Pathfinder - proving what I have been outlining about the MMO industry.

[sebastianosmith]

I disagree. The general public is not aware how these kickstarter ventures take place. So many things can and do go wrong.. Out of all kickstarters, the games that actually get finished, and on time is in the low single digits.

I agree that the general public does not understand how Kickstarter works. However, we are dealing with a very specific public in this case. Namely well-monied gamers or those who support them. Someone willing to invest $5k+ in an alpha is probably not walking into the deal blindly.

Many that help fund these kickstarters are one, two or more years past their promised ship date projections, and still don't get it - and then get no response from the vendor when they ask for updated time-frames. And guess what? There's little recourse because its too late to dispute with their credit card company.

I think that it's an absolutely a disturbing trend, one of the uglier offshoots from the free to play mmo market, and ripe with fraud and potential for fraud. This has fraud written all over it, and whether its legal or not currently, the larger issue looms in the complexity of the internet, internet law, federal and local government laws. This trend will continue to grow, because they are protected by the anonymity of the internet, and the youth and complexity of laws governing online use. In the meantime, many more of the innocent public will continue to be taken for fools.

The mistake most Kickstarter "contributors" make is not understanding that they are actually making an "investment" with no assured return. Any prospectus is chockablock with optimal projections which must be taken with a block of salt. This is why crowdfunding will eventually need oversight and regulation. Right now it's the Wild West and the marshall is out of town.

[Chai]

You don't need to define what you mean by a quality product? They defined it for you? I bet you're a big fan of the line item veto movement.

You are simply projecting your bias on "minimum viable product" when defining it to mean "unfinished". You see what you want to see.



Try not to get too much mud on that gleaming, white charger you got there while saving the MMO industry from itself.

You are condescending. You can claim it's false all the livelong day and that won't make it so. Your entire tone and choice of words in this and many, many other posts regarding what you consider to be aberrations from your ideal gaming world make you out to be an enlightened prophet leading the blind, unwilling and ignorant masses into a promised land of MMO Nirvana. Condescending? That was being polite.



Yeah, I'm not walking down the this well worn path. I did not use "Who cares" anywhere in this thread (outside this exemplar). I did use "So what" in the context of a company attempting to introduce a novel, for the industry in question, approach to revenue generation. I did so because the news is not all that important to the final outcome. We have few details on how monetization will take place and the few we do have are present in a context intended for potential investors. You once again interpret words to fit only your narrative.



Ah, my old friend Oversimplified Absolute. You always seem to appear whenever an argument needs to be made to seem more centrist and reasonable. You should eat OA - You're looking thin.

Let me ask you some things, Chai - Not that I expect answers this time either.

What do you hope to accomplish with your protestations and warnings?

Are you in a position to actually affect change in the industry and, if so, how/why have/haven't you?

What does your ideal MMO/Game entail besides the generic "MAOR CONTENT" claim.

I await your answers, not that expect any pertaining to my questions mind you.

How about refraining from turning it into a personal conversation and addressing what you actually quote. Instead you attempt to misconstrue the tone of the post, rather than addressing the substance. If you disagree with what Im saying, what is it about the substance of what was said that you disagree with? I don't believe you have an answer for these things, and thus answer with personal jaunts. If you feel this is untrue, page back up to the previous post I made, re-quote it, and answer with rebuttals that actually address the point made.

[sebastianosmith]

How about refraining from turning it into a personal conversation and addressing what you actually quote. Instead you attempt to misconstrue the tone of the post, rather than addressing the substance. If you disagree with what Im saying, what is it about the substance of what was said that you disagree with?

Yes, the non ad hominem defense! Two more to go.

It's difficult to refrain from personal issues when you are so clearly bring the personal into them. I have outlined very clearly why I am unconcerned with what Goblinworks is attempting. In doing so you accused me of not caring and suggested I was being ironically hypocritical by even posting about the topic with such an attitude. So, if you'd like to keep the "personal" out of the conversation, please stop lobbing volleys my way.

You take care now!


