Jump to content

NQ please stop listening to players.


Xennial
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know , click bait title right? No not really. Obviously constructive criticism can be healthy for any dev to take note of and make adjustments for. Bugs , exploits etc are always helpful for players to report.

 

The problem in any game is that players taken as a whole do not impart constructive criticism. Most things you read on forums etc are born not from the desire to make a game 'better'. They are born from the selfish desires of players to make things better for themselves. I am just as guilty of this as anyone , as my personal desire is for DU to be extremely hard and unforgiving which isn't the same as many. Your (NQ) recent immediate and severe backpaddle on 0.23 schem prices and element damage are prime examples. You didn't even allow time to see how the economy etc settle down a few weeks after. Now I don't know your financial situation , but if it's so dire that you can't tolerate some rage quits we may as well pack up shop now and call it a day. If that is not the situation then you could really do yourselves a service by making the game you envisioned , not the game players complain they want. DU will forever be niche , and if it cannot financially sustain itself with a niche audience then *shrugs*. 

 

Example : "I'm a solo/casual player and you have cut me out of XYZ game feature!!! I quit". This player will never truly be your core audience imo for a game like this. If you pander to this person you will forever subvert the vision of large groups trying to form 'civilizations' and fighting for control and exploitation of territory within the game.

 

Example 2 : "There is not enough to do!! Give me bunnies to shoot with my pew pew gun for magical loot!!". This player only cares out their personal ADHD entertainment and you will never be able to shovel enough of their version of "content" to satisfy them. Player made / player controlled world is not in this persons lexicon because they need a simple shoot X to get loot Y formula of game to be happy.

 

There are of course other examples, those are just the two I see the most. Gamers by and large will come to DU with other games meta and game formula loops as their prior experience. If all you want to do is replicate the myriad of other games out there and make DU cookie cutter with some voxel building then just go full tilt that direction. If you want DU to be an immersive world with trials and tribulations and hard fault wins / losses on the player base go that way. Either direction you go will have some segment of the population crying foul and quit.

 

For example I don't want yet another boring ass MMO with 'quests' where we spend all our time doing errand boy quest 1 , moving to kill X bunnies 2 , to receive loot Y. PvP confined to arenas , or god forbid PvP flags. I don't want minecraft in space , or a regurgitation of Space Engineers. Does that mean my idea of what I would like to see DU be is the best? Certainly not. However if NQ spends all it's time trying to provide players requests to make DU more like what they are used to , then DU will become some cheap knock off of one with some voxel crafting element.

 

If you want DU to be something different , you need to take players requests with a giant grain of salt. They will always by and large lean towards selfish desire, and to call for features they are already accustom too. Yes some game systems planed for DU might be abnormal , but frankly thats where unique game experiences come from. They do not come for caving into making the playerbase's cries for adhearing to cookie cutter game loop formulas.

 

To that end maybe it would be best if you actually came out and gave us the current vision you have for the game 2 years from now. Throw some meat on that skeleton you keep talking about with generalizations no one knows how fit into the overall picture.

 

How do you envision TW to function in the context of the game as a whole?

Do you expect PvP to be a daily part of our lives in game or just something people go do when their bored?

Do you want DU to be a hard fought hill for players to climb with 'nations' of players in conflict with each other over finite resources?

How is automated mining going to work? Do you see it as infinite resource systems that are fought over?, or will it just be a different way then digging to get ore deposits out of the ground?

Are asteroids planned to be spawned in events or a permeant ring of respawning resources to be fought over?

Why do we need another solar system when we don't have the player population to utilize the one we have now? Just because it sounds cool? Or will it effectively be a different game shard?

 

These are all questions that would help define NQ's vision for the DU future. Staying vague on the details of these plans doesn't give people the context to form their opinion on if it will meet their gameplay style of fun. It's like the industry schem thing, you say it's one part of the puzzel but you don't elaborate on what the other pieces are that you think will lead us to a diverse industry with costs and consequences to your choices. PvP changes, energy etc. All these things have no context other then a few off handed comments here and there that leaves the playerbase with just wild speculation.

 

Define your current vision for the game and then promptly ignore the multitude of requests to make that vision into something different. I may personally hope for the more hardcore vision of DU , but it would serve me well to know if you will end up producing some carebear friendly mindcraft in space. The same would be true if I wanted the more carebear crafting world and you want something more hardcore. Most people I talk to about various game features in the end can only shurg and go "dunno how they plan for that work".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting....

