So basically what you're saying is you're too lazy to do any form of research so you can make an informed decision. That you'd rather trust companies like EA and Ubisoft to deliver "quality" products to you.
Can't even believe i'm reading this. Some people's logic just amazes me.
I'm not too lazy to do it, I'm not capable of doing it. Nor are you.
On Kickstarter or other crowdfunding sites, the backers take a leap of faith.
The faith the project will succeed, without knowing if the developer will deliver, if the developer has a sound financial status, and...more importantly...without any form of legal means to stand on if the project doesn't deliver.
It puts a much larger burden on the backer than a bank has to carry, a bank DOES check the financial status of the client, it DOES have legal means to stand on.
Before you fund a Kickstarter project, the site actually informs you that you have no legal means nor any protection from Kickstarter itself.
I find this a serious shortcoming, and throwing all responsibility onto the backer is completely unfair.
What Kickstarter says, black on white, is that they, nor the project, has any responsibility to refund your money, or to deliver on your investment. You as a backer, give your money, give away your legal rights, and nothing but faith, is there to support your investment.
As far as "EA / Ubisoft" games. The leap of faith you have to take is a small step in comparison. You only buy the game when it's released, not "in the hopes" it gets released like you do on Kickstarter. You also haven't signed off your legal rights when you buy the game.
So basically what you're saying is you're too lazy to do any form of research so you can make an informed decision. That you'd rather trust companies like EA and Ubisoft to deliver "quality" products to you.
Can't even believe i'm reading this. Some people's logic just amazes me.
I'm not too lazy to do it, I'm not capable of doing it. Nor are you.
On Kickstarter or other crowdfunding sites, the backers take a leap of faith.
The faith the project will succeed, without knowing if the developer will deliver, if the developer has a sound financial status, and...more importantly...without any form of legal means to stand on if the project doesn't deliver.
It puts a much larger burden on the backer than a bank has to carry, a bank DOES check the financial status of the client, it DOES have legal means to stand on.
Before you fund a Kickstarter project, the site actually informs you that you have no legal means nor any protection from Kickstarter itself.
I find this a serious shortcoming, and throwing all responsibility onto the backer is completely unfair.
What Kickstarter says, black on white, is that they, nor the project, has any responsibility to refund your money, or to deliver on your investment. You as a backer, give your money, give away your legal rights, and nothing but faith, is there to support your investment.
No, its not unfair. This has been happening for YEARS even prior to kickstarter.
Oh you bought those pants off the bargain clothing rack? The zipper doesn't close and the inside pockets have holes in them? But you bought them and all sales are final and you can't return them? Maybe you should have tried them on then --
When you sign up for kickstarter to fund a project it lets you know there are no refunds... people who don't understand that should be labelled as fools. That being said - every project I've ever kickstarted that successfully funded, I received something on the project -- and though one of the games that I kickstarted is still in development, I do feel it will complete and come to fruition.
Its not unfair though. People buy things they can't return all the time -- and they should have thought ahead about their purchases in the event they felt robbed or cheated. I don't even follow half the projects I kickstart... I pay the money (that I can afford to lose) and then when I get my product in the mail I throw a little party for myself.
Just because you have no guarantee that you'll get a product or win something doesn't stop people from taking the chance if they believe the idea is worth backing. Thats essentially how gambling works - and sometimes there is such a thing as a smart bet.
Just because you have no guarantee that you'll get a product or win something doesn't stop people from taking the chance if they believe the idea is worth backing. Thats essentially how gambling works - and sometimes there is such a thing as a smart bet.
I have nothing against people who want to spend money on kickstarter, some people have money to spare and what is $10 for me might have a value of $1 for someone else.
However, backers aren't protected, and you're not investing money, you're giving it away in exchange for hope.
I clicked on this thread thinking the OP was going to say he was an angel investor and was going to start giving million to small indies to make games...
Crowd funding is all about marketing and hype.Project does not have to show asset worth.Project does not have to even use the money for the said project.Project can run unlimited campaigning on multiple sites.Project has to build their own hype through marketing. aka news on major sites.Crowd funding fraud is not punishable as federal crime.Crowd funding is not for business startup but loopholes exist for such.These things may get fixed soon.
Normally a start-up investor would get to see a large business plan for the operation before a single penny is "invested". In the case of software projects, a software escrow is often established to allow the investors recoup something if it goes belly up. Naturally, it could also be used to monitor the day to day development of the project.
