schaffer or al lowe to make a game!
http://www.adhesivegames.com/team.htmlYou had a bad experience with NFS. Boo Hoo. Whether you like it or not, free to play is as valid a business model as crowdsourced financing and is here to stay.
It's free to try. If you don't like it don't play.
QUOTE(Cheesenium @ Oct 24 2012, 02:35 PM)
Optional stuff, to be honest, that never exist in most free to play games. For most, it is either you pay up for a bit to a lot of advantage over none paying players or do the grind for all those essential items. If they gave everything out for free and easily obtainable, how will they make money? Besides, good free to play games like Dota 2, Team Fortress 2 and League of Legends to a certain extend, are rare gems in the entire free to play market. On the other hand, most free to play games are just pay up to be better or be an underdog for free, which thats what essentially free to play games become.
First of all, in my experience with Project CARS, you do not get unrestricted access to voice every idea you want to be in the game because too many ideas will ruin the game at the end. Slightly Mad Studio will make polls on certain design aspects such as do people want more cars or better engine sounds in the game, not opening up the whole development for people to suggest any absurd suggestions. It take both sides to make this approach work.
Also, i do not just play NFS as a free to play, as i do play other free to play games, from Airmech, Tribes: Ascend, Blacklight Retribution, League of Legends and Team Fortress 2. Most of them have this problem: if you do not pay the developers enough, you will never get full access to the game which is a huge turn off to play these games. Not to forget about most of the time, paid exclusive items will be better to a certain magnitude than free items which can be seen in many free to play games, like NFS World's high end expensive cars that is outright better than most free cars, Tribes Ascend's new items is always more imbalanced than older items, Blacklight's incendiary ammo gives an edge over people who do not pay up and even Team Fortress 2 suffer from this when a new slightly overpowered weapon is released, people who paid for it will always have an edge over people who choose to wait for the item to drop.
If not, you have to play the game as if it is your second life to unlock any many content as possible, which i have no interest to be invested all my time in one game. There is no point to be a monogamer when there are a lot of interesting games out there to play. If there is a day where single players game are all dead, i guess i'll quit gaming because free to play business model is just obnoxious.
That is the nature of free to play games, which i am not a fan of it to begin with. Thanks to the idiotic Koreans for inventing this nonsense.
Free to play is a valid business model, but that doesnt mean it is the best model out there. Just like the facebook games bubble that have broke recently, free to play will probably go along this path when the market is oversaturated with these games.
Adhesive can promise all they want with their no pay to win policy, but we'll see how is it in practise. Mechwarrior Online, as far as i know, has failed completely at this aspect, while Planetside 2 seems to have divided the player base to different tiers with different level of benefits.
tl;dr
Not gonna pay for any stuffs but gonna play the game anyway, lol.
Feb 7 2012, 11:44 AM, updated 13y ago
Quote
0.0232sec
0.44
5 queries
GZIP Disabled