 

There's some merit to what you say, but like many other posts, it goes to far in guessing, supposition, and basically wishcraft.

 

Hopefully NQ is smart enough to pick out the bits and truths from posts, and I mean everyone's posts which yes, does include my own, and strike a nice, natural balance between what JC's vision is, what is technologically possible and what brings in the cash. 

 

The thing is, they just now barely softened some of the blow of the 0.23 patch. No where did I read NQ say that the complete package was not returning in time. The communications line between devs and player base is still being built. Most likely, we the players, won't get an idea if the devs are going all out hardcore gamestyle or soft and fuzzy indie for at least 6 months, most likely a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremly hard =Someone minIng for days (maybe not you).

 

If you want the game to be hard its easy to solve under your parameters. Dont use markets (just to buy schems )and delete 80% of what you mine .

There you have it ,you are welcome , I won't bill you for the outstanding advise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xennial said:

Most things you read on forums etc are born not from the desire to make a game 'better'. They are born from the selfish desires of players to make things better for themselves.

Agreed.

 

Edit: And now for my personal opinion: As a long time Kerbal Space Program and Space Engineers player, I think that the current element destruction/repair system is far too casual.

 

However, this is said from the perspective of someone who has never lost a ship to a disconnect or crash, and has never crashed a ship on accident; only in deliberate testing.

 

I understand that many people say they have had problems with crashes and disconnects and the 'ship continue moving' patch made it so they would have much harsher penalties.

 

A potential solution to this whole mess would be to make the emergency controller (1) baseline to a ship core and (2) much better at emergency ship control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Emptiness said:

I believe that your suggestion is confusing tedium with difficulty.

Well, NQ believes that too I guess.  Tedium is not fun.  I have enough of that kind of work IRL.  

Look if there are enough players who think sitting inside of user interfaces and clicking buttons and searching for stuff is challenging, then good luck to you all.  I want a game that challenges my mind, not my patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dhara said:

I want a game that challenges my mind, not my patience.

I've heard that way back in Alpha, ship design actually involved paying attention to the interaction of Center of Thrust and Center of Mass. That kind of challenge? Because it's something I really wish was still in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLDR: So you're whining about all of us other players, TO us other players, about how we don't know what we're talking about, and making points that contradict your own post where you basically say "Even I don't know what I'm talking about."

 

Great. I can see you don't know what you're talking about. Stop being goofy. Take part in your community and share your suggestions with NQ in the proper format/way of suggestion threads and the like. Instead of projecting questions that won't be answered in a forum.

 

Go watch all the videos where JC talks about his vision of the game. It doesn't appear like you're paying attention.

 

Also, I'm glad you can come up with questions to ask NQ. Go ask them. Go take part in shaping the game like you're claiming you want instead of sitting on your hands. Sharing possible questions to be asked to someone who is not receiving them is stupid. What a pointless attention seeking post.

 

As someone who works in the gaming industry, you may not be asking the right people. You don't look to the bird to know how to swim. Just because player JoeShmoe doesn't understand or know how a specific gameplay implementation works in the context of the question you ask, doesn't mean it can't be done or implemented well. My goodness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems OP heard things but never bothered to inform himself about them and is now asking questions which are pretty much answered, specifically by JC during interviews and Q&A sessions.

 

I also do not think NQ is particularly inclined to "listen" to the outliers who mostly complain for their own benefit and do not consider the gam e as a whole while at the same time there is a lot of people here with realistic and genuine concerns and questions as well as constructive critique. And frankly, for the first time at least he CM group seems to take notice and is providing feedback into the company. What comes from that remains to be seen but first signs are that the pushback is the usual "no time/resources in our schedule".

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

To that end maybe it would be best if you actually came out and gave us the current vision you have for the game 2 years from now. Throw some meat on that skeleton you keep talking about with generalizations no one knows how fit into the overall picture.

NQ does not know where the game will be 6 months from now outside of a very broad stroke outline. Everything they are telling us is "being consider", "internally discussed" and/or "possible something for the future". I think NQ is trying to figure out how to get to a release ready version within the next 10 or so months and will compromise and adjust their plans accordingly as their focus is releasing the game and not getting the game feature complete and as polished and bug free as they can. Basically they are driven by budget and revenue requirements more than building the best game they can and take the time they need to do so.