We should be able to get at least a software escrow that was can monitor daily and that can be used to spinoff branches.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
There are exceptions. One is Divinity Original Sin. It was a massive success and one of the best games of the year.
But, Larian Studios is a big developer with a really good reputation. They are what people call A list developers. They would have gathered the money for their project without Kickstarter too, it was just less risky through Kicstarter.
But Larian Studio is the exception, for most people Kickstarter is a way to get money, without responsibility, and many many projects have abused that. Projects that a bank would have never funded, for good reason.
That's one example but it's not the only example of a successful game to come out of KS. There are at least a dozen. Larian had already made their game actually and used crowdfunding to polish it and make it better. Exactly how many examples can you give of outright Kickstarter scams. They exist but it's pretty damn rare. I'm not talking about devs promising more than they can deliver but outright "I'm gonna take this money and go to Mexico!" That really doesn't happen very often.
Anyway, If you're satisfied with what big publishers dish out keep buying their stuff. Kickstarter is an option for those of us who are not and we choose to gamble a small amount of our money on it because we think it's worth the risk.
Just because you have no guarantee that you'll get a product or win something doesn't stop people from taking the chance if they believe the idea is worth backing. Thats essentially how gambling works - and sometimes there is such a thing as a smart bet.
I have nothing against people who want to spend money on kickstarter, some people have money to spare and what is $10 for me might have a value of $1 for someone else.
However, backers aren't protected, and you're not investing money, you're giving it away in exchange for hope.
Yes... essentially, you're right. But as long as they know that, I don't think its wrong.
I agree. Crowdfunding is horrible. The only thing worse is the current crop of cash grabbing, creeping pay to win, soulless, traditionally funded disasters that is the alternative.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
There are exceptions. One is Divinity Original Sin. It was a massive success and one of the best games of the year.
But, Larian Studios is a big developer with a really good reputation. They are what people call A list developers. They would have gathered the money for their project without Kickstarter too, it was just less risky through Kicstarter.
But Larian Studio is the exception, for most people Kickstarter is a way to get money, without responsibility, and many many projects have abused that. Projects that a bank would have never funded, for good reason.
That's one example but it's not the only example of a successful game to come out of KS. There are at least a dozen. Larian had already made their game actually and used crowdfunding to polish it and make it better. Exactly how many examples can you give of outright Kickstarter scams. They exist but it's pretty damn rare. I'm not talking about devs promising more than they can deliver but outright "I'm gonna take this money and go to Mexico!" That really doesn't happen very often.
Anyway, If you're satisfied with what big publishers dish out keep buying their stuff. Kickstarter is an option for those of us who are not and we choose to gamble a small amount of our money on it because we think it's worth the risk.
This so much. There are a handful of games that were failures, that goes without saying. However, those games also offered a different game to their users. It's generally another KS game, which is basically the KS community helping one another.
Overall, though, the great majority of games that have been successfully funded are out there or are still in development. The problem with games is that the dev cycles are so long that it makes it difficult to really judge how well crowd funding is working without a decade of data, minimum. However, the fact is that good quality titles are now starting to be delivered.
Kickstarter doesn't do refunds and backers aren't protected in any way etc., so yeah, it is a huge leap of faith. Still, it's everyones own money. "Reputable" charities sometimes waste like 40% or more of the donations they recieve on managing said donations. There have been donations where the CEO or whoever was in charge bought a ferrari from the donations.
There may be more protection in place to help people once something *does* go wrong, but it does absolute nothing to keep it from going wrong in the first place. Or take said snowball/pyramid schemes. Bernard Madoff was a reputable stockbrocker, he was non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ etc. Hardly to find a more credible person in the business he was involved in. And yet, $65 billion went missing. Not some hundred thousand, not even the $61 milion Star Citizen has. No, $65 *billion*. Chris Roberts and his team need to develop an algorithm that spits out new ships every week, no way they can keep going on their own to catch up to Madoff manually if thats what they want to do (which i don't think). And most people didn't see a single cent ever again there, too.
Kickstarter as a whole merely raised $1 billion in march..make it two by now, still not much.
Also remember that the whole crowdfunding thing is quite new. It hasn't been around for decades like regular investmest or donations to charities..
