The Lack of Delivered Content

Gdemami

SlothnChunk said:

Developers shut down all the time during the middle of game development.  That's because independent developers DO NOT 'open their books' to publishers.  Publishers are merely financiers not shareholders.

You keep repeating nonsense like it will somehow become fact.

If that was true, there would be no investors to fund developers in the first place because they would be all broke already.

SlothnChunk

MisterZebub said:

"They won't show us their books so they must be doing something wrong"
"Why should they open their books?"
"So we can prove they're doing something wrong."
"If you have proof of wrongdoing then you don't need to see their books, as you already have evidence of wrongdoing"
"But we don't have any evidence of wrongdoing, we need to see their books to prove our suspicions are correct"
"Why do you suspect wrongdoing?"
"We know they're guilty of fraudulent behavior and are scamming their customers."
"What evidence do you have that supports this accusation?"
"That's why we need to see their books, to find the evidence"
"If you have no evidence of wrongdoing then you are not legally entitled to inspect their books."
"See they won't show us their books, that proves they're guilty."
"You just said you have no proof."
"We don't need proof, their very actions proves their guilt."
"Guilt over what?"
"Scamming their fans."
"And you have evidence of this fraudulent behavior how?"
"We don't have evidence because they won't show us their books."
"They have no legal obligation to show you their books."
"See that proves they're guilty. If they were honest they would act like guilty people and show us their books."
"What are they guilty of and what evidence do you have to support these allegations?"
"Scamming their customers, and no we have no evidence because they won't let us see their books."
"There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, a hole." 

Exactly.  The whole 'opening the books' argument is like the Who's On First routine.  In the end there is no substance behind all the talking.

http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQXwt83hYkE

SlothnChunk

Gdemami said:

SlothnChunk said:

Developers shut down all the time during the middle of game development.  That's because independent developers DO NOT 'open their books' to publishers.  Publishers are merely financiers not shareholders.

You keep repeating nonsense like it will somehow become fact.

If that was true, there would be no investors to fund developers in the first place because they would be all broke already.

Very good.  Publishers aren't 'investors' in the first place they are financiers in the developer/publisher relationship.  An investor has equity and legal documents to prove it.  Financing is also a different arrangement.

You erroneously use terms interchangeably which result in numerous incorrect statements.  And in the case of 'open the books' don't seem to know the business definition of that very specific phrase.

Gdemami

SlothnChunk said:

Very good.  Publishers aren't 'investors' in the first place they are financiers in the developer/publisher relationship.  An investor has equity and legal documents to prove it.  Financing is also a different arrangement.

You erroneously use terms interchangeably which result in numerous incorrect statements.  And in the case of 'open the books' don't seem to know the business definition of that very specific phrase.

You are the one interchanging the terms, not me

I am clearly and specifically talking about investor-developer relationship from the start, you are turning it into something I never talked about - publishers(that are not investors).

SlothnChunk

Gdemami said:

SlothnChunk said:

Very good.  Publishers aren't 'investors' in the first place they are financiers in the developer/publisher relationship.  An investor has equity and legal documents to prove it.  Financing is also a different arrangement.

You erroneously use terms interchangeably which result in numerous incorrect statements.  And in the case of 'open the books' don't seem to know the business definition of that very specific phrase.

You are the one interchanging the terms, not me

I am clearly and specifically talking about investor-developer relationship from the start, you are turning it into something I never talked about - publishers(that are not investors).

So then why did you bring up the term 'investing' when it doesn't apply to the standard developer/publisher relationship nor crowdfunding.  Equity is not acquired in the game studio in either case.  Therefore, there would never be any 'open book' accounting involved in either case.

It's completely irrelevant and why your argument was false.

Gdemami

SlothnChunk said:

So then why did you bring up the term 'investing' when it doesn't apply to the standard developer/publisher relationship nor crowdfunding.  Equity is not acquired in the game studio in either case.  Therefore, there would never be any 'open book' accounting involved in either case.

It's completely irrelevant and why your argument was false.

It was a notion to transparency.

CIG isn't making their development transparent, they just based their marketing on it.


