Originally posted by CrazKanuk Here's a challenge to Derek Smart-ass. Ok, so foot the bill for the attorneys. However, put up a second escrow account for $15 million and, in the event that he was wrong, that money goes to RSI. THAT is putting your money where your mouth is. Also, there is absolutely zero advantage for RSI to entertain any sort of idea otherwise. That would top up RSI to what CR believes he needs to complete the project in its entirety and it also puts Derek Smart in a place where he actually stands to lose something.
OK. And here's a challenge to Chris Roberts: do what Mark Jacobs does with CU and offer a no questions asked refund to any donor who for whatever reason, changes his/her mind, THAT is putting your mouth where your money is.
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
it also leaves open the door for someone to come and burn down a project if they're loud enough; simply because people will follow drama & controversy even if it's not reality. It's clear to many people that Derek Smart's arguments are built upon a pillar of sand. Although, there's some 'truth' or good points they're buried in nonsense.
Once the money was 'gifted' to the project it became capital for the development team. All their plans and goals; contracts and so forth; are all based upon the current capital they have. Derek Smart knows this.
Everything that's coming out of Derek Smart's mouth right now lends more and more credence to him being on a mission to take Chris Roberts out; and it could very well be possible, given Derek Smart's modus operandi, that he honestly thinks he'll some how step in and take over.
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Hence the pressure to run a tight ship, produce and communicate transparently.
Mark just recently revealed in his interview here about the beta delay that they refunded $50K in the past 9 months. I'm sure that hurt a bit but it's peanuts compared to the $2M+ they raised. Most of the fans are still very committed to seeing it through to the end.
Regardless of the potential pitfalls, consequences for your actions in development is a much better system that provides backers a modicum of the same type of oversight that investors have in non-crowdfunded projects. It's just not a free ride.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Maybe what they could start doing is requiring someone who creates a Kickstarter campaign to set a time frame goal. If that time frame changes, then backers will be given the option to withdraw or stay.
Basically say I start a Kickstarter for the Adventures of SpottyGekko. I give a time frame of 2 years development. 300 people back me, but even with all the money donated, I ran into an issue that has now expanded the timeline to a 3rd year. Every backer will get notified that the timeline has changed and are given two choices at that point: Withdraw their pledge or Agree to the new time frame. I can plead my case for them to stay by showing them all the progress that is being made and what the new timeline entails, but it would be up to the backer to decide if the reasons are valid enough.
This would allow people who backed a project a chance to bail out if they feel the project is not progressing the way it should. This would also force the people behind the campaign to show progress is being made and keep backers informed to show the money is being spent on the project and not the developers lifestyle.
This way backers have a bit more of a voice, developers are held to more accountability and outsiders won't have as many reasons for smear campaigns.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by CrazKanuk Here's a challenge to Derek Smart-ass. Ok, so foot the bill for the attorneys. However, put up a second escrow account for $15 million and, in the event that he was wrong, that money goes to RSI. THAT is putting your money where your mouth is. Also, there is absolutely zero advantage for RSI to entertain any sort of idea otherwise. That would top up RSI to what CR believes he needs to complete the project in its entirety and it also puts Derek Smart in a place where he actually stands to lose something.
OK. And here's a challenge to Chris Roberts: do what Mark Jacobs does with CU and offer a no questions asked refund to any donor who for whatever reason, changes his/her mind, THAT is putting your mouth where your money is.
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Or you could always just launch under Steam Early Access which has a no refund policy on EA games, right Derek
There are all kinds of schemes devised in recent years to separate you from your money and locking you in... early access and paid alpha/betas are just two of those... at least with those schemes you get to play something right away and find out immediately if you wasted your money or not.
And BTW, refunds do happen. I got a refund for H1Z1 from Steam when I realized that it was early access + P2W cash shop.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Hence the pressure to run a tight ship, produce and communicate transparently.