 

 

Here's my take on things based on what has been said so far by NQ

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

How do you envision TW to function in the context of the game as a whole?

NQ has not come to a clear definition of what TW wil be like, they are still throwing around ideas. Generally TW will mean that your tile is protected by the TU and attackers will need to "grab" your TU to gain control of the tile before they can attack the constructs on it. If a tile is surrounded by claimed tiles (by your org) opponents woudl need to make a path through these to your "center" tile.

 

Pretty much it's capture the flag..

 

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

Do you expect PvP to be a daily part of our lives in game or just something people go do when their bored?

Combat in NQ's vision is a means to an end used as a tool where conflict can't be resolved in another way. That is not to say there can't or won't be incidental combat like piracy but in general engaging in it wil be costly and a challenge. Defense will be favored over offence in at least ground bases (TW) combat.

 

Combat wil be a big part of the game and will play an important role in how the game evolves.

 

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

Do you want DU to be a hard fought hill for players to climb with 'nations' of players in conflict with each other over finite resources?

NQ wants DU to be a community based/driven game where there is room for the individual and small group player where we find ways to live our in game lives and get along. If we can't there's pewpew.

 

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

How is automated mining going to work? Do you see it as infinite resource systems that are fought over?, or will it just be a different way then digging to get ore deposits out of the ground?

It's pretty much a surface harvestable generator which from what I gather pulls ore out of thin air.

It's not a replacement for hand mining nor a "place it over a vein and it will grab the ore in it over time (at a slow pace)

 

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

Are asteroids planned to be spawned in events or a permeant ring of respawning resources to be fought over?

Asteroids wil (re)spawn and be scattered through the solar system(s). I'd expect they are pretty much the equivalent of EVE's belts

 

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

Why do we need another solar system when we don't have the player population to utilize the one we have now? Just because it sounds cool? Or will it effectively be a different game shard?

Because NQ decided or was convinced that wiping the existing system to introduce the new planet tech/visuals was going to be causing an exodus of players and would mean big structures and orgs to break up and leave, they "cool" infrastructure. NQ feels the current tech and graphics are "good enough" and will just update textures here and there while they will focus their resources and efforts on the new system which wil have all the new goodies.

 

This is pretty much verbatim what JC said on this during the first interview he did with a Twitch streamer back in September.

 

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

Define your current vision for the game and then promptly ignore the multitude of requests to make that vision into something different. I may personally hope for the more hardcore vision of DU , but it would serve me well to know if you will end up producing some carebear friendly mindcraft in space. The same would be true if I wanted the more carebear crafting world and you want something more hardcore.

What is funny is that you forst tell NQ to ignore what players say they want for the game to then continue to tell NQ what you want for the game in the next sentence. Frankly, from your wording I think that you want DU to be something it is not and never was intended to be. Your apparent disdain of players who think differently regarding how they want to play the game by pretty much putting them in the "carebear" corner and be done with it implies to me you mostly want DU to be the game you envision, not what NQ has laid out it is or will be.

 

 

4 hours ago, Xennial said:

Most people I talk to about various game features in the end can only shurg and go "dunno how they plan for that work".

IMO, pretty much  an accurate observation at this point for many facets of the game though and I think NQ has yet to work out a lot of this for themselves.

 

 

Personally, I think the vision and ideas for DU are very big, complex and with massive potential and promise. It's also something that, while using well established mechanics and ideas, has really never been done in "one package". It remains to be seen whether NQ will be able to bring their vision to completion and no, that is not being negative. I feel it's the reality of taking on a project that build your dream and ideas of what would be without really knowing how to get there and making it up as you go bit by bit. If it works out it will be great but there is always the chance it will not work out.

 

And it may come as a surprise, but with that I absolutely agree that NQ must draw their own plans and decide where to go with the game but at the same time should keep an open ear to the ground regarding what we, as a community say, what our ideas and wishes are and where possible see how those may benefit the game and its vision.

