I don't love sub games, there are plenty of sub games that sucker people in too. However, I find Kickstarter to be a magnet for this, they sucker people in with Founder titles, Backer titles, $200 for a signature, $300 for a name in the game, $400 and the developer will call you up and recognise you as a human being instead of the number he treats everyone else as.
At the end of the day, it is your money, spend it how you like, you don't understand the value until you don't have any.
Exactly same as for 500+$ watch. Except maker doesnt even call you and you have device that does exactly same as any 2$ device, or is even incorporated in other devices.
I don't love sub games, there are plenty of sub games that sucker people in too. However, I find Kickstarter to be a magnet for this, they sucker people in with Founder titles, Backer titles, $200 for a signature, $300 for a name in the game, $400 and the developer will call you up and recognise you as a human being instead of the number he treats everyone else as.
At the end of the day, it is your money, spend it how you like, you don't understand the value until you don't have any.
Exactly same as for 500+$ watch.
Watches have noting to do with special titles, special phonecalls, special autographs, special dinners with developers, special unique in-game items, and whatever else Kickstarter projects use to get you to spend spend spend.
It's just a watch, and most watches and physical objects tend to retain their value.
By paying $500 to test a beta game, when the beta is over, you have nothing but the warm and fuzzy feeling that you played a buggy game, that feeling will fade away a few days later when you realized you just threw $500 out the door.
I'll still have my watch, you'll be out $500 and have nothing, that's the difference.
I don't love sub games, there are plenty of sub games that sucker people in too. However, I find Kickstarter to be a magnet for this, they sucker people in with Founder titles, Backer titles, $200 for a signature, $300 for a name in the game, $400 and the developer will call you up and recognise you as a human being instead of the number he treats everyone else as.
At the end of the day, it is your money, spend it how you like, you don't understand the value until you don't have any.
Exactly same as for 500+$ watch.
Watches have noting to do with special titles, special phonecalls, special autographs, special dinners with developers, special unique in-game items, and whatever else Kickstarter projects use to get you to spend spend spend.
It's just a watch, and most watches and physical objects tend to retain their value.
By paying $500 to test a beta game, when the beta is over, you have nothing but the warm and fuzzy feeling that you played a buggy game, that feeling will fade away a few days later when you realized you just threw $500 out the door.
I'll still have my watch, you'll be out $500 and have nothing, that's the difference.
And then you drop your watch into the sea and you just lost 500$ and hav NOTHING except raging feeling and what not.
I paid 1000$ for training for solo parachute jump. All i have is a fond memory of it.
Originally posted by observer As i said in another thread, it depends if the backers are aware their money is going to advertising. If not, the money should not be going towards advertising, but only to what was promised and stated. Politicians get in trouble all the time over this, by using taxpayer money inappropriately.
It should be noted that the developers have not received any money from Kickstarter yet. In fact, anyone can pull out last minute, as we've seen in the past. The money they're using right now is their own; if they're using it with the knowledge that it will be replenished, it does not matter as they are able to use it as they see fit as the crowd funding has yet to be funded.
That said, money makes money. It also makes games. When you support a game, you want to see it be the best it can be. If marketing makes it more revenue in the end, then it will make for a better and complete game, which is ultimately what is being paid for by the backers. Granted, they already had their investors help them make the two years of content they already have.
Only when a game becomes lazy or knows people will pay anyway do we see a recipe for disaster (See WoW and popular franchises in the last ten years). That will be a case whereby they put minimal effort forth to maximize profit. When building a foundation or core, you try to do the best you can so that you can build up to such a state.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Originally posted by observer As i said in another thread, it depends if the backers are aware their money is going to advertising. If not, the money should not be going towards advertising, but only to what was promised and stated. Politicians get in trouble all the time over this, by using taxpayer money inappropriately.
Only there are laws that make it illegal, Kickstarters are vague and there is reasons they dont set anything as binding as an agreement to what they will spend their money on. The system has no accountability. IMO, that is the problem with this current system. You may as well think of all Kickstarters as a gift to someone you dont know.
Originally posted by observer As i said in another thread, it depends if the backers are aware their money is going to advertising. If not, the money should not be going towards advertising, but only to what was promised and stated. Politicians get in trouble all the time over this, by using taxpayer money inappropriately.
Only there are laws that make it illegal, Kickstarters are vague and there is reasons they dont set anything as binding as an agreement to what they will spend their money on. The system has no accountability. IMO, that is the problem with this current system. You may as well think of all Kickstarters as a gift to someone you dont know.
QFT.
I can't believe so many people still fail to understand how crowdfunding works at it's foundational level. Yes, you are giving money to a company. It's NOT for a service or product, even if that's a promised benefit to donating. It its essentially a gift or donation, and no more legally-binding than one.
There are other industries that operate in this manner, but I don't think they'd be appropriate to bring up in this discussion, nor relevant.
