Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is Crowd Funding a Good Thing?
FomaldehydeJim
Member UncommonPosts: 673
This is a discussion, but I will present my argument as to why it is not: -
1) As neither a charity or a firm there is no legal recourse whatsoever for crowd funders for unfinished, buggy, or abortive projects.
2) These companies get to pocket every bit of profit they make off of your hard earned cash. All of it. If this were a manufacturer of vacuum cleaners would you feel okay about it? They rely upon emotive arguments and meaningless electronic guff to take your cash and skip to the bank laughing without taking any risk whatsoever.
3) The likes of Kickstarter skim 5% off all successfully funded projects but absolve themselves of any responsibility to check the viability of these projects.
So I will leave it at that. Please share your opinions.
Comments
Yes, this will come to be known as 'the age of idiocy' and we will all laugh at it.
The one plus I can think of is that large studios are not as willing to invest in anything different / new / unique. We get the same crap every year, like Call of Duty. Big companies want a guaranteed income from their titles and doing something different, which does happen, just doesn't happen often enough. We are then left with a thousand f2p garbage titles.
How many games are basically just EQ copies?
As with any such interaction, crowd funding is a mix of good and bad potential. There is no other correct answer.
Crowdfunding is effectively the gaming equivalent of welfare. It's a good and much-needed boon to promising projects that would not be otherwise possible. It can help new companies get on their feet. And it's also a place where players can let their wishes for the gaming industry be heard through direct contribution to games that match their ideals.
On the other hand, as with real world welfare, the entire thing is open to abuse by the more unscrupulous or incompetent developers. Scams have happened and will continue to happen.
To a degree, it is the responsibility of the consumer to judge the viability of the project. Donating to projects that have little in the way of tangible progress is a recipe for disaster. Research on the developers can often shed light on their validity. Hell, even the nature of the kickstarter packages offered by the developers can shed light on their integrity.
And yes, the legislation has to catch up where crowdfunding is concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the biggest problem where crowdfunding is concerned is that a majority of the money that a developer can expect to see is front-loaded. They get their sales before ever releasing anything tangible, and it's hard to motivate oneself to work for what could be perceived as nothing (as they've already earned most of what they are likely to).
The best way to regulate Kickstarter would probably be to force crowdfunded payments to come in intervals, with each funding interval requiring an evaluation of the company's progress on the project.
Crowd funding is a gamble.
Is gambling stupid ? Well that depends upon your chances.
Doing normal gambling is stupid. On average you lose money, the chances for winning are miniscule.
Playing the financial market depends upon your personal conditions. Small player ? Forget it. Big player with fast connection and possibly inside information ? Basically guaranteed to make a fortune.
Crowdfunding is a middle thing. The chances for failure are definitely there. But if it wasnt a failure, you get stuff cheap.
Gambling proved that long before crowd funding did.
Believe me, casinos do not get to keep 100% of the money people give them, they have to make some payouts. Crowd-funding is by far the more anti-social and mercanery business model.
I think crowdfunding only becomes a problem once it becomes unlimited, that be either not time limited or ammount limited.
Once you remove the bounderies it becomes much harder for the funder to assert the viability of the project, and much easier for the founded project to abuse the system.
So if Kickstarter was fixed to fail if the goal is not reached in time (as it is now) AND to close for funding once the goal was hit, then I would have no issue with it. Over-funding and milestones are the really suspect parts here.
Crowdfunding is a good thing, it allows indie developers to reach out to customers directly and it creates games that would have never happened if it were up to investors.
I find that people calling crowdfunding charity has misunderstood the whole concept. You are not giving money out of good will, you give it because you expect something back. As such, you should take a critical view on the game and its developers, can they deliver on their promises. Too many act like a fanboi trusting everything the developer tells you.
There are consequences of failing to deliver a crowdfunded game, there wont be any investors next time, and noone in the industry wants to hire you.
I don't believe in it much but it's definitely better than acquiring money from the stock market. Latter inevitably leads to watering the game down for mass appeal and quick buck without even a second though about gamers. With a passionate dev kickstarter may work though. I can believe when I see it i.e. a good kickstarter MMO coming out.
Edit: I don't believe in dev speak. They can promise whatever they want but only real results count in my eyes.
well, it is great for the non-suckers.
If someone wants to fund a pipe dream, and just 1 in a thousand turns out to be something good that I can buy later, i am all for it. Why would you want to prevent others to risk their money for the off chance that it leads to your enjoyment?
its a tool
like any tool - there are uses and abuses
for boardgame design / marketing, crowdfunding is a fantastic opportunity
this game developer has a blog about kickstarter lessons
http://stonemaiergames.com/ks-lessons-full-list-chronological/
EQ2 fan sites
I think crowd funding is a great thing. Is it a great thing for MMO's though? Ehhhhh, so far not so much.
There's lots of interesting work being done, books, art, apparel, etc that aren't video games. And I think crowd funding is really useful for tangible real goods. Money comes in, materials can be purchased and products made. Done and done.
