The Battle of the Stretch Goal - Page 10 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-30-2013, 07:40 AM   #91
Cnuke
Member
 
Cnuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 306
Default

Thank you for your consideration.

It's about love and passion that needs to be transferred in the sim. Take time to do additional planes and with it's quality, it will be easy to sell those planes. For continuational work.

Last edited by Cnuke; 09-30-2013 at 07:44 AM.
Cnuke is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 07:41 AM   #92
MACADEMIC
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malta
Posts: 362
Default

Luthier,

My feeling is that the decision reaches way further than just achieving or not achieving the Me262 stretchgoal. But of course only you and your investors can know how deep your pockets are and if you really can afford to forgo all future revenues from the Spit, the Kurfürst and the Jug.

I don't think you should, from my limited viewpoint.

MAC
MACADEMIC is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 07:41 AM   #93
Sharpe
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 189
Default

and PayPal?
Sharpe is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 07:45 AM   #94
Bucic
Veteran
 
Bucic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 5,541
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier1 View Post

Anyway, I'll sleep on the changes to the overall KS, and either hit Publish in the morning, or not. In the end, we have already reached our goal. Is a flyable Me.262 worth making yet another drastic change in the project?
Oh yes it is What would possibly make you think it's not? You don't brake any pledging conditions for those who has backed already. 'Bad press'? Those making you a 'bad press' were doing it anyway.

Also, mark my words , these 3 free flyables are going to drag you down long after you publish the game. TDCS aircrafts ate enough to cover months and months of gaming for many people and you won't get a dime from them. So it's not only about 262.

Last edited by Bucic; 09-30-2013 at 07:55 AM.
Bucic is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 08:03 AM   #95
JackDant
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 53
Default

I have been holding off on pledging, and at this point I'm unlikely to. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

Threatening those of us who haven't pledged with taking away the free planes will not get you to the stretch goal. If anything, it strengthens my doubts: you cannot run a simple kickstarter without flailing all over the place, how can I expect you to run an actual project?

In exchange, you will cripple your end product by having not just one plane, but only one side freely available. As a platform, DCS:WW2 will need multiplayer to become popular, like all F2P games do. How will that work if every new player flies for the Allies?

You set up the kickstarter with an unrealistic set of goals, then made constant and confusing changes even you can't understand now. Your promotional material consists mainly of guys talking in a language 90% of your customer base can't understand, and screens and videos of other games.

Now that it hasn't worked, you are threatening to take your toys and go home unless we throw money at you. Nothing of this inspires any confidence.
JackDant is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 08:14 AM   #96
Bucic
Veteran
 
Bucic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 5,541
Default

@JackDant
How is that threatening? Too many free aircraft was a mistake. This would be merely a correction.

You have a point with the free A/C for one side only and MP though.
Bucic is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 08:25 AM   #97
SlipBall
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackDant View Post
I have been holding off on pledging, and at this point I'm unlikely to. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

Threatening those of us who haven't pledged with taking away the free planes will not get you to the stretch goal. If anything, it strengthens my doubts: you cannot run a simple kickstarter without flailing all over the place, how can I expect you to run an actual project?

In exchange, you will cripple your end product by having not just one plane, but only one side freely available. As a platform, DCS:WW2 will need multiplayer to become popular, like all F2P games do. How will that work if every new player flies for the Allies?

You set up the kickstarter with an unrealistic set of goals, then made constant and confusing changes even you can't understand now. Your promotional material consists mainly of guys talking in a language 90% of your customer base can't understand, and screens and videos of other games.

Now that it hasn't worked, you are threatening to take your toys and go home unless we throw money at you. Nothing of this inspires any confidence.

Well the game will go forward, so your decision is most certainly a big mistake. That is of course if you decide one day that you want to finally get into it, it may be expensive.
SlipBall is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 08:32 AM   #98
JackDant
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucic View Post
@JackDant
How is that threatening? Too many free aircraft was a mistake. This would be merely a correction.
One free aircraft for each country made perfect sense and is not a "mistake" until you take the limited budget into account. Even then, fixing that "mistake" reeks of desperation and strong-armed tactics and is exactly the opposite message to the one doubtful pledgers need.
JackDant is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 08:38 AM   #99
adonys
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Romania
Posts: 11
Send a message via Yahoo to adonys
Default

no, it wasn't a mistake.

it was the best decision for the future which could be taken considering the sale model they've decided for: a free base game + payments for any other present/future modules.

in order to attract customers, the base module of the game must contain the engine and something flyable for them to test it. the three free aircrafts were one for each major side in the european conflict: germans + british + american, increasing the chances to attract customers via the free base model.

now, probably they could have went for only two airplanes, one for axis and the other for allies, and a spitfire would have been the normal decision for the allies side, as an iconic plane (the other P51 one being already present into DCSW). and that would have left the massive american customers base without an american carrot to drag them in, hence the P47 choice as a 3rd base module free airplane.

including them for free wasn't a bad decision at all, specially considering the long term effect.

removing them and leaving only one has two major problems:
a) as the remaining included airplane will definitely be an allied one (and most probably american), the free players will only join the allied side, creating a huge imbalance in the game.
b) the willingness to remove two from the three base modules free planes shows a bad willingness to ditch long term benefits and actually accept long term base problems in exchange for short term funding, which is at least concerning for me..
adonys is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 08:40 AM   #100
TimeKilla
Senior Member
 
TimeKilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom.
Posts: 1,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier1 View Post
and I'm definitely not saying it enough. Continuing to ask you for more and more money is just plain wrong.

Anyway, I'll sleep on the changes to the overall KS, and either hit Publish in the morning, or not. In the end, we have already reached our goal. Is a flyable Me.262 worth making yet another drastic change in the project?
Am no so sure but its your call.

Changing to one free aircraft is a good idea tho!
__________________
YouTube
TimeKilla on Flight Sims over at YouTube.
TimeKilla is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.