On February 21 2024 00:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Look for Frost Giant's best people to start leaving. Its going to be interesting to see how much limited and valuable time big name Streamers will put into $torm Gate.
On February 20 2024 09:58 WombaT wrote: Well shit, perhaps Jimmy Raynor’s spider sense was on to something! Something feels increasingly a bit off, I’m just unsure where the fuckery is coming from really.
not "spider sense"... just objectively observing the facts. Money for "server costs during testing" is a weird excuse for a company of this size with $35 million in their budget. Frost Giant is selling this David Versus Goliath story. Then, they're worried about statues when they are supposed to be making a full featured game? They altered the Kickstarter mid way through to add a "2nd batch" of the "300 limited Signed Collectors Editions. This is a company scrambling for money.
If Frost Giant were serious about working on a small budget their HQ would be in the midwest or upstate New York. The weather in upstate New York is horrible and housing is super cheap. You can pay your staff a lot less and they can live well. They want to relax in SoCal. LOL.
Throughout my career making software I've watched tiny teams build better products than teams of 200. They behave very differently from how Frost Giant behaves. For example, Arnica Software was a team of ~10 that made Web Portal Tech that went toe-to-toe with the Web Portal Giants for over a dozen years. My tiny team, which started with me working alone, modded "Stonefield Reports" and it competed successfully with Seagate's and SAP's Crystal Reports from 2010 to 2020. Stonefield Reports itself was made by 2 guys.
On February 21 2024 00:58 _Spartak_ wrote:
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
They will raise the rest of the funds they need through monetization during early access. It doesn't have to be $60 million, they can be more efficient with the money than most AAA studios. The money they raise through Start Engine will go towards marketing early access, not for post-early access development (although I imagine it won't hurt to have more runway).
thanks for withstanding the heat and providing a logical reply. A tiny team made Risk of Rain 2. 1 guy made River City Underground. There are a myriad of Steam games made by small teams. These teams' behaviour is incongruent with Frost Giant's behaviours.
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
When the illusionist waves his left hand in front of his right hand telling you he has nothing in his left hand we all know he is doing something curious with his right hand. That was teh "statues" and the Kickstarter.
If any single one of the employees at Frost Giant truly loves RTS down to the bottom of their souls the way they claim there are many single man projects they can take on. As it succeeds financially they can grow from there. People who love the craft of software building do this ... all the time.
Clearly, this guy loves making games. He doesn't talk about how much he loves making games. He makes games.
I may argue a lot with you when you’re out of your traditional wheelhouse, but I have always felt you definitely know your shit when it comes to your industry and tangentially linked ones.
So it’s from there I ponder, surely an RTS takes less money to make, depending on what you’re doing? And inspiration is as important in perspiration
If I play a modern AAA title, like a stock adventure game, an open-world title, or something like a Deus Ex (now brutally cancelled ). Surely that costs more?
You have to build a whole bunch of distinct environments, sometimes at a rather large scale, populate them. You need the art assets to stop it getting samey, to give flavour etc. Over rather a large amount of real estate. And you still have to do the game logic and mechanical aspects of the game, be it building an engine or modifying it. Then add on writing and voice acting.
With a competitive RTS, and let’s assume initially we’re going barebones, really all you need is a handful of assets to cover your unit types, and enough assets to build some arenas to do battle in. Plus the requisite engine work. Obviously this expands further once we factor in campaigns, but even WC3, SC2 was reusing tonnes of generic assets over and over in campaigns.
To me surely RTS is one of the least expensive vehicles to develop to a AAA standard? There’s way less expectation, at least amongst competitive RTS fans for absolutely crazy graphical fidelity, and you don’t need as many artists of various kinds to craft the believable and distinctive environments that are kind of a pre-requisite to make say a Horizon Zero Dawn or modern Zelda title. You can get away with maps that are subtle variations of a theme (SC2 has done this for forever), you don’t need the map variety and playtesting required for FPS games that have way more divergent maps.
Curious as to your thoughts on this!
i have many unusual opinions so i expect push back. The TL Mods do a solid job of managing the antics that end up happening around my unusual/unorthodox borderline bizarre opinions. So shout out to the TL MODs for being open minded enough to put up with me.
