Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9283701" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Agreed. This is not a grift. Colville and MCDM are long termers who make their living on having a continuing reputation of delivering consistent content*. They are in it for the long term, not a flash-in-the-pan or fly-by-night grifting operation.*that you may or may not like or think valuable, but is always high quality from a production standpoint.Edit: note: future clarification on what was presented to potential backers as what they were getting has obviated some of this. Apparently getting to watch the building and testing of the basic resolution system was sold as part of the value of backing the project.At the same time, it does concern me that they are making radical changes to (one of?) the basic resolution system(s). It seems to me that this has to be at least semi-solid (and tested) before you have something upon which to make your pitch. At the very least, it is something that could jeopardize the timeline.I like Matt Colville. I'll have to check, but IIRC I Patreon him (thus giving him an effective blank check to 'just do something I will find valuable and entertaining'). If I were* to give him a funds towards a specific project with an honestly relatively tight timetable, I would want to have some of these foundational pillars of the project rather solid. That said, there is a reputation involved. So perhaps the pitch is (really, or contextually) a project-driven blank check (i.e. 'give Matt some extra money for this project he has in mind, he will produce something you will find valuable and entertaining').*acknowledgement: I have been too busy this past year to figure out Kickstarters to back, so I missed this one.</blockquote>

Verification