|
Partnered Post: TL.net receives an affiliate fee for all purchases made through the attached link. |
On December 06 2023 21:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 16:28 UretArds441 wrote:
99% of kickstarter always feels like a scam, happy its the same here I've found Kickstarter to be generally reliable and not scammy. I doubt that the Stormgate Kickstarter is scammy, but I just wish the pledge rewards were made clearer. People definitely support the game and the RTS genre, but they also don't really know what they're paying for through these backer-levels.
Frost Giant labelling this as "Crafting the Future of RTS Together" is a big stretch.
This does not indicate fraud though. It is a big exaggeration and they can get a small # of people to agree with it and really believe that , not too different from Avilo, they are "making RTS great again" by giving Frost Giant money.
Frost Giant has been ambiguous regarding the exact nature of the rewards and the exact feature set of the game. However, we get to watch a bunch of people play the game that definitely exists right now. A skeptical consumer can just decide based off of what they see. Exaggeration and possibly big exaggeration... sure. Fraud/scam? nah.
|
On December 07 2023 04:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 21:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 06 2023 16:28 UretArds441 wrote:
99% of kickstarter always feels like a scam, happy its the same here I've found Kickstarter to be generally reliable and not scammy. I doubt that the Stormgate Kickstarter is scammy, but I just wish the pledge rewards were made clearer. People definitely support the game and the RTS genre, but they also don't really know what they're paying for through these backer-levels. Frost Giant labelling this as "Crafting the Future of RTS Together" is a big stretch. This does not indicate fraud though. It is a big exaggeration and they can get a small # of people to agree with it and really believe that , not too different from Avilo, they are "making RTS great again" by giving Frost Giant money.
I think that quote is just driving hype. Whether or not the game ends up being disappointing is different from whether or not the Kickstarter is a literal scam.
|
i use the term fraud rather than scam because it is a more precise and less derogatory/inflammatory term.
|
On December 07 2023 04:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i use the term fraud rather than scam because it is a more precise and less derogatory/inflammatory term.
I don't know if calling someone a fraud is better than calling them a scammer (doesn't fraud even imply legality, potentially making it worse?), but I think it's just semantics and subjective at this point.
|
On December 06 2023 21:42 Swisslink wrote:
What's the problem with the monetization? It's the same as SC2. And I haven't heard many people criticizing SC2 for its monetization.
SC2 didn't have any in game transactions for quite awhile, as a completed game. Also it's just cosmetics or voice packs, not features or access. This is perfectly fine, and doesn't apply to the issue at hand.
Which happens to be:
- Ambiguous and/or meaningless "rewards" that just come off as disingenuous.
- Paying for beta access (not to mention noting that there are "limited" spots.)
Maybe it's just the boomer in me that still thinks it's wild that nowadays people pay companies to test their product, when traditionally it's been the reverse.
- $150 for your name to be included in credits (totaling $350 for the collectors edition that does NOT include shipping).
This one personally rubs me the wrong way, just being advertised like this. If a creator wants to include this as a genuine 'thank you' for backing their product and development, that is acceptable. If it's an unfathomable amount of people that donated then just draw a line of including the top X%, but do it silently, and don't announce it. There are people that will absolutely pay for this - just because it is mentioned in this way, which is just absolutely unnecessary and undermines people that would do this in good faith to be supportive.
There are a handful more issues but these are probably the most glaring.
|
On December 07 2023 09:08 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2023 21:42 Swisslink wrote:
What's the problem with the monetization? It's the same as SC2. And I haven't heard many people criticizing SC2 for its monetization. SC2 didn't have any in game transactions for quite awhile, as a completed game. Also it's just cosmetics or voice packs, not features or access. This is perfectly fine, and doesn't apply to the issue at hand.
StarCraft II had a guaranteed beta access for the pre order. I don't really see the difference between getting beta access for pre ordering the campaign (Stormgate) and getting beta access for pre ordering the game (StarCraft iI)
And yes, StarCraft II had a different type of monetization initially. Which, whether we like it or not, turned out to be a mistake in terms of longevity of the game.
I know people like to hate against the Live Service Games, but in most genres these games ended up outpacing the boxed-price games in terms of competitive play.
Which happens to be:
- Ambiguous and/or meaningless "rewards" that just come off as disingenuous.
Wait...
I know what I'm getting. I get the three first chapters of the campaign, I get one hero for each faction. I get beta access and I get the game a week early. How are these rewards ambiguous?
- Paying for beta access (not to mention noting that there are "limited" spots.)
As mentioned: that's also the case for most boxed games with a closed beta. And yes, every pack is limited. Isn't that quite normal on Kickstarter? Or are they usually unlimited?
