Why not request the devs to use our community savings to be used on adding the procedural generation, and simply a small memorial for all who pledged?
I'm just throwing this out there. I would like an extra map for now, but eventually the world will open up so what would be an extra shipwreck worth? On the other hand, like I stated above already, the procedural generation will be implemented eventually anyway, so why waste our extra pledges on it?
What do you all think? Maybe you've got some other ideas to use the money on instead of a shipwreck map? After all it is our money and we can always ask the devs for something else. It will be up to them of course if they think it's a fair deal, depending on what we ask for. Just think outside the pool.
I think they're best off going with a wreck. That's how it has been presented. To put the money towards something else, they would really need to give people who didn't agree with the idea an option to get their pledge back.
Good point, hadn't realized that. What would you request if it was solely your choice?
If it were the difference between getting procedural generation and not getting it, or if it would make it substantially better; then yes, I probably would. Otherwise I think a wreck would add more to the game.
They advertised procedural generation as part of the game so I dont want to pay extra for it. It surprises methat its not in the game yet
There are currently two ways to put money into the game after the initial purchase, one is to upgrade your pledge and the other is for the community shipwreck. I would want the money put into the community shipwreck used as originally planned. I would expect the money going into the pledge upgrade to be used for the procedural generation upgrade along with other upgrades.
I do understand why you are asking, Reinier. I think a lot of us here are wanting to see that feature soon and would like to help it along in any way we could. I'm guessing that it takes a lot of work and experimenting to get it done.
Because we already paid for that future, and it was already promised as being part of the base game. Why would we have to pay for something that’s already supposed to be ours? That’s like them announcing that if we want the air mechanic we have to pay them another x amount of money or if we want fish interactions we have to reach a new funding goal. These are things that are already supposed to be delivered to the end used regardless of any future funding.
But then again the devs do have a history of pulling major advertised game features that we already paid for. Cough cough spear gun cough.
And if they do announce to do something like this they sure as hell better refund everyone who donated to the community ship wreck and start over from scratch because I for one didn’t give extra money just for something already expected, it was for a community ship wreck, and I can guarantee I’m not the only one who would oppose this hijacking of community funds.
If you say you’re going to do something or include a feature and then start taking money for it you damn well better deliver on that IN FULL. You should have thought of the cost and requirements before deciding to announce it as a feature, so there are no excuses on why you can’t afford to deliver on a promise your community already paid you for.
Since the game is still in an alpha state, pretty much anything in it is subject to change. While the devs may say they plan on adding certain features, some of those features may not end up in the game. They might find something takes more time than they thought it would, isn't going to be fun when added to the game, or they might find it's a feature the community doesn't really want. In a perfect world they would get in every feature they want, and every feature the community wants. Since this isn't a perfect world, they have to do the best they can to make the most people happy with the resources they have.
I'd hesitate to call something an advertised feature when the game hasn't even hit the beta stage. The general understanding with an alpha is that everything is subject to change.
Now the big advantage to getting in on this stage of things, is that your voice can be heard by the devs to help them decide where the game is going to go. If you really want a feature that the devs have said they're not going to implement, I don't see a problem with bringing it up every few months to see if community opinion has changed on it. If you do bring something up, you'd be more likely to gather support if you drop the confrontational tone. Just say you'd like to see a feature added, and give your reasons along with a description of how it could work.
It’s pretty easy and accurate to call something an advertised feature when the trailer you used to start the original funding explicitly uses these specific things as the reason why you should fund this project. Were it some ancillary thing they started talking about later down the road but ended up not implementing it, then that would be fine as that would not be considered part of the basic game features that was supposed to be in the final game as advertised. But to withhold or remove something that was explicitly used to sell the game to backers is no Bueno. As these base game features should have taken precedent over any work on the noncore features. And in the case of a core advertised featuring not being implemented it should be for a good reason, like you said if it turned out not fun, ended up running into unsurmountable problems ect then that would be fine as long as they explain why and that they actually put effort into trying to make it work. Reasons like “meh” “don’t feel like it anymore” “lost interest in it” aren’t good reasons to abandon a core advertised feature.
And things do happen let’s say they did come out and say hey Procedural Ocean is taking more time and resources that originally anticipated we might need to ask for more funding for that. that’s fine most people will understand things happen and will be willing to drop a few more $ for that, but work on getting that core feature done, stop work on all side work until the core feature is finished, once that’s done then go back to working on the side work. And don’t take money that was specifically ear marked for something else.
If you make a cake make sure you finish the actual cake before putting time and effort into the frosting, finish the frosting before you put on the sprinkles.