Mark just recently revealed in his interview here about the beta delay that they refunded $50K in the past 9 months. I'm sure that hurt a bit but it's peanuts compared to the $2M+ they raised. Most of the fans are still very committed to seeing it through to the end.
Regardless of the potential pitfalls, consequences for your actions in development is a much better system that provides backers a modicum of the same type of oversight that investors have in non-crowdfunded projects. It's just not a free ride.
This line of thinking tells me you're not familiar with the development cycle of a game.
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Hence the pressure to run a tight ship, produce and communicate transparently.
Mark just recently revealed in his interview here about the beta delay that they refunded $50K in the past 9 months. I'm sure that hurt a bit but it's peanuts compared to the $2M+ they raised. Most of the fans are still very committed to seeing it through to the end.
Regardless of the potential pitfalls, consequences for your actions in development is a much better system that provides backers a modicum of the same type of oversight that investors have in non-crowdfunded projects. It's just not a free ride.
This line of thinking tells me you're not familiar with the development cycle of a game.
Really? How so? BTW, my son is an indy game developer doing quite well
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
If he's so worried about the state of the project why not just give RSI that 1M to help the development in exchange for a look at what's going on from the beginning before raising all this mess? -_- it's so obvious what he's doing that it hurts my brain every time i see people cheering him...
Damn why am i even bothering to write this down...
Please reread what you wrote, and if you don't understand why it's stupid on a staggering level, please reread it again until you figure it out.
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Hence the pressure to run a tight ship, produce and communicate transparently.
Mark just recently revealed in his interview here about the beta delay that they refunded $50K in the past 9 months. I'm sure that hurt a bit but it's peanuts compared to the $2M+ they raised. Most of the fans are still very committed to seeing it through to the end.
Regardless of the potential pitfalls, consequences for your actions in development is a much better system that provides backers a modicum of the same type of oversight that investors have in non-crowdfunded projects. It's just not a free ride.
This line of thinking tells me you're not familiar with the development cycle of a game.
Really? How so? BTW, my son is an indy game developer doing quite well
Remember you are responding to a self proclaimed game industry veteran who won't disclose who, when and what games he worked for WITH two degrees. If I was a self proclaimed game industry veteran WITH two degrees it WOULD be in my profile on a GAMING Forum.
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Maybe what they could start doing is requiring someone who creates a Kickstarter campaign to set a time frame goal. If that time frame changes, then backers will be given the option to withdraw or stay.
Basically say I start a Kickstarter for the Adventures of SpottyGekko. I give a time frame of 2 years development. 300 people back me, but even with all the money donated, I ran into an issue that has now expanded the timeline to a 3rd year. Every backer will get notified that the timeline has changed and are given two choices at that point: Withdraw their pledge or Agree to the new time frame. I can plead my case for them to stay by showing them all the progress that is being made and what the new timeline entails, but it would be up to the backer to decide if the reasons are valid enough.
This would allow people who backed a project a chance to bail out if they feel the project is not progressing the way it should. This would also force the people behind the campaign to show progress is being made and keep backers informed to show the money is being spent on the project and not the developers lifestyle.
This way backers have a bit more of a voice, developers are held to more accountability and outsiders won't have as many reasons for smear campaigns.
Maybe, but then again the bigger the project the far less likely that project will hit its initial release date. Then, he further into a big project development is the higher chance that the loss of money will cause the project to fail (when it just needed more times due to something that naturally happens).
The problem here is people that don't understand how large scale projects like these work want to install what they think is the best way.
If people don't like the way Kickstarter or crowdfunding works then they should create their own crowdfunding site/platform and have their own policies implemented.
A fact of life is things fail; things get delayed; sometimes you lose money on something and sometimes you don't.
All these 'white knights' (who seem to be mostly people that HAVE NOT backed the project) for backers are actually speaking for what appears to be a very small minority of people actually asking for their refunds.