Oh BOY! An Edit!:

I don't believe you have an answer for these things, and thus answer with personal jaunts. If you feel this is untrue, page back up to the previous post I made, re-quote it, and answer with rebuttals that actually address the point made.

The Prove Me Wrong defense. One left!

There are no answers to statements. You have once again confused what you consider to be a problem with something that is not. The business model Goblinworks is attempting will either succeed or fail. How you "feel" about it personally is relevant only to you.

[Chai]

Yes, the non ad hominem defense! Two more to go.

It's difficult to refrain from personal issues when you are so clearly bring the personal into them. I have outlined very clearly why I am unconcerned with what Goblinworks is attempting. In doing so you accused me of not caring and suggested I was being ironically hypocritical by even posting about the topic with such an attitude. So, if you'd like to keep the "personal" out of the conversation, please stop lobbing volleys my way.

You take care now!

As I suspected, couldn't be done.

Also misconstruing the attitude of the OP, while failing to address what was quoted.

I am not "seeing what I want to see" here as you claim. I watched the pitch video and commented on how this is exactly what I have been describing as far as the direction for the industry. Did you watch the video yet? When/If you do, youll see any objective reader will clearly understand your claim of seeing what I want to see, is false. Its right there, in the video.

There are no answers to statements. You have once again confused what you consider to be a problem with something that is not. The business model Goblinworks is attempting will either succeed or fail. How you "feel" about it personally is relevant only to you.

This is not a thread about how I feel about it. Its a thread commenting on how they posted a pitch video outlining the same thing I have been outlining about the direction of the MMO industry. There is nothing personal about that statement whatsoever, for those who read and respond objectively.

[sebastianosmith]

As I suspected, couldn't be done.

HAHAHAHA!!! But you see, I'm not like the whisper-quiet mumblings of your ego. I don't have to defend against whatever misdirection tactics you throw my way. While you may attach some importance to whatever it is you're on about, I don't.

Also misconstruing the attitude of the OP, while failing to address what was quoted.

I am not "seeing what I want to see" here as you claim. I watched the pitch video and commented on how this is exactly what I have been describing as far as the direction for the industry. Did you watch the video yet? When/If you do, youll see any objective reader will clearly understand your claim of seeing what I want to see, is false. Its right there, in the video.

The attitude of the OP is "You'll see. You'll all see!!!". The problem with your argument is that you are tilting at windmills - No giants there DQ. You see the monetization models of PFO and similar endeavors as a "bad thing". However, you have given no credible evidence as to why it won't, can't or shouldn't work. Your entire argument is "I told you so", to which I reply "So what?"

I've watched the video and heard no hint of plans for massive fraud, morally questionable practices or world domination. What they are doing is no different than what thousands of other companies do every day; like HP selling printers at a loss that they more than make up for with the cartridges. Do I like that? No, not particularly. My solution was to not buy HP printers. Yours would be to rant against the printed page and admonish anyone not handwriting with charcoal sticks.

This is not a thread about how I feel about it. Its a thread commenting on how they posted a pitch video outlining the same thing I have been outlining about the direction of the MMO industry. There is nothing personal about that statement whatsoever, for those who read and respond objectively.

This thread is soooooo about how you feel. It's another attempt to imply that what you see as a problem is really a problem and that you, oh seer of seers, are the one with true vision. You might as well be walking the streets with a sandwich board telling us the End Is Nigh. So, OBJECTIVELY - You've got an ax to grind for some reason. I don't know the genesis of your issues, but I am really tired of you bumming people out with your need to be right in all instances and crusading against imagined problems at every opportunity. If you would just stick to discussing game mechanics, build designs and the like (at which you are extremely knowledgeable and proficient), we'd be a happier group of people.

I guess I should be thankful you didn't pull out the straw man gambit and leave it at that.

[Enoach]

Watched the Pitch Video, and coming from a software developer view point, I found the approach to be very interesting in development/funding

Issues that any Project have to deal with:

1. Size/Scope
2. Cost
3. Time to ROI

The approach they are taking appears to be to first bring to the community a usable world that the back end is still flexible enough to be added onto without having to Frankenstein the core system.