I don't love sub games, there are plenty of sub games that sucker people in too. However, I find Kickstarter to be a magnet for this, they sucker people in with Founder titles, Backer titles, $200 for a signature, $300 for a name in the game, $400 and the developer will call you up and recognise you as a human being instead of the number he treats everyone else as.
At the end of the day, it is your money, spend it how you like, you don't understand the value until you don't have any.
Exactly same as for 500+$ watch.
Watches have noting to do with special titles, special phonecalls, special autographs, special dinners with developers, special unique in-game items, and whatever else Kickstarter projects use to get you to spend spend spend.
It's just a watch, and most watches and physical objects tend to retain their value.
By paying $500 to test a beta game, when the beta is over, you have nothing but the warm and fuzzy feeling that you played a buggy game, that feeling will fade away a few days later when you realized you just threw $500 out the door.
I'll still have my watch, you'll be out $500 and have nothing, that's the difference.
People who spend $500 on watches do so because of the perceived prestige that goes along with it, same thing with expensive clothes, cars, etc. Which is the same thing as being a $500 backer on a kickstarter game, the perceived prestige. People tend to equate money with power and prestige. Why buy a $60,000 BMW when a $15,000 car will perform the same function of getting you from point A to point B...and with many of the same features.
Additionally, physical objects all lower in value over time, unless it is something that is considered collectible or has an equitable value (like property). A $500 watch isn't going to retain it's value if you attempt to sell it later down the road, unless it's a watch that wasn't mass manufactured and was created solely for collectible value.
Spending $500 to be a backer for a game isn't any more or less wise than purchasing a $500 watch if the purchaser is well aware of the potential risk that is inherent with either purchase. The watch can be stolen, broken, lost. The $500 invested into a game comes with a whole other set of risks. However, in both scenarios it is the responsibility of the purchaser be aware of any and all potential risks involved.
Regardless of any of this banter....the value of any purchase isn't determined by outsiders, but rather the person who is making said purchase. I would NEVER spend that kind of money on a game, but I am also not so arrogant as to judge someone else for doing so.
If you spend $500 on crowdfunding an mmorpg you can afford to spare that kind of money. Just don't bitch about it like all the people buying a collectors edition for an mmorpg that they didn't enjoy for more than a month.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by observer As i said in another thread, it depends if the backers are aware their money is going to advertising. If not, the money should not be going towards advertising, but only to what was promised and stated. Politicians get in trouble all the time over this, by using taxpayer money inappropriately.
It should be noted that the developers have not received any money from Kickstarter yet. In fact, anyone can pull out last minute, as we've seen in the past. The money they're using right now is their own; if they're using it with the knowledge that it will be replenished, it does not matter as they are able to use it as they see fit as the crowd funding has yet to be funded.
That said, money makes money. It also makes games. When you support a game, you want to see it be the best it can be. If marketing makes it more revenue in the end, then it will make for a better and complete game, which is ultimately what is being paid for by the backers. Granted, they already had their investors help them make the two years of content they already have.
Only when a game becomes lazy or knows people will pay anyway do we see a recipe for disaster (See WoW and popular franchises in the last ten years). That will be a case whereby they put minimal effort forth to maximize profit. When building a foundation or core, you try to do the best you can so that you can build up to such a state.
at first i was really interested,the more i learn the more i'm like meh. as much as ppl love to give star citizen crap i paid 20 bucks for access to a module and got a ship,also tons of info to dig thru about what's going on.two very different games and genres but i understand the whole point of kickstarter.
but they are asking for a lot of money just for ppl who want to be part of the alpha process that supposedly is an hour or two from time to time. as per the AMA I'd rather spend that 200-300 bucks on star citizen a game that actually wants to push the boundaries of what can be done in their respective genre but thats just me.
hopefully it turns out to be the PvP game that hardcore pvpers have been dying for.
It seems like an MMO, but also a lobby esque PvP game where I sit in my EK and load in to campaigns I want to, which doesn't seem very MMO like when I'm just picking and choosing a map like I would in a CoD or BF multiplayer. I guess kinda like a MOBA
More than likely they set aside some money for marketing before the KS even started. These campaigns are dependent upon exposure so that they can draw in as many backers as possible. Campaigns have failed many times due to no thought or effort being put toward getting the word out.
Not only are they not doing the wrong thing by advertising, they are absolutely doing the right thing. Especially because none of the funds used came from backers. While that money could have been directed toward a little more dev work, securing the KS funds is a much better investment.
If you read the publishers' post on the Kickstarter, they are really clear about what and why they are funding. They began with their own money and have an impressive resume of successful projects prior to this one.
This project was well off the ground before the Kickstarter campaign.
