Non-RPG General News - Rise of Humanity, EA on Oct 21st

[Redglyph]

Games Press reports that Rise of Humanity is coming to Early Access on October 21st. The game combines turn-based strategy and deck building.

Rise of Humanity coming to Early Access on 21 October

Antwerp, Belgium, 27 September 2021: Cybernetic Walrus announced that their game combining turn-based strategy and deck-building will launch in Early Access on 21 October 2021. Rise of Humanity will be available on Steam for EUR19.99 with two game modes: one with a narrative adventure and one that gives players three new challenges to complete every day.

''The game has a unique game mechanic and a lot of content that gives players up to hours of gameplay. In addition to that, we have a second game mode that creates three new daily missions so players can come back to practice, improve their strategy and reach a higher score every day. The scores are recorded on our leaderboards so by beating these missions, players can compete with one another and become the ultimate savior of humanity!'' Mike Coeck, CEO of Cybernetic Walrus explained.

[...]

And here are the first impressions from a gameplay video by SplatterCatGaming.

More information.

 

[JDR13]

I'm surprised how many games are incorporating some form of deck building lately. Good for the people who are into that I guess.

 

[Pladio]

I'm surprised how many games are incorporating some form of deck building lately. Good for the people who are into that I guess.

Yeah it seems very popular.

I did have some fun with a few of these games, like Slay the Spire and the Witcher game too but I'm now a bit tired of these.

 

[Redglyph]

Same, I saw another one recently. They're quite popular as board games too at the moment.

 

[Carnifex]

Nod, they do seem to be enjoying quite the rise these days, yet I'm another that's not enticed by the deck building anymore.

 

[bjon045]

"Daily challenges" as well - count me out. If I recall Pathfinder Adventures had 3 daily challenges as well and I didn't particulary like it there as well. Just give people 3 challenges and give them as long as they want to finish them and then replace them with new ones as the player goes - then *gasp* the player can play at the rate they want to play and not the rate some smart ass designer thinks they should.

 

[JDR13]

I did have some fun with a few of these games, like Slay the Spire and the Witcher game too but I'm now a bit tired of these.

I've never played the standalone game, but I really enjoyed Gwent in TW3. As a side activity, I thought it was great. However, deck building as a primary mechanic doesn't appeal to me.

 

[showtime]

I've never played the standalone game, but I really enjoyed Gwent in TW3. As a side activity, I thought it was great. However, deck building as a primary mechanic doesn't appeal to me.

I enjoyed GWENT in Witcher 3 so much that I installed real GWENT to find it utterly disappointing.

 

[Drithius]

I can understand Early Access for a massively complex game. Or a huge MMO with a multitude of content needing final testing. But I really abhor how commonplace EA has become where there's a month lead-in promo for an Early Access title that looks like a phone app with updated graphics.

I'm completely turned off by EA-anything that I immediately ignore titles marked as such… and I continue ignoring them even after final release (should they ever make that day). Am I alone in this fatigue? Or is EA 'marketing' going to increasingly backfire on studios in this way? Are consumers acclimated to it now to such a degree that it's the next lootbox; ie, the next accepted method by which studios milk the foolhardy?

 

[Couchpotato]

Early Access is just a way to get money early while the developer gets feedback from beta testers as well. Anyway I don't really care for it, but seems to be accepted now.

It doesn't help that crow-funding is basically dead for games. As someone said already multiple times, why pay beta testers when you can make beta testers pay you to play.

 

[Ripper]

Yeah, it's not something I'm particularly keen on, in some respects. But, like Couch mentioned, the reputation of crowd-funding got so battered that it's not a viable avenue for sensible indie funding anymore. So, I can understand why studios have little choice but to go this way.

The way I deal with it is just to completely ignore games in EA, and try not to get burned out on hearing about them until they're ready (which, of course, is often well after release anyway; EA could describe plenty of games at the point of official launch.) If folks are happy to fund development that way and pay to be bug testers, I guess that's a win for me, in the end.

 

[Redglyph]

I don't really get why a company would choose this path, in general. Crowdfunding via a Kickstarter (or other) would allow them to secure a minimum instead of taking the risk directly. Nothing would prevent them from doing an EA on top of it, or to take any decision should the campaign fail.

From the recent campaigns I've seen, there is no shortage of people who are ready to pledge. Maybe it was better before, but it's certainly not dead.

The only reason why a company would go directly to EA is if they're already secured enough money, have written most of the code and don't want to wait. Or more likely they've found an investor or a publisher they trust enough.

