As to "pay them back", not only the amount they put in but a reasonble return on the funds invested. Also the higher the risk the bigger the premium expected.
I would be significantly more inclined to do public funding if it was public investing.
Kickstarter is like panhandling. Cant get people to invest? Ask for handouts. That you aren't going to pay back. And if you fail, oh well.
And the big difference with MMORPGs is the investment required to make them is signifcant, so much more so than a normal low budget game. EvE was able to make do with 5 million, but that was a perfect storm type of scenario in a game that required significantly less art/animation assets than a game like CU would need. Im thinking you would need at least 10-15 million for an extreme low budget looking fantasy MMORPG, complete with infrastructure to support it's launch.
Black Eye Games think they only need 1 million to do all that. Some devs that worked on the Witcher and Neverwinter Nights.
250k people wanting it is NOT A GREAT DEMAND in todays MMO market
However in DAoC's prime 250k was a great demand. The market is SIGNIFICANTLY bigger, youd have to adjust that 250k upward.
It doesnt work like that. New players coming in with a game know THAT game, not those before it.
10 million players know WoW and that means gameplay like WoW, that does not mean a portion of them will automatically like DaoC or any other game before WoW.
Also, the MMO market is now more a WORLD market and not segregated like it used to be. Just look at the market from 1997-2003, Asian games mostly stayed in ASIA, Western games in the west...now, games are being made for the WORLD to enjoy. Many of the bigger Asian game makers now have offices in the US and Europe to aid in designing games that will appeal everywhere....then there is the age factor.
Why chose a game that does, say, what TESO is going to do, the DaoC route of limiting races to factions and factions to their own locked areas when there are games with opposing factions, at war, in an open world? Just because? If the main focus is that, how many new players that never played DaoC are going to chose to go with the game that is more limiting? Sorry, the genre HAS grown and the choices are MANY, yet another thing that has changed about the genre, many choices a game maker is competeing with, a game really needs to stand OUT to get a player to play...and providing a choice based on limits other games DONT have, is not very easy to make appealing to those that never tasted it.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
I think this sounds really shoddy... I've never really agreed with kickstarter. Sure, it's great for people with a passion for something to get a little funding, but from my experience, most things that come from it aren't very good. If you have a solid plan for a solid game, you should be able to get private investors and be able to go through all the "formal" processes of business. When you ask for money from random people all I see is some dude in a basement crunching out bugged code, pocketing the cash and being like, "Hey, look what I did!"
In other words... It seems unprofessional.
How do you think buisnesses like Microsoft and Apply where made? Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne presented their first computer Apple I at a computer club and made their first money there. Bill Gates and Paul Allen developped their first pc themselves. They just found another company for distributing and marketing...
Ppl with a passion and a little funding can go a long way sometimes.
Sorry, the genre HAS grown and the choices are MANY,
...and providing a choice based on limits other games DONT have.
I always find freedom of choice arguments a little hypocritical. Like this one: the writer usually has something they like that they want to see in every choice, and things they dont like that they want to be removed from all choices. Not freedom of choice at all really if everything is the same choice.
Originally posted by benseine Marketing and development are two very different things...
They are still a part of business Mark Jacobs is running though.
When crowdfunding commercial project:
1) you failed with your business before it even started.
or
2) you have a good business plan and only exploiting opportunity to raise money with no accountability. Who does not want free money?
When you are a backer, you either stuff money to people who has no place in business or you make a fool of yourself because properly run business does not need donations.
Sorry, the genre HAS grown and the choices are MANY,
...and providing a choice based on limits other games DONT have.
I always find freedom of choice arguments a little hypocritical. Like this one: the writer usually has something they like that they want to see in every choice, and things they dont like that they want to be removed from all choices. Not freedom of choice at all really if everything is the same choice.
Good point.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think this sounds really shoddy... I've never really agreed with kickstarter. Sure, it's great for people with a passion for something to get a little funding, but from my experience, most things that come from it aren't very good. If you have a solid plan for a solid game, you should be able to get private investors and be able to go through all the "formal" processes of business. When you ask for money from random people all I see is some dude in a basement crunching out bugged code, pocketing the cash and being like, "Hey, look what I did!"
In other words... It seems unprofessional.