MMO's however, are ephemeral until development is complete, and they serve a broad base of interest with conflicting desires. We see it all the time, people want so many different things from their MMO experience, yet they buy the same games in hopes that one particular game will end up catering to them.
The other problem with MMO's is expectations. If some guy makes a kickstarter for a line of t-shirts. We all know what to expect from a t-shirt (and the creator will list the type of material, construction and any print or images to be used on the t-shirt), we have a shared understanding of what it is. But if a MMO dev says, "sandbox" hooo boy is that a can of worms. People have such varied ideas of what *should* be in a sandbox MMO there's absolutely no chance for anything resembling a shared understanding.
In fact, you can't make a thread on the forums without wildly differing notions of what should be in an MMO. So crowd funding is pretty cool for a lot of things, but I'm not sure about it's value for MMO's.
I think that the problem with crowd funding is actually misinformation.
First, there is legal recourse that can be launched against projects not delivering. The only thing is that some projects, especially games, may not deliver exactly what was stated. It's much easier with a physical product. However, they can't just up and leave and be all, "k thx bye!" Sorry, doesn't work like that. There's actually been a couple lawsuits filed against fraudulent crowd funding campaigns.
Secondly, you're not investing in a company, you're essentially pre-ordering a product. If I pre-order The Witcher 3, I'm not going to complain that CD Projekt Red doesn't give me a percentage of their profits. To use your example, if I was crowd-funding a vacuum cleaner company, I'd likely be giving them money in return for, probably, a vacuum and it will, probably, be at a price lower than the initial retail price. Good deal for me, good deal for them. The Tiers are listed right THERE! Right in plain sight! Tier 1: $150 - 1 vacuum cleaner and a premium forum account. BAM!! That's my tier! It will even tell me which one I backed. I am paying for a product. That's all! I'm not funding them. I'm actually taking advantage of a pre-revenue company who is offering my something at a reduced rate, before it's produced.
If you don't think that Kickstarter is providing a SERVICE, then you're insane. If you want to talk about other services that "don't do anything" for their money, what about credit card companies? Interest rates are ridiculous! Also, Interac and credit card processors. Card processors take 1-2% or more of all purchases PLUS a flat rate fee per transaction. Interac is usually a flat rate fee. Also, if you think Kickstarter isn't interested in the viability of projects, you're insane. However, who are they to say what gets on and what doesn't? do you really want Kickstarter telling us what projects we're allowed to back?
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
----------------
Seriously, if you want to talk about misinformation I would say that your post is a prime example, but frankly it contains no information at all; just noise.
i agree with the service analogy of kickstarter
example:
Queen Games, they don't really need kickstarter but they use it to boost income
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1016374822/kingdom-builder-big-box-kickstarter-edition
what do backers get?
they get to be first one with the new boardgames shipped to them at discounted rates
the bigbox edition of Kingdom Builder would likely be made regardless of crowdfunding
but anyone that helped raise funding got a discount and faster shipping
the "big box" version is NOT available for USA retail yet - I received it 2 months ago in early October
bigbox version of Escape
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1016374822/escape-big-box
is a similar kickstarter "big box" edition thats shipping soon to pledgers
EQ2 fan sites
scams exist - no question
there's also no guarantees with kickstarter
it's up to the pledger to decide what project looks reasonable and deliverable
i've pledged to over 300 projects in the last 18 months
ZERO scams for me so far .. but i mostly pledge to boardgames and books, physical goods
EQ2 fan sites
Except that charities are regulated in both the US and UK.
"Broken Age" - fantastic game, crowdfunded
"Star Citizen" - fantastic game crowdfunded
"Repopulation" - fantastic game, crowdfunded
"Divinity Sin" - fantastic game, crowdfunded
many more to come, e.g. "Satellite Reign"
Only publisher trolls who want to maintain their greedy claws on developers are bashing crowdfunding and spew their hate on it.
They have a vested interest in badmouthing crowdfund campaigns but THEY will go the way of the Dodo, die out. Become obsolete. Go bankrupt. Become unnecessary, like VHS video or Blockbuster rental stores and beeping dial-up modems. YOU ARE DONE AND YOU KNOW IT.
So you think it is wrong to call for proper regulation of a sector that is currently entirely unregulated?
Are knives a bad thing? They cut people and make them bleed. People die everyday to knife wounds.
Of course the modern world as we know it would not exist without the invention of the knife ...
Crowd funding is a things. Its not a good thing or a bad thing. It is a thing with its ups and downs. Seriously people whining about it are basically saying "I am a fool who is easily parted with my money and/or belongings and this new thing has created another way for that to happen! It must be evil because I am foolish."
Caveat Emptor. And yes you are a "buyer". This is essentially like buying a "futures" contract on a commodity(although not the same by any means). If you were to buy a futures contract for Gold on the COMEX there is absolutely no guarantee you can actually get real physical gold. The fine print of the contract states that COMEX can settle for the current cash value at any time. You are never guarantee any amount of of the "thing" you may think you are buying. Additionally most actual stuff for the item itself is done in the Forwards market not the Futures.
