Also, I think some of your statements are pretty liberal.
The only analogous AAA title to compare Rust to for example that I can think of is Day Z Standalone. The fact that Day Z Standalone has far more players and sold far more units thus far would indicate otherwise. (Started as a mod but is being built by a mid sized developer.)
By most definetions of quality and success, Xyson and Wurm wouldn't make the cut.
Might you post the relevant "studies" that show crowd funding has benefitted the gaming industry? I'd love to read those.
...this is what frustrates me.
You dont have to make a billion in sales to be successful. Every MMO doesnt have to be the Micdonalds of games in order to have value.
The creator of Wurm is one guy. If he can make a living off that game (which he has) and people like myself are willing to pay then its a success..full stop.
The only thing 'liberal' in my comment is the assumption that when I say something is better that I dont mean 'for me'. quality of games is highly subjective is it not? so its assumed
That's a pretty narrow definition for success. By that definition virtual nothing in life is ever unsuccessful. Very optimistic indeed.
Then please allow me this elaboration:
A success to me is a product that is critically acclaimed, draws at least a stable long term and consequential audience and improves and moves forward its genre.
To date Kickstarter has not yielded such a title in gaming. There is lots of potential for it, and lots of potential for people to be fleeced.
Also, I think some of your statements are pretty liberal.
The only analogous AAA title to compare Rust to for example that I can think of is Day Z Standalone. The fact that Day Z Standalone has far more players and sold far more units thus far would indicate otherwise. (Started as a mod but is being built by a mid sized developer.)
By most definetions of quality and success, Xyson and Wurm wouldn't make the cut.
Might you post the relevant "studies" that show crowd funding has benefitted the gaming industry? I'd love to read those.
...this is what frustrates me.
You dont have to make a billion in sales to be successful. Every MMO doesnt have to be the Micdonalds of games in order to have value.
The creator of Wurm is one guy. If he can make a living off that game (which he has) and people like myself are willing to pay then its a success..full stop.
The only thing 'liberal' in my comment is the assumption that when I say something is better that I dont mean 'for me'. quality of games is highly subjective is it not? so its assumed
That's a pretty narrow definition for success. By that definition virtual nothing in life is ever unsuccessful. Very optimistic indeed.
Then please allow me this elaboration:
A success to me is a product that is critically acclaimed, draws at least a stable long term and consequential audience and improves and moves forward its genre.
To date Kickstarter has not yielded such a title in gaming. There is lots of potential for it, and lots of potential for people to be fleeced.
I couldnt give a f*ck what the critics think. Most of them think GTA is a sandbox game...lol
I also dont care how much the games I like move forward the games I dont like.
I do like how (and have seen evidence of this) the games I like move foward other games I like. Xyson is inspired from Wurm.
The overall feature sets of AAA games is amazingly mindblowing low when it compares to indie devs but if that is your measure of success then fair game.
The bottom line is if it wasnt for indie games and kickstarters gamers like me wouldnt be playing and we would be much more pissed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
What has completely blown my mind is that on paper Kickstarter should be a scam fest but its prooven not to be. Its prooven to work. There isnt any question about 'will it work' it DOES work.
I was not a believer either and I am amazed and pleased that humanity has prooven the assumptions of straight up greed to be wrong.
As far as oversight to be honest most devs are better at over sighting themselves the publisher even can be.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
What has completely blown my mind is that on paper Kickstarter should be a scam fest but its prooven not to be. Its prooven to work. There isnt any question about 'will it work' it DOES work.
I was not a believer either and I am amazed and pleased that humanity has prooven the assumptions of straight up greed to be wrong.
As far as oversight to be honest most devs are better at over sighting themselves the publisher even can be.
Even if kickstarter works as intended, its a scam. Do people donate to small groups with the intent that one day that group will make a product they may like? I should give Sony 20$ because they want to make a 4k tv and I want a 4k tv. I should give Pfizer 20$ because I use some of their pharmaceuticals and maybe I will like the new ones. I know a guy that wants to start a band, i should give him 20$ so he can record his album and maybe make it.
Its amazes me to no end as to why people believe that kickstarter is ok. If some indi company or hell one guy wants to create a game he can at east take the time to create some portfolio, present it, and then do some kind of math as far as returns go. Lets say 10% of all income will go to all investors, that 10% being divided up amongst the investors based upon how much they invested. Is 10% of the profit to much to distribute? Yes it is when you can be full funded and owe no one.