How do you think buisnesses like Microsoft and Apply where made? Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne presented their first computer Apple I at a computer club and made their first money there. Bill Gates and Paul Allen developped their first pc themselves. They just found another company for distributing and marketing...
Ppl with a passion and a little funding can go a long way sometimes.
Bill Gates and Paul allen never made a PC. They started with Altair Basic and sold IBM on the idea of a operating system they didn't even own the rights to. The were all entering a completely empty market.
Well a bit more complicated than this. Microsoft sold GW Basic for a number of "homebrew" computers, in discussions with IBM about licensing GW Basic for the upcoming IBM PC one of the IBMers complained about Digital Research and the difficulty they had licensing an OS. Bill Gates saw an opportunity and pitched them the idea that Microsoft do the OS. IBM liked the idea and Bill Gates went off and bought a near complete code base to build the OS from.
Latter litagation centered around where that third party got the code base from. It seems likely that they stole it from Digital Research but that was not Micrsoft's fault (at least at law).
Sorry, the genre HAS grown and the choices are MANY,
...and providing a choice based on limits other games DONT have.
I always find freedom of choice arguments a little hypocritical. Like this one: the writer usually has something they like that they want to see in every choice, and things they dont like that they want to be removed from all choices. Not freedom of choice at all really if everything is the same choice.
I dont want closed factions because there is no reason for it. Not having closed factions not only opens up the entire game world (no closed faction zones) but also allows a game maker to allow faction choice after character creation, or allows the player to play any race with any faction, it leaves room for open world PvP instead of 100% closed zoned PvP.
The other "choice" leaves no choice. its forced. So your idea of defending freedom of choice by wanting an option that gives you no choice over one that does AND provides you with the same gameplay at the same time...is no defense of choice at all.
Also, why take a post where I am talking about new players to a genre and take parts out of context to make it about "choice"? you could have done it in a way to at least make your point look strong.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by jtcgs I dont want closed factions because there is no reason for it. Not having closed factions not only opens up the entire game world (no closed faction zones) but also allows a game maker to allow faction choice after character creation, or allows the player to play any race with any faction, it leaves room for open world PvP instead of 100% closed zoned PvP.The other "choice" leaves no choice. its forced.Also, why take a post where I am talking about new players to a genre and take parts out of context to make it about "choice"? you could have done it in a way to at least make your point look strong.
Originally posted by jtcgs I dont want closed factions because there is no reason for it. Not having closed factions not only opens up the entire game world (no closed faction zones) but also allows a game maker to allow faction choice after character creation, or allows the player to play any race with any faction, it leaves room for open world PvP instead of 100% closed zoned PvP.
The other "choice" leaves no choice. its forced.
Also, why take a post where I am talking about new players to a genre and take parts out of context to make it about "choice"? you could have done it in a way to at least make your point look strong.
You just proved his point...
Communism, government controls everything and chooses for you.
Democracy, government chosen by the people to protect freedom
Asking to be allowed to chose between them is preserving choice? Now who is being hypocritical, give me the choice to choose not to have a choice!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by jtcgs I dont want closed factions because there is no reason for it. Not having closed factions not only opens up the entire game world (no closed faction zones) but also allows a game maker to allow faction choice after character creation, or allows the player to play any race with any faction, it leaves room for open world PvP instead of 100% closed zoned PvP.
The other "choice" leaves no choice. its forced.
Also, why take a post where I am talking about new players to a genre and take parts out of context to make it about "choice"? you could have done it in a way to at least make your point look strong.
You just proved his point...
Communism, government controls everything and chooses for you.
Democracy, government chosen by the people to protect freedom
Asking to be allowed to chose between them is preserving choice? Now who is being hypocritical, give me the choice to choose not to have a choice!
Pardon me your agenda is still showing.
BTW your characterisation of political systems is a very particular US one and not shared by the rest of the world.
Communism, government controls everything and chooses for you.
Democracy, government chosen by the people to protect freedom
Asking to be allowed to chose between them is preserving choice? Now who is being hypocritical, give me the choice to choose not to have a choice!
Pardon me your agenda is still showing.
BTW your characterisation of political systems is a very particular US one and not shared by the rest of the world.
As is yours, pretending that allowing someone to chose for you is a choice equal to choosing to be able to chose on your own.