Either it proofs succesful, or it will vanish in another five years. If crowdfunding is still popular in 2050 (even as soon as 2020), it will look a whole lot different then today, simply by then we know what works and what not. Just like everything else.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Originally posted by waynejr2 Originally posted by ArChWindCrowd funding is all about marketing and hype.Project does not have to show asset worth.Project does not have to even use the money for the said project.Project can run unlimited campaigning on multiple sites.Project has to build their own hype through marketing. aka news on major sites.Crowd funding fraud is not punishable as federal crime.Crowd funding is not for business startup but loopholes exist for such.These things may get fixed soon.
Normally a start-up investor would get to see a large business plan for the operation before a single penny is "invested". In the case of software projects, a software escrow is often established to allow the investors recoup something if it goes belly up. Naturally, it could also be used to monitor the day to day development of the project.
We should be able to get at least a software escrow that was can monitor daily and that can be used to spinoff branches.
Yes there is the software but the investors also need to finance the initial business startup (not allowed under crowd funding as stated) of all the hardware. Trying to convince investors to take into account the initial investment of time and hardware is a daunting task especially when you know the initial cost is beyond 5 million and 5 million over 2 to 3 years with zero return and possible loss or over running makes it to risky.
Making a MMORPG is hardware intensive as well as software intensive. Many of these crowd funding's fail to take into consideration the real cost. They come up with these great ideas but fail forward thinking of how to implement it. They will say I can put a server up and handle 5000 players when actually they have no clue to the amount of processing it will actually take or the code is so full of loopholes it can be hacked and exploited. Hell, 50,000 is barely going to cover the electric bill and bandwidth. A sever capable of handling 1500 concurrent connections , most time, is comprised of 15 to 20 computers with multiple network paths since a cluster needs very high bandwidth and horsepower to handle the load and the only way is RPC so it takes internal engineering which most lack.
Then there is the engine developer that will take some of the burden off but payout to them is based on gross revenue which is eating all of the profits. By the time it said and done here the only one making anything is the outside sources (engine developer, network provider, those supplying assets) and the team is barely making enough to survive. They are rolling the dice in hopes of making is big but again probably will end up bankrupt.
In the end it comes down to launching a rocket ship with a leaking fuel tank and hopes it fly far enough to reach its destination before blowing up.
Since when do investors get a guarantee of success ?!?!?
Crowdfunding is exactly like investment in this respect - you risk money you dont need for other things, in order to get an extra benefit. In the case of actual investments, thats money. In case of crowdfunding a project that otherwise wouldnt see the light of day.
MMO Crowd Funding take advantage over avid collectors. Some people will shell out a few hundred just to sport a unique player title or item.
People like to stand out. Most of those types of people buy into these stupid things just for the 2-bit digital goods.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, I think that's the whole point. Look at things like Limited Edition prints or M & M's. It's all there so you feel like you're "special". Like, hey! Did you taste the new M&M pretzel? No? Aw man! It was a limited edition, so good luck finding one now!
Also, there's nothing wrong with exclusivity. The problem is when the exclusivity isn't really all that exclusive. At least with Kickstarter it's like, "Hey, there are 500 of these packages. This is an item that will never be made again." Whereas you might question your Limited Edition Guess T-shirt's exclusivity when you see 20 other people in the club wearing it.
To you it's stupid. Probably because you're already a super cool dude and you don't need those digital goods to feel that way. However, some people do, and there's no reason not to leverage that, as long as things you say are exclusive are truly exclusive.
Since when do investors get a guarantee of success ?!?!?
Crowdfunding is exactly like investment in this respect - you risk money you dont need for other things, in order to get an extra benefit. In the case of actual investments, thats money. In case of crowdfunding a project that otherwise wouldnt see the light of day.
I'd love to see you ask a bank for a loan merely by presenting a youtube video and some pictures. I don't think you'll get a heartwarming response.
Regarding trading investment, the big majority of trades happen with massive servers called high frequency trading. It's not like 40 years ago where a trader was standing on a platform making wild guesses.
Traders are mathematicians and programmers in 2014, that use highly complex algorithms and massive servers to anticipate changes in the stock market.
Around 10% of trades on the stock market is still done by people without highly complex computer assistance, they're done by people making guesses, and that number is diminishing daily, because those people can't compete with high frequency trading and they're running out of money to trade.
This could have been an interesting debate. Instead we are given a ridiculous premise that people believe Kickstarter is an investment along with a few bulleted facts.