I'd start by making a really amazing sample/demo game using SC2's world builder tools. Then, I'd start building a community around the game. Then, I'd go to Chris Metzen at Blizzard and try to work out a deal where I can get the game released in their arcade as a monetized arcade game.
Should that fail I'd talk to Gearbox Publishing. They love publishing super small team games. I'd show Gearbox Publishing my game on Battle.Net. I'd show them the community and the fun.
You probably need 1 top notch coder and 1 top notch artist. Between the two of you you can cobble together sound effects. These 2 should answer to 1 financial person who likes playing video games and is not involved in the day to day grind of making the game. The financial person provides a good "heuristic check".
For coding you need a guy who has a minimum of 10,000 hours of C++ projects and 1,000 hours modifying Unreal or Unity or some other major gaming engine. I do not know how to judge who is a great artist so I'd rely on someone I already know to help find an artist.
Once you've got a solid game under your belt you can begin to build a real workplace culture that stretches beyond "live at the office and sleep under your desk". Then, you can start to talk about building an RTS game with 6-10 employees. A game like "Tape To Tape Hockey" gives you experience in the easier to design Action/Strategy genre. Your experience with managing an Action/Strategy game will help inform your decisions on making an RTS game.
The key to this is you start with a small scale project that a handful of people can accomplish. You bring in some cash... you grow from there.
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
They will raise the rest of the funds they need through monetization during early access. It doesn't have to be $60 million, they can be more efficient with the money than most AAA studios. The money they raise through Start Engine will go towards marketing early access, not for post-early access development (although I imagine it won't hurt to have more runway).
thanks for withstanding the heat and providing a logical reply.
Well, it's up to like $400,000 (from 212 investors) on Startengine. Not really sure if that's a low or high number for the platform—I see projects from like $30k to $7m currently seeking funding at present.
On February 21 2024 00:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Look for Frost Giant's best people to start leaving. Its going to be interesting to see how much limited and valuable time big name Streamers will put into $torm Gate.
On February 20 2024 09:58 WombaT wrote: Well shit, perhaps Jimmy Raynor’s spider sense was on to something! Something feels increasingly a bit off, I’m just unsure where the fuckery is coming from really.
not "spider sense"... just objectively observing the facts. Money for "server costs during testing" is a weird excuse for a company of this size with $35 million in their budget. Frost Giant is selling this David Versus Goliath story. Then, they're worried about statues when they are supposed to be making a full featured game? They altered the Kickstarter mid way through to add a "2nd batch" of the "300 limited Signed Collectors Editions. This is a company scrambling for money.
If Frost Giant were serious about working on a small budget their HQ would be in the midwest or upstate New York. The weather in upstate New York is horrible and housing is super cheap. You can pay your staff a lot less and they can live well. They want to relax in SoCal. LOL.
Throughout my career making software I've watched tiny teams build better products than teams of 200. They behave very differently from how Frost Giant behaves. For example, Arnica Software was a team of ~10 that made Web Portal Tech that went toe-to-toe with the Web Portal Giants for over a dozen years. My tiny team, which started with me working alone, modded "Stonefield Reports" and it competed successfully with Seagate's and SAP's Crystal Reports from 2010 to 2020. Stonefield Reports itself was made by 2 guys.
On February 21 2024 00:58 _Spartak_ wrote:
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
They will raise the rest of the funds they need through monetization during early access. It doesn't have to be $60 million, they can be more efficient with the money than most AAA studios. The money they raise through Start Engine will go towards marketing early access, not for post-early access development (although I imagine it won't hurt to have more runway).
thanks for withstanding the heat and providing a logical reply. A tiny team made Risk of Rain 2. 1 guy made River City Underground. There are a myriad of Steam games made by small teams. These teams' behaviour is incongruent with Frost Giant's behaviours.
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
When the illusionist waves his left hand in front of his right hand telling you he has nothing in his left hand we all know he is doing something curious with his right hand. That was teh "statues" and the Kickstarter.
If any single one of the employees at Frost Giant truly loves RTS down to the bottom of their souls the way they claim there are many single man projects they can take on. As it succeeds financially they can grow from there. People who love the craft of software building do this ... all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5N-RsKu63Y
Clearly, this guy loves making games. He doesn't talk about how much he loves making games. He makes games.
