As I've mentioned elsewhere, folks need someone to take an educated look at the project then break it down to them in layman's terms. Someone who isn't the project creators trying to get the project funded. That would go a long way towards alleviating my concern about the inequity of information available between the two parties to the transaction, currently.
The real problem is its not lack of knowledge, but a lack of impulse control. Look how many people bought into Bless Online, and admitted they knew it was going to be a shit show going in, but were so bored they were willing to take any fix they could get. Its the same with crowd sourcing MMORPGs. Gamers are so desperate for something new to play they'll jump at any chance they can get to see a new full fledged MMORPG made, regardless of if the proposed project seems to have a chance in hell or not.
That is an issue, too. The genre went from having numerous titles in the AAA hopper to almost none, and consumers are slow to adapt their expectations accordingly.
It is very bad because soon devs start seeing even one developer mildly succeed ,they all jump in and becomes the normal. I am not going to write a book on why you need to design a game properly and without an unknown budget,that should be obvious.
Even if you have a known budget but it is too low,you are NEVER going to deliver a HQ game,you are going to deliver a half assed or even really bad game. Let's look at SC,the most successful CF game ever and by a mile.They almost NEVER show us any lengthy game play,it is always some talk about fixing code or how much time it takes them to get a simple animation right. Well you know darn well that if SC "example"had some real amazing game play to show us,we would see it because it would be the ultimate form of advertising,they DON'T have anything much to show us that is why they just show us ship sales.A few npc's walking around that one same space station,a hangar,some boring space,unless someone wants to BS us and tel us how amazing star textures and a black backdrop look. I am not saying that just because Robert's can't pull off AAA with a crazy amount of money it is not possible but that amount of crowd funded money is unprecedented and will happen on a VERY rare occasion. So do we really want to see an epidemic of millions of developers with the hopes that maybe 3-5 games turn out DECENT?So far we have NONE.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Then, I'm afraid you don't really understand what you're getting into, and are a prime example of why crowdfunding can be bad.
There are promises of rewards for backing, though I think physical rewards are the only ones that have any form of enforcement attached. Otherwise you ARE effectively making a donation. There is no legal requirement for the crowdfunded project to deliver on anything. You're getting digital goods in exchange for a financial transaction IF the game successfully launches.
It's not an investment in the traditional sense, because you have no equity attached. It's not a purchase, because there's no actual exchange of goods and you have no recourse on failed delivery. It's not a loan because you're not getting your money back at any point. You're donating to the project because you want to see it move forward. In exchange, they're thanking you by giving you some unique digital stuff if they're successful.
The fact that folks don't understand that Kickstarter, just like Patreon and GoFundMe, is a donation is part of the problem. You can play with the literal definition of donation all you want, but that doesn't defeat the point that in context, crowdfunding is a donation.
I can see the sense of thinking of them as donations for the sake of peace of mind, but in the context of gaming pre-order bonuses, special editions and all the other extras that the game buying public has become accustomed to, it is easy to see why most don't look at it that way.
Those increasingly more bountiful bonuses as your donation increases in value bear an uncanny resemblance to the same types of bonuses games that are not crowdfunded sell.
The lack of recourse for non-delivery that you say differentiates this type of transaction from regular purchases and makes them donations is also not really all that clear cut nor definitive since some of the better crowdfunded projects do have refund guarantees.
When I donate to a charity, which is the type of donation we are all most familiar with, there is no expectation of any kind of consideration for my donation. Crowdfunded games muddle this with their in-game bonus considerations and IMO, this is deliberate in order to generate more and bigger "donations."
"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
Then, I'm afraid you don't really understand what you're getting into, and are a prime example of why crowdfunding can be bad.
There are promises of rewards for backing, though I think physical rewards are the only ones that have any form of enforcement attached. Otherwise you ARE effectively making a donation. There is no legal requirement for the crowdfunded project to deliver on anything. You're getting digital goods in exchange for a financial transaction IF the game successfully launches.
It's not an investment in the traditional sense, because you have no equity attached. It's not a purchase, because there's no actual exchange of goods and you have no recourse on failed delivery. It's not a loan because you're not getting your money back at any point. You're donating to the project because you want to see it move forward. In exchange, they're thanking you by giving you some unique digital stuff if they're successful.
The fact that folks don't understand that Kickstarter, just like Patreon and GoFundMe, is a donation is part of the problem. You can play with the literal definition of donation all you want, but that doesn't defeat the point that in context, crowdfunding is a donation.
I can see the sense of thinking of them as donations for the sake of peace of mind, but in the context of gaming pre-order bonuses, special editions and all the other extras that the game buying public has become accustomed to, it is easy to see why most don't look at it that way.