Originally posted by observer As i said in another thread, it depends if the backers are aware their money is going to advertising. If not, the money should not be going towards advertising, but only to what was promised and stated. Politicians get in trouble all the time over this, by using taxpayer money inappropriately.
Only there are laws that make it illegal, Kickstarters are vague and there is reasons they dont set anything as binding as an agreement to what they will spend their money on. The system has no accountability. IMO, that is the problem with this current system. You may as well think of all Kickstarters as a gift to someone you dont know.
Here is the law you refer to; caveat emptor. Most people believe that means "buyer beware." That's not really what it means. The true meaning is a seller can't be held responsible for a sale unless it is guaranteed in a warranty. It's a concept that goes back the Romans and is also a part of English Common Law. In other words; know what you are buying and feel good about it or don't buy - nobody is forcing you.
People who spend $500 on watches do so because of the perceived prestige that goes along with it, same thing with expensive clothes, cars, etc. Which is the same thing as being a $500 backer on a kickstarter game, the perceived prestige. People tend to equate money with power and prestige. Why buy a $60,000 BMW when a $15,000 car will perform the same function of getting you from point A to point B...and with many of the same features.
Additionally, physical objects all lower in value over time, unless it is something that is considered collectible or has an equitable value (like property). A $500 watch isn't going to retain it's value if you attempt to sell it later down the road, unless it's a watch that wasn't mass manufactured and was created solely for collectible value.
No sorry watches can increases in value overtime (because they are considered collectible or jewelry), especially if youa re talking about the likes of Tag Heuers or Bvlgaris.
Originally posted by Malabooga
And then you drop your watch into the sea and you just lost 500$ and hav NOTHING except raging feeling and what not.
I paid 1000$ for training for solo parachute jump. All i have is a fond memory of it.
WTF are you going on about lol
Actually you are also wrong on that, watches are considered jewelry. They can be insured.
Sorry to correct both of you on this because your points are valid and I agree with them, just that you are wrong on the semantics and on this particular example.
Originally posted by observer As i said in another thread, it depends if the backers are aware their money is going to advertising. If not, the money should not be going towards advertising, but only to what was promised and stated. Politicians get in trouble all the time over this, by using taxpayer money inappropriately.
Advertising is a part any successful business model. It should be expected. If they can afford to spend the money on an ad campaign for their fund raising that will potentially bring in more backers, go for it. It's all a part of every business budget. If it's not, don't expect the business to succeed.
The people behind Crowfall are no amateurs. Everything they've done has been thought out well in advance and weighed in the balance. I see no reason to question their business savvy at this point.
If you back their game, that means you trust them to spend the money wisely. If advertising is a worthy investment and its making more money, what is there to worry about? Frankly I don't think they need to answer for anything; anyone paying attention knows that these guys have plotted their course meticulously and given you no reason to doubt them.
PS. This is coming from someone who did not actually back Crowfall.
People who spend $500 on watches do so because of the perceived prestige that goes along with it, same thing with expensive clothes, cars, etc. Which is the same thing as being a $500 backer on a kickstarter game, the perceived prestige. People tend to equate money with power and prestige. Why buy a $60,000 BMW when a $15,000 car will perform the same function of getting you from point A to point B...and with many of the same features.
Additionally, physical objects all lower in value over time, unless it is something that is considered collectible or has an equitable value (like property). A $500 watch isn't going to retain it's value if you attempt to sell it later down the road, unless it's a watch that wasn't mass manufactured and was created solely for collectible value.
No sorry watches can increases in value overtime (because they are considered collectible or jewelry), especially if youa re talking about the likes of Tag Heuers or Bvlgaris.
Originally posted by Malabooga
And then you drop your watch into the sea and you just lost 500$ and hav NOTHING except raging feeling and what not.
I paid 1000$ for training for solo parachute jump. All i have is a fond memory of it.
WTF are you going on about lol
Actually you are also wrong on that, watches are considered jewelry. They can be insured.
Sorry to correct both of you on this because your points are valid and I agree with them, just that you are wrong on the semantics and on this particular example.
1. They will increase in value or *shocker* they will NOT. Will you start riots if your watch hasnt increased in value rofl
Of course, you can buy a watch with FAITH it will increase in value, nobody guarantees anything. Now....hmmm....what is that similar to?
2. You havent corrected anything. In fact you suggest spending even MORE money, LOT MORE money on that same watch (which isnt worth the money in the first place)
1. They will increase in value or *shocker* they will NOT. Will you start riots if your watch hasnt increased in value rofl
Of course, you can buy a watch with FAITH it will increase in value, nobody guarantees anything. Now....hmmm....what is that similar to?
2. You havent corrected anything. In fact you suggest spending even MORE money, LOT MORE money on that same watch (which isnt worth the money in the first place)
1. What would anyone start a riot over any purchased goods? What is even your point here? I was merely pointing out that watch can go up in value if it is a classic, so it is not a good example in your case, which, is a fact. Electronic goods (not talking about items in game, but the game itself) on the other hand will never increase in value, unlike tangible items.
