Support NeoGAF

[Margalis]

This is something that's struck me earlier with Kickstarter with stretch goals of varying levels of cost; the inability to voice an interest in one over another. There've been a few projects where there was a stretch goal I wanted at a high amount which wasn't met, when a smaller stretch goal I didn't very much care for was made.

The stretch goal is supposed to be a logical extension of the main goal, with the understanding that if you are genuinely working towards an actual project that more money means you can make the project even better. That works pretty well when you are creating something like a board game or an independent film or a video game.

It doesn't work here because there is no actual project. They are asking for money to produce the same thing they produce now.

Nonsense stretch goals are a good indicator that the project as a whole makes little sense. You can't have a stretch goal if you don't have a legit normal goal to begin with.

 

[mclem]

Why don't they just do some fucking like premium membership type of deal? Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot easier and not piss anyone off?

They could also do that, yes. They chose not to.

(That said, I don't think it'd be that much easier, because then they'd have to actually administrate the memberships. This way, everyone gets everything - whether or not they donated.)

 

[itsgreen]

Why don't they just do some fucking like premium membership type of deal? Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot easier and not piss anyone off?

Why would anyone be pissed off about this?

 

[daycru]

If anything, this create more skeptical eyes toward Child's Play. They're not above eating from troughs and charity is an easy hustle.

 

[Alvarius]

If anything, this create more skeptical eyes toward Child's Play. They're not above eating from troughs and charity is an easy hustle.

Wow. I didn't even think about that...

Jesus Christ.

 

[mclem]

The stretch goal is supposed to be a logical extension of the main goal, with the understanding that if you are genuinely working towards an actual project that more money means you can make the project even better. That works pretty well when you are creating something like a board game or an independent film or a video game.

It doesn't work here because there is no actual project. They are asking for money to produce the same thing they produce now.

As said: The actual project is 'funding Penny Arcade without a leaderboard ad in 2013'. That is a real, defined project. It is something that will require money to create; it has a definite product at the end of it. It's a real thing.

The fact that there are other ways that it could be funded is irrelevant. If that matters personally to you, that's okay; you don't need to fund this Kickstarter. There are people out there that feel that the alternative funding method is sufficiently negative that they would prefer this alternative. That's fine, too.

The further stretch goals are further implications of removing adverts. Removing the revenue source from promotional comics would allow them to instead use those manhours to produce spin-off comics; the lookouts and automata options; those, at least, do follow through as logical conclusions from the overarching theme.


Edit: There's one thing that's been percolating in the back of my mind at the moment that's starting to take shape: I've been musing about whether people have an issue with seeing *value* in manhours spent on digital product while they do see the value in physical product. This product feels like a ripoff because people don't inherently feel that creative works distributed in digital form take time and effort to create.

 

[Margalis]

As said: The actual project is 'funding Penny Arcade without a leaderboard ad in 2013'. That is a real, defined project. It is something that will require money to create; it has a definite product at the end of it. It's a real thing.

It does not in fact take any money to create, beyond how much money you have to pay for a guy to spend 5 minutes editing HTML. The amount of money it takes to remove an ad from a website is completely nominal.

If this qualifies as a legitimate KS project then "give me money so I can buy a salad tomorrow" also qualifies. Who knows, maybe fueled by that salad I can draw a cool comic! (No promises though!) And I am producing a real thing - a full stomach!

When you find yourself arguing that "buy me a salad" is a fine KS project it's probably time to rethink.

By the way that salad is going to cost $250,000, because if I eat it I lose my endorsement deal with Subway and I need to make up that revenue somehow!

The actual project is 'putting a salad in my stomach tomorrow'. That is a real, defined project. It is something that will require money to create; it has a definite product at the end of it. It's a real thing.

If anything a good salad costs more than editing some HTML. (I'm thinking spinach and goat cheese with black truffle - not cheap!)

 

[elektrixx]

I'd rather be a paid subscriber to their actual site. Let's not turn bloody Kickstarter into an annual subscription model.

[edit] I visited the site. I don't see any ads!