Maybe it's just the boomer in me that still thinks it's wild that nowadays people pay companies to test their product, when traditionally it's been the reverse.
How would you like them to distribute the keys? I mean... yes, it's weird how much they pay for beta access. But people usually pay hundreds of dollars for a beta key if the developer does not provide them with a system like this. I just remember the hype surrounding older World of WarCraft (no idea if that's still the case) beta keys or Hearthstone, where people were starving for the keys, throwing money at the ones that were lucky enough to get one.I think providing people with a structured way of getting access makes more sense than that.
In the end, Stormgate will have a completely free to play 1v1. Just as StarCraft. Stormgate will have a paid campaign. Just like StarCraft. And they'll sell the heroes for co-op and 3v3. Just like StarCraft. For StarCraft II the introduction of this type of nonetization revitalized the game quite a bit and we shouldn't be surprised they decided to go with the exact same thing for Stormgate.
|
Poland3747 Posts
I'm slightly confused. For example: does Founder's Pack (25$) include actual game, or just access to Preview Week? Or is the Free to Play tag on Steam correct and the game will structure revenue around microtransactions?
|
Not sure why I bother humoring obvious bait but in case you actually need elaboration:
On December 07 2023 16:01 Swisslink wrote:
StarCraft II had a guaranteed beta access for the pre order. I don't really see the difference between getting beta access for pre ordering the campaign (Stormgate) and getting beta access for pre ordering the game (StarCraft iI)
And yes, StarCraft II had a different type of monetization initially. Which, whether we like it or not, turned out to be a mistake in terms of longevity of the game.
I know people like to hate against the Live Service Games, but in most genres these games ended up outpacing the boxed-price games in terms of competitive play.
If you completely disregard that one was a pay to play title and also was one of the last titles of modern times to have a true 'beta' test, and not perpetual development/early access/etc., then sure. Otherwise, the access was free added value to anyone who wished to go ahead and purchase the game.
SwisslinkShow nested quote +Which happens to be:
- Ambiguous and/or meaningless "rewards" that just come off as disingenuous. Wait... I know what I'm getting. I get the three first chapters of the campaign, I get one hero for each faction. I get beta access and I get the game a week early. How are these rewards ambiguous?
"X hero" "Y Hero" "Mystery Hero" "Undescribed Cosmetic"
Hell even the some of the graphics have black silhouettes with question marks LOL.
SwisslinkShow nested quote +- Paying for beta access (not to mention noting that there are "limited" spots.) As mentioned: that's also the case for most boxed games with a closed beta. And yes, every pack is limited. Isn't that quite normal on Kickstarter? Or are they usually unlimited? Show nested quote +Maybe it's just the boomer in me that still thinks it's wild that nowadays people pay companies to test their product, when traditionally it's been the reverse. How would you like them to distribute the keys? I mean... yes, it's weird how much they pay for beta access. But people usually pay hundreds of dollars for a beta key if the developer does not provide them with a system like this. I just remember the hype surrounding older World of WarCraft (no idea if that's still the case) beta keys or Hearthstone, where people were starving for the keys, throwing money at the ones that were lucky enough to get one.I think providing people with a structured way of getting access makes more sense than that. In the end, Stormgate will have a completely free to play 1v1. Just as StarCraft. Stormgate will have a paid campaign. Just like StarCraft. And they'll sell the heroes for co-op and 3v3. Just like StarCraft. For StarCraft II the introduction of this type of nonetization revitalized the game quite a bit and we shouldn't be surprised they decided to go with the exact same thing for Stormgate.
Again, a boxed game having potential added value is not an issue, and is typically going into making that product better.
Just because something is practiced eg.) ["early access"/"preview week"] (such as D4 launch) doesn't detract from the fact that it's bad faith move in order to extract the most money possible. It's purely a greedy and predatory practice that adds no value to the finished product.
Creators and developers are free to distribute their beta access however they please.
A true lottery system would be ideal in a perfect world but in today's world with bots and the like it makes it very difficult.
A Beta test should be exactly that - a test to get the product in the best state that it can be, not an extended monetization scheme. As long as it is transparent and for that purpose there is never going to be an issue.
I was actually very pleased upon checking the page again that most of the slots had still not been claimed.
However many things could contribute to this such as: Lack of exposure, the less than ideal streamer showcase yesterday, the number of available recipients could be masked/not transparent, etc.
On December 07 2023 16:50 nimdil wrote:
I'm slightly confused. For example: does Founder's Pack (25$) include actual game, or just access to Preview Week? Or is the Free to Play tag on Steam correct and the game will structure revenue around microtransactions?
