Touch Arcade vs. NeoGAF

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Who in their right mind would belittle a funding model that has helped fuel the development of at least two games that the traditional industry model couldn't support? Scepticism and analytical criticism, sure, but 'shitfarter'? Really?
 
Who in their right mind would belittle a funding model that has helped fuel the development of at least two games that the traditional industry model couldn't support? Scepticism and analytical criticism, sure, but 'shitfarter'? Really?
I think by the time if the big kickstarter projects deliver their games, opinions will change.

But as it is right now, people are jaded. It seems like every other day there's a new kickstarter for another new game. And sure they look promising, but people are getting tired of it.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
I think by the time if the big kickstarter projects deliver their games, opinions will change.

But as it is right now, people are jaded. It seems like every other day there's a new kickstarter for another new game. And sure they look promising, but people are getting tired of it.
Getting tired of... what... hearing about it? Does the word "Kickstarter" send people into a fit of rage? I don't get it.

Don't want to donate? Don't donate. Don't want to read a Kickstarter thread? Don't click it.

I don't understand the hate.
 
I think by the time if the big kickstarter projects deliver their games, opinions will change.

But as it is right now, people are jaded. It seems like every other day there's a new kickstarter for another new game. And sure they look promising, but people are getting tired of it.
Getting tired of what? Games which wouldn't otherwise exist being given a chance at being funded? That's a reasonable sentiment?
 

catfish

I have a foreskin yet I do not have AIDS
Getting tired of... what... hearing about it? Does the word "Kickstarter" send people into a fit of rage? I don't get it.

Don't want to donate? Don't donate. Don't want to read a Kickstarter thread? Don't click it.

I don't understand the hate.
I guess people see it as begging or something?
I only helped fund one thing and that was a wide release of an NZ film I loved. It worked and I was satisfied with that.

I guess if you don't care you shouldn't fund something, I don't and I almost never notice kickstarter stuff. It has a place in the world. Geeks can fund shit they like. Crowd sourcing is clever.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
I don't even feel like I live on the same planet with people like that. They are strange creatures, and their arguments (if they can even be called such) against Kickstarter are uniformly terrible.
Yeah, I mean it's like, goddamn Tim Schaefer has tried pitching adventure games many times to major publishers and they all thought it wasn't something there'd be a market for. Clearly there's a disconnect going on between what the publishers think the fans want and what the fans actually want. The way publishers do things is understandable, but it's nice to have an avenue where devs can appeal to their market directly instead of being filtered by publishers' heresay and focus test results.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I think by the time if the big kickstarter projects deliver their games, opinions will change.

But as it is right now, people are jaded. It seems like every other day there's a new kickstarter for another new game. And sure they look promising, but people are getting tired of it.
I'm cool with people being sceptical and concerned. I think there's a lot of material for insightful and interesting articles discussing the potential highs and lows of Kickstarter, and the legitimate worries of an easily exploitable business model, and consumer risk/reward.

But this doesn't warrant childish whining about the business model, or complaining about the fact studios/people are gravitating towards it. If you're 'tired' of hearing about it, stop reading about it. Avoid discussion. Why should anybody being 'tired' of it be a valid criticism? It doesn't concern them and, like you said, when/if the projects deliver tunes will change.

In the case of Eli Hodapp, why not channel his position and editorial skill into encouraging legitimate discussion of Kickstarter concerns? Turn his criticisms into something constructive and interesting, and beneficial to the touch arcade website. As a writer (granted, very low key), it always upsets me when people in editorial/journalist positions ignore and abuse their resources and outlets to instead drag down the medium as a whole with petty social media arguments. Especially when they're a voice that will be heard, on a topic that doesn't warrant it.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Getting tired of what? Games which wouldn't otherwise exist being given a chance at being funded? That's a reasonable sentiment?
If that was always true. Some of these games will be made anyways, some are already partially developed.

People were making indie games before KS, and they will keep making them long after KS loses it's luster as a funding source for games.

Sometimes it feels like begging. It's like the guy on every on/off-ramp in Portland with a sign. They don't hurt me or anyone, but they annoy me to no-end, and the people who give them money annoy me. Most of the time it's a ruse, as their signs are a lie, and they often walk over to their car and drive home with tax-free cash.

