Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
In my non professional opinion they should immediately suspend wages for staff with equity in the company. They should immediately relocate their office to a more financially viable location. They should immediately layoff redundant staff and those unwilling to broaden the scope of the work their willing to do to make up for lower staffing.
They continue to bleed immense amounts of their reserves every month while taking in next to no money. Their options for additional funding seem to be all but gone. Becoming lean and mean to survive while pushing forward to a 1.0 release should be their priority.
They are floundering so hard it is unreal. The worst part is this may make it seem as though highly funded rts games are still a poor option due to their immense incompetence.
Yep, he'll do the same with your comment. Don't waste your time here.
And I'll say it again : Palworld.
Ea with 30k gamers, peak 2 million.
The counter argument for every thing cool skill said.
They did. It obviously does not match your definition of release, but it IS theirs:
https://playstormgate.com/news/frost-giant-business-faq
That's only true insofar the state of the game being EA or not.
Read pages 14 and 15 of their investor Offering Memorandum. Page 14 goes into detail about their financial ability to keep things running. Page 15 offers insight in how many players the devs expect to play this. Based on those pages, they only have a few months to turn things around for the better. They NEED a solid playerbase for both direct revenue and to be an attractive investment opportunity, or odds are they won't even make it to a 1.0 release.
https://startenginebetadev.s3.amazonaws.com/production/startups/65954a196ef5c7344e1dae2e/documents/offering_details/MANUAL_GENERATION.pdf
Now, I like RTS. I'd love to see that amazing new title that makes the genre great again. Looking at Stormgates current state however, chances are very very slim that this will be that game.
Yes you do. Glad you admit you ignore actual valid responses. And the only one talking invalid trash.
Glad you admit their definition is the opposite of yours. And completely matches mine. And giving evidence they even were using the term 'release' in different connotations. One for EA release and other for actual release. Therefore, proving exactly what I stated was the standard definition of releasing games and no different according to devs of this game.
False. As already proven, the player base is quite high for any EA. And trolls using random exceptions of high popularity have no relevance to standard Early Access numbers. All those pages mention is various projections. Not one single thing indicating any need for additional users. And this does not change the fact that they outright stated last week that they were fine and expect the game to be successful.
Whether it will be successful or not remains to be seen. Whether they make it to release or not remains to be seen. Which is solely based on their financial resources and expenses regardless of EA or not. Either way, it has absolute zero to do with EA numbers.
FACT = Games in development require a funding for development. Not EA numbers. This applies to any dev. If they "need" any funds to continue development, that has zero to do with EA. And only to do with standard funding sources. Nothing you say regarding "need" for numbers of playtesters has any relevance to how standard funding for development works. Not pigeon holed into one single source of funding that you have personally decided for them.
FACT = This particular developer has stated within the past week that they expect to complete development for this game. Based on financial backing. And are not facing the financial concerns of other indi devs. This is coming right from the developer outright stating they will be financially secure to complete development and release the game. Will it make it to release? Who knows? I don't. Most definitely you do not.
Which is the whole point of psychosis when it comes to this game. They have no clue wtf they're talking about. No game in development has increase player count other than rare exceptions. Sustainable player count has to do with released games. Not games in development that are halfway done available for playtesting.
Good advice for yourself.
Absolute BS that has nothing to do with anything? OK sure say it again and again. All you can talk is what you are. LMAO! So feel free to say BS again all you want.
Yes you are. Glad you agree about what vibes you're giving off. Nothing brand new for every mad cyberbully. LMAO!
This is a non-sequitur. Did Wings of Liberty for instance stop being in development upon its release of 1.0? Go ahead and try answering that without creating an absurd contradictory standard.
Again, as explained to you before, "full release" wouldn't even be a proper description either. Since supposedly features/bugs/balancing in Stormgate will continually to be addressed and improved beyond 1.0.
#1. Would you accept that Starcraft 2 was in "early access" until Legacy of the Void? Why or why not?
#2. Can a game die in "early access" or does it become released as-is? Furthermore, what criteria would be used to know that if the developer goes completely silent?