I may argue a lot with you when you’re out of your traditional wheelhouse, but I have always felt you definitely know your shit when it comes to your industry and tangentially linked ones.
So it’s from there I ponder, surely an RTS takes less money to make, depending on what you’re doing? And inspiration is as important in perspiration
If I play a modern AAA title, like a stock adventure game, an open-world title, or something like a Deus Ex (now brutally cancelled ). Surely that costs more?
You have to build a whole bunch of distinct environments, sometimes at a rather large scale, populate them. You need the art assets to stop it getting samey, to give flavour etc. Over rather a large amount of real estate. And you still have to do the game logic and mechanical aspects of the game, be it building an engine or modifying it. Then add on writing and voice acting.
With a competitive RTS, and let’s assume initially we’re going barebones, really all you need is a handful of assets to cover your unit types, and enough assets to build some arenas to do battle in. Plus the requisite engine work. Obviously this expands further once we factor in campaigns, but even WC3, SC2 was reusing tonnes of generic assets over and over in campaigns.
To me surely RTS is one of the least expensive vehicles to develop to a AAA standard? There’s way less expectation, at least amongst competitive RTS fans for absolutely crazy graphical fidelity, and you don’t need as many artists of various kinds to craft the believable and distinctive environments that are kind of a pre-requisite to make say a Horizon Zero Dawn or modern Zelda title. You can get away with maps that are subtle variations of a theme (SC2 has done this for forever), you don’t need the map variety and playtesting required for FPS games that have way more divergent maps.
Curious as to your thoughts on this!
i have many unusual opinions so i expect push back. The TL Mods do a solid job of managing the antics that end up happening around my unusual/unorthodox borderline bizarre opinions. So shout out to the TL MODs for being open minded enough to put up with me.
I'd start by making a really amazing sample/demo game using SC2's world builder tools. Then, I'd start building a community around the game. Then, I'd go to Chris Metzen at Blizzard and try to work out a deal where I can get the game released in their arcade as a monetized arcade game.
Should that fail I'd talk to Gearbox Publishing. They love publishing super small team games. I'd show Gearbox Publishing my game on Battle.Net. I'd show them the community and the fun.
You probably need 1 top notch coder and 1 top notch artist. Between the two of you you can cobble together sound effects. These 2 should answer to 1 financial person who likes playing video games and is not involved in the day to day grind of making the game. The financial person provides a good "heuristic check".
For coding you need a guy who has a minimum of 10,000 hours of C++ projects and 1,000 hours modifying Unreal or Unity or some other major gaming engine. I do not know how to judge who is a great artist so I'd rely on someone I already know to help find an artist.
Once you've got a solid game under your belt you can begin to build a real workplace culture that stretches beyond "live at the office and sleep under your desk". Then, you can start to talk about building an RTS game with 6-10 employees. A game like "Tape To Tape Hockey" gives you experience in the easier to design Action/Strategy genre. Your experience with managing an Action/Strategy game will help inform your decisions on making an RTS game.
The key to this is you start with a small scale project that a handful of people can accomplish. You bring in some cash... you grow from there.
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
They will raise the rest of the funds they need through monetization during early access. It doesn't have to be $60 million, they can be more efficient with the money than most AAA studios. The money they raise through Start Engine will go towards marketing early access, not for post-early access development (although I imagine it won't hurt to have more runway).
thanks for withstanding the heat and providing a logical reply.
Well you don’t say! No i agreee almost entirely here. I think the further this development cycle goes the more correct you are in your critiques.
Folks desperate for the new RTS will deny it, more sanguine observers less so.
For me, if Blizz hadn’t fucked WC3 Reforged so badly, if we got what it should have been, look I’m going back to playing WC3. I always found it the most enjoyable, within my wheelhouse skill wise of any of BW/WC3/SC2
Let's say they raise a few millions? However, if burn rate (post early access) is 10M per year? Can they sustain enough revenue in early access to survive? What type of playerbase (measured in steam activity) is required for that? and what are reasonable $ per player spending assumptions?
On February 21 2024 00:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Look for Frost Giant's best people to start leaving. Its going to be interesting to see how much limited and valuable time big name Streamers will put into $torm Gate.