I love how the US government can take tax dollars and invest them into some crazy technology like the development of the internet. Then the US citizens pay for using the internet it built and funded. Then the US government is in a budgeting crisis when it developed the single most important technology ever created (arguably). When you or your government donates money with no hope of a return it better be to a natural disaster victim and not to support every fucking corporation that has found a way to monetize one of its donations to the world (internet).
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
What has completely blown my mind is that on paper Kickstarter should be a scam fest but its prooven not to be. Its prooven to work. There isnt any question about 'will it work' it DOES work.
I was not a believer either and I am amazed and pleased that humanity has prooven the assumptions of straight up greed to be wrong.
As far as oversight to be honest most devs are better at over sighting themselves the publisher even can be.
Even if kickstarter works as intended, its a scam. .....
its a donation portal just like giving money to Salvation Army or something. People are not 'investing' it in anymore than people who donate to the local church.
100 million dollars was donated last year by gamers expecting nothing in return other that developers trying to make games that are not for shiit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
What has completely blown my mind is that on paper Kickstarter should be a scam fest but its prooven not to be. Its prooven to work. There isnt any question about 'will it work' it DOES work.
I was not a believer either and I am amazed and pleased that humanity has prooven the assumptions of straight up greed to be wrong.
As far as oversight to be honest most devs are better at over sighting themselves the publisher even can be.
Even if kickstarter works as intended, its a scam. .....
its a donation portal just like giving money to Salvation Army or something. People are not 'investing' it in anymore than people who donate to the local church.
100 million dollars was donated last year by gamers expecting nothing in return other that developers trying to make games that are not for shiit
Its not a donation portal. People are building a product for PROFIT. PROFIT.
Just like the developer/publishers you seem to not like so much.
You give them money to build something THEY turn a profit on; IF they ever yield a title.
Kickstarter for games CAN NOT objectively be called a success yet. Not a single Kickstarter project of any size has reached "complete" status of yet. Not even one. Its way too early to start claiming its great, revolutionary and has changed the world.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
What has completely blown my mind is that on paper Kickstarter should be a scam fest but its prooven not to be. Its prooven to work. There isnt any question about 'will it work' it DOES work.
I was not a believer either and I am amazed and pleased that humanity has prooven the assumptions of straight up greed to be wrong.
As far as oversight to be honest most devs are better at over sighting themselves the publisher even can be.
Even if kickstarter works as intended, its a scam. .....
its a donation portal just like giving money to Salvation Army or something. People are not 'investing' it in anymore than people who donate to the local church.
100 million dollars was donated last year by gamers expecting nothing in return other that developers trying to make games that are not for shiit
Its not a donation portal. People are building a product for PROFIT. PROFIT.
Just like the developer/publishers you seem to not like so much.
You give them money to build something THEY turn a profit on; IF they ever yield a title.
Kickstarter for games CAN NOT objectively be called a success yet. Not a single Kickstarter project of any size has reached "complete" status of yet. Not even one. Its way too early to start claiming its great, revolutionary and has changed the world.
no silly..its a donation portal for the people who are putting the money in not for the people getting.
really? are we really having to explain the painfully obvious to you?
should it work? NO
does it work? YES.
full stop done.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
1. see the problem is you are right in theory but as it turns out its hasnt been happening. Its no longer a question, its been working (as in past tense). Will a mega million dollar game come out of it? I dont know nor do I care.
2. Nobody who gives money to a kickstarter sees it as an 'investment'.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
Actually, once a corporation takes your money in exchange for a product, you have a legal right to that product and they in turn, a legal obligation to provide the product specified.
Also, I'll specify: Kickstarter is not a charitable Donations portal and you can not claim donations made thru Kickstarter on tax returns.
So, in all honesty it falls under a new category of spending: Crowd Funding. Which is somewhere between an investment and a donation. It is a VERY grey angle.
As for whether or not we'll see heists pulled on Kickstarter that is only a matter of time.
We stray from the point of the post, which I think was meant as this: Is Kickstarter good or bad for the gaming industry. My point: It's too early to say, we're still on the journey.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
Actually, once a corporation takes your money in exchange for a product, you have a legal right to that product and they in turn, a legal obligation to provide the product specified.
Also, I'll specify: Kickstarter is not a charitable Donations portal and you can not claim donations made thru Kickstarter on tax returns.
So, in all honesty it falls under a new category of spending: Crowd Funding. Which is somewhere between an investment and a donation. It is a VERY grey angle.
