67 réponses à ce sujet

[SomberXIII]

Let's see if the grass is still green when you can tread on it (=play the game).

Hah. Let's wait till then. 

[Altair_ShepardN7]

It's not really a donation in the end...thats the funny part.

 

If people treated it like investing, then kickstarter would make a lot more sense.

But what is so hard to understand about Kickstarters? You give them money so that they make a game, and according to what you gave them, you'll receive something. If you gave $30, you'll receive a final copy of the game as a return (as an example), or whatever you agreed with them to receive as a payment once the final product is finished. If you gave $5 you'll receive a pat in the back. 

[rashie]

It's not really a donation in the end...thats the funny part.

 

If people treated it like investing, then kickstarter would make a lot more sense.

Its true people are treating it more like a prepurchase but even so from a legal point of view it is a donation, none of the backers have the same legal standing as an actual investor would, unless the dev is committing outright fraud, which it would be silly to claim when they employ over 200 people while having playable builds available.

[AlanC9]

The only concern I've got is that they keep moving the goalposts; no IT project has ever been a resounding success when the specs keep changing... and that's what's happening with SC. They should probably draw a line through it and say "this is going to be our 1.0 release" otherwise there's a danger they'll keep extending the funding and keep releasing modules but never actually deliver a "final" product.
 
They can then use any excess capitol for FreeLC after launch.
 
 
Otherwise it could end up being Chris Roberts' pet project that is continually tinkered with in the unattainable pursuit of absolute perfection - then again, an MMO is the perfect fit for that I guess.

Could this be a viable business model? It's not like they have to make a ship date to keep getting paid.

[LinksOcarina]

But what is so hard to understand about Kickstarters? You give them money so that they make a game, and according to what you gave them, you'll receive something. If you gave $30, you'll receive a final copy of the game as a return (as an example), or whatever you agreed with them to receive as a payment once the final product is finished. If you gave $5 you'll receive a pat in the back. 

 

You are not guarenteed a finished product, or a timely product for that matter.

 

It's great when it happens, but it's impossible to expect it every time. Not to mention what you are buying into can change over time, change in their design, their budget, and even hook.

 

So yeah, thats the hard part here. It's not as simple as "I paid $30 bucks for this, i'm guarenteed what I paid for." You are to a point.

 

Its true people are treating it more like a prepurchase but even so from a legal point of view it is a donation, none of the backers have the same legal standing as an actual investor would, unless the dev is committing outright fraud, which it would be silly to claim when they employ over 200 people while having playable builds available.

 

I never heard of people asking for their donations being refunded though. Even if that is the case, a donation implies charity or non-profit goals. 

 

I am pretty sure a lot of kickstarters are for profit in the end.

[Arcian]

Yeah, Mass Effect doesn't have Star Citizen's 100+ million dollar budget, so this is never, ever going to happen.

[Chealec]

But what is so hard to understand about Kickstarters? You give them money so that they make a game, and according to what you gave them, you'll receive something. If you gave $30, you'll receive a final copy of the game as a return (as an example), or whatever you agreed with them to receive as a payment once the final product is finished. If you gave $5 you'll receive a pat in the back. 

 

Not quite - you're investing in the development of the game; there's always a chance it could go completely pear-shaped and fold, then you end up with nothing. Pretty much like any other form of investment capital. You hope that by being in early-doors you might end up backing a better game or getting it cheaper than you might on-release - but there are no guarantees.

 

 

Could this be a viable business model? It's not like they have to make a ship date to keep getting paid.

 

Seems to be working for Elite Dangerous; it was available as a paid-for beta for ages and even when it was released it was not really "finished".

[Chealec]

Yeah, Mass Effect doesn't have Star Citizen's 100+ million dollar budget, so this is never, ever going to happen.

 

I doubt it's far short tbh ... I'd be surprised if DA:I cost less than $80 million.

[LinksOcarina]

I doubt it's far short tbh ... I'd be surprised if DA:I cost less than $80 million.

 

Id be it was around the $50 million mark, since it had a smaller advertising campaign than usual.

 

We shall see in the end. $20 million is considered average, remember, larger scale games can hit maybe 50-100, but it depends on the game. I don't think Inquisition was that high honestly...but who knows.

[SomberXIII]

Id be it was around the $50 million mark, since it had a smaller advertising campaign than usual.

 

We shall see in the end. $20 million is considered average, remember, larger scale games can hit maybe 50-100, but it depends on the game. I don't think Inquisition was that high honestly...but who knows.

The Witcher III costed $78 million and people say it's cheap. I don't have any idea.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The project is expensive, and from what I've seen from the system requirements.... Yikes. But what is the point in getting into a game like this just to play the single player campaign. It's like playing Destiny by yourself. You can do it, but damn.

[AlanC9]

Depends on if Squadron 42 is actually any good. I haven't seen a reason to care about the rest of the project.

[Sanunes]

The Witcher III costed $78 million and people say it's cheap. I don't have any idea.

 

The way I always read those reports is that if it was made in North America that is how much it would have cost, but because of where the studio was located it didn't cost that much.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The blow and hookers cost way less in Poland than they do in America. Plus it seems that the CDPR team actually worked on the game. Although I will say the game play leaves something to be desired.

[LinksOcarina]

The Witcher III costed $78 million and people say it's cheap. I don't have any idea.

 

$78 million is not cheap. In fact, CD Projekt Red spent a lot of money compared to say, Take Two Interactive, who spend on average $60 million for a AAA game.

 

Now the argument of their costs being lower because it is in Europe/Poland...technically not true. Usually that conversion is $78 million in U.S dollars. So whatever the exchange rate is, that is the baseline, unless CD Projekt Red said it was $78 million in their currency.

[Sartoz]

 Big Snip

 

You may not like the game, you may not trust the devs. But as I've said, people is just being really toxic and ignorant about it; especially when the devs keep showing their progress and try to always be in contact with their fans.

 

                                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

That's the thing. Progress

 

I've been keeping tabs on SC since inception. Progress was shown as modules.. the Hangar was made into a big deal, followed by getting stuck in the cycle of developing all kinds of specialized fighter craft and showing them off while the main story development too a back seat. 

 

Look, I like WC and want to play SC... but Roberts needs to set the game in stone to complete it. He can always add modules later on.. what's the hurry with MMO?

[Sanunes]

$78 million is not cheap. In fact, CD Projekt Red spent a lot of money compared to say, Take Two Interactive, who spend on average $60 million for a AAA game.

 

Now the argument of their costs being lower because it is in Europe/Poland...technically not true. Usually that conversion is $78 million in U.S dollars. So whatever the exchange rate is, that is the baseline, unless CD Projekt Red said it was $78 million in their currency.

 

If you are referring to my statement the way I read those articles isn't based on the exchange of currency, but the costs of labour and the costs of running a studio in Poland. Now I could always be wrong, but that is how I took them.

[LinksOcarina]

If you are referring to my statement the way I read those articles isn't based on the exchange of currency, but the costs of labour and the costs of running a studio in Poland. Now I could always be wrong, but that is how I took them.

 

it really depends on exchange rates and how those numbers are presented. Regardless, Witcher 3 is damn expensive compared to most games.