VN Ren'Py Ravager [v5.2.0] [4MinuteWarning]

[Hese_1]

Yes, people do miss the point that this forum is PIRATE site and someone will leak the game here for FREE. No need to bash devs that wants to sell games and not give everything for free.

 

[Rutonat]

Do you people not play regular video games? Have some faith in our Russian cracker comrades, since its on steam when version 1.0 hits they will crack it and release it into the wilds. Then we can experience the story fully and decide for ourselves whether we think the devs are worth supporting.

Yes, people do miss the point that this forum is PIRATE site and someone will leak the game here for FREE. No need to bash devs that wants to sell games and not give everything for free.

Despite the argument being solid, I can't shake the feeling that saying that basically to the devs face (since they come around this thread) is pretty shitty and disrespectful...

 

[AgriasQuarto]

Its actually the opposite, I respect the devs enough to believe that they understand the simple concept that people will pay for games they like regardless if its available to pirate, and people pirating their games will not pay for it regardless of how much DRM they try to add.

 

[ScholarOfTheFirstSin]

Despite the argument being solid, I can't shake the feeling that saying that basically to the devs face (since they come around this thread) is pretty shitty and disrespectful...

Agree respect 4MinuteWarning creator of glorius ribbed mouth watering dragon cock plz

 

[Jman9]

Its actually the opposite, I respect the devs enough to believe that they understand the simple concept that people will pay for games they like regardless if its available to pirate, and people pirating their games will not pay for it regardless of how much DRM they try to add.

"Try before you buy" is a thing. I've personally paid for several games I pirated this way, games I wouldn't have touched otherwise.

Also, "piracy leads to people buying the game" has been the main 'moral' argument for piracy for the longest time. Whether it's as true as they say, who knows.

...if the devs hadn't paywalled the last act and instead had put the game up from the start as a one-time purchase, I would've bought it. I can't support the practice of giving you everything else for free so you feel compelled to pay for the ending since you're already invested...

So you are the person responsible for the disappearance of game demos and shareware games?

Not to mention that is some SCOTUS-tier mental gymnastics right there. "This game is so good, I like it very much, but I'll be damned if I give a single penny to the people who made it because they allowed me to try it instead of buying it blindly! I only buy games that won't let me see what they're like!" Just admit that you're a filthy pirate like the rest of us here, and move on.

 

[Hargan2]

So you are the person responsible for the disappearance of game demos and shareware games?

Not to mention that is some SCOTUS-tier mental gymnastics right there. "This game is so good, I like it very much, but I'll be damned if I give a single penny to the people who made it because they allowed me to try it instead of buying it blindly! I only buy games that won't let me see what they're like!" Just admit that you're a filthy pirate like the rest of us here, and move on.

You're intentionally misinterpreting my point. I've never hidden the fact that I'm a filthy pirate. My point was that the content they gave us was more than a demo. Act V is literally the end of the game, and the wrapping up of acts I to IV. They gave us almost the entire game and then said "Sorry, but if you want to see how this game you've played for hours and are now heavily invested in ends, you have to pay." If they had released a short demo to try and then sold the full product as a retail purchase, I'd buy it. Instead, they released everything but the end of the game for free, which is a method of manipulation I just can't support.

 

[Hullahopp]

If they had released a short demo to try and then sold the full product as a retail purchase, I'd buy it. Instead, they released everything but the end of the game for free, which is a method of manipulation I just can't support.

Demo can only be made for a finished game. The Ravager is under continuous development, with art and option changes, bug fixes, etc. If they release a demo that is rudimentary/unplayable, they will scare away customers.
So it is not manipulation, it is simply how it works.

 

[Hargan2]

Demo can only be made for a finished game. The Ravager is under continuous development, with art and option changes, bug fixes, etc. If they release a demo that is rudimentary/unplayable, they will scare away customers.
So it is not manipulation, it is simply how it works.

I recognize that. In the beginning, the game was and to an extent still is relying a lot on crowdfunding through patreon and SS for development costs. So it makes a lot of sense to put a product out there for free. But the argument that they can't put a demo out because the game is still under development doesn't hold a lot of weight for me. Act II is completely finished and has been for years, and would make for an excellent demo. it's relatively short, has plenty of opportunities for sexual content, and ends with you finding your lair and getting set up to strike back. A perfect showcase of the game's gameplay, and general tone and direction.