'Preview Week' is like the 3 days of early access Diablo 4 had. The game is 'F2P' except for certain features. Guaranteed beta is $40.
|
There are 3 different reward tiers that include being able to name a unit and there are 700 maximum people that can purchase it. Not sure how that will be possible even if they are campaign units.
|
How much does TL.net net for the pre-order Advertisement?
|
On December 07 2023 16:51 Agh wrote:Not sure why I bother humoring obvious bait but in case you actually need elaboration: Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 16:01 Swisslink wrote:
StarCraft II had a guaranteed beta access for the pre order. I don't really see the difference between getting beta access for pre ordering the campaign (Stormgate) and getting beta access for pre ordering the game (StarCraft iI)
And yes, StarCraft II had a different type of monetization initially. Which, whether we like it or not, turned out to be a mistake in terms of longevity of the game.
I know people like to hate against the Live Service Games, but in most genres these games ended up outpacing the boxed-price games in terms of competitive play.
If you completely disregard that one was a pay to play title and also was one of the last titles of modern times to have a true 'beta' test, and not perpetual development/early access/etc., then sure. Otherwise, the access was free added value to anyone who wished to go ahead and purchase the game. Show nested quote +SwisslinkWhich happens to be:
- Ambiguous and/or meaningless "rewards" that just come off as disingenuous. Wait... I know what I'm getting. I get the three first chapters of the campaign, I get one hero for each faction. I get beta access and I get the game a week early. How are these rewards ambiguous? "X hero" "Y Hero" "Mystery Hero" "Undescribed Cosmetic" Hell even the some of the graphics have black silhouettes with question marks LOL. Show nested quote +Swisslink- Paying for beta access (not to mention noting that there are "limited" spots.) As mentioned: that's also the case for most boxed games with a closed beta. And yes, every pack is limited. Isn't that quite normal on Kickstarter? Or are they usually unlimited? Maybe it's just the boomer in me that still thinks it's wild that nowadays people pay companies to test their product, when traditionally it's been the reverse. How would you like them to distribute the keys? I mean... yes, it's weird how much they pay for beta access. But people usually pay hundreds of dollars for a beta key if the developer does not provide them with a system like this. I just remember the hype surrounding older World of WarCraft (no idea if that's still the case) beta keys or Hearthstone, where people were starving for the keys, throwing money at the ones that were lucky enough to get one.I think providing people with a structured way of getting access makes more sense than that. In the end, Stormgate will have a completely free to play 1v1. Just as StarCraft. Stormgate will have a paid campaign. Just like StarCraft. And they'll sell the heroes for co-op and 3v3. Just like StarCraft. For StarCraft II the introduction of this type of nonetization revitalized the game quite a bit and we shouldn't be surprised they decided to go with the exact same thing for Stormgate. Again, a boxed game having potential added value is not an issue, and is typically going into making that product better. Just because something is practiced eg.) ["early access"/"preview week"] (such as D4 launch) doesn't detract from the fact that it's bad faith move in order to extract the most money possible. It's purely a greedy and predatory practice that adds no value to the finished product. Creators and developers are free to distribute their beta access however they please. A true lottery system would be ideal in a perfect world but in today's world with bots and the like it makes it very difficult. A Beta test should be exactly that - a test to get the product in the best state that it can be, not an extended monetization scheme. As long as it is transparent and for that purpose there is never going to be an issue. I was actually very pleased upon checking the page again that most of the slots had still not been claimed. However many things could contribute to this such as: Lack of exposure, the less than ideal streamer showcase yesterday, the number of available recipients could be masked/not transparent, etc. Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 16:50 nimdil wrote:
I'm slightly confused. For example: does Founder's Pack (25$) include actual game, or just access to Preview Week? Or is the Free to Play tag on Steam correct and the game will structure revenue around microtransactions? 'Preview Week' is like the 3 days of early access Diablo 4 had. The game is 'F2P' except for certain features. Guaranteed beta is $40.
The main issue I have with this is that their monetarisation as a whole is unclear.#
If they would just state which parts are F2P, what are the MTX options and costs (Skins, Heroes, Voice packs, whatever) as well as what the price tag for a campaign chapter is and how much average playtime it involves.
If all the above were clear than the Kickstarter would be perfectly fine and comparable to SC2 box sale.
Right now it's a bit off guesswork:
1$ - 5$ is purely supportive
25$ you get the paid campaign 1st chapter (final price tag unknown)+ Hero (final price tag unknown) + cosmetics (final price tag unknow) + early access
40$ the above + two more Heroes + pet (price tag? use?)