Is this the approach of the future? Well Micro-transactions proved to work and was not well received by critics at the onset. Only time will tell. I don't see anything wrong with the direction they are taking. It is actually a cleaver way to actually get an initial player base as well as limit risk. If they don't get enough support to continue development they can pull out earlier or even change direction until they get the support they are after.

Basically this is a way to lower the financial risk as well as get the product out sooner thus getting a quicker ROI and spending less time with the product before delivery. This also means the Size/Scope of the product can be managed with a smaller overhead.

I applaud them for taking this approach instead of attempting to garner a large investor also means the end product can belong to those who enjoy the product instead of someone behind a desk that has never seen anything past a demo video.

This can also mean that other good ideas will have a chance to start as they won't be killed simply because a lack of funding from a deep pocket. Or even loss of direction due to a requirement to boost profits and cut costs.

[Seikojin]

Watched the Pitch Video, and coming from a software developer view point, I found the approach to be very interesting in development/funding

Issues that any Project have to deal with:

1. Size/Scope
2. Cost
3. Time to ROI

The approach they are taking appears to be to first bring to the community a usable world that the back end is still flexible enough to be added onto without having to Frankenstein the core system.

Is this the approach of the future? Well Micro-transactions proved to work and was not well received by critics at the onset. Only time will tell. I don't see anything wrong with the direction they are taking. It is actually a cleaver way to actually get an initial player base as well as limit risk. If they don't get enough support to continue development they can pull out earlier or even change direction until they get the support they are after.

Basically this is a way to lower the financial risk as well as get the product out sooner thus getting a quicker ROI and spending less time with the product before delivery. This also means the Size/Scope of the product can be managed with a smaller overhead.

I applaud them for taking this approach instead of attempting to garner a large investor also means the end product can belong to those who enjoy the product instead of someone behind a desk that has never seen anything past a demo video.

This can also mean that other good ideas will have a chance to start as they won't be killed simply because a lack of funding from a deep pocket. Or even loss of direction due to a requirement to boost profits and cut costs.

I got pretty much the same thing from looking at it. Coming from A PM level, this could be a nightmare, since doing something the first time costs less both in finances and man hours than doing it after it has been done. By a large factor too.

[Catteras]

That gameplay video looks horrible.

This.

Goblinworks can try to turn a profit however it likes, but you sure wont find me forking over a cent for this half-baked rubbish.

I agree with other posters and say again that DDO is an awesome game that makes games like Pathfinders embarrassing.

[Catteras]

[FONT=arial]
I think that it's an absolutely a disturbing trend, one of the uglier offshoots from the free to play mmo market, and ripe with fraud and potential for fraud. This has fraud written all over it, and whether its legal or not currently, the larger issue looms in the complexity of the internet, internet law, federal and local government laws. This trend will continue to grow, because they are protected by the anonymity of the internet, and the youth and complexity of laws governing online use. In the meantime, many more of the innocent public will continue to be taken for fools.

Agreed. Pathfinders seems to me like an attemp at a quick money grab. Once people have spent their 1000s of dollars upfront to play a game that isnt ready, but is promised to be "soonish", and Goblinworks has made a wad of dough, those that "invested" (paid to play) have no guarantee that they wont close the doors entirely on the game.

And i think there are many fooilish people in the world dumb enough to go for it. And intelligent ones who understand the risk and who are willing to take it, which is their perogative. But i think mmos like this are counting more on the foolish ones.

[Chai]

HAHAHAHA!!! But you see, I'm not like the whisper-quiet mumblings of your ego. I don't have to defend against whatever misdirection tactics you throw my way. While you may attach some importance to whatever it is you're on about, I don't.



The attitude of the OP is "You'll see. You'll all see!!!". The problem with your argument is that you are tilting at windmills - No giants there DQ. You see the monetization models of PFO and similar endeavors as a "bad thing". However, you have given no credible evidence as to why it won't, can't or shouldn't work. Your entire argument is "I told you so", to which I reply "So what?"

I've watched the video and heard no hint of plans for massive fraud, morally questionable practices or world domination. What they are doing is no different than what thousands of other companies do every day; like HP selling printers at a loss that they more than make up for with the cartridges. Do I like that? No, not particularly. My solution was to not buy HP printers. Yours would be to rant against the printed page and admonish anyone not handwriting with charcoal sticks.

