• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Penny Arcade Kickstarter

Wow, just wow. Justification for these rewards, thisisneogaf.gif.

I am familar with reward tiers, but this takes the cake. Obviously people donate because they like the cause, not for rewards. It's a side bonus. But these rewards literally read as if they put 60 seconds of effort into them.

This isn't even about the rewards in the end though, its a bullshit campaign , I can't make anyone change their opinions this is just mine.

I think you started with your personal dislike of PA and then built an argument upon it. Some people will think that a retweet and a PA site without ads and a little freedom is worth the 500 bucks. Not to me, not to you, but to them it's a bit of fun and a way to invest in the thing they love.

Your frustration is disproportianate when applied to this particular campaign.
 
I think pursuing any viable option to ad-funding is something to consider if you care about the quality of your site. Don't see any reason to blame PA for this one. If it goes against the grain of Kickstarting then maybe the people running Kickstarter should have done something. They didn't, case closed.

Note: Not a PA fan myself.
 
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.

shouldn't it be a *new* product though? If its an existing product, then that would fall under 'funding day to day operations' which is against the terms of kickstarter.

Penny Arcade without ads is not a different product from Penny Arcade with ads

mclem, I don't think anyone is devaluing digital works - there are plenty of game based kickstarters. Its just the nature of this one feels against the terms (and spirit) of kickstarter and that's what's riling people.
 
If anything, this create more skeptical eyes toward Child's Play. They're not above eating from troughs and charity is an easy hustle.

I have ethical issues with Child's Play, but accusing the organization of skimming a little off the top has never been one of them.
 
My personal list of why I find this repugnant:

  • First, their project is likely in violation of Kickster's policies that say the service isn't to just fund day-to-day operating costs.
  • Even if it isn't, it's generally in poor taste. Kickstarter is designed to jumpstart businesses with an initial round of crowdsourced funding, or pay for a specific project through to completion that otherwise wouldn't happen. This is an attempt to take a successful business and crowdfund it, presumably because ad revenues are dropping or finding people willing to pay $250,000 a year for a banner ad is hard.
  • Their reasoning for this move is, at best, dumb ("Give us a million dollars so we can get rid of all those nasty ads for you!") and at worst not giving us the whole story. You don't move away from a consistent, stable $1,000,000 in ad revenue for crowdsourced funding (i.e., begging people on the internet) if there aren't some problems somewhere.
  • Their reward tiers are vastly overpriced. $15 for a post card. $100 for two digital copies of their old books, which is far more than the $20 they'd cost at retail with physical copies. $150 for a T-shirt with a snarky catchphrase on it.
  • Worse, their reward tiers paint the two as narcissistic egotists who vastly overvalue their own celebrity. For $500 you can buy a single retweet? For $300 they'll follow and ignore you on Twitter? For $5,000 you can arrange to come meet them at your expense? So many of these rewards circle around you getting to interact with these two divine beings (assuming you pay all travel and accommodation expenses, of course) that you wonder how they ever have time to complete their Good Works.
  • The tiers are insanely high given the awful rewards they're giving out. They're really hoping they can retweet and postcard their way to $1m for a product they admit won't suffer if you don't part with your money regardless?

The result is that the entire affair is a self-centered and arguably manipulative endeavor that misses the point of Kickstarter. At best it's an attempt to change business models (against Kickstarter policy) to cover general operating costs without explaining to people why this shift in funding is necessary ("ads r dumb" doesn't cut it). At worst it's an outright cashgrab.
Damn!

Anyway, let's not forget the most important thing. They have that funny video game comic, don't they?
 
Its just the nature of this one feels against the terms (and spirit) of kickstarter and that's what's riling people.

This I can get behind. Their use of Kickstarter was a PR mis-step, I guess. This campaign should have been something wholly announced and run through their main site.

Clutching on to the current Kickstarter groundswell is a little iffy.
 
shouldn't it be a *new* product though? If its an existing product, then that would fall under 'funding day to day operations' which is against the terms of kickstarter.

Penny Arcade without ads is not a different product from Penny Arcade with ads
well, it's going to be a years worth of new content. i mean, how long would they need to cease operations before starting up again for it to be seen like Idle Thumbs, say?

i'm only really trying to explain why Kickstarter themselves don't think this is against their rules. the money would be funding the production of 150+ web comics. it isn't open ended, because it's a years worth of content.

is there really any major difference between being a company about to go into business making a product deciding between various revenue streams and being a compnay in business doing the same thing?

if enough people want to put money into this thing, i don't lose out. on the few occasions over the next year when i check their website i don't see adverts. whether they bother me or not, i'm not losing out. the people that care enough to crowdfund penny arcade rather than having it paid for by corporations win. no one else loses.

i just never understand the 'how dare they ask for money' thing. this isn't like a bank begging to be bailed out. or someone looking for a government hand out. this is going 'hey, do enough of you feel strongly enough about our website to help us crowdfund part or all of it?'.
 
shouldn't it be a *new* product though? If its an existing product, then that would fall under 'funding day to day operations' which is against the terms of kickstarter.

