Yep, I agree. Maybe it helps to have people actually think before they click some stuff..
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kickstarter abuse? after collecting $300k ($50k goal) dev opens another ks for $1m
- Thread starter nickcv
- Start date
Yep, I agree. Maybe it helps to have people actually think before they click some stuff..
Moly will never get my money, but a small part of me will always be pulling for him. I thought the Braben one was very shady, but other people seem to be into it. So I was on the verge of wanting it to fail, but have pulled away.
Personally, I hit my limit on what games I would support months ago. These games need to start showing up before I'll put any more money into the pool.
NemesisPrime
Banned
Release 2016??? Lol?
scytheavatar
Member
And how the heck do you know that it's something you really wanted to play? Even if it's by developers with a good track record most of the time you are funding based on nothing but their reputation. Which is fine if you have tremedous faith in their track record, but here people are funding an MMO project made by a group with no track record at computer games and are just being supported based on their reputation with a tabletop RPG.
Eh, I don't know. I'd support a believable plan more than how famous the person kickstarting is.
You should remove the sarcasm because yeah, one year is still allot of time shaved off for only one million dollars.
How do you know if it's something you want to play? Seriously?
How about looking at things like the genre, the concept for the game, the preliminary art, descriptions of game mechanics... Come on, man. It's not like you have no idea what sort of projects are in development based on the descriptions.
witchedwiz
Member
and this nails it...
i don't really like the kickstarter exacltly for this reason..
say you develop a game...
you have a producer that invests in you, he gets part of the dough, you get the rest, so say after all expenses are covered 40% of the net goes to the publisher, rest to the team..
you get gamers to invest into your project, and basically you get after all expense are covered 100% of the net gain..
Basically gamers become a ZERO RETURN investors for the game development...
whilst in the normal development lifecycle a producer invest and get the return, while gamers are just the end-chain source of money (you decide later to buy or not to buy a game, depending on the demo and similar stuff.. in-game trailer/vids, etc)..
For kickstarter.. well you get the names involved, a concept art, some description and that's that, you are asked to contribute.. Sure you say yourself "big names are involved" or "the project seems interesting", but in the end you're being nothing short of a producer saying "hey dudes i like your work, so i'll pay upfront and ask nothing save 'publish the game sooner or later'"..
Personally i don't like how widespread the kickstarter phenomena is growing, but then again if gamers are ok... Abusing kickstarter for my will sooner or later make it a phenomena as bad as the (now) abused dlc...
Some will accept/like it anyway, some won't...
GazzaScotland
Member
"Release Target: 2016"
I would be hoping people don't touch this with a barge pole.
I would be hoping people don't touch this with a barge pole.
This is a reasonable concern.
Okay, so let's follow this through. Let's say I am a fan of Space Sims, Point and Click Adventures, and Isometric RPGs. The major publishers have consistently failed to provide even a single game in any of these genres for over half a decade.
How would you recommend I go about finding games I like? That's an honest question.
and i have nothing against the first ks... the problem is the second one... they alredy have investors and publishers.
scytheavatar
Member
And how do you know those developers will deliver what that is promised? You do realize game development involves much more than what you write on paper, do you? If I am a invester of a project, I would like not at what your plans are but at whether or not you have the capability to fuifil your plans. That's how Sierra funded Valve for Half Life 1 years ago, they looked not at what Gabe was promising for his game but at what his setup looked like and they found themselves extremely impressed by how well run Valve was for a startup.
Kickstarter is not investing. It's kickstarting at your own risk.
So if the market's not giving me the kinds of games I want, and there's a Kickstarter for a game that I'm interested in that wouldn't otherwise exist, my logical response to this should be to ignore it, stop buying games altogether because the big publishers don't have me covered, and walk away from gaming entirely? WTF?
That might be vaguely relevant as a response to me if I was addressing this particular Kickstarter specifically, but I'm not. Personally, I couldn't care less about this one. I'm sure some of them are exploitative. What I'm taking issue with is people writing off the entire Kickstarter model as a 'scam'. I mean, clearly having major publishers controlling the purse strings is fostering greater diversity and creativity in game design than we'd have otherwise, right?