Gamers are nostalgic by nature, and the big KS so far have really scratched that itch.

It's the ones piggybacking off that....
 
Looks like Hodapp got put on probation for 7 days from Something Awful from his comments on there. I'm sure things would have been even more interesting if he were on GAF.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Yeah, I mean it's like, goddamn Tim Schaefer has tried pitching adventure games many times to major publishers and they all thought it wasn't something there'd be a market for. Clearly there's a disconnect going on between what the publishers think the fans want and what the fans actually want. The way publishers do things is understandable, but it's nice to have an avenue where devs can appeal to their market directly instead of being filtered by publishers' heresay and focus test results.
Just because they had a very successful Kickstarter doesn't mean there is a huge market for it, doesn't mean the publishers were wrong, doesn't mean Shaefer is correct.. there's more at play here.

It's a very niche market, and I fully understand why major publishers wouldn't want to fund an adventure game.
 
I'm cool with people being sceptical and concerned. I think there's a lot of material for insightful and interesting articles discussing the potential highs and lows of Kickstarter, and the legitimate worries of an easily exploitable business model, and consumer risk/reward.

But this doesn't warrant childish whining about the business model, or complaining about the fact studios/people are gravitating towards it. If you're 'tired' of hearing about it, stop reading about it. Avoid discussion. Why should anybody being 'tired' of it be a valid criticism? It doesn't concern them and, like you said, when/if the projects deliver tunes will change.

In the case of Eli Hodapp, why not channel his position and editorial skill into encouraging legitimate discussion of Kickstarter concerns? Turn his criticisms into something constructive and interesting, and beneficial to the touch arcade website. As a writer (granted, very low key), it always upsets me when people in editorial/journalist positions ignore and abuse their resources and outlets to instead drag down the medium as a whole with petty social media arguments. Especially when they're a voice that will be heard, on a topic that doesn't warrant it.
I think it's people growing tired of being bombarded by Kickstarter this and Kickstarter that, when it hasn't delivered anything yet. It's Tebow Syndrome :D

I can see his argument that Kickstarter can be used to get 'free' money from fans with no real responsibility to carry through on the project, but he could have chosen a far better project to target for a 'Kickstarter isn't the be all/end all' rant.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
Yeah... What the hell was that even about? The PC gamer comments as well. It's as though he made up an opinion based on absolutely no evidence!
The best part is that the dev that was commiserating about GAF with the staunchly anti-Kickstarter Hodapp in that conversation recently tried to use Kickstarter. And failed wildly at it.
Just because they had a very successful Kickstarter doesn't mean there is a huge market for it, doesn't mean the publishers were wrong, doesn't mean Shaefer is correct.. there's more at play here.

It's a very niche market, and I fully understand why major publishers wouldn't want to fund an adventure game.
Granted, if he was pitching it as a $60 retail game then I fully understand the publishers' reticence. But Double Fine has been tapping the low-price DD well for a few years now, you gotta think they'd also tried framing one under that model. Yet still they ended up having to appeal to the fans directly.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Just because they had a very successful Kickstarter doesn't mean there is a huge market for it, doesn't mean the publishers were wrong, doesn't mean Shaefer is correct.. there's more at play here.

It's a very niche market, and I fully understand why major publishers wouldn't want to fund an adventure game.
Right, but the industry should not support one business model. It's simply a separate business model to the norm, one that potentially allows us access to games the mainstream business model doesn't support.

People have gravitated towards Kickstarter for the very reason you stated: major publishers don't want to fund certain titles. And they don't have to. But it shouldn't stop developers branching out to a separate business model that supports their goals. It hasn't delivered yet, but it's interesting, hence why people are following it.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about what works, and gets people the games they want to play.

I think it's people growing tired of being bombarded by Kickstarter this and Kickstarter that, when it hasn't delivered anything yet. It's Tebow Syndrome :D

I can see his argument that Kickstarter can be used to get 'free' money from fans with no real responsibility to carry through on the project, but he could have chosen a far better project to target for a 'Kickstarter isn't the be all/end all' rant.
Exactly. But he should have composed an insightful article into the consumer risks of Kickstarter. Instead he threw a tantrum over twitter.
 