 

 

And a merry Xmas to you too ;)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

What is funny is that you forst tell NQ to ignore what players say they want for the game to then continue to tell NQ what you want for the game in the next sentence. Frankly, from your wording I think that you want DU to be something it is not and never was intended to be. Your apparent disdain of players who think differently regarding how they want to play the game by pretty much putting them in the "carebear" corner and be done with it implies to me you mostly want DU to be the game you envision, not what NQ has laid out it is or will be.

 

I totally understand the hypocrisy inherent in my post, of giving advice from a player in the form of don't listen to players. Which is part of the point. None of us have the full insight into what happens in the dev meetings , or their financials etc so we are all just trying to twine together the vision of what DU at release and beyond will be based on past interviews, what has been said at various stages etc. In my talking with various members of the community the singular thread I find is that no one seems to have a firm handle on exactly what DU is trying to be. I don't have 'disdain' for players whom want a non hardcore space game. I can see how it comes off that way.

 

What rubs me wrong is when development resources are wasted undoing work that is done because people cry foul. I recognize while I personally found no real fault with what 0.23 brought , others found it offensive to their enjoyment of the game. What bothers me about what happened is not even a week went by where they have basically reversed course on the whole thing. Perhaps I'm wrong, and element damage will be activated for non PvP again in the future, perhaps schematic prices were only lowered to allow for the other parts of that puzzle to come in first. I don't claim to know all. While I appreciate your attempt to list all the answers based on what has been said, how much can be trusted about that as so many things are constantly in flux. Nevermind, that even the answers you were able to provide were largely vague broad stroke skeletons like I said without the meat to help people understand how they will fit into the overall puzzle.  

 

I can have feelings that lead me to in my view valid concerns, that if they reversed course that hard, that fast, that either $$ is a real problem for them , or they are just to willing to bail on an idea if players scream loud enough. Neither of those two scenarios bode well, and I have seen a number of promising games destroyed by both. If they had waited a month for the dust to settle and then came out and said the patch did not have the intended effect so they were making these adjustments while attempting to achieve the goals of the patch in different means I could have been more ok with it.

 

The larger point to my posting this I think you grasped overall in that the devs should stick to their guns with their vision whatever it is and not knee jerk react if some change is not palatable in the moment. Your wrong about me not informing myself, my questions listed were not just my own but subjects I see bantered about constantly because people do not have a clear picture of their intentions so it's all theorycraft.

 

If they had far more involved discussions about how to envision the various systems to work we could have far more constructive conversations about their impacts and possible problems / advantages to their implementations that might have a shot at preventing 'surprises' like the industry schematics. Not wanting to do that is fine, but if they keep a pattern going of surprising the community with major changes the reactions will always be bad, especially if they turn around a few days later and reverse course. It makes it seem like they don't have a real plan and are just kind of floundering around in the dark. Thats not good no matter what side of the 'vision' you sit on.

 

Merry Christmas to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it all much more simplier -- and OP nothing to worry about. 

 

Somewhere in 18-19, when game was delayed 2 years, NQ mucked up (with tech side, apparently) and abandoned any romantic "initial  Kickstarter" version of development (if they had one); from this point it become surivaval race of "how we can salvage this, considering available $ and time".

 

It means:

 

1) Ruling principle of "Mininum Viable Product". This now closest thing to "vision" (besides some jokes from JC).

2) Managing "heat level" in community, but very limited actual involvement (because MVP and community dreams never work well together).

3) Slow introduction of new featutes, low quality of individual feature releases, because resources still very stretched. Regular "sacrifices to navigate futher" (like 0.23).

4) Agressive monetization, when they at last be at this point. We already seen fair share of pretty dogdy (if not outright false) adverts.

 

Overall we mostly on observer seat in this ride, with ocasional ability to be loud and force NQ hit some brakes. Granted, some people sitting closer to driver for this, but... even they probably can't infuence that much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Xennial said:

I totally understand the hypocrisy inherent in my post, of giving advice from a player in the form of don't listen to players. Which is part of the point.

I got that yes ;)

 

7 hours ago, Xennial said:

What rubs me wrong is when development resources are wasted undoing work that is done because people cry foul. I recognize while I personally found no real fault with what 0.23 brought , others found it offensive to their enjoyment of the game. What bothers me about what happened is not even a week went by where they have basically reversed course on the whole thing.