Unless you are, or aspire to be, a shareholder in one of the big pubs, I can't see why you'd want the current model to continue to reign unchallenged.
witchedwiz
Member
issue is, without a board or something/someone they must accout to, there's no control at all..
it's not that i think that they are inherently wrong, but i think that abusing kickstarters will transform them in a sort of low-risk-choice for any developer..
Inherently speaking from a pragamatic viewpoint the kickstarter could be seen like this:
If I, buyer, via an initial investment share the risk of financing a game that i don't know how will turn out, thus enacting the role of a publisher/investor, I should be entitled to the same "freebie" of an investor, aka a possible return..
And no, in the book of money, a "digital collection editor" (aka a high res pdf...) doesn't count as a freebie worth mentioning.. nor does an in-game dlc..
If we want to consider things from a gamer viewpoint, most games nowday can be bought for bomba price (aka sub 20£) about 3 max 4 months after they're out...
yet I have to pay the same price for a game at launch, possibly good i won't say anything about that, BEFORE the game being out, without any sort of hard proof of the quality of the game save some sweet words..
It could be feasible for some developers with a LONG standing history, but for a lot of indie developers.. I can't really forsee that as desirable...
I agree with Kickstarter skeptics that Kickstarter has downsides. It also has upsides. Here is the list of major pros and cons as I see it:
Pros:
- More direct discussion between the developers and the consumer
- Ability to fund games and genres which get little support from major publishers
Cons:
- Need to pay up front long before product is delivered
- End product may actually never be delivered
- End product may be substantially different than what was originally advertised
There are smaller issues, but those, I think, are the major points. I believe many of those who distrust or dislike kickstarter are people who aren't really interested in most of the dormant genres (things like Space Sims, Point and Click adventures, and Isometric, party based RPGs) so that "pro" is essentially meaningless to them. If you take that out of the equation, the list of "pros" becomes very short and the list of Cons seems overwhelmingly significant in comparison.
So yes, if you are a person who is satisfied with what EA/Ubisoft/Take 2/Activision are providing you, and don't particularly care about dialogue with the developer, then obviously Kickstarter is a bad thing, as those are basically the two best things about the idea. I don't think any reasonable person is denying the potential dangers of Kickstarter, just that some people consider those dangers worth it because their other option is to have no games whatsoever in the genres they care about.
Pros:
- More direct discussion between the developers and the consumer
- Ability to fund games and genres which get little support from major publishers
Cons:
- Need to pay up front long before product is delivered
- End product may actually never be delivered
- End product may be substantially different than what was originally advertised
There are smaller issues, but those, I think, are the major points. I believe many of those who distrust or dislike kickstarter are people who aren't really interested in most of the dormant genres (things like Space Sims, Point and Click adventures, and Isometric, party based RPGs) so that "pro" is essentially meaningless to them. If you take that out of the equation, the list of "pros" becomes very short and the list of Cons seems overwhelmingly significant in comparison.
So yes, if you are a person who is satisfied with what EA/Ubisoft/Take 2/Activision are providing you, and don't particularly care about dialogue with the developer, then obviously Kickstarter is a bad thing, as those are basically the two best things about the idea. I don't think any reasonable person is denying the potential dangers of Kickstarter, just that some people consider those dangers worth it because their other option is to have no games whatsoever in the genres they care about.
I get the downsides of Kickstarter. But you really did not answer my question, so I'll ask it again:
Let's say I'm a fan of space sims, point and click adventures, and isometric rpgs. Virtually zero games are being made by major publishers in any of these genres. Space sims, at least, have seen virtually no games at all, whether from a major or a small publisher, in the last 5-6 years.
How would you recommend I get the games I want, if not through kickstarter? Do you have a better method? Or do you just say, "too bad, no games for you?"
Chuck Norris
Banned
You must be joking
It's a huge risk any time a indie developer might burn their reputation. Doublefine has to deliver on Adventure if they're ever going back to the kickstarter well again, and if it fails it'll hamstrung them even approaching publishers. One of the big reasons no one would let Free Radical make Timesplitters 4 was because Haze was such a disaster. If Obsidian doesn't deliver on the RPG that people believe is their ideal project they are done. They might exist as a developer taking scraps from publishers, but the reputation with fans that's been one of the main reasons they're still around would be gone.
