any one know the minimum specs required to run the alpha arriving in 4 days?
On August 22 2016 21:34 ahw wrote: Company Start Up has Idea Company pitches idea and concept to investors Investors invest to realize said idea and potentially make giant return on investment Company uses money to pay salaries for a California tech start up over 2-3 years Original idea, after r&d funded for years, proves unstable. Company direction changed to save investors money.
This is how things get innovated and developed. Things take time and money and risk.
Blizzard started by porting games from 1 platform to another and porting educational software to different platforms... then they slowly transitioned to making their own games. i started by porting applications from foxpro to visual studio/SQL Server. then i slowly transitioned to making my own applications.
there are lots of way to innovate and develop while making money as you go.. Artillery took the high risk approach and failed. Blizzard's approach worked.
Oh come on, you're becoming annoying, Artillery didn't fail at all. Their pivot was not a fail and being backed by Tencent is a big win in this business. If the game doesn't deliver, you can say it's a fail but for now, I think they are pretty happy with how things are going.
you are speculating about an emotion they feel? LOL that's awesome. i'll stick to facts. you're awesome man.
they are how old and generated how much revenue from sales? i guess it is innovative though its the first RT3v3APAB game. we have a genre defining moment arriving soon.
and again, does any one know the minimum specs for this alpha arriving in less than 4 days?
On August 23 2016 07:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you are speculating about an emotion they feel? LOL that's awesome. i'll stick to facts. you're awesome man.
they are how old and generated how much revenue from sales? i guess it is innovative though its the first RT3v3APAB game. we have a genre defining moment arriving soon.
and again, does any one know the minimum specs for this alpha arriving in less than 4 days?
Facts is you don't know a damn thing about business. Most tech companies are losing money for years before getting anything back, that's why investors are important.
According to your science of business, facebook and google were big fails, man you should go to tell them !
no, i don't see how the game would be profitable as a browser-based game, but that's just me and my complete lack of education on the matter. the only reference i've got for a successful in-browser MMO is RuneScape (freemium/monthly p2p) or some of the websites that make money off of advertising per views.
since it's a moba now, that's answered pretty easily in microtransactions and cosmetics but you still have to look at what it's competing with. anyone with a computer these days could probably run the browser-based game the same as an app or as software. so to me and with what i've seen of the game, the convenience there is mostly lost as a pseudo-RTS. completely moot though since they've scrapped it for this game of theirs.
i'd love for this game to be a gem and instead of rationalizing against playing or spending money on it, i'd like to be able to do the opposite. but it's not shaping well. day 9 was a major pull, let's see in a few days for the actual "alpha" gameplay.
On August 22 2016 21:34 ahw wrote: Company Start Up has Idea Company pitches idea and concept to investors Investors invest to realize said idea and potentially make giant return on investment Company uses money to pay salaries for a California tech start up over 2-3 years Original idea, after r&d funded for years, proves unstable. Company direction changed to save investors money.
This is how things get innovated and developed. Things take time and money and risk.
Blizzard started by porting games from 1 platform to another and porting educational software to different platforms... then they slowly transitioned to making their own games. i started by porting applications from foxpro to visual studio/SQL Server. then i slowly transitioned to making my own applications.
there are lots of way to innovate and develop while making money as you go.. Artillery took the high risk approach and failed. Blizzard's approach worked.
Holy f* shit would you please stop calling Atlas failed? What is wrong with you? One guy leaves the team for various reasons and you literally just write "Failed!!" all day.
Combined with trying to make any kind of comparison between the status of today's industry with the status of the industry back when Blizzard was a noname company... Man. We get it - you like Day9 and you don't like Artillery. You can stop repeating now.
Wait until the alpha is public, then judge it based on that.
On August 23 2016 19:17 nanaoei wrote: no, i don't see how the game would be profitable as a browser-based game, but that's just me and my complete lack of education on the matter. the only reference i've got for a successful in-browser MMO is RuneScape (freemium/monthly p2p) or some of the websites that make money off of advertising per views.
since it's a moba now, that's answered pretty easily in microtransactions and cosmetics but you still have to look at what it's competing with. anyone with a computer these days could probably run the browser-based game the same as an app or as software. so to me and with what i've seen of the game, the convenience there is mostly lost as a pseudo-RTS. completely moot though since they've scrapped it for this game of theirs.
i'd love for this game to be a gem and instead of rationalizing against playing or spending money on it, i'd like to be able to do the opposite. but it's not shaping well. day 9 was a major pull, let's see in a few days for the actual "alpha" gameplay.
In fact, I didn't mean they could make money from a browser based game but making money by selling their browser tech solution to other companies ( like selling the unreal engine for example). In their 2013 video, they showed tools for developpers etc.
I think I remember reading that they dropped the navigator oriented game because there were actually more downsides than upsides. As such they would keep it as a tool (for mapmaking and such), but not as the core model for the game itself. I don't have the courage to check it out, but maybe someone can confirm or deny this?
Yeah a shame, I knew it wasn't an RTS awhile ago, but still i wish it had been. I remember getting excited when Day9 announced this cause I thought he would make an awesome RTS, not a BW copy but with those fundamentals. Oh well I imagine a lot of people will still enjoy this.
It's obviously no base building rts, but still looks interesting to me tbh. It really depends on the unit design if this is fun, excited to give it a try!
So I'm not sure why the character select screen looks so mediocre. Not a fan of the art-style of the characters, but the color pallet of the game looks so dull and void of any personality..
EPT
