Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Norman]

So I'm an active forumite on the Taleworlds Forums (the forums for the game Mount and Blade Warband) and we've been talking a lot about LiF since you guys started up the Indiegogo campaign. We all hope that it will succeed but we have concerns.

The goal is extremely high and the rewards for the lower tiers aren't very good. To get into the Arma 3 Alpha I paid $30, but to get into the LiF Alpha it's $215 Canadian. There is no way that I'll be able to afford that, and I don't have a lot of incentive to donate at a lower tier.

Of course, I'll probably donate anyways since I'm so excited for this project. But other potential donaters are not, and they'll likely just turn away. So I think it would be in the best interest of the campaign to give some better rewards to lower tier doners.

Heres the Taleworlds Forums thread I mentioned:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/ ... 256.0.html
I'm the user Odyseuss.

[Kuroi]

arma 3, as the name says, already had "something" behind, so it wasn't that hard to give better stuff at lower prices...

LiF tho is a newborn, really needs the funds to progress and if the very first alpha stage was going to cost like 30 $ everyone would just go for it and i'm sure almost nobody would care at the higher stuff, which means a fail campaign

an Alpha is not a game, it's a test and you'll be surrounded by glitches and bugs and code-monsters, if you/your friends are really interested in the game they should just donate so the game at least CAN have a birth... if they turn their backs cause they can't join an alpha, that means they don't really care at all if the game fails. cause you know, if the campaign fails -> goodbye LiF.

[Norman]

I think you fail to understand. We want to participate, but we physically don't HAVE the money for it.

It's quite the contrary with Arma 3. They did have something behind it. They had previous Arma games. We know what Arma 3 is and we know what to expect. A developer with no prior titles shouldn't charge higher for that very reason.

And in the end they'd make more money because people want to participate in Alpha. If the lower tier rewards are better more people will donate at the lower tier. Believe me, this works best.

[Kuroi]

I think you fail to understand. We want to participate, but we physically don't HAVE the money for it.

It's quite the contrary with Arma 3. They did have something behind it. They had previous Arma games. We know what Arma 3 is and we know what to expect. A developer with no prior titles shouldn't charge higher for that very reason.

And in the end they'd make more money because people want to participate in Alpha. If the lower tier rewards are better more people will donate at the lower tier. Believe me, this works best.

you can participate even with just 30 euros, getting just the game once released.

if you (generally talking) WANT to be in alpha as well, that means you just care about getting INTO the game as soon as possible, if you don't have the money for alpha then just use what you have to make sure the campaign will succeed <- this is the most important thing. not getting into the game asap, just the campaign going good.

let's assume they price the "alpha test" for like 30 euros, 1000 people (the limit) buy it and they get 30.000 euros. still 170.000 to go. and what they got besides alpha and beta tests? not everyone has THAT MUCH money for the houses (which are limited since the starter city is just that, even if they lower the house prices they won't get more than 50.000), so they can't hope on that...

atm the price list is like this

alpha 1 - 150€
alpha 2 - 120€
alpha 3 - 100€
beta 1 - 90€
beta 2 - 80€

now, even if they lower the prices, still you'll have to pay like 100€ for alpha 1, down to 50€ for beta 2.

alpha 1 is just behind the corner, if the campaign goes well (#1 priority i remember), so it HAS to cost a lot more.
and if you say you could go for 100€ for alpha 1, i say you can easily add 50€ and take it now...
but, i repeat, that's just cause you (generically) WANT to be in asap, if you just care about the campaign being successfull then you just throw as much money you can... you don't care about tests. you must care about the game itself.

unfortunately, i don't have a job, it's a very bad period here, still i'm trying to advertise the game EVERYWHERE cause i love its design and concept, as soon as i have some spare money (i guess i can get something in 40 days, damn it) i will surely throw it out there without caring about the various tests... i just want the game.

P.S. just to make sure, these replies are not an attack against you or just to tell you're wrong. it's just my idea about how they're moving with the campaign

[Bobik]

but, i repeat, that's just cause you (generically) WANT to be in asap, if you just care about the campaign being successfull then you just throw as much money you can... you don't care about tests. you must care about the game itself.

this.
Arma is a single player game, that can launch any amount of instanced servers for a multiplayer. Literally, they can afford to sell away singleplayer copies and let players launch their own dedicated servers or whatever.

In our case that is ONE SINGLE WORLD and all players will be on that world all at once. You see the difference? That is why we can't allow thousands of players, at least not on the early stages, when we can't guarantee lagless and bugless environment without real stress tests.