Lets assume for a minute (without inviting a knee jerk troll response) that most people are relatively intelligent and recognize the potential for gain and loss that comes from making a pledge on kickstarter.
Kickstarter is exactly what it is. Their terms of use are clearly laid out. There are no guarantees and no protections for those who wish to back a project with the expectation of meeting a "want".
Now lets get on with the real debate on whether this type of capital sourcing promotes a new brand of innovation, competition and delivery.
I for one believe that Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sources are leveling the playing field and ultimately accelerating the potential for innovation in the marketplace.
I am looking forward to playing Shrouds of Avatar and Shards, both of which would probably have never seen the light of day without Kickstarter. Whether I will enjoy playing these games is another question, but they both have potential when it comes to my personal gameplay expectations.
Divnity: Original Sin and Path of Exile are two examples of games that have given me a lot of hours of entertainment thanks to crowd funding.
Would Star Citizen have found a publisher eager to hand over $50 million even with Chris Roberts pedigree?
Yes, with every success story, I am sure there are plenty of epic fails and bitter resentment from Kickstarter pledges lost and unfulfilled.
Lets not forget all the disappointment from AAA published titles too. The list of "Top MMO fails" is a frequently visited theme on this site.
Right now I am enjoying 3 games of which 2 are the direct result of crowd sourcing. At this point I feel that AAA publishers have largely missed the mark for my personal gaming expectations.
At the end of the day the real question is whether crowdsourcing is yielding a net positive result. For me the answer is clearly YES.
Del Cabon A US Army ('Just Cause') Vet and MMORPG Native formerly of Trinsic, Norath and Dereth. Currently playing LOTRO.
Originally posted by DelCabon This could have been an interesting debate. Instead we are given a ridiculous premise that people believe Kickstarter is an investment along with a few bulleted facts.
Originally the JOBS act was created to allow people with under $10,000 in assets the ability to buy stock in companies with low assets (I believe it was under 10 million) and receive dividends. These lower corporations could once a year offer stock to the public but the SEC(Security Exchange Commission) has not enacted the official rules yet in regards to what dividends are required or what the net worth of these stocks should be. This loophole allowed others to put up these sites where it is giving rewards for money and not official stocks which require the corporations to pay back the dividends.
There was suppose to be a ruling made by July 1, 2014 but this has been pushed back again. Once these rules are enacted it may be retroactive and these corporations will have to actually pay back investors. Of course this is being lobbies against because certain individuals have raked in billions of free money.
This could have been an interesting debate. Instead we are given a ridiculous premise that people believe Kickstarter is an investment along with a few bulleted facts.Lets assume for a minute (without inviting a knee jerk troll response) that most people are relatively intelligent and recognize the potential for gain and loss that comes from making a pledge on kickstarter.Kickstarter is exactly what it is. Their terms of use are clearly laid out. There are no guarantees and no protections for those who wish to back a project with the expectation of meeting a "want".Now lets get on with the real debate on whether this type of capital sourcing promotes a new brand of innovation, competition and delivery.I for one believe that Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sources are leveling the playing field and ultimately accelerating the potential for innovation in the marketplace.I am looking forward to playing Shrouds of Avatar and Shards, both of which would probably have never seen the light of day without Kickstarter. Whether I will enjoy playing these games is another question, but they both have potential when it comes to my personal gameplay expectations.Divnity: Original Sin and Path of Exile are two examples of games that have given me a lot of hours of entertainment thanks to crowd funding.Would Star Citizen have found a publisher eager to hand over $50 million even with Chris Roberts pedigree?Yes, with every success story, I am sure there are plenty of epic fails and bitter resentment from Kickstarter pledges lost and unfulfilled. Lets not forget all the disappointment from AAA published titles too. The list of "Top MMO fails" is a frequently visited theme on this site.Right now I am enjoying 3 games of which 2 are the direct result of crowd sourcing. At this point I feel that AAA publishers have largely missed the mark for my personal gaming expectations.At the end of the day the real question is whether crowdsourcing is yielding a net positive result. For me the answer is clearly YES.
What I think you are failing to understand is that this "investment" concept is really some of us stating we should be getting a lot more up front. That or we need to call them sales and charge sales tax. Or do they get to dodge taxes?
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
This could have been an interesting debate. Instead we are given a ridiculous premise that people believe Kickstarter is an investment along with a few bulleted facts.
It's not a ridiculous premise.
What's ridiculous is how narrow some people view the word "investment".