Perhaps manipulation isn't the best way to describe it. It certainly may not be intentional. I can see how the devs would see paywalling act V as an obvious choice, a reward for those who paid actual money for it. I dunno. I'm not the most articulate person and it's difficult for me to explain exactly why this rubs me the wrong way. But it does. I just can't reconcile putting the majority of the game out there for free and then paywalling the end.

 

[Jman9]

I've never hidden the fact that I'm a filthy pirate.

Could have fooled me. Moral grandstanding about how it's 'unsupportable' a developer isn't bending over backwards to give you their work for free tends to do that. Whatever 'support' even means here. It's certainly not paying the devs.

My point was that the content they gave us was more than a demo. Act V is literally the end of the game, and the wrapping up of acts I to IV. They gave us almost the entire game and then said "Sorry, but if you want to see how this game you've played for hours and are now heavily invested in ends, you have to pay."

Yes, and? The devs have spent at least an order of magnitude more time, effort and emotional investment than you, and now you're telling them "gibs game for free 'cus I likes it"?

4MW also did this course change mid-development, and your free part of the game also benefits from paying customers.

...which is a method of manipulation I just can't support.

WTF are you on? What exactly are they manipulating here? Is this some sort of fancy new human right that you must be able to complete any game you like, regardless of whether you're willing to pay for it? AFAIK, there were never any promises that such things won't happen, and I think at one time even the development of Act V itself was not entirely certain.

I can see how the devs would see paywalling act V as an obvious choice, a reward for those who paid actual money for it.

AFAICT, the devs see the paywalling as a way to draw more resources to the game and make all of it better. Including the free parts. Have you actually looked at the changelogs and what the people on their payroll are doing?

Act II is completely finished and has been for years, and would make for an excellent demo. it's relatively short, has plenty of opportunities for sexual content, and ends with you finding your lair and getting set up to strike back.

And would open the floodgates to a million more people howling how the devs "went back on their word", "took the game from us", etc. Never mind the Patreon obligations, which I think were predicated on those acts being free.

If it's between that and a single you being a little grumpy, I know where my preference lies.

I'm not the most articulate person and it's difficult for me to explain exactly why this rubs me the wrong way. But it does. I just can't reconcile putting the majority of the game out there for free and then paywalling the end.

Because you're selfish, and don't want to give up your bone once you've got it. Every dog will do the same. Doesn't mean dogs are good at civilisation, and it's civilisation that produces dragon porn games.

I literally can't think of how this 'manipulation' is bad, except in the most general manner ("money corrupts", etc) and can show you how your line of thinking leads to definitely worse outcomes - 4MW announces Act V paywall, everyone shuns them, 4MW goes back to a Patreon model and most of the changes enabled by the expanded team we've gotten since go poof.

Edit:

You're intentionally misinterpreting my point.

Not with shareware. There used to be games where you could play through a pretty large chunk of the game, and then hit the paywall. Sometimes literally.

I cannot read your post any other way than gutting that entire model because it's somehow morally 'bad'. The reasons it died out were largely financial, and the ability of developers to get away with half-patching their product for half of forever to keep up appearances.

 

[Hargan2]

Could have fooled me. Moral grandstanding about how it's 'unsupportable' a developer isn't bending over backwards to give you their work for free tends to do that. Whatever 'support' even means here. It's certainly not paying the devs.


Yes, and? The devs have spent at least an order of magnitude more time, effort and emotional investment than you, and now you're telling them "gibs game for free 'cus I likes it"?

4MW also did this course change mid-development, and your free part of the game also benefits from paying customers.


WTF are you on? What exactly are they manipulating here? Is this some sort of fancy new human right that you must be able to complete any game you like, regardless of whether you're willing to pay for it? AFAIK, there were never any promises that such things won't happen, and I think at one time even the development of Act V itself was not entirely certain.


AFAICT, the devs see the paywalling as a way to draw more resources to the game and make all of it better. Including the free parts. Have you actually looked at the changelogs and what the people on their payroll are doing?


