|
On April 18 2024 06:16 Branch.AUT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2024 02:05 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
If the third race isnt hitting the mark, it is looking dire. There is so much work to still be done.
I see no hype around for the game atm in many forums, threads stopped at like 30 pages and no new posts. Even if the game is decent in EA, i am curious how many people can be reached. You shouldnt take the feeings of the rts community as an indicator for stormgate success. The vast majority of the market isn't even aware of the gam yete. The big decider if the game succeeds is open, casual market. Not bitter vets yearning to relive their youth through a relaunch of starcraft.
Their reach will never touch the vast majority of the market unless it has waves of word of mouth sharing from joyful players. Its inextricably tied up in the RTS community. Are they going to get schoolchildren talking about it from youtube shorts? How??? Its always going to be touched by online strategy games stuff.
Right now they market by sending their 'skulls of sheddas' out to 'infest' the RTS market and its adjacencies. If those RTS players say 'yucky poo poo' after playing it doesn't make them bitter vets who are maligned and over-attached to their concept of RTS. Its just their judgement, why are we to believe its compromised? Is StormGate's real marketing strategy shame???
If you try to lever an existing community to get those waves of joyful word of mouth, its odd to cast aspersions on them when they don't do what someone wants them to do.
I think you can come away with a very positive impression of the StarCraft/WarCraft communities' integrity after the whole thing is said and done. At a certain point Stormgate literally tried to walk into the StarCraft reddit and be like
'hey guys lets make this a Stormgate reddit! Don't we all hate Blizzard, lets show em by having this other company have this place!'
'Wait does Stormgate treat women better than Blizzard?'
'Well we hired 2 or 3 in non-frontline and non-founding roles'
(why does other people's pain and exploitation grant spiritual ownership to another unrelated group of people?)
So people being like uhhh no don't post that stuff here, don't completely offset our culture because you want something — is a show of integrity.
Another way to market could have been a big ESPORTS event series but they didn't save any money for that.
|
On April 18 2024 07:01 MegaBuster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2024 06:16 Branch.AUT wrote:On April 18 2024 02:05 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
If the third race isnt hitting the mark, it is looking dire. There is so much work to still be done.
I see no hype around for the game atm in many forums, threads stopped at like 30 pages and no new posts. Even if the game is decent in EA, i am curious how many people can be reached. You shouldnt take the feeings of the rts community as an indicator for stormgate success. The vast majority of the market isn't even aware of the gam yete. The big decider if the game succeeds is open, casual market. Not bitter vets yearning to relive their youth through a relaunch of starcraft. Their reach will never touch the vast majority of the market unless it has waves of word of mouth sharing from joyful players. Its inextricably tied up in the RTS community. Are they going to get schoolchildren talking about it from youtube shorts? How??? Its always going to be touched by online strategy games stuff. Right now they market by sending their 'skulls of sheddas' out to 'infest' the RTS market and its adjacencies. If those RTS players say 'yucky poo poo' after playing it doesn't make them bitter vets who are maligned and over-attached to their concept of RTS. Its just their judgement, why are we to believe its compromised? Is StormGate's real marketing strategy shame??? If you try to lever an existing community to get those waves of joyful word of mouth, its odd to cast aspersions on them when they don't do what someone wants them to do. I think you can come away with a very positive impression of the StarCraft/WarCraft communities' integrity after the whole thing is said and done. At a certain point Stormgate literally tried to walk into the StarCraft reddit and be like 'hey guys lets make this a Stormgate reddit! Don't we all hate Blizzard, lets show em by having this other company have this place!' 'Wait does Stormgate treat women better than Blizzard?' 'Well we hired 2 or 3 in non-frontline and non-founding roles' (why does other people's pain and exploitation grant spiritual ownership to another unrelated group of people?) So people being like uhhh no don't post that stuff here, don't completely offset our culture because you want something — is a show of integrity. Another way to market could have been a big ESPORTS event series but they didn't save any money for that.
I honestly don't know what your point is. I get that you don't like Frost Giant, StormGate, and Spartak, but outside of that I don't know what you're trying to ramble towards.
|
The first poster said they saw a lack of talk around general forum communities.
The second poster rebutted by saying that the game will ultimately be judged by its reception from the general casual market. They also showed some dislike for a type of perceived bitter RTS veteran who is clouding the waters right now.