If a game allows all races with any faction, it allows choice. If a game splits races between factions it takes away choice, they are not equal options.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Communism, government controls everything and chooses for you.
Democracy, government chosen by the people to protect freedom
Asking to be allowed to chose between them is preserving choice? Now who is being hypocritical, give me the choice to choose not to have a choice!
Pardon me your agenda is still showing.
BTW your characterisation of political systems is a very particular US one and not shared by the rest of the world.
As is yours, pretending that allowing someone to chose for you is a choice equal to choosing to be able to chose on your own.
If a game allows all races with any faction, it allows choice. If a game splits races between factions it takes away choice, they are not equal options.
Having a variety of games that have different approaches to the selection of race and faction is a choice.
Campaigning to have all games offer completely free selection of race and faction is, in fact, limiting choice.
Communism, government controls everything and chooses for you.
Democracy, government chosen by the people to protect freedom
Asking to be allowed to chose between them is preserving choice? Now who is being hypocritical, give me the choice to choose not to have a choice!
Pardon me your agenda is still showing.
BTW your characterisation of political systems is a very particular US one and not shared by the rest of the world.
As is yours, pretending that allowing someone to chose for you is a choice equal to choosing to be able to chose on your own.
If a game allows all races with any faction, it allows choice. If a game splits races between factions it takes away choice, they are not equal options.
Having a variety of games that have different approaches to the selection of race and faction allows choice.
Campaigning to have all games offer completely free selection of race and faction is, in fact, limiting choice.
As is yours, pretending that allowing someone to chose for you is a choice equal to choosing to be able to chose on your own.
If a game allows all races with any faction, it allows choice. If a game splits races between factions it takes away choice, they are not equal options.
Having a variety of games that have different approaches to the selection of race and faction is a choice.
Campaigning to have all games offer completely free selection of race and faction is, in fact, limiting choice.
And AGAIN, defending the lack of choice is not the same as the same as defending the freedom of it because the freedom of it offeres everything the LACK OF IT HAS AND MORE.
Argument 1: I want a game with only 1 attack.
Argument 2: I want a game with 20 attacks.
1. Hey, how dare you limit my choices by rejecting what I want.
2. No, you can still just press the same damn attack over and over and let me have my 20.
not equal. does not apply. try your approach again please because having the freedom to chose faction and race still allows you to pretend to be limited in game while everyone else has the FREEDOM to chose. It is a ROLYPLAYING game afterall, role play you are a mindless slave forced to serve a faction and never leave their lands.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Couldn't find the kickstarter page. Googled it and no luck at all. Kickstarter site sucks, TBH. But if someone provides a link, I might donate a little.
Originally posted by DavisFlight Publishers don't fund GOOD MMOs, they fund WoW clones.
True.
The Kickstarter doesn't start until March.
They can't find conventional funding because every time this formula has been tried it's been a financial failure. If your definition of good is a MMO that never made any money I suppose it's true.
I'm sorry, but what fantasy land do you live in?
It's the WoW clones that have all been huge flops. They usually flop so hard they take the company that made them with them. Two of Funcom's partners went bankrupt after Age of Conan flopped. SWTOR destroyed most of Bioware and Mythic, and crippled EA for a couple of months too.
The only MMOs that have done really well over the years, post WoW, are the ones that do unique things, with solid execution, then build on it. See: Eve, Darkfall. Those games have grown over time, while all WoW clones have died within weeks of launch.
Publishers don't know jack all about MMOs. Hence why we've been in an MMO dark age for almost 8 years now.
Darkfall was a dismal financial failure.
Stopped reading there. You obviously have no clue about the industry.
Darkfall is one of the only MMOs in the last 8 years to grow after launch.
The dev team went from about 20 devs, on a one million dollar budget, making a game over the course of 5 years.
They've since, started selling boxed copies, opened a second server, hired 40 more developers, moved into a bigger office. Released 3 expansions AND a sequel.
How do you do that if you're a dismal financial failure?
Trion also made a WoW clone something that for some reason investors like to get behind, the game was made to be favourable to a vast array of players to bring in alrge amounts of cash, CU isnt that game or with those games, its a game been made to please what could only be a handful of die-hard MMORPG PvP players and it will isolate players with some of its features, a game like rift with a major investor backing would not do.