I guess I should be thankful you didn't pull out the straw man gambit and leave it at that.

Please refrain from further personal discussion and address the topic.

This thread is soooooo about how you feel. It's another attempt to imply that what you see as a problem is really a problem and that you, oh seer of seers, are the one with true vision. You might as well be walking the streets with a sandwich board telling us the End Is Nigh. So, OBJECTIVELY - You've got an ax to grind for some reason. I don't know the genesis of your issues, but I am really tired of you bumming people out with your need to be right in all instances and crusading against imagined problems at every opportunity. If you would just stick to discussing game mechanics, build designs and the like (at which you are extremely knowledgeable and proficient), we'd be a happier group of people

This is false and again, only done due to wanting to disagree, but having no logical rebuttal for anything Ive stated. So again you attempt to misconstrue the tone of the posts into something personal which does not exist anywhere else but your own mind. Please refrain, and stick to the topic at hand, as other posters are doing.

I've watched the video and heard no hint of plans for massive fraud, morally questionable practices or world domination

Please quote where I claimed any of the above. The fact that you cannot do so will prove to any objective reader how far your mischaracterization of my OP here has gone. Dont worry, I'll wait...

[Chai]

I applaud them for taking this approach instead of attempting to garner a large investor also means the end product can belong to those who enjoy the product instead of someone behind a desk that has never seen anything past a demo video.

This is one potential positive, that the control rests in the hands of those who are passionate about the game but....

This can also mean that other good ideas will have a chance to start as they won't be killed simply because a lack of funding from a deep pocket. Or even loss of direction due to a requirement to boost profits and cut costs.

Who will really have the control. Those authoring the game, or those in the crowd being crowdsourced who are actually funding it. While its semantically different than a board of directors or a VP making a decision, its still a need to please specific groups of people who may or may not have differences in vision as the game grows. The need to please all of them or watch their fundingdiminish is somethign they are going to have to monitor far mroe closely than an agreement with an investor, backed by a legal contract etc.

[sebastianosmith]

Please refrain from further personal discussion and address the topic.

What topic? I've watched the video, listened to Goblinworks marketroid spiel and have come to a vastly different conclusion than you which I have already stated three times. I suspect this has something to do with me not being on a damned crusade. Could just be me though.

This is false and again, only done due to wanting to disagree, but having no logical rebuttal for anything Ive stated. So again you attempt to misconstrue the tone of the posts into something personal which does not exist anywhere else but your own mind. Please refrain, and stick to the topic at hand, as other posters are doing.

What? This thread is all over the place. We've got discussions about Kickstarter, the carptactular graphics in the PFO demo videos, how DDO still rox over the competition; to name a few. Which of those would you like to declare forbidden and show me a yellow card for mentioning again? And as for rebutting you logically... All you've made are statements of opinion. I can't logically debate your opinion any more than I can claim to know the number of angels shakin' it on a pinhead.

Please quote where I claimed any of the above. The fact that you cannot do so will prove to any objective reader how far your mischaracterization of my OP here has gone. Dont worry, I'll wait...

Oh, you thought I was talking about you?!?! The fact that you always do so will prove to any objective reader that how far your mischaracterization of any post will go. Dont worry, I'm not waiting.

[Chai]

What? This thread is all over the place. We've got discussions about Kickstarter, the carptactular graphics in the PFO demo videos, how DDO still rox over the competition; to name a few. Which of those would you like to declare forbidden and show me a yellow card for mentioning again? And as for rebutting you logically... All you've made are statements of opinion. I can't logically debate your opinion any more than I can claim to know the number of angels shakin' it on a pinhead.

And none of them contain any one sided personal banter back and forth save for one, and the initiator of that one cannot quote me saying any of the things they claim I have.

Bolded is false. Ive made statements about what was literally stated in the video.

Your claim of not being able to logically debate that is correct however. Instead of doing so youre attempting to misconstrue the tone of the OP into something that it is not, and turn it into a personal discussion, and no ones buying it. My thanks to everyone else for discussing the actual topic.