That being said all of this is hypothetical anyways as the most recent update on the procedurally generated ocean was that it was still being worked on and still going to be implemented in the game. This was just a what if they decided to withhold Open Ocean or redirect funds that were given specifically for another use.
First of all you should know that creating a game is a dynamic process. It is like Zarozinia said; along the way you find out that some feature don't actually 'fit' in the game. Another thing is that we did a lot of feature promises based on the Indigogo pledge goal. Since we did not make that goal we needed to create World of Diving with significant less money than we intended and that means we need to make decision about letting some feature's go. Of Course we will NEVER let a feature go because we don't want to do it anymore.
Also for working on side features like the leap motion; this generated extra exposure extra money and this can be used to finish the core features.
World of Diving is not big enough to support the studio right now on itself so we need to work on the side. The money this generates is invested in WoD.
That being said we still strive to make World of Diving the best diving game. And we intent to put most of the feature's in there. Like the procedural part. We first intend to do this with a procedural cave system.
" Of Course we will NEVER let a feature go because we don't want to do it anymore."
According to your own devs that seems to be exactly what happened.
And in the same paragraph you justify the inclusion of the track IR futures which was not advertised because it would bring attention to WOD and increase players and money to the project, the same can be said for the spear gun, which is arguable one of the easiest things you could do to get the attention of the majority of steam players, with the difference being that the spear gun was actually used to advertise and sell the game to us in the first place.
Richard on Tue, 05/06/2014 - 19:31
“Spearfishing was an old concept during the Indiegogo campaign.
So no worries, we're not planning any spearfishing in WOD a.t.m.
Jesse on Mon, 09/01/2014 - 07:15
“World of Diving will remain a violence free game. No animals are harmed during the process.”
Jesse on Mon, 09/01/2014 - 07:17
“What we've heard about our community is that spear guns are an absolute no-go.”
Jesse on Mon, 09/01/2014 - 08:14
“We are aware about this screenshot with the cage and the spear gun. This is a screen shot from some time ago, even before we start working on a actual prototype. At that time we indeed had the intention to add a spear gun into the game. Soon after the announcement of the game and the start of the community we had a lot of feedback of that with disapprove of the addition of a spear gun/ violence. We agreed with that, and the vision of us and the majority of the community on this subject hasn't changed, so this is something that we are sticking with. “
Jesse on Mon, 09/15/2014 - 07:59
“Maybe the sharkcage will have his reappearance one day, bur probably without the harpoon gun. “
Only now I notice that the shark has been sucking on a used tampon
It seems we have a different understanding of what I meant with "Of Course we will NEVER let a feature go because we don't want to do it anymore".
What I meant was we would never let a feature go because we don't feel like doing it anymore. It's a different story when we decide not to implement a feature because of a design decision. I think the reasons stated above for not implementing the spear gun are all based on design decisions, not lack of enthusiasm towards the feature.
And for the leap motion vs the speargun; We think leap motion fits in the game and will generate the right kind of exposure. While the speargun will turn it into a kind of shooter and not even a fun one.
That being said I should say that I'm sorry to hear that we could not live up to your expectations. Like I said we needed to make some design decisions and this it what we chose. So even if we did not want violence in the game we still made a victim..
Can I make this up for you a bit if we design a suit for you?http://divegame.net/node/119326#comment-32920
Thanks for the info Puc. This is the first I've heard of the procedural cave system. That sounds like fun. You guys are doing a great job.
Let's get back on topic here, complain about the damn gun somewhere else.
The procedural generation was just an example of what else we could ask for instead of a shipwreck. We could also ask for a companion app for example, I was just curious what other people could think of.
Yeah good idea, Reinier. Ive also been thinking about the companion. There could be like minigames and stuff hehe. Also maybe specific zones where only your companion can go? Luke small tunnels and then you would have to control your companion
I would love to be able to control little hercules remotely!
I wouldn't mind if we could grab onto Little Hercules and drive it that way.
That would be cool too, instead of using the scooter you mean, right?
Yeah, that's what I meant.
If I was to choose a "non wreck" perk to use funding money for it would be opening up the cave systems while integrating technical diving components like wreck reels. If you didn't run the wreck reel out or something every time you turn around it would "fade out" or somehow come up with a way to make you feel lost.
From birth man carries the weight of gravity on his shoulders. He is bolted to the earth. But man has only to sink beneath the surface and he is free. - Jacques Cousteau
Nice one, I wouldn't mind using the community funding option to implement a simulation mode, but that would probably take more than 1500,- to develop. And it would have to be the goal from the start, I don't think we should or could use the money we gathered thus far.