I'm not sure what's your point of "riot" has any relevance as I never mentioned such a thing. I have specifically pointed out I agreed with what you guys are trying to say but the example that was used was not good for this particular case.
2. Rare watches worth money to start with because of the fact that the rare ones are made using rare metals and crystals and the workmanship is expensive, is soughtafter and is very hard to be replicated (as I said, like jewelry). If we go by your definition you can also say that Mona Lisa is a piece of junk too, however, that is not the case.
Electronic goods can never have the same level of value maintained simply because it can be easily replicated and reproduced, regardless of how good the workmanship is.
I don't know why you feel the need to argue for the sake of arguing. Your point about the main topic of the thread is right, people are agreeing with you (including myself) but I'm just saying your use of example was wrong (which is a fact). I wasn't arguing with you. I was pointing out a glaring mistake (which it was, as there seems to be much confusion in your case between physical vs electronic goods, which definition and pros and cons has been well define for more than 20 years in the IT industry now).
Youd pay 500$ for a watch. lol, thats a waste if there ever was one. THATS a money grab
I'd pay more for a watch than $500, you own it, it will always be worth something.
What did you get from testing a buggy game for them? $500 for a pat on the back?
A sticker that says "sucker"? You're doing their job, and they charge you money for it. Do you not see how you're being ripped off here? Are you that gullible? Think about it for a second.
I have even seen people from crowfall promote the game FOR the devellopers, they think they have this mission to try to promote the game on forums. The developers are actually charging people, those people are paying to do the company's job, and somehow, they think, it's a good deal for them. What?! Get a grip people.
And now they have this scheme where they use the Kickstarter money, NOT to develop the game, but to actually use the money to promote the kickstarter project itself, in some sort of scam loop.
You people don't realize that when you are pledging for say the higher package you aren't just paying for Alpha and the game. You are getting a physical collectors edition of the game, all pre alpha and close beta access, extra features like upgraded castle , parcels of land etc. Even then you get all previous rewards for example:
The game will be free but will have an optional VIP program where you pay $15 dollars a month ( I guess like SWG where you choose to pay monthly for extra featurs). Well if you back higher than $250 you get 5 years free of VIP subscription
Now do the math? $15 dollars per month x 12 months = $180 dollars. Now multiply $180 dollars per year X 5 years = $900 dollars. Add the collectors edition of the game of $60 , + the bonus lands and castles say around $900 + $300 dollars
so I know some of you are not pros at math but don't worry I will do it for you.
Even buying Sapphire at $500 dollars is a deal because = $500 is < $1200
In other words if you are a backer at the higher tier you are getting $1200 dollars or more worth of features for $500 dollars.
But go on I'm intrigued by your argument..................
I would give you a guest pass to SWOTR, but then I wouldn't be able to find a way to live with myself afterwards....
While I agree with your math it's the reason I got the package with 5 years it's only a deal if you actually enjoy the game :P. It could be $10 < $100,000,000 but I don't play that $10 game for more than 5 minutes it wasn't worth it .
The people behind Crowfall are no amateurs. Everything they've done has been thought out well in advance and weighed in the balance. I see no reason to question their business savvy at this point.
If you back their game, that means you trust them to spend the money wisely. If advertising is a worthy investment and its making more money, what is there to worry about? Frankly I don't think they need to answer for anything; anyone paying attention knows that these guys have plotted their course meticulously and given you no reason to doubt them.
PS. This is coming from someone who did not actually back Crowfall.
Agreed! It will be made. I don't think that's a question at all.
Oh! Also, it should be noted that advertising was happening during the crowdfunding campaign, meaning they didn't actually have that money in pocket.
PS I also didn't back it, but will buy it. Wish there was a better value proposition at lower levels. Unfortunately it was like "Spend $45 now or $50 at release!!" Ooooooo, hmmmm, I'm torn. If I back something I want to feel like I'm getting a good value, and I also want to believe in what I'm backing.
1. They will increase in value or *shocker* they will NOT. Will you start riots if your watch hasnt increased in value rofl
Of course, you can buy a watch with FAITH it will increase in value, nobody guarantees anything. Now....hmmm....what is that similar to?
2. You havent corrected anything. In fact you suggest spending even MORE money, LOT MORE money on that same watch (which isnt worth the money in the first place)
1. What would anyone start a riot over any purchased goods? What is even your point here? I was merely pointing out that watch can go up in value if it is a classic, so it is not a good example in your case, which, is a fact. Electronic goods (not talking about items in game, but the game itself) on the other hand will never increase in value, unlike tangible items.
I'm not sure what's your point of "riot" has any relevance as I never mentioned such a thing. I have specifically pointed out I agreed with what you guys are trying to say but the example that was used was not good for this particular case.