And would open the floodgates to a million more people of how the devs "went back on their word", "took the game from us", etc. Never mind the Patreon obligations, which I think were predicated on those acts being free.


Because you're selfish, and don't want to give up your bone once you've got it. Every dog will do the same. Doesn't mean dogs are good at civilisation, and it's civilisation that produces dragon porn games.

I literally can't think of how this 'manipulation' is bad, except in the most general manner ("money corrupts", etc) and can show you how your line of thinking leads to worse outcomes - 4MW announces Act V paywall, everyone shuns them, 4MW goes back to a Patreon model and most of the changes enabled by the expanded team we've gotten since go poof.

I was trying to argue from a position of good faith, but it seems like you're determined to paint me as the bad guy here. I am not a perfect individual. I'm on a pirate site after all, so of course I'm selfish. But I am not trying to take the moral high ground here, nor was that ever my intention. I simply stated that it felt like the devs were being manipulative by paywalling Act V alone, and that as a result I would not buy the game. I wasn't taking any sort of huge moral stand there, I was just expressing my own personal opinion. You're the one who took such huge issue with that that you decided to start putting words in my mouth and making it a huge issue. It certainly wasn't my intention to come off as judgemental towards the devs, and I do apologize if that's how it felt. All marketing is manipulation in some form or another, I was simply saying that this specific form was not one I wanted to support.

At no point did I claim that I or anyone else was entitled to the game for free. I said the opposite, in fact, my point was that they should paywall the whole game. They did do this course change mid-development, yes, which is why I have a problem with it. It wasn't clearly set up from the beginning that part of the game would be paywalled.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm disrespecting the devs, or have no appreciation for their work. That is simply not true. I have nothing but respect for their work, and what they've accomplished is truly amazing. I have no intention of buying the game, yes, but neither do I feel entitled to it. If it leaks here? Sure, i'll play it. if it doesn't? I'll enjoy what the devs have put out there for free and not worry about it.

I don't know what I did to offend you but whatever it was, I do apologize.

 

[Hargan2]

Edit:

Not with shareware. There used to be games where you could play through a pretty large chunk of the game, and then hit the paywall. Sometimes literally.

I cannot read your post any other way than gutting that entire model because it's somehow morally 'bad'. The reasons it died out were largely financial, and the ability of developers to get away with half-patching their product for half of forever to keep up appearances.

Okay, it seems like you might be misinterpreting what I'm saying. Which is on me, because I haven't done the best job of explaining. The key thing about shareware is that it's set up from the beginning as "Here's a product, you get x amount of days to use it for free (or use it for free up to a certain point) and after that you must pay to keep using it." No problem with that. Ravager released a product for free, made no mention of the fact that the ending of the game would be paywalled, and only announced that once the game was well into development and people had already played a decent chunk of the game.

I recognize that this was probably not a deliberate manipulation and was more of a development decision than anything else. That's totally fair. But that doesn't mean that I can't criticise what I see as a possibly manipulative decision, or at the least take issue with it not being made clear from the start that the game may not be entirely free.

 

[Hullahopp]

I recognize that. In the beginning, the game was and to an extent still is relying a lot on crowdfunding through patreon and SS for development costs. So it makes a lot of sense to put a product out there for free. But the argument that they can't put a demo out because the game is still under development doesn't hold a lot of weight for me. Act II is completely finished and has been for years, and would make for an excellent demo. it's relatively short, has plenty of opportunities for sexual content, and ends with you finding your lair and getting set up to strike back. A perfect showcase of the game's gameplay, and general tone and direction.

Perhaps manipulation isn't the best way to describe it. It certainly may not be intentional. I can see how the devs would see paywalling act V as an obvious choice, a reward for those who paid actual money for it. I dunno. I'm not the most articulate person and it's difficult for me to explain exactly why this rubs me the wrong way. But it does. I just can't reconcile putting the majority of the game out there for free and then paywalling the end.

The second act has also been modified several times (art, sounds, etc.), but it's fine. I understand your frustration. It's like being told during sex, before orgasm, that you have to pay to continue.
But you must have guessed that they don't spend years working on something just to publish it for free. The team would like to have secure support for its work. Can't blame them for that, the game is enjoyable without the fifth act.