Over on MassivelyOp, for example, there seems to be one guy calling for a refund (who was actually known as a loud mouth to begin with that posted on the SC forums as multiple entities) for everyone while virtually all the backers are saying the same thing, "there are some questions, but I understood going in I may never see my money, and I'm not worried about this project anyway."
This line of thinking tells me you're not familiar with the development cycle of a game.
Really? How so? BTW, my son is an indy game developer doing quite well
Remember you are responding to a self proclaimed game industry veteran who won't disclose who, when and what games he worked for WITH two degrees. If I was a self proclaimed game industry veteran WITH two degrees it WOULD be in my profile on a GAMING Forum.
Whose MO is to always shoot the messenger of messages that don't fit his agenda
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Maybe what they could start doing is requiring someone who creates a Kickstarter campaign to set a time frame goal. If that time frame changes, then backers will be given the option to withdraw or stay.
Basically say I start a Kickstarter for the Adventures of SpottyGekko. I give a time frame of 2 years development. 300 people back me, but even with all the money donated, I ran into an issue that has now expanded the timeline to a 3rd year. Every backer will get notified that the timeline has changed and are given two choices at that point: Withdraw their pledge or Agree to the new time frame. I can plead my case for them to stay by showing them all the progress that is being made and what the new timeline entails, but it would be up to the backer to decide if the reasons are valid enough.
This would allow people who backed a project a chance to bail out if they feel the project is not progressing the way it should. This would also force the people behind the campaign to show progress is being made and keep backers informed to show the money is being spent on the project and not the developers lifestyle.
This way backers have a bit more of a voice, developers are held to more accountability and outsiders won't have as many reasons for smear campaigns.
Maybe, but then again the bigger the project the far less likely that project will hit its initial release date. Then, he further into a big project development is the higher chance that the loss of money will cause the project to fail (when it just needed more times due to something that naturally happens).
The problem here is people that don't understand how large scale projects like these work want to install what they think is the best way.
If people don't like the way Kickstarter or crowdfunding works then they should create their own crowdfunding site/platform and have their own policies implemented.
A fact of life is things fail; things get delayed; sometimes you lose money on something and sometimes you don't.
All these 'white knights' (who seem to be mostly people that HAVE NOT backed the project) for backers are actually speaking for what appears to be a very small minority of people actually asking for their refunds.
Over on MassivelyOp, for example, there seems to be one guy calling for a refund (who was actually known as a loud mouth to begin with that posted on the SC forums as multiple entities) for everyone while virtually all the backers are saying the same thing, "there are some questions, but I understood going in I may never see my money, and I'm not worried about this project anyway."
I see what you are saying.
But in a case such as SC, you have people who saw the 2 year thing and now feel cheated because that 2 years has come and gone. You also have a lot of people who did not back the project and just want to cause drama because drama = fun, and they are also towing the 2 year thing as a banner for their cause.
Outside of SC you have plenty of kickstarter campaigns that were just to make quick cash grabs and never release what they promised. This has caused a lot of overall drama when it comes to any sort of crowdfunding.
Allowing backers the chance to bail out if specific goals are not met would work like it does in most corporate environments. If a project is failing to meet established goals, funding is often cut, unless the teams behind the project can show why the delays were needed and the such.
If backers are given the option to back out when specific milestones are not met, there will be less drama involved in the process in the long run. It will also help keep the people behind the campaign a bit more honest when it comes to delays.
If I gave $15 to a crowdfunding campaign and things started to go south, I probably wouldn't care and accept the loss. If I gave $1500 to a campaign and it started to go south, I would want the ability to let them know by either reducing or fully withdrawing my pledge unless they can provide reasons I see as valid (Death of a team member, building burned down/data lost, 3rd party software vendor pulled out last minute = Valid reasons to me. Hookers and Blow and weekend trips for top brass to Vegas = Not Valid)
Will it fix everything? No.