If you want transparency, you gotta get into investor-developer relationship level.

makasouleater69

MisterZebub said:

"They won't show us their books so they must be doing something wrong"
"Why should they open their books?"
"So we can prove they're doing something wrong."
"If you have proof of wrongdoing then you don't need to see their books, as you already have evidence of wrongdoing"
"But we don't have any evidence of wrongdoing, we need to see their books to prove our suspicions are correct"
"Why do you suspect wrongdoing?"
"We know they're guilty of fraudulent behavior and are scamming their customers."
"What evidence do you have that supports this accusation?"
"That's why we need to see their books, to find the evidence"
"If you have no evidence of wrongdoing then you are not legally entitled to inspect their books."
"See they won't show us their books, that proves they're guilty."
"You just said you have no proof."
"We don't need proof, their very actions proves their guilt."
"Guilt over what?"
"Scamming their fans."
"And you have evidence of this fraudulent behavior how?"
"We don't have evidence because they won't show us their books."
"They have no legal obligation to show you their books."
"See that proves they're guilty. If they were honest they would act like guilty people and show us their books."
"What are they guilty of and what evidence do you have to support these allegations?"
"Scamming their customers, and no we have no evidence because they won't let us see their books."
"There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, a hole."

I dono thats the logic of USA today. If you dont have anything to hide, you should show every one everything. 

SlothnChunk

Gdemami said:

SlothnChunk said:

So then why did you bring up the term 'investing' when it doesn't apply to the standard developer/publisher relationship nor crowdfunding.  Equity is not acquired in the game studio in either case.  Therefore, there would never be any 'open book' accounting involved in either case.

It's completely irrelevant and why your argument was false.

It was a notion to transparency.

CIG isn't making their development transparent, they just based their marketing on it.


If you want transparency, you gotta get into investor-developer relationship level.

OK, that's an opinion of what you would like to see in transparency.  But, that's very different than what you initially said which was that 'investors' are 'entitled' to 'open-books' and that's how it works, etc.

Just as a word of advice, it's a good idea to be clear something is your opinion.  It's generally not a good argument to present your opinion as fact/reality when industries simply don't work that way.

Gdemami

SlothnChunk said:

OK, that's an opinion of what you would like to see in transparency.  But, that's very different than what you initially said which was that 'investors' are 'entitled' to 'open-books' and that's how it works, etc.

Just as a word of advice, it's a good idea to be clear something is your opinion.  It's generally not a good argument to present your opinion as fact/reality when industries simply don't work that way.

Those are not opinions, those are facts.


Do not blame me for your very own errors, thank you.

Brenics

When this ends and yes it will end with either a game (which will not meet the hype) or they close up or sell out. Once that happens am sure things will end up changing for kickstarter backers. Plus no I do not want any Government involved in KickStarters, that would end up making it worse. But they do need to add some safe guards for the backers. After this long on a game like SC they should have to prove where the money went. 

It does worry me there are people out there that really believe backers have no rights to what some company or in this case multiple companies are doing with the money.  I really do not believe any kickstarter crowd funding project should be able to open businesses like Roberts has. I can understand outsourcing but he isn't even doing that. 

So many red flags with this project it really is strange. The whole setup smells bad. 

SlothnChunk

Gdemami said:

SlothnChunk said:

OK, that's an opinion of what you would like to see in transparency.  But, that's very different than what you initially said which was that 'investors' are 'entitled' to 'open-books' and that's how it works, etc.

Just as a word of advice, it's a good idea to be clear something is your opinion.  It's generally not a good argument to present your opinion as fact/reality when industries simply don't work that way.

Those are not opinions, those are facts.


Do not blame me for your very own errors, thank you.

You just stated that you were referring to the "investor-developer relationship level" which isn't the case here.  Again, publishers don't 'invest' in game studios simply because they fund a game nor are you an 'investor' if you crowdfund something.  Equity is not acquired in either case.

So what you are talking about isn't reality.  It's your opinion and a fantasy of the way things should work (not how they actually do). 

SlothnChunk

Brenics said:

When this ends and yes it will end with either a game (which will not meet the hype) or they close up or sell out. Once that happens am sure things will end up changing for kickstarter backers. Plus no I do not want any Government involved in KickStarters, that would end up making it worse. But they do need to add some safe guards for the backers. After this long on a game like SC they should have to prove where the money went. 

It does worry me there are people out there that really believe backers have no rights to what some company or in this case multiple companies are doing with the money.  I really do not believe any kickstarter crowd funding project should be able to open businesses like Roberts has. I can understand outsourcing but he isn't even doing that. 

So many red flags with this project it really is strange. The whole setup smells bad. 

Kickstarter and crowdfunding are both modern forms of patronage.  Patronage has been around for thousands of years and would be a nightmare to try to regulate somehow.  And the fact is a backer or patron has no 'rights' when it comes to how the money is spent.

The biggest strength of patronage is also arguably its biggest weakness; the patron has no 'rights' to how the money is spent only influence at best with full freedom and independence given to those being sponsored.