I know what your thinking, why would investors only fund a game thats exactly the same as a game already out there and try to get in on an already competitive market...well i dont know...logic tells me that maybe if you take a risk and attempt to capitalise on an untouched market...you might get better results...
What WoW clone?
...Uh...
Rift. You know, the game that is almost exactly like WoW.
Couldn't find the kickstarter page. Googled it and no luck at all. Kickstarter site sucks, TBH. But if someone provides a link, I might donate a little.
Originally posted by DavisFlight Publishers don't fund GOOD MMOs, they fund WoW clones.
True.
The Kickstarter doesn't start until March.
They can't find conventional funding because every time this formula has been tried it's been a financial failure. If your definition of good is a MMO that never made any money I suppose it's true.
I'm sorry, but what fantasy land do you live in?
It's the WoW clones that have all been huge flops. They usually flop so hard they take the company that made them with them. Two of Funcom's partners went bankrupt after Age of Conan flopped. SWTOR destroyed most of Bioware and Mythic, and crippled EA for a couple of months too.
The only MMOs that have done really well over the years, post WoW, are the ones that do unique things, with solid execution, then build on it. See: Eve, Darkfall. Those games have grown over time, while all WoW clones have died within weeks of launch.
Publishers don't know jack all about MMOs. Hence why we've been in an MMO dark age for almost 8 years now.
Darkfall was a dismal financial failure. EVE predates WoW by more than a year and is only a modest success despite having solid financial backing. It has about 400k subscribers. EVE also has a robust PvE community. To make a real comparison you need to look at games like Dark and light, Mourning Realms of Krel, Ryzom, Darkfall, Shadowbane, Mortal Online,and Xsyon. Soem of the WoW clones that failed did better than any of those, even the ones that went F2P.
I have no idea if this game will be successful but anyone that thinks people are lining up to throw huge sums of money at itwithout something to show investors is kidding themselves.
oh come on eve is a very sucessful mmo by any standards.
If eve isnt a sucessful mmo, the only sucessful mmo ever is WOW.
It's modestly successful. Half a dozen of the WoW clones that failed have made more money than EVE. EVE's remarkable trait is it's longevity and continued development. It's on par with DAOC.
Are you out of your mind?
You think games that take 100 million bucks to make, and are mass marketed, then flop right after release...making the companies behind them dissolve...
are MORE successful than a game that has been steadily increasing its sub and profits ever year for OVER EIGHT YEARS?
There is not a single western post WoW AAA MMORPG that has ever come close to sustaining as many subs as Eve has.
As is yours, pretending that allowing someone to chose for you is a choice equal to choosing to be able to chose on your own.
If a game allows all races with any faction, it allows choice. If a game splits races between factions it takes away choice, they are not equal options.
Having a variety of games that have different approaches to the selection of race and faction is a choice.
Campaigning to have all games offer completely free selection of race and faction is, in fact, limiting choice.
And AGAIN, defending the lack of choice is not the same as the same as defending the freedom of it because the freedom of it offeres everything the LACK OF IT HAS AND MORE.
Argument 1: I want a game with only 1 attack.
Argument 2: I want a game with 20 attacks.
1. Hey, how dare you limit my choices by rejecting what I want.
2. No, you can still just press the same damn attack over and over and let me have my 20.
not equal. does not apply. try your approach again please because having the freedom to chose faction and race still allows you to pretend to be limited in game while everyone else has the FREEDOM to chose. It is a ROLYPLAYING game afterall, role play you are a mindless slave forced to serve a faction and never leave their lands.
again you make my argument for me. A game with 20 attacks is fne as a choice, so is a game with only one (bit of exageration there but it is your number) is also a choice. Telling me that if I like a game with 1 attack then play the game with 20 attacks and use the one I like, is not offering me a choice of the style I like but telling me I am wrong to want what I want.
Arguing that this game should be changed to allow something you want is also fine, arguing that it is giving more choices is not, it is trying to make this aspect of this game like some other game you like.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
Guys you are both right just not talking about the same thing. Kickstarters can have 3 options.
1. The target goal is not met. All ppl get their money back.
2. Target goal is met. Game is developped and delivered. Everyone is happy.
3. Target goal is met. Game is developped but not (fully) delivered and fails.
As far as I understand the kickstarter TOS only covers situation 1 and 2. But in case the deliverd product is utter shit that money is indeed spent and only by a lawsuit would you have any (smal) chance to see any of that money back.