 

[electroshockwave]

So, what happens when the year is up? Do they do another kickstarter or just have a subscription/donation fund on their site like they should be doing now?

 

[Deleted member 10571]

So, what happens when the year is up? Do they do another kickstarter or just have a subscription/donation fund on their site like they should be doing now?

Another Kickstarter, it's somewhere in that one.

 

[plagiarize]

As said: The actual project is 'funding Penny Arcade without a leaderboard ad in 2013'. That is a real, defined project. It is something that will require money to create; it has a definite product at the end of it. It's a real thing.

The fact that there are other ways that it could be funded is irrelevant. If that matters personally to you, that's okay; you don't need to fund this Kickstarter. There are people out there that feel that the alternative funding method is sufficiently negative that they would prefer this alternative. That's fine, too.

The further stretch goals are further implications of removing adverts. Removing the revenue source from promotional comics would allow them to instead use those manhours to produce spin-off comics; the lookouts and automata options; those, at least, do follow through as logical conclusions from the overarching theme.


Edit: There's one thing that's been percolating in the back of my mind at the moment that's starting to take shape: I've been musing about whether people have an issue with seeing *value* in manhours spent on digital product while they do see the value in physical product. This product feels like a ripoff because people don't inherently feel that creative works distributed in digital form take time and effort to create.

well said. offering something on kickstarter that i'm not interested in isn't an insult to kickstarter or me. i don't go to the store and get mad at all the things i don't want to buy.

idle thumbs was a successful thing. then for certain reasons it went away. to bring it back they did a kickstarter because they wanted to be crowdfunded and thought there was enough interest. could they probably have come back through advertising? quite probably. but they didn't want to.

now, consider Penny Arcade. it is a web comic that is currently funded by advertising. they want to be a web comic funded by crowdfunding. webcomics are already appropriate on kickstarter, so Penny Arcade try to get their webcomic funded by kickstarter.

people go 'they're making us pay to take away an advert and to get retweeted! that's bullshit' and 'there's no product!' and i get that partly that comes from the way it's been pitched, but the *product* is a years worth of Penny Arcade and unless all web comics fail Kickstarters guidelines, this one doesn't.

Kickstarter isn't exclusively meant for things that can't be funded through normal means. it is an option for people that want to use it. don't get angry at Penny Arcade because Kickstarter isn't what you think it should be.

 

[Sloane]

Shouldn't be a Kickstarter if nothing's being kickstarted.

 

[Zalasta]

Hey, if people want to use their hard earned money from a job they may not enjoy to support these guys working in their dream job, that's their perogative.

 

[mclem]

It does not in fact take any money to create, beyond how much money you have to pay for a guy to spend 5 minutes editing HTML. The amount of money it takes to remove an ad from a website is completely nominal.

Um, wait. Do you actually think that the project is to adjust the HTML so the site has no ads? Because that's what you're arguing here. And it's not what the project is.

 

[IrishNinja]

If anything, this create more skeptical eyes toward Child's Play. They're not above eating from troughs and charity is an easy hustle.

was there skepticism about this prior? i'd assumed they were somewhat transparent about that cause, as it's seemed quite successful.

 

[jgminto]

Wait, I thought this was a joke. Wow. They are really doing this, huh? That's a little bit disgusting. Asking people to pay that much to simply remove ads from the website. If people care that much about ads why not provide a no ad premium account? This really seems to go against the whole idea of kickstarter. They are essentially asking the community to pay them for what they are doing right now when there is really no reason for the community to do that. Honestly, I expected more from the PA guys.

 

[rainking187]

I'm kind of surprised how much money they've raised already. The rewards all seem terrible to me, so I guess people are just throwing money at them for nothing? I also think the example of the main page without an ad looks significantly worse than the way it looks currently.

 

[Risible]

What I don't get is how a million clams is enough to fund them for a year. They must make mad merch money; otherwise, if a million is enough to cover salaries and operating costs that means working for PA would pay peanuts.