As for whether or not we'll see heists pulled on Kickstarter that is only a matter of time.
We stray from the point of the post, which I think was meant as this: Is Kickstarter good or bad for the gaming industry. My point: It's too early to say, we're still on the journey.
you are not buying a game when you kickstart.
why would you even think that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
1. see the problem is you are right in theory but as it turns out its hasnt been happening. Its no longer a question, its been working (as in past tense). Will a mega million dollar game come out of it? I dont know nor do I care.
2. Nobody who gives money to a kickstarter sees it as an 'investment'.
2. Some do. You can not speak for everyone that gives money. If someone gives money hoping that that money will help this company produce a game that they want to play, that is an investment.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
1. see the problem is you are right in theory but as it turns out its hasnt been happening. Its no longer a question, its been working (as in past tense). Will a mega million dollar game come out of it? I dont know nor do I care.
2. Nobody who gives money to a kickstarter sees it as an 'investment'.
The only people KickStarter has work for to date:
-People wanting to work on a game without a publisher/big time developer backing that game.
-People willing to risk their money on potential games that could potentially be fun when they play them.
The fact remains that a serious title born of Kickstarter has yet to be fully produced.
Further, I contend that the only way Kickstarter will change the gaming world in a positive way is by helping popular, well-crafted games be created that draw additional players after their release. This is what remains to occur, until then, you can be excited all you want. You can claim that Kickstarter is how God intended gaming to be done but its all still so many words til it happens.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
1. see the problem is you are right in theory but as it turns out its hasnt been happening. Its no longer a question, its been working (as in past tense). Will a mega million dollar game come out of it? I dont know nor do I care.
2. Nobody who gives money to a kickstarter sees it as an 'investment'.
2. Some do. You can not speak for everyone that gives money. If someone gives money hoping that that money will help this company produce a game that they want to play, that is an investment.
its not anymore of an investment then giving money to the local church to help out flood victims in another country.
we normally call that a donation, not an investment.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
1. see the problem is you are right in theory but as it turns out its hasnt been happening. Its no longer a question, its been working (as in past tense). Will a mega million dollar game come out of it? I dont know nor do I care.
2. Nobody who gives money to a kickstarter sees it as an 'investment'.
2. Some do. You can not speak for everyone that gives money. If someone gives money hoping that that money will help this company produce a game that they want to play, that is an investment.
its not anymore of an investment then giving money to the local church to help out flood victims in another country.
we normally call that a donation, not an investment.
Can you not see the difference in giving money knowing that there will be no return and giving money to create a product? If I give money to Star Citizen it just may be because I want that game made so I can play it which is me investing money to create a product that I may enjoy. Selfless vs selfish. Its not hard to see the difference.
Richard Garriott is in the industry so he has the contacts necessary to fund a game. If a baseball player can do it without kickstarter, someone who has been developing games since like 1979 should be able to. Its just far easier to get small amounts of money from a few hundred thousand than a large chunk of change from real investors who actually set deadlines and want to see some goals achieved. If Garriott can bankroll a trip to space he probably could have created a game with that money. " Now, at a reported cost of more than $30 million, he will become the sixth private citizen to travel into orbit. "
If you are going to blow 30 mil to go to space while your current game "tabula rasa" is on life support, then beg for capital for an investment, you can fuck off.
He went with kickstarter to AVOID any kind of investments into his company that would lead to losing control over the game. His joining NCSoft taught him his final lesson on how bad outside investment is, Tabula Rasa he found, was never HIS game despite how much of his money was used to help make it.
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
Actually, once a corporation takes your money in exchange for a product, you have a legal right to that product and they in turn, a legal obligation to provide the product specified.
Also, I'll specify: Kickstarter is not a charitable Donations portal and you can not claim donations made thru Kickstarter on tax returns.
So, in all honesty it falls under a new category of spending: Crowd Funding. Which is somewhere between an investment and a donation. It is a VERY grey angle.
As for whether or not we'll see heists pulled on Kickstarter that is only a matter of time.
We stray from the point of the post, which I think was meant as this: Is Kickstarter good or bad for the gaming industry. My point: It's too early to say, we're still on the journey.
you are not buying a game when you kickstart.
why would you even think that?
I'm thinking I'm responding to the wrong person.
You give money to the people that create a Kickstarter program in exchange for the goods/rewards they list for that level of commitment. The issue is that they have no legally defined responsibility to provide you with that reward. Not yet, its in the grey area of a handshake deal. There's no definition to what you will actually get in exchange for the funds you provide.