[sebastianosmith]

And none of them contain any one sided personal banter back and forth save for one, and the initiator of that one cannot quote me saying any of the things they claim I have.

Once again, I have made no claims you've said anything at all. Quite the contrary in fact.

Bolded is false. Ive made statements about what was literally stated in the video.

You sure did. You then proceeded to inform us of what it meant IN YOUR OPINION. I CAPPED WHAT IS TRUE IN CASE YOU MISSED THE REFERENCE.

Your claim of not being able to logically debate that is correct however.

Finally! You admit your opinions are logically undebatable. Praise Jeebus!

Instead of doing so youre attempting to misconstrue the tone of the OP into something that it is not, and turn it into a personal discussion, and no ones buying it.

You keep holding that one note and let me know when it miraculously transforms into a symphony. I'll get John Cage's ghost on the line. He'll be so excited.

My thanks to everyone else for discussing the actual topic.

And close with a disingenuous platitude to drive the point home. Classic Chai.

[Chai]

Once again, I have made no claims you've said anything at all. Quite the contrary in fact.



You sure did. You then proceeded to inform us of what it meant IN YOUR OPINION. I CAPPED WHAT IS TRUE IN CASE YOU MISSED THE REFERENCE.



Finally! You admit your opinions are logically undebatable. Praise Jeebus!



You keep holding that one note and let me know when it miraculously transforms into a symphony. I'll get John Cage's ghost on the line. He'll be so excited.



And close with a disingenuous platitude to drive the point home. Classic Chai.

Your unwillingness to discuss the topic at hand and need to make personal jaunts around every corner is disruptive to any and all on topic discussion that is occurring here. It is also against the forum guidelines. Ive asked you to refrain from making this a personal discussion and you have refused to do so here yet again. There is but one thing left to do here, and from here on out when this occurs.

[sebastianosmith]

Your unwillingness to discuss the topic at hand and need to make personal jaunts around every corner is disruptive to any and all on topic discussion that is occurring here. It is also against the forum guidelines. Ive asked you to refrain from making this a personal discussion and you have refused to do so here yet again. There is but one thing left to do here, and from here on out when this occurs.

Take your best shot. I can handle it.

But, in the spirit of propriety and desperately wanting to know why you keep using "jaunt" inappropriately (because believe me, talking to you ain't no pleasurable ride), I'll state the following:

Goblinworks is embarking on an as of yet untested business model in hope of launching an MMO. They appear to be making an effort to provide a framework wherein cheaper, player-generated content is favored over expensive, developer-generated content. This would seem to me to be a reasonable and much-needed change to the existing subscription vs. microtransaction content-centric model deployed by numerous other MMO shops. Provided that the basic framework is robust enough to handle additional extensions in a timely manner, they should find a profitable and enjoyable path ahead for both investing players and their company.

See... That's what I've been saying. No mention of "unfinished" products. No condescending verbiage. Just a straight up optimistic opinion. Let's see where it goes and learn something no matter the outcome. So, you can report away.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Take it from Sunny Bates herself, who is an actual Kickstarter board member.

"Here’s the deal, it’s one thing to be scammed like Bernie Madoff, where you’ve gone and you’ve been seduced by something and put in all your life savings. It’s another thing for something not to come through for $US25. When it’s syndicated out so broadly with backers, even if somebody is scammed — and it looks too good to be true and you still take a risk on it anyhow — you feel ****ed off and upset at the creator and then, you know, some of that may lead over on some people feeling ‘why can’t Kickstarter control this?’ Well, it’s a platform — we can’t.”

She went on: I think that because where the bulk of the projects are is between the $US25 to $US1500 range, are you going to go take legal action on something that you put $US50 into? I mean you tell me. Maybe if you put $US10,000, sure. Or $US1000, maybe. But if you lost $US25 or $US50 then you’re a little disappointed and you think the [project creator] sucks. But that’s the beauty of crowdsourcing, it’s not really worth your effort – you’re disappointed and you’re angry that somebody would do this because it does feel like they’re duplicitous and they’re trying to pull the wool over the crowd’s eyes, and clearly they can’t."


