funny thing is, I sincerely believe this stretch goal would enable them doing more of the core work instead of thinking about new fancy features to have a brand new stretch goal.
well I think it’s a valid point and his concerns (also regarding the high pledge) are justified, but I believe this would be even in his interest, given a second thought.
[Edit: messed up the quoting again. God damnit XD]
That’s not correct. I don’t want 3rd person because I think that it stretches the vision for this game so far. There is a reason why the best games I know only have a limit set of features and a very, very specific vision.
The reasoning behind this idea here is to make the game more mainstream, to appeal to more people aka “now we not only appeal to people who like 1st person but also to those who (only) like 3rd person”. But in my 20 years of gaming experience making a game too mainstream was never a good idea for the quality of the game. Concentrate on a few specific features and make them perfect.
I know that it’s appealing for Warhorse because they want to sell more copies. But as a gamer I oppose the idea. Not because I don’t like 3rd person (in fact, I prefer 3rd person in general…) but because I liked the original vision for this game and I don’t see enough benefit to change that on such a fundamental level.
I like the idea of a 1st person only game, maybe add mirrors and reflections so we can fix our hair.
That’s a really poor reason. So fuck Half Life 2 because it’s a FPS?
Sorry, but reality is that if you don’t enjoy a certain experience you just have skip and play something else.
And with FOV sliders motion sickness is just a minor issue for the far majority of customers.
Listening to the community is cool but only to a certain extend. In the end it should be the vision for the game that should decide and not the most vocal fans or even a vocal minority.
And I certainly don’t like that this is a stretch goal: if Warhorse really think that 3rd person benefits the game they should include it. I don’t see why a few hundred thousand dollars more should change a such fundamental gameplay feature.
Edit: 3rd person could also just be for mods. KCD will be moddable so you could just make it yourself. No need to put more work on Warhorse. If Warhorse has to make it it must be perfect (because people will judge on it) but if the fans make it nobody would care. Warhorse could concentrate on their core vision and everything else is up to the fans.
No one’s yelling.
Then don’t reply.
The info on Kickstarter said it was 1st person only and it was the time when they asked for money. As soon as the campaign was over, my money was gone. Do you understand that? So I had to trust what they told me throughout the campaign.
Motion sickness isn’t solved by simply playing a game in 3rd person.
Just change the FOV to better suit your needs and maybe change the distance between eyes and display. That’s a better cure.
Try to play The Evil Within without FOV and black bar fix, it’s disgusting, even it’s in 3rd person.
And as I wrote, mod tools will be available right from the start with the full release of the finished game. Modders would unlock 3rd person in a matter of minutes. But this way Warhorse wouldn’t have to bother with this nonsense.
Ok, next thing we need is multiplayer.
Just look at the threads. It’s in high demand.
Then start to respect my opinion for a change?
This thread, this forum is there so I can state my opinion.
You forgot building houses, marrying wives and becoming a duke who rules the land… 
Frist: thanks for reasonable explanation.
I just dont think this is that big step to be that kind of mainstream, really. It is just an option that doesnt have to affect you entirely. And it doesnt spoil focus on making game perfect in any way.
Or does it?
Isn’t the sudden change from 1st person to 3rd person if you enter a building the anti-thesis of immersion?
I mean, what’s the reasoning behind this? I think both perspectives can be immersive but a wild mixture that you cannot avoid (at least if you play in 3r person on the outside)? That’s really weird imo. It’s like some sort of identity crisis…
Honestly, let modders do the job. Give them all the tools to do so quickly and easily but concentrate on your vision and core features. Make that perfect first.
Also: Begetting children, fleece sheep, till the fields and build your own castle with wood and rocks you collect in the forest.
We need more polls. 
at what point didn’t i respect it? you’re absolutely entitled dude. i gave my opinion. and you can’t deny that you are in the minority of players who are so adamant about it. yes, they kickstarted the game with the appeal of 1st person. and if they make that game, and can add a 3PV that doesn’t change that, how did they lie to you?
also, multiplayer is not off the table fyi. go back and watch the livestream. MMO is off the table, and they’re not stupid enough to attempt that i can guarantee that. but Dan has stated that he’d love to see co-op in there but it would be difficult and not sure if they could do it. but it has never been off the table. there have been no explicit contracts that say these things. you are highly invested, as am I (monetarily and mentally), and i welcome the discussion, but please don’t jump to the conclusion that the game has suddenly been changed completely. because it hasn’t. read Dan’s posts. PM him if you need to discuss things in detail to find out what’s going on. there are other ways to find out what you need, other ways to go about voicing your opinion than saying you were betrayed. because you weren’t. and what’s hilarious is I don’t particularly want 3PV, i would not use it, but also if it’s an option and doesn’t effect the main progress of the game (which Dan/Team has assured us it won’t) then i can’t see the problem. i have money invested in this as well but i also understand that my money can be used for whatever because this is crowd funding, there is no contract between me and WH other than “take my money, please make a good game that comes close to the goals you’ve set out.” they are free to change design and anything else and i can’t really complain because i know the nature of this.
and i apologize for the comment “stopped listening to you”. that was snarky and uncalled for and i do truly welcome the discussion.