I can at least understand some of his argument, but the way he is going about it speaks loudly about his lack of maturity during this whole process (as evident by his follow up tweets), therefore discounting any sort of grounds for a thoughtful discussion about this in the first place.

That said, I really hope the game comes through!
 
I can at least understand some of his argument, but the way he is going about it speaks highly about his lack of maturity, therefore discounting any sort of grounds for a thoughtful discussion about this in the first place.

That said, I really hope the game comes through!
I think most people had a problem with the way he was acting rather than his opinion on the matter (which is valid and shared by quite a few people).
 
Yeah, I mean it's like, goddamn Tim Schaefer has tried pitching adventure games many times to major publishers and they all thought it wasn't something there'd be a market for. Clearly there's a disconnect going on between what the publishers think the fans want and what the fans actually want. The way publishers do things is understandable, but it's nice to have an avenue where devs can appeal to their market directly instead of being filtered by publishers' heresay and focus test results.
I'm continuously flabbergasted when I see gamers - of all people - railing against Kickstarter. It's like these people have been sucking at the traditional publisher teet so long that they can't bear a different form of funding. It's incomprehensible. Skepticism is one thing, but some of the flat-out hatred and disdain thrown at Kickstarter is just remarkable.

These people don't seem to understand that many of these games wouldn't exist were it not for Kickstarter. Fargo was pitching Wasteland 2 to publishers for years and was on the verge of giving up before Double Fine hit success with the crowdfunding model, and he saw a potential avenue there. Now we get a game where we once wouldn't have, and this is somehow a bad thing?

People are adults; they know what they're doing with their own money. $15 will often get you the full game, and that amount is hardly putting you in the hole. I imagine a lot of the people hating on Kickstarter are the same ones who have no qualms about turning around and paying $60 for the latest publisher-mandated mediocrity.

If that was always true. Some of these games will be made anyways, some are already partially developed.

People were making indie games before KS, and they will keep making them long after KS loses it's luster as a funding source for games.
Kickstarter doesn't replace the indie gaming model; it just gives it another avenue for funding. Devs are obviously able to make larger, better games with more money and general resources at their disposal, and Kickstarter helps them to meet their ideal amount.

Kickstarter only helps indie development and closes the communication gap between developer and the market that much more. The funders get the game frequently at a discount, along with other goodies, and devs gain more money to make the game they wish to make without any outside influences creeping in. Everyone wins.

Sometimes it feels like begging. It's like the guy on every on/off-ramp in Portland with a sign. They don't hurt me or anyone, but they annoy me to no-end, and the people who give them money annoy me. Most of the time it's a ruse, as their signs are a lie, and they often walk over to their car and drive home with tax-free cash.
Their signs are a "lie," how?
 
I think it's people growing tired of being bombarded by Kickstarter this and Kickstarter that, when it hasn't delivered anything yet. It's Tebow Syndrome :D

I can see his argument that Kickstarter can be used to get 'free' money from fans with no real responsibility to carry through on the project, but he could have chosen a far better project to target for a 'Kickstarter isn't the be all/end all' rant.
It has delivered plenty of projects, even iOS apps. I bought one successful Kickstarter project / funded app, and enjoy it a lot and I didn't have to risk anything, I simply purchased it after others successfully funded it and it was released. They even covered this app on Touch Arcade, as they undoubtedly will also cover Star Command, also funded in part by Kickstarter.
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Who in their right mind would belittle a funding model that has helped fuel the development of at least two games that the traditional industry model couldn't support? Scepticism and analytical criticism, sure, but 'shitfarter'? Really?
I have to agree. I mean I see games on kickstarter that I thought would never see the light of day. 'Shitfarter' is taking it too far.
 
I love the idea of Kickstarter. People basically get what they want and if the project turns out to be a failure due to quality or something such, it's still a message to other entrepreneurs that people want game of type A. The risk on the part of the people donating is spread out and everyone is free to contribute as much or as little as they want.
 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
I think it's people growing tired of being bombarded by Kickstarter this and Kickstarter that, when it hasn't delivered anything yet. It's Tebow Syndrome :D

I can see his argument that Kickstarter can be used to get 'free' money from fans with no real responsibility to carry through on the project, but he could have chosen a far better project to target for a 'Kickstarter isn't the be all/end all' rant.
Kickstarter has delivered over and over again already. (HINT: It existed before Double Fine Adventure)

It's a proven model.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Right, but the industry should not support one business model. It's simply a separate business model to the norm, one that potentially allows us access to games the mainstream business model doesn't support.