Tammany Hall wasn't a 'new' product.

Penny Arcade without ads is not a different product from Penny Arcade with ads
I'd argue that it is. It is different in a way that's incredibly minor to many people, admittedly, but the difference is significant and important to some. One tangible difference: Penny Arcade with ads in 2013 might get us (say, as a random example) a Watch Dogs promotional comic; Penny Arcade without ads in 2013 will get us an Automata comic.

mclem, I don't think anyone is devaluing digital works - there are plenty of game based kickstarters. Its just the nature of this one feels against the terms (and spirit) of kickstarter and that's what's riling people.

I disagree, but I don't think I framed my argument particularly well - as I said, it was just the germ of an idea that I was struggling to articulate. It's along the lines of "not appreciating the value of digital works if it's possible to see a path by which you could legitimately (or indeed illegitimately in the case of many less scrupulous gamers!) get them for free". Even that's not quite what I'm trying to say, though. I'll muse on it further.
 
i just never understand the 'how dare they ask for money' thing. this isn't like a bank begging to be bailed out. or someone looking for a government hand out. this is going 'hey, do enough of you feel strongly enough about our website to help us crowdfund part or all of it?'.

Exactly. Content is going to be created as a result of this funding, for a defined amount of time. I don't think this is a slippery slope because I don't think bigger companies could draw the same kind of revenue that they require by switching to the same thing, but I'm interested to see how this could change thing.

Also, if they are funded, its a high-profile Kickstarter that will definitely succeed in meeting its goals, which can only be positive in building confidence in crowd-sourcing projects. What happens if Tim Schafer or inXile lays an egg?
 
What are these ethical reasons?

One of my reasons (and the most important) is that I'd rather have my charity money going towards the actual medical processes and research to fix people, instead of entertain them until they die.

I don't want to get any further into it, it's really my prerogative and if you want to discuss it further, PM or a different topic would be best.
 
Thinking about it more thoroughly, it does seem like a rip-off. They want us to pay them so that they provide less content? Whenever I found the editorial poorly written and thought the comic missed the mark, I at least had the ads to marvel at.
 
well, it's going to be a years worth of new content. i mean, how long would they need to cease operations before starting up again for it to be seen like Idle Thumbs, say?

Its a year's worth of continuation of the product they already have. We're getting close to semantics now though.


Tammany Hall wasn't a 'new' product.

It was a new physical reprint of an existing property. So I'd argue that it was new. Again, semantics though.
 
What are these ethical reasons?

aswWr.jpg


Edit: Scratch that, I crossed the line... Sorry if I stepped on any toes.
 
Its a year's worth of continuation of the product they already have. We're getting close to semantics now though.




It was a new physical reprint of an existing property. So I'd argue that it was new. Again, semantics though.

well, i'd say arguing against Kickstarter's interpretation of the rules that Kickstarter wrote based on whether or not PA is a 'product' is semantics in the first place, if you catch my drift.
 
They raised 3.5 million dollars last year to fix a first world problem. There are more impactful charities that the money should be going to.

wx5z1.png

How is providing entertainment and warmth and a sense of homeliness to kids a 'first world problem?' Most of these kids in hospitals are undergoing traumatic treatment and the chance to unwind and play video games is invaluable. Coupled with the fact many of these families are crippled with medical debt meaning they cannot provide simple pleasures to their kids?

I think you are being completely unfair here.
 
Its a year's worth of continuation of the product they already have. We're getting close to semantics now though.
How does that differ from Idle Thumbs? That was a continuation of something that already existed. So, for that matter, was Nuka Break Season 2. I assume Jane Jensen is intending for Pinkerton Road to be an annual event given the context of the initial pitch.

For fun: Try doing a search on Kickstarter for "Season". There's gonna be quite a few 'continuations of the product they already have' there.

It was a new physical reprint of an existing property. So I'd argue that it was new. Again, semantics though.

And "Penny Arcade 2013" is going to be a year of new comics. Heck, it's *creatively* new (okay, YMMV on that!), rather than just new manufacturing.


You're right that it's getting close to semantics, admittedly, but isn't the fact that it is getting close to semantics a sign that perhaps it's not that important a distinction?