But in this particular case it's different, they planned to do a Kickstarter and it was cancelled because of the pandemic: GDC2020 was being cancelled, and so a lot of meetings that couldn't happen (I don't fully understand the reason either, but that's all I know).

 

[Couchpotato]

From the recent campaigns I've seen, there is no shortage of people who are ready to pledge. Maybe it was better before, but it's certainly not dead.

What games dare I ask? Sure I've seen people back games just to raise barely a third of what the actually game will cost to develop. That's not an ideal way to get funding.

Think on this games that we all love on this site raised a few million and that is very rare. As most developers are afraid to even ask for $100,000 nowadays. They always fail.

Anyway not all developers live in Russia and can make a game on $20,000 like Atom RPG.

One thing publishers did learn is kickstarter and other various crowd-funding sites can be used get PR. They raise awareness for their game and get early pre-orders.

It's what Larian and Obsidian did.

 

[Redglyph]

What games dare I ask? Sure I've seen people back games just to raise barely a third of what the actually game will cost to develop. That's not an ideal way to get funding.

Recently, we saw Monomyth (38975 EUR for a goal of 16500), they did a separate crowdfunding that ended yesterday for people who wanted to use Paypal (I don't know the outcome of this one).

We had Stormrite (41117 GBP / 20000).

The Lost Eidolons which enters beta test this week (51989 USD / 45000).

BioSynth seems to have a slower start, but so did The Spirit of the Island which was ultimately successful (56098 USD / 50000).

The Last Relic has started 18 days ago, ongoing but already successful - it's smaller (9072 USD / 6000).

Tanares - that's a board RPG we talked about recently (1,807,631 USD / 50,000).

Another one I didn't care to report was apparently *very* successful (an erotic RPG ).

The Pathfinder games, though they're older. Solasta, Encased that we're also playing now.

And that's only off the top of my head, the recent ones I've seen. Sure, I've seen a few fail too, but there are other game companies failing all the time. Could be a bad idea, a bad presentation, or just bad timing.

I can also give other examples for books, and so on.

 

[Couchpotato]

My above point still stands the developer is not asking for the amount they needed just the amount to get funded. This has been talked about before on other threads.

As backers wont back a game if they ask for to much. So for all your examples I can gave you five more that failed after getting funded. It always comes down to lack of funds.

Remember I'm talking about PC games not board games they always get funded. Also I'm not talking about cheap indie games that keep getting funded for under $50,000.

If you have an RPG like POE and ask for $1.5+ million good luck getting funded.So bottom line the golden Age of crowdfunding is dead and backers killed it. Sad but true.

 

[Redglyph]

My point remains valid too, that's money they know they'll have before going further, as opposed to developing an EA with their own means and only then collecting an unknown amount of money (which they can still do after a KS).

Many of those I've named have enough to work for a while. They often get a publisher on the way, and while I never saw any figure, I'm sure they give financial support as well. Sometimes it even allows for extra features and development time (to the joy of all backers who see the deadline postponed), or for support to port to different platforms.

Remember I'm talking about PC games not board games they always get funded. Also I'm not talking about cheap indie games that keep getting funded for under $50,000.

Hard for me to remember since you haven't mentioned that before

I'm just saying I'm not convinced that "crowdfunding is basically dead for games" is a valid statement. And that EA isn't the only way to get funds, nor the best strategy IMO (from where I'm sitting anyway, I haven't tried), KS remains an interesting step.

Games that got 1+ million out of crowdfunding are more exceptions than the general rule. I don't think that established companies have the same strategic needs anyway.

EDIT: lol, I think I found it: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/repulse/iragon-n-anime-visual-novel-in-a-fantasy-world. Now they're trying to rake in more on indiegogo, or at least I saw something very similar while checking for new RPG campaigns recently

 

[Couchpotato]

Hard for me to remember since you haven't mentioned that before .

You haven't been a member long enough go back five years with my posts.

Also it's dead the larger developers making the best games have moved on. You don't even see much coverage of these games anymore as well except on niche sites.

If all you want is niche games yes by all means back them.

Just wait for them to post an update about lack of funds eventually.

 

[Redglyph]

Well, indie games have to start somewhere.

Now of course, if you need a lot of money and maybe even a yacht, there's the Star Citizen strategy too.

 

[Couchpotato]

Chris Avallone said it best ask for what you need, not what you need to just just get funded.This was when big projects kept failing. So many failed good games.

 

[mercy]

Because cardz need be ingame because many doing cardZ!!