But how is option number 3 any different then waiting for months for your next favorite mmo. It goes live. You buy it, start playing, you pay a subscription or some stuff from ingame cashshop. It turns out it is not as cool as all those trailers made you think it was. But maybe endgame will be different so grind, grind, grind (so that is how Korean mmo's are so succesfull money wise) and you get there more dissapointment. By now 3 months of your free time spent and you (rage) quit.
An mmorpg is a commitment since it is not instant action like shooters for example. You need to invest time (and money) in any mmo you choose to play!
I'm interested in kickstarters simply because I've played to many dissapointing mmorpg's over the last few years. Aion, Rift, SWTOR. All great titles but they just didn't satisfy me enough to keep interest for long. Sure it's possible that a big company makes a AAA title that can please most ppl and more inportant, has all the features I want in an mmo. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. Defiance? Another thema park. ESO? I'm an Elder Scrolls fan but they leave out the sandbox gameplay? pass. ArcheAge? Seems good, probably th eonly big title I will try when it comes out in EU/NA, but very sceptical. So for now I'm following some kickstarter projects. They really got my interest now. Seems like the change I've been hoping for.
A big name in the industry wanting to make a successor to one of the insutry's big names...and he is resorting to public funding?
It doesn't compute. If he wanted to make a low budget MMO he should have no problem securing funding, and the freedom to make the game he wanted to make.
But instead he is choosing to take advantage of the public, using the Camelot name to secure free capital he doesnt need to pay back. The whole thing seems off to me.
Just consider: If you use borrowed money, you have incentive to succeed. If you use free money, then it doesnt matter, you dont have to pay anyone back.
Kickstarter for a startup company of unknown developers is one thing. For a big name person developing a big name game though...It doesnt add up.
I'm sorry if this has been discussed in the thread but your point is nonsensical,If for some apparent reason you have had your head buried in the sands of Mars then I can understand but come on !!
What have all these guys got in common they all have worked on major projects so lets take a stroll down dev lane and we bump into David Braben of Frontier,Chris Roberts formally of Origin/EA,Ragnar Tornquist lead dev on Secret World.And low and behold all went the KS route and done bloody well as well.
So how the heck can you even make that statement it baffles me,why not follow the trend for Camelot as well ?
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
Guys you are both right just not talking about the same thing. Kickstarters can have 3 options.
1. The target goal is not met. All ppl get their money back.
2. Target goal is met. Game is developped and delivered. Everyone is happy.
3. Target goal is met. Game is developped but not (fully) delivered and fails.
As far as I understand the kickstarter TOS only covers situation 1 and 2. But in case the deliverd product is utter shit that money is indeed spent and only by a lawsuit would you have any (smal) chance to see any of that money back.
But how is option number 3 any different then waiting for months for your next favorite mmo. It goes live. You buy it, start playing, you pay a subscription or some stuff from ingame cashshop. It turns out it is not as cool as all those trailers made you think it was. But maybe endgame will be different so grind, grind, grind (so that is how Korean mmo's are so succesfull money wise) and you get there more dissapointment. By now 3 months of your free time spent and you (rage) quit.
An mmorpg is a commitment since it is not instant action like shooters for example. You need to invest time (and money) in any mmo you choose to play!
I'm interested in kickstarters simply because I've played to many dissapointing mmorpg's over the last few years. Aion, Rift, SWTOR. All great titles but they just didn't satisfy me enough to keep interest for long. Sure it's possible that a big company makes a AAA title that can please most ppl and more inportant, has all the features I want in an mmo. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. Defiance? Another thema park. ESO? I'm an Elder Scrolls fan but they leave out the sandbox gameplay? pass. ArcheAge? Seems good, probably th eonly big title I will try when it comes out in EU/NA, but very sceptical. So for now I'm following some kickstarter projects. They really got my interest now. Seems like the change I've been hoping for.
Actuallly no if the game is delivered it is delivered. You have no recourse if the product does not meet you expectations of it.
Kickstarter, crowd funding, sponsorship are fine ways of seeking assistance in furthering a creative endeavor, but the donor does not control the project or have a say in the outcome. Nor does the donor generally have the right to seek recompense in the event of failure, provided that the funds have been expended on furthering the stated purpose.