I then said I do not think it will be received by that casual market. Perhaps ever. Because that takes a lot of money, unless you get something incredible to happen. Even if that incredible thing happens it will probably not untouched by RTS enthusiast media. This is because Frost Giant is using the RTS community to buoy their marketing. They are making up for a low budget with a large rolodex.
Then I used the terminology from the game of infesting and 'skulls of shedda'. This was to frame this levering of the RTS people as a marketing strategy in a funny light. I then showed antipathy for how additionally there is a trend towards 'toxic positivity' that is the constant reframing of criticism for the game as something to be ashamed of. I do not think people should be ashamed because they dislike something.
Like oh you are a bitter RTS veteran if you aren't on board with us
At one point there was push by StormGate fans to hammer the StarCraft reddit with posts about StormGate until the mods had to ban it. I spoke that I think this is a positive feature of the culture and not shameful. We should not feel shame.
I shared a humorous sketch highlighting the nature of part of StormGate's intention, which is something like 'We are the spiritual successor of Blizzard, also its okay that we copy all their IP because Blizzard is bad. So we can own it now" I then mentioned the observation that Blizzard's badness really was not centered on them, nor do they make specific efforts to counterplay versus Blizzard's historical mistreatment of women.
Also they have no ESPORTS money despite having a 'Head of ESPORTS' who left the company after years of employment. Before there was any game.
|
I appreciate you rehashing what you'd already said, though I did understand it the first time. My issue wasn't understanding your phrasing, but understanding the thrust behind it. You wander between named criticisms and grievances in a way that leaves no thesis supported other than 'I don't like Frost Giant'...
...And that idea itself is fine, I'm just getting to the point where what was once surely satire is now blurry and tiring.
As to Branch.AUT's point, I would agree that an RTS would have to be a fucking golden miracle to get much of any positive reception from RTS veteran communities. Even SC2 had a fair amount of pushback and wasn't only well-received, and SC2 is undoubtedly a 'good RTS'.
For what it's worth, my current expectation of StormGate on release (based on what I've seen and heard so far) is probably around 4/10 where 10 is Brood War brought to a modern age, and 1 is a mobile game. Good enough that I'd probably still play it, but not hitting markers that make me hyped as an RTS vet. SC2 on that same scale floats around 6/10.
|
they aren't grievances, I am noting points of failure for the commission report so that future generations may understand.
Otherwise it would be pointless to talk about 'toxic positivity' much here because the true believers have already moved to the discord compound for the final standoff with reality.
|
Except no-one has commissioned you to make said report, nor are you an authority on shuttle construction capable of noting points of failure, correct?
If so, they're grievances, and not more.
|
Yea when you stress the metaphor beyond its capacity then respond to it, it doesn't mean anything. (Kind of like how the O-rings in the Challenger were stressed beyond their capacity)
Obviously you don't have to be an authority nor working for a federal commission to speak on it right? This is another shaming response and will be added to the report.
Anyways, can anyone check my math? I was looking at the financial filings and I realized that most people are counting from the time the crowd equity campaign (startengine) went live on April 9th (2024) but I think the company has chosen its fiscal year end as December 31.
So they don't have 6.8 mil (cash) as of April 9th, they have it as of Dec 31 2023. So if you model the burn rate at 12.8 mil/year then the original investment would be gone by July 1 exactly (for a dead-on Q3 early access release). There's also the kickstarter %, indiegogo late access, 700k from startengine, and plushie sales.
I feel like this isn't the prevailing counting numbers people are sharing. That there's 2 months of development time before earning has to begin?
The startengine will also close on July 9th.
edit: Just to restate that if the filings are up to date as of Dec 31 2023. Then at a similar burn rate, they would have spent 3.8 mil already in 2024. Then they would have 3 mil now from the original investment, and be burning 35k/day? Or 50k/day with weekends off? Do they get off days in a situation like this?
Also at this time the highest reddit comments within the main reaction to this seem to reference that they have 6 months of cash on hand from the time of the crowd equity campaign. Rather than 6 months from fiscal year end.
|
On April 18 2024 07:01 MegaBuster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2024 06:16 Branch.AUT wrote:On April 18 2024 02:05 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
If the third race isnt hitting the mark, it is looking dire. There is so much work to still be done.
