Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About Bilderberger

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

52 profile views
  1. In a strictly legal sense, yes. May the lord smite me for using the word. You're right though - it might cause confusion. I shall change it immediately. As I said: In the field of economics, you might be an investor, even though you are not - legally.
  2. I think we are talking past one another. I referred to the economic definition of an investor, not the legal one. I did this with purpose as I wanted to illustrate an issue. First off: When I meant investor, I am referring to the following definition - The consumer invests his money into a project he wishes to gain utility from. You are actively investing your income with the intent to gain utility. What/How/When you gain utility I cannot say. Therefore, in the fields of economics, consumption is a form of investment. I do not argue against contracts, nor the way society handles contracts. I also do not refer to investor rights or consumer rights. I refer to the issue of incomplete contracts and the problems that arise from them. As I mentioned above, in practice, contracts cannot specify what is to be done in every possible contingency. Many people here, including myself, bought the game upfront, yet this was consensual. And this is perfectly fine, why would it not? The issue is rather, as I said, contracts cannot cover everything. Certain situations and issues may arise, situations such as prolongation, an undesirable feature revamp, you name it. This, combined with asymmetric information, creates an atmosphere, a shroud, of uncertainty. We could even drive this further and go on about worst outcomes, implications, etc. This is not relevant however. My point is the following: Said shroud of uncertainty makes life harder for our "investors", buyers, consumers, who spent their money in anticipation of an upcoming game which they hopefully will enjoy. Of course they did it voluntarily, it was their risk, but you don't want to leave them hanging in like this as an atmosphere of uncertainty concerning ex ante investments (general investments) is economically inefficient. So, what could we do if we wanted to alleviate the worries of our customers? Just give them some information on how things stand - I do not demand complete access to all information available but a bit of signalling really would not hurt. I am talking about Principal-Agent Problems, not the legal status of a buyer.
  3. Investment activity in an economical sense is the allocation of money (or comparable goods and services) with the expectation of benefit (eg. returns) in the future. Purchasers are, in a sense, investors too, as they allocate their monthly income to further optimize the utility they gain from the products they buy. I never talked about contracts, now did I? We invest money because we expect a return of some sorts. Economically speaking, we are investors. Given the fact that the money we pay upfront is presumably used to further finance developing we might even drag this further. But we shall not, for the time being. Most contracts, in practice, cannot specify what is to be done in every possible contingency. This may lead to a series of Hold-up issues which, as a consequence, eventually, leads to a series of inefficient (and also unpleasant) outcomes and situations
  4. I do neither agree nor disagree with this stance but I must confess that I dislike this point as it eliminates all kinds of criticism, because, well, you agreed to buy an incomplete game.
  5. We are no different to investors because we are, in fact, investors. Literally. Albeit not in a strictly legal sense.
  6. I deeply despise the degree of asymmetric information we're facing. And I also think that's the core of the issue at hand. Fortunately, some of it has been lifted recently. Yet, so many questions remain - I need not tell what systems ought to be improved as many people have already contributed many good and precise arguments concerning said issues, gunnery, armor and the like. I think many of us have the impression that our input (as a community) is more or less ignored. And this might very well be the case - or not. Obviously, the devs cannot reveal everything they have planned. That is impossible. Still - I think there is a lack of communication. Let me give you an example. Concerning gunnery and speed penalties - Many of us have made points about it, they spent much of their spare time researching and analyzing data to improve the situation. Perhaps the devs read them and decided to rework the system. Perhaps they did not. We do not know. We cannot even say whether many mechanics are final or not. Are they really solely working on the campaign right now, something they've told us would take yet another 6 months, just weeks before the official release ought to have happened? Or are they also working on something else? Maybe they've put the data to good use and they're cooking one of the best armor and ballistic systems. Or maybe they call the current Status Quo a day and leave it at that. I dislike that. I really do. I do not ask for much but I think some clarification is direly needed! As Doug already mentioned, certain members have invested incredible amounts of time and effort into this project. But will they continue doing so? Are people willing to take an investment if the shroud of uncertainty grows ever larger?
  7. Intriguing idea. I'd like to know more about politics and research as well as the things you already mentioned.
  8. Wouldn't the best course of action be to release the campaign before their steam release?
  9. That sounds rather... vague. Maybe it's also just my aversion to information asymmetry.
  10. Honestly, I don't understand why we shouldn't see a first campaign candidate before release. Is it really necessary to forcibly tie a first campaign release to the steam release? As of right now, I think the campaign is where the game will either shine or fail and I fear many current issues regarding balance and expectations are directly or indirectly tied to said campaign and its mechanics.
  11. Which, judging from so many conflicts in this forum raging on, should be rather sooner than later as I suspect that many current issues are directly tied to the lack thereof. I think we should keep calm and wait for the developers to do their... thing.
  12. Indeed. I truly wonder if and when we will receive new information concerning the current state of the campaign.
  13. Frankly, I think this is the reason as to why we "need" the campaign. It gives context and limitations, something the Naval Academy Missions, or Custom Battle for that matter, do not. I think having that context, the environment, one could say, attached to the process of ship design, that's when things start to get interesting. It does not need to be a full Steam release but a first candidate should very well be accessible to us. Or at least a little bit of information on how things stand, just so we know what we're up for (aside from the already existing information).
  • Create New...