2. Rare watches worth money to start with because of the fact that the rare ones are made using rare metals and crystals and the workmanship is expensive, is soughtafter and is very hard to be replicated (as I said, like jewelry). If we go by your definition you can also say that Mona Lisa is a piece of junk too, however, that is not the case.
Electronic goods can never have the same level of value maintained simply because it can be easily replicated and reproduced, regardless of how good the workmanship is.
I don't know why you feel the need to argue for the sake of arguing. Your point about the main topic of the thread is right, people are agreeing with you (including myself) but I'm just saying your use of example was wrong (which is a fact). I wasn't arguing with you. I was pointing out a glaring mistake (which it was, as there seems to be much confusion in your case between physical vs electronic goods, which definition and pros and cons has been well define for more than 20 years in the IT industry now).
Ive sold few accounts for much more than what i paid for them.
Certain collecotrs editions were going for MUCH more than what they cost.
So you are just plain WRONG.
NOTHING guarantees your physical goods will increase in value, you are making a bet.
Compared to how many paintings were made throughout human history and how many achieved "Mona Lisa" status, yeah, you have bigger chances your collectors edition will increase in value in 400 years.
There seems to be a pretty big misconception in this thread that backers are somehow 'duped' into "paying to do their job" for them.
As someone who has backed CF, as well as other games, it has nothing at all to do with being fooled by some shinies leading to my paying to do their job. It's really quite simple. I want the game to be made. Thus, I pledge some money to help make that a reality.
In many cases, it's a simple as effectively buying the game before it comes out (i.e. the lower tiers of backing). Sure, if the game fails to ever be released, I'm out the $40 or whatever it was. So long as the game is released, I'm getting my monies worth of value. The producing company simply got the money for the sale ahead of time and was able to use it during development.
As you get higher in the tiers, the value becomes significantly more subjective.
While you get the game, and usually X months of free game time (or free 'premium subscription' time) which has a direct monetary value associated with it (i.e. cost per month), you also start getting into things that are more subjective, i.e. badges, titles, in-game rewards, stickers, statues figurines, etc. To some people, those things are worth the money. To others, they are not.
Then you get into the REAL intangibles, i.e. Alpha and Beta access. Yes, theoretically you are paying to do someone's job for them. Except, many people consider Alpha/Beta access a privilege and enjoy it immensely. Some consider it an opportunity to help shape the game. Some simply consider it a tactical advantage to have early access, giving them a head start on the competition by gaining experience with the game prior to it's release. Some probably have other reasons I am not considering at present for why they want the access bad enough to pay for it.
Some people also just have more cash to throw around and things they want.
I backed CU at an Alpha Level because I believed the game was worth backing, and I wanted to get my hands on it at an early level and watch the growth of the game through the process.
CF requires a $500 pledge for Alpha Access which is simply outside of my price range of what I consider worth it. Apparently a number of people have a higher value associated with it than I do. That's fine. It's their money.
Simply put, I highly doubt many, if any AT ALL of the $500 backers were "fooled" or scammed into anything. They simply placed a value on a package that was higher than what you feel it was worth. That's why they backed it, and you didn't.
Oh, and to one of the original points of the thread, backer dollars used for advertising... Crowfall secured private investments and began development a year before opening the Kickstarter. They already had money on the books to advertise.
There seems to be a pretty big misconception in this thread that backers are somehow 'duped' into "paying to do their job" for them.
As someone who has backed CF, as well as other games, it has nothing at all to do with being fooled by some shinies leading to my paying to do their job. It's really quite simple. I want the game to be made. Thus, I pledge some money to help make that a reality.
In many cases, it's a simple as effectively buying the game before it comes out (i.e. the lower tiers of backing). Sure, if the game fails to ever be released, I'm out the $40 or whatever it was. So long as the game is released, I'm getting my monies worth of value. The producing company simply got the money for the sale ahead of time and was able to use it during development.
As you get higher in the tiers, the value becomes significantly more subjective.
While you get the game, and usually X months of free game time (or free 'premium subscription' time) which has a direct monetary value associated with it (i.e. cost per month), you also start getting into things that are more subjective, i.e. badges, titles, in-game rewards, stickers, statues figurines, etc. To some people, those things are worth the money. To others, they are not.
Then you get into the REAL intangibles, i.e. Alpha and Beta access. Yes, theoretically you are paying to do someone's job for them. Except, many people consider Alpha/Beta access a privilege and enjoy it immensely. Some consider it an opportunity to help shape the game. Some simply consider it a tactical advantage to have early access, giving them a head start on the competition by gaining experience with the game prior to it's release. Some probably have other reasons I am not considering at present for why they want the access bad enough to pay for it.
Some people also just have more cash to throw around and things they want.