This absurd public opinion is my #2 salvo (right behind the scams themselves) for the necessity for oversight at the federal and state level. The case Bates is trying to make that its "just a platform" so they cant be blamed is a pure-bread malarkey. As soon as they took a cut, it stopped being just a platform, and started being a business, a paid service. Down the road, more and more scams will hurt the reputation of Kickstarter, but it's not happening fast enough. This "Meh lol you took the risk" cavalier approach is a disgrace, yet it's exactly a piece of her company's vision. She'd be booted from the board of most legitimate companies that cares one iota about it's own integrity.


A great article on this topic (which includes Bates' commentary) :
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/6...en-they-pledge

[Chai]

Take it from Sunny Bates herself, who is an actual Kickstarter board member.

"Here’s the deal, it’s one thing to be scammed like Bernie Madoff, where you’ve gone and you’ve been seduced by something and put in all your life savings. It’s another thing for something not to come through for $US25. When it’s syndicated out so broadly with backers, even if somebody is scammed — and it looks too good to be true and you still take a risk on it anyhow — you feel ****ed off and upset at the creator and then, you know, some of that may lead over on some people feeling ‘why can’t Kickstarter control this?’ Well, it’s a platform — we can’t.”

She went on: I think that because where the bulk of the projects are is between the $US25 to $US1500 range, are you going to go take legal action on something that you put $US50 into? I mean you tell me. Maybe if you put $US10,000, sure. Or $US1000, maybe. But if you lost $US25 or $US50 then you’re a little disappointed and you think the [project creator] sucks. But that’s the beauty of crowdsourcing, it’s not really worth your effort – you’re disappointed and you’re angry that somebody would do this because it does feel like they’re duplicitous and they’re trying to pull the wool over the crowd’s eyes, and clearly they can’t."


This absurd public opinion is my #2 salvo (right behind the scams themselves) for the necessity for oversight at the federal and state level. The case Bates is trying to make that its "just a platform" so they cant be blamed is a pure-bread malarkey. As soon as they took a cut, it stopped being just a platform, and started being a business, a paid service. Down the road, more and more scams will hurt the reputation of Kickstarter, but it's not happening fast enough. This "Meh lol you took the risk" cavalier approach is a disgrace, yet it's exactly a piece of her company's vision. She'd be booted from the board of most legitimate companies that cares one iota about it's own integrity.


A great article on this topic (which includes Bates' commentary) :
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/6...en-they-pledge

Yes.

The question is, how hard does it have to implode before that regulation occurs. Is it going to take them being named to a lawsuit and losing the case - the "its just a platform" defense failing miserably and costing them money - before the crowdsourcing "platform" becomes regulated like most other cash moving "platforms" are?

[sebastianosmith]

This "Meh lol you took the risk" cavalier approach is a disgrace, yet it's exactly a piece of her company's vision. She'd be booted from the board of most legitimate companies that cares one iota about it's own integrity.

This is where we must slightly disagree. Anyone who makes a bet and does not realize that 1 - it's a bet and 2 - they might lose their money - is not savvy enough to be betting. Yes, Kickstarter takes a cut as do the NYSE, NASDAQ and OTC penny stock traders. Yes there should probably be some form of federal-level oversight of this new capitalization market to prevent (hopefully) the sort of fraud that ran rampant before the SEC was established (and does again but that is another topic entirely). However, right now caveat emptor is the only rule. Ms. Bates is incorrectly interpreting Mr. Friedman's ideal of maximizing shareholder profitability, but so are countless other CEOs and board members. Change is slow but inevitable.

[sebastianosmith]

The question is, how hard does it have to implode before that regulation occurs.

Let it imploded. Right now the crowdsourced capitalization market is miniscule. Waiting for it to become a true economic engine would be far more devastating to everyone involved. Sadly, oversight will only occur after catastrophic failure. Bring it on. The faster it implodes, the better.


Edit:
Oh, by the way - This is one of those tangential discussion to which I was referring when you so rudely accused my of trolling you personally. Welcome to the Dark Side.