jdreyer wrote on Oct 15, 2016, 16:57:
A year ago I would have agreed with you. There's an old adage in the charity industry, "You have to spend money to make money. " They have spent a couple mil on all of the vids, contests, website, Citcon, and all the other community outreach they've done. They've pulled in $30M. So you could say it was not inefficiently spent at all. Without that expenditure they don't bring in 10% of that.
I absolutely understand that principle. But it doesn't matter. It's about answering two very simple questions:
Q. Have they raised enough money to build the game they promised?
A. Based on the dev cost of much less ambitious games grounded in established tech, no - UNLESS they somehow manage to schedule development and build and scale content much more efficiently than those games did.
Q. Ok, so ARE they scheduling their development and building and scaling content much more efficiently than these benchmark titles?
A. No. They're doing it much, much worse.
And for bonus points:
Q. Ok, so can you back that up by naming a game in the same genre that's managed to do more with less?This comment was edited on Oct 17, 2016, 07:37.