This is why I said retail as a comparison is a bad analogy. There is nothing about KS that would be anything like a retail purchase. Even with KS, you aren't buying something. Assuming the product completes, you still have to buy it. KS has little to no recourse if the project goes wrong. And KS (For the purposes of this forum) has little to no ROI.
Yes, I'm not disputing this or saying my analogy works perfectly. However, I made it in the context of the OP which is taking two fairly dodgy Kickstarters and saying they "prove" that all Kickstarters are bad. I still say this is ridiculous in the same way as swearing off shopping because you get ripped off at one or two stores.
What that 2 KS proves is that it is possible to hand over money and get nothing in KS, while that never happens in a store.
Good example of why KS is not something i will ever spend a dime in ... now if you want to gamble your $$$, i am not going to stop you.
You can easily get something at a store that's not at all what you thought it was. Some stores may take it back most won't. You think scams and crap products didn't exist before crowdfunding? Buyer beware.
So? At least the product exists, and you have no one to blame if you dont open, and inspect it.
KS does not even guarantee the existence of a product .. HUGE difference.
This is why I said retail as a comparison is a bad analogy. There is nothing about KS that would be anything like a retail purchase. Even with KS, you aren't buying something. Assuming the product completes, you still have to buy it. KS has little to no recourse if the project goes wrong. And KS (For the purposes of this forum) has little to no ROI.
For once, I am in complete agreement with Nari. No way I'll fund a game like that.
It's giving money away with zero guarantees.
It's worse than gambling, because in gambling there's a possibility of getting more than you put in. KS isn't even an investment where there's a dividend to be paid quarterly. If folks want to invest, invest in game companies with all the consumer protections it offers.
The whole point is there is NO consumer protections in this gray market. Plus, the player gets zero say in it's development. It's all take, and what is given, doesn't mean a hill of beans if the project never sees the light of day -- of if it does appear, even last 6 months to enjoy the perks.
It's like funding any artist with ideas, without even inspecting their portfolio of what they can do, or their work history that a design can be finished within our lifetime and as illustrated.
It's worse than gambling, because in gambling there's a possibility of getting more than you put in. KS isn't even an investment where there's a dividend to be paid quarterly. If folks want to invest, invest in game companies with all the consumer protections it offers.
It's completely different. I've already got a decent game and a good album back from KS. If I had gambled with that money I would have (99.999% sure) got nothing back and if you're treating Kickstarter as an investment you don't understand it. It's not exactly a donation either but a lot closer to that than investing.
I'm not saying it's for everyone or people who don't feel comfortable with it should do it but there is solid logic behind it and it doesn't affect you at all if you choose not to use it (except perhaps the positive effect of having more cool stuff available to buy later).
It's worse than gambling, because in gambling there's a possibility of getting more than you put in. KS isn't even an investment where there's a dividend to be paid quarterly. If folks want to invest, invest in game companies with all the consumer protections it offers.
It's completely different. I've already got a decent game and a good album back from KS. If I had gambled with that money I would have (99.999% sure) got nothing back and if you're treating Kickstarter as an investment you don't understand it. It's not exactly a donation either but a lot closer to that than investing.
I'm not saying it's for everyone or people who don't feel comfortable with it should do it but there is solid logic behind it and it doesn't affect you at all if you choose not to use it (except perhaps the positive effect of having more cool stuff available to buy later).
What? I bought a band's album on Kickstarter. Received it ok and it was good. I fail to see the problem.
Didn't realize that a MMORPG forum is about music now.
Did you?
When folks are talking about KS on a MMORPG forum it's about GAMES. It's about the tens to possibly hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into projects with little more than a sticker to show for it for donors.
It's not donating $10,000 for some boy band wanting an album produced. -_-
What? I bought a band's album on Kickstarter. Received it ok and it was good. I fail to see the problem.
Didn't realize that a MMORPG forum is about music now.
Did you?
When folks are talking about KS on a MMORPG forum it's about GAMES. It's about the tens to possibly hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into projects with little more than a sticker to show for it for donors.
It's not donating $10,000 for some boy band wanting an album produced. -_-
I mostly donate to games. I just gave example of projects that have been successful that I've backed.
Most are still in production.
Judging from some of the posts here only scammers operate on Kickstarter so I think any successful projects are useful to counteract that assumption.