You do know there's levels of funding and various rewards/items exchanged for said funding?
Edit: This is a digression. We are off the topic of will Kickstarter be good for gaming. And arguing about what Kickstarter is and how it operates. We should transition back to topic and I'll help:
Provide evidence that Kickstarter has made a positive impact on gaming. (Not circumspect opinion.) Provide tangible evidence that gaming is better now as a direct result of Kickstarter.
Can you not see the difference in giving money knowing that there will be no return and giving money to create a product? If I give money to Star Citizen it just may be because I want that game made so I can play it which is me investing money to create a product that I may enjoy. Selfless vs selfish. Its not hard to see the difference.
1. kickstarter is not I repeat not buying a product. nobody who gives money thinks that.
2. people donate with the idea that they MIGHT get to play that game.
3. and investment is more along the lines of getting an economic return from an economic investment.
I am starting to think this entire conversation is useless.
Look if you are happy with mainstream games then fine go play them.
Many of us however have been having fun with games that have been kickstartered and we are grateful the system exists because nobody else is creating games as intresting.
Yes there will be scams but pretty much the entire EA company is a scam as well without kickstarter so I am not worried about it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Can you not see the difference in giving money knowing that there will be no return and giving money to create a product? If I give money to Star Citizen it just may be because I want that game made so I can play it which is me investing money to create a product that I may enjoy. Selfless vs selfish. Its not hard to see the difference.
1. kickstarter is not I repeat not buying a product. nobody who gives money thinks that.
2. people donate with the idea that they MIGHT get to play that game.
3. and investment is more along the lines of getting an economic return from an economic investment.
I am starting to think this entire conversation is useless.
Look if you are happy with mainstream games then fine go play them.
Many of us however have been having fun with games that have been kickstartered and we are grateful the system exists because nobody else is creating games as intresting.
Yes there will be scams but pretty much the entire EA company is a scam as well without kickstarter so I am not worried about it.
Now you are getting to the crux of why I don't necessarily think Kickstarter will be good for gaming:
You are stating clearly that you feel like you are throwing your money at someone in the HOPES of MAYBE playing a game. Go ask your mom if she thinks that's a good idea. Your accountant or financial adviser most certainly will NOT.
Will money being throw around at hopes and ideas be good for gaming? Also, please provide evidence of all these great games people are playing from Kickstarter right now. I want to play them!
Can you not see the difference in giving money knowing that there will be no return and giving money to create a product? If I give money to Star Citizen it just may be because I want that game made so I can play it which is me investing money to create a product that I may enjoy. Selfless vs selfish. Its not hard to see the difference.
1. kickstarter is not I repeat not buying a product. nobody who gives money thinks that.
2. people donate with the idea that they MIGHT get to play that game.
3. and investment is more along the lines of getting an economic return from an economic investment.
I am starting to think this entire conversation is useless.
Look if you are happy with mainstream games then fine go play them.
Many of us however have been having fun with games that have been kickstartered and we are grateful the system exists because nobody else is creating games as intresting.
Yes there will be scams but pretty much the entire EA company is a scam as well without kickstarter so I am not worried about it.
Now you are getting to the crux of why I don't necessarily think Kickstarter will be good for gaming:
You are stating clearly that you feel like you are throwing your money at someone in the HOPES of MAYBE playing a game. Go ask your mom if she thinks that's a good idea. Your accountant or financial adviser most certainly will NOT.
Will money being throw around at hopes and ideas be good for gaming? Also, please provide evidence of all these great games people are playing from Kickstarter right now. I want to play them!
here is the problem.
so far...
publishers have prooven for many years that Publishers are bad for gaming
So far...
Kickstarters have prooven that kickstart is good for gaming.
That doesnt mean scams will not happen. Will they be in the mean is the question.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I support creativity and kickstarters are a great outlet for certain projects, if you don't believe in a project don't support it.
Can't believe these people that support this stuff and don't understand it is a risk, but it's a chance you take and certainly the developer will suffer backlash and possibly more.
No reason anyone should be against indie developers or creativity as it expands the market. People that have been disappointed in certain projects should get over themselves and be more careful in what they support in the future and how much, cause they were supporting something that probably hasn't even been dreamed about in years.
I can't believe this even has to be asked, yes it is good for the industry, even if certain projects fail it is good, some people just don't seem to understand this, it opens doors.
