rmhenn

The passive aggressiveness is strong with this one.

why are you demoting sakej99 when you were the one who spammed us directly, you were the one who spammed the discords and you were the one who instead of apologizing for spamming decided to shame the community for reacting badly to what would obviously get a bad reaction (or are you the one person on the internet that didn't know people find spam annoying?) 
 
 
You're 'taking action' is simply scapegoating another member for your actions. 

Spam is bad, and clearly they have made a few rookie mistakes, but let's not clobber them for no reason here. 
 
Everyone here is right, Solar Secure has permanently damaged its reputation. However, excessively attacking them isn't going to help, it only makes the rest of us look bad. 
 
Solar Secure, I wish you good luck and hope you have learned from your mistakes.

I would use invisible tags to track your online activities and shopping habits then sell it to advertisers without your consent or knowledge

Link to that. Cause it makes no sense, you can't have space stations that way xD
 
Also, you do understand the videos are PRE-ALPHA... right? The constructs don't move, because the Devs made them not moving, lol.

then prove him wrong by linking your evidence?

Wait, I thought I was your alt.

Normally (every time to my knowledge), the alpha and beta stages are not to "try" the game before the official release. These phases are instead supposed to allow more people and their own unique ways of playing the game to help discover bugs and imbalances in the game, hence the term "beta tester" and "alpha tester".

Normally (every time to my knowledge), the alpha and beta stages are not to "try" the game before the official release. These phases are instead supposed to allow more people and their own unique ways of playing the game to help discover bugs and imbalances in the game, hence the term "beta tester" and "alpha tester".

I play EVE.
 
I love the politics, the market, and the depth of gameplay/social experience. I hope the same kind of epic stories come from DU, and I think they will. Perhaps even more so if DU is more customize-able, which it looks like it will be. Even the drama and intrigue that has arisen so far is impressive considering the game isn't even in alpha yet and people are having pseudo wars already haha. 
 
I dislike how entrenched things are in EVE. It is hard for a few people to come in and just make a little space for themselves without one of the larger groups wiping them out, which means that if you want to play you basically have to conform to the bigger groups. The world can also start to feel a bit small sometimes. I wish there was a way to go down on the planets as well, but that's a minor wish.
 
All in all it's a great game and I hope DU is as good as, if not better than, EVE.

I guess if the Devs follow the EVE system, there could be a contract "bundle" way of selling things. It's not unreasonable, who knows.
 

Congratulations NQ. You deserve it. It was a close call, too. From around 12K Euros a day up until we had only 4 days remaining, we shot from 460K Euros to 500K Euros in a single day!  Hurraaaayyy sprinkles confetti whoop whooop!!!!

We have to apreciate the game isn't finished yet. That's why we're pledging aren't we? I'm very grateful they posted another video and I'm really hopeful they might post another little teaser tonight.

Beg to differ though. When I offer my opinion only you guys attack me now. When he offered his opinion people of all ranges attacked him.
 
I can now force you to attack me and back him if I so choose. You have such a disposition against me. I can argue that he's wrong and you're just going to support him to attack me.

Trying to leverage your pledge to force NQ to do what you want definitely shows a lack of respect for them.
 
Imagine if that actually worked... what a horrible game we would end up with, if they caved in to every demand?
 
I would love to see more video of them doing more complicated building but we don't have that yet.  Personally i hope it's because they are busy working on letting us actually play the game ourselves.
 
To many other companies these days are happy to spend thousands producing videos of things they haven't even started yet.

Good grief. 
 
So, let me just tell you all. I've talked to JC. All your assumptions are completely unfounded.
 
It is true that we need to have concerns, but this is only alpha. Not to mention, if you took the time to research this and educate yourself before making this thread, you couldn't argue this. There have been plenty of points in the past where they have showed gameplay footage on their youtube channel. The fact that you can come on here, argue about the campaign, and then spout all this is stupid.
 
https://www.youtube.com/user/dualthegame
 
Now, if you're going to argue any more, take a look and watch everything in there. If you are going to argue that they aren't making their point, well then this obviously isn't the game for you.
 