 

[jgminto]

What I don't get is how a million clams is enough to fund them for a year. They must make mad merch money; otherwise, if a million is enough to cover salaries and operating costs that means working for PA would pay peanuts.

I'd imagine they must make a sizeable amount from PAX.

 

[Margalis]

Um, wait. Do you actually think that the project is to adjust the HTML so the site has no ads? Because that's what you're arguing here. And it's not what the project is.

That is quite literally what the project is. The project is to remove one ad from one webpage. Doing that involves editing HTML. (Or maybe pressing a couple buttons on some content management system.)

The end result of the project is a website with slightly different HTML on one page.

Look at the before and after picture they provide. Is that $250,000 worth of work? No. It's $5 worth of work.

 

[jgminto]

That is quite literally what the project is. The project is to remove one ad from one webpage. Doing that involves editing HTML. (Or maybe pressing a couple buttons on some content management system.)

The end result of the project is a website with slightly different HTML on one page.

Look at the before and after picture they provide. Is that $250,000 worth of work? No. It's $5 worth of work.

Well no that's not just what it is. It's also removing all of their income from ad revenue and having the site become totally crowd sourced. I don't agree with it personally but the changing of code isn't really the point of the money.

 

[Coolwhip]

Well, in the end people are free to choose if they back this or not. I don't think Kickstarter should allow this on their website. But like others have pointed out, Kickstarter get's a cut. So they would have to have real solid morale to not allow it. Which apparantly they don't.

What I can't understand is anyone backing this. Why would you want a site mainly focused on a comic to be ad free? Who gives a damn? Instead of using kickstarter they should just ask for donations.

 

[Waku]

Reading the last few Kickstarter Threads these past few days...

GAF's overall relationship with Kickstarter's is really weird. I don't think there is another place with such kneejerk reactions and statements of moral outrage... while on the other hand loving some others to bits. Like a Hyper Bipolar Girldfriend... i don know, peoples reactions here seem just weird for the most part.

 

[Margalis]

Well no that's not just what it is. It's also removing all of their income from ad revenue and having the site become totally crowd sourced.

The base goal is the removal of a single ad.

Furthermore I don't think "becoming crowd sourced" makes sense as a KS goal, unless becoming crowd sourced explicitly leads to the creation of something that wouldn't otherwise exist. What is produced by "becoming crowd sourced"? That's just a state of being.

Maybe if they wanted to launch a comic with specific subject material that they can't launch now because advertisers would freak out that would make sense. But while they hint at that it isn't what they are offering. What they are offering is literally one fewer ads.

GAF's overall relationship with Kickstarter's is really weird. I don't think there is another place with such kneejerk reactions and statements of moral outrage.

Personally I like Kickstarter, I have friends who use it to fund films, and I was thinking about starting one myself to fund a game. (Which I still might do at some point maybe) What I don't like is people abusing Kickstarter and changing it from a website that helps you fund cool projects to a website that helps you collect money for any purpose imaginable.

It's pretty lame when you see kickstarter projects where people are going to rent movie equipment and lights and hire actors to make a film, or make full-color high-quality board games, or create entire video games from scratch, then you see a kickstarter which is removing an ad from a website...

I mean, let's say I want to fund a game via kickstarter. Should I ask for the amount of money it will take me to make that game, or should I ask for that plus the opportunity cost of becoming an investment banker instead of making that game? I'm going to say the former.

Penny Arcade is asking for opportunity-cost money.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

At first I was like 'WTF Penny Arcade doesn't need money'
But then I thought about this differently, they're providing a service for free, but asking its members to optionally pay for the sake of less/no advertising. Its like the PBS of the internet.

 

[Curufinwe]

well said.

No, it was destroyed in the very next post.

 

[mclem]

Look at the before and after picture they provide. Is that $250,000 worth of work? No. It's $5 worth of work.

It's $5 worth of work. It's $250,000 worth of advert.

I don't quite understand the business model you're proposing that would allow them to make that HTML change in isolation.


Edit: I'm actually a little sceptical about the worth being ascribed to that single advert, but I suspect part of it is also behind-the-scenes refusal of commissioned cartoons; that would in turn logically lead on to the Lookouts and Automata that are being offered.

