PoE Embargo ends March 23rd, Backers wait for the 26th?

[Stun]

Just to be clear on something (AGAIN), youtuber/streamer =/= reviewer.

Eh... By strict definition of the two terms, of course you're right. But if the results are the same in the end then I'm not sure the distinction matters. A fence sitter who's researching a game to determine whether or not its worth buying is going to learn quite a bit more from watching someone else actually play the game, than if he simply reads paragraphs full of platitudes, adjectives and descriptions that typically make up an exhaustive review. "Show me, don't tell me" IS a more powerful advertising tool.

 

 

I have yet to see a solid argument explaining how streamers/youtubers getting the game 4 days before backers increase sales versus if they had got it (for free might I add) on the 26th like us and the public

Perhaps they're shooting for higher Day 1 sales? Because the problem with maintaining an embargo until the day when game is released is that your release day sales will simply be comprised of people who were going to buy the game anyway - people you've already convinced. But by letting a few 'high profile' streamers get the game a few days earlier and show it off, those streamers will help you hype up the game and convince the fence sitters who have not yet decided that they should buy the game to rush to steam and pre-order it. Edited March 23, 2015 by Stun

[Katarack21]

To sum up: Whine, whine, whine, give me it now, whine, whine, NOW, whine.

[Niggey]

The game release is 26th march. They told every backer and non-backer that they can play the game on the 26th. They never said something else. If they select a handful of people and give them a key 3 days before release because they put them on a level with journalists, then this is a buisness decision with little to no impact for the backers and which doesnt bother me in the slightest. Its an additional opportunity for non-backers to help them decide if they preorder or not and to promote the game.

 

Sorry, but I cant understand people being mad about this small decision just because it is "unfair". That reason is just not enough. 

 

I dunno about the treatment of the kickstarter backers. Maybe some people think that they didnt had enough influence in the development of the game...I personaly am quite content with everything, but there were so many backers, if some of some had a different interaction between backer and developer in mind, thats understandable.   

 

Many people DID complain about the price of the game, and many people DO watch people playing games over twitch and co., so this can be a big help for them to decide to buy the game and if its worth it. Heck, maybe there are still many gamers who dont know about the game.... 

Edited March 23, 2015 by Niggey

[xsubtownerx]

People watch youtube videos of a game they had no interest in or wouldn't buy before. After seeing gameplay they decide to buy it, this has been around for awhile.

 

 

Yeah I guess you're right. All those big name streamers and youtubers wouldn't have done videos on the 26th. They only do pre-releases now. Or better yet, Obsidian/paradox would have been in the wrong to include backers for the 23rd release. Or pre-release if you want to get technical. We wouldn't want to piss off the streamers by including us dumbass backers in the mix.

 

Anyone remember the 90's? Early 2000's? I'm no history buff, but I'm pretty sure games were getting sales before YouTube came along. In fact I remember when youtube was a FREE way for developers to get publicity. Now it's part of the marketing budget. hahaha

[Tigranes]

 

 

So, uh... people are mad that journalists get to play 3 days before the game is released, something that every single game in the universe does unless they want to make sure there's nobody to review the game and they would really like to declare bankruptcy? Ooooooookay.

 

No, that's not what we're mad about. We're mad about not getting the option to play the game early as well. We're mad about how Obsidian treats us backers and the whole development of this game in general.

 

And this is a game funded by fans. IMHO other rules should apply here than for a traditional game funded by a publisher or by the devs' own money. Simple.

 

And why should any of us get to play the game early? You might as well argue that the Backer Beta should also have let us play the whole game, because if we want to play a game before it's done then by God it is our right as Kickstarter backers.

 

I don't see a great reason that we should play the game before its release. (Especially since, in cases like the physical shipping problem, they went out of their way to hold a poll and indeed give us the option on how it's done.)

 

 

I love how I broke the internet with this one. I also love how many, many, many people have missed the point. 

 

Just to be clear on something (AGAIN), youtuber/streamer =/= reviewer. Also the review embargo is still set for the 26th. I have yet to see a solid argument explaining how streamers/youtubers getting the game 4 days before backers increase sales versus if they had got it (for free might I add) on the 26th like us and the public (backers and random buyers are worth the same apparently). Do pre-orders count for more than day ONE sales now? Is that how the gaming market works?

 

Anyways at this stage there's no point in arguing over this anymore. The damage has been done (or not done). Depending on which side of the coin you're on. Still looking forward to Thursday. We should at the very LEAST be entitled to a midnight launch. :D

 

You already got your solid arguments. Youtube streamers are reviewers today insofar as their impact on sales is concerned. That's not something Obsidian or me or you decides (I wish I could, I think most of them suck). They need to get the game 3 days before because, you know, you'd prefer them to review the game having played more than half an hour of it. Or, you know, you'd like them to get the game on the 26th, perhaps not get it if the mail is late, and then they can spend their Day One stream showing everyone how they install the game and then fiddle with the graphics settings and then die to the very first spider because they have no idea how anything works.