Have you ever given to a charity? or a community project? Have you ever heard the term "investment of time"?
Some people think that the only thing you can get of investment is money. Go to any charitable organization and they constantly use the word "investment".
But in these investments you aren't gaining a financial gain, you are gaining "something else".
It's just semantics. So what if someone uses the word "investment" over, say "patronizing".
the point is that they are giving their money because they believe that they will, if the project is successful, get something out of it.
Nothing more needs to be said.
As long as people know there are risks and that in some circumstances they might not get what they think they are getting, the scope of the project might be changed/altered or that it could fall flat, I don't see the issue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This could have been an interesting debate. Instead we are given a ridiculous premise that people believe Kickstarter is an investment along with a few bulleted facts.
It's not a ridiculous premise.
What's ridiculous is how narrow some people view the word "investment".
Have you ever given to a charity? or a community project? Have you ever heard the term "investment of time"?
But you give to charity you don't invest in charity. Most people don't say "I'm investing my time helping down at the soup kitchen this week."
Even if it's technically correct it's not common usage of the word and if people start asking people to invest in their Kickstarter project those people will expect a tangible profit back because that is the way most people use the word investment.
Comments
I'm not too lazy to do it, I'm not capable of doing it. Nor are you.
On Kickstarter or other crowdfunding sites, the backers take a leap of faith.
The faith the project will succeed, without knowing if the developer will deliver, if the developer has a sound financial status, and...more importantly...without any form of legal means to stand on if the project doesn't deliver.
It puts a much larger burden on the backer than a bank has to carry, a bank DOES check the financial status of the client, it DOES have legal means to stand on.
Before you fund a Kickstarter project, the site actually informs you that you have no legal means nor any protection from Kickstarter itself.
I find this a serious shortcoming, and throwing all responsibility onto the backer is completely unfair.
What Kickstarter says, black on white, is that they, nor the project, has any responsibility to refund your money, or to deliver on your investment. You as a backer, give your money, give away your legal rights, and nothing but faith, is there to support your investment.
As far as "EA / Ubisoft" games. The leap of faith you have to take is a small step in comparison. You only buy the game when it's released, not "in the hopes" it gets released like you do on Kickstarter. You also haven't signed off your legal rights when you buy the game.
No, its not unfair. This has been happening for YEARS even prior to kickstarter.
Oh you bought those pants off the bargain clothing rack? The zipper doesn't close and the inside pockets have holes in them? But you bought them and all sales are final and you can't return them? Maybe you should have tried them on then --
When you sign up for kickstarter to fund a project it lets you know there are no refunds... people who don't understand that should be labelled as fools. That being said - every project I've ever kickstarted that successfully funded, I received something on the project -- and though one of the games that I kickstarted is still in development, I do feel it will complete and come to fruition.
Its not unfair though. People buy things they can't return all the time -- and they should have thought ahead about their purchases in the event they felt robbed or cheated. I don't even follow half the projects I kickstart... I pay the money (that I can afford to lose) and then when I get my product in the mail I throw a little party for myself.
Just because you have no guarantee that you'll get a product or win something doesn't stop people from taking the chance if they believe the idea is worth backing. Thats essentially how gambling works - and sometimes there is such a thing as a smart bet.
I have nothing against people who want to spend money on kickstarter, some people have money to spare and what is $10 for me might have a value of $1 for someone else.
However, backers aren't protected, and you're not investing money, you're giving it away in exchange for hope.
Normally a start-up investor would get to see a large business plan for the operation before a single penny is "invested". In the case of software projects, a software escrow is often established to allow the investors recoup something if it goes belly up. Naturally, it could also be used to monitor the day to day development of the project.We should be able to get at least a software escrow that was can monitor daily and that can be used to spinoff branches.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
That's one example but it's not the only example of a successful game to come out of KS. There are at least a dozen. Larian had already made their game actually and used crowdfunding to polish it and make it better. Exactly how many examples can you give of outright Kickstarter scams. They exist but it's pretty damn rare. I'm not talking about devs promising more than they can deliver but outright "I'm gonna take this money and go to Mexico!" That really doesn't happen very often.
Anyway, If you're satisfied with what big publishers dish out keep buying their stuff. Kickstarter is an option for those of us who are not and we choose to gamble a small amount of our money on it because we think it's worth the risk.
If people are happy putting money in something, let them do it.