 

[jgminto]

The base goal is the removal of a single ad.

Furthermore I don't think "becoming crowd sourced" makes sense as a KS goal, unless becoming crowd sourced explicitly leads to the creation of something that wouldn't otherwise exist. What is produced by "becoming crowed sourced"? That's just a state of being.

Maybe if they wanted to launch a comic with specific subject material that they can't launch now because advertisers would freak out that would make sense. But while they hint at that it isn't what they are offering. What they are offering is literally one fewer ads.

Well no. If they reach their $250K goal they will remove the main page ad but if they reach $1 mil they will remove all ads. And I do agree with you. This kickstarter really does nothing other than shift revenue over from companies advertising on the site to the community, which I really don't see the point in doing.

So yes they are trying to make PA commercial free, whether there is any point to that change other than the change itself remains to be seen.

 

[rainking187]

Personally I like Kickstarter, I have friends who use it to fund films, and I was thinking about starting one myself to fund a game. (Which I still might do at some point maybe) What I don't like is people abusing Kickstarter and changing it from a website that helps you fund cool projects to a website that helps you collect money for any purpose imaginable.

It's pretty lame when you see kickstarter projects where people are going to rent movie equipment and lights and hire actors to make a film, or make full-color high-quality board games, or create entire video games from scratch, then you see a kickstarter which is removing an ad from a website...

I mean, let's say I want to fund a game via kickstarter. Should I ask for the amount of money it will take me to make that game, or should I ask for that plus the opportunity cost of becoming an investment banker instead of making that game? I'm going to say the former.

Penny Arcade is asking for opportunity-cost money.

Agreed. There are tons of great projects on Kickstarter, and instead of backing some of them people are giving them money to remove a banner ad. Is anyone even bothered by it? I don't even really notice them anymore. It just seems ridiculous to ask for so much money to remove something that's basically insignificant.

 

[megalowho]

Where do you draw the line?

Double Fine's day-to-day operations were to make games with funding from publishers; now they're making a different game with funding from Kickstarter.

Penny Arcade's day-to-day operations were to make comics with funding from advertisers. Now they're hoping to make different comics with funding from Kickstarter.

I am not sure if you are a DFA backer, but they (specifically Greg Rice) have been very transparent regarding budgeting for their project and we have access to how the numbers break down. We can see exactly how the money is being spent. It's also a small team being supported, not the whole company. They are making a very specific game that would not have been greenlit without Kickstarter funding, there was no choice between a publisher or the fans.

Penny Arcade has viable options for how to support their website, and they will be successful regardless of how this does. No DFA Kickstarter, no niche point and click adventure from Double Fine. I think that's a fine place to draw the line.

 

[Jintor]

But it also seems ridiculous to get completely internet vitriol-up-in arms about it to me. If you don't want to support it, what do you lose by it existing?

 

[mclem]

Is anyone even bothered by it? I don't even really notice them anymore. It just seems ridiculous to ask for so much money to remove something that's basically insignificant.

Of course, that raises interesting questions in another direction: Are banner ads losing their potency, and will they therefore in turn reduce the revenue they pay out accordingly? That's going to cause issues for a lot of websites down the line if so.

 

[Margalis]

I wonder how people would feel if the next COD had a bunch of in-game ads for Sprite, then Activision launched a KS campaign to remove in-game ads from the following game. Seems like you'd almost have to support that if you support this.

That's my final word on this subject!

Except for this!:

But it also seems ridiculous to get completely internet vitriol-up-in arms about it to me. If you don't want to support it, what do you lose by it existing?

I suspect that KS is going to devolve into a site where people grub for money for the flimsiest of reasons, and what will be lost is a website where cool projects can get funding. That COD example above doesn't seem all that farfetched.

 

[Jintor]

Of course, that raises interesting questions in another direction: Are banner ads losing their potency, and will they therefore in turn reduce the revenue they pay out accordingly? That's going to cause issues for a lot of websites down the line if so.

