Lots of implications in that last paragraph. I've always been a person who believes strongly that the end justifies the means. Generalities aside though, the means change the end, and for things like video games, that means you end up with a different product. While it might further your career, for this one, I find it hard to argue that you'll end up with the same game in both situations.
This is a really difficult question. How can one know who he really is? Isn't it part of the eternal question? Strongly connected to the idea of the meaning of life, is also the question who you truly are. So I'm afraid I can't answer this question truthfully.throw your idea, you probably have one,
Morality: Not an easy thing to share, it has a million shades for every one of its million shades...Seeing as disagreeing with the morality of the status quo gets you in prison or make people despise you, society pretty much tells you what is right or wrong.
Ultimately, what will you regret? Will you be completely happy with the choices you made or the sacrifices? Noone can tell you what is morally right or wrong, you must decide for youself.
(click to show/hide)
Why is this getting downvoted?
Why is this getting downvoted?
So, long story short, indies need money, as sad as it is. Now the interesting part: where to get it from? And what is acceptable as an indie dev?If it allows you to stay alife and perhaps get some extra money, why not aslong you keep the rights how, what and when to do it your way.
How far can you go without compromising your integrity, your morality, your honor, your commitment to the community?this can only be answered case by case
What if you are offered a low-hanging fruit, that might have a slightly bitter taste for some, yourself included?If your alarm clocks are ringing already before you accept a deal, get the fuck away from it.
What about solving your problems by giving up some of your independence temporarily, allowing you to finance your own idea in the long run?If it solves some problems, then you get a step closer to what you want! It doesn't need to exclude forever to reach the long term goal, the streets may cross again later as long you keep a look out.
Does the end justify the means?Opportunists say yes, realists say maybe, moralists say never.
That is pay2win, which is only good for the russians.I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium
I would easily pay like 30-50 euros just for a game as good as CRPG.
And on top of that id pay 10-15 euros a monthly fee.
What I would do..
I would say goodbye to girlfriends/friends/family, move to Croatia with cmp and 1 or 2 other devs, rent a huge flat that double as office, and make the fucking game. There, living costs should be comparatively low, and there would be nothing else to do, but to make the game. You will also be able to find cheaper workforce for graphical artists etc. If you can combine this idea with a kickstarter, you might be able to get quite down the road when it comes to a year of financing.
Can someone tell me what his post was about? Dunno if it was because I'm reading this late at night, but I didn't get in a single word of what he actually meant :|
Why is this getting downvoted?
Because it's a giant wall of text with not a lot to say (or even one cohesive point for that matter) and doesn't even belong in General Discussion. Indie and mod development has always been DIY. For indie games, they can do whatever hell they please with it as it's their game. For mods, all they can really do is accept donations as they come and for most cases the devs aren't professionals and are either doing it out of their own love for it or building a resume so it's pretty laughable to say that we should hold them to higher standards just because the nature of their mod community allows them to be more intimate. I also don't see what any of this has to do with morality. Dumb thread.
... the means change the end, and for things like video games, that means you end up with a different product. While it might further your career, for this one, I find it hard to argue that you'll end up with the same game in both situations.Too much singular.
How about kickstarter.Kickstarter is interesting and has it's place, but is only working in a very specific stage.
If the ends justify the means can't be answered by the community since the community has a different interest than the developer.A very interesting statement (I'd upvote if the crappy forum would let met), however I heavily disagree. If the community has a different interest than the developer, it can never be a successful indie game. Because the developer is the extended arm of the community, and the community is the extended arm of the developer. They are a symbiosis. Both must be interested in a unique experience and also the success of the project.
Can someone tell me what his post was about? Dunno if it was because I'm reading this late at night, but I didn't get in a single word of what he actually meant :|
When I had finished to read the OP, I thought "so, this guy says nothing". I read again, and yes, this is a big wall of nothingness.If you don't see anything in it, then it might not be adressed towards you.
If your alarm clocks are ringing already before you accept a deal, get the fuck away from it.Every deal will raise alarm clocks. If it doesn't, then you shouldn't be thinking about signing a deal in the first place.
Because the developer is the extended arm of the community, and the community is the extended arm of the developer. They are a symbiosis. Both must be interested in a unique experience and also the success of the project.I think you vastly overestimate the importance of listening to and interacting with a community. Just take a look at this game, community input rarely gets responded to by developers and if it does happen it is mostly in the form of sassy remarks. The developers work very slowly and often on completely different things than the community would like them to. Yet we are all still here, because the game is that good.
A game that is successful on kickstarter, would also have success without it.Exactly like you mention here, a truly good game can do without a community supporting it through it's babysteps. Similarly a truly good game allows developers to do some crazy immoral shit, which will all be forgotten by us simple minded gamers as soon as we get to play that amazing game.