Comments
To be completely honest the main reason is that most indie developers are doing it for the love of the work.
They are not trolling the internet looking for the best way to rip people off....your thinking of EA
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That's a pretty narrow definition for success. By that definition virtual nothing in life is ever unsuccessful. Very optimistic indeed.
Then please allow me this elaboration:
A success to me is a product that is critically acclaimed, draws at least a stable long term and consequential audience and improves and moves forward its genre.
To date Kickstarter has not yielded such a title in gaming. There is lots of potential for it, and lots of potential for people to be fleeced.
I might be interested in taking money for unfinished product as well. If you do that as an investment broker you do jail time.
Do as a so-called developer and you are a heralded for pursuing your craft?
I couldnt give a f*ck what the critics think. Most of them think GTA is a sandbox game...lol
I also dont care how much the games I like move forward the games I dont like.
I do like how (and have seen evidence of this) the games I like move foward other games I like. Xyson is inspired from Wurm.
The overall feature sets of AAA games is amazingly mindblowing low when it compares to indie devs but if that is your measure of success then fair game.
The bottom line is if it wasnt for indie games and kickstarters gamers like me wouldnt be playing and we would be much more pissed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So making a game with someone else's money, with no oversight, not having to produce anything tangible, and if you do produce a hit you keep most of the profits, yea that has nothing to do with it. No regulation is bad. This is gambling without the idea of a return. You wouldnt play blackjack with the notion that there isnt a possibility of winning would you?
Kickstarter is inherently flawed. Come up with some sort of way to give the investors a return on their money and I am in. Even if it is a small return its some kind of return. Risk without even the remote chance of a reward is a scam. Do not say that the entertainment you receive from the finished product is a reward.
What has completely blown my mind is that on paper Kickstarter should be a scam fest but its prooven not to be. Its prooven to work. There isnt any question about 'will it work' it DOES work.
I was not a believer either and I am amazed and pleased that humanity has prooven the assumptions of straight up greed to be wrong.
As far as oversight to be honest most devs are better at over sighting themselves the publisher even can be.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Even if kickstarter works as intended, its a scam. Do people donate to small groups with the intent that one day that group will make a product they may like? I should give Sony 20$ because they want to make a 4k tv and I want a 4k tv. I should give Pfizer 20$ because I use some of their pharmaceuticals and maybe I will like the new ones. I know a guy that wants to start a band, i should give him 20$ so he can record his album and maybe make it.
Its amazes me to no end as to why people believe that kickstarter is ok. If some indi company or hell one guy wants to create a game he can at east take the time to create some portfolio, present it, and then do some kind of math as far as returns go. Lets say 10% of all income will go to all investors, that 10% being divided up amongst the investors based upon how much they invested. Is 10% of the profit to much to distribute? Yes it is when you can be full funded and owe no one.
I love how the US government can take tax dollars and invest them into some crazy technology like the development of the internet. Then the US citizens pay for using the internet it built and funded. Then the US government is in a budgeting crisis when it developed the single most important technology ever created (arguably). When you or your government donates money with no hope of a return it better be to a natural disaster victim and not to support every fucking corporation that has found a way to monetize one of its donations to the world (internet).
its a donation portal just like giving money to Salvation Army or something. People are not 'investing' it in anymore than people who donate to the local church.
100 million dollars was donated last year by gamers expecting nothing in return other that developers trying to make games that are not for shiit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Its not a donation portal. People are building a product for PROFIT. PROFIT.
Just like the developer/publishers you seem to not like so much.
You give them money to build something THEY turn a profit on; IF they ever yield a title.
Kickstarter for games CAN NOT objectively be called a success yet. Not a single Kickstarter project of any size has reached "complete" status of yet. Not even one. Its way too early to start claiming its great, revolutionary and has changed the world.
The amount of derp is astounding.......you do know that corporate backed games have been shut down without being finished before right? Ever hear of the term VAPORWARE? It comes from that.
So much for NEEDING oversight. Your arguments hold no weight at all.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
no silly..its a donation portal for the people who are putting the money in not for the people getting.
really? are we really having to explain the painfully obvious to you?
should it work? NO
does it work? YES.
full stop done.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Umm are you for real? I didnt give money to a corporate backed game so I have no stake in it so if it shuts down without being finished then why do I care? A corporation has the right to cease its development of a project. Just like a kickstarter project can stagnate for 2 years then cease due to some unforeseen reason and guess what, thats not some corporations money.