Marketing and development are two very different things...
They are still a part of business Mark Jacobs is running though.
When crowdfunding commercial project:
1) you failed with your business before it even started.
or
2) you have a good business plan and only exploiting opportunity to raise money with no accountability. Who does not want free money?
When you are a backer, you either stuff money to people who has no place in business or you make a fool of yourself because properly run business does not need donations.
It might help you to actually visit the site and see how Kickstarters opperate. Because you like many people in this thread obvioulsy have no idea how KS works. I'ts not a donation. In a donation you get nothing back. Take a look at any legit kickstarter and you will see what you get in return for your money. There are differnt levels but you get something back.
Lets use as an example a succesful KS book I was involved with, the lower levels you get an e-book, then it moved up to a paperback copy at higher levels you got ahardbound book. At the top levels you got original art form the book and some other cool stuff. It was so succcesful that everyone who donated got a special extra poster too as a perk. People give money and recieve in return something they really wanted. That is not a donation, that is not panhandeling. That is buisness, its just instead of a few big investors you get a bunch of ittle ones.
And AGAIN, defending the lack of choice is not the same as the same as defending the freedom of it because the freedom of it offeres everything the LACK OF IT HAS AND MORE.
Argument 1: I want a game with only 1 attack.
Argument 2: I want a game with 20 attacks.
1. Hey, how dare you limit my choices by rejecting what I want.
2. No, you can still just press the same damn attack over and over and let me have my 20.
not equal. does not apply. try your approach again please because having the freedom to chose faction and race still allows you to pretend to be limited in game while everyone else has the FREEDOM to chose. It is a ROLYPLAYING game afterall, role play you are a mindless slave forced to serve a faction and never leave their lands.
Doesn't this depend on what a studio is trying to do with their game, and the experience they're trying to offer? In this game the choice is in which Realm you choose at character select. It's a choice that is set in stone after you complete that creation. The focus of the game is serving that realm in battle..I'd assume the thought process behind this is that pride will grow within the player for the realm they serve.
You might have a point when discussing a game like ESO and its hard faction choice (it's not something intrisically befitting a TES game). The case is different here. A knight serves his realm/king before all else. A viking plunders lands with his people, so on and so forth. Duty and honor were a big thing in the times these folktales originate from.
It makes sense to create a system where the player is left with a defining choice when picking a side. In most cases people were put to death for trying to have a freedom of choice in these times, the theme is inherent to the subject matter.
I also have to agree with seeker in that you want to limit game experiences with only one choice of game type. There's no need for every game developed to follow your ideal design.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Black Eye Games think they only need 1 million to do all that. Some devs that worked on the Witcher and Neverwinter Nights.
https://www.facebook.com/FUtilez ||| https://twitter.com/FUtilez ||| https://www.youtube.com/futilezguild
It doesnt work like that. New players coming in with a game know THAT game, not those before it.
10 million players know WoW and that means gameplay like WoW, that does not mean a portion of them will automatically like DaoC or any other game before WoW.
Also, the MMO market is now more a WORLD market and not segregated like it used to be. Just look at the market from 1997-2003, Asian games mostly stayed in ASIA, Western games in the west...now, games are being made for the WORLD to enjoy. Many of the bigger Asian game makers now have offices in the US and Europe to aid in designing games that will appeal everywhere....then there is the age factor.
Why chose a game that does, say, what TESO is going to do, the DaoC route of limiting races to factions and factions to their own locked areas when there are games with opposing factions, at war, in an open world? Just because? If the main focus is that, how many new players that never played DaoC are going to chose to go with the game that is more limiting? Sorry, the genre HAS grown and the choices are MANY, yet another thing that has changed about the genre, many choices a game maker is competeing with, a game really needs to stand OUT to get a player to play...and providing a choice based on limits other games DONT have, is not very easy to make appealing to those that never tasted it.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
How do you think buisnesses like Microsoft and Apply where made? Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne presented their first computer Apple I at a computer club and made their first money there. Bill Gates and Paul Allen developped their first pc themselves. They just found another company for distributing and marketing...