People have gravitated towards Kickstarter for the very reason you stated: major publishers don't want to fund certain titles. And they don't have to. But it shouldn't stop developers branching out to a separate business model that supports their goals. It hasn't delivered yet, but it's interesting, hence why people are following it.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about what works, and gets people the games they want to play.
Oh I agree, and the DoubleFine and Wasteland 2 Kickstarters were great uses of the service. Both are niche titles that need quite a few bucks behind them to truly make them great. They were both risky endeavors and they were both projects that the public has wanted for sometime.

Someone wants to kickstart a full fledged Rifts RPG made by someone I trust with the IP.. I'm waiting with cash to give.
 
I have zero problem with gaming sites such as touch arcade/giant bomb no longer wanting to have a constant stream of boring as fuck kickstarter stories that are nothing more than unpaid advertising.

That said the guy seems to be a bit of a dick in rooting for people to fail, but OP your obsession with Touch arcade guy is starting to make me think you need to see a professional. Seriously.



If Giantbomb kept the stream of shitty kickstarter stories/touch arcade started one I would stop visiting their news sections.
 
Maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusions here, but Ryan Peyton and others left their jobs to make Republique. Why do they need 500k all of a sudden? Because they saw how loose some people were with their cash trying to be generous and help out the "indie" scene? Is the game canceled if it doesn't reach the 500k? How are they developing the PC/Mac version for free?

Camouflaj seems to have already failed in pitching a game people want. Not a shock when the developer has never released a product, never proven they can make good games. Here's an idea, make a single A game cheaply, and prove that you can actually make a good game. Then take your profits and make the game you actually want. That seems to be Touch Arcade's point, and it seems like a pretty valid one.

How badly would the game be doing if Peyton didn't have all the connections he did, having people hype a game they probably wouldn't care about if he wasn't connected?

"Ultimately this is not a tale about Republique, or Touch Arcade's policies, or Kickstarter" yes it is. That's exactly why you linked to the Kickstarter in your first paragraph. Or showed the graph trying to show that Touch Arcade's "plot" backfiring trying to start a backlash revolution. You Ignis Fatuus crapped up the Republique thread with your whining about Hodapp. Not satisfied about getting enough publicity, you had to crap up the front page with your internet drama all in a desperate attempt to get Republique funded.

Have to agree 100% with this, if OP isn't somehow associated with the game or having some sort of mental breakdown I would be shocked.
 
I just looked up Republique and I don't understand the "it's so unoriginal it's just like Metal Gear Solid" argument that Coal is making. It's a stealth game where you control electronics and security systems, not the character. Other than like, Lifeline, I can't think of that many other "second-person" action games, though I'm sure there are other examples.
 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Have you ever talked to any of the people holding the signs on the side of the road? Not always, but often, it's a ruse to get cash for drugs or alcohol.
So...how is that like Kickstarter?

I just looked up Republique and I don't understand the "it's so unoriginal it's just like Metal Gear Solid" argument that Coal is making. It's a stealth game where you control electronics and security systems, not the character. Other than like, Lifeline, I can't think of that many other "second-person" action games, though I'm sure there are other examples.
Lifeline exists, therefore it is unoriginal, Check and mate, EmCee.

(Coal's description of Republique as 'Girl Metal Gear' was precious)
 
I don't think I'll support any game related Kickstarter project unless Kickstarter changes fundamentally. I'm not sure if one can “fix” Kickstarter in that way without kind of destroying the idea of what Kickstarter is about, though.

I'm having a huge problem with the way Kickstarter-pages are set up. I know about the risks of donating money but the Kickstarter-pages are not doing enough to tell you what you're actually doing; donating money without the expectation to get anything in return. Instead, the incentive to give money is to get rewards instead of helping to fund a project. That's not what Kickstarter is (or should be) about. It should be about using your money to make something happen that would not happen otherwise.

I know that people say “Well, if you're too stupid to read... A fool and his money...” but that doesn't change that fact that Kickstarter deliberately set up a system in which the only person at risk is the person backing a project. Kickstarter gets their share regardless, the people who set up the page get their money regardless and they could run with it without doing anything. That has happened with projects that have nothing to do with games and the exact same thing will happen in the gaming space. People will either not get anything, they'll not get what they expected or other things happen that make those who backed a project unhappy.

