Victory (Canceled) project video thumbnail
Replay with sound
Play with
$29,471 pledged of $700,000 goal
By Petroglyph
$29,471 pledged of $700,000 goal

Use this space to cheer the creator along, and talk to your fellow backers.

Have a question?

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Brandon on March 16, 2013

      It is very disappointing to me to hear that Victory isn't going to happen on Kickstarter. I'm glad though that you're talking with publishers about picking the game up... hopefully you'll be able to tell us something soon on that front. Best of luck with Victory, I know I'd love to be able to play it.

      If you do announce another UAW on Kickstarter, I'd be all over that! Hope to hear more from the talented people at Petroglyph soon!

    2. Mark Hollingsworth on March 16, 2013

      Great to hear about the publisher discussion.

      Best of luck with the game and I look forward to playing it down the track.

      Thank you for all your brillant work on End of Nations (one of my favourite games to date)

    3. Elfwyn on March 16, 2013

      Please don't let it get to you too much... I am patiently waiting for your next game.

    4. Missing avatar

      Avalonerkey on March 15, 2013

      Best of luck for the future. Look forward to more of your great games.

    5. Missing avatar

      Taziar on March 13, 2013

      "Special Order Packs are random packs of Special Orders that have a limited number of uses, once used they are gone. These are highlighted in our previous videos as the Artillery Barrage and Air Strike but also will include things like Speed Boosts to units, brief periods of time with extra damage or get the idea. They are cheap to buy and can be purchased pretty easily with the currency earned after each match while still saving for Unit Packs..."

      Limited use items that provide in game advantage for sale. In a Buy2Play MOBA game! Wow. Just Wow Sure, you can earn them in-game, at the expense of advancement, doesn't make it much better. I mentioned a 'repair' mechanism before that F2P games use to bleed money so you are motivated tol pay for a boost... This is their version, only far worse. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    6. Missing avatar

      Andy Williams on March 12, 2013

      I have taken my backing out of this game because after you explained the microtransactions i am almost certain that this game will not be balanced. If a user who isn't buying anything and is of the same skill level as the other person play against each other, one has got unit boosts on each of his units, whilst the other player can't afford to use boosts as he is trying to build his unit roster, then essentially the battle is tipped in the player who has paided for the boosts. If you continue to build along these lines and make it a F2P title this game will be labelled Pay to win. Company of heroes Online had the same problem, it tried to sell boosts and units and ended up being an unbalanced mess that got shut down. This game has an identity crisis, it doesn't know what it wants to be, is it Pay to win or will it be a balanced pay once RTS? At the moment it is certainly a pay to win model that will not attract much attention from RTS gamers. I love the concept of this game but the payment model seems to be getting in the way.

    7. Andrew McDermott on March 12, 2013

      A F2P game that got funding through KS:

      With Victory It seems to have good a pedigree but the pricing model feels outdated and the lack of a single-player game leaves a fan of the campaigns in the games pictured on the front page feeling disappointed.

      Are there any plans for a single player experience later and how much would a subscription be for the current model?

    8. Missing avatar

      Taziar on March 12, 2013

      Mark, yes it is quite similar model to the FREE2play game End of Nations. But this game is PAY2play. (see the difference?) Also, EoN is actually still being made by Trion, and not asking for Kickstarter funding of their cash cow.

      Regardless, it is all academic. Kickstarter is not the right fit for this project with its current model. How else do you explain a known developer with actual game footage to show, ending up with $500 LESS than they had three days ago?

    9. Petroglyph Creator
      on March 12, 2013

      Thanks Brandon! We were just about to mention it :). All the feedback has been great so far, we really appreciate it. Here is a direct link to the article:

    10. Brandon on March 12, 2013

      @Mark, they just did an update about their micro transactions. Check the updates tab. It seems similar to End of Nations, but like most things it seems designed a bit better. They obviously learned a lot from doing EON. :)

    11. Mark Hollingsworth on March 12, 2013

      Hmm dont think I can edit my comment.

      I was just going to say it looks like they are doing similiar to end of nations but adding more strategic elements (like more rear dmg). And from what others have said they have been taking feedback on board board for victory and previously end of nation feedback.

      Lets give them a chance. This is only the first build. $700,000 is going to be tough though in 23 days. I dont get why some companies put such high targets as its all or nothing...
      Fingers crossed

    12. Mark Hollingsworth on March 12, 2013

      @Derek, arent th microtransactions similiar to what End of Nations was doing / planning to do?