Sounds like you are way to concerned with who does what with their money.
Yes... essentially, you're right. But as long as they know that, I don't think its wrong.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
This so much. There are a handful of games that were failures, that goes without saying. However, those games also offered a different game to their users. It's generally another KS game, which is basically the KS community helping one another.
Overall, though, the great majority of games that have been successfully funded are out there or are still in development. The problem with games is that the dev cycles are so long that it makes it difficult to really judge how well crowd funding is working without a decade of data, minimum. However, the fact is that good quality titles are now starting to be delivered.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Kickstarter doesn't do refunds and backers aren't protected in any way etc., so yeah, it is a huge leap of faith. Still, it's everyones own money. "Reputable" charities sometimes waste like 40% or more of the donations they recieve on managing said donations. There have been donations where the CEO or whoever was in charge bought a ferrari from the donations.
There may be more protection in place to help people once something *does* go wrong, but it does absolute nothing to keep it from going wrong in the first place. Or take said snowball/pyramid schemes. Bernard Madoff was a reputable stockbrocker, he was non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ etc. Hardly to find a more credible person in the business he was involved in. And yet, $65 billion went missing. Not some hundred thousand, not even the $61 milion Star Citizen has. No, $65 *billion*. Chris Roberts and his team need to develop an algorithm that spits out new ships every week, no way they can keep going on their own to catch up to Madoff manually if thats what they want to do (which i don't think). And most people didn't see a single cent ever again there, too.
Kickstarter as a whole merely raised $1 billion in march..make it two by now, still not much.
Also remember that the whole crowdfunding thing is quite new. It hasn't been around for decades like regular investmest or donations to charities..
Either it proofs succesful, or it will vanish in another five years. If crowdfunding is still popular in 2050 (even as soon as 2020), it will look a whole lot different then today, simply by then we know what works and what not. Just like everything else.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
We should be able to get at least a software escrow that was can monitor daily and that can be used to spinoff branches.
Yes there is the software but the investors also need to finance the initial business startup (not allowed under crowd funding as stated) of all the hardware. Trying to convince investors to take into account the initial investment of time and hardware is a daunting task especially when you know the initial cost is beyond 5 million and 5 million over 2 to 3 years with zero return and possible loss or over running makes it to risky.
Making a MMORPG is hardware intensive as well as software intensive. Many of these crowd funding's fail to take into consideration the real cost. They come up with these great ideas but fail forward thinking of how to implement it. They will say I can put a server up and handle 5000 players when actually they have no clue to the amount of processing it will actually take or the code is so full of loopholes it can be hacked and exploited. Hell, 50,000 is barely going to cover the electric bill and bandwidth. A sever capable of handling 1500 concurrent connections , most time, is comprised of 15 to 20 computers with multiple network paths since a cluster needs very high bandwidth and horsepower to handle the load and the only way is RPC so it takes internal engineering which most lack.
Then there is the engine developer that will take some of the burden off but payout to them is based on gross revenue which is eating all of the profits. By the time it said and done here the only one making anything is the outside sources (engine developer, network provider, those supplying assets) and the team is barely making enough to survive. They are rolling the dice in hopes of making is big but again probably will end up bankrupt.
In the end it comes down to launching a rocket ship with a leaking fuel tank and hopes it fly far enough to reach its destination before blowing up.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Since when do investors get a guarantee of success ?!?!?
Crowdfunding is exactly like investment in this respect - you risk money you dont need for other things, in order to get an extra benefit. In the case of actual investments, thats money. In case of crowdfunding a project that otherwise wouldnt see the light of day.
MMO Crowd Funding take advantage over avid collectors. Some people will shell out a few hundred just to sport a unique player title or item.
People like to stand out. Most of those types of people buy into these stupid things just for the 2-bit digital goods.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, I think that's the whole point. Look at things like Limited Edition prints or M & M's. It's all there so you feel like you're "special". Like, hey! Did you taste the new M&M pretzel? No? Aw man! It was a limited edition, so good luck finding one now!
Also, there's nothing wrong with exclusivity. The problem is when the exclusivity isn't really all that exclusive. At least with Kickstarter it's like, "Hey, there are 500 of these packages. This is an item that will never be made again." Whereas you might question your Limited Edition Guess T-shirt's exclusivity when you see 20 other people in the club wearing it.