The reason I am so readily able to discuss this is due to the fact that people who are looking to stop backing Dual Universe or argue that other shouldn't back this are a complete hinderance to the community. I do not care if you're arguing about the fact that the Kickstarter isn't what you want it to be or whatever, your opinion doesn't count more than the next person. So instead of criticising Novaquark and the community, maybe ask some questions and we'll be more than happy to give you answers. The more you ask reasonably, the better.

CAN WE STOP FEEDING THIS KIND OF TOPICS

Ooops I couldn't read any further, sorry. You said kid? Like not an adult? This game is sensed to be for adults only. Thanks.

The might be some big confusion and hasty conclusion here:
- We are talking here about deconstructing partially or totally a construct, in a clean way, like reversing the construction.
- Salvaging is a totally different thing, that might be implemented later (possibly after official release) under two possible forms: harvesting scraps of a destroyed construct in battle, or "reprocessing" a whole construct meaning scrapping it entirely to take back a good part (not all) of the materials originally used to make the construct.
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

Only a redditer would disregard facts as "BS"...
 
then goes and repeats my points in his own post, thinking he's better than me.
 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
 

Xplosiv, you're an idiot. I'm so sick of selfish people like you who don't take into consideration the developers time, skill, effort, equipment and maintenance of the servers all cost money. If you want a F2P then go find one and stop crying that DU isn't free.

Hi Metalmamoth and welcome in the Dual Universe community. So to address your concerns (or at least give you an explanation, even if it's not the one you would have expected), here are some answers:    
Please make the difference between what would seem nice in your opinion and what is really needed. No, it's not essential to make customizable prefab blocks in our game: what you're asking requires a considerable amount of development time. It's like asking to develop ingame a tool like 3D Studio Max, Maya or Blender, each of these software having a full dev team behind it. Keep in mind that we are an independant studio and while we have a bigger team than the average indie, we can't be compared to big studios like Bioware or Blizzard. We have to choose our battles, to make tough choices about what we will develop and what we won't. This + the fact that our dev team wants to keep a minimal control about the artistic direction are the main reasons why we won't have prefab customizable blocks.     
 