Now this, is quite histerical.
These are actual things people demanded.
I know, I read this forum a 20 times a day 
. Still… you dont see any differences? Reallly?
While I would predominantly play the game in 1st person, a 3rd person camera would be a great addition, especially for screenshots.
Well, not naturally but the danger is there. As I’ve said if my gaming experience told me one thing than it is that spreading too thin and offering too much often results in plain mediocrity.
For the subject itself I see various problems. For example there is the issue with balancing/difficulty and how to implement combat gameplay for two perspectives: How do you balance a game that is based on physics-based combat (at least to a certain extend) if players can choose between two different perspectives. In 3rd person you have a way better view on not only your direct opponent but also your environment. Evading blows is easier and countering his moves is easier as well. That’s a direct result of you as a player having a bigger overview over the battlefield. But on the same time you probably see less subtle movements of your direct opponent because he is “too far away” (e.g. you probably don’t see much of his face if you are located a few meters behind your own character…) from you point of view in 3rd person. So how do you cope with that? Well, there is no good solution to that and that’s the core point of my critique. If you make everything to make balancing and difficulty and gameplay accessible for both perspectives you “water down” each of them to also work for the other properly. Or you make gameplay different for each perspective which is a whole lot of extra work and easily results in one being significantly better than the other (and in pointless complaints and bad reviews because some people will play with the “weaker” perspective).
And what about archery? I think there is little to argue that shooting in 1st person is different than shooting in 3rd person. That’s even a bigger issue than with slashing with melee weapons…
For screenshots we need just some commands for the console:
And I prefer my character to not be visible in my screenshots.
If I want to take just some shots of the landscape, for example.
I have an actual suggestion/solution for that: offering a pause mode in which you can zoom out and rotate camera and probably hide HUD. But it only works in pause mode and not in motion, so gameplay isn’t affected at all. That would be an addition I would very much welcome myself, not only for screenshots but also for just admiring my fancy armor and stuff. No need to possibly water down gameplay to reach that though.
Edit: ninja’d by @Cerberus
I totally understand where @Cerberus and @LordCrash are coming from, and to give my opinion on that I wouldn’t even bother with FOV sliders. Seriously, if you can’t handle how a game looks don’t f***ing play it. I’d rather have the next 10 stretch goals being improving performance, AI, quests and stuff, but then there are people who demand more stuff as they clearly helped financing by adding their lousy 100 bucks. Surely it’s a lot for a game but nothing if you have to develop it.
But if you can add features you happen to add for development anyways why not make this a goal? I think we should also think a little bit about things that would help @warhorse to sell more copies, I don’t mean like selling out the idea, but if they can add stuff that doesn’t affect the general idea, helps them to finance the game and/or more games (also it’s not charity, they should earn quite a bit for that) wouldn’t that be even more valuable for us all?
Also the argument:
Why is that a problem in a single player game? Are you worried someone on the internet could have less trouble playing it then you (and I) do in first person? Who cares about balancing?
Also:
lol he said multiplayer 
Well, that’s a risky and not really correct assumption given the fact that less than 0.1% of the kickstarter backers even voted here. And then only 28% so far stated that they really like the idea while almost the same percentage of people (26%) stated that they hated the idea. The rest is more or less indifferent about the idea although the majority prefers to play KCD in first person.
Here’s why FOV sliders and other options are important for PC games:
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-features-pc-gamers-wantan-open-letter-to-developers-and-gamers/?page=2
Main points regarding FOV and resolution:
Everybody (PC gamers) has another screen size and/or aspect ratio, so customization in that regard is important. Whereas on console you play via a 16:9 TV and sit far away. No problem with FOV there. But I, for example, sit in front of a 30" monitor and trust me, to play with low FOV is no fun at all. There were many games where I had to quit and wait for a fix (e.g. flawless widescreen) because it was unplayable without the ability to change the FOV to my likings.
I don’t think we need more stuff.