I see no hype around for the game atm in many forums, threads stopped at like 30 pages and no new posts. Even if the game is decent in EA, i am curious how many people can be reached. You shouldnt take the feeings of the rts community as an indicator for stormgate success. The vast majority of the market isn't even aware of the gam yete. The big decider if the game succeeds is open, casual market. Not bitter vets yearning to relive their youth through a relaunch of starcraft. Their reach will never touch the vast majority of the market unless it has waves of word of mouth sharing from joyful players. Its inextricably tied up in the RTS community. Are they going to get schoolchildren talking about it from youtube shorts? How??? Its always going to be touched by online strategy games stuff. Right now they market by sending their 'skulls of sheddas' out to 'infest' the RTS market and its adjacencies. If those RTS players say 'yucky poo poo' after playing it doesn't make them bitter vets who are maligned and over-attached to their concept of RTS. Its just their judgement, why are we to believe its compromised? Is StormGate's real marketing strategy shame??? If you try to lever an existing community to get those waves of joyful word of mouth, its odd to cast aspersions on them when they don't do what someone wants them to do. I think you can come away with a very positive impression of the StarCraft/WarCraft communities' integrity after the whole thing is said and done. At a certain point Stormgate literally tried to walk into the StarCraft reddit and be like 'hey guys lets make this a Stormgate reddit! Don't we all hate Blizzard, lets show em by having this other company have this place!' 'Wait does Stormgate treat women better than Blizzard?' 'Well we hired 2 or 3 in non-frontline and non-founding roles' (why does other people's pain and exploitation grant spiritual ownership to another unrelated group of people?) So people being like uhhh no don't post that stuff here, don't completely offset our culture because you want something — is a show of integrity. Another way to market could have been a big ESPORTS event series but they didn't save any money for that.
Either they make it or they don't. Really no use in combing through their reports and offering theoreticals how much cash they burn through if you don't want to invest anyway.
Also I have the increased feeling you think this is reddit or at least TL.net works the same as reddit. It's not.
And I have no idea what Frostgiant has to do with Blizzards alleged or true misogynie. You are just throwing wild stuff and accusations around hope something sticks or what?
|
The company always had a two-pronged moral argument for its relationship to the source material.
(1) They are veterans of -Craft development and deserve spiritual ownership in some fashion.
(2) Blizzard is bad and an immoral actor, so the former point is very pronounced.
Otherwise they would face completely business stopping scrutiny on why they can make something like the -Crafts/Blizzard stuff beyond the acceptable level of imitation and modelling. Its why they are Frost Giants (after Blizzard) who are making Storm-Gate, a signal down to the basic phonemes of the word Star-Craft.
(there's also the added motif of Storm meaning 'of Blizzard', see Heroes of the Storm, Sons of the Storm.)
They also had early discussion on titling the game 'Third Dawn' to better signify that spiritual ownership of StarCraft 3. To be fair I think they got enough scrutiny from just the visual similarity to Blizzard stuff that they rearranged a lot, which was probably time consuming. There's also a connection between visual quality and that response. But the whole thing would have been a non-starter without the ownership claims.
No accusation of misogyny, just that (1) + (2) also really insisted a place that does better on that. This is why they announced interview quotas at some point. The point of interview quotas (from a research basis) is that they make diverse candidates more likely to be hired though.
I think that the spiritual ownership problem is the worst part about the company, but I'm trying to ask about the if prevailing number for the runway is right — which is surely important. I don't get the this ain't reddit partner part.
So is this difference in the counting date for the financials correct? I've not seen anyone say there's 2 months of runway left minus earnings.
|
8748 Posts
im not gonna go back and read every reply since my chat with artosis was posted but just to be clear, i do not hate SG or think it's really bad or have a doomer attitude about it. the latest test build was factually still very unfinished and they've got enough funds to guarantee a good amount of work on it still. whether the rest of the unimplemented content is good is a complete unknown. furthermore, you can't just make a starcraft clone and then randomize various design and gameplay elements and expect it to be good. so even if each individual departure from sc2 makes sense in a vacuum, does it all synergize into a good cohesive fun-to-play game? that remains to be seen. is there anything worrying about what we've seen so far? that's what i tried to address in my chat with artosis. a ton of it could end up being moot
next phase will give us a lot more to see (and it's under NDA so you wont hear anything about it) but we really have to wait at least until EA before we can really begin judging the gameplay and their design decision. at that point, everything will be roughly implemented. but their first implementation could misrepresent their vision/goals so we really need to give them a chance to iterate for a while. so i'd rather wait until 1.0 to give really heavy criticism and judgments.
