Wasteland 2 To Run On Unity Game Engine

[yogi_berra]

Sorry, but this is theft or rather blind charity. People pay for the product, the developer takes as his property and then resell this work and will take all the money for themselves.

No, you paid for the product and didn't fully understand what you were spending your money on. The rest of us funded an old school, stat heavy, text only cRPG that wouldn't have been funded in the traditional model of game funding.

Besides being rather expensive, is a way that produces no return of free content and then the developer will sell a product that you invested.

Invested? Nope. There is nothing in kickstarter that claims it is an investment. There was nothing in the Wasteland 2 kickstarter drive that could have led any one to believe it was an investment. Maybe the problem is the lack of oxygen to your brain caused by the airtight seal of your rectum?

It's a waste of money.

Yes, it is definitely a waste of money to pay Brian Fargo and Chris Avellone to make a game they wouldn't be able to make in any other way. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass.

[lapis]

No, you paid for the product and didn't fully understand what you were spending your money on. The rest of us funded an old school, stat heavy, text only cRPG that wouldn't have been funded in the traditional model of game funding.



Invested? Nope. There is nothing in kickstarter that claims it is an investment. There was nothing in the Wasteland 2 kickstarter drive that could have led any one to believe it was an investment. Maybe the problem is the lack of oxygen to your brain caused by the airtight seal of your rectum?

Kickstarter is open for charity and investment .But this does not change people throwing out money and get nothing in return.And expect 90 years to get the owership of a product.

[Bestia]

My problem is not with the kickstarter. The problem is the use of charity as a bad form of software development.

In the real world, people invest in something to get something in return. There is no free beer. What's worse is that the company will resell the product. It used the charity to produce even more money.


A healthy development is based on investment, where people pay to get something in return. Pay something to have nothing or very little in return is not healthy development.


And all this does not undo what I said about socialism in copyright.

The backers get just what they have pledged and it's not little. I've pledged $25 for Wasteland 2 and in return I will get two digital copies of the finished game, soundtrack composed by Mark Morgan and art book. I don't understand how can you think that's little in return for what I've contributed. The soundtrack alone is worth atleast $10.

There is nothing about charity here if it were you would donate money without expecting anything in return besides thank you from Brian Fargo and the rest of the inXile entertainment.

[lapis]

The backers get just what they have pledged and it's not little. I've pledged $25 for Wasteland 2 and in return I will get two digital copies of the finished game, soundtrack composed by Mark Morgan and art book. I don't understand how can you think that's little in return for what I've contributed. The soundtrack alone is worth atleast $10.

There is nothing about charity here if it were you would donate money without expecting anything in return besides thank you from Brian Fargo and the rest of the inXile entertainment.

You pay for entire development of game (3 million ),but the get only a "license" for music and games. This is not fair.

[directhex]

You pay for entire development of game (3 million ),but the get only a "license" for music and games. This is not fair.

You didn't pay $3m, you paid $15...

[lapis]

You didn't pay $3m, you paid $15...

Jo shields, a group paid for all development.It's does not matter if a people pay 15$ ou 2000$.What really matter is the group paid for all development.And this group have the right to receive more than a "license".

[directhex]

Jo shields, a group paid for all development.It's does not matter if a people pay 15$ ou 2000$.What really matter is the group paid for all development.And this group have the right to receive more than a "license".

See, that's where you're totally wrong.

A "group" did not pay for development.

A collection of individuals did.

There was no group mandate. No group to say "Okay inXile, we want you to develop a game, and want a full FOSS release, here's the money". inXile made an offer to a single person, several times, and each of those single people was agreeing to the terms inXile proposed, when they signed up.

Had a group, or company, or very rich individual been the one to approach inXile and say "We'll give you three million dollars to make Wasteland 2, and it'll be Open Source", they might have said yes, they might have said no. But that's not what happened. inXile set the terms, and a collection individuals agreed to those terms.

[lapis]

See, that's where you're totally wrong.

A "group" did not pay for development.

A collection of individuals did.

There was no group mandate. No group to say "Okay inXile, we want you to develop a game, and want a full FOSS release, here's the money". inXile made an offer to a single person, several times, and each of those single people was agreeing to the terms inXile proposed, when they signed up.

Had a group, or company, or very rich individual been the one to approach inXile and say "We'll give you three million dollars to make Wasteland 2, and it'll be Open Source", they might have said yes, they might have said no. But that's not what happened. inXile set the terms, and a collection individuals agreed to those terms.

This don t make the difference because all these individual paid for the entire project (and more than expected).Inxile set the terms ,but this act does not make the company correct and logical.These collection of individuals paid for development of product .And if these people paid,its obviously logical to give the right of ownership for these people.

[directhex]

This don t make the difference because all these individual paid for the entire project (and more than expected).Inxile set the terms ,but this act does not make the company correct and logical.These collection of individuals paid for development of product .And if these people paid,its obviously logical to give the right of ownership for these people.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

[lapis]

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Yes ,and we paid the developers to do their work.It's not free work.

It does not matter if a group or a set, or a list,or individuals paid the work.The question here is they call people to fund their project and give back back nothing in return.The logic says if we pay for a product ,this product is ours.