Those increasingly more bountiful bonuses as your donation increases in value bear an uncanny resemblance to the same types of bonuses games that are not crowdfunded sell.
The lack of recourse for non-delivery that you say differentiates this type of transaction from regular purchases and makes them donations is also not really all that clear cut nor definitive since some of the better crowdfunded projects do have refund guarantees.
When I donate to a charity, which is the type of donation we are all most familiar with, there is no expectation of any kind of consideration for my donation. Crowdfunded games muddle this with their in-game bonus considerations and IMO, this is deliberate in order to generate more and bigger "donations."
Insightful. (Hence the reaction XD)
Donations to charity, even when they give you some kind of goodie (a T-Shirt, wristband, etc.) is still very clear in its intent: you're donating to a project or cause that doesn't benefit you personally (unless the cause benefits a condition you have personally, then there's indirect benefit seen, but in either case it's not couched in a retail transaction framework).
Absolutely, awareness campaigns aren't bad. However, I feel you're one of the few who advocates awareness while also recognizing that this topic is complex enough to warrant better framework. Most advocate awareness as a way to dismiss any further discussion, which is a way of saying "it doesn't affect me directly, so I don't really care enough to think any harder about it."
I can see the sense of thinking of them as donations for the sake of peace of mind, but in the context of gaming pre-order bonuses, special editions and all the other extras that the game buying public has become accustomed to, it is easy to see why most don't look at it that way.
Those increasingly more bountiful bonuses as your donation increases in value bear an uncanny resemblance to the same types of bonuses games that are not crowdfunded sell.
The lack of recourse for non-delivery that you say differentiates this type of transaction from regular purchases and makes them donations is also not really all that clear cut nor definitive since some of the better crowdfunded projects do have refund guarantees.
When I donate to a charity, which is the type of donation we are all most familiar with, there is no expectation of any kind of consideration for my donation. Crowdfunded games muddle this with their in-game bonus considerations and IMO, this is deliberate in order to generate more and bigger "donations."
I sponsor the Army Ball and the Military Intel Ball every year. I get tickets to both. It's still a donation, though.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you should stop saying it. Not that you're exactly wrong, but it's important we start making sure people know that these campaigns aren't selling anything. They should be supported because you want to support it, not because you expect anything out of it. The "rewards" are really just gifts from the project that's getting your money.
Don't think you're being shouted down. I'm not countering your points because you're wrong. It's just that I think what you're saying will confuse folks who need to be aware that they're NOT making a purchase. Thus, it's really important to be careful about how you phrase it. Saying it's a donation is going to lead people to a much better conclusion than telling them it's a purchase.
The problem with crowed funding is the fact that there is no bank or board of directors to answer to if the project fails.
The backers of any project can only hope that the game will get completed and that you get what was promised. If it fails the backers have no recourse to get their money back or any restitution, unlike a lending institution that has the power to sue.
Crowed funding has it's place for small Indy games but that's about it! I know there will be some that are going to say that's BS,,,, look at SC it's a huge game,,,,,!! My answer to that is ,,,, It's not a game,,,, it just a concept that's in alpha testing!!
Needless to say crowed funding is something I stay away from!!
Designing a game and then programming it and marketing it, just to Develop and Expand the game for years is a vast undertaking. Crowd funding proves that groups can get the money to get something off the ground, but proves that they do not have the ingenuity, integrity, or ability to exist for the long haul.
Its a proof that loads of money does not buy discipline. So sure, we might get some nice indy games here and there...
but speaking from experience as a person who has coded Total Game Conversions before... These Crowd Funded groups do not really have a leg to stand on. I stay away from them like the plague.
Don't get me wrong... They aren't bad at making a small game but MMOs are a different beast altogether.
I can see the sense of thinking of them as donations for the sake of peace of mind, but in the context of gaming pre-order bonuses, special editions and all the other extras that the game buying public has become accustomed to, it is easy to see why most don't look at it that way.
Those increasingly more bountiful bonuses as your donation increases in value bear an uncanny resemblance to the same types of bonuses games that are not crowdfunded sell.
The lack of recourse for non-delivery that you say differentiates this type of transaction from regular purchases and makes them donations is also not really all that clear cut nor definitive since some of the better crowdfunded projects do have refund guarantees.
When I donate to a charity, which is the type of donation we are all most familiar with, there is no expectation of any kind of consideration for my donation. Crowdfunded games muddle this with their in-game bonus considerations and IMO, this is deliberate in order to generate more and bigger "donations."