60$ the above + two more campaign chapters (of how many?)
.
.
It kinda feeds on the FOMO which is a bit bad faith BUT the early access /beta /preview week is like you described just an addition and not the main sale argument, just like in so many other examples mentioned before. At least that is my impression
EDIT: I'm truly hoping they'll make it a bit more clear with the next announcements before I jump on that. Kickstarter last 56 more days
|
The 3rd faction is not done yet. I recall in February 2009 Browder stated they were just polishing off the Zerg and they were in the "final stretch" of development. The game did not come out for another 18 months and the massive beta started 13 months after his statement. LOL.
On December 07 2023 20:54 Harris1st wrote:
It kinda feeds on the FOMO which is a bit bad faith BUT the early access /beta /preview week is like you described just an addition and not the main sale argument, just like in so many other examples mentioned before. At least that is my impression
you've got a good point.
On December 07 2023 20:54 Harris1st wrote:
If they would just state which parts are F2P, what are the MTX options and costs (Skins, Heroes, Voice packs, whatever) as well as what the price tag for a campaign chapter is and how much average playtime it involves.
If all the above were clear than the Kickstarter would be perfectly fine and comparable to SC2 box sale.
EDIT: I'm truly hoping they'll make it a bit more clear with the next announcements before I jump on that. Kickstarter last 56 more days
i suspect Frost Giant is not fully certain of their exact financial situation. As a result, they do not know what the prices will be. Similarly, they are uncertain of their production capabilities and so they can't give out a well defined feature set.
Epic gets 5%. Steam gets 30%. The employees gotta get paid and at this stage of their careers these guys ain't cheap. The CEO, Tim Morten, has got a tough job. The mass wave of layoffs in the industry helps Frost Giant though.
A lot of this is ... "trust me bro". I'd say almost none of it is "malice".
Caveat Emptor.
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
On December 07 2023 16:50 nimdil wrote:
I'm slightly confused. For example: does Founder's Pack (25$) include actual game, or just access to Preview Week? Or is the Free to Play tag on Steam correct and the game will structure revenue around microtransactions?
The core "actual game" is free to play. The stuff on kickstarter and $$ is all extras.
|
This doesn't look very original it simply looks like Warcraft and Starcraft mashed up into a new game.
|
On December 07 2023 23:44 KameZerg wrote:
This doesn't look very original it simply looks like Warcraft and Starcraft mashed up into a new game.
scouting units like Dogs. Bunkers that adjust to the unit entering them ... co-op campaign ... 20 second main base upgrade tech levels.... veterancy mechanics motivating players to keep their units alive....
this game is heavily influenced by C&C.
Also, the effective "tick rate" of the game is 3 times the current best tick rate of any RTS. they are innovating in ways we can not see on a promo video.
I think this is going to make maintaining servers costly. Keeping lag super low to take advantage of the amazing "tick rate" will be expensive. ... that's going to be an issue. It is why we have a KickStarter.
|
I don't think it changes server costs all that much, if at all. The tick rate is the simulation tick rate and the game is simulated by the client, not the server. Server just relays inputs and the rate at which it will relay inputs is based on ping. I don't think tick rate changes things in that regard.
|
|
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
the SG client reports to the SG server 60 times per second whereas the SC2 client reports to the server 24 times per second
The client tickrate is (up to?) 64hz (Stormgate) and locked 22.4hz (SC2 Faster/LOTV), but communication with server and handling commands is a very complex topic. It's not neccesarily the same.
Your source indicates that the client/server communication doesn't happen at any specific "turn" or "tick" at all, with rollback picking up the loose ends:
"However, in Stormgate there are no turns, as soon as a player sends an input the server timestamps it and sends it to everyone in the game. Meanwhile, the game will simulate the match based on the inputs and then continue simulating, assuming no new inputs are arriving. If the game is correct, then everything continues running smoothly and if new inputs are received, it can very quickly rollback, understand the input, and fast forward again, without negatively affecting what the player sees. "
|
Maybe but RTS networking only sends inputs back and forth. Data being sent is not large. It is not sending the game state like an FPS would.
|
On December 07 2023 23:33 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 16:50 nimdil wrote:
I'm slightly confused. For example: does Founder's Pack (25$) include actual game, or just access to Preview Week? Or is the Free to Play tag on Steam correct and the game will structure revenue around microtransactions? The core "actual game" is free to play. The stuff on kickstarter and $$ is all extras.
Well yes and no. I imagine for a lot of people the campaign and story is the actual game and they will never touch ladder/ ranked
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