 

I can only agree with this. For me, I have been clear that on it's own the changes in 0.23 were fine really. It was the lack of balance towards new players and small groups as well as the "blame game" NQ played, basically saying that it was these groups who were playing the "isolationist" game causing the economy to not get going while IMO it is actually the exact opposite as it is the big orgs, who were allowed to gain great wealth and advantages through assets and funds gained form mistakes, bug and exploits left uncorrected by NQ, where the isolation from the rest of the game happens and continues to happen. 

 

7 hours ago, Xennial said:

I can have feelings that lead me to in my view valid concerns, that if they reversed course that hard, that fast, that either $$ is a real problem for them , or they are just to willing to bail on an idea if players scream loud enough.

I expect it is both, NQ needs money hence subscribers and will (need to) ensure the masses are happy to not lose that and some members of the the big orgs have NQ's ear which really is not good as they are to a good extent the cause of much of the issues NQ is facing. Also it is no secret some members, or former members, continue to actively seek out and use exploits before reporting them and then will continue to use them until they are closed. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Xennial said:

The larger point to my posting this I think you grasped overall in that the devs should stick to their guns with their vision whatever it is and not knee jerk react if some change is not palatable in the moment.

I'd agree. NQ should listen to us but always follow the companies vision while taking our suggestions and ideas into account where they fit is what I think.

 

 

7 hours ago, Xennial said:

 Your wrong about me not informing myself

Fair enough

 

 

7 hours ago, Xennial said:

If they had far more involved discussions about how to envision the various systems to work we could have far more constructive conversations about their impacts and possible problems / advantages to their implementations that might have a shot at preventing 'surprises' like the industry schematics.

Agreed, this really goes to the promised, but absent, openness and transparency during development as NQ committed to on Kickstarter. Only now, as they pretty much fell on their face in public, do we see some movement in that area but it's still very reluctant and NQ seems much more inclined to think they are right but did not explain their ideas well enough instead of considering they may have been missing something. The current groveling is something we've seen time and time again in the past years and it generally led to nothing so while I hold out hope it may be different this time, I'm not yet convinced it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, le_souriceau said:

Overall we mostly on observer seat in this ride, with ocasional ability to be loud and force NQ hit some brakes. Granted, some people sitting closer to driver for this, but... even they probably can't infuence that much.

It seems very much this. So sit back, watch the scenery or get off next stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the old "DU should be easy to learn, but hard to master" discussion from NDA forums. And the main thing to be learned from that discussion (that NQ seem to not be able to understand), is that hard is not the same as tedious.

 

For example way back, NQ felt it was no problem simplifying flight physics (hard to master) claiming it was to 'hard' for players. And then they turned around and dialed the grind level (tedium) up to 11.

 

And as a side note. If not arguing your point of view for what you think would make the game better, then what? This forum would be pointless without that. So as long as you are on point with sensible and logical arguments and not resorting to straw man attacking or belittling people with dissimilar views, then there is nothing wrong with trying to form the game in your image. And then it is NQ's job to decide if they want to listen or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much exactly what I (and some others) tried to tell them back then.. And the same physics could be used the make reaching space hard in a way that would take time as JC wanted without having to resort to grind as a time gate. And as a side bonus it would make a nice marked for script vendors, so that people not interested in the physics could also go into space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen this past year in DU and from my 30+ years of gaming and 10+ years of game development, I can say that:

 

- NQ is inexperienced with game development and more generally with software development. They're learning both as they go making a lot of mistakes.

- The game is clearly not designed from the ground up to be a game. Like some other projects out there, notability No Man Sky, the starting point wasn't a video game but some cool computer technologies. For DU it was dual contouring voxels combined with classic 3D models (the elements). For NMS it was their adaptive procedural generation system. Usually games are designed the other way around: you plan your gameplay systems and then invent, create or reuse computer technologies to implement these systems. So basically the 'game' aspect of DU is not yet fully designed and finished and they're sill iterating based on what their tech can do it. For short: "we have these cool techs, what game can we make with them ?" instead of "let's make this cool game : which techs do we need to do it ?'.

- the beta is at best an early alpha

- the alpha was a PoC/tech demo

- they clearly don't play their own game, at least not like a normal player would (playing with cheat codes like spawning infinite resources/money or instant travel to anywhere doesn't give you the actual "feeling" a normal player get but rather a distorted one. Designing and iterating the game with that distorted feeling is a very bad thing to do. All seasoned game designers know that. Same for metrics/Excel based game design decisions.