Ppl with a passion and a little funding can go a long way sometimes.
https://www.facebook.com/FUtilez ||| https://twitter.com/FUtilez ||| https://www.youtube.com/futilezguild
I always find freedom of choice arguments a little hypocritical. Like this one: the writer usually has something they like that they want to see in every choice, and things they dont like that they want to be removed from all choices. Not freedom of choice at all really if everything is the same choice.
They are still a part of business Mark Jacobs is running though.
When crowdfunding commercial project:
1) you failed with your business before it even started.
or
2) you have a good business plan and only exploiting opportunity to raise money with no accountability. Who does not want free money?
When you are a backer, you either stuff money to people who has no place in business or you make a fool of yourself because properly run business does not need donations.
Good point.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well a bit more complicated than this. Microsoft sold GW Basic for a number of "homebrew" computers, in discussions with IBM about licensing GW Basic for the upcoming IBM PC one of the IBMers complained about Digital Research and the difficulty they had licensing an OS. Bill Gates saw an opportunity and pitched them the idea that Microsoft do the OS. IBM liked the idea and Bill Gates went off and bought a near complete code base to build the OS from.
Latter litagation centered around where that third party got the code base from. It seems likely that they stole it from Digital Research but that was not Micrsoft's fault (at least at law).
I dont want closed factions because there is no reason for it. Not having closed factions not only opens up the entire game world (no closed faction zones) but also allows a game maker to allow faction choice after character creation, or allows the player to play any race with any faction, it leaves room for open world PvP instead of 100% closed zoned PvP.
The other "choice" leaves no choice. its forced. So your idea of defending freedom of choice by wanting an option that gives you no choice over one that does AND provides you with the same gameplay at the same time...is no defense of choice at all.
Also, why take a post where I am talking about new players to a genre and take parts out of context to make it about "choice"? you could have done it in a way to at least make your point look strong.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
You just proved his point...
Communism, government controls everything and chooses for you.
Democracy, government chosen by the people to protect freedom
Asking to be allowed to chose between them is preserving choice? Now who is being hypocritical, give me the choice to choose not to have a choice!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Pardon me your agenda is still showing.
BTW your characterisation of political systems is a very particular US one and not shared by the rest of the world.
As is yours, pretending that allowing someone to chose for you is a choice equal to choosing to be able to chose on your own.
If a game allows all races with any faction, it allows choice. If a game splits races between factions it takes away choice, they are not equal options.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Having a variety of games that have different approaches to the selection of race and faction is a choice.
Campaigning to have all games offer completely free selection of race and faction is, in fact, limiting choice.
And AGAIN, defending the lack of choice is not the same as the same as defending the freedom of it because the freedom of it offeres everything the LACK OF IT HAS AND MORE.
Argument 1: I want a game with only 1 attack.
Argument 2: I want a game with 20 attacks.
1. Hey, how dare you limit my choices by rejecting what I want.
2. No, you can still just press the same damn attack over and over and let me have my 20.
not equal. does not apply. try your approach again please because having the freedom to chose faction and race still allows you to pretend to be limited in game while everyone else has the FREEDOM to chose. It is a ROLYPLAYING game afterall, role play you are a mindless slave forced to serve a faction and never leave their lands.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
add city of heroes, lineage 2 and possibly uo to your sustained list
Stopped reading there. You obviously have no clue about the industry.
Darkfall is one of the only MMOs in the last 8 years to grow after launch.
The dev team went from about 20 devs, on a one million dollar budget, making a game over the course of 5 years.
They've since, started selling boxed copies, opened a second server, hired 40 more developers, moved into a bigger office. Released 3 expansions AND a sequel.
How do you do that if you're a dismal financial failure?
...Uh...
Rift. You know, the game that is almost exactly like WoW.
Are you out of your mind?
You think games that take 100 million bucks to make, and are mass marketed, then flop right after release...making the companies behind them dissolve...
are MORE successful than a game that has been steadily increasing its sub and profits ever year for OVER EIGHT YEARS?
There is not a single western post WoW AAA MMORPG that has ever come close to sustaining as many subs as Eve has.
again you make my argument for me. A game with 20 attacks is fne as a choice, so is a game with only one (bit of exageration there but it is your number) is also a choice. Telling me that if I like a game with 1 attack then play the game with 20 attacks and use the one I like, is not offering me a choice of the style I like but telling me I am wrong to want what I want.