There are shit projects where the people don't care, but just glancing at their kickstarter makes that very clear, and nearly all of these fail anyway.
Haunted
Member
This is how I see it.
I'm surprised it had as much success as it did, 300k for a tech demo, damn. Sounds ridiculous to me.
I greatly disagree.
Sentenza
Member
Well, you're wrong.
If you care about some under-rapresented genres it's the best thing happened in this industry in years.
That doesn't mean you have to be a sucker and fund every single project around.
More in thread: I don't think what they are doing is particularly fishy in principle, just not appealing to me at all.
I'm not that much into MMOs, and I have even less faith in low budget ones.
Also, their tech demo looks terribly underwhelming.
ymoc
Member
Exactly. I couldn't agree more. I'm also thrilled by the revival of the space sim and isomentric RPG genre via Kickstarter and therefore hope the platform survives and thrives.
This isn't a creative project?
The high risk perception of this industry it´s the main factor for the disappearance of beloved genres, concepts and ways of doing games.
It´s a matter of wanting something that is not offered in other channels. Investors want to get money out of their inversions, KS backers want to get something they desire out of their inversions. Both have risks attached, but the concept it´s the same, it just a different exchange.
Pathfinder RPG has some seriously hardcore fans.
honestly i find this really odd... i've been playing countless pen & paper rpgs since i was 6 years old... and you cannot simply get the same feeling from a videogame... BG is great, but is nothing like playing an actual game of D&D...
i'm really surprised about so many people so intrigued about this project.
Sentenza
Member
Actually for a Baldur's Gate-like I would be damn intrigued as well.
It's the MMO part that makes me totally uninterested in the game.
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
they said them selves this 1 million isnt required it will just help speed the process up they arent scamming anyone they have said it will be coming this is just an extra for people who want to add and speed up things. at the end of the day this is someones choice.......
me too! and i totally agree with you, i don't see how can you pull it off in a mmo...
witchedwiz
Member
Depends on the role I have to answer as..
As a technical lead when considering the marketable value of new solution I have to consider "would the product be interesting?" "would it be inline with my company image?" "will it be easily marketable, or the marketing will have extracost?" "does it fit the current trend of interest?"
You won't like that, but when we have to consider investing manpower (or money in case of publishers) you REALLY have to factor in this stuff..
One failed product doesn't set a fail-streak, BUT a few bad decisions can really force you to downsize your staff, everyone goes mope-eyed, some ex-coworker complains about being layedoff under christmas and there goes the public view of your company starts to worsen, with your board of investor starting to dwell at your every step...
As a consumer starved for a genre i love I'd say "heck it's only 20-30$ for my passion!"...
So being with a feet in two shoes, I can't really condone the abuse of kickstarter while appreciating kickstarter done good...
I can't come with a solution for you opiate because it's a situation where i can't really see myself.. I'm an avid gamer, but i rarely use preorders (commercial equivalent of kickstarters or at least distant cousin) unless i REALLY get a strong impression from the game and i mean REALLY strong impression :/
they are also making the new backers believe that they will have any saying in project, which they won't because there's already a publisher/investor and his needs will always come first...
Frankie Williamson
Member
I love Pathfinder pen and paper products, they're an amazing company in that regard, but holy shit do I feel this MMO thing is a huge mistake. A major, insanely terrible mistake. I just hope it doesn't end up digging up a pit that Paizo can't get out of.
Yes, all of this makes sense, but I think it should be clear about who we're talking. This is about consumers -- the investors in Kickstarter projects -- as they are the ones taking on new risk.
In fact, project leads don't seem to take on any more risk with a Kickstarter than they do by pitching a game to a production company; in both cases, the project lead has to create the pitch, sell the pitch, and then make the game in a timely fashion. Am I missing something?
The real change is that the risks assumed by the producer (risk of failure / financial risk) is now taken on by the consumer.
This is the angle that everyone is coming from, because most people here are consumers.
So being with a feet in two shoes, I can't really condone the abuse of kickstarter while appreciating kickstarter done good...