Edit: On the Child's Play deviation, I'll just highlight one thing: It seems disingenuous to complain that a charity exists with a given goal on the grounds that other charities that you deem more deserving also exist. I'd broadly agree with your sentiment - which is why I apportion my charitable donations according to those beliefs, rather than objecting to the fact that others exist.
 
All the wrangling over "does this violate kickstarter's rules," which seems to happen for lots of different projects, says to me that it's more the fault of dumb kickstarter rules than bad projects. In many projects I see the "This can't be to keep the lights on" clause being referenced again and again, but any kind of large scale creative project, isn't that going to be part of it?

I mean, I understand it that rule if you are an established restaraunt, and you are trying to launch a food truck and need money for lawyers, permits, and hardware. A large scale creative endevour has small physical capitol costs, and large human capitol costs, if you want to make an indie game, distributed digitally over the internet, you don't need much cash for distributiuon or hardware, but you need people, and you need time from those people. By Kickstarters own rules then this would be disallowed, but kickstarter, and gamers seem to like those things, so they let them go on. That screams more "these rules suck" rather than people abusing the system. I think Kickstarter realizes this too, as they aren't nearly as pedantic about the rules as the community.
 
you don't get to tell people which charities to send their money to. i can see why you wouldn't like kickstarter if you believe something like that.

I think we're kind of confusing issues here.

I don't see kickstarter as chartiy. Its an oporunity to sponser a project that you want to see realized. Its like investing, but the return is not monetary.

PA kickstarter isn't really a kickstarter. Its a sponsor-a-thon. Its providing a service for free, but providing an oportunity for its patrons to pay (in hopes that they can become comepletely independant of advertising) like PBS.

Charity is Charity. Donating money for the less fortunate.

All these things can coexist. I give x amount of money to charity, but that doesn't stop me from spending my money on all sorts of other things, which may include sponsorships and kickstarters.
 
A small aside, thought of in my last lengthy post.

If this was pitched as "Donate to Penny Arcade: 2013 season", would that be *as* objectionable?
 
I don't get what Child's Play needs all its money for.

How about, instead of requsting money, they asked people to donate their old games and consoles?
 
Oh wow three whole months. I guess these kids should be looking up to you for how they should cope with their long-term illnesses.

Yeah man my medical issues are nothing. Thanks for clarifying. I'm grateful you took the time to let me know other people have it worse off than me.
 
I think we're kind of confusing issues here.

I don't see kickstarter as chartiy. Its an oporunity to sponser a project that you want to see realized. Its like investing, but the return is not monetary.
Kickstarter is technically patronage. I do not think it is charity. I was just making the point that if Chiablo doesn't think charity X should get money over charity Y that I can see why he wouldn't like Kickstarter.

PA kickstarter isn't really a kickstarter. Its a sponsor-a-thon. Its providing a service for free, but providing an oportunity for its patrons to pay (in hopes that they can become comepletely independant of advertising) like PBS.
it is a Kickstarter. it is on Kickstarter and it was officially endorsed by Kickstarter before being put on Kickstarter. only Kickstarter get to decide what is and isn't a kickstarter, not me and not you.

All these things can coexist. I give x amount of money to charity, but that doesn't stop me from spending my money on all sorts of other things, which may include sponsorships and kickstarters.
of course. I wasn't intending to suggest otherwise.
 
I don't get what Child's Play needs all its money for.

How about, instead of requsting money, they asked people to donate their old games and consoles?

I seem to remember that there are sanitary issues with that so it's not viable. Something like that, anyhow.
 
A kick starter to remove ads? Lol oh wow. I guess it goes to show you that if you have a fanatical enough fanbase they will pay for anything. Props to the PA guys for cultivating that base but this really seems like a huge misuse of KS.
 
I don't get what Child's Play needs all its money for.

How about, instead of requsting money, they asked people to donate their old games and consoles?

tumblr_lzolu41iZa1qztjn5o1_500.png


"20$ can buy many peanuts..."

Pretty self explanatory. The more money they receive, the more they can give and buy. And yes, people do donate old consoles and games, and others that don't have that luxury chip in a few bucks.
 
it is a Kickstarter. it is on Kickstarter and it was officially endorsed by Kickstarter before being put on Kickstarter. only Kickstarter get to decide what is and isn't a kickstarter, not me and not you.
.

Ok. I guess most people in this thread is hung up on leagalistics. The spirit of what PA is doing is not kickstarter to me, but I don't care if they use kickstarter. They have been very open and forthright about what they're doing, so there should be no confusion about what the money is for.
 
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.

Christ, no, it's not. WFMU is the PBS of the internet. NPR is the PBS of the internet. Penny Arcade is a business. They want your money not to stay afloat with free content, but to keep making as much money as they otherwise would.
 
Top Bottom