      I hope more people back these guys. One step closer to playing me belovet end of nations (even if its through living vicariously through victory)

    13. Missing avatar

      Taziar on March 12, 2013

      People are somewhat more tolerant of micro-transactions in F2P games, but there is one major flaw in that plan. I seriously doubt anyone could get a F2P game funded on Kickstarter, as they cannot offer the game as a reward. Not many people are going to pledge just for the promise for Gold Bars, Space Diamonds, GlyphBucks, or whatever they choose to call their made-up currency.

      They really have two choices, drop micro-transactions, or seek a more traditional publisher financing model.

    14. Brandon on March 12, 2013

      @Nick we have slightly different opinions about microtransactions. I'm neither appalled nor suspicious of Petroglyph. If you noticed, they're going to be posting an update about the microtransaction system, possibly (hopefully) today.

      I played in the End of Nations beta tests and have seen that incarnation of the ingame economy. In that game, I saw Trion and Petroglyph tinker with unit costs and economy generation across the 4 beta tests, and felt pretty confident that they were narrowing on a place where economy generation from playing matches was going to be enough that free players were able to still do what they wanted.

      Also, the Ohmwrecker footage strongly implied that purchasing the game would give players ingame resources (my assumption would be that it would work something like Battleforge, where purchasing a box copy gave you the cover price's value in ingame currency).

      @Chris I do like your suggestions.

      Of course this could all be moot depending on what the Petro announcement is.

    15. Nick M on March 12, 2013

      @Chris: They could also easily achieve viability by doing the opposite as well, make the game like the old Command & Conquer games where you buy the game and can play it forever and not have to worry about microtransactions. Also there are these things called demos where players can try a game without having to pay anything, they don't need to go so called "f2p" to achieve that I imagine.

    16. Nick M on March 12, 2013

      @Brandon: I wasn't really worrying about which domain came up with microtransactions first so the time directionality of my statement should be ignored as my main point was that trading card/tabletop games and video games with microtransactions are similar to one another in their monetization scheme.

      If you had read my post you would also know that trading card/tabletop games differ from virtual video games in that the goods bought via "physical microtransactions" actually have worth in and of themselves whereas microtransaction goods in video games do no have intrinsic worth when independent of the game that gave rise to them.

      With respect to your idea of microtransactions "implemented carefully" I strongly believe that the devil is in the details. Since your recent reply implies some level of support for this transaction scheme, I'm appalled that you implicitly state that there is a need for "careful implementation", yet you don't seem at all suspicious (or just annoyed) that Petroglyph has ignored your (and many others') questions about microtransactions in the last week?

      That said, To date there are only a handful microtransaction games "done right". Examples include:

      -Path of Exile by Grinding Gear Games
      -Awesomenauts by Ronimo Games
      -(unreleased and the jury is still out) Steam Bandits Outpost by Iocaine Studios

      There are probably more but the point is they are few in number and the commonality between all of them is that the microtransactions have *no* or infinitesimal effect on gameplay. It is hard to imagine that Victory's microtransaction scheme has *no* effect on gameplay, it's hard to even imagine how it might have an *infinitesimal* effect on gameplay.

    17. Chris on March 12, 2013

      A couple of suggestions from someone who doesn't hate Micro-Transactions:

      If your basing your revenue model off micro transactions then just go free to play. It can feel odd (almost like being ripped off) to a lot of people to both pay for a game and then need having micro transactions to feel competitive. Also, the free to play model allows people to try the game with no commitment so if you have a solid game it can really help it to take off.

      Also, instead of selling the unit packs outright sell them only for in game cash but offer in game boosts that increase the cash won in a match. Many people (not all) seem less resistant to boosting in game resource gain while there seems to be more backlash to selling items outright.

    18. Brandon on March 12, 2013

      @Nick "Frighteningly similar to video game microtransactions" eh? Don't you mean it the other way around? CCGs and tabletop games are likely one of the inspirations for video game microtransactions, and certainly not the reverse.

      Microtransactions have a place in online games. Not, I think, like Tungsten in Dead Space or the microtransactions you see in most browser RTS games, but I think a system like this if implemented carefully wouldn't necessarily be harmful to the game or its community. Though I'm sure you'll disagree with me on that point.

    19. Nick M on March 12, 2013

      @Dustin: lol, okay why don't you go get all those Magic The Gathering Online folks to come fund this game?

      As far as I'm concerned MTGO is a failure and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. The only reason why I'm okay with tabletop and card trading games which are also frighteningly similar to video game microtransaction systems because in the *physical* games you actually get *physical* items that you can keep *forever* (or as long as you can preserve them). This is not the case for Victory and most video games with microtransactions.

      It's also disturbing that Victory is online-only AND the servers are hosted by Petroglyph. This seriously kills the effective lifetime of the product. Unless Petroglyph can promise they'll keep their server up *forever*, it's just not worth trying to fund such a transient product.