But it will go a long way to give people a voice.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
That's great that there is a couple projects who offer that. However, the vast majority of projects do NOT offer refunds. The fact that Derek Smart has enough contacts to actually impact the funding and continued development of the game is the only reason they gave him anything. They even said it wasn't a refund. He is so intent on destroying others' work out of, I don't know, jealousy? Someone is doing something he cannot? Shoot, he is so full of bullshit, I bet he actually believes he has 2 PHDs.
It's more than just great, it's how it should always be because it creates a different dynamic that requires more commitment and accountability within a system that requires neither of those things. Non refundable pledges and pre-sales create a development environment that has none of the usual financial pressures driving it... and that's fucked up.
There's another way of looking at it, though.
Given the long development cycle of an MMO, there's a good chance that many backers will suddenly get a case of "buyer's remorse" after 2 or 3 years. Maybe a new game launches and they're a bit short of cash at that moment. Human beings can be extremely fickle.
It would wreak havoc with your financial planning if your pledged funds could change dramatically at any time for any reason, even reasons totally out of your control.
Maybe what they could start doing is requiring someone who creates a Kickstarter campaign to set a time frame goal. If that time frame changes, then backers will be given the option to withdraw or stay.
Basically say I start a Kickstarter for the Adventures of SpottyGekko. I give a time frame of 2 years development. 300 people back me, but even with all the money donated, I ran into an issue that has now expanded the timeline to a 3rd year. Every backer will get notified that the timeline has changed and are given two choices at that point: Withdraw their pledge or Agree to the new time frame. I can plead my case for them to stay by showing them all the progress that is being made and what the new timeline entails, but it would be up to the backer to decide if the reasons are valid enough.
This would allow people who backed a project a chance to bail out if they feel the project is not progressing the way it should. This would also force the people behind the campaign to show progress is being made and keep backers informed to show the money is being spent on the project and not the developers lifestyle.
This way backers have a bit more of a voice, developers are held to more accountability and outsiders won't have as many reasons for smear campaigns.
Maybe, but then again the bigger the project the far less likely that project will hit its initial release date. Then, he further into a big project development is the higher chance that the loss of money will cause the project to fail (when it just needed more times due to something that naturally happens).
The problem here is people that don't understand how large scale projects like these work want to install what they think is the best way.
If people don't like the way Kickstarter or crowdfunding works then they should create their own crowdfunding site/platform and have their own policies implemented.
A fact of life is things fail; things get delayed; sometimes you lose money on something and sometimes you don't.
All these 'white knights' (who seem to be mostly people that HAVE NOT backed the project) for backers are actually speaking for what appears to be a very small minority of people actually asking for their refunds.
Over on MassivelyOp, for example, there seems to be one guy calling for a refund (who was actually known as a loud mouth to begin with that posted on the SC forums as multiple entities) for everyone while virtually all the backers are saying the same thing, "there are some questions, but I understood going in I may never see my money, and I'm not worried about this project anyway."
I see what you are saying.
But in a case such as SC, you have people who saw the 2 year thing and now feel cheated because that 2 years has come and gone. You also have a lot of people who did not back the project and just want to cause drama because drama = fun, and they are also towing the 2 year thing as a banner for their cause.
Outside of SC you have plenty of kickstarter campaigns that were just to make quick cash grabs and never release what they promised. This has caused a lot of overall drama when it comes to any sort of crowdfunding.
Allowing backers the chance to bail out if specific goals are not met would work like it does in most corporate environments. If a project is failing to meet established goals, funding is often cut, unless the teams behind the project can show why the delays were needed and the such.
If backers are given the option to back out when specific milestones are not met, there will be less drama involved in the process in the long run. It will also help keep the people behind the campaign a bit more honest when it comes to delays.