that's pretty generous though so i think by winter, after we've seen some of their patches and more communication about their intent etc, we can start to form pretty strong opinions and decide if this is a game we're gonna keep playing no matter what else comes out (like a lot of us did with bw -> sc2) or if it's a game we're gonna play while we keep trying every new release to find "the one"
it's been difficult to discuss SG because the builds we've seen have a lot of placeholder things and missing things. so when you try to have a big picture view of the game, it can easily be totally off the mark. EA will be a much better era for discussing the game. i much prefer to have a live game where nothing is placeholder or unintentional. so i can fully judge the gameplay we're seeing and say "this is how the game is playing right now. here are some examples to demonstrate what im talking about. i think i'd have more fun or it'd be better if it played out differently in this specific way. here are suggestions on specific tweaks to get us closer to that."
was the video useful feedback for FGS? i really have no idea. honestly if my concerns really missed the mark, then im actually just teeing them up to hit a homerun with community sentiment when they get everything out to us in EA and it addresses all of my concerns or "proves me wrong". or maybe it was useful criticism and it gave them something to think about for the builds they're working on internally right now, and maybe it'll help them make a better EA release.
|
I may have missed it, but did they actually say (or hint at) that Blizzard is bad/immoral somewhere?
On the topic of Blizzard RTS popularity in the past (gather around for grandpa's stories):
When War3 was being teased, there were BW purists that didn't like the game and bashed it a lot. Old school legends were quite vocal about the game being a failure if it launched in its state (with upkeep and lower unit caps).
When War3 beta first launched, there was a massive frenzy of interest on it - some hacker types immediately began trying to reverse engineer the server architecture so everyone could play it. They were successful, and many people (including myself) got to play it early on into the beta unofficially. (Does anyone remember what it was called?)
I myself received a legit beta key shortly after and only played on the official servers from then on.
After a couple months of the beta, interest had gone down considerably. As mentioned above, some vocal RTS "legends" were quite unhappy with the state of the game and prophesized failure. (There were others that were happy with it, I should note).
Since interest was waning, and in order to get people to test the game, everyone who had a key was allowed to invite 5 others into the beta. By the end of the War3 beta, I would take a guess that it had fewer than 1000 people regularly playing it (no source - just my own remembering)
Of course when the game was actually released, it was hugely popular and millions of copies were sold.
SC2 - I remember the World Wide Invitational when it was announced (er, I'm pretty sure that was the event - in 2007). It came out of nowhere and it of course generated massive interest.
but if you check threads here on TL.net, there was a lot of negative feedback. "We don't want super hard counters (immortal vs. tank), Terran units look too shiny, Zerglings move weird, we don't want heroes (mothership)", etc.
Another "huge" factor was multiple building selection (MBS) and auto-rally to minerals. "Macro will be brain dead!" "The game will be too easy to play!" Which is why macro mechanics were created. (of course to this day, macro is still hard enough and no one, including pros, ever macros "perfectly").
SC2 beta was more popular than the War3 beta - it helped that the competitive scene stepped in a bit and hosted small tournaments that were put onto YouTube to generate popularity, etc. (YouTube and streaming not existing back in 2002 with War3) But in general, the game also had a huge spike in popularity upon release.
I guess my point here is that other RTS games that we look back on with rose-tinted glasses also had their pains in the early days for sure.
And this was with more marketing and in general hype (BW being a big e-sport in Korea was so new and interesting; people knew that Blizzard wanted to harness that popularity with both War3/SC2). Now there's tons of solid e-sports options, so FGS can't easily capitalize on that eagerness.
I think FGS is correct in that the RTS genre has a good community and has room for a solid new game. There's no reason (to me) they can't deliver - so I hope they're successful.
I don't know how this works exactly, but I know they've wrote about wanting to self-publish. I wonder if they might cave in and accept a publisher in order to help finance the game, if they end up needing it. Whatever happens, I don't think this game will "fail".
However, if they expect 50% of WoL's players upon Early Access launch, they will be disappointed. However I hope I'm wrong!
|
United States33389 Posts
On April 18 2024 11:28 MegaBuster wrote:they aren't grievances, I am noting points of failure for the commission report so that future generations may understand. Otherwise it would be pointless to talk about 'toxic positivity' much here because the true believers have already moved to the discord compound for the final standoff with reality.
It just comes across as you trying to convince people to agree with you or feel as strongly as you do, but most people's reaction is just "Okay, shrug." And then you feel like you have to reiterate your points in different ways to try to achieve your goal.
