May 2018 Kickstarter Update and Feedback Survey Results!

whatzituyah So, first your complaint was that you deserve the content because you deserve all the content. Now you don't care about not getting all the content because you've deemed a skin insignificant enough to not even matter. So, if its so insignificant what makes you possibly think its an adequate replacement for the promised boss and weapon?

Hardly seems like a fair compromise when you've literally just laid out why skins are not a quantitative trade for a boss and a weapon.

Enkeria


Well, the nature of physical content is a very different thing. There's no element of scarcity to digital content--to make it available to everyone is only a matter of changing a few lines of code. Physical objects, on the other hand, simply cannot be duplicated the same way. If you give away your physical goods, such as your map, your slipcase, etc., you can no longer enjoy them because your friend now has them at his or her house. Even sharing them requires a sacrifice in time and convenient. Physical goods therefore represent a sort of reward for a backer in ways digital goods simply do not and cannot, which means backers wouldn't care that much about locked digital content, since by definition digital content can easily be made available to everyone while it's nowhere near as easy to share physical content.




Yeah, but Overwatch is an online game, meaning anyone who pirates the skins will be found out and punished easily. Much of Bloodstained is a single player experience, meaning that any locked digital content will be taken by pirates sooner rather than later.

Cranium

Your quote seems to undermine your own reasoning. If you backed this game because you enjoy Castlevania and wanted to see it made, why does it matter if other people get to enjoy your reward, especially if it's not being taken away from you? Even if the backer rewards are no longer exclusive, you still get to enjoy them. The only thing you're losing is "exclusivity," and you don't mention backing because you wanted something exclusive, you mentioned backing simply because you love Castlevania. So then what, exactly, is your critique of the possibility? Yes, it's a pity to break a promise, but this isn't breaking a promise, it's renegotiating a contract, which is perfectly acceptable in the business world and elsewhere. If you have an idea for a better deal, it's fine to ask the other party to change the terms of the original contract they made for you. Given that the vast majority, over 80% od the backers, have no problem with a loss of exclusivity, this would fall under "changing a contract" rather than reneging on a deal, because 505, IGA, etc. honestly asked for everyone's opinion rather than just making exclusive stuff non-exclusive without any forewarning. And besides, they haven't even said they'd do anything yet, as I said, let's wait and see until we hear word from IGA and Artplay themselves in conjunction with 505.

Well, yes, it was a turn of phrase on my part, they didn't literally sign a contract with you, but I was speaking in a more general sense of acting in good faith. Yes, they didn't email you with negotiations personally, but generally they went through the trouble of surveying the backers, which indicates a good-faith effort to see what their backers want. Given that good-faith effort, few people would say they're maliciously breaking a promise when they've gone to such lengths to keep their fans in the loop.

I can't wait to get my beta code. I have been waiting a while for the beta to come out.

Hopefully the game won't take much longer after that, but then again, I don't want it to be rushed.

I am a moderator here and it is my responsibility to ensure that both my fellow moderators and all members of this forum are treated with respect. It is not a matter of me being pompous, it is simply a matter of enforcing the rules. As an interesting aside, your continued unnecessarily confrontational behavior and your apparent unwillingness to treat Purify, and other members, with a reasonable degree of respect and good faith is a violation of those rules. You would do well to change your behavior--and by "do well," I mean, "you will change your behavior or I will increase your warning level if you do not stop, followed by progressively harsher punishments up to and including a ban."

For me it is about phrasing. To quote myself from another thread.

At this point I am upset with how everything is being handled. I want to state that I am sure CotM is probably a good game (Still haven't gotten my PS4 code, No i can't use the free Steam key, or play the RotN demos because I use a Mac), and I bet RotN will be amazing as well. But after a while you end up wondering if companies use empty promises just to get money from fans. Exclusive is a term used for "restricted or limited to the person, group, or area concerned". Why not allow these bonuses to everyone from the start and remove the exclusive term? Wouldn't that be the best way to go about this?

I would like everyone to be civil about these arguments though, even if I have been a little hot blooded about these subjects myself too... That being said, knowing what I do now I would definitely change a lot of my answers on the survey if I could.