If I gave $15 to a crowdfunding campaign and things started to go south, I probably wouldn't care and accept the loss. If I gave $1500 to a campaign and it started to go south, I would want the ability to let them know by either reducing or fully withdrawing my pledge unless they can provide reasons I see as valid (Death of a team member, building burned down/data lost, 3rd party software vendor pulled out last minute = Valid reasons to me. Hookers and Blow and weekend trips for top brass to Vegas = Not Valid)
Will it fix everything? No.
But it will go a long way to give people a voice.
I think you're giving people too much credit for being reasonable though. That's mistake #1.
Also, I think you'd find that there are plenty of people who would bitch about losing $15 on a KS campaign and then gladly gamble away $1500 without saying a word. It's a silly double-standard. In actuality, I believe you'd see that the vast majority of people who invested heavily in the project are quite happy with their investment. Unfortunately it's sad that a small group has decided to rally behind someone like Derek Smart because it simply doesn't give the group any credibility and I really hope that it gets zero traction. It's nothing but a BS publicity stunt, business as usual-type thing for Derek Smart. He'll probably sell a few thousand EA Passes to his POS game on Steam now and he'll be happy and never have to be held accountable anywhere NEAR to the degree that he's asking RSI to be held accountable.
I don't care one way or another, life's bitter conclusions have taught me the futility of pre-ordering or crowd-funding, however this Derek Smart person raises some interesting concerns - a company should show accountability for how it spends investors funding.
That said, crowd-funding is more like a donation and less like been an investor. If a person is worried they should have never taken the risk.
Comments
Could be worse. Could be someone down to his last "Line of Defense" ....
But to all his supporters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nbq6Ur103Q
Have fun
it also leaves open the door for someone to come and burn down a project if they're loud enough; simply because people will follow drama & controversy even if it's not reality. It's clear to many people that Derek Smart's arguments are built upon a pillar of sand. Although, there's some 'truth' or good points they're buried in nonsense.
Once the money was 'gifted' to the project it became capital for the development team. All their plans and goals; contracts and so forth; are all based upon the current capital they have. Derek Smart knows this.
Everything that's coming out of Derek Smart's mouth right now lends more and more credence to him being on a mission to take Chris Roberts out; and it could very well be possible, given Derek Smart's modus operandi, that he honestly thinks he'll some how step in and take over.
Hence the pressure to run a tight ship, produce and communicate transparently.
Mark just recently revealed in his interview here about the beta delay that they refunded $50K in the past 9 months. I'm sure that hurt a bit but it's peanuts compared to the $2M+ they raised. Most of the fans are still very committed to seeing it through to the end.
Regardless of the potential pitfalls, consequences for your actions in development is a much better system that provides backers a modicum of the same type of oversight that investors have in non-crowdfunded projects. It's just not a free ride.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Maybe what they could start doing is requiring someone who creates a Kickstarter campaign to set a time frame goal. If that time frame changes, then backers will be given the option to withdraw or stay.
Basically say I start a Kickstarter for the Adventures of SpottyGekko. I give a time frame of 2 years development. 300 people back me, but even with all the money donated, I ran into an issue that has now expanded the timeline to a 3rd year. Every backer will get notified that the timeline has changed and are given two choices at that point: Withdraw their pledge or Agree to the new time frame. I can plead my case for them to stay by showing them all the progress that is being made and what the new timeline entails, but it would be up to the backer to decide if the reasons are valid enough.
This would allow people who backed a project a chance to bail out if they feel the project is not progressing the way it should. This would also force the people behind the campaign to show progress is being made and keep backers informed to show the money is being spent on the project and not the developers lifestyle.
This way backers have a bit more of a voice, developers are held to more accountability and outsiders won't have as many reasons for smear campaigns.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
There are all kinds of schemes devised in recent years to separate you from your money and locking you in... early access and paid alpha/betas are just two of those... at least with those schemes you get to play something right away and find out immediately if you wasted your money or not.
And BTW, refunds do happen. I got a refund for H1Z1 from Steam when I realized that it was early access + P2W cash shop.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This line of thinking tells me you're not familiar with the development cycle of a game.