This wouldn't happen if Kickstarter was set up differently. Set up a page without those rewards. People don't back for the rewards because they can't expect them anyways? People who back know the other side can just take your money and run? Why not get rid of all the rewards then? If you're claiming to know about the risks and are still willing to back because you want to support the fact that a product gets made that wouldn't have been made otherwise then the rewards should be the main incentive to anyone anyways.

If there's absolutely nothing you can do if your money gets “stolen” and if Kickstarter doesn't want to take care of these things and doesn't want to be responsible in any way, they shouldn't bait people with rewards at all – they should say: Look, we have this idea and we really want to make this. Support us and we'll try to make it happen.

Kickstarter projects don't have to answer to anyone, and while that can be a good thing, I think we should also be skeptical that this can and will cause a situation where they just mess up “because they can”. Keep in mind that this is a new situation for developers as well. Did they mess up their calculations? Maybe they actually needed more money to finance their idea. Maybe the lack of control from the outside will cause them to completely mess up? Maybe the head of the company thinks it'd be nicer to get a new sports car instead of paying people to work for him. I think the fact that this situation in which they don't have to answer to anyone anymore is not necessarily a good thing. It gives them freedom but it also gives them a lot of free space to mess up badly.

Now here's where trust is important. Do I trust Double Fine with my money? Probably more than Republique. This has nothing to do with the fact that I like the Double Fine guys more than Payton or that I don't trust him at all, but Double Fine is a company that – I think – will definitely make it happen. I assume these guys have enough money in the bank to make the game themselves in case they burn all the Kickstarter money on business trips to Bangkok. I don't necessarily trust Republique in the same way.
 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
I don't think I'll support any game related Kickstarter project unless Kickstarter changes fundamentally. I'm not sure if one can “fix” Kickstarter in that way without kind of destroying the idea of what Kickstarter is about, though.

I'm having a huge problem with the way Kickstarter-pages are set up. I know about the risks of donating money but the Kickstarter-pages are not doing enough to tell you what you're actually doing; donating money without the expectation to get anything in return. Instead, the incentive to give money is to get rewards instead of helping to fund a project. That's not what Kickstarter is (or should be) about. It should be about using your money to make something happen that would not happen otherwise.
Most people lack a philanthropic bone. If there were no incentives, most people wouldn't bother. The incentives exist to counter basic greed-based psychology.

Most people make every decision in their life thinking "What do I get out of it?" The original concept of artist patronage just wouldn't fly in today's world. People are too greedy.
 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
I do understand his reluctance to cover kickstarter games, but he really could have made his point in a far less uncouth manner.
Exactly. The lack of tact is the point, not the message within.
 
I was very tempted to call the guy a massive tool on Twitter, but I can't stand Twitter drama as it is already, but if he sees this, then you are a massive tool, Eli Hodapp.

I really don't understand this anger regarding Kickstarter, from anybody. If you don't believe in that system or don't believe in a project, then don't contribute. People who get angry about it think they're standing up for consumer rights or something when really you're just looking to stroke your own ego.

LuchaShaq said:
If Giantbomb kept the stream of shitty kickstarter stories/touch arcade started one I would stop visiting their news sections.
That would be on Giant Bomb for choosing to run those stories, not Kickstarter...
 

INTERNET

SERIOUS BUSINESS
This guy has proven himself to be a little bit wack over and over; IIRC his first lemonade stand consisted of camping the Target around Christmas time to buy and scalp Wiis to desperate parents during the first couple years of shortages. Which is like, whatever, but then he just has to PROCLAIM about everything - how he's providing a valuable free market blah blah blah, or how he lets everyone immediately know that he's the worst kind of Apple enthusiast, or that he's just going to roll with these HILARIOUS punches.
 

Clear

This post contains disingenuous arguments meant to disguise my fanboyism. Reader beware!
Personally I'm slightly skeptical about the practicality of Kickstarter-funding for games* , but Hodapp's douchebaggery is utterly mystifying to me. I have no idea what he hopes to achieve apart from a certain amount of short-term notoriety, and lasting enmity from the people he's offending.