    20. Petroglyph Creator
      on March 12, 2013

      Thanks Nick for sharing the Gamasutra article! We'll have an update about this soon.

    21. Dustin Weisser on March 12, 2013

      Too bad it doesn't look like this'll get funded. Love the idea of a strategy with CCG elements game. Too bad people are so burnt out on microtransactions they can't tell the difference between being milked and getting value. Nobody complains about MTGO having 'microtransactions'.

    22. Nick M on March 11, 2013 is a great read. Highly recommend reading the article and the comments by "James Sadler" and "Wendelin Reich" in particular.

    23. Chris on March 11, 2013

      The gameplay reminds me of the old game shattered galaxy but in a WW2 setting. Very fun from the looks of things.

    24. Carlos Enrique Uribe on March 11, 2013

      I think what went wrong is that many gamers are wary of microtransactions (I'm not against them as long as they don't allow people to "buy to win" but I think it can be implemented in such a way that it doesn't punish free players-this is extremely difficult to do though) but also because...they should have done a lot of the marketing before Kickstarter, not just during it. Get people excited for the game, open up Kickstarter, and build on pre-existing hype during Kickstarter.

      Toment isn't really a good place to look since it's a sequel to a beloved RPG. Victory is a brand new IP and very few people know about it.

    25. Missing avatar

      Dennis van der Wal on March 11, 2013

      Sure, but what I really think needs to happen is that you get back to the drawing board and analyse where things went wrong. Maybe even more importantly look at what made projects like Planetary Annihilation, Star Citizen and the still going Torment such a success. Maybe you can salvage this kickstarter yet, if not I really hope you guys try again, preferably with a more ambitious/crazy plan.

    26. Brandon on March 11, 2013

      Obviously, I'd love to!

    27. Petroglyph Creator
      on March 11, 2013

      Thanks Brandon for the blog posts, these are great! We really appreciate the feedback and insight.

      You point out well in the articles that our game is not an RTS, even though they are about those games. Victory is a team-based action strategy, a genre we're seeing as having a lot of growth potential right now.

      We'd love to hear more from the community on what excites you about Victory so far. Perhaps it's time we plan a Victory exclusive Reddit AMA! Anyone interested in participating in that?

    28. Brandon on March 11, 2013

      Don't know if it's kosher to share links on these comments (guess I'll find out?) but I've written a couple blog posts in support of Victory.


      I think the first one I posted is a bit more objective. I hope that someone out there might find this valuable.

      I'm not a big name blogger, but just like Elfwyn I really support Petroglyph and this unique vision for the type of game they want to create for us.

    29. Elfwyn on March 11, 2013

      Please do not be discouraged by the kickstarter outcome so far.

      I think you are a great games studio and you are able to deliver what you promise. Many including me have very fond memories of your past games and would like to see more of your works. Also there are countless ideas for strategy games unimplemented yet.

      I must admit, I am more into your Sci Fi games (Universe At War, Dune, Warhammer) but If you have a new vision for a game and want to try it on Kickstarter I will be supporting you again.

      Maybe ask yourself and your fans if that concept will be truly inspiring and therefor cause people to throw money your way.

      For my part, I do not mind micro-transactions, IF the game is truly one of a kind.
      Look at Star Citizen for an example - I forgave them as did many others.
      On the other hand there should be lots of ways to make money from fans, without resorting to that

    30. Tom Sterkenburg on March 11, 2013

      If frank klepacki is in it, you have my support

    31. Missing avatar

      Luke Bainbridge on March 9, 2013

      Oh, Petroglyph I thought you guy's were beyond micro-transactions you CANNOT put micro-transactions into a strategy game... Even a Quick customizable one, when I first saw this I was excited now that I see...
      Micro-transactions Come on guys I thought we were mature.

      P.S. The game still looks beautiful It's just the micro-transactions That really upset me.

    32. Missing avatar

      Luke Bainbridge on March 9, 2013

      Just signed on for $25 Really want to see this game

    33. Missing avatar

      Taziar on March 8, 2013

      1. You sell XP and wealth boosts. When companies include this in their game, they always design the standard XP/Wealth progression to feel tedious, as motivation to purchase a boost. (You will deny this, but you are either lying to us or yourself)
      2. You are selling units (both rare and ultra-rare). If someone without those units can be matched against someone with those units, the game has P2W elements. It doesn't matter if they can be earned eventually. A person would be at a disadvantage for not buying them, until they grind enough to earn them. Planetside 2 is a punishing example of this.
      3. Exclusive tiered Kickstarter in-game items are generally not well received. It is exclusionary and in bad taste. Dreamfall lost backers for having exclusive outfits, and you brazenly offer Hero vehicles, presumably with different specs.
      4. League of Legends is a F2P game. You are selling a B2P game.
      5. This is Kickstarter, where we fund innovation. Your business model is like countless mediocre games available on Steam today (many even free). Your game is not all that unique either, basically sounds like a WWII reskin of the game you were making for Trion, which they are still going to release. Not necessarily a bad thing, I would still like to see your vision of the game without their interference, but not with micro-transactions. Just not worth investing in.
      6. Disagree, Deny, or Justify, it doesn't matter. Without a change, this project will not get funded.