Phaserlight

SlothnChunk said:

MisterZebub said:

"They won't show us their books so they must be doing something wrong"
"Why should they open their books?"
"So we can prove they're doing something wrong."
"If you have proof of wrongdoing then you don't need to see their books, as you already have evidence of wrongdoing"
"But we don't have any evidence of wrongdoing, we need to see their books to prove our suspicions are correct"
"Why do you suspect wrongdoing?"
"We know they're guilty of fraudulent behavior and are scamming their customers."
"What evidence do you have that supports this accusation?"
"That's why we need to see their books, to find the evidence"
"If you have no evidence of wrongdoing then you are not legally entitled to inspect their books."
"See they won't show us their books, that proves they're guilty."
"You just said you have no proof."
"We don't need proof, their very actions proves their guilt."
"Guilt over what?"
"Scamming their fans."
"And you have evidence of this fraudulent behavior how?"
"We don't have evidence because they won't show us their books."
"They have no legal obligation to show you their books."
"See that proves they're guilty. If they were honest they would act like guilty people and show us their books."
"What are they guilty of and what evidence do you have to support these allegations?"
"Scamming their customers, and no we have no evidence because they won't let us see their books."
"There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, a hole." 

Exactly.  The whole 'opening the books' argument is like the Who's On First routine.  In the end there is no substance behind all the talking.

http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQXwt83hYkE

Nice hominid figure crafted out of equine fodder.

Also ignoring that since Sarbanes-Oxley, public companies earning over 10 Mil in a year do open their books on a regular basis because it promotes honest accounting and business practices.  Given CIG/RSI is exploiting nascent tech (crowdfunding) to raise funds not unlike an IPO might, hardly "no substance" behind this type of request.

/2c

SlothnChunk

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

MisterZebub said:

"They won't show us their books so they must be doing something wrong"
"Why should they open their books?"
"So we can prove they're doing something wrong."
"If you have proof of wrongdoing then you don't need to see their books, as you already have evidence of wrongdoing"
"But we don't have any evidence of wrongdoing, we need to see their books to prove our suspicions are correct"
"Why do you suspect wrongdoing?"
"We know they're guilty of fraudulent behavior and are scamming their customers."
"What evidence do you have that supports this accusation?"
"That's why we need to see their books, to find the evidence"
"If you have no evidence of wrongdoing then you are not legally entitled to inspect their books."
"See they won't show us their books, that proves they're guilty."
"You just said you have no proof."
"We don't need proof, their very actions proves their guilt."
"Guilt over what?"
"Scamming their fans."
"And you have evidence of this fraudulent behavior how?"
"We don't have evidence because they won't show us their books."
"They have no legal obligation to show you their books."
"See that proves they're guilty. If they were honest they would act like guilty people and show us their books."
"What are they guilty of and what evidence do you have to support these allegations?"
"Scamming their customers, and no we have no evidence because they won't let us see their books."
"There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, a hole." 

Exactly.  The whole 'opening the books' argument is like the Who's On First routine.  In the end there is no substance behind all the talking.

http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQXwt83hYkE

Nice hominid figure crafted out of equine fodder.

Also ignoring that since Sarbanes-Oxley, public companies earning over 10 Mil in a year do open their books on a regular basis because it promotes honest accounting and business practices.  Given CIG/RSI is exploiting nascent tech (crowdfunding) to raise funds not unlike an IPO might, hardly "no substance" behind this type of request.

/2c

You do know an IPO issues ownership or equity while crowdfunding is merely patronage?  So there is basically nothing in common legally between the two (other than what you create in your head).

Gdemami

SlothnChunk said:

You just stated that you were referring to the "investor-developer relationship level" which isn't the case here.  Again, publishers don't 'invest' in game studios simply because they fund a game nor are you an 'investor' if you crowdfund something.  Equity is not acquired in either case.

So what you are talking about isn't reality.  It's your opinion and a fantasy of the way things should work (not how they actually do). 

Yep, it is not the case here, thus there is no transparency to speak of.

Are you trying intentionally twist what I am saying or you just fail at comprehension that bad?


Aslo, funding the game means investing into a game/developer. Purchasing equity is not the only way of investment.

SlothnChunk

Gdemami said:

SlothnChunk said:

You just stated that you were referring to the "investor-developer relationship level" which isn't the case here.  Again, publishers don't 'invest' in game studios simply because they fund a game nor are you an 'investor' if you crowdfund something.  Equity is not acquired in either case.

So what you are talking about isn't reality.  It's your opinion and a fantasy of the way things should work (not how they actually do). 

Yep, it is not the case here, thus there is no transparency to speak of.

Are you trying intentionally twist what I am saying or you just fail at comprehension that bad?


Aslo, funding the game means investing into a game/developer. Purchasing equity is not the only way of investment.