On February 20 2024 09:58 WombaT wrote: Well shit, perhaps Jimmy Raynor’s spider sense was on to something! Something feels increasingly a bit off, I’m just unsure where the fuckery is coming from really.
not "spider sense"... just objectively observing the facts. Money for "server costs during testing" is a weird excuse for a company of this size with $35 million in their budget. Frost Giant is selling this David Versus Goliath story. Then, they're worried about statues when they are supposed to be making a full featured game? They altered the Kickstarter mid way through to add a "2nd batch" of the "300 limited Signed Collectors Editions. This is a company scrambling for money.
If Frost Giant were serious about working on a small budget their HQ would be in the midwest or upstate New York. The weather in upstate New York is horrible and housing is super cheap. You can pay your staff a lot less and they can live well. They want to relax in SoCal. LOL.
Throughout my career making software I've watched tiny teams build better products than teams of 200. They behave very differently from how Frost Giant behaves. For example, Arnica Software was a team of ~10 that made Web Portal Tech that went toe-to-toe with the Web Portal Giants for over a dozen years. My tiny team, which started with me working alone, modded "Stonefield Reports" and it competed successfully with Seagate's and SAP's Crystal Reports from 2010 to 2020. Stonefield Reports itself was made by 2 guys.
On February 21 2024 00:58 _Spartak_ wrote:
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
They will raise the rest of the funds they need through monetization during early access. It doesn't have to be $60 million, they can be more efficient with the money than most AAA studios. The money they raise through Start Engine will go towards marketing early access, not for post-early access development (although I imagine it won't hurt to have more runway).
thanks for withstanding the heat and providing a logical reply. A tiny team made Risk of Rain 2. 1 guy made River City Underground. There are a myriad of Steam games made by small teams. These teams' behaviour is incongruent with Frost Giant's behaviours.
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
When the illusionist waves his left hand in front of his right hand telling you he has nothing in his left hand we all know he is doing something curious with his right hand. That was teh "statues" and the Kickstarter.
If any single one of the employees at Frost Giant truly loves RTS down to the bottom of their souls the way they claim there are many single man projects they can take on. As it succeeds financially they can grow from there. People who love the craft of software building do this ... all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5N-RsKu63Y
Clearly, this guy loves making games. He doesn't talk about how much he loves making games. He makes games.
I may argue a lot with you when you’re out of your traditional wheelhouse, but I have always felt you definitely know your shit when it comes to your industry and tangentially linked ones.
So it’s from there I ponder, surely an RTS takes less money to make, depending on what you’re doing? And inspiration is as important in perspiration
If I play a modern AAA title, like a stock adventure game, an open-world title, or something like a Deus Ex (now brutally cancelled ). Surely that costs more?
You have to build a whole bunch of distinct environments, sometimes at a rather large scale, populate them. You need the art assets to stop it getting samey, to give flavour etc. Over rather a large amount of real estate. And you still have to do the game logic and mechanical aspects of the game, be it building an engine or modifying it. Then add on writing and voice acting.
With a competitive RTS, and let’s assume initially we’re going barebones, really all you need is a handful of assets to cover your unit types, and enough assets to build some arenas to do battle in. Plus the requisite engine work. Obviously this expands further once we factor in campaigns, but even WC3, SC2 was reusing tonnes of generic assets over and over in campaigns.
To me surely RTS is one of the least expensive vehicles to develop to a AAA standard? There’s way less expectation, at least amongst competitive RTS fans for absolutely crazy graphical fidelity, and you don’t need as many artists of various kinds to craft the believable and distinctive environments that are kind of a pre-requisite to make say a Horizon Zero Dawn or modern Zelda title. You can get away with maps that are subtle variations of a theme (SC2 has done this for forever), you don’t need the map variety and playtesting required for FPS games that have way more divergent maps.
Curious as to your thoughts on this!
i have many unusual opinions so i expect push back. The TL Mods do a solid job of managing the antics that end up happening around my unusual/unorthodox borderline bizarre opinions. So shout out to the TL MODs for being open minded enough to put up with me.
I'd start by making a really amazing sample/demo game using SC2's world builder tools. Then, I'd start building a community around the game. Then, I'd go to Chris Metzen at Blizzard and try to work out a deal where I can get the game released in their arcade as a monetized arcade game.
Should that fail I'd talk to Gearbox Publishing. They love publishing super small team games. I'd show Gearbox Publishing my game on Battle.Net. I'd show them the community and the fun.