    34. Brandon on March 8, 2013

      Here's another question... How much, if any, more powerful will "rare" units and powers be? In DotA, rare skins are just... Harder to come by. I mean, they tend to look a little cooler, sure, but they don't have any more impact on a game than common items.

      Will rare content be like that in Victory, or will paying players, who have more rares, have a higher chance of having the most powerful units and abilities?

      Btw, I may be alone in this, but I really like the idea of a more tactical game that functions like a tabletop wargame (eg Warhammer). I think there's room in the market for RTS games or tactics games that don't feature base building, and let you build up a unique army or armies over time. :) That's why I backed thus project!

    35. Missing avatar

      Jeff Pinard on March 8, 2013

      I love you guys as a company, and don't understand the direction you've taken. I wish you'd go back to your roots and do a new Dune 2. The actual rights to do the game would be too expensive but you could do your own take on it. Dune 2 is still my favorite RTS of all time. Having the story evolve with all 3 families, the music, and the voice-overs, the families. It was so perfect in every way.

    36. Nick M on March 8, 2013

      1) If players spend money on micotransactions how *much* of an advantage will they be able to accrue? How many more units and skills might they have compared to normal players? Will they have a larger proportion of rare/powerful units compared to normal players? It just seems really bizarre to have *both* an initial fee just to play the game (so all players have to pay) but also have microtransactions...

      2) Will you be allowing players to host their own multiplayer servers then? If not... I would highly highly recommend you just remove any mention of DRM and just say this is an mmorts.. either way if there's no single player mode or user player hosting I and I imagine most others won't be dropping money...

    37. Petroglyph Creator
      on March 8, 2013

      Hey guys. I see there are a lot of concerns about the microtransaction side of the game. I wanted to clarify that we're designing things so that you'll be able to earn all the content you want in game without spending money very easily. We expect almost all players to get most of their units without spending any real money, but we did want to give people the option. The closest equivalent to our philosophy out there is League of Legends, where most players don't spend money on champions and simply earn them through gameplay, and suffer no disadvantage. Paying players may be able to get more options slightly faster, but they won't have any power advantage compared to people who choose not to pay.

      Also, regarding the "DRM". When we say we have no DRM, that's because we don't have anything built into the game as copyright protection. We are an online only game, but that's because the version we're proposing here lacks a single player. If we were to allow you to start the game offline, there would be nothing for you to do, as there would be no players to play against. That isn't quite the same as preventing people from playing an otherwise functional game because of some DRM system.

    38. Nick M on March 8, 2013

      @Charles: What pisses me off most about the micro transactions in "Victory" is the fact that you're buying packs of random units. It's basically gambling with all the reprehensible baggage such as "whale consumers" who get addicted on buying more. For card trading type games, when you buy a pack at least you're getting something physical (and the costs are usually reasonable). So unless the packs in victory are also reasonably priced like 25-50 cents each it would totally be a rip off.

      It also ends up reeking of pay to get ahead which inevitably draws comparisons to pay to win. It's antithetical to the purpose of gaming in the first place...

    39. Missing avatar

      Charles Linburg on March 8, 2013

      I have to agree about microtransactions.

      I don't see them as greedy. I understand that games are very expensive to make.

      My issue with microtransactions is that I always feel like I'm playing at a disadvantage when I don't pay.

      It's kind of like, in an RPG, when you skip that sidequest even though you know it's going to give you rewards that will make you feel more powerful. You constantly think to yourself "maybe I should go back", "I should really go back there" and it eats at you. That's how I feel when I play a game with microtransactions.

    40. Nick M on March 8, 2013

      Just chiming in that I agree completely with the sentiments of Derek and Rolf W Jr.

      You guys are trying to Kickstart an online-only game that also has micro-transactions that can affect gameplay. Both of these so called "features" are a *HUGE* turnoff for me and I imagine others in the Kickstarter community. If you absolutely MUST do microtransactions then look to games like Path of Exile, Team Fortress 2, and DOTA to see it done right.

      Even if Victory is a great game (and turns out to be a great game) I can't look past the $700k goal in addition to the online-only form of DRM with micro-transactions. It just stinks of a "money grab" from Kickstarter backers. Also, it's not that people don't like RTS games, Planetary Annihilation is another example of a Kickstarter in the same genre "done right".

    41. Mark Hollingsworth on March 8, 2013

      Hmm is there anyway to decrease your target? $700,000 is a lot of money... Better to have a lower target and at least hit it?

      Seems a lot of people are a bit anti micro transaction... From my understanding you can buy the game and play it fine without microtransactions so maybe you should make that more obvious / clarify?

    42. Missing avatar

      Taziar on March 8, 2013

      I heard a project was coming from you guys, and came here to check it out and pledge. Honestly, I agree with Rolf. Online-only with micro-transactions? Bad idea. Personally, no thanks. If I wanted micro-transactions, p2p and exp boots, I would buy the crap publishers are pushing out. It is a horrible business model and has no place on Kickstarter.

      Considering it has been 3 days and you are < 3% funding I am not alone in my opinions. The game sounds like a WWII version of End of Nations which isn't bad from game play perspective, but the business model has to change. You have all the negative trappings of a F2P game, with the added 'bonus' of a cover charge. Micro-transactions don't belong on Kickstarter.

      This project will fail here, as is. You are better off canceling it, reworking your strategy, and offering a game without the nickel and diming 'features' introduced by modern publishers. The whole point of Kickstarter is for games that are different than what publishers offer.

      Good luck, I will eagerly await your second offering.

    43. Missing avatar

      Avalonerkey on March 8, 2013

      I hope this game gets funded as I have alot of respect for Peroglyph, esspecially their earlier games. Be nice if RTS made a come back. I sort of with this game was a spiritual successor to C&C, with base building and resource gathering. I get the feeling that the crowd funding for this game might have been alot more lively if it was branded as such. Chris Taylor sadly learnt this the hard way. Games like Torment (or even Planatary anialation to an extent) are all about nostalgia while games like this that are differnt dont seem to get as much interest. At anyrate best of luck geting this game funded. It looks fun like all Petroglyph's games.

    44. Brandon on March 7, 2013

      In future updates, I think it'd be neat to see more about heroes, other unit types, how booster packs will work, special orders and your other features :)

    45. Missing avatar

      Bryan DeGrendel on March 7, 2013

      As much as I love me some Petroglyph, wouldn't it make far more sense to have a Command & Conquer or even UaW spiritual sequel? I'd like to think 700k would be easy pickings for a Westwood-reincarnate RA2-like game. Funcom-reincarnate is easily hitting 1.5mil for a follow up to a fairly obscure late 90s point'n'click adventure and mid 2000s running simulator. C&C has a far larger fanbase, and it's much been far longer since we've had a 'real' C&C game.

      Still, intrigued to see how this turns out.

    46. Missing avatar

      Will on March 7, 2013

      From the FAQ:
      "There is no single player or offline mode in Victory."

      And then:
      " Victory is DRM Free."

      No, Victory is not DRM-free. It has online-only DRM. If you think that Victory is DRM-free, then you would also think that Diablo III and SimCity are DRM-free. As you can tell by the gaming headlines lately, the DRM scheme in both those games is really ticking people off.

      Honestly, I love Petroglyph and their games. I would like to play this one. But most gamers who back Kickstarter projects are looking for games that give them something they can't get elsewhere. You're pitching a strategy game that is online-only and has micro-transactions as a payment scheme, on top of the base price. That is not going to inspire a lot of people to support you.

      My guess is that nearly 100% of the backers are going to pledge purely based on your studio's history, as I did. But there's almost nothing in the game itself that would make someone think "I would love to see this get made," because it contains the same sorts of characteristics (the DRM and micro-transactions) that most gamers hate.

    47. Downie on March 7, 2013

      Looks good. Good luck guys.

    48. Brandon on March 7, 2013

      I really think this is a neat concept and hope it makes its funding goal... Let's see if they can get PC Gamer, IGN or another big site to post something about Victory. Maybe it'll get some more support then. Come on Petroglyph, you can do it!

    49. formerself on March 7, 2013

      I find it a bit odd that the game is named Victory, when the EA studio in charge of making the new C&C is called Victory Games (formerly BioWare Victory).

      I'd prefer to call this game "Mission Accomplished", read in EVA's voice. ;)

    50. Brian on March 7, 2013

      @Dan Allison They're limited because its a early bird special thing. So first 500 get it for 15$ then the next 10000 get it for 20$ then it's regular price.

Show older comments