That's a really neat opinion and all stating that if you spend money on something you are also an 'investor' and are entitled to 'open-books'.

Try this to test it out: walk into a neighborhood privately owned store, spend $50, and then demand to see 'the books' otherwise you won't leave.  Let's see if 1) the owner agrees as that's the way it is because you 'invested' in the store.... or 2) You leave in handcuffs and get a ride to the police station with sirens and pretty flashing lights.

Go give it a try.  Test this awesome hypothesis of yours.

Gdemami

SlothnChunk said:

That's a really neat opinion and all stating that if you spend money on something you are also an 'investor' and are entitled to 'open-books'.

Try this to test it out: walk into a neighborhood privately owned store, spend $50, and then demand to see 'the books' otherwise you won't leave.  Let's see if 1) the owner agrees as that's the way it is because you 'invested' in the store.... or 2) You leave in handcuffs and get a ride to the police station with sirens and pretty flashing lights.

Go give it a try.  Test this awesome hypothesis of yours.

You said it, your opinion.

So which one is it? Intentionally twisting what I am saying or failing at reading comprehension?

Phaserlight

SlothnChunk said:

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

MisterZebub said:

You do know an IPO issues ownership or equity while crowdfunding is merely patronage?  So there is basically nothing in common legally between the two (other than what you create in your head).

Wait, wait... are you claiming that you don't "own" the ships you purchase?  That's not according to vernacular ("I buy pixel boats" says $30k SC guy).

I find that there's a lot of commonality between what SC is doing and what companies like Apple or Facebook that offer stock to the public do.  Here instead of owning part of the company you are owning digital goods to be delivered on a future date.  If the company does well, that will be worth a lot, if the company does poorly, it may not be worth much.  Certainly they are not the same, but to state that there is "nothing in common legally" strikes me as willfully missing the point.

SlothnChunk

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

MisterZebub said:

You do know an IPO issues ownership or equity while crowdfunding is merely patronage?  So there is basically nothing in common legally between the two (other than what you create in your head).

Wait, wait... are you claiming that you don't "own" the ships you purchase?  That's not according to vernacular ("I buy pixel boats" says $30k SC guy).

I find that there's a lot of commonality between what SC is doing and what companies like Apple or Facebook that offer stock to the public do.  Here instead of owning part of the company you are owning digital goods to be delivered on a future date.  If the company does well, that will be worth a lot, if the company does poorly, it may not be worth much.  Certainly they are not the same, but to state that there is "nothing in common legally" strikes me as willfully missing the point.

Did you really just ask me if spending money on digital pixels for something in development and not ready for release to the public is 'ownership'?

Let me just say, good luck legally with that one if you ever tried to sue over 'ownership'.  I think a judge would look at you like you are a total idiot and tell you to leave his courtroom.

If something isn't legally protected as 'ownership' then it simply isn't.  To state otherwise is a delusion not based in fact.

hfztt

SlothnChunk said:

MisterZebub said:

"They won't show us their books so they must be doing something wrong"
"Why should they open their books?"
"So we can prove they're doing something wrong."
"If you have proof of wrongdoing then you don't need to see their books, as you already have evidence of wrongdoing"
"But we don't have any evidence of wrongdoing, we need to see their books to prove our suspicions are correct"
"Why do you suspect wrongdoing?"
"We know they're guilty of fraudulent behavior and are scamming their customers."
"What evidence do you have that supports this accusation?"
"That's why we need to see their books, to find the evidence"
"If you have no evidence of wrongdoing then you are not legally entitled to inspect their books."
"See they won't show us their books, that proves they're guilty."
"You just said you have no proof."
"We don't need proof, their very actions proves their guilt."
"Guilt over what?"
"Scamming their fans."
"And you have evidence of this fraudulent behavior how?"
"We don't have evidence because they won't show us their books."
"They have no legal obligation to show you their books."
"See that proves they're guilty. If they were honest they would act like guilty people and show us their books."
"What are they guilty of and what evidence do you have to support these allegations?"
"Scamming their customers, and no we have no evidence because they won't let us see their books."
"There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, a hole." 

Exactly.  The whole 'opening the books' argument is like the Who's On First routine.  In the end there is no substance behind all the talking.

http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQXwt83hYkE

Yeah, and yet not.

You see here is the thing: CiG needs all the money they can get. Right now one would think they would get more money by calming potential new investors by showing that everything is OK and dandy on the money front. Yet they do not do that.

Now I see only three potential reasons for that:

1) They dont do it out of priciple. Noble, but stupid, as it does not server the game.