This proves how dumb people are when comes to spending.It also proves that just about anyone and everyone are seeing an easy scam to get FREE money from the naive is Naive even the right word to use?.Now there is also the chance that perhaps this proves there is some some FAKE pledges to try and encourage others to chime in.Example you see tons others pledging so you think ok ,i am in as well,you never really know and cannot trust them one bit,especially when $$$ is involved.
What? I bought a band's album on Kickstarter. Received it ok and it was good. I fail to see the problem.
Didn't realize that a MMORPG forum is about music now.
Did you?
When folks are talking about KS on a MMORPG forum it's about GAMES. It's about the tens to possibly hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into projects with little more than a sticker to show for it for donors.
It's not donating $10,000 for some boy band wanting an album produced. -_-
I mostly donate to games. I just gave example of projects that have been successful that I've backed.
Most are still in production.
Judging from some of the posts here only scammers operate on Kickstarter so I think any successful projects are useful to counteract that assumption.
It is a concern, because unlike investing in a company, there's almost nothing to protect a donor on KS from not only being scammed, exploited.
Want to support games? It's better to invest in them conventionally...besides it actually can pay dividends. Take that $10,000 and buy their stock, and reinvest the dividends. Indies wanting capital can just as well incorporate (takes but 2 people to do so), so there's no barrier...but a 2 year proven record it can keep itself in black ink...where they can get...conventional loans!!!
Blizzard started on family loans and maxing out credit cards to bank roll their employees. They didn't defer the risks onto others, they had to hustle to pay off the debts -- not the public to pay their debts for them. Just like going to college creates debt that has to be paid off, game companies have to operate like any other business. All companies start with a dream, some elbow grease, and running up debts they have to figure out how to repay until they're solvent.
Want to support games? It's better to invest in them conventionally...besides it actually can pay dividends. Take that $10,000 and buy their stock, and reinvest the dividends. Indies wanting capital can just as well incorporate (takes but 2 people to do so), so there's no barrier...but a 2 year proven record it can keep itself in black ink...where they can get...conventional loans!!!
Blizzard started on family loans and maxing out credit cards to bank roll their employees. They didn't defer the risks onto others, they had to hustle to pay off the debts -- not the public to pay their debts for them. Just like going to college creates debt that has to be paid off, game companies have to operate like any other business. All companies start with a dream, some elbow grease, and running up debts they have to figure out how to repay until they're solvent.
Very few people have $10,000 to invest in some game company. The point of crowdfunding is you can give just a little bit of money but it all adds up. I know there's a risk but that's just the way it has to be.
Want to support games? It's better to invest in them conventionally...besides it actually can pay dividends. Take that $10,000 and buy their stock, and reinvest the dividends. Indies wanting capital can just as well incorporate (takes but 2 people to do so), so there's no barrier...but a 2 year proven record it can keep itself in black ink...where they can get...conventional loans!!!
Blizzard started on family loans and maxing out credit cards to bank roll their employees. They didn't defer the risks onto others, they had to hustle to pay off the debts -- not the public to pay their debts for them. Just like going to college creates debt that has to be paid off, game companies have to operate like any other business. All companies start with a dream, some elbow grease, and running up debts they have to figure out how to repay until they're solvent.
Very few people have $10,000 to invest in some game company. The point of crowdfunding is you can give just a little bit of money but it all adds up. I know there's a risk but that's just the way it has to be.
For some, yes, that is the way it has to be. The problem is greedy people will find KS and abuse it. I'm not even sure what KS should be, since I dont' believe in it, but I will say this much: KS should not become the means to secure an investment. Sooner or later, anyone wishing to pitch a dream to investors will have to secure backing from the general public before it even gets looked at. This KS thing needs to die and fast. At least for big budget projects anyway. There needs to be laws or something along the lines of "If you cannot fully fund your project via KS, the money goes back to it's rightful owners. Or at least something to deter abuse as well as those who don't need KS.
Want to support games? It's better to invest in them conventionally...besides it actually can pay dividends. Take that $10,000 and buy their stock, and reinvest the dividends. Indies wanting capital can just as well incorporate (takes but 2 people to do so), so there's no barrier...but a 2 year proven record it can keep itself in black ink...where they can get...conventional loans!!!
Blizzard started on family loans and maxing out credit cards to bank roll their employees. They didn't defer the risks onto others, they had to hustle to pay off the debts -- not the public to pay their debts for them. Just like going to college creates debt that has to be paid off, game companies have to operate like any other business. All companies start with a dream, some elbow grease, and running up debts they have to figure out how to repay until they're solvent.