*It's a "bad fit" in my opinion due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of the process; you need ongoing funding to ensure completion; because there's no guarantee that your original budgetary war-chest wont be depleted with the project in an unreleasable state.

That being said, I'm not such a giant tool as to actively discourage people from investing, and I certainly wouldn't single out any particular developer for using a pre-existing "angel"-investment framework, because that's a non-argument and frankly, idiotic.
 
I actually think this is becoming literally true. The Internet is full of sad people.
One of my friends posted a rant on his Facebook about how Kickstarter makes him "want to vomit", and then when people started posting perfectly reasonable rebuttals, he got mad and deleted it.

People are going completely frothing mad about Kickstarter for no logical reason. Like others have said, it's great to be skeptical of Kickstarter, but ranting and raving like it's the plague of the Internet only makes you look like an idiot.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I don't think I'll support any game related Kickstarter project unless Kickstarter changes fundamentally. I'm not sure if one can “fix” Kickstarter in that way without kind of destroying the idea of what Kickstarter is about, though.

I'm having a huge problem with the way Kickstarter-pages are set up. I know about the risks of donating money but the Kickstarter-pages are not doing enough to tell you what you're actually doing; donating money without the expectation to get anything in return. Instead, the incentive to give money is to get rewards instead of helping to fund a project. That's not what Kickstarter is (or should be) about. It should be about using your money to make something happen that would not happen otherwise.

I know that people say “Well, if you're too stupid to read... A fool and his money...” but that doesn't change that fact that Kickstarter deliberately set up a system in which the only person at risk is the person backing a project. Kickstarter gets their share regardless, the people who set up the page get their money regardless and they could run with it without doing anything. That has happened with projects that have nothing to do with games and the exact same thing will happen in the gaming space. People will either not get anything, they'll not get what they expected or other things happen that make those who backed a project unhappy.

This wouldn't happen if Kickstarter was set up differently. Set up a page without those rewards. People don't back for the rewards because they can't expect them anyways? People who back know the other side can just take your money and run? Why not get rid of all the rewards then? If you're claiming to know about the risks and are still willing to back because you want to support the fact that a product gets made that wouldn't have been made otherwise then the rewards should be the main incentive to anyone anyways.

If there's absolutely nothing you can do if your money gets “stolen” and if Kickstarter doesn't want to take care of these things and doesn't want to be responsible in any way, they shouldn't bait people with rewards at all – they should say: Look, we have this idea and we really want to make this. Support us and we'll try to make it happen.

Kickstarter projects don't have to answer to anyone, and while that can be a good thing, I think we should also be skeptical that this can and will cause a situation where they just mess up “because they can”. Keep in mind that this is a new situation for developers as well. Did they mess up their calculations? Maybe they actually needed more money to finance their idea. Maybe the lack of control from the outside will cause them to completely mess up? Maybe the head of the company thinks it'd be nicer to get a new sports car instead of paying people to work for him. I think the fact that this situation in which they don't have to answer to anyone anymore is not necessarily a good thing. It gives them freedom but it also gives them a lot of free space to mess up badly.

Now here's where trust is important. Do I trust Double Fine with my money? Probably more than Republique. This has nothing to do with the fact that I like the Double Fine guys more than Payton or that I don't trust him at all, but Double Fine is a company that – I think – will definitely make it happen. I assume these guys have enough money in the bank to make the game themselves in case they burn all the Kickstarter money on business trips to Bangkok. I don't necessarily trust Republique in the same way.
I think the criticism of Kickstarter on these grounds needs to take into account that Kickstarter is a new experiment.

Because of that, there is little confidence surrounding it... just like there isn't a lot of confidence surrounding any new, experimental business proposition.

When totally new things - that often fail - get off the ground, who supports them? People willing to take a risk on something new, because the payoffs could be huge. Isn't that how such speculative investment works? People do lose money all the time on ventures. This doesn't make backing ventures inherently stupid. It takes risk and failure to finally score a hit.

In the case of Kickstarter, I believe what really needs to be understood is precisely that: it's an experiment and the early Kickstarter gaming projects are exploratory ventures. People donating to them should be aware that they're basically investors taking a risk on a new venue that could collapse. MOST of the people investing in Kickstarters only invest at the entry level; they invest anywhere from $1 - $20 bucks.