And in general, i think comparison of ABSOLUTELY different games is rather strange. I know some persons who invest thousands of $$ into some anime korean crap games or buying a colored pants in other games. It is just everyone decide himself, does he really want that game THAT much or not. If you don't think so, then it's your choice, that doesn't mean that everyone will follow it.

[nksharp]

You could always (and hopefully will) split the worlds up so that it goes by continent and not have everyone on one server.

If there was an NA,EU and Russia server this would at least allow more people to play and at the same time reduce lag/ping which is a major factor in most MMO's.

Many other crowdfunded games are also indie titles with small dev teams but still price their game fairly. There are also many larger ones made by well known devs that have smaller tier rewards at a fair price and usually have some sort of 'early bird' rewards to start their funding.

This is probably the most expensive crowdfunding campaign I have seen in terms of cost to get into alpha/beta. I am just afraid if the campaign doesn't start gaining traction it may not go anywhere.

[Kuroi]

You could always (and hopefully will) split the worlds up so that it goes by continent and not have everyone on one server.

i guess most of the people who are attracted by this kind of game just look for an unique server-world, personally i hate different servers.

Mortal Online has an unique server and it's played by everyone in the world, their combat system looks a lil' more complex than the LiF one, still people play it from everywhere

[Norman]

He means a different server for every location. Not player run servers or anything. Official serves. But multiple servers reduces server stress and lag, and it makes it accessible for players from all over.

[Virdill]

If the game like we can be content to give 30 € for pre-purchase, claiming to enter alpha is just a whim to me

However, if for example 1 decent server coast € 50,000, and you have to buy 3 servers fees are tripled, while you could buy a single server, but more efficient

[Kuroi]

He means a different server for every location. Not player run servers or anything. Official serves. But multiple servers reduces server stress and lag, and it makes it accessible for players from all over.

i did understand what he meant, and i said a game like Mortal online which is probably a lil more complex just has one server and it works...

and i don't think they can afford an NA server already in alpha state...

[Norman]

If the game like we can be content to give 30 € for pre-purchase, claiming to enter alpha is just a whim to me

However, if for example 1 decent server coast € 50,000, and you have to buy 3 servers fees are tripled, while you could buy a single server, but more efficient

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're saying.

[DoctorPainkiller]

I'm in agreement with Norman here. I'm also a member of the Taleworlds forum and I've been watching the game pretty much since it was first announced. I'd be all for supporting this game, but as it is, I see no difference between buying it at launch, or now, and risking a failure of a game. It should be cheaper to buy the standard game during the kickstarter, to entice people to buy it.

[Kuroi]

I'm in agreement with Norman here. I'm also a member of the Taleworlds forum and I've been watching the game pretty much since it was first announced. I'd be all for supporting this game, but as it is, I see no difference between buying it at launch, or now, and risking a failure of a game. It should be cheaper to buy the standard game during the kickstarter, to entice people to buy it.

what if the game once released will cost 50€?

[Bobik]

Guys, stop thinking that you're buying a game, like singleplayer game or a game with a limited multiplayer.
Because you are not.
You're buying access to our servers. And when you get there - you will produce additional server lag, consume resources and such.
It will be ok for later stages of game development, when we will see a lot of statistics of our servers, will do a lot of optimizations and will have money to afford larger scale server clusters. Also, you must keep in mind that our game is not your typical game you had played before. You can posses private property, perform terraforming and many more of different actions and NOT in some private 20 ppl server like in minecraft, but in ONE SINGLE PERSISTENT world. And thousands of other players will be around you in that time.
So, please, stop comparing us with other games. That is a new unique game in many ways and if you don't feel that or don't see that or don't care about that - it is ok, we can't blame you. But just be so kind and try not to harm our campaign while spreading you opinion all around, please. Thank you

[Spidersuit]

I'm in agreement with Norman here. I'm also a member of the Taleworlds forum and I've been watching the game pretty much since it was first announced. I'd be all for supporting this game, but as it is, I see no difference between buying it at launch, or now, and risking a failure of a game. It should be cheaper to buy the standard game during the kickstarter, to entice people to buy it.

As Kuroi said: what if at release cost 50€ to buy the game?
More over, "I see no difference between buying it at launch, or now, and risking a failure of a game." the difference is that if u give now the money, u support the campaign of crowfunding bringing the game realisation more real than before. If the campaign will fail, u will recive all the money u gave. So nothing to worry about. Give them ur money, 30€ for a game is not that much, and hope others like u will do the same thing. In this scenario the game will be develop, otherwise u will recive back ur money.... u have nothing to risk, only to gain

[Bobik]

Ye and that too, thanks.