Arguing that this game should be changed to allow something you want is also fine, arguing that it is giving more choices is not, it is trying to make this aspect of this game like some other game you like.
Guys you are both right just not talking about the same thing. Kickstarters can have 3 options.
1. The target goal is not met. All ppl get their money back.
2. Target goal is met. Game is developped and delivered. Everyone is happy.
3. Target goal is met. Game is developped but not (fully) delivered and fails.
As far as I understand the kickstarter TOS only covers situation 1 and 2. But in case the deliverd product is utter shit that money is indeed spent and only by a lawsuit would you have any (smal) chance to see any of that money back.
But how is option number 3 any different then waiting for months for your next favorite mmo. It goes live. You buy it, start playing, you pay a subscription or some stuff from ingame cashshop. It turns out it is not as cool as all those trailers made you think it was. But maybe endgame will be different so grind, grind, grind (so that is how Korean mmo's are so succesfull money wise) and you get there more dissapointment. By now 3 months of your free time spent and you (rage) quit.
An mmorpg is a commitment since it is not instant action like shooters for example. You need to invest time (and money) in any mmo you choose to play!
I'm interested in kickstarters simply because I've played to many dissapointing mmorpg's over the last few years. Aion, Rift, SWTOR. All great titles but they just didn't satisfy me enough to keep interest for long. Sure it's possible that a big company makes a AAA title that can please most ppl and more inportant, has all the features I want in an mmo. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. Defiance? Another thema park. ESO? I'm an Elder Scrolls fan but they leave out the sandbox gameplay? pass. ArcheAge? Seems good, probably th eonly big title I will try when it comes out in EU/NA, but very sceptical. So for now I'm following some kickstarter projects. They really got my interest now. Seems like the change I've been hoping for.
https://www.facebook.com/FUtilez ||| https://twitter.com/FUtilez ||| https://www.youtube.com/futilezguild
I'm sorry if this has been discussed in the thread but your point is nonsensical,If for some apparent reason you have had your head buried in the sands of Mars then I can understand but come on !!
What have all these guys got in common they all have worked on major projects so lets take a stroll down dev lane and we bump into David Braben of Frontier,Chris Roberts formally of Origin/EA,Ragnar Tornquist lead dev on Secret World.And low and behold all went the KS route and done bloody well as well.
So how the heck can you even make that statement it baffles me,why not follow the trend for Camelot as well ?
Actuallly no if the game is delivered it is delivered. You have no recourse if the product does not meet you expectations of it.
Kickstarter, crowd funding, sponsorship are fine ways of seeking assistance in furthering a creative endeavor, but the donor does not control the project or have a say in the outcome. Nor does the donor generally have the right to seek recompense in the event of failure, provided that the funds have been expended on furthering the stated purpose.
It might help you to actually visit the site and see how Kickstarters opperate. Because you like many people in this thread obvioulsy have no idea how KS works. I'ts not a donation. In a donation you get nothing back. Take a look at any legit kickstarter and you will see what you get in return for your money. There are differnt levels but you get something back.
Lets use as an example a succesful KS book I was involved with, the lower levels you get an e-book, then it moved up to a paperback copy at higher levels you got ahardbound book. At the top levels you got original art form the book and some other cool stuff. It was so succcesful that everyone who donated got a special extra poster too as a perk. People give money and recieve in return something they really wanted. That is not a donation, that is not panhandeling. That is buisness, its just instead of a few big investors you get a bunch of ittle ones.
Doesn't this depend on what a studio is trying to do with their game, and the experience they're trying to offer? In this game the choice is in which Realm you choose at character select. It's a choice that is set in stone after you complete that creation. The focus of the game is serving that realm in battle..I'd assume the thought process behind this is that pride will grow within the player for the realm they serve.
You might have a point when discussing a game like ESO and its hard faction choice (it's not something intrisically befitting a TES game). The case is different here. A knight serves his realm/king before all else. A viking plunders lands with his people, so on and so forth. Duty and honor were a big thing in the times these folktales originate from.
It makes sense to create a system where the player is left with a defining choice when picking a side. In most cases people were put to death for trying to have a freedom of choice in these times, the theme is inherent to the subject matter.
I also have to agree with seeker in that you want to limit game experiences with only one choice of game type. There's no need for every game developed to follow your ideal design.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson