I’m not saying that he is explicitly wrong or that this model of advertising won’t make money at all. All I’m saying is that with how I understand the gameplay of battlescape, it is incompatible with it.
TA, I was going to like your post because I agree with your entire first paragraph until I read the following(Is it a typo, it seems to contradict yourself?):
That is exactly what I don’t want to happen to battlescape, as it prevents the whole basis of building up your team eco which allows us to use the gameworld to it’s biggest advantage. At that point we may as well play in a 20x20km arena with no obstacles and see who can dogfight the best.
Please do not consider persistent ships through the arenas. It makes planets and landmarks largely useless which are one of the biggest unique features of battlescape in the first place.
And what I’m saying is, let the guy give his opinion without drama, he has more experience than any of us here regarding marketing, that’s why I would like him to elaborate on what he thinks of the reward tiers presented.
Will INS take his advice or not (probably not) is another issue, might be too late for changes anyway.
When I talk about a stable of persistent ships, I’m talking about fighters and corvettes (and possibly light tugs, if that’s in the scope, for the less combat-oriented), small things that would almost certainly be available at all times anyway, with in-match resources used to build bigger things like frigates.
Since Battlescape would be pretty Wot-ish if it only made minimal funding anyway, I thought it was safe to request such a feature. I find that having a something to craft and build and make your own adds immensely to a game of the kind that Battlescape intends to be.
The match ends, but your hero remains. To compare to another, possibly similar, game, it’d be like the player character in Crowfall, fighting and growing across countless dying worlds.
Well, if I:B is going to exploit the Counter-Strike progression-during-the-match model then i should admit it will be really hard to give backers something really useful(as ships or weapons) without affecting game balance. But still, IMO, you may give them some low-tier ships as fighters, bombers etc - in the form of some exclusive “elite” or “guardian” variants which may be different only in the terms of paint-job + slightly modified hulls, as it was with MWO Founder’s Mechs which had both - exclusive paint-job and slightly different chassis exterior. And what i know for sure is that people love to pay for something that will be really USEFUL IN GAME and in the same time will reflect their “special” status and give them something to dream about. That’s why books, posters and other similar stuff aren’t very attractive things for the majority of potential customers/backers. And that’s why people went so much crazy about SC ships during the original KS campaign. Give them pretty arts of their future ships, promise to them these beauties under their command and people will throw at you their money, pledging much more than they ever would pledge for arts, books and other stuff that doesn’t make any real difference in game.
I pledged $35 to SC, and as far as I know I can acquire all those same ships in the game, I don’t need to buy them for real money now, I can get them by playing. We won’t have pledge tiers that give gameplay advantages, anything unique will be cosmetic only, and generally restricted to skins due to budgeting requirements. However, it may be possible to add mesh “doodads” to hulls (which we’ve already discussed internally), but not wholesale changes to the ship meshes.
May be you don’t see any point. But most of the gamers do. Please, do not underestimate the “elitism” factor which is very strong among the people, and among the gamers especially. As well, don’t underestimate their desire to get some special in-game item - especially if this is an exclusive weapon, equipment or ship that they will use constantly or at least very often in game.
From what I have read, first you said don’t only give skins but give unique ships meshes, then you went back to skins only, then possible mesh trinkets. I’m just trying to follow your point I guess. If your point is to adopt a Star Citizen model of selling digital ships, then no, we won’t be doing that.
Bottom line is, we can afford to do unique skins, not meshes. Also, backers will not get anything that gives them a gameplay advantage, cosmetic uniqueness only, etc.
I think you’ll find a lot of the gamers on this forum hold quite the opposite point of view.
In fact if you read around you’ll find a general disdain for RSI-style marketing, exclusive bonuses, pre-ordering the next COD, etc, etc.
The Infinity community has a lot of ‘mature’ gamers who’s priority is excellent gameplay. They are not the sort to naively drop money on something because of shiny marketing.
It may be that hordes of naive 14 year olds getting suckered into buying shiny e-peens are what is required for an uber-sucessful Kickstarter campaign, but that’s not I-Novae’s style.
How much is this “a lot”? Practical results of crowd-funding campaigns clearly show this approach is working very well. And BTW, SC’ KS-campaign core-audience was pretty ‘mature’ too.
I’m not trying to create drama(since when is there drama on this forum outside of a wolf game?), I’m trying to stop him for knocking on a closed door and wasting his time. We both know that with the planned mechanics of battlescape SC’s model of selling everying isn’t compatible. That’s all. I’m all ears for any other ideas he might have. I’m ready for battlescape to be as successful as possible and look forward to any idea to propel it that way.
I guess I just didn’t see a minimally funded battlescape as a possibility and disregarded the idea. I see your point now, and if worse comes to worse I guess it could be done like that.
You have a samplesize of at least a few already just from this thread. It’s the general opinion of the frequenters as far as I know. However, you have a point. The regulars here won’t be the ones funding the majority of battlescape. The type of gamer we almost never see here will instead.
I agree with @Scarish that offering in-game items would be the most effective way to get more revenue from a Kickstarter campaign. I would go even further and say that rewarding high level backers with in-game advantages is the best way to maximise the financial return from a Kickstarter campaign. I respect it if I-Novae do not want to do this for ethical reasons as there is indeed more to life than acquiring as much most money as you can.
If my own ethics don’t have a problem with selling an in-game advantage, it is because I’m essentially capitalist in my outlook. If someone says that I should have the same starting items in a game that they have, even if I’m prepared to pay for better items, just because it is “fair”, well that’s a somewhat communist/socialist attitude that they are expecting from their gaming. Games are developed by companies and companies exist to make a profit. If I-Novae were a public company you can bet their shareholders would have something to say about them putting debatable ethics before profits.
What’s great about offering advantages as rewards is that backers will pay disproportionate amounts of money for fairly minor advantages. In a crazy moment I decided to pay extra for a Origin 350R in Star Citizen because IT WAS THE FASTEST. I’m not even sure it is the fastest ship any more, but then Star Citizen is a bit of an ongoing disappointment and like a hundred thousand other backers I’m resigned to the vapourish pledge I made. We don’t kick up a great fuss on the RSI forums and Chris Roberts is happily counting his money somewhere.
The same would be the case if I-Novae offered in game rewards as an option. They would get a lot more money, a few people would complain and perhaps some I-Novae staff members might feel a bit ethically impure. In the end we’d have a better funded Battlescape and the game would not be ruined by those high level backers that get to start the round with a shiny corvette instead of a fighter.
No, it’s not socialist at all. Neither communism nor socialism says anything about a fair starting point (and actually, it’s capitalism that talks about even playing fields, even if it actively ignores anything and everything that undermines participants having equal starting points).
It’s sportsmanship.
The Yankees and the Twins use the same baseball bats, the same gloves, and the same balls. The Yankees don’t get to buy special, super expensive “home run” balls that the other team is forced to pitch to them.
But golfers will buy super expensive golf balls that they believe will go a few more yards. tennis players will buy expensive racquets that they believe will help them return the ball faster and runners will buy expensive shoes that they hope will let them run faster and further.
If most gamers were the target audience this would be some kind of moba or FPS with pay to win hero unlocks, map dlc, golden $500 mechs/bullets and a premium subscription with xp boosters and 12 different currencies you can buy with real money. You discuss your suggestions as if they have no downside, you must realize that there are significant tradeoffs here? In SC’s example, the tradeoff is the lack of an even starting economy and just that is enough to turn a lot of people off. In those other systems there are lots of other tradeoffs, most of them are the reasons im not playing those games to begin with. The kind of bought elitism you are referencing is absolutely worthless compared to what you get with a crowd of “elitists” who are legitimately good at playing the game. I’d accuse anyone who feels a real sense of elitism from paying money for an advantage of having some sort of mental deficiency.
You’re not accounting for the issue that the game would be inherently worse. Yes, perhaps there would be more funding, which could possibly offset the game being worse, but game quality doesnt follow linear curves and its not always possible, especially if you dont have the marketing power of star citizen, to make up for the losses in gameplay quality with the funding you get in return. An entire group of competitive minded gamers will avoid your game simply because that gameplay has been compromised for funding, and you need to hope they your game will catch on with the far more casual crowd who are already infatuated with MOBAs, WoWlikes, and angry birds.
Cant help but chuckle at your communist games comment. I think trying to apply that kind of theory out of context is extremely silly, only ideologues try to apply things as imperfect as capitalistic theory to every aspect of their lives, especially when things like supply and demand are completely neglected in your argument. There is a strong demand for competitive games without pay to win elements, even if the market is smaller it’s only about how much of that market is currently being served. Face of mankind’s new release tried to sell out their gameplay for funding, the result was nobody bought in because they didnt want to put up with that shit and they shut down their studio.
Ethics don’t even need to factor into it. It’s extremely difficult if not impossible to compete with the extremely well planned casualized cash cows, many of them made by huge studios fail regardless of all their market research money. I-Novae should play to their strengths, a solid engine, and work on a solid underlying game design that will attract core space simmers and competetive players alike. This is attainable under low funding so it makes sense for battlescape. Ethics would only factor in if you promised one thing in the kickstarter then went back on everything to make a quick buck without putting out any real game at all.[quote=“Crayfish, post:178, topic:849”]
But golfers will buy super expensive golf balls that they believe will go a few more yards. tennis players will buy expensive racquets that they believe will help them return the ball faster and runners will buy expensive shoes that they hope will let them run faster and further.
That’s also part of sport.
[/quote]
And gamers will buy the best keyboards, mice, screens, and other hardware. But ultimately the difference in amounts of money going in is minimized as much as possible in competitive games, honestly all that expensive gear usually doesnt make any difference at all, people just use what stuff their sponsors give them. In your golf and tennis examples people buy gear for two things, to have the same tier of equiptment as everyone else in their league (and its often paid for by sponsors anyways) and for personal preference. You cant keep spending more and more to get a quantifiable advantage.
If there is some sort of persistent layer to IBS, the kind that doesn’t reset with every round and allows you to research/upgrade your ships, equipment and starting loadout. I seriously don’t see a problem with selling those advantages during KS and making more money for advantages that will be available to everyone with a few days game-time…
There are rules governing permissible equipment for those sports. Eg
The hitting surface of the tennis racket is defined as the main area of the stringing pattern which is bordered by the where the strings enter the frame. The hitting surface shall by flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings. The stringing pattern must be generally uniform and not less dense in the center than in any other area.
The racket must be designed and strung so that the playing characteristics are identical on both faces. The racket must be free of attached objects, protrusions and devices, other than those used to limit or prevent wear or vibration, or to distribute weight for the frame.
Objects used to prevent wear or vibration, or to distribute weight for the frame must be reasonable in size and placement for such purposes.
You can’t use a tennis racquet with a powered device to impart spin on the ball or accelerate it artificially etc.