Very few people have $10,000 to invest in some game company. The point of crowdfunding is you can give just a little bit of money but it all adds up. I know there's a risk but that's just the way it has to be.
For some, yes, that is the way it has to be. The problem is greedy people will find KS and abuse it. I'm not even sure what KS should be, since I dont' believe in it, but I will say this much: KS should not become the means to secure an investment. Sooner or later, anyone wishing to pitch a dream to investors will have to secure backing from the general public before it even gets looked at. This KS thing needs to die and fast. At least for big budget projects anyway. There needs to be laws or something along the lines of "If you cannot fully fund your project via KS, the money goes back to it's rightful owners. Or at least something to deter abuse as well as those who don't need KS.
Probably a better means is limited funding from donors. $1 or maybe $20 max per credit card or Paypal or whatever funding source. This way players -- who are known to be addicts -- won't go overboard.
The danger is the industry won't police themselves, and use every excuse known to blame or defer responsibility. BUT, the alternative is worse, and that's when government comes in to clean the house. So far they can collaborate with "internet freedom fighters", but some tragedy will happen and the government will l-o-v-e to find something to regulate, especially with people who detest any regulation (like wild kids).
It comes back again to balance between the extremes. KS is a noble design IF it self-regulates itself. If they don't...
For some, yes, that is the way it has to be. The problem is greedy people will find KS and abuse it. I'm not even sure what KS should be, since I dont' believe in it, but I will say this much: KS should not become the means to secure an investment. Sooner or later, anyone wishing to pitch a dream to investors will have to secure backing from the general public before it even gets looked at. This KS thing needs to die and fast. At least for big budget projects anyway. There needs to be laws or something along the lines of "If you cannot fully fund your project via KS, the money goes back to it's rightful owners. Or at least something to deter abuse as well as those who don't need KS.
I don't see the reasoning behind this. if a company has done their market research and think they have the next big thing they aren't going to require it to go through Kickstarter. At most Kickstarter may have a role in convincing the big companies that some borderline niche projects are in fact viable which isn't a bad thing.
I'm certainly not against government regulation where it is needed but the majority of people who are funding Kickstarters know what they are doing and are choosing to take on the risks involved as well as researching the people and companies involved. There is no reason for a bunch of laws like you are proposing. It's just trying to control what people do with their money.
Want to support games? It's better to invest in them conventionally...besides it actually can pay dividends. Take that $10,000 and buy their stock, and reinvest the dividends. Indies wanting capital can just as well incorporate (takes but 2 people to do so), so there's no barrier...but a 2 year proven record it can keep itself in black ink...where they can get...conventional loans!!!
Blizzard started on family loans and maxing out credit cards to bank roll their employees. They didn't defer the risks onto others, they had to hustle to pay off the debts -- not the public to pay their debts for them. Just like going to college creates debt that has to be paid off, game companies have to operate like any other business. All companies start with a dream, some elbow grease, and running up debts they have to figure out how to repay until they're solvent.
Very few people have $10,000 to invest in some game company. The point of crowdfunding is you can give just a little bit of money but it all adds up. I know there's a risk but that's just the way it has to be.
For some, yes, that is the way it has to be. The problem is greedy people will find KS and abuse it. I'm not even sure what KS should be, since I dont' believe in it, but I will say this much: KS should not become the means to secure an investment. Sooner or later, anyone wishing to pitch a dream to investors will have to secure backing from the general public before it even gets looked at. This KS thing needs to die and fast. At least for big budget projects anyway. There needs to be laws or something along the lines of "If you cannot fully fund your project via KS, the money goes back to it's rightful owners. Or at least something to deter abuse as well as those who don't need KS.
If the project isn't fully funded, the money is never drafted in the first place. There is no need to refund the money.
You have not defined the horrible end point future where Kickstarter is not killed. What is the horrible consequence of leaving Kickstarter to run, exactly as it is running now that requires the intervention of Congress? We know that letting Skynet achieve sentience means most of humanity dies. We know that letting animal rights activists get into the facility that is researching the Rage virus releases it into the wild. But we don't know what the horrible consequences of Kickstarter are.
So far in this thread, the consequences are a movie that otherwise would not have been made, that the fans would never be able to see is going to get made. Because Warner Bros. had no interest in making the movie and told everyone involved, "No". The actors and fans were able to raise the money to get the movie made, simply because they wanted it. In the second project, they raised so much money, because people felt so strongly on the issue that not only is the little girl going to camp, and an RPG has been produced by a 9 year old girl. more children are going to get a creative space designed specifically for kids to learn how to produce and share their own programming projects without having to worry about all the adult weirdos on the internet.