To you it's stupid. Probably because you're already a super cool dude and you don't need those digital goods to feel that way. However, some people do, and there's no reason not to leverage that, as long as things you say are exclusive are truly exclusive.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I'd love to see you ask a bank for a loan merely by presenting a youtube video and some pictures. I don't think you'll get a heartwarming response.
Regarding trading investment, the big majority of trades happen with massive servers called high frequency trading. It's not like 40 years ago where a trader was standing on a platform making wild guesses.
Traders are mathematicians and programmers in 2014, that use highly complex algorithms and massive servers to anticipate changes in the stock market.
Around 10% of trades on the stock market is still done by people without highly complex computer assistance, they're done by people making guesses, and that number is diminishing daily, because those people can't compete with high frequency trading and they're running out of money to trade.
This could have been an interesting debate. Instead we are given a ridiculous premise that people believe Kickstarter is an investment along with a few bulleted facts.
Lets assume for a minute (without inviting a knee jerk troll response) that most people are relatively intelligent and recognize the potential for gain and loss that comes from making a pledge on kickstarter.
Kickstarter is exactly what it is. Their terms of use are clearly laid out. There are no guarantees and no protections for those who wish to back a project with the expectation of meeting a "want".
Now lets get on with the real debate on whether this type of capital sourcing promotes a new brand of innovation, competition and delivery.
I for one believe that Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sources are leveling the playing field and ultimately accelerating the potential for innovation in the marketplace.
I am looking forward to playing Shrouds of Avatar and Shards, both of which would probably have never seen the light of day without Kickstarter. Whether I will enjoy playing these games is another question, but they both have potential when it comes to my personal gameplay expectations.
Divnity: Original Sin and Path of Exile are two examples of games that have given me a lot of hours of entertainment thanks to crowd funding.
Would Star Citizen have found a publisher eager to hand over $50 million even with Chris Roberts pedigree?
Yes, with every success story, I am sure there are plenty of epic fails and bitter resentment from Kickstarter pledges lost and unfulfilled.
Lets not forget all the disappointment from AAA published titles too. The list of "Top MMO fails" is a frequently visited theme on this site.
Right now I am enjoying 3 games of which 2 are the direct result of crowd sourcing. At this point I feel that AAA publishers have largely missed the mark for my personal gaming expectations.
At the end of the day the real question is whether crowdsourcing is yielding a net positive result. For me the answer is clearly YES.
Del Cabon
A US Army ('Just Cause') Vet and MMORPG Native formerly of Trinsic, Norath and Dereth. Currently playing LOTRO.
Originally the JOBS act was created to allow people with under $10,000 in assets the ability to buy stock in companies with low assets (I believe it was under 10 million) and receive dividends. These lower corporations could once a year offer stock to the public but the SEC(Security Exchange Commission) has not enacted the official rules yet in regards to what dividends are required or what the net worth of these stocks should be. This loophole allowed others to put up these sites where it is giving rewards for money and not official stocks which require the corporations to pay back the dividends.
There was suppose to be a ruling made by July 1, 2014 but this has been pushed back again. Once these rules are enacted it may be retroactive and these corporations will have to actually pay back investors. Of course this is being lobbies against because certain individuals have raked in billions of free money.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
I am a huge fan of kickstarter and crowd funding for video game development but not for things like breast enlargments and financial dominatrixes.
Just my 2 cents.
What I think you are failing to understand is that this "investment" concept is really some of us stating we should be getting a lot more up front. That or we need to call them sales and charge sales tax. Or do they get to dodge taxes?Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
It's not a ridiculous premise.
What's ridiculous is how narrow some people view the word "investment".
Have you ever given to a charity? or a community project? Have you ever heard the term "investment of time"?
Some people think that the only thing you can get of investment is money. Go to any charitable organization and they constantly use the word "investment".
But in these investments you aren't gaining a financial gain, you are gaining "something else".
It's just semantics. So what if someone uses the word "investment" over, say "patronizing".
the point is that they are giving their money because they believe that they will, if the project is successful, get something out of it.
Nothing more needs to be said.
As long as people know there are risks and that in some circumstances they might not get what they think they are getting, the scope of the project might be changed/altered or that it could fall flat, I don't see the issue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
But you give to charity you don't invest in charity. Most people don't say "I'm investing my time helping down at the soup kitchen this week."
Even if it's technically correct it's not common usage of the word and if people start asking people to invest in their Kickstarter project those people will expect a tangible profit back because that is the way most people use the word investment.