You probably need 1 top notch coder and 1 top notch artist. Between the two of you you can cobble together sound effects. These 2 should answer to 1 financial person who likes playing video games and is not involved in the day to day grind of making the game. The financial person provides a good "heuristic check".
For coding you need a guy who has a minimum of 10,000 hours of C++ projects and 1,000 hours modifying Unreal or Unity or some other major gaming engine. I do not know how to judge who is a great artist so I'd rely on someone I already know to help find an artist.
Once you've got a solid game under your belt you can begin to build a real workplace culture that stretches beyond "live at the office and sleep under your desk". Then, you can start to talk about building an RTS game with 6-10 employees. A game like "Tape To Tape Hockey" gives you experience in the easier to design Action/Strategy genre. Your experience with managing an Action/Strategy game will help inform your decisions on making an RTS game.
The key to this is you start with a small scale project that a handful of people can accomplish. You bring in some cash... you grow from there.
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
They will raise the rest of the funds they need through monetization during early access. It doesn't have to be $60 million, they can be more efficient with the money than most AAA studios. The money they raise through Start Engine will go towards marketing early access, not for post-early access development (although I imagine it won't hurt to have more runway).
thanks for withstanding the heat and providing a logical reply.
It so is, best mod I had the most fun at! Wonder if there are still people playing it!
Well, this escalated quickly. I have to say I'm not that surprised. Their language has always irked me the wrong way and since the announcement of the kickstarter there was a lot of questionmarks in my head about their business plans. A lot of their communication was very coporate, not only regarding financial issues, while pretending to be completely grass roots driven. Granted I haven't followed the communication on reddit, so it might have been different over there. I can only talk about the stuff I saw, which was mostly official posts and interviews. Anyways, it's still kind of astounding they burned through so much money in just 3 years. But if they chose high expenses like these horrendous spendings on rent (if that's true) and high staff count. The latter also makes me surprised about the state of the game. I thought they had like 20 people or so. Why is the game in the current state if they got 50+ people? I understand they took a lot of time to get the smooth feeling for the units correct and work on technical aspects to improve lag, tick rate, rollback etc. However, they didn't develop a new engine, nor did they succeed in these tech aspects up until this point. There is still lag, units block each other all the time even if they have a path around the unit (most units are more stupid than dragoons...) etc. Honestly, I know I was critical before but was trying to give them the benefit of a doubt to deliver, to give them a chance. However, right now I'm feeling quite cynical and I would be surprised if turns out to be anything more than a half-baked RTS which which will serve a small niche audience like so many other RTS, especially if it loses dev support in the upcoming years.
On February 21 2024 00:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Look for Frost Giant's best people to start leaving. Its going to be interesting to see how much limited and valuable time big name Streamers will put into $torm Gate.
On February 20 2024 09:58 WombaT wrote: Well shit, perhaps Jimmy Raynor’s spider sense was on to something! Something feels increasingly a bit off, I’m just unsure where the fuckery is coming from really.
not "spider sense"... just objectively observing the facts. Money for "server costs during testing" is a weird excuse for a company of this size with $35 million in their budget. Frost Giant is selling this David Versus Goliath story. Then, they're worried about statues when they are supposed to be making a full featured game? They altered the Kickstarter mid way through to add a "2nd batch" of the "300 limited Signed Collectors Editions. This is a company scrambling for money.
If Frost Giant were serious about working on a small budget their HQ would be in the midwest or upstate New York. The weather in upstate New York is horrible and housing is super cheap. You can pay your staff a lot less and they can live well. They want to relax in SoCal. LOL.
Throughout my career making software I've watched tiny teams build better products than teams of 200. They behave very differently from how Frost Giant behaves. For example, Arnica Software was a team of ~10 that made Web Portal Tech that went toe-to-toe with the Web Portal Giants for over a dozen years. My tiny team, which started with me working alone, modded "Stonefield Reports" and it competed successfully with Seagate's and SAP's Crystal Reports from 2010 to 2020. Stonefield Reports itself was made by 2 guys.
A tiny team made Risk of Rain 2. 1 guy made River City Underground. There are a myriad of Steam games made by small teams. These teams' behaviour is incongruent with Frost Giant's behaviours.