So please, regale me with terrible tales of the future where Kickstarter keeps funding projects.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
For some, yes, that is the way it has to be. The problem is greedy people will find KS and abuse it. I'm not even sure what KS should be, since I dont' believe in it, but I will say this much: KS should not become the means to secure an investment. Sooner or later, anyone wishing to pitch a dream to investors will have to secure backing from the general public before it even gets looked at. This KS thing needs to die and fast. At least for big budget projects anyway. There needs to be laws or something along the lines of "If you cannot fully fund your project via KS, the money goes back to it's rightful owners. Or at least something to deter abuse as well as those who don't need KS.
I don't see the reasoning behind this. if a company has done their market research and think they have the next big thing they aren't going to require it to go through Kickstarter. At most Kickstarter may have a role in convincing the big companies that some borderline niche projects are in fact viable which isn't a bad thing.
I'm certainly not against government regulation where it is needed but the majority of people who are funding Kickstarters know what they are doing and are choosing to take on the risks involved as well as researching the people and companies involved. There is no reason for a bunch of laws like you are proposing. It's just trying to control what people do with their money.
If you don't believe in it just ignore it....
Re read your post. The answer is only 8 words in. (Where you said "if") These are the guys you want to keep out (The ones who didn't) I'm also not against what you call "borderline projects" seeking help. But as was stated above, KS needs to regulate itself, or be regulated. Also as was stated, I'd prefer the former. But as it is now. KS is a time bomb. Sooner or later, a major incident is going to happen.
BTW, on The Today show this morning, they talked briefly about how KS was hacked and they got user names and passwords. Not CC info though, but still, that ls already enough damage. Of course, I'm not pointing my finger at that incident and saying "See! KS is bad". Since it happens to even companies like Blizzard and Sony among many others. I'm just mentioning it since we are on the topic.
If the project isn't fully funded, the money is never drafted in the first place. There is no need to refund the money.
You have not defined the horrible end point future where Kickstarter is not killed. What is the horrible consequence of leaving Kickstarter to run, exactly as it is running now that requires the intervention of Congress? We know that letting Skynet achieve sentience means most of humanity dies. We know that letting animal rights activists get into the facility that is researching the Rage virus releases it into the wild. But we don't know what the horrible consequences of Kickstarter are.
So far in this thread, the consequences are a movie that otherwise would not have been made, that the fans would never be able to see is going to get made. Because Warner Bros. had no interest in making the movie and told everyone involved, "No". The actors and fans were able to raise the money to get the movie made, simply because they wanted it. In the second project, they raised so much money, because people felt so strongly on the issue that not only is the little girl going to camp, and an RPG has been produced by a 9 year old girl. more children are going to get a creative space designed specifically for kids to learn how to produce and share their own programming projects without having to worry about all the adult weirdos on the internet.
So please, regale me with terrible tales of the future where Kickstarter keeps funding projects.
You mean KS is not a threat to humanity on the level of some fictional apocalypse? Wow! I didn't realize.
I am not saying there won't be successes, but I am saying there will be failures. Some of them will be honest failures but some (and here is where my point is) will not be so honest. KS is great for what it is for. But lets face it, there are going to be ideas that are artificially made to look great but aren't and should not be backed. Who's to know the difference?
But then again, it's the same for any kind of investing really, so I suppose there is that point. In the end, it's a "Buyer Beware" situation.
Re read your post. The answer is only 8 words in. (Where you said "if") These are the guys you want to keep out (The ones who didn't) I'm also not against what you call "borderline projects" seeking help. But as was stated above, KS needs to regulate itself, or be regulated. Also as was stated, I'd prefer the former. But as it is now. KS is a time bomb. Sooner or later, a major incident is going to happen.
I don't know what you thought I meant but I am saying if the company thinks they have a sure-fire hit based on market-research they will fund it themselves. Under a conventional publisher model those are pretty much the only things that will get made. Kickstarter opens the door for riskier or more niche projects where a developer can prove a market exists for his product and either raise enough to just make the game or convince publishers that it is worth funding.
I assume you aren't actually saying that only games where the metrics indicate a sure-fire hit should get made. If you are you must be very happy with what big publishers currently put out .
If the project isn't fully funded, the money is never drafted in the first place. There is no need to refund the money.