2) They dont do it be course they are low on money and telling would course panic and close down the current flow of income which they hope will carry them through until S42 is released and creates an alternate income. Really the only choice they have if running low on funds but not to a critical point yet.

3) They dont do it be course not doing it creates an us vs. them situation that makes the whales poor more money into the project to make sure they "win", and CiG estimates that miliking current whales is more profitable that landing the sceptics which probably wont pay more than the bare minimum to get in even if finances are good. Total tinfoil, but it could be argued due to the high ammount of whales.

In case you had not figured I am a fan of 2, they are low but not critically and they need to keep income around current level to make it through, thus they are trying to not rock the boat. If it was sure thing though, they would act differently. As is they might still make it though, but they need to keep the money rolling as they are not going to make it with what they already have.

Phaserlight

SlothnChunk said:

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

MisterZebub said:

You do know an IPO issues ownership or equity while crowdfunding is merely patronage?  So there is basically nothing in common legally between the two (other than what you create in your head).

Wait, wait... are you claiming that you don't "own" the ships you purchase?  That's not according to vernacular ("I buy pixel boats" says $30k SC guy).

I find that there's a lot of commonality between what SC is doing and what companies like Apple or Facebook that offer stock to the public do.  Here instead of owning part of the company you are owning digital goods to be delivered on a future date.  If the company does well, that will be worth a lot, if the company does poorly, it may not be worth much.  Certainly they are not the same, but to state that there is "nothing in common legally" strikes me as willfully missing the point.

Did you really just ask me if spending money on digital pixels for something in development and not ready for release to the public is 'ownership'?

Let me just say, good luck legally with that one if you ever tried to sue over 'ownership'.  I think a judge would look at you like you are a total idiot and tell you to leave his courtroom.

If something isn't legally protected as 'ownership' then it simply isn't.  To state otherwise is a delusion not based in fact.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a legal debate with you.  I am not a lawyer.  However, I know there is a precedent of people being sued over virtual goods.  Virtual goods are still property.  I recommend checking it out.

SlothnChunk

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

Phaserlight said:

SlothnChunk said:

MisterZebub said:

You do know an IPO issues ownership or equity while crowdfunding is merely patronage?  So there is basically nothing in common legally between the two (other than what you create in your head).

Wait, wait... are you claiming that you don't "own" the ships you purchase?  That's not according to vernacular ("I buy pixel boats" says $30k SC guy).

I find that there's a lot of commonality between what SC is doing and what companies like Apple or Facebook that offer stock to the public do.  Here instead of owning part of the company you are owning digital goods to be delivered on a future date.  If the company does well, that will be worth a lot, if the company does poorly, it may not be worth much.  Certainly they are not the same, but to state that there is "nothing in common legally" strikes me as willfully missing the point.

Did you really just ask me if spending money on digital pixels for something in development and not ready for release to the public is 'ownership'?

Let me just say, good luck legally with that one if you ever tried to sue over 'ownership'.  I think a judge would look at you like you are a total idiot and tell you to leave his courtroom.

If something isn't legally protected as 'ownership' then it simply isn't.  To state otherwise is a delusion not based in fact.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a legal debate with you.  I am not a lawyer.  However, I know there is a precedent of people being sued over virtual goods.  Virtual goods are still property.  I recommend checking it out.

Legal goods being bought in a store are one thing.  Giving money towards something that isn't available for purchase (and may never be) as it's in development is another.

I know for a fact arguing ownership after providing patronage is impossible due to no laws stating such.  And I highly doubt government will get involved in the future due to the nature of patronage.  How would you police and regulate money given towards an idea or future product (not something in actual existence or available for the general public)?

My answer is there is a reason patronage has been around since the Romans and it goes unregulated and policed.  It's because funding ideas and potential is too subjective to start enforcing the results.  All the one being sponsored would legally have to prove is if they tried and didn't pocket or blow 100% of the funds.

Kickstarter/crowdfunding/patronage is a double-edged sword; full freedom with no (legal) strings for a new concept or creative project results in no guarantees.  That's the nature of the beast.

laserit

Question:

So... are the funds raised by Kickstarter's / Crowdfunding taxed? are they considered profit? is it tax free moola?

SlothnChunk

laserit said:

Question:

So... are the funds raised by Kickstarter's / Crowdfunding taxed? are they considered profit? is it tax free moola?

Not taxed because nothing taxable or legal exists as its merely conceptual ideas and mutual goals via individuals providing patronage.

Gdemami

laserit said:

Question:

So... are the funds raised by Kickstarter's / Crowdfunding taxed? are they considered profit? is it tax free moola?

Fundraised money are gifts, which aren't considered as taxable income.