Ultimately, I don't think you're really getting anywhere with it. It's not that people don't understand what you're saying; they just don't see it as such a big deal. And while that might be frustrating for you and something you want to change (no one's saying you don't have conviction), in the interest of the discourse in this thread I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from 'spammy' behavior 
|
8748 Posts
also one more thing i wanted to say about SG: i kinda get the feeling that the game is gonna be Wings of Liberty and not Legacy of the Void for a while. or it's gonna be vanilla SC1 and not BW for a while. it's just too new. i dont think the founders of FGS had been tinkering with these ideas for a long time, making custom sc2 maps and mods to explore new unit ideas and game mechanics like a lot of other people have done. i think they saw the success of LotV going free to play and the success of coop and saw an opportunity in the market to make a fresh game in the same vein when they knew blizzard had no plans to make sc3. so they pitched their ideas and with their experience in the industry, they got funding and started giving themselves their $200k salaries before they ever did any work on the game. then they took their time polling the community on all sorts of topics while the engine was being built. and we're only now getting to the meat and potatoes of the game design and it's gonna be pretty raw and probably missing something big or need some more reworks before it's actually really good.
you look at some of these indie game devs or new small studios (not just RTS) and they actually did a ton of unpaid work before they officially started working on the game and getting paid for it. and those are the gems. FGS, on the other hand, has always planned on this long EA phase to get polished. there's nothing wrong with that (assuming they've got the funding) but i dont know if enough people realize what that really means -- people need to expect it to be rough for a while. and if FGS isn't flexible enough to let their game transform in EA the way the previous starcraft games were transformed by their expansions, then i think in all likelihood it's gonna be missing something for a long time until they give in and say it's time for a major shake-up.
all that to say it's up to the community to be really critical of the game throughout EA because if it's a 6/10 or 7/10, people might just be content with "sc3" and not be critical enough to push it toward an 8/10, 9/10, or 10/10 game. if it's really at least an 8/10 without some major rework or shake-up, that'll be incredible and frankly lucky
|
On April 19 2024 01:34 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2024 11:28 MegaBuster wrote:they aren't grievances, I am noting points of failure for the commission report so that future generations may understand. Otherwise it would be pointless to talk about 'toxic positivity' much here because the true believers have already moved to the discord compound for the final standoff with reality. It just comes across as you trying to convince people to agree with you or feel as strongly as you do, but most people's reaction is just "Okay, shrug." And then you feel like you have to reiterate your points in different ways to try to achieve your goal. Ultimately, I don't think you're really getting anywhere with it. It's not that people don't understand what you're saying; they just don't see it as such a big deal. And while that might be frustrating for you and something you want to change (no one's saying you don't have conviction), in the interest of the discourse in this thread I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from 'spammy' behavior
I responded to comments that said they didn't understand quite literally. Its hard not to clarify when its the type of response that says "I don't get this and other people shouldn't either". Its hard to let that stand, but I get the quantity thing. Obviously you can have random higher quality posts out of nowhere like Nony here that also demand attention.
Still after each point trying to derail with that, I'm trying to figure about this money thing, I don't see how anything could be more important than people getting the base financials of the crowd equity campaign wrong.
Do you actually think the fiscal reporting was to the Dec 31 date, or the April date as people seemed to go with?
(Is this why the startengine was 2 months delayed? To make the financials perceived ticking rate start 2 months later?)
|
Do you think people are investing without really understanding what they're getting into? Maybe some, but I wouldn't worry about it. I work in investing professionally and I see people throwing away their money on companies with less prospect than FGS all the time.
As long as all the information is disclosed (which it appears to be, from what we know) - who cares what the fiscal reporting period is? It's in the disclosure isn't it?
|
Ah gosh I'm forced to spam. Yea it matters immensely how the financial reporting is disseminated and if its correct.
The difference being that when the crowd equity campaign went live they could have 6.8mil cash on hand (what everyone said) or 3 mil cash on hand (what no one said). I can't deal with how someone who works in investing would not worry about that. People are certainly investing without knowing what they are getting into. You can't even make any money for 12 mths minimum so of course this period matters.
Since you are a professional which do you think is true?
|
As a fan of MegaBuster's screeds, I've gone ahead and created a Lemmy community that would encourage them: https://sh.itjust.works/c/stormgate and even populated it with its first shit poast.
I chose this Lemmy ... because the I like the name. And I chose Lemmy cuz I'm tired of reddit.
Anything (legal) goes!
|
I'm not sure which is true - I haven't looked at the financials at all. Sorry about that. I have no interest in investing.
But I'll admit I'm a little confused - are you saying the information in the OM is wrong?