[Virdill]

However, I also would like to give a little advice I understand why you can not give access to alpha with 30 €, and I agree with you guys, so you'll have to make another video in these 42 days of fundraising, I would recommend, to make a gameplay video to show what you have done so far, unfortunately, the people are very distrustful about indie projects, and if you deem it appropriate, explain how you want to use this money, how important it is and why you can not give access alfa, too people.
The public needs of safety, if the base of the project there is no a famous name

We are with you

[nksharp]

You're buying access to our servers. And when you get there - you will produce additional server lag, consume resources and such.

That is the problem though...

We aren't actually buying into the server unless you are willing to pay $200 USD. Who knows when beta will come out after that at the still crazy price of $100+.

I would love to support this game but I don't think I can financially without actually playing the game or seeing the product first. Going into something blindly is only a good way to risk losing money, there have been many crowdfunded games that have even got their money and still failed afterwards.

If you need any indication that this price system is failing just check out the campaign in 40 days.

[Kuroi]

I would love to support this game but I don't think I can financially without actually playing the game or seeing the product first. s.

cause you think what you'll see in the alpha will be the same on release? lol

[nksharp]

No, I don't want to spend $200 on something I have never played before.

[Kuroi]

No, I don't want to spend $200 on something I have never played before.

who's telling you to go for the 200$ thingie? what stops you from spending 30$?

[Norman]

Because the rewards for the $30 tier aren't very good.

[nksharp]

I mentioned the $200 pledge since a dev stated you were buying into their servers, not to play the game.

You need to spend $200 just to get in immediately so that is what I choose.

There is simply no reasoning for any of these prices and that is why the crowdfunding will fail, or at least one link in the chain.

[Kuroi]

Because the rewards for the $30 tier aren't very good.

you spend what you can to help the campaign being successfull, not for your "profit" lol

You need to spend $200 just to get in immediately so that is what I choose.

just buy the game then, do you think "getting in immediately" will be like playing a release game? it's an alpha filled with bugs and glitches and who knows what, it surely will be a pain to "play", cause it has to be tested, indeed.

[Norman]

A) I can't donate out of the kindness of my heart to a game that I've never played.
B) You keep making Alpha seem like a chore. Have you participated in any Alphas? Because it doesn't seem that why. I've participated in many Alphas and it's not a chore, it's playing a game and reporting bugs.

[Kuroi]

A) I can't donate out of the kindness of my heart to a game that I've never played.
B) You keep making Alpha seem like a chore. Have you participated in any Alphas? Because it doesn't seem that why. I've participated in many Alphas and it's not a chore, it's playing a game and reporting bugs.

1) that means you don't care at all about the game, you never pre-ordered a game? that's just the same thing when giving them 30€.
2) i played mortal online alpha and darkfall early closed beta (friends and family stuff), now i'm in gloria victis pre-alpha, can't remember all the closed betas i even joined in the past.
anyway you never know how that current alpha state will be, perhaps it crashes 3 times out of 5 when you just try to login and so on, testing is a job, playing is just playing. and you don't "play" when you're in an alpha/beta test.

[Norman]

A) I can't care about a game that I've never played. And I don't pre-order games very often, and when I do it's from a developer with previous games that I've enjoyed and played.
B) Clearly you and I have very different experience when playing Alphas, and I'm not sure how you can consider it a chore.

[Bobik]

So you came to us, managed to register only just to tell your opinion here? Why? What for? If you don't care, then you really got nothing to do here, plain and simple, don't you think so?

[Jhuseby]

I was, and still am very excited about the prospects of this game (well the vision anyways, no clue if they will succeed in implementing it).

I'd really love to support them so they can realize their vision, but the prices to access beta and alpha testing are just too outrageous (not to mention too many tiers IMO). I'm not going to pay what they're asking to get into a beta that likely won't happen for over 6 months. I also think it's a bad idea to "consider you bought our game already". That should be a higher tier than beta access, maybe not alpha access. Just because you get into beta or alpha, doesn't mean you should get the game too (IMO). I'd be happy to buy my way (and support devs at the same time) into beta or alpha access, and still buy the final product on release. That happens with a lot of other games, they allow people into the beta for free, and when the game releases, you still have to buy it.


Not to mention, EU only servers for NA players (which is what they plan on having with the final game) make me less likely to donate. If they had some plans to have NA server/s after the game releases (not talking alpha/beta) then I think it would alleviate some concerns.

my copy/pasta from another thread

[Bobik]

Thank you for your feedback. First of all i am not sure if you understand that, but higher tier rewards include lower tier ones, so access to the alpha includes the game buy itself.
As about US servers, yes, sorry, but we can't say certain about EU servers in a current state of affairs NA is too away from us