Ground Branch Pledge
Watch the video, you know you want it. Pledge

Not looking good unfortunately .

3 days to go and only 1\4 way there.

I have not and will not pledge for Ground Branch. The reason for this is quite simple, because in my opinion at the end of the day Ground Branch is still just another shooter among the myriad of shooters already out there. Sure they want to go full realism, which i applaud, but lets face it playing the same maps over and over again no matter how randomized it is will get boring quite fast. The charm of lets say ArmA is that i can completley ignore the combat part and focus on, for example, flying people from A to B or maybe i help the team out with logistics. There is always something else to do besides fighting. Ground Branch does not offer me anything like this. It's the same old go in and kill the bad guys and then do it again.

Plus the community who wants to play serious shooters is already quite small. The community who wants to play under serious tactical game rules is even smaller. So the value of the multiplayer part is, due to the low player pool, already quite slim.

At the end of the day i have to ask myself, if i would enjoy this game long enough to justify a significant investment of my money and in the case of Ground Branch the answer is unfortunately no.

I do wish the developers all the best and i hope they find someone who invests in their project so that i might see the light of the world someday.

I didn't pledge for similar reasons to Rask above. I also don't believe the singleplayer part would be worth my time, assuming there even will be one.

I'm hoping one of the bigger companies adds some of the features to their own projects at some point.

A slightly more realistic Battlefield game or even additional ARMA features would suit me fine at this stage.

OK... thanks for what... not supporting? Not sure why you two had to share that with us, but this is a forum after all.



Too me, you obviously have no clue about shooters, action shooters, and tactical shooters with a uneducated statement like that.

Oh well, looks like the community has failed anywway... guess we can all go back to playing the CoD series, the BF series, the Counterstrike series, the MoH series, and the hundreds of clones... gone are the days of a true tactical shooter like AA, SWAT series, and OGR... really sad and disappointed.

I'm with you Magnum, I pledged but it seems like it fell through.

So sad.

High fidelity sims will go the way of Steel Beasts, pay a higher price for more realism.

The masses do not want hard, they don't want to read a manual. They want the cheat codes from day one and feel okay with themselves. Jesus we set an entire generation up for failure by giving them "participant awards".

I pledged and although it looks like it will not make it, I hope the devs can use the amount of interest shown and some of the feedback they received on SP to put together some future tweaked proposal with a chance to suceeed.

With ArmA2 the #1 selling game on Steam right now, and ArmA3 and Takedown due out next year, I think the death of the realistic shooter is HUGELY exaggerated. The genre is alive and kicking, arguably more so than ever before.

In my humble opinion, this campaign made a misstep in setting their sights so high. I presume the half-mil would fund much or most of their development costs. Takedown had a much smaller goal of $200,000 but clearly stated that their plan was to take that money to the bank and use it to demonstrate to potential investors that there is indeed a market for this kind of game.


And really, Takedown just barely squeaked by at $200,000. It didn't look like they were going to do it for a while - what makes anyone think Ground Branch could have doubled that? I have zero experience running a business let alone a game studio. But I hope the next Ground Branch campaign goes for a more attainable funding level, and shops around with that money to hook some VC and build a game.