1. see the problem is you are right in theory but as it turns out its hasnt been happening. Its no longer a question, its been working (as in past tense). Will a mega million dollar game come out of it? I dont know nor do I care.
2. Nobody who gives money to a kickstarter sees it as an 'investment'.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Actually, once a corporation takes your money in exchange for a product, you have a legal right to that product and they in turn, a legal obligation to provide the product specified.
Also, I'll specify: Kickstarter is not a charitable Donations portal and you can not claim donations made thru Kickstarter on tax returns.
So, in all honesty it falls under a new category of spending: Crowd Funding. Which is somewhere between an investment and a donation. It is a VERY grey angle.
As for whether or not we'll see heists pulled on Kickstarter that is only a matter of time.
We stray from the point of the post, which I think was meant as this: Is Kickstarter good or bad for the gaming industry. My point: It's too early to say, we're still on the journey.
you are not buying a game when you kickstart.
why would you even think that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. Some do. You can not speak for everyone that gives money. If someone gives money hoping that that money will help this company produce a game that they want to play, that is an investment.
The only people KickStarter has work for to date:
-People wanting to work on a game without a publisher/big time developer backing that game.
-People willing to risk their money on potential games that could potentially be fun when they play them.
The fact remains that a serious title born of Kickstarter has yet to be fully produced.
Further, I contend that the only way Kickstarter will change the gaming world in a positive way is by helping popular, well-crafted games be created that draw additional players after their release. This is what remains to occur, until then, you can be excited all you want. You can claim that Kickstarter is how God intended gaming to be done but its all still so many words til it happens.
its not anymore of an investment then giving money to the local church to help out flood victims in another country.
we normally call that a donation, not an investment.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Can you not see the difference in giving money knowing that there will be no return and giving money to create a product? If I give money to Star Citizen it just may be because I want that game made so I can play it which is me investing money to create a product that I may enjoy. Selfless vs selfish. Its not hard to see the difference.
I'm thinking I'm responding to the wrong person.
You give money to the people that create a Kickstarter program in exchange for the goods/rewards they list for that level of commitment. The issue is that they have no legally defined responsibility to provide you with that reward. Not yet, its in the grey area of a handshake deal. There's no definition to what you will actually get in exchange for the funds you provide.
You do know there's levels of funding and various rewards/items exchanged for said funding?
Edit: This is a digression. We are off the topic of will Kickstarter be good for gaming. And arguing about what Kickstarter is and how it operates. We should transition back to topic and I'll help:
Provide evidence that Kickstarter has made a positive impact on gaming. (Not circumspect opinion.) Provide tangible evidence that gaming is better now as a direct result of Kickstarter.
1. kickstarter is not I repeat not buying a product. nobody who gives money thinks that.
2. people donate with the idea that they MIGHT get to play that game.
3. and investment is more along the lines of getting an economic return from an economic investment.
I am starting to think this entire conversation is useless.
Look if you are happy with mainstream games then fine go play them.
Many of us however have been having fun with games that have been kickstartered and we are grateful the system exists because nobody else is creating games as intresting.
Yes there will be scams but pretty much the entire EA company is a scam as well without kickstarter so I am not worried about it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Now you are getting to the crux of why I don't necessarily think Kickstarter will be good for gaming:
You are stating clearly that you feel like you are throwing your money at someone in the HOPES of MAYBE playing a game. Go ask your mom if she thinks that's a good idea. Your accountant or financial adviser most certainly will NOT.
Will money being throw around at hopes and ideas be good for gaming? Also, please provide evidence of all these great games people are playing from Kickstarter right now. I want to play them!
here is the problem.
so far...
publishers have prooven for many years that Publishers are bad for gaming
So far...
Kickstarters have prooven that kickstart is good for gaming.
That doesnt mean scams will not happen. Will they be in the mean is the question.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
not exactly related but a very interesting lecture on this general subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I support creativity and kickstarters are a great outlet for certain projects, if you don't believe in a project don't support it.
Can't believe these people that support this stuff and don't understand it is a risk, but it's a chance you take and certainly the developer will suffer backlash and possibly more.
No reason anyone should be against indie developers or creativity as it expands the market. People that have been disappointed in certain projects should get over themselves and be more careful in what they support in the future and how much, cause they were supporting something that probably hasn't even been dreamed about in years.
I can't believe this even has to be asked, yes it is good for the industry, even if certain projects fail it is good, some people just don't seem to understand this, it opens doors.