You have not defined the horrible end point future where Kickstarter is not killed. What is the horrible consequence of leaving Kickstarter to run, exactly as it is running now that requires the intervention of Congress? We know that letting Skynet achieve sentience means most of humanity dies. We know that letting animal rights activists get into the facility that is researching the Rage virus releases it into the wild. But we don't know what the horrible consequences of Kickstarter are.
So far in this thread, the consequences are a movie that otherwise would not have been made, that the fans would never be able to see is going to get made. Because Warner Bros. had no interest in making the movie and told everyone involved, "No". The actors and fans were able to raise the money to get the movie made, simply because they wanted it. In the second project, they raised so much money, because people felt so strongly on the issue that not only is the little girl going to camp, and an RPG has been produced by a 9 year old girl. more children are going to get a creative space designed specifically for kids to learn how to produce and share their own programming projects without having to worry about all the adult weirdos on the internet.
So please, regale me with terrible tales of the future where Kickstarter keeps funding projects.
You mean KS is not a threat to humanity on the level of some fictional apocalypse? Wow! I didn't realize.
I am not saying there won't be successes, but I am saying there will be failures. Some of them will be honest failures but some (and here is where my point is) will not be so honest. KS is great for what it is for. But lets face it, there are going to be ideas that are artificially made to look great but aren't and should not be backed. Who's to know the difference?
But then again, it's the same for any kind of investing really, so I suppose there is that point. In the end, it's a "Buyer Beware" situation.
When you get down to it, we, the public, are paying for everything. Not in a figurative sense, but a literal sense. When an investor has money to spend, it's because they made money on something. That something only made money because the public, us, spent money on it. If an investor loses money on something, then some portion of the public spent money on something and got nothing or some portion of the public stopped buying one thing and started buying something else. The only difference between Kickstarter and the regular investment process for the public is that the investor role isn't being filled by an invidual, it's being filled by the project developer. The public, as usual, is just providing the money and they may, or may not, get a product.
Roughly one third of the games that are funded actually produce the game, so far. About half of the game projects produce something, even if it isn't the exact product, so far. It doesn't look like anyone has made the attempt to defaud people, yet. There is no doubt, because people are what they are, that someone will try, but Kickstarter doesn't seem to be the ideal place to do it. You have to convince many people, not just a few investors that a project is a good bet. Unless the project is fully funded, no money is earned at all. Of the high profile projects I've seen, the ones that have something to show before they hit Kickstarter are the ones that seem to get the money. The idea guys don't seem to get the money, unless they are backed by a well known name. To successfully defraud people, the person doing it would have to invest a good bit of money to get the whole thing started, and there is a high probability of failure. Even well known developers, with something to show before they hit Kickstarter don't always get the money the want.
I think it's far more likely that people will spend money on projects that don't produce anything, but it's just a simple case of failure, not fraud. This is a guarantee, and people should know this going in. There are no guarantees. They aren't going to Best Buy and buying a game, they are spending some money in the hopes that a game will eventually exist. They are trading the odds that the game will suck when they buy it at Best Buy with the odds that the game they are contributing to will come into existence. I don't know which is a better bet.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Re read your post. The answer is only 8 words in. (Where you said "if") These are the guys you want to keep out (The ones who didn't) I'm also not against what you call "borderline projects" seeking help. But as was stated above, KS needs to regulate itself, or be regulated. Also as was stated, I'd prefer the former. But as it is now. KS is a time bomb. Sooner or later, a major incident is going to happen.
I don't know what you thought I meant but I am saying if the company thinks they have a sure-fire hit based on market-research they will fund it themselves. Under a conventional publisher model those are pretty much the only things that will get made. Kickstarter opens the door for riskier or more niche projects where a developer can prove a market exists for his product and either raise enough to just make the game or convince publishers that it is worth funding.
Any two bit artist, animator and programmer could ask for millions of dollars for pipe dreams, too.
KS doesn't give us a paper trail to follow. It doesn't give us a time sheet, either. The Rent-a-Programmer sites do though.
The weird thing in KS it changes the relationship between producer and consumer, as well. Because when players now are bank rolling a game, they would expect more in the relationship than just producer/consumer. If I hired a programmer to make me a custom ap, I'm now an employer. At that stage I expect certain results done, at a certain time, and with a finish date. KS doesn't offer that, yet they essentially want players to be their employers and bypassing the legalities of hiring employees (which with the Rent-a-Programmer sites automatically file for you, especially when project fees go beyond $1,000). That's the stuff that really blurs the line when Warner Bros enters the foray.