Looking at this page: https://www.startengine.com/offering/frostgiant
Click "Terms" and then "Financials"
it says as of their recent fiscal end they have $7,428,865 in total assets and $6,806,364 in cash. From the previous year they had $20,053,233 total assets / $19,410,743 in cash at year end. ($1,050,365 burn rate/month)
I can't find their fiscal year end, but if it's Dec 31st as you mentioned, then yeah they likely have $3M something cash on hand. If indeed no one is talking about this or is talking about investing based on an assumption that their cash is currently at $6.8M, then yeah that's noteworthy for sure.
This seems to coincide that with their EA launch in a few months, they'll need to start making money. I guess they also have $2.3M kickstarter funds, but I'm not sure how/when that gets released.
From their business FAQ:
ARE YOU GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY IF YOU’RE NOT PROFITABLE OUT OF THE GATE?
+ Show Spoiler +
If Stormgate is unexpectedly not profitable at the outset, Frost Giant is fortunate to have additional runway in the form of cash reserves. These reserves provide stability in the event of revenue shortfalls, and combined with revenue from Early Access release, are expected to carry Stormgate to a “1.0” launch. Frost Giant’s resources, while finite, are consistent with the original business plan – and correspondingly, we believe we have sufficient capital to achieve success.
We also have several other potential capital sources. Frost Giant expects to work with publishing partners in Asia. This means other companies would market Stormgate in Asia in exchange for regional revenue share. These deals frequently involve up-front licensing fees and/or minimum guarantees, but not always.
It's also possible that Frost Giant might strike additional platform partnerships with other PC gaming distribution services, and that Stormgate might enter into other promotional partnerships or licensing deals that produce capital. Deals in these categories, and the corresponding terms, cannot be predicted ahead of time.
Another possibility is that Frost Giant will raise additional venture capital. Although venture capital investment across the gaming sector decreased over the past twelve months, Frost Giant is a candidate for future rounds because Stormgate has demonstrated significant development progress and market traction.
Finally, Frost Giant has been offered a line of credit, in the form of venture debt, from a major bank. This can provide a certain amount of operating capital as a bridge to other funding.
I assume they're always looking for more funding and who knows what the line of credit is worth.
Please don't mistake my post - I am not saying anything in particular about their financials beyond what I've said (which is that at a quick glance, it looks worriesome). I just try to assume someone who is investing in shares of a private company like this with $0 income would do a little digging before investing money, that's all. Your points are all valid.
My other point was that everything appears to be reported, right? Investing is always buyer beware- do your homework. If something isn't reported, I assume they can be fined? (I'm not in the US). If you think something isn't reported in these documents accurately, it would be a pretty big deal and I would encourage you to show all the evidence. People not connecting dots sucks (actual cash on hand), but isn't a lack of disclosure legally. (Could be morally wrong though).
I wouldn't want the headache of dealing with secondary markets on these shares, From my "professional" standpoint, I would strongly recommend no one invest in this company unless they are 100% OK with losing 100% of their principal. But that doesn't mean I am betting that will happen. I have no idea.
I try not to mix my work with my gaming hobby when possible. Forget my "investment professional" point. 
|
On April 19 2024 02:56 SoleSteeler wrote:
SG Financial TLDR:
EA in summer owns or it is over, 150mil self valuation is BS, any money raised from private equity will not be on favourable terms (ie: Calders and StarCitizen).
|
On April 19 2024 01:42 NonY wrote:
also one more thing i wanted to say about SG: i kinda get the feeling that the game is gonna be Wings of Liberty and not Legacy of the Void for a while. or it's gonna be vanilla SC1 and not BW for a while. it's just too new. i dont think the founders of FGS had been tinkering with these ideas for a long time, making custom sc2 maps and mods to explore new unit ideas and game mechanics like a lot of other people have done.
I agree that the game needs to evolve greatly in EA. The more transparency and updates from the Devs the better, hopefully EA starts making them a bit of money so they can do that.
But what you say would beg the question what guys like Monk were doing for a while?
I don't think FG have been on a hiring spree lately right? If they were just building the engine for a while surely the sensible way of doing things would have been to hold off most hiring until that is done.
Zerospace for example went from a couple of programmers for long time to a team of 30+ artists, level designers etc. But FG seem to have had their team built out from the start, which would suggest everyone was at least working on something. Maybe once the editor is completed they will have a backlog of things to actually implement and the game can develop at an even faster pace
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