Really? How so? BTW, my son is an indy game developer doing quite well
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Please reread what you wrote, and if you don't understand why it's stupid on a staggering level, please reread it again until you figure it out.
Remember you are responding to a self proclaimed game industry veteran who won't disclose who, when and what games he worked for WITH two degrees. If I was a self proclaimed game industry veteran WITH two degrees it WOULD be in my profile on a GAMING Forum.
Maybe, but then again the bigger the project the far less likely that project will hit its initial release date. Then, he further into a big project development is the higher chance that the loss of money will cause the project to fail (when it just needed more times due to something that naturally happens).
The problem here is people that don't understand how large scale projects like these work want to install what they think is the best way.
If people don't like the way Kickstarter or crowdfunding works then they should create their own crowdfunding site/platform and have their own policies implemented.
A fact of life is things fail; things get delayed; sometimes you lose money on something and sometimes you don't.
All these 'white knights' (who seem to be mostly people that HAVE NOT backed the project) for backers are actually speaking for what appears to be a very small minority of people actually asking for their refunds.
Over on MassivelyOp, for example, there seems to be one guy calling for a refund (who was actually known as a loud mouth to begin with that posted on the SC forums as multiple entities) for everyone while virtually all the backers are saying the same thing, "there are some questions, but I understood going in I may never see my money, and I'm not worried about this project anyway."
Whose MO is to always shoot the messenger of messages that don't fit his agenda
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I see what you are saying.
But in a case such as SC, you have people who saw the 2 year thing and now feel cheated because that 2 years has come and gone. You also have a lot of people who did not back the project and just want to cause drama because drama = fun, and they are also towing the 2 year thing as a banner for their cause.
Outside of SC you have plenty of kickstarter campaigns that were just to make quick cash grabs and never release what they promised. This has caused a lot of overall drama when it comes to any sort of crowdfunding.
Allowing backers the chance to bail out if specific goals are not met would work like it does in most corporate environments. If a project is failing to meet established goals, funding is often cut, unless the teams behind the project can show why the delays were needed and the such.
If backers are given the option to back out when specific milestones are not met, there will be less drama involved in the process in the long run. It will also help keep the people behind the campaign a bit more honest when it comes to delays.
If I gave $15 to a crowdfunding campaign and things started to go south, I probably wouldn't care and accept the loss. If I gave $1500 to a campaign and it started to go south, I would want the ability to let them know by either reducing or fully withdrawing my pledge unless they can provide reasons I see as valid (Death of a team member, building burned down/data lost, 3rd party software vendor pulled out last minute = Valid reasons to me. Hookers and Blow and weekend trips for top brass to Vegas = Not Valid)
Will it fix everything? No.
But it will go a long way to give people a voice.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I think you're giving people too much credit for being reasonable though. That's mistake #1.
Also, I think you'd find that there are plenty of people who would bitch about losing $15 on a KS campaign and then gladly gamble away $1500 without saying a word. It's a silly double-standard. In actuality, I believe you'd see that the vast majority of people who invested heavily in the project are quite happy with their investment. Unfortunately it's sad that a small group has decided to rally behind someone like Derek Smart because it simply doesn't give the group any credibility and I really hope that it gets zero traction. It's nothing but a BS publicity stunt, business as usual-type thing for Derek Smart. He'll probably sell a few thousand EA Passes to his POS game on Steam now and he'll be happy and never have to be held accountable anywhere NEAR to the degree that he's asking RSI to be held accountable.
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
----------------
you know what EA (electronic arts) would say to a request like this for a massive pre-order debacle.
No refund and a happy F**K you.
I don't care one way or another, life's bitter conclusions have taught me the futility of pre-ordering or crowd-funding, however this Derek Smart person raises some interesting concerns - a company should show accountability for how it spends investors funding.
That said, crowd-funding is more like a donation and less like been an investor. If a person is worried they should have never taken the risk.