This is why I said retail as a comparison is a bad analogy. There is nothing about KS that would be anything like a retail purchase. Even with KS, you aren't buying something. Assuming the product completes, you still have to buy it. KS has little to no recourse if the project goes wrong. And KS (For the purposes of this forum) has little to no ROI.
Yes, I'm not disputing this or saying my analogy works perfectly. However, I made it in the context of the OP which is taking two fairly dodgy Kickstarters and saying they "prove" that all Kickstarters are bad. I still say this is ridiculous in the same way as swearing off shopping because you get ripped off at one or two stores.
The OP just got the reason wrong. It is bad not because there are two bad examples. It is bad because you are buying nothing .. just a promise with little recourse. Also unlike a retailer which you can go make a scene, or write to management.
However, people make bad decisions all the time. Personally i won't give a dime to KS, but hey .. if you want to buy pipe dreams .. please do so .. may be i will benefit down the line too. Nothing is more pleasant than risking other people's money.
It's all about choice. I have my own views on KS, and some of the people that use it for projects. Others have theirs.
What it boils down to is whether the site reviews each project and determines if it conforms to their (the site's) rules and regulations and, in the case of fraud/abuse, should be taken down.
We may disagree with ethics and/or morality of it but in the end, it's people willing to give money. No matter the cause, project, or charity. It's OURS to give.
Why let something so trivial like who gives money to whom get to us?
The weird thing in KS it changes the relationship between producer and consumer, as well. Because when players now are bank rolling a game, they would expect more in the relationship than just producer/consumer. If I hired a programmer to make me a custom ap, I'm now an employer. At that stage I expect certain results done, at a certain time, and with a finish date. KS doesn't offer that, yet they essentially want players to be their employers and bypassing the legalities of hiring employees (which with the Rent-a-Programmer sites automatically file for you, especially when project fees go beyond $1,000). That's the stuff that really blurs the line when Warner Bros enters the foray.
If I wanted to really make an argument against Warner Bros. and the like getting involved in crowdfunding it would be that they are shifting all the risk on to the backer/consumer but if the movie does well they will make all the profit. Of course that could be said of any Kickstarter but when it's a megacorporation doing it it bothers me a little more.
At the same time I could see someone saying "Well I really want to see this movie and it's never gonna get made if I don't back it."
Comments
Yes, I'm not disputing this or saying my analogy works perfectly. However, I made it in the context of the OP which is taking two fairly dodgy Kickstarters and saying they "prove" that all Kickstarters are bad. I still say this is ridiculous in the same way as swearing off shopping because you get ripped off at one or two stores.
It's giving money away with zero guarantees.
It's worse than gambling, because in gambling there's a possibility of getting more than you put in. KS isn't even an investment where there's a dividend to be paid quarterly. If folks want to invest, invest in game companies with all the consumer protections it offers.
The whole point is there is NO consumer protections in this gray market. Plus, the player gets zero say in it's development. It's all take, and what is given, doesn't mean a hill of beans if the project never sees the light of day -- of if it does appear, even last 6 months to enjoy the perks.
It's like funding any artist with ideas, without even inspecting their portfolio of what they can do, or their work history that a design can be finished within our lifetime and as illustrated.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
It's completely different. I've already got a decent game and a good album back from KS. If I had gambled with that money I would have (99.999% sure) got nothing back and if you're treating Kickstarter as an investment you don't understand it. It's not exactly a donation either but a lot closer to that than investing.
I'm not saying it's for everyone or people who don't feel comfortable with it should do it but there is solid logic behind it and it doesn't affect you at all if you choose not to use it (except perhaps the positive effect of having more cool stuff available to buy later).
Good album back?
I rest my case.
o.O
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
What? I bought a band's album on Kickstarter. Received it ok and it was good. I fail to see the problem.
Didn't realize that a MMORPG forum is about music now.
Did you?
When folks are talking about KS on a MMORPG forum it's about GAMES. It's about the tens to possibly hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into projects with little more than a sticker to show for it for donors.
It's not donating $10,000 for some boy band wanting an album produced. -_-
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I mostly donate to games. I just gave example of projects that have been successful that I've backed.
Most are still in production.
Judging from some of the posts here only scammers operate on Kickstarter so I think any successful projects are useful to counteract that assumption.
This just shows me why humans are stupid nothing else.
It is a concern, because unlike investing in a company, there's almost nothing to protect a donor on KS from not only being scammed, exploited.