I backed CU at an Alpha Level because I believed the game was worth backing, and I wanted to get my hands on it at an early level and watch the growth of the game through the process.
CF requires a $500 pledge for Alpha Access which is simply outside of my price range of what I consider worth it. Apparently a number of people have a higher value associated with it than I do. That's fine. It's their money.
Simply put, I highly doubt many, if any AT ALL of the $500 backers were "fooled" or scammed into anything. They simply placed a value on a package that was higher than what you feel it was worth. That's why they backed it, and you didn't.
Oh, and to one of the original points of the thread, backer dollars used for advertising... Crowfall secured private investments and began development a year before opening the Kickstarter. They already had money on the books to advertise.
I agree whole-heartedly EXCEPT for the part about alpha and beta testers doing someone's job for them. No.... just no. Alphas and Betas are basically the equivalent of distributed computing. There REALLY is very little meaningful "work" that goes on by these so-called alpha and beta "testers". The fact of the matters is that, the majority of the time, the alpha and beta crowd end up CREATING more work for the actual testers, because incoming bugs need to be manually verified internally. Many of these issues are difficult, or impossible, to reproduce and, since the average alpha/beta tester is your average user these days, you'll be lucky to be able to get them to copy/paste something for you, let alone get them to run any sort of diagnostics, tell you what they've got under the hood, etc.
The rest of the post is great, just thought I'd chime in about that bit. Sorry, but the alpha/beta crowd is about as useful these days as sitting a monkey infront of a computer and having him bash on the keyboard.
Comments
Exactly same as for 500+$ watch. Except maker doesnt even call you and you have device that does exactly same as any 2$ device, or is even incorporated in other devices.
You were sayin?
Watches have noting to do with special titles, special phonecalls, special autographs, special dinners with developers, special unique in-game items, and whatever else Kickstarter projects use to get you to spend spend spend.
It's just a watch, and most watches and physical objects tend to retain their value.
By paying $500 to test a beta game, when the beta is over, you have nothing but the warm and fuzzy feeling that you played a buggy game, that feeling will fade away a few days later when you realized you just threw $500 out the door.
I'll still have my watch, you'll be out $500 and have nothing, that's the difference.
And then you drop your watch into the sea and you just lost 500$ and hav NOTHING except raging feeling and what not.
I paid 1000$ for training for solo parachute jump. All i have is a fond memory of it.
WTF are you going on about lol
It should be noted that the developers have not received any money from Kickstarter yet. In fact, anyone can pull out last minute, as we've seen in the past. The money they're using right now is their own; if they're using it with the knowledge that it will be replenished, it does not matter as they are able to use it as they see fit as the crowd funding has yet to be funded.
That said, money makes money. It also makes games. When you support a game, you want to see it be the best it can be. If marketing makes it more revenue in the end, then it will make for a better and complete game, which is ultimately what is being paid for by the backers. Granted, they already had their investors help them make the two years of content they already have.
Only when a game becomes lazy or knows people will pay anyway do we see a recipe for disaster (See WoW and popular franchises in the last ten years). That will be a case whereby they put minimal effort forth to maximize profit. When building a foundation or core, you try to do the best you can so that you can build up to such a state.
Only there are laws that make it illegal, Kickstarters are vague and there is reasons they dont set anything as binding as an agreement to what they will spend their money on. The system has no accountability. IMO, that is the problem with this current system. You may as well think of all Kickstarters as a gift to someone you dont know.
QFT.
I can't believe so many people still fail to understand how crowdfunding works at it's foundational level. Yes, you are giving money to a company. It's NOT for a service or product, even if that's a promised benefit to donating. It its essentially a gift or donation, and no more legally-binding than one.
There are other industries that operate in this manner, but I don't think they'd be appropriate to bring up in this discussion, nor relevant.
People who spend $500 on watches do so because of the perceived prestige that goes along with it, same thing with expensive clothes, cars, etc. Which is the same thing as being a $500 backer on a kickstarter game, the perceived prestige. People tend to equate money with power and prestige. Why buy a $60,000 BMW when a $15,000 car will perform the same function of getting you from point A to point B...and with many of the same features.
Additionally, physical objects all lower in value over time, unless it is something that is considered collectible or has an equitable value (like property). A $500 watch isn't going to retain it's value if you attempt to sell it later down the road, unless it's a watch that wasn't mass manufactured and was created solely for collectible value.
Spending $500 to be a backer for a game isn't any more or less wise than purchasing a $500 watch if the purchaser is well aware of the potential risk that is inherent with either purchase. The watch can be stolen, broken, lost. The $500 invested into a game comes with a whole other set of risks. However, in both scenarios it is the responsibility of the purchaser be aware of any and all potential risks involved.
Regardless of any of this banter....the value of any purchase isn't determined by outsiders, but rather the person who is making said purchase. I would NEVER spend that kind of money on a game, but I am also not so arrogant as to judge someone else for doing so.