I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreemiumI am sure I am not the only one who greatly detests micro transactions. I would rather pay a 100 bucks at once for a really good game than constantly having this nagging in your head that you could have that one amazing weapon already if you just paid 3 bucks. Similar thing with monthly subscriptions, you feel like you have to play because you pay for a certain period of time. What I love about single payments for a game, is that after you've paid it's yours and you are free to do with what you want without having a worse experience than anyone else. Nevertheless, these micro-transactions seem like a very successful moneymaker and if a game is good I'll still play it, so developers should do what they got to do.
Like World of Tanks or Planetside 2. Without giving significant advantages over other players.
This is far better for me than:
But World of Tanks IS a pay to win game. You cannot get the effective ammo without real money, and the best way to get an effective tank is a/ grind for months or b/ make a single instant payment: This is Pay to win.
Kickstarter is interesting and has it's place, but is only working in a very specific stage.
[...]Best example of a controversy symbiosis is right in front of you: cRPG.
A very interesting statement (I'd upvote if the crappy forum would let met), however I heavily disagree. If the community has a different interest than the developer, it can never be a successful indie game. Because the developer is the extended arm of the community, and the community is the extended arm of the developer. They are a symbiosis. Both must be interested in a unique experience and also the success of the project.
[...]
Many people think that kickstarter is the holy grail, but I think it's true to say that: A game that is successful on kickstarter, would also have success without it. Kickstarter is all about marketing. Projects fail that have great ideas but not a very good video or presentation. Also, kickstarter is all about visuals. So you have to be far into the project already to be able to make a kickstarter project a success. The way I see it, kickstarter is to cover the last third of the track, nor the first two.
DON"T SAY SHIT!
But World of Tanks IS a pay to win game. You cannot get the effective ammo without real money, and the best way to get an effective tank is a/ grind for months or b/ make a single instant payment: This is Pay to win.
I pay you instantly 50 bucks if you increase my lvl from 35 to 36. I only need another 125,142,319xp anyways. At least i would be over with it then and i could start playing more my alt, perhaps even then learn how to manual block ^^
Selling XP boosters for money is prime example of pay2win.
Selling XP boosters for money is prime example of pay2win.
if you need start up money just add micro transactions to cRPG now until Paradox Games files a lawsuit, than change your identities and flee your countries to begin work on cRPG 2: Grind Harder with even more micro-transactions
Are you artificial intellegence?Is such a thing even possible?
I am sure I am not the only one who greatly detests micro transactions. I would rather pay a 100 bucks at once for a really good game than constantly having this nagging in your head that you could have that one amazing weapon already if you just paid 3 bucks. Similar thing with monthly subscriptions, you feel like you have to play because you pay for a certain period of time. What I love about single payments for a game, is that after you've paid it's yours and you are free to do with what you want without having a worse experience than anyone else. Nevertheless, these micro-transactions seem like a very successful moneymaker and if a game is good I'll still play it, so developers should do what they got to do.Micro transactions do not necessitate pay2win, which seems to be your belief in the top quoted paragraph here. I think Valve really hit on something that just about every gamer can get into, be they casual or hardcore, competitive or otherwise. Hats. Micro transactions for unique character aesthetic upgrades.
With that said I greatly detest any unlock system in these kind off games. Games should be worth playing only and exclusively because of their gameplay, not because you get a weapon after 20 hours. The grinding mentality that seeped into gaming everywhere in the past decade seems a bad thing to me. I would love cRPG to be without looms and levels, cause the gameplay itself is interesting enough to me.
Also.. remember, with your loyal fans from cRPG, you have a much stronger base to start off a social media campaign than 90% of kickstarter projects.Not sure I agree at all with that 90% but likely better off than most. Overall I agree, do what it takes to get a kickstarter project going. If you have to delay progress on the game for a few months to get everything set-up to properly do a kickstarter project then it's worth it. Kickstarters are a much better alternative than prostitution.
I'm a believer chadz, just do it.
Spurring the imagination:(click to show/hide)
Also, don't forget this :D
DON"T SAY SHIT!(click to show/hide)
..., because a player that did not invest money cannot compete with that no matter how much time he puts in the game.i am sleep deprevated so excuse my french .. .are you fucking serious?
....
...FUN and EFFICIENT.can't speak for all of us germans ^^, in my case i got a boner by establishing lean elegant systems(i was for a long time programer till i got burned out), which when working mostly do stuff automaticly without me having to deal with them afterwards again.
Well, the devs. could earn loads of cash giving out "pay2win" stuff. But luckily they aren't :D
Im not sure that they could atm: while they have obviously written a lot of code, I still think the majority of the intellectual property belongs to TW and their distributors. Charging for it before having an agreement in place with TW would kinda get them in some hot water.
EDIT: Then again, i havent looked into Turkish law so, who knows.
i am sleep deprevated so excuse my french .. .are you fucking serious?