 
Does it have to be Massively Multiplayer?   Short answer:   Yes.   Long answer:   If you like playing on small private servers to play with small communities carefully selected, that's perfectly fine and you have already many games aiming to achieve this goal: Space Engineers, Starmade, etc. On the other hand, there are NO massively multiplayer Builder games as we intend to do. That's one of the big reason why there has been a lot of investment developping the tech necessary to make it happen. We are perfectly aware that it won't be everybody's cup of tea, but we aren't trying to satisfy every player either.   There is no game offering such experience at the moment and we're intending to provide such service. If massively multiplayer games don't appeal to you, then maybe it's not a game for you. From what you are saying, other building games have performance issues with huge voxel constructions, and we can understand that's a problem. However, if you prefer their way of doing things (private servers, small communities), it would be more relevant to ask them directly to address the problem in their game than attempting to modify the vision of a game (like Dual Universe) that has entirely other goals.   If you see our game like a "Space Engineers" clone, then you have missed most of our goals with the project: building spaceships and cities is just the corner stone of a bigger edifice. We want to combine Building gameplay with a player-driven economy, constested territories and politics. These last three gameplay aspects won't thrive unless we reach a critical mass regarding the number of players. That's the big reason to go for a massively multiplayer online structure.     
  Dual Universe is not a game meant for children. So unfortunately, this scenario is not relevant. There's currently a high chance that our game will be rated PEGI 18 when it will be officially released. Not because of offensive content included originally in the game (there won't be any), but because of the very nature of sandbox games (especially when it comes to massively multiplayer games): giving player freedom is something that is expected in a Massively Multiplayer Sandbox game, but it comes with some duties. This is not something you can ask from someone who isn't legally responsible because of his age. You can see Dual Universe as a Minecraft-like game made for mature, adult players. We want to build a community with players responsible for their actions and ready to handle the consequences of their actions ingame: do not trust blindly someone you've just met one minute ago, do not transport valuable goods in an unprotected spaceship, etc.    
You would be perfectly right if we wanted to develop a "theme park" MMO like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, Star Wars the Old Republic, etc. In this kind of games, the developers mission is to bring huge amount of content regularly. To sell expansions in this scenario would be totally relevant. But in a Sandbox context, where players make their own content? Sure the dev team plans to add regularly additional gameplay mechanics, to offer aways more gameplay possibilities to the players, but would it be enough to convince the most part of players to buy an expansion ? nothing is less sure than that. And that's probably why CCP preferred to keep a subscription model instead of selling expansions (despite the fact they did make expansions, they didn't sell them and kept the monthly subscription formula). This would be a very very risky bet.    
With all due respect, there might be a third possibility: Without having all the cards in hand to judge objectively, you're making a (probably involuntary) biased assessment, and the way you calculate the costs are incredibly far from the reality (with the costs being in fact much higher than what you are thinking). Unless you have already managed and directed the budget for a Massively Multiplayer Online game, you're not qualified to make such bold statement as above. Continuing to affirm such things would be just arrogance.   It has become increasingly common in the recent years to see many players jump to the conclusion that devs are immediately greedy and/or evil masterminds as soon as the price of a game isn't the price they deem reasonable without having made rigorous market studies on the topic and/or being fully aware of how much cost a game, and especially a MMORPG (costs skyrocket when you're aiming for Massively Multiplayer Online Game, available 24h/24 7d/7  with all the logistics behind. Moreover, the costs for an offline single player - or a player hosted server - game is nothing comparable to the costs of a MMO game.   Another point that makes your reasonnement starting on a wrong basis: currently, Dual Universe isn't planned to require a payment equal to a full game price from day one. So to reach the price of a Buy to play Model, you will have to play and pay at least 4 months (+ the free trial period) if we refer to standard monthly fees, before reaching the same cost. After all this time in game, if you don't want to pay anymore, you will still have the alternative to buy monthly subscription tokens from other players with your ingame money (or even before: if a player is active enough, it might be possible to buy the first monthly subscription token right after the free trial period expires). This is exactly how the PLEX system from EvE Online works. So in all honesty, we have a hard time to see how this formula can be seen as greedy or evil. It's a balance between giving people with low budget but with lots of free time to join the game and the investment in the game (be it in time played or money) as a deterrent to adopt a bad behavior.    
If you have read our devblog post here, we do tell that the B2P model (Buy once, Play forever) is a strong deterrent to player negative behavior, nearly as much as the Pay to Play model. Our main concerns with the "Buy to Play" model are elsewhere:  - This is an immediate paywall that would discourage many players with low budget. - This makes our alternative to play for free impossible. For more info, read the first part of the DevBlog ("Being able to play the game without spending money"), and especially the "Pay to Play" part explaining the benefits of the PLEX system used by EvE Online (and copied by other MMOs like Wildstar and World of Warcraft). - This is not a solid and sustainable model unless we invest a huge amount of our budget in developping a cash shop. Because MMORPGs with a Buy to Play model always have a huge (some players would say oversized) cash shop. The server and the team behind a MMORPG aren't just financed by the sales of the game. On the long term, the main revenue to finance all this is generated by the cash shop. As we are aware that relying too much and/or becoming dependant from a cash shop revenue can generate many problems, that one more reason to be careful about this model.    That being said, an official thread will be made soon to answer and adress all the concerns about the Pay to Play monetization model. There are already too many threads about this topic, and it's about time that all the related discussions are gathered in the same place.   Best regards, Nyzaltar.

I'll continue to say, I think they should have followed the Eve Online model.
 
- PLEX does not have to be converted into an ingame item immediately
- You do not have to be in the same station as your PLEX to redeem it
- You do not have to bring it into the game to redeem it
- If you convert it to an ingame item, you can trade it to other players
- If it is an ingame item it can be stolen while moving it through space
 
 
Why do people move PLEX through space if they can just redeem them from wherever they are? 
 
That is a question nobody will ever really have a concise answer to, but it's something that happens and many people suffer the consequences for taking that risk. 

Paying €10-13 a month is like, skipping two beers every month at the pub (or one, or three, depending on where you live), and I surely will have more fun playing this game every month that i can have with one, or two or even three beers in a month.
 
It's amazing how much beer the dev team can buy every month with thousands of players.

The eight rights of passage are like the 8 arms of the giant space squid: squishy and scary looking at first, but they can really grab and hold on if you get too close.
 
(Those other 2 appendages are the squids tentacles, I know they are easy to get wrong while running away screaming, at least in my experience.)