If you spend $500 on crowdfunding an mmorpg you can afford to spare that kind of money. Just don't bitch about it like all the people buying a collectors edition for an mmorpg that they didn't enjoy for more than a month.
^this
at first i was really interested,the more i learn the more i'm like meh. as much as ppl love to give star citizen crap i paid 20 bucks for access to a module and got a ship,also tons of info to dig thru about what's going on.two very different games and genres but i understand the whole point of kickstarter.
but they are asking for a lot of money just for ppl who want to be part of the alpha process that supposedly is an hour or two from time to time. as per the AMA I'd rather spend that 200-300 bucks on star citizen a game that actually wants to push the boundaries of what can be done in their respective genre but thats just me.
hopefully it turns out to be the PvP game that hardcore pvpers have been dying for.
I'm on the fence with Crowfall.
It seems like an MMO, but also a lobby esque PvP game where I sit in my EK and load in to campaigns I want to, which doesn't seem very MMO like when I'm just picking and choosing a map like I would in a CoD or BF multiplayer. I guess kinda like a MOBA
I hope I'm missing something?
More than likely they set aside some money for marketing before the KS even started. These campaigns are dependent upon exposure so that they can draw in as many backers as possible. Campaigns have failed many times due to no thought or effort being put toward getting the word out.
Not only are they not doing the wrong thing by advertising, they are absolutely doing the right thing. Especially because none of the funds used came from backers. While that money could have been directed toward a little more dev work, securing the KS funds is a much better investment.
If you read the publishers' post on the Kickstarter, they are really clear about what and why they are funding. They began with their own money and have an impressive resume of successful projects prior to this one.
This project was well off the ground before the Kickstarter campaign.
I am a backer and am looking forward to the game.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
Here is the law you refer to; caveat emptor. Most people believe that means "buyer beware." That's not really what it means. The true meaning is a seller can't be held responsible for a sale unless it is guaranteed in a warranty. It's a concept that goes back the Romans and is also a part of English Common Law. In other words; know what you are buying and feel good about it or don't buy - nobody is forcing you.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
No sorry watches can increases in value overtime (because they are considered collectible or jewelry), especially if youa re talking about the likes of Tag Heuers or Bvlgaris.
Actually you are also wrong on that, watches are considered jewelry. They can be insured.
Sorry to correct both of you on this because your points are valid and I agree with them, just that you are wrong on the semantics and on this particular example.
Advertising is a part any successful business model. It should be expected. If they can afford to spend the money on an ad campaign for their fund raising that will potentially bring in more backers, go for it. It's all a part of every business budget. If it's not, don't expect the business to succeed.
The people behind Crowfall are no amateurs. Everything they've done has been thought out well in advance and weighed in the balance. I see no reason to question their business savvy at this point.
If you back their game, that means you trust them to spend the money wisely. If advertising is a worthy investment and its making more money, what is there to worry about? Frankly I don't think they need to answer for anything; anyone paying attention knows that these guys have plotted their course meticulously and given you no reason to doubt them.
PS. This is coming from someone who did not actually back Crowfall.
1. They will increase in value or *shocker* they will NOT. Will you start riots if your watch hasnt increased in value rofl
Of course, you can buy a watch with FAITH it will increase in value, nobody guarantees anything. Now....hmmm....what is that similar to?
2. You havent corrected anything. In fact you suggest spending even MORE money, LOT MORE money on that same watch (which isnt worth the money in the first place)
1. What would anyone start a riot over any purchased goods? What is even your point here? I was merely pointing out that watch can go up in value if it is a classic, so it is not a good example in your case, which, is a fact. Electronic goods (not talking about items in game, but the game itself) on the other hand will never increase in value, unlike tangible items.
I'm not sure what's your point of "riot" has any relevance as I never mentioned such a thing. I have specifically pointed out I agreed with what you guys are trying to say but the example that was used was not good for this particular case.
2. Rare watches worth money to start with because of the fact that the rare ones are made using rare metals and crystals and the workmanship is expensive, is soughtafter and is very hard to be replicated (as I said, like jewelry). If we go by your definition you can also say that Mona Lisa is a piece of junk too, however, that is not the case.
Electronic goods can never have the same level of value maintained simply because it can be easily replicated and reproduced, regardless of how good the workmanship is.
I don't know why you feel the need to argue for the sake of arguing. Your point about the main topic of the thread is right, people are agreeing with you (including myself) but I'm just saying your use of example was wrong (which is a fact). I wasn't arguing with you. I was pointing out a glaring mistake (which it was, as there seems to be much confusion in your case between physical vs electronic goods, which definition and pros and cons has been well define for more than 20 years in the IT industry now).