 

[Jman9]

I was trying to argue from a position of good faith, but it seems like you're determined to paint me as the bad guy here. ... But I am not trying to take the moral high ground here, nor was that ever my intention.

I have nothing against you personally. For all I know, you've already rescued 13 kittens today, while I'm sitting on my ass and doing nothing useful because of fucking heat.

I just don't like people espousing poorly thought-out views, and I'm a grumpy asshole. And saying "I can't support the practice..." definitely looks like trying to take moral high ground to me. If you'd said "It is against my personal gamer-bushido to buy only the last 20% of a game.", I would not have even blinked.

All marketing is manipulation in some form or another, I was simply saying that this specific form was not one I wanted to support.

But the point is that it is not marketing. It's basically 4MW diving headfirst into game dev, going with the traditional Patreon route, and that's how it turned out. He's a victim of his own success, and he can't turn in any direction without angering someone. You're just picking what he (and I, but I'm a nobody ) think is the least damaging option, and outing it as the bad choice.

Edit: In any case, if it was a choice between all game dev turning to the "pay for the last 20%+achievements" or whatever model, vs what we have now, I'd selfishly support it in a heartbeat. Because it is far, far less manipulative of the players. Probably won't end well, because it'll also be a lot more abusive of the actual devs, but hey, we don't care about them here. /edit

At no point did I claim that I or anyone else was entitled to the game for free.

Could gave fooled me:

...I'd really recommend you at least play the game if/when someone posts the final act here.
...if it ever leaks here I'd really recommend you pick it back up.

"Pirate it and don't pay, because you'll be paying for only 20% of the game" is what it looks like to me. I suppose you could argue that it's not technically entitlement, but come on.

I said the opposite, in fact, my point was that they should paywall the whole game.

In that case, Ravager would be dead. Or at least a shadow of its current self. I am sorry, but you're not portraying yourself in a particularly good light here.

They did do this course change mid-development, yes, which is why I have a problem with it. It wasn't clearly set up from the beginning that part of the game would be paywalled.

It was not promised it would not be, either. And in any case, the game is not complete, yet, and even the parts you think are finished are actually getting regular touch-ups.

Why is it a problem for you, anyway? You did not pay money for the game, so no promise was broken. Games change course mid-development all the time, and a bunch of them ask money for being a beta tester. Now that is manipulative.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm disrespecting the devs, or have no appreciation for their work.
...
I have no intention of buying the game, yes, but neither do I feel entitled to it. If it leaks here? Sure, i'll play it.

So, how is "I'll steal their game (if it's convenient for me to do so), something they've staked their livelihood on" respectful?

I don't know what I did to offend you but whatever it was, I do apologize.

You have weird and selfish opinions. That's fine, I have those, too.

But you also advocate and seek vindication for them in a public forum, to the point of telling others to sabotage the dev, which you can't just apologise yourself out of.

This is a pirate forum. It's par for the course here. But it's also telling others to cooperate with you in an effort to shut 4MW down and drive him away from game dev, to the point that if everyone had followed your advice we'd have a considerably poorer game now, and very likely no more similar games in the future.

Ravager released a product for free, made no mention of the fact that the ending of the game would be paywalled...

So? Why do you think you're entitled to this? And I don't mean the game, I mean the "no less than X% of the game paywalled".

And, again, I think I recall Act V only becoming a certainty partway through development. Promises were made about the free part.

But that doesn't mean that I can't criticise what I see as a possibly manipulative decision, or at the least take issue with it not being made clear from the start that the game may not be entirely free.

You still haven't told us what is manipulative about all of this? Unless you think 4MW should have had everything mapped out from the beginning, and told you everything upon the first release. This is nor how game dev works, even srsface game dev with budgets in the millions.

 

[Hargan2]

I have nothing against you personally. For all I know, you've already rescued 13 kittens today, while I'm sitting on my ass and doing nothing useful because of fucking heat.

I just don't like people espousing poorly thought-out views, and I'm a grumpy asshole. And saying "I can't support the practice..." definitely looks like trying to take moral high ground to me. If you'd said "It is against my personal gamer-bushido to buy only the last 20% of a game.", I would not have even blinked.


But the point is that it is not marketing. It's basically 4MW diving headfirst into game dev, going with the traditional Patreon route, and that's how it turned out. He's a victim of his own success, and he can't turn in any direction without angering someone. You're just picking what he (and I, but I'm a nobody ) think is the least damaging option, and outing it as the bad choice.


Could gave fooled me:

"Pirate it and don't pay, because you'll be paying for only 20% of the game" is what it looks like to me. I suppose you could argue that it's not technically entitlement, but come on.


In that case, Ravager would be dead. I am sorry, but you're not portraying yourself in a particularly good light here.


It was not promised it would not be, either. And in any case, the game is not complete, yet, and even the parts you think are finished are actually getting regular touch-ups.

Why is it a problem for you, anyway? You did not pay money for the game, so no promise was broken. Games change course mid-development all the time, and a bunch of them ask money for being a beta tester. Now that is manipulative.


So, how is "I'll steal their game (if it's convenient to do so), something they've staked their livelihood on" respectful?


You have weird and selfish opinions. That's fine, I have those, too.

But you also advocate and seek vindication for them in a public forum, to the point of telling others to sabotage the dev, which you can't just apologise yourself out of.

This is a pirate forum. It's par for the course here. But it's also telling others to cooperate with you in an effort to shut 4MW down and drive him away from game dev, to the point that if everyone had followed your advice we'd have a considerably poorer game now, and likely no more similar games in the future.


So? Why do you think you're entitled to this? And I don't mean the game, I mean the "no less than X% of the game paywalled".

And, again, I think I recall Act V only becoming a certainty partway through development. Promises were made about the free part.


You still haven't told us what is manipulative about all of this? Unless you think 4MW should have had everything mapped out from the beginning, and told you everything upon the first release. This is nor how game dev works, even srsface game dev with budgets in the millions.

Saying "I can't support the practice" was me saying "I, personally, can't support this practice." That, to me at least, is no different than saying " is against my personal gamer-bushido to buy only the last 20% of a game."

Also, I think you missed something. The guy I was replying to initially specifically said that he would not be buying the game. I wasn't advocating for someone to pirate the game instead of buying it, I was advocating for someone to pirate the game because they had already made the decision not to buy it. And it's a good game, so since they weren't gonna pay, I said "Hey, you should still play it if it ever leaks here."

I never advocated for people to pirate instead of pay, I only advocated that they pirate if they had already made up their mind not to pay.

 

[Jman9]

Saying "I can't support the practice" was me saying "I, personally, can't support this practice." That, to me at least, is no different than saying " is against my personal gamer-bushido to buy only the last 20% of a game."

Is English your first language? Because "I cannot support" is quite often read to include a silent "... and neither should you". Gamer-bushido makes it clear it's a question of your personal, idiosyncratic morality.

I never advocated for people to pirate instead of pay, I only advocated that they pirate if they had already made up their mind not to pay.

Well, then you made a rather poor job of conveying it.

If that's what you were trying to say, then I have little quarrel with it.

Your point about it being manipulative remains strange to me, but it's not something to lose sleep over.

 

[Hargan2]

Is English your first language? Because "I cannot support" is quite often read to include a silent "... and neither should you". Gamer-bushido makes it clear it's a question of your personal, idiosyncratic morality.


Well, then you made a rather poor job of conveying it.

If that's what you were trying to say, then I have little quarrel with it.

Your point about it being manipulative remains strange to me, but it's not something to lose sleep over.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. English is my first language, but I honestly would never have thought that I would be interpreted as expressing anything other than my own opinion. I shall be more clear in the future.

My point about it being manipulative, as I explained in another post (not a reply to you, so you may have missed it), may not have been the best choice of words, and it was more based on a personal feeling than concrete evidence. I am not the most articulate person so I cannot think of a better way to put it.

 

[The_Searcher]

I recognize that. In the beginning, the game was and to an extent still is relying a lot on crowdfunding through patreon and SS for development costs. So it makes a lot of sense to put a product out there for free. But the argument that they can't put a demo out because the game is still under development doesn't hold a lot of weight for me. Act II is completely finished and has been for years, and would make for an excellent demo. it's relatively short, has plenty of opportunities for sexual content, and ends with you finding your lair and getting set up to strike back. A perfect showcase of the game's gameplay, and general tone and direction.

Perhaps manipulation isn't the best way to describe it. It certainly may not be intentional. I can see how the devs would see paywalling act V as an obvious choice, a reward for those who paid actual money for it. I dunno. I'm not the most articulate person and it's difficult for me to explain exactly why this rubs me the wrong way. But it does. I just can't reconcile putting the majority of the game out there for free and then paywalling the end.

I agree with you, and I think it's easy to understand.

We can expect that kind of move from a triple AAA cash-grave company like EA, Capcom, S-E, etc... I mean put the true end of the game behind of another pay-wall. But with a Patreon based game? An indie eroge game? They are gonna board that ship too?

If they want to sell the game, which makes total sense, then I think too it's a better idea to put a demo until the act II (like you said) since that duration give enough idea of how the game works. Anyone interested in the game, will buy it. But putting a pay-wall just for the ending part? I think that probably it will cause the opposite effect.

It's a surreal way to finish a great game project, at least in my opinion. As a I said before, maybe it's a better idea to offer all the game for free in that public version and then when it's completed, sell the complete game (that version could have certain extras that doesn't affect the main game but offers extra value.) and it will probably have success. Just like Locomalito games like Super Hydorah and Maldita Castilla.

 

[Jman9]

...another pay-wall. But with a Patreon based game? An indie eroge game? They are gonna board that ship too?

Since there is only one payment, it is another kind of ship entirely. It's not a choice of between 'pay' and 'pay more'.

But putting a pay-wall just for the ending part? I think that probably it will cause the opposite effect.

Not putting the pay-wall there would mean taking parts of the game away from current players. This would be much more likely to turn players off of the game than the current paywall.

Also, nobody says you have to play through Acts 1-4 before buying the game. Treat Act I as the demo, buy the full game if you like it. Play Act II, or III, or IV if you're still on the fence.

In any case, discussing these things on a pirate forum is likely to get a skewed response.

As a I said before, maybe it's a better idea to offer all the game for free in that public version and then when it's completed, sell the complete game (that version could have certain extras that doesn't affect the main game but offers extra value.)

So, uh, "getting to see most of the game for free bad, nickel-and-dime cosmetic DLC good"? I do not understand you people.

And "take away your free game" is somehow going to go down better than "pay for the finale"?

...and it will probably have success. Just like Locomalito games like Super Hydorah and Maldita Castilla.

Going with the free model would likely have meant a shorter and poorer game. Possibly staying with just Patreon and no act V at all.

Plus, Locamalito basically cashed in on consoles. This is entirely irrelevant to any success on PCs, and Ravager is currently reliant on that market to make it over the finish line.

 

[The_Searcher]

Plus, Locamalito basically cashed in on consoles. This is entirely irrelevant to any success on PCs, and Ravager is currently reliant on that market to make it over the finish line.

Yeah, because giving for free on his website his games didn't affected at all the posterior success in other platforms. Right?

I'm returning to reading form in this forum, seems that (as usual) it's impossible to have a little ounce of criticism on anything. Enjoy whatever model the creators/developers decided to put on their games, we are in the videogame scene that we deserve, no doubt at all.

 

[Jman9]

Yeah, because giving for free on his website his games didn't affected at all the posterior success in other platforms. Right?

Not when he was still developing the game. When Ravager embarks on a console conquest, that's when your advice becomes applicable.

I'm returning to reading form in this forum, seems that (as usual) it's impossible to have a little ounce of criticism on anything.

I'm criticising you.

Enjoy whatever model the creators/developers decided to put on their games, we are in the videogame scene that we deserve, no doubt at all.

As I've already outlined, as far as I can see the other alternatives are objectively worse, right now. Perhaps try arguing your point instead of offering "I, random internet person, think it will be better for reasons unspecified/my gut feeling" and "They are asking for payment, oh no, this means they're double dipping. Second coming of the EA!".