A thing about the Stretch Goal

Release a game and provide updates, as they have said. Otherwise, not much else.

 

At no point did you purchase anything other than exactly what it said on the preorder levels blurb.

This isn't directed at you, RedScar, cuz we're doin the reasonable thing. Yours was just a convenient post to grab

 

Ehhh, not really. Why, you might ask? They have thanked us. They don't really have a duty to return the favor beyond offering the product that we paid for.

 

You payed money for the game/beta/soundtrack/(whatever in tier you bought)... not the stretch goals. In fact no one payed money for that. The goals are just landmarks in $ they have gotten from preorders and didn't cost anyone anything. ^^

 

I don't recall seeing that on the page when I preordered.

 

I think I actually need to quote myself for some reason.

 

I think they're great. As long as they're optional.

 

They did listen to the community. Check that poll. Do you see what's happening there? Pets were chosen because the majority of the community wanted them.

 

"Hey, we wanna give you something extra as a bonus!"

"YOU FUCKING BASTARDS HAUDNSUHDU"

Really, guys? Reeeeeeeaaaaaaally? This isn't Capcom selling you on-disk DLC, or EA DRM'ing your Sims in their Cities. This level of bile is incredibly uncalled for.

 

Read the final post by Molly, pets were chosen regardless of community feedback. Furthermore while 35% may be a minority its still worth reconsidering to find something that has more people on board.

 

Molly even said they they were not going to make them solely cosmetic. Also, they are optional.

I'm actually laughing out loud. The community's response has been hilariously explosive.

The drama this is generating is unreal.

 

I hate to break it to you, kid, but 64% Yes/35% No is a clear and decisive vote for pets to go in. Presidents and public officials are elected to office with far, far less substantial victories, so you can chill with this whole 'silent majority' thing you got going. You didn't like pets, that's valid. They knew not everyone would, so they held a poll, and two out of three voted in favor of pets out of about 1,600 people (a plenty large enough sample of community opinion).

 

Yes, because what we need is to lock down pre-order stretch goals in a community debate.

That is an incredibly poor idea.

When I jumped into that thread, the votes were pretty close to what they are now, and Molly had not posted saying anything concrete. They gave time for the community to voice their opinion and went with what the majority of the community wanted. I empathize that this is not what you wanted, but that doesn't mean that Chucklefish is bad, or that the people supporting them are unreasonable, stupid, or anything else that's been spouted because people can't control their butthurt. A fair shake was given at doing things both ways, and they went with the one that was more popular. Ain't nothin' wrong with that.

 

Do people not know that Tiy has been talking about pets for... a year now, I think. Pets were going to be added in anyway, we're just getting them sooner.

 

no pets were chosen because there was no sitting on the fence option. Once again I state I don't care about the pets aslong as they are optional and not only for looks. (who wants an annoying furball running after them that is useless). If you put it into 3 categories; those who like pets, those who think it is just an average idea and those who think i's not, I reckon you would notice a lot of in-betweeners and you would find that the majority of them would say there is probably something better they could add as a milestone.

 

You know what I've seen as far as suggestions go? I've seen ideas that require more planning, significantly more code, and rebalancing that would take months. Primarily because the kids involved want a 'cool' thing rather than a reasonable one, and don't understand the costs involved. And that's okay, no one is expecting everyone else voting to be cognizant of those things all the time.

Chucklefish stated a desire for an achievable goal. They put one out there. The majority of the community thought it was a fine idea and supported it. Based on that, and it fitting their criteria, Chucklefish went with it. Don't pretend it's anything other than that.

 

Also, if pets are supposed to already be in it, then why the hell are the devs making it a "milestone". Hmmmmm. Well done.

 

man, I doubt that every response that they received over the milestone mark were too hard to put in. It was just easy ( as easy as adding what is apparently already in the game). Once again, I sit on the fence with this, so don't press anything with me, I see both sides of this argument.

 

You..you should go read that thing again. Sit down for a sec and really think it through.

These are starter pets. They are a neat bonus thing for starting off. They don't require you to head out and find a particularly neat monster amidst potentially millions of undesirable ones in order to start interacting with pets. You can still do that thing, but this gets that process started early. It's also neat to think that my character may have a beloved pet that they care for and would save from whatever apocalypse doomed them to wander space. But that's maybe just me.

 

Really? Have you not been paying any attention to any of this? All of these things were going to be in the game either way. Regardless of how things were voted or otherwise, it was all planned content.

The stretch goals exist to show people what they will be able to add before the official release rather than as updates down the line.

Yeesh.