I sponsor the Army Ball and the Military Intel Ball every year. I get tickets to both. It's still a donation, though.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you should stop saying it. Not that you're exactly wrong, but it's important we start making sure people know that these campaigns aren't selling anything. They should be supported because you want to support it, not because you expect anything out of it. The "rewards" are really just gifts from the project that's getting your money.
Don't think you're being shouted down. I'm not countering your points because you're wrong. It's just that I think what you're saying will confuse folks who need to be aware that they're NOT making a purchase. Thus, it's really important to be careful about how you phrase it. Saying it's a donation is going to lead people to a much better conclusion than telling them it's a purchase.
That sort of make sense?
Why call it a donation though, when even you agree it's clearly not? I don't think it provides the clarity you're trying to create.
KS is more of a high risk bet or gambling. Why not call it that?
I can see the sense of thinking of them as donations for the sake of peace of mind, but in the context of gaming pre-order bonuses, special editions and all the other extras that the game buying public has become accustomed to, it is easy to see why most don't look at it that way.
Those increasingly more bountiful bonuses as your donation increases in value bear an uncanny resemblance to the same types of bonuses games that are not crowdfunded sell.
The lack of recourse for non-delivery that you say differentiates this type of transaction from regular purchases and makes them donations is also not really all that clear cut nor definitive since some of the better crowdfunded projects do have refund guarantees.
When I donate to a charity, which is the type of donation we are all most familiar with, there is no expectation of any kind of consideration for my donation. Crowdfunded games muddle this with their in-game bonus considerations and IMO, this is deliberate in order to generate more and bigger "donations."
I sponsor the Army Ball and the Military Intel Ball every year. I get tickets to both. It's still a donation, though.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you should stop saying it. Not that you're exactly wrong, but it's important we start making sure people know that these campaigns aren't selling anything. They should be supported because you want to support it, not because you expect anything out of it. The "rewards" are really just gifts from the project that's getting your money.
Don't think you're being shouted down. I'm not countering your points because you're wrong. It's just that I think what you're saying will confuse folks who need to be aware that they're NOT making a purchase. Thus, it's really important to be careful about how you phrase it. Saying it's a donation is going to lead people to a much better conclusion than telling them it's a purchase.
That sort of make sense?
I get your point but what I say about it is insignificant compared to what those structuring the crowdfunding tiers are saying about it by adding future in game perks of increasing perceived value.
It's the message implicit in what they do and how they structure it that will be heard not what you or I have to say about it.
Put simply: it's being perceived as an exchange of goods for money by the majority of donors because it is structured deliberately to look that way.
How to price. Be fair. When people think about backing your project, they’re asking themselves whether your rewards are a good trade for what they’re contributing.
KS itself talking about a "good trade" is what you're fighting against when you try to convince people to see it as a donation.
"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 it's purely donation then just do away with the various things you get in return for your giving them money.
Of course, they won't do that because then "donations" would dwindle. How it is being used is really a perversion of real donations.
So they can hide behind the concept of a "donation" all they want but in reality, it is simply a pre-purchase which in most cases is designed to grant desired items around tiers. Just like you can buy Shadow of War, Shadow of War Silver, Shadow of War Gold and Shadow of War Mithril Edition.
As others have said the only TRUE donations are the lowest tiers.. donate a buck or two. After that, you are essentially purchasing copies of the game and then digital (or physical) items and experiences.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I get your point but what I say about it is insignificant compared to what those structuring the crowdfunding tiers are saying about it by adding future in game perks of increasing perceived value.
It's the message implicit in what they do and how they structure it that will be heard not what you or I have to say about it.
Put simply: it's being perceived as an exchange of goods for money by the majority of donors because it is structured deliberately to look that way.
How to price. Be fair. When people think about backing your project, they’re asking themselves whether your rewards are a good trade for what they’re contributing.
KS itself talking about a "good trade" is what you're fighting against when you try to convince people to see it as a donation.
This is why a better framework is needed. Kickstarter obviously has no problem framing it like a purchase transaction. But there again, Kickstarter only makes money based off of what was donated. They are not an impartial third-party. That's a problem in and of itself.
I think the people that invest into these ideas are the largest problem. I mean, walking into a Crowed Funded MMO, with any hope or dream of this getting done on time or in budget, is like betting on a mule in a horse race.
Unrealistic Ideals,foolish notions, and just in some cases, good old fashion stupidly seems to be menu for the day with many of the people that get into these schemes. Sure.. that is often only the vocal minority, as I am certain there are enough level headed backers realizing that they are never getting their money back, no matter what happens, and understand this is not funding a game, it's funding an attempt at making a game.
But that does not stop the hilarity of what often follows these Crowed Funded Ventures.
Truth is, even AAA MMO's, that have funