N0mad and Monkey had a minor disagreement about the point of the "11th hour land grab" feature, where the former suggested that it's a good example of how cr always picks the hard way in development terms, adding complexity for no good reason and thus backing himself into a development corner, and the latter claimed that the feature hasn't been thought out beyond what's needed for a cash grab.
Since I know that you goons abhor conflict of any sort, especially on Internet fora, I might harmonize your views and say that they are compatible.
The problem with just carving up a moon and selling it is that then they would have to implement the ownership system and deal with the backlash of selling an apparent in-game advantage. Plus, they'd be limited to selling virtual land they've already created.
By selling a stick, they can sell an unlimited number of promises, starting with the first, namely that they will make a 3rd model of a stick. But like the pretty pictures they are selling, the code to sell that stick is already there.
Then, once they decide on the stick, they write up a description of its function that implies the implementation of dozens of features more.
So their need to grab the cash has led them to plan things in the worst way.
Charles Dickens' writing was largely determined by his funding model (serialized publication), so is the content of most successful visual art. But a funding model without a viable development plan is neither art nor business.
I like the debates of how this will end. I'm having a hard time imagining some other outcome than waking up one morning
to locked doors and lawsuits.
