A thing about the Stretch Goal

If we all know that it's not okay then I'm sure it wouldn't be happening in the first place. And it *does* have to do with the topic at hand because it stems from this whole stretch goal business. You don't think it's important that people know what's happening to one of the crew members for this game?

 

A bit on this whole stretch goal pandemonium:

i believe this end boss stated it the best:

thetacriterion

"Okay, let's go over a few things here.
1. Your money is not funding pets. It is funding the developers being able to LIVE while developing the game full-time. Pets are only a thing because they're a light feature that can be developed without pushing the game back any further.
2. By preordering, you are purchasing the game and beta access. You are NOT purchasing stretch goals.
3. The pets are optional. They do not change the game at all. They do not ruin the game at all. They do not indicate a new "direction" that the game is going.
4. YOU. ARE. NOT. ENTITLED. TO. ANYTHING. If you pre-ordered, then you will get what you paid for. Namely, the game. Anything above and beyond that is complementary. i.e. FREE.
5. You have every right to feel upset about this development. However, being a dick (e.g. hurling abuse at devs, other commenters, or community members in general) is another matter entirely. Don't do that. Don't be that dick.

Thank you for your time. " - thetacriterion

 

Alas, its quite true. Some like it, some call it bad marketing.
Why bad marketing ? -> To boost up sale numbers.

These mentioned Starbound has succeeded splendily in my opinion what pre-order should be (cheaper game for pre-orders / everyone still gets the bonus tiers were it either pre-order or release buy).

 

1. it is possible to make them useless, but still make them interesting, think like a tamagauchi.

2.this is totally unrealistic, no one feels as though they hate the devs based off how the vote in a anonymous poll

3. hiring more people doesn't always speed up dev, you need to bring on people already familiar with your code structure, so people who have worked with it before, otherwise they well usually take longer then in house dev

4. this is the next 250k stretch goal, and as the devs had said they wouldn't be able to do a million dollar strech goal fast enough if they didn't do this one

5. If the bronies are a significant part of the costumer base (Their presence is over estimated, they just tend to be very active.), and the change makes them happy, then it is a good reason.

Edited for clarity.

 

That's not convincing for me really; I mean sure there were no alternative options given in the official poll, but do you really think that forced a lot of people who hated the idea of pets a stretch goal to vote "yes"? I doubt it.

And there are lots of unofficial polls, but in the end the devs are going to make polls about things that are real options. I'm sure I could go and make a poll, asking whether or not the game should be sold for 1$ or 100$, and I am fairly certain what the outcome would be. Just because the dev team didn't frame the poll as an open ended question, doesn't mean they weren't taking community input seriously.

The post of yours I responded to said that the poll was giving false hope, because it didn't take community opinion into consideration. It took the opinion expressed in the poll into consideration.

 

I guess people still don't know that the stretch goals where planned content and the stretch goals met would be added in the beta release. so simmer down people we can only take so much bile for so long

 

It had two options. Pets, and No. I think the fact that there was no alternative option greatly affected how people voted on that poll.

 

But pets was the option presented; it was feasible. If people disagreed with it, they really should have voted accordingly. I mean if (and this obviously isn't applicable to everyone) you didn't like the idea, or you would've preferred something else, voting 'yes' was a bad idea. 'Yes' means 'I support this', not 'this idea is okay, but other ideas are better.'

 

Holy shit. More people need to read this post.

You deserve a medal, man.

 

if i can get a worm pet i can rethink this.

 

I understand that Yes means yes, but the no also meant no. No I don't want this, not no, but this other thing is better. I think that to a lot of people, the way it was presented felt like "Yes I want this neat thing, or no I don't want anything at all," since there was no manner in which people could easily present alternative ideas in the thread and be heard. It had no "Other." I believe it could have been handled better.

 

I would probably have to facedesk, if anyone read the poll as "I want pets" vs. "I want nothing." I really don't think the wording of the poll was an issue, and that having 3 options would've just split the vote, and distracted from the main purpose. The poll was designed to see what people thought about pets as a stretch goal, not to receive a litany of everyone's hopes and dreams.

 

Well, you see OP, the situation is uh... I dunno, roughly 7/8ths rectified because of the fact they made multiple posts regarding their decision to add pets (be it vanity or utility), so I would not worry about it.

Questing is not worrying, neither should you.

 

I had the same issue, just recently and I started on the forums about 5 days ago, and it has really gone downhill in that 5 days.

I posted on a thread last night asking why people had an issue with the vanity pets. In detail I mentioned that I had no problem with said pets I had a problem with the fact that they made a thread about alternatives and pretty much decided in the space of a day or so (I originally thought it was a few hours) that they had no intention of implementing an alternate plan, no matter what the community thought about it.
What I did not know at the time was the thread was basically put there so the OP could lambast who ever posted an opposing opinion. No matter what I said he continued to imply that I was a liar and a whiner for posting on his thread that asked people why they did not like the vanity pets.
Then he proceeded to state that all those not expressing the same opinion as himself needed to "shut up", and again this was in a thread asking people to voice why they did not like the vanity pets,

That being said, this happens to all forums when a game draws critical acclaim or just general attention by the public at large. Eventually it clears up, usually after the game is no longer supported by the developers or if the forum mods are insanely strict and ban anyone voicing anything like discontent or displeasure on their boards. An example of this is GAMESPOT ever since the Jeff Gertsman review firing scandal.

I wouldn't give up on the community but no matter where you go if the game gets press you will get trolls and griefers galore in the forums.

 

You are making the assumption that the money is going towards pets and pets only. It is THEIR game, it is not your decision to make. The money from the pre-orders are going towards Chucklefish so they can spend more time making the game, you are not entitled to anything. Just remember you contributed to them, and play the game when it comes out.