Yes and when that happens there us a report to the publishers of what has changed right?
Yes, the big changes (on the user level) will be communicated.
Changes on the programmer's side rarely.
Yes and when that happens there us a report to the publishers of what has changed right?
Yes, I guess we must, and I must say yours makes no sense to me. Larian themselves clearly announced (as seen in the link I gave) that PayPal money counts towards their stretch goals, and even raised some money based on that, undoubtedly. What else could you possibly think is the technical definition of having reached a stretch goal, besides what Larian themselves announced as the definition? After all, these goals are defined by the companies themselves, stretch goals are not a feature of Kickstarter.I guess we use a different definition of "technically". PayPal isn't Kickstarter.
Yes, the big changes (on the user level) will be communicated.
Changes on the programmer's side rarely.
But the statement came after the Kickstarter campaign was officially over. That's why I said that, technically, the stretch goal failed.After all, these goals are defined by the companies themselves, stretch goals are not a feature of Kickstarter.
No. Check out update #34, which came BEFORE the campaign ended, where they said definitively that PayPal contributions would count towards the stretch goal.But the statement came after the Kickstarter campaign was officially over. That's why I said that, technically, the stretch goal failed.
Ugh, the Temple of Efferd. Worst part of that game.Or, a slightly different example: I now volunteered to review Drakensang: TRoT, where the mega-dungeons suck and are one of the few blemishes in that game.
I'm completely with Larian on this issue and explained my view in July already.
Being a developer myself I can understand necessary changes in the software development life cycle and have no problems with that.
That some users here are not satisfied with some not fulfilled stretch goals (or the lack of communication about it) is understandable, though.
The final product is very very good so the design decisions by Swen (and the sacrifice of extra features) were right.
Keep in mind that deleting features that are nearly ready and/or you really wanted is often a very painful frustrating process for a software developer himself.
I don't like to cut features that I originally planned at all.