You people don't realize that when you are pledging for say the higher package you aren't just paying for Alpha and the game. You are getting a physical collectors edition of the game, all pre alpha and close beta access, extra features like upgraded castle , parcels of land etc. Even then you get all previous rewards for example:
The game will be free but will have an optional VIP program where you pay $15 dollars a month ( I guess like SWG where you choose to pay monthly for extra featurs). Well if you back higher than $250 you get 5 years free of VIP subscription
Now do the math? $15 dollars per month x 12 months = $180 dollars. Now multiply $180 dollars per year X 5 years = $900 dollars. Add the collectors edition of the game of $60 , + the bonus lands and castles say around $900 + $300 dollars
so I know some of you are not pros at math but don't worry I will do it for you.
Even buying Sapphire at $500 dollars is a deal because = $500 is < $1200
In other words if you are a backer at the higher tier you are getting $1200 dollars or more worth of features for $500 dollars.
But go on I'm intrigued by your argument..................
I would give you a guest pass to SWOTR, but then I wouldn't be able to find a way to live with myself afterwards....
Agreed! It will be made. I don't think that's a question at all.
Oh! Also, it should be noted that advertising was happening during the crowdfunding campaign, meaning they didn't actually have that money in pocket.
PS I also didn't back it, but will buy it. Wish there was a better value proposition at lower levels. Unfortunately it was like "Spend $45 now or $50 at release!!" Ooooooo, hmmmm, I'm torn. If I back something I want to feel like I'm getting a good value, and I also want to believe in what I'm backing.
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
----------------
Ive sold few accounts for much more than what i paid for them.
Certain collecotrs editions were going for MUCH more than what they cost.
So you are just plain WRONG.
NOTHING guarantees your physical goods will increase in value, you are making a bet.
Compared to how many paintings were made throughout human history and how many achieved "Mona Lisa" status, yeah, you have bigger chances your collectors edition will increase in value in 400 years.
There seems to be a pretty big misconception in this thread that backers are somehow 'duped' into "paying to do their job" for them.
As someone who has backed CF, as well as other games, it has nothing at all to do with being fooled by some shinies leading to my paying to do their job. It's really quite simple. I want the game to be made. Thus, I pledge some money to help make that a reality.
In many cases, it's a simple as effectively buying the game before it comes out (i.e. the lower tiers of backing). Sure, if the game fails to ever be released, I'm out the $40 or whatever it was. So long as the game is released, I'm getting my monies worth of value. The producing company simply got the money for the sale ahead of time and was able to use it during development.
As you get higher in the tiers, the value becomes significantly more subjective.
While you get the game, and usually X months of free game time (or free 'premium subscription' time) which has a direct monetary value associated with it (i.e. cost per month), you also start getting into things that are more subjective, i.e. badges, titles, in-game rewards, stickers, statues figurines, etc. To some people, those things are worth the money. To others, they are not.
Then you get into the REAL intangibles, i.e. Alpha and Beta access. Yes, theoretically you are paying to do someone's job for them. Except, many people consider Alpha/Beta access a privilege and enjoy it immensely. Some consider it an opportunity to help shape the game. Some simply consider it a tactical advantage to have early access, giving them a head start on the competition by gaining experience with the game prior to it's release. Some probably have other reasons I am not considering at present for why they want the access bad enough to pay for it.
Some people also just have more cash to throw around and things they want.
I backed CU at an Alpha Level because I believed the game was worth backing, and I wanted to get my hands on it at an early level and watch the growth of the game through the process.
CF requires a $500 pledge for Alpha Access which is simply outside of my price range of what I consider worth it. Apparently a number of people have a higher value associated with it than I do. That's fine. It's their money.
Simply put, I highly doubt many, if any AT ALL of the $500 backers were "fooled" or scammed into anything. They simply placed a value on a package that was higher than what you feel it was worth. That's why they backed it, and you didn't.
Oh, and to one of the original points of the thread, backer dollars used for advertising... Crowfall secured private investments and began development a year before opening the Kickstarter. They already had money on the books to advertise.
I agree whole-heartedly EXCEPT for the part about alpha and beta testers doing someone's job for them. No.... just no. Alphas and Betas are basically the equivalent of distributed computing. There REALLY is very little meaningful "work" that goes on by these so-called alpha and beta "testers". The fact of the matters is that, the majority of the time, the alpha and beta crowd end up CREATING more work for the actual testers, because incoming bugs need to be manually verified internally. Many of these issues are difficult, or impossible, to reproduce and, since the average alpha/beta tester is your average user these days, you'll be lucky to be able to get them to copy/paste something for you, let alone get them to run any sort of diagnostics, tell you what they've got under the hood, etc.
The rest of the post is great, just thought I'd chime in about that bit. Sorry, but the alpha/beta crowd is about as useful these days as sitting a monkey infront of a computer and having him bash on the keyboard.
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
----------------