And here's the thing; there have been some misguided criticisms of Kickstarter by people treating it like the stock market - "Why don't I make money off investment!" That's NOT what Kickstarter's potential payoff is.

The thing that you're investing in - that directly benefits the game buying customer down the road - is a potential new market and method of getting games made that otherwise wouldn't get made. People sit around all day complaining that gaming sucks and big publishing stinks, and that we're all screwed and nobody can do anything about it. If Kickstarter matures further, the payoff for everyone who backed a Kickstarter project will be another alternative to Big Publishing when it comes to getting stuff made that is too big for conventional indies and too non-hollywood for Electronic Arts and Ubisoft.

For people who supposedly care about quality games, that's a good proposal to back. Even the chance that such an ecosystem could be established is worth a little risk.

To draw a comparison, look at Minecraft. One might say that people who invested in Minecraft got "something" immediately, but it wasn't a lot. In point of fact, during the craze surrounding Minecraft's initial explosion of visibility, there were a ton of people who stood around telling everyone they were idiots and fools for giving these "so-called game developers" ten bucks because clearly, nobody could be trusted and Notch was about to run off with everyone's ten bux and stop developing Minecraft tomorrow. Thus 'robbing' everyone of the product they were promised.

Now, it WAS possible that Notch could have skipped town with a few hundred thousand bucks. It would have ruined his reputation forever and he never would have gotten another dime from the public for funding an indie project. And in Minecraft's case, that didn't happen.

As a result, Minecraft has become one standard by which indie projects funded by pre-sales or beta sales, or investment in future product development are now judged.

With Kickstarter, we won't really get an idea of where this is going until a few of the first big games finish development and end up in the hands of investors. It's actually a good thing, I think, that many 'generation 1' kickstarter games involve people with some clout and reputation on the line - guys who as far as I can see would be seriously hurt in their careers and future prospects if they turned shady.

An irony of the original stupid rant about Kickstarter is that it tried to bring all this crap about Dem Lazy Kids or "millennials" into it, when the biggest Kickstarters that got funding are freakin' old school stuff, proposed by old school chaps, who actually have experience in various industries.

That just goes to show how people project their biases and petty foibles onto reality rather than taking an objective look at what's actually going on.


One of my friends posted a rant on his Facebook about how Kickstarter makes him "want to vomit", and then when people started posting perfectly reasonable rebuttals, he got mad and deleted it.

People are going completely frothing mad about Kickstarter for no logical reason. Like others have said, it's great to be skeptical of Kickstarter, but ranting and raving like it's the plague of the Internet only makes you look like an idiot.
Something I have learned after nearly 20 years on the Internets: a lot of people despise seeing what they think of as "fan" efforts in any way, shape, or form. It's an interesting phenomenon that is probably rooted in who knows what combination of problems. Sometimes, I think it's just a meme to hate on groups of people going out and doing stuff without anyone's "permission". "I hate those idiots who think they can just, just... DO THINGS! I can't do things! I hate my life and the world sucks because it's going nowhere! Stop acting like you're special!"
 
I don't think I'll support any game related Kickstarter project unless Kickstarter changes fundamentally. I'm not sure if one can “fix” Kickstarter in that way without kind of destroying the idea of what Kickstarter is about, though.

I'm having a huge problem with the way Kickstarter-pages are set up. I know about the risks of donating money but the Kickstarter-pages are not doing enough to tell you what you're actually doing; donating money without the expectation to get anything in return. Instead, the incentive to give money is to get rewards instead of helping to fund a project. That's not what Kickstarter is (or should be) about. It should be about using your money to make something happen that would not happen otherwise.
If you care about this project choose your amount of money and fund it.
If you have concerns then don't fund it.

It is simple as that.

Problem is with people raging all over kickstarter projects.

Dude is a douche and all people raging over kickstarter projects are like him.

They can't live with themself because people are giving money on their dreamprojects and projects that they think it's worthwile to pledge. They are worring about it like they were loosing their own money.
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
Kinda funny that this guy built a huge website from sorting the wheat from the chaff on iOS when everyone was saying it's all chaff, and now he's berating Kickstarter as all chaff, if he was smarter, he'd see the opportunity in it.