Sure. Just keep in mind that the process you're talking about is not the one others are talking about here. If there were other Space Sims already out and already good, I doubt "Star Citizen" would have gotten nearly as much support as it did.
You can afford to wait out the preorder process because you know lots of games are coming in genres you like and you can decide which one you want when the time comes. For fans of games like "Star Citizen" the choices are 1) invest in star citizen now or 2) get absolutely no games like this at all, perhaps forever.
Just to make this clear, I'm actually not personally a fan of Space sims or Isometric RPGs. I'm only trying to explain the thought process behind Kickstarter backers for those who don't seem to think it's worth it.
I have not personally contributed to a single Kickstarter, but I certainly understand why people do it.
For those who have lots of games to choose from in the genres they happen to personally like, there is no reason to Kickstart anything because gigantic corporations are already spending billions of dollars to cater to your needs. You can simply wait for those games to be released, and pick which ones seem best once the critical and popular reviews are in.
But some genres and audiences are clearly being underserved, and their position simply isn't the same. For fans of many underserved genres, the alternative to Kickstarter is bupkiss, as far as I can tell. The alternative is "you get nothing, sucks to be you." Hopefully you can understand why such people would be much more willing to take on the possible risks of Kickstarter than people who are already being well served by the huge corporate publishers.
I have not personally contributed to a single Kickstarter, but I certainly understand why people do it.
For those who have lots of games to choose from in the genres they happen to personally like, there is no reason to Kickstart anything because gigantic corporations are already spending billions of dollars to cater to your needs. You can simply wait for those games to be released, and pick which ones seem best once the critical and popular reviews are in.
But some genres and audiences are clearly being underserved, and their position simply isn't the same. For fans of many underserved genres, the alternative to Kickstarter is bupkiss, as far as I can tell. The alternative is "you get nothing, sucks to be you." Hopefully you can understand why such people would be much more willing to take on the possible risks of Kickstarter than people who are already being well served by the huge corporate publishers.
Sentenza
Member
I really don't see any problems with KS. We can discuss the moral merits of some projects, but the decision on spending the money lies only on the backers. If people are willing to give money to a project, shady or not, let them do it. A project that doesn't end well won't give KS a bad name, it will give a bad name to the team/person that worked on that project.
I will gladly Kickstart a new Bela Tarr movie.
I will gladly Kickstart a new Bela Tarr movie.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Unless Kickstarter want their money pot to set fire to itself in a few years and leave nothing but ashes, they really need to get serious about policing this shit and soon; no more "oh but we're still making money!!" short sighted laissez-faire attitude.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
There are plenty of examples already.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
$100K already pledged? Fuck me...
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
What a scam
I think they could well decide to revise rules sooner rather than later. They already did a revision of rules for physical products a short while ago, but that didn't include videogames, presumably because they didn't want to cut off a huge growing revenue stream immediately. I guess we'll see what happens. Hopefully there are some changes before a funded project actually falls apart and makes everyone look bad.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Kickstarting - an interest free loan you never have to pay back.
All the people who donated to the first KS knew full well it was for a tech demo, not a finished game. They made all that very clear. That said I did not support it nor will I support it this time. They are asking too much from the fanbase and I was not impressed with the videos i've seen of the tech demo. Not one bit.
I really liked the pitch for Pathfinder Online. While this does make me nervous...
...This is basically how I feel. You always hold the power not to contribute. KS may need some policy updates to prevent people from abusing the model, but the blame still lies on the individual project starters and not the basic idea of crowdfunding. A high profile failure to deliver is also unlikely to destroy KS like many want it to, as all but the largest projects tend to be focused on a small enough audience that they're insulated from the kind of super-FUD some think will surely mean the end of all Kickstarters for everyone, everywhere, forever.
...This is basically how I feel. You always hold the power not to contribute. KS may need some policy updates to prevent people from abusing the model, but the blame still lies on the individual project starters and not the basic idea of crowdfunding. A high profile failure to deliver is also unlikely to destroy KS like many want it to, as all but the largest projects tend to be focused on a small enough audience that they're insulated from the kind of super-FUD some think will surely mean the end of all Kickstarters for everyone, everywhere, forever.