I want you to answer honestly, do you think Frost Giant made a fair and good faith argument when saying the following: “We ran multiple revenue projection scenarios for 12 months post-Early Access launch. The valuation [150 million] is based on the historical performance of our prior product, StarCraft 2 Wings of Liberty, estimating that we’d attract 50% of its monthly active users. Given that our new product closely resembles StarCraft 2 and many of our team members previously worked on it, we believe 50% performance is a reasonable estimate.” Or is that ridiculous on its face?
Also, we have Frost Giant making outlandish claims such as:
"Stormgate will be the most responsive RTS game yet. With 3X the responsiveness of StarCraft II, clicking units to make them fight has never felt this good."
All the evidence so far points to a company that is way over its head. It's as simple as that.
You can deny Frosgiant declaration, Frostgiant financial report as you want. Declare as many FACT that are total non sense as you want, you'll only get anger and clown award.
Maybe this thread will continue with your FACTS meanwhile Stormgate will reach Dustborn level of audience. The cognitive dissonance you reach is above 9000.
I'm also confused why tim, who really isn't a business minded individual was made cfo, ceo, and a host of other positions he shouldn't have. Then again it was probably to give himself a reason to give himself one of the outrageous wages being paid out by frost giant studios.
You can always imporve things, always. By your logic we could remove the word "complete" from dictionaries because there is always something to tinker with. Complete means that the majority of your contemporary audience thinks that on a
checklist of potential features you got all of the most important ones covered.
When you're game has been arround for so long that it's getting outdated you will of course use the chance to update graphics when you release expansions. That doesn't mean the graphics weren't complete by the time of release. Otherwise no game in the history of mankind would ever have feature complete visuals because they could always be redone a few years down the line.
No it's not. They didn't add these changes because they had to but because they wanted to as the game continued to stay relevant. Had the game not shown such incredble longevity you wouldn't have seen any of these tweaks. You're currently trying to claim a car isn't feature complete because I could install a more modern engine a few years down the line. That's how ridiculous your logic is.
But let's entertain your definition for a second. Give me an example of a feature complete game.
Show me a single article when SC 2 released which said. It's a nice game but it feels so unfinished and unpolished. I'll wait. The fact is Starcraft 2 was such a well done product it turned into a game as a service as a side effect. In your paradoxical world games that are released and forgotten and as a result don't receive any additional patches would somehow be the most feature complete because you couldn't dig up a lot of changes that were done to these games post release.
No, it was already so polished in open Beta that it almost felt like a finished product. That's why it got so much praise. It's really not that hard to understand.
Multiplayer is not necessarily a component of feature completeness but it can be, depending on your game. But let's just assume you are developing a product where Multiplayer is considered standard. You're not gonna get a scientific deifintion from wikipedia determining what a "thriving multiplayer scene" is but you can try, for once, to think like a human and not a lawyer. If you wanted to play a bit of Starcraft 1 can log in and get a match literally in seconds even though the game is 20 years old. To me that means the scene is thriving. It's that simple. StormGate on the other hand is not yet dead but on it's way out. It should be the new and shiny thing but it's already forgotten in the minds of most. Unless they can somehow revert course it will probably drop to less than 100 concurrent players at which time Matchmaking, tournaments and continued support will most likely be affected to a degree where the game is no longer really functional.
When it comes to art it pretty much is. You can't exactly hold a Spielbergometer next to a movie and check how many Kubricks it gets on a scale from Boll to Nolan, can you. Especially when it comes to art authority consensus is pretty much all we have
. The consensus is "space oddysee" is good and "the room" is bad and that's why one move is "good" and the other is not. Same with feature completeness. A house in the middle ages without running water and electrical light can be feature complete. Today it wouldn't be. Who says that? Consenus.
Yes you can. Glad you admit all you are doing. Consider all the numbers prove that most games do not have much userbase in Early Access. And the numbers of Stormgate are quite very high for Early Access. Despite not being as high as some exceptions. Therefore, Stormgate has well above average userbase for EA. But clearly you don't know what numbers are or how they work.
The second thing you should is not so much the player number itself but that it's a steep decline from where it used to be. Having a small but growing playerbase would be much less of an issue than having a large playerbase drop as drastically as the SG playerbase did.
Really? 250 people playing the EA is "quite high"?? Man, I have even more Instagram followers than people playing SG lol
Despite active player numbers plummeting, the review scores going up. Quite the phenomena.