View Single Post

Default 

November 27th, 2012, 18:55
Cliff Harris: "Gamers say they hate in-game product placement and advertising. It compromises the game design for the sake of money. I agree. So why are we deciding that the best way to name our planets or design the appearance of our NPC’s is to put that part of game design up for auction? Why should gamers who are wealthy get more influence over a game that those who flip burgers for a living? The cold hard economic reality of the real world is bad enough without shoehorning it into games too."

As someone who contributed at a level which will allow me to design an item for PE, I have to say this is a fairly silly statement. Cliff clearly doesn't get it. Perhaps he thinks a mega company like Coke bought in and plans to create a "Coke is It Necromancer of Refreshmentville", I dunno…

I would doubt that a single person who contributed at the $1k+ level, at least for PE, has any intention of creating anything other than a relative, meaningful addition to a game genre they love. And if, for whatever reason, someone did try and advertise for their business/product, I would expect Obsidian to return their money.

I don't flip burgers, but I'm certainly not rich. $1k is a lot of money to me, but I felt donating at that level to help create a game that wouldn't be created otherwise— and have a small piece to contribute— was worth it. Cliff needs to remember that we're giving these funds away, with the only expectation that a game is made at some point. It is not an investment for us, as there is no return other than the game itself. Whether it flops, is broken or is never completed, we have no recourse.

If Cliff wants to reflect on the current state of world affairs, fine. But he's barking up the wrong tree here.
ChaosTheory is online now

ChaosTheory

ChaosTheory's Avatar
Sentinel

#3

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: People's Republic of Wisconsin
Posts: 576