- they don't clearly know what their target audience is.

 

I think at least 2 more years are required to have a real beta. Doing this in the open with paying customers will not be a good journey.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kirth Gersen said:

From what I've seen this past year in DU and from my 30+ years of gaming and 10+ years of game development, I can say that:

 

- NQ is inexperienced with game development and more generally with software development. They're learning both as they go making a lot of mistakes.

- The game is clearly not designed from the ground up to be a game. Like some other projects out there, notability No Man Sky, the starting point wasn't a video game but some cool computer technologies. For DU it was dual contouring voxels combined with classic 3D models (the elements). For NMS it was their adaptive procedural generation system. Usually games are designed the other way around: you plan your gameplay systems and then invent, create or reuse computer technologies to implement these systems. So basically the 'game' aspect of DU is not yet fully designed and finished and they're sill iterating based on what their tech can do it. For short: "we have these cool techs, what game can we make with them ?" instead of "let's make this cool game : which techs do we need to do it ?'.

- the beta is at best an early alpha

- the alpha was a PoC/tech demo

- they clearly don't play their own game, at least not like a normal player would (playing with cheat codes like spawning infinite resources/money or instant travel to anywhere doesn't give you the actual "feeling" a normal player get but rather a distorted one. Designing and iterating the game with that distorted feeling is a very bad thing to do. All seasoned game designers know that. Same for metrics/Excel based game design decisions.

- they don't clearly know what their target audience is.

 

I think at least 2 more years are required to have a real beta. Doing this in the open with paying customers will not be a good journey.

 

 

 

 

 

Nailed it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What  @Kirth Gersen said.. pretty much.. 

 

Especially the "making it up as you go" part is a big hurdle. It sometimes feels like NQ is using a lot of time looking up and searching for information on how to resolve problem X instead of having devs able to figure these thing out themselves. That works fine on a small "home project" but at the scale of DU, not so much..

 

Additionally, NQ has not ever show any willingness to realize a part of their backers/user base is "on to them" in what is described above. The resulting, sometimes direct and harsh,  critique is taken as offensive and subsequently NQ will try to silence these voices instead of using the feedback. Their current approach seems to be to insert a group of IMO good CM staff between them and the company as a buffer, not to actually use that to filter and funnel feedback but to shield the company from it and dismiss what comes though.

I'd agree DU is at best an early Alpha at this stage and I think even the two year time frame to get to being feature complete, as far as the base game feature set goes, is optimistic. There is no chance that NQ will deliver a "release state" game in the next 10 months or so unless they cut some serious corners and push out more stuff beyond "release". There is just way to much works to be done in optimization, bug fixing and polish alone to hit that date, let alone add all the new and reworked stuff they say they intend to.

 

I really think NQ oversold and over promised on their vision, idea and capability and as a result lost their investors which forced them to go public at beta in an attempt to generate revenue to pay interest on their outstanding (increasing) debt and keep the light on in general. There is no way I see they are still budgeting off of the 22 odd million they have on the books as investments and backer pledges collected over the past 6 years. I expect investors realized pretty much what  @Kirth Gersen stated above and dropped off, taking their loss (as is often the case in these sorts of investment.. you put money into 30-50 projects and hope 10 of them turn a profit and cover the losses on the rest).

 

To clarify for those wondering and/or interested; NQ had investment for Seed and Series A rounds but it ended there as investors did not see progress to the level expected for that round. Normally investment on Seed would be 1-2 million (which happened), Series A is around 20 million (which also happened) and would have been expected to bring the game to release with continued growth of revenue and user base. A Series B round would then generally push on with a round of around 60 million which would have aligned with further growing user base and bringing the game to the next level. The latter clearly did not happen in the timeframe NQ set and likely pitched to the investors which is why they took their loss and moved on, the required milestones for a round B was never met and stil is not met. It is possible (but this is purely speculation on my end) there is an option for further investment if NQ manages to release end of 2021 and see growth in userbase and revenue and this may be why they are trying to keep up the idea all is well and they will be able to deliver all they say they will in a stable and release ready product by the end of 2021. As such an investment would potentially clear their debt and give them the funding to press on past release which is possibly what they are trying to achieve. I guess we'll know in a year's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...