They've always been far less value than print ads or television, probably because advertisers can more accurately measure their effectiveness (or at least their perceived effectiveness based on clickthroughs, which can't take into account stuff like brand awareness, etc). Marketing has always been a kind of weird bubble guesswork land of profit. You can see the problems already with traditional print trying to monetise online and stuffing it up royally. Part of the problem is the already set mindset, that the internet is free. It's a great concept for information provision, but it's really terrible for content creators attempting to charge for content. Advertising has always been the thing that allows creators to provide content for free, or close to it; PA's thing is an attempt to actively shift the onus back onto fans to directly allow the content to continue to be free. Will it work? Maybe. Will it work for every website? Incredibly doubtful. They're not really trying to prove that though, I guess.

 

[Noisepurge]

Why don't they just do some fucking like premium membership type of deal? Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot easier and not piss anyone off?

ScrewAttack did and i paid for it, good stuff. This seems silly, and there's only like 2 banners on the front page, thats nothing.

 

[David H Wong]

Of course, that raises interesting questions in another direction: Are banner ads losing their potency, and will they therefore in turn reduce the revenue they pay out accordingly? That's going to cause issues for a lot of websites down the line if so.

Welcome to 1998.

 

[MacGurcules]

I'm kind of surprised how much money they've raised already. The rewards all seem terrible to me, so I guess people are just throwing money at them for nothing?

I guess if that's the way you want to look at it, yeah. Some people are willing to pay to support something that they could otherwise get for free.

Why should anyone pay more than the minimum for the Humble Bundle? After all, the rest of that money doesn't get you anything. They do it because they think what they're getting is worth it and it's worth rewarding the people who did it. Some people get enough enjoyment out of Penny Arcade that they think it's worth spending money on even when they could get it all for nothing.

 

[Alvarius]

I'm kind of surprised how much money they've raised already. The rewards all seem terrible to me, so I guess people are just throwing money at them for nothing? I also think the example of the main page without an ad looks significantly worse than the way it looks currently.

They have a lot of fans who feel a personal connection to them. (Edit: Not me.)

 

[Shao Kahn Going Shopping]

But it also seems ridiculous to get completely internet vitriol-up-in arms about it to me. If you don't want to support it, what do you lose by it existing?

Because we have to convince others to take our stance.

 

[TunaMarshmallow]

I think that Penny Arcade *sucks*. I have *never* so much as smiled at one of their comics or jokes. When I attended PAX East, I *hated* it. I do not like their personalities. I watched the Kickstarter video and I found it *extremely annoying*. I really, really do not like anything about Penny Arcade.

But...

Why would anyone be mad about this?

 

[Sp3eD]

I'm surprised more people haven't asked where they got this arbitrary tiered pricing from. With no books to check how do we know that a million dollars won't keep their ad revenue alive for years in their current budget?

 

[electroshockwave]

The more I think about this and read the arguments against it the more surprised I am that it actually seems to be successful and people are defending it (apart from the internet law that some will always defend anything).

-Ads weren't an issue at all on PA, no more than they are on GAF. PA doesn't give any instances of where they were censored by advertisers or how this will give them new creative freedom with their work. If Jim Sterling hasn't had issues with advertisers then I don't see how they would as he's a lot more "offensive". So why the sudden need to change their business model? And through kickstarter of all things when the rewards and stretch goals they give in return are so shitty.
-This is not a finite project with an end. They're going to be back next year with another kickstarter. If whatever PA ends up getting from this doesn't stretch far enough and they had to bring back ads in some capacity to fund themselves before the year's end are they accountable to fraud? Maybe they've considered this and are requesting more than they need to be safe but that just falls into cash-grab territory.
-The goals are ridiculous. $250,000 to get rid of one banner? You still need an extra three quarters of a million for PA to actually go ad free. $550,000 for a 6 page Lookout strip that somehow Gabe wouldn't have been able to do with ads on the homepage?

This funding is in now way needed when PA already have a viable revenue stream. I don't see how anyone could argue that advertising was standing in the way of PA making a couple of six-page strips and a podcast.