 

If we wanted to use the kind of arguments you guys are using, though, I could just say: I don't see what's so terrible about ten Youtube dudes playing 3 days before me, and poor old me having to wait until the actual release date.

[Nonek]

Endure, in enduring grow strong.

 

There is time...enough.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Nonek

[LordCrash]

 

There is for example still no official word on the shipping process and when we will get our stuff. Not even talking about an official excuse for the huge delay for Europeans. It's all pretty shadowy and I see now sign of any serious attempt to make it better. Main thing the press and new buyers are happy I guess...

 

What do you mean by delay for Europeans? Haven't realy been on these forums so I have no clue, just came here since I saw those twitch-streams popping up as well and was wondering what that was all about (and am also a little annoyed about it).

 

 

The physical kickstarter versions will be delayed and won't arrive until a few weeks after release. You will be able to play the game with a digital key on release day though.

 

 

 

 

So, uh... people are mad that journalists get to play 3 days before the game is released, something that every single game in the universe does unless they want to make sure there's nobody to review the game and they would really like to declare bankruptcy? Ooooooookay.

 

No, that's not what we're mad about. We're mad about not getting the option to play the game early as well. We're mad about how Obsidian treats us backers and the whole development of this game in general.

 

And this is a game funded by fans. IMHO other rules should apply here than for a traditional game funded by a publisher or by the devs' own money. Simple.

 

And why should any of us get to play the game early? You might as well argue that the Backer Beta should also have let us play the whole game, because if we want to play a game before it's done then by God it is our right as Kickstarter backers.

 

I don't see a great reason that we should play the game before its release. (Especially since, in cases like the physical shipping problem, they went out of their way to hold a poll and indeed give us the option on how it's done.)

 

Of course you can always decide differently. I just feel disappointed by how Obsidian treated the backers so far and to which extend they were transparent and open-minded so far. I've simply expected more from them. They basically did the bare minimum of what they promised (apart from not delivering the physical stuff on time) and that's ok. Nevertheless they could have been much better imho.

[Tigranes]

Well that's a much broader topic about everything they did and didn't do during the last couple of years. My point here is that this entire thread doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. 

 

Now, when 26th comes, that's when the whole place will explode. Fun times.

[Seafort]

I didn't get access to the Backer Beta as my pledge wasn't high enough so I've had no input into this game at all apart from paying my share of the funding.

 

I do find it strange that youtubers or twitch streamers get access to a game before the backers of the game. If it wasn't for all of us they wouldn't have the privilege of streaming the game early in the first place and profiting off of it.

 

Either way this was Obsidians and Paradox decision to let them have access and there is nothing we can do about it now. Let's hope some of the viewers actually buy the game after they've seen a Let's Play of the game. A lot of people don't buy a game after they've seen the ending. I've watched a few full LPs  so I wasn't inclined to buy the game afterwards.

[Katarack21]

A flurry of activity and then silence for days.

[Longknife]

First world problems so ****ing hard in this thread.

[Polanski]

It is a unhealthy trait to be so entitled, it is something that will just generally make you unhappy.

They are getting a review copy, that is not meant for the public (that includes the 77.000 backers). That is an unfinished copy, we will get to play the finished game once it is released. It is done to promote the game and to increase sales. Obsidian and Paradox are fully in their own right to decide how to promote the game.

[deanlove]

That's how every damn market in the whole damn world works.

You see these sort of arguments a lot, and they're technically correct. But Kickstarter itself is not how the whole damn world works. Five years ago, had someone come to you and said "why don't we make a new Infinity-engine style RPG funded entirely by fans" you would have told me "that's not how the damn world works, don't be silly". Much like the OP and others are being told here.

 

Kickstarter has changed how things work. The normal rules of sending review copies out to journos and streamers before others doesn't necessarily apply. Now that doesn't mean it definitely doesn't apply either. Just that this is a conversation worth having, as clearly some people are bothered by it.

 

We can also look at it from a different point of few - you can bet that in the old publisher/developer paradigm, that the people funding the game there, the publisher, sure as hell got to play the game before release date. I mean, that's how the damn world works. If you have a publisher, they get the game as soon as it's done. Or at any point along the way. You wouldn't get far telling your publisher "oh sorry, you have to wait until release day, only journos get it at the moment."

 

So there's a paradigm in which the request makes sense. It's also not a matter of 'making reviewers wait' - you can send to backers at the same time as reviewers, and then have the launch date a week later. Of course, that can cause its own problems (as seen with Double Fine).

 

There's no ideal solution here, but I'm baffled at people that just think it's an easy answer - it's clearly bothering some backers, and just going "well that's the way it's always been" is completely ignoring the fact that Kickstarter funded games are not the way it's always been.