Crowd funding is actually not much different in any real way than the current markets (which are vulnerable to all the same critques). Some of these markets are quite crooked really, I used the gold futures market above because its extremely crooked. Most commodities do not work that way. When you look at the gold and silver ETFs they are clearly purposely diconnected from the actual physical market of the commodity, but other commidity markets, like say potatoe futures, are not. Most people do not even realize the fine print of the contracts they are buying.
Some people will tell you crowd funding is not investing like in a stock but this is not entirely true. This completely depends on the nature of what the project promises to you. If you pay $30 at the inception for something you believe correctly would be sellable for $60 then you have made double your money. This is exactly what you do with a commodity contract in the current markets.
Now not all crowd funding things work this way. Many are basically are just pre-orders for a game. But they may start to work this way if they seriously want to attract attention. Again this is how the current markets work. You offer investors a chance to leverage something in exchange for seed money. If you had an already existing very profitable thing you would not bother with loss from the leverage.
But there are some crowd funding things that DO work this way, generally these tend to be more like physical gadgets. Some target early adopters but I have seen some that offer a $30 deal that they will sell for $40 later on. Thus if you sell yours "in box" for $35 you can concievably make some profit. Obviously this would need to be in bulk to make real money on it. Obviously a major difference here with current conventional market is nothing is standardized and you have to do all the footwork.
But seriously crowd funding is just like current markets in many ways, when you take it down to the nitty gritty. In fact it is essentially less crooked than some current ETFs (Electronically Traded Funds) such as the GLD or SLV which are under no real legal obligation to provide what they purport to be "selling". The only reason they ever need to "deliver" what they claim they are about is public confidence. They can settle any contract at any time in a cash equivalent that they determine. They being the COMEX and its attendant banks(bullion banks who warehouse the commodity). Any contract can become zero in value, even commidity contracts. Just like crowd funding things that never make something. Publically traded companies pop up everyday whose sole purpose is to take the money and run. The SEC is supposed to do something about that and investigate but they don't do that much really, at least not anymore.
I can make a very good argument that those of you involved in the current financial markets are actually greater fools than many people involved in crowd funding ventures. You can claim you may never get something from crowd funding, but the same is true there yet decent crowd funding projects are almost always fairly straightforward and don't do various BS you see in financial markets.
You guys do realize that you don't actually own your stocks ,securities etc, right? Most people using a broker have their stocks etc held "in street name".
Sure, check it out here
Granted, there is little precedent, but it's coming.
Sure, you're funding a product with the expectation of receiving that product. If they established their tiers in such a way that they offered you a share of the profits of the company, that's super fantastic, but in the end I'd be much happier with just getting the product that I paid for. You have to realize that there are a veritable CRAP TON of ways that companies could implement a profit-sharing plan through crowd-funding and immediately turn around and screw every single person that backed them, without you seeing so much as a penny in return. Feel free to read up on stock dilution or even just watch the movie Social Network and see how Mark Zuckerberg effectively renders his BEST FRIEND'S shares entirely worthless. Mmmmmmm, sweet sweet business!!
Personally, I'd rather just give them money to make and send me a product.
Oh, and have you ever ordered anything online that turned out to be out of stock? Hmmmmmmmm, how about a product that you paid for that has since been discontinued? I've actually had both and you're either waiting for new stock, asking for a refund, or accepting a replacement product. That's just how it works. If you think these companies WON'T issue refunds, you're wrong. Look at Elite: Dangerous. They actually made some promises during their campaign that they didn't live up to (Offline Mode). Since then they've been issuing refunds on a case-by-case basis.
I'm not saying there isn't risk, but the risk is dramatically lower than what you're stating. In fact, there was a time when I posted some anecdotal evidence on here showing how a relative high percentage of campaigns, even in video games, are delivered. I'll see if I can find it if I think it'll even matter (which it probably wouldn't).
Kickstarter is offering you a platform where you can increase your chances of successfully raising the capital you are looking to raise. You're acting as though if anyone were to just go out there and launch a crowd-funding initiative on their own website they'd immediately receive millions of views. Let's not trivialize the "service" that Kickstarter provides. Granted, they may not have to do a LOT to promote your product, especially now that they're popular, but they're no different than these popular group buying sites (who can charge 15-20% by the way). Actually, 5% is a pretty damn good deal. Ask anyone who has ever run a business. Ask them if they could get a sales person out of bed for 5% commission. The fact is that Kickstarter is allowing you to leverage their millions of viewers. Or you are more than welcome to start up your own crowdfunding site. I'm sure it'd be easy, because they don't provide any value.
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
----------------
Crowd funding has created my fave games and brought back the genre which made bioware famous after they ditched it to go in a more casual direction.
Without crowdfunding, I wouldn't have wasteland 2, divinity original sin, x com unknown and would not be able to buy the new pillars of eternity game or grim dawn to name but 2 more games.
Tbh I have missed games that have this sort of depth for 9 years till crowd funding became mainstream and now I have enough complex, adult, deep games to keep me coccupied whenever I want.
So I am all for crowd funding.