Now, they're yapping about how AAA games need $100 Million and they only raised $35 million. Then, Frost Giant states the $tart Engine initiative is an attempt to raise $5 million. Uhh... what about the other $60 million? So they're going to raise $5 million.... live on another 6 months.. and then say.. hey guys.. we need another $5 million.
When the illusionist waves his left hand in front of his right hand telling you he has nothing in his left hand we all know he is doing something curious with his right hand. That was teh "statues" and the Kickstarter.
If any single one of the employees at Frost Giant truly loves RTS down to the bottom of their souls the way they claim there are many single man projects they can take on. As it succeeds financially they can grow from there. People who love the craft of software building do this ... all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5N-RsKu63Y
Clearly, this guy loves making games. He doesn't talk about how much he loves making games. He makes games.
I may argue a lot with you when you’re out of your traditional wheelhouse, but I have always felt you definitely know your shit when it comes to your industry and tangentially linked ones.
So it’s from there I ponder, surely an RTS takes less money to make, depending on what you’re doing? And inspiration is as important in perspiration
If I play a modern AAA title, like a stock adventure game, an open-world title, or something like a Deus Ex (now brutally cancelled ). Surely that costs more?
You have to build a whole bunch of distinct environments, sometimes at a rather large scale, populate them. You need the art assets to stop it getting samey, to give flavour etc. Over rather a large amount of real estate. And you still have to do the game logic and mechanical aspects of the game, be it building an engine or modifying it. Then add on writing and voice acting.
With a competitive RTS, and let’s assume initially we’re going barebones, really all you need is a handful of assets to cover your unit types, and enough assets to build some arenas to do battle in. Plus the requisite engine work. Obviously this expands further once we factor in campaigns, but even WC3, SC2 was reusing tonnes of generic assets over and over in campaigns.
To me surely RTS is one of the least expensive vehicles to develop to a AAA standard? There’s way less expectation, at least amongst competitive RTS fans for absolutely crazy graphical fidelity, and you don’t need as many artists of various kinds to craft the believable and distinctive environments that are kind of a pre-requisite to make say a Horizon Zero Dawn or modern Zelda title. You can get away with maps that are subtle variations of a theme (SC2 has done this for forever), you don’t need the map variety and playtesting required for FPS games that have way more divergent maps.
Curious as to your thoughts on this!
Indie Game Dev here, I think an RTS is actually a lot more work than some of those other triple A games. Both games require a lot of development, but the bulk of the RTS work is on the networking/engine. If you break it down, it's a matter of paying SWEs vs paying artists. SWEs are generally a lot more expensive.
I guess that explains why they were in a hurry to release the public demo at SNF despite the game being clearly not ready for public playtest. They were desperate for more attention and cash. I'd really hoped this wasn't the case but seems like there's no denying now. Sigh.
Anyway, I think the current backlash isn't neccesarily a bad thing for FG. Frankly I think they have been abusing the RTS community's goodwill for a while and now with the community at their throat they'll hopefully finally get their shit together and start doing some proper project management. Well, that or they just fold. The latter seems much more likely but I guess we can still hope.
On February 21 2024 08:38 Miragee wrote: Well, this escalated quickly. I have to say I'm not that surprised. Their language has always irked me the wrong way and since the announcement of the kickstarter there was a lot of questionmarks in my head about their business plans. A lot of their communication was very coporate, not only regarding financial issues, while pretending to be completely grass roots driven. Granted I haven't followed the communication on reddit, so it might have been different over there. I can only talk about the stuff I saw, which was mostly official posts and interviews. Anyways, it's still kind of astounding they burned through so much money in just 3 years. But if they chose high expenses like these horrendous spendings on rent (if that's true) and high staff count. The latter also makes me surprised about the state of the game. I thought they had like 20 people or so. Why is the game in the current state if they got 50+ people? I understand they took a lot of time to get the smooth feeling for the units correct and work on technical aspects to improve lag, tick rate, rollback etc. However, they didn't develop a new engine, nor did they succeed in these tech aspects up until this point. There is still lag, units block each other all the time even if they have a path around the unit (most units are more stupid than dragoons...) etc. Honestly, I know I was critical before but was trying to give them the benefit of a doubt to deliver, to give them a chance. However, right now I'm feeling quite cynical and I would be surprised if turns out to be anything more than a half-baked RTS which which will serve a small niche audience like so many other RTS, especially if it loses dev support in the upcoming years.
