I’m not sure where you’re reading that they wouldn’t release the patch. To me it sounds just common corporate armwrestling about who’ll pay the bill. Stop panicking so much.
It is kinda of annoying that the console makers charge so much for patches, which are supposed to improve the games (and as a result, their platform). That thorough testing itself seems to me to be a legacy of the “disc-only” time of console gaming. I seem to recall it being posted that MS charges around 40k for certifying a patch (but you get first one for free), and Sony is a lot cheaper.
Good thing I’m opening new credit card to be able to pay at amazon.com and back kickstarter projects. I already spent $25 on PS3 copy of SG that I’m not even able to play at so whatever. I don’t care too much for money. The money can’t buy me love.
plays some Persona 4 Arena… gets outzoned by Elizabeth and Maziodyne… turns the game off and sighs
I’d like to second the notion of a Kickstarter if these undisclosed entities cause too much trouble. I don’t want to see SG die. To this day it stands pretty solidly as everything I want a fighting game to be. So you have my support should the shit hit the fan.
Makes me wish Skullgirls had initially been a PC game. It’s jumping through all these extra console related hoops and traps because of different policies which might have been avoided on a single platform in the PC.
My biggest worry is coming to fruition at this point. No patch will mean no players when the majors start and all it will take is two bad major performances for everyone to pull out their kappas/dansgames to say Skullgirls is dead and the EVO journey is over. Everyone is eagerly waiting to declare it dead and the lack of a patch is going to make that a reality now that Persona is out on the field. Not to mention that Europe is probably giving up on a game that basically locked them out of worldwide competition by mistake.
Entity A: "I got the stuff, you got the money?"
Entity B: "I got the money, you got the stuff?"
A: "I got the stuff, you got the money?"
B: "I got the money, you got the stuff?"
A: …
B: …
etc.
Indefinitely.
Doesn’t Kick starter have a rule that if the goal isn’t met then the rest of the money isn’t given out?
Just incase, depending on how large the number is maybe we could do one where the goal is half of what they need. Then if that goal is met, another one could be started which would raise the other half hopefully.
I only propose this because what if hypothetically, Reverge needs like 5K and the kick strarter only raises about 4k. Because of that rule they would never get any money at all even though it was very close to their goal. But if we split the goals like I said, they would at least get something instead of nothing at all.
That sounds really stupid. Why does the goal need to be met? If you’re doing a fund raiser, you don’t just toss the money if the goal isn’t met. You use what you get.
Because Kickstarter and Amazon take a percentage of each project’s funding and want to make money too. If they didn’t have people meet a goal then they may not make enough money for the site to be worth it, or lose money if that got out of hand. They’re a business too, ya know.
They made it that way so people won’t be afraid to back project that is currently unpopular. Because if you gave $100 for project that required $10k and no one gave money too you’ll effectively lose your money because they couldn’t be able to start the project with this.