 

[Row]

Any second now kickstarter will gain some integrity and shut it down

wait for it...

waiiiiiiit for it...

 

[megalowho]

-The goals are ridiculous. $250,000 to get rid of one banner? You still need an extra three quarters of a million for PA to actually go ad free. $550,000 for a 6 page Lookout strip that somehow Gabe wouldn't have been able to do with ads on the homepage?

The comic strip stuff I understand, since arguably they are replacing commissioned work for publishers (ad revenue?) with work for the fans. There is definitely a lack of hard financial data for a company looking to be funded by their audience, though.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Well done, Margalis. Kickstarter clearly lays out the criterion: existence or non-existence. http://www.usaprojects.org/project/fran The comics great Jim Woodring has a revenue stream that MUST pass when working on his project. "Funding his life" is within that organization's mission because the opportunity cost destroys the project and his life. It is the most efficient use of funds. Though Penny Arcade's additional projects would (supposedly) not exist without this fund, that could be allayed by hiring 1 dedicated marketing person. There are multiple, better avenues for achieving the goal, which means this really is lifestyle-funding, not project-creation.

 

[ultron87]

I wonder how people would feel if the next COD had a bunch of in-game ads for Sprite, then Activision launched a KS campaign to remove in-game ads from the following game. Seems like you'd almost have to support that if you support this.

That's my final word on this subject!

If Call of Duty was a product that was provided on the Internet entirely for free and was currently entirely supported by ads you might actually have a point here.

I think that Penny Arcade *sucks*. I have *never* so much as smiled at one of their comics or jokes. When I attended PAX East, I *hated* it. I do not like their personalities. I watched the Kickstarter video and I found it *extremely annoying*. I really, really do not like anything about Penny Arcade.

You hated PAX? How is such a thing even possible? It seems like there should be something there that almost anyone can enjoy.

 

[Klendathu Club Owner]

I'm kind of surprised how much money they've raised already. The rewards all seem terrible to me, so I guess people are just throwing money at them for nothing? I also think the example of the main page without an ad looks significantly worse than the way it looks currently.

I'm rather surprised that they haven't reached their goal already. I mean Penny Arcade is pretty well known and seems to have a lot of fans (although I don't visit their site). The brand is netting them the money and not the (non-existant) product.

 

[Shao Kahn Going Shopping]

I carried the bald dude's bags up a flight of stairs at PAX, he looked overwhelmed and needed help.

I think I got like a $1000 value from that, according to the backer rewards.

 

[diffusionx]

That is quite literally what the project is. The project is to remove one ad from one webpage. Doing that involves editing HTML. (Or maybe pressing a couple buttons on some content management system.)

The end result of the project is a website with slightly different HTML on one page.

Look at the before and after picture they provide. Is that $250,000 worth of work? No. It's $5 worth of work.

This is insanely wrong. It might be the most insanely wrong thing I've ever read on NeoGAF.

I'm not backing this project (or any other), but come on. That little space is worth $250,000 to whoever pays to advertise on it. That's kind how advertising works.

 

[Pociask]

If anything, this create more skeptical eyes toward Child's Play. They're not above eating from troughs and charity is an easy hustle.

That's a hell of an accusation to level at someone with no evidence whatsoever of that kind of activity.

I've followed Child's Play from the beginning, when it was just them and some warehouse space and I think a rented van stuffed to the gills with toys they deliver to hospitals. This was a project inspired by both helping sick kids and improving the public image of people who play video games (and presumably hang out on video game forums - you know, you.) Nowadays, of course, you get a big selection of children's hospitals with Amazon wish lists, which you then fulfill the gifts from. OR you can donate money to the charity, which is then distributed by the charity.

Why on earth would this make you skeptical of Child's Play (implying that they are in fact stealing charitable gifts intended for sick kids)? They are being extremely upfront about this Kickstarter. Right now they produce a comic, among other things, and employ 14 people. They depend upon website ad revenue. They'd prefer to depend directly upon their fans. If you're interested in that, donate some money, and maybe even get a reward. If not, don't.