 

And frankly, I find that approach kinda depressing. "We're going to use Kickstarter to raise funds, then do everything exactly how we did it before". That's not a sustainable model. That's not actually changing the system to allow games like this to come back. That's just using your fans for investment capital and then soldiering on as normal. A few games down the line, those fans are going to realise they can just as easily wait for the release.

Edited March 23, 2015 by deanlove

[deanlove]

This is an important part of the process. The majority of hype nowadays is generated by folks streaming games right before they are released. This is just the reality of the situation.

 

The reality of the situation is you don't get to make games like this any more. And yet you did. You broke that reality, you went directly to the fans via Kickstarter and turned that reality on its head. If we'd all stuck to what the reality of the situation was three years ago, as to what the process was three years ago, this game would never have been made. It's sad to see you reverting back to the limits, restrictions and requirements you believe the market places on you now.

"We have to do it this way, it's the way it's done" would never have seen the game made in the first place.

[Tartantyco]

How did you manage to format your post into such an unreadable state, deanlove?

[Cantousent]

Hey, if you keep the flames on low and advocate a position regarding the game, I'm all for folks having a say. Sometimes, a heated debate *can* result in something good. For my part, I don't like the fact that, as Tig says, any bozo who creates a youtube video can have an impact, and some of them are really *really* bad. Do I want to stop people from making youtube vids? Of course not, but while I see the freedom to make them as a good thing, I don't necessarily see them as good in and of themselves. The youtube experience is only as good as the vids, and some of them are bad. ...and therein lies the issue, dean, because the ability to stream (from wherever) is itself a kind of populist movement that changes things just like kickstarter did. So, how do we put *that* genie back in the bottle? ...But the discussion about whether Obsidz should have sent out keys for people to stream is a fair enough topic and as long as you don't go after individuals with pitch forks and fiery brands, why should anyone try to stop you? It will definitely be a topic they'll have to consider and address if they do another kickstarter.

 

EDIT: As an aside, how many people are angry about some folks getting early access and how many folks are angry about that access being flaunted on this specific subforum? Not a rhetorical question! These are separate issues and one of them is far easier to emend than the other.

[0rthus]

 

Youtube streamers are reviewers today insofar as their impact on sales is concerned.

 

 

I'm not sure that is factual correct with the definition of reviewer.

merriam-webster:
 
       1. One that reviews; especially :  a writer of critical reviews
 
Oxford:
 
       1. A person who writes critical appraisals of books, plays, movies, etc., for publication.
 
       1.1 A person who formally assesses or examines something with a view to changing it if necessary:
       a rent reviewer

I do not see how reviewer status is defined by ones impact on the sales or profits of a work.

[Rostere]

I just want Obsidian and Paradox to do whatever is in their power to earn as much $$$ as is possible, and then to burn everything on a sequel in a similar format. If that means sending early versions to YouTube personalities, polka-dotted flying pigs and your mom then hell yes, I'm all for it.

[deanlove]

How did you manage to format your post into such an unreadable state, deanlove?

Damn I guess I should have sent it to a reviewer first...

[Katarack21]

 

 

Youtube streamers are reviewers today insofar as their impact on sales is concerned.

 

 

I'm not sure that is factual correct with the definition of reviewer.

merriam-webster:
 
       1. One that reviews; especially :  a writer of critical reviews
 
Oxford:
 
       1. A person who writes critical appraisals of books, plays, movies, etc., for publication.
 
       1.1 A person who formally assesses or examines something with a view to changing it if necessary:
       a rent reviewer

I do not see how reviewer status is defined by ones impact on the sales or profits of a work.

 

Well the Oxford definition is at least clearly off; by a strict reading, they claim that reviews can only occur when using the written word, which is clearly not correct.

[Bryy]

We wouldn't want to piss off the streamers by including us dumbass backers in the mix.

You do realize people have been streaming the backer beta, right?

[0rthus]

 

Well the Oxford definition is at least clearly off; by a strict reading, they claim that reviews can only occur when using the written word, which is clearly not correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well actually it would still technically be correct due to the use of "etc."

 

 

 
Oxford
 
et cetera:
 

            1 Used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included: we’re trying to resolve problems of obtaining equipment, drugs, et cetera
 
             1.1 Indicating that a list is too tedious or clichéd to give in full: we’ve all got to do our duty, pull our weight, et cetera, et cetera

[Tartantyco]

I'd just like to point out that you tardigrades are arguing about dictionary definitions right now.

[Snoozer]

I'd just like to point out that you tardigrades are arguing about dictionary definitions right now.

 

Why let reason get in the way of a good internet debate?

[Katarack21]

Etc. is used to indicate the logical progression of a list; in that sentence, it references the list of media about which reviews can be written; the definition uses "written" as the default median in which reviews occur and provides no other form for such. Again, it's a strict reading which clearly doesn't follow the spirit of the definition, but it does point out that dictionaries are not the be-all of word meaning.