Want to support games? It's better to invest in them conventionally...besides it actually can pay dividends. Take that $10,000 and buy their stock, and reinvest the dividends. Indies wanting capital can just as well incorporate (takes but 2 people to do so), so there's no barrier...but a 2 year proven record it can keep itself in black ink...where they can get...conventional loans!!!
Blizzard started on family loans and maxing out credit cards to bank roll their employees. They didn't defer the risks onto others, they had to hustle to pay off the debts -- not the public to pay their debts for them. Just like going to college creates debt that has to be paid off, game companies have to operate like any other business. All companies start with a dream, some elbow grease, and running up debts they have to figure out how to repay until they're solvent.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Very few people have $10,000 to invest in some game company. The point of crowdfunding is you can give just a little bit of money but it all adds up. I know there's a risk but that's just the way it has to be.
For some, yes, that is the way it has to be. The problem is greedy people will find KS and abuse it. I'm not even sure what KS should be, since I dont' believe in it, but I will say this much: KS should not become the means to secure an investment. Sooner or later, anyone wishing to pitch a dream to investors will have to secure backing from the general public before it even gets looked at. This KS thing needs to die and fast. At least for big budget projects anyway. There needs to be laws or something along the lines of "If you cannot fully fund your project via KS, the money goes back to it's rightful owners. Or at least something to deter abuse as well as those who don't need KS.
Probably a better means is limited funding from donors. $1 or maybe $20 max per credit card or Paypal or whatever funding source. This way players -- who are known to be addicts -- won't go overboard.
The danger is the industry won't police themselves, and use every excuse known to blame or defer responsibility. BUT, the alternative is worse, and that's when government comes in to clean the house. So far they can collaborate with "internet freedom fighters", but some tragedy will happen and the government will l-o-v-e to find something to regulate, especially with people who detest any regulation (like wild kids).
It comes back again to balance between the extremes. KS is a noble design IF it self-regulates itself. If they don't...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GruP7HLmJf4
Yeah, audits aren't fun.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I don't see the reasoning behind this. if a company has done their market research and think they have the next big thing they aren't going to require it to go through Kickstarter. At most Kickstarter may have a role in convincing the big companies that some borderline niche projects are in fact viable which isn't a bad thing.
I'm certainly not against government regulation where it is needed but the majority of people who are funding Kickstarters know what they are doing and are choosing to take on the risks involved as well as researching the people and companies involved. There is no reason for a bunch of laws like you are proposing. It's just trying to control what people do with their money.
If you don't believe in it just ignore it....
If the project isn't fully funded, the money is never drafted in the first place. There is no need to refund the money.
You have not defined the horrible end point future where Kickstarter is not killed. What is the horrible consequence of leaving Kickstarter to run, exactly as it is running now that requires the intervention of Congress? We know that letting Skynet achieve sentience means most of humanity dies. We know that letting animal rights activists get into the facility that is researching the Rage virus releases it into the wild. But we don't know what the horrible consequences of Kickstarter are.
So far in this thread, the consequences are a movie that otherwise would not have been made, that the fans would never be able to see is going to get made. Because Warner Bros. had no interest in making the movie and told everyone involved, "No". The actors and fans were able to raise the money to get the movie made, simply because they wanted it. In the second project, they raised so much money, because people felt so strongly on the issue that not only is the little girl going to camp, and an RPG has been produced by a 9 year old girl. more children are going to get a creative space designed specifically for kids to learn how to produce and share their own programming projects without having to worry about all the adult weirdos on the internet.
So please, regale me with terrible tales of the future where Kickstarter keeps funding projects.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Re read your post. The answer is only 8 words in. (Where you said "if") These are the guys you want to keep out (The ones who didn't) I'm also not against what you call "borderline projects" seeking help. But as was stated above, KS needs to regulate itself, or be regulated. Also as was stated, I'd prefer the former. But as it is now. KS is a time bomb. Sooner or later, a major incident is going to happen.
BTW, on The Today show this morning, they talked briefly about how KS was hacked and they got user names and passwords. Not CC info though, but still, that ls already enough damage. Of course, I'm not pointing my finger at that incident and saying "See! KS is bad". Since it happens to even companies like Blizzard and Sony among many others. I'm just mentioning it since we are on the topic.
You mean KS is not a threat to humanity on the level of some fictional apocalypse? Wow! I didn't realize.