To be honest, I think SG looks way way better than any of the other current contenders for "next big RTS". Or at least it fits what I'm looking for in an RTS better. For example the "blocking" you describe is something I actually like since it create cool micro opportunities. I like that kind of stuff and feel SG is the only RTS right now to actually recognize those kinds of mechanics can be great. Now I don't like that they are resorting to baneling-like mechanics to create comeback opportunities, but that's something that can be addressed down the line. I really hope they succeed because their engine is exactly what I'm looking for as a player.
On February 21 2024 03:25 Waxangel wrote: Well, it's up to like $400,000 (from 212 investors) on Startengine. Not really sure if that's a low or high number for the platform—I see projects from like $30k to $7m currently seeking funding at present.
its just a reservation though no actual money yet from my understanding.
To me it sort of increasingly seems like they're going to coast on their declaration of being the successor to Blizzard RTS, without putting in all the work that that would require. It's unfortunate because I was really rooting for them. More and more they're sounding like my uncle who only talks to our family when he has a "new exciting investment opportunity" for us.
I hope I'm wrong, but for now I'm more impressed with what I'm seeing from ZeroSpace.
On February 21 2024 11:07 LunarC wrote: To be honest, I think SG looks way way better than any of the other current contenders for "next big RTS". Or at least it fits what I'm looking for in an RTS better. For example the "blocking" you describe is something I actually like since it create cool micro opportunities. I like that kind of stuff and feel SG is the only RTS right now to actually recognize those kinds of mechanics can be great. Now I don't like that they are resorting to baneling-like mechanics to create comeback opportunities, but that's something that can be addressed down the line. I really hope they succeed because their engine is exactly what I'm looking for as a player.
Yeah, but does it feel like a 30mil game atm?
The ratio between what was promised/talked about and the status quo is staggering. The endgame is just a ball of units, clashing into buildings or another army.
Don't forget that a lot of people who would invest money at EA launch have already bought the Kickstarter packs. And main game is F2P. So EA launch will not bring in that much revenue
On February 21 2024 19:42 Harris1st wrote: Don't forget that a lot of people who would invest money at EA launch have already bought the Kickstarter packs. And main game is F2P. So EA launch will not bring in that much revenue
this plus that sketchy equity scheme, who would even invest in this if you have the slightest knowledge of financials.
Make it full shares with open financials or go home. I bet the founders take a cool 300k+ net salary (so costing FGS 500k or so). I guess they believed their own 150m market value evaluation and considered money to be endless.
News of Frost Giant starting an investment drive on StartEngine spread far and wide. Numerous giant video game news sites and even GamesIndustry.biz reported on it. And yet, we have many big name Stormgate streamers who have not commented a single word on this. The silence is deafening.
I have a hunch ZombieGrub is going to have something to say about it though. I will be watching the next broadcast of "Real Talk Strategy".
Frost Giant is raising investment money via a new company called "StartEngine". A small word of caution about this organization. They claim the founder of StartENgine, Howard Marks, co-founded Activision. Uhhh, that is a lie. I am an avid video game historian. I know all about the start of Activision and I've known about it for 20+ years. Howard Marks and Citibank's high yield Debt Program have nothing to do with the start and founding of Activision.
I align politlcally with Kevin O'leary in a great many ways. Unfortunately, Kevin O'Leary is lying. When called on this lie I have no doubt O'Leary will claim he didn't know. Anyhow, Activision was founded by Pitfall! maker David Crane, RoboTank designer Alan Miller, Chess on the Atari 2600 designer Bob Whitehead, and money man Larry Kaplan. Howard Marks was managing high yield DEBT for a bank. Larry Kaplan got the 1 million to start Activision from Sutter Hill Ventures. They quickly paid it back and were 100% independent of any outside money orgs or venture capital people. Pitfall! was an absolute, off-the-charts smash hit. Activision didn't need any outside money.
If they are now going to re-write history ... I'm calling BS.
I've been following Kevin O'Leary for over 20 years. He will very, very occasionally bullshit. Unfortunately, this is one of those times.
EPT
). Surely that costs more? 
