About time! KoA was one of two bc games I really wanted, the other being Sacred 2.

@gzaface:

I'm a gaming fan, I own a PS4, Switch and an Xbox One. I like games, I don't lead my life with some absurd corporate loyalty fuelling attacks on 'rival' systems. It's ridiculous.

In my experience those that call out 'fanboy' the most are often the most guilty. Switch is a great handheld, better than the 3DS or the Vita ever were. Maybe handheld isn't your thing, but it's been many people's thing since at least the Gameboy.

You're just letting bias rule your thinking, if you looked at things more objectively and opened yourself up to trying things before creating an opinion you might actually find you have fun in places you may not have thought you would.

@gzaface:

1. If you buy physical no you don't, you can fit far more games on the internal than a PS4 or Xbox as they dont need an install.

2a. No the controller is fine, and you don't have to buy a second for local co-op.

2b. The batteries last roughly 3 days, that's probably 10x the ps4 pad lasts.

3. Many games come with voice chat on the console, it's up to the developers to put it in.

4. Do you need a case and screen for your phone, it's a choice not a necessity.

5. Cloud saves are a thing.

@GarGx1:

Income without expenditure is a useless statistic.

@GarGx1:

Because they take an incredibly long time to make and they only make a limited amount, you pre-purchase to make sure you actually get one. It's called supply and demand.

And you pre-order something to make sure you get it on the day it arrives/before it sells out due to demand. You never need to pre-order a digital product as demand is not limited by supply.

The only reason people pre-order digital products is artificial incentive created by publishers to make sure they get their money before anybody has a chance to see if their product is actually worth a purchase.

@GarGx1:

Not wrong at all, and pre-purchasing for a start is also a reprehensible exploitative practice; why would you ever need to pre-purchase for any other reason than securing stock, unless you were being conned into it with exploitative marketing techniques. However, at least a pre-purchase comes with a guarantee of an end product, if it doesn't come out you don't pay anything.

Early access also, exploitative, designed solely for the following reasons. One you get money irrelevant of the quality of your end product. Two you secure money to accrue interest for a longer period of time. Three you're a public owned company and you need to appease investors and share holders financially. None of these reasons have the consumer in mind in any shape or form at all.

All of these practices are only found in the 'entertainment' sector as they are designed to predatorially exploit their audiences ignorance and addictions for financial gain.

@GarGx1:

I don't insult people with differing opinions, I do however abstain from common social courtesy when discourse is not reciprocated amicably in previous encounters.

As for your other points I'll make this my last contribution to the debate, my closing comment if you will as this was yesterday's fun and it's starting to bore.

'Crowd funding' on this level for a sustained amount of time is unsustainable. You can do the maths yourself on a team of 500 people on minimum developer wages over a 1 year period, use quality testers as a base pay grade.

Now obviously you have bank loans and grants to be added in, which at least gives some financial room. However, loans require paying back, interest accrues and development is how long off completion, years at least.

Now, 'Backers' require assets to be offered to secure donation, assets require development which equals time and expenditure. Without assets being created, you cannot secure income without a final retail product. This product no matter how anyone spins it is not in any shape or form even close to market.

Now think about how, given the maths you've been able to estimate of development costs, the product would ever be financed to completion, it will be impossible off backers without the perpetual adding of features, which would mean perpetual development, which is impossible.

This product will either have to be rushed into retail at which point it will be so terribly broken it will be legendary. Or it will simply run out of cash, be unable to pay back the loans and go into insolvency.

Or, and here's the kicker, it will go public and seek investors, who will fund the remaining budgetary constraints and you will actually get something, only there's going to be one set of people who paid for it who get a shit load of money, and one set who get a video game. Now if your happy to be on the side who get nothing good for you, but it doesn't change the fact one set of people are being exploited through ignorance and their desire for fancy video games.

But enjoy all you want, if I turn out to be wrong I'll just buy the finished product and will have lost nothing, if you turn out to be wrong, however, you've lost a damn site lot more than me. But that's your choice so crack on.

It will need a 'Realm Reborn' level overhaul to salvage this, unfortunately without the financial incentive of a subscription fee that's just not going to happen.

@asnakeneverdies:

Not enough apparantly

@ccgod:

Star Citizen reached its Kickstarter goal before November 2012. That's 6 years ago shithead. If you can't read and comprehend factual evidence as stated to you then I suggest you cancel your internet subscription.

I think it's you that simply spreads the false information round here, so desperate as you are to not look like the sad kid that flushed his cash down the drain for a tech demo.

But yeah, keep grasping sonny, next.