I am not saying there won't be successes, but I am saying there will be failures. Some of them will be honest failures but some (and here is where my point is) will not be so honest. KS is great for what it is for. But lets face it, there are going to be ideas that are artificially made to look great but aren't and should not be backed. Who's to know the difference?
But then again, it's the same for any kind of investing really, so I suppose there is that point. In the end, it's a "Buyer Beware" situation.
I don't know what you thought I meant but I am saying if the company thinks they have a sure-fire hit based on market-research they will fund it themselves. Under a conventional publisher model those are pretty much the only things that will get made. Kickstarter opens the door for riskier or more niche projects where a developer can prove a market exists for his product and either raise enough to just make the game or convince publishers that it is worth funding.
I assume you aren't actually saying that only games where the metrics indicate a sure-fire hit should get made. If you are you must be very happy with what big publishers currently put out
.
When you get down to it, we, the public, are paying for everything. Not in a figurative sense, but a literal sense. When an investor has money to spend, it's because they made money on something. That something only made money because the public, us, spent money on it. If an investor loses money on something, then some portion of the public spent money on something and got nothing or some portion of the public stopped buying one thing and started buying something else. The only difference between Kickstarter and the regular investment process for the public is that the investor role isn't being filled by an invidual, it's being filled by the project developer. The public, as usual, is just providing the money and they may, or may not, get a product.
Roughly one third of the games that are funded actually produce the game, so far. About half of the game projects produce something, even if it isn't the exact product, so far. It doesn't look like anyone has made the attempt to defaud people, yet. There is no doubt, because people are what they are, that someone will try, but Kickstarter doesn't seem to be the ideal place to do it. You have to convince many people, not just a few investors that a project is a good bet. Unless the project is fully funded, no money is earned at all. Of the high profile projects I've seen, the ones that have something to show before they hit Kickstarter are the ones that seem to get the money. The idea guys don't seem to get the money, unless they are backed by a well known name. To successfully defraud people, the person doing it would have to invest a good bit of money to get the whole thing started, and there is a high probability of failure. Even well known developers, with something to show before they hit Kickstarter don't always get the money the want.
I think it's far more likely that people will spend money on projects that don't produce anything, but it's just a simple case of failure, not fraud. This is a guarantee, and people should know this going in. There are no guarantees. They aren't going to Best Buy and buying a game, they are spending some money in the hopes that a game will eventually exist. They are trading the odds that the game will suck when they buy it at Best Buy with the odds that the game they are contributing to will come into existence. I don't know which is a better bet.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Any two bit artist, animator and programmer could ask for millions of dollars for pipe dreams, too.
KS doesn't give us a paper trail to follow. It doesn't give us a time sheet, either. The Rent-a-Programmer sites do though.
The weird thing in KS it changes the relationship between producer and consumer, as well. Because when players now are bank rolling a game, they would expect more in the relationship than just producer/consumer. If I hired a programmer to make me a custom ap, I'm now an employer. At that stage I expect certain results done, at a certain time, and with a finish date. KS doesn't offer that, yet they essentially want players to be their employers and bypassing the legalities of hiring employees (which with the Rent-a-Programmer sites automatically file for you, especially when project fees go beyond $1,000). That's the stuff that really blurs the line when Warner Bros enters the foray.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
The OP just got the reason wrong. It is bad not because there are two bad examples. It is bad because you are buying nothing .. just a promise with little recourse. Also unlike a retailer which you can go make a scene, or write to management.
However, people make bad decisions all the time. Personally i won't give a dime to KS, but hey .. if you want to buy pipe dreams .. please do so .. may be i will benefit down the line too. Nothing is more pleasant than risking other people's money.
"A fool and his money are soon parted"
It's all about choice. I have my own views on KS, and some of the people that use it for projects. Others have theirs.
What it boils down to is whether the site reviews each project and determines if it conforms to their (the site's) rules and regulations and, in the case of fraud/abuse, should be taken down.
We may disagree with ethics and/or morality of it but in the end, it's people willing to give money. No matter the cause, project, or charity. It's OURS to give.
Why let something so trivial like who gives money to whom get to us?
If I wanted to really make an argument against Warner Bros. and the like getting involved in crowdfunding it would be that they are shifting all the risk on to the backer/consumer but if the movie does well they will make all the profit. Of course that could be said of any Kickstarter but when it's a megacorporation doing it it bothers me a little more.
At the same time I could see someone saying "Well I really want to see this movie and it's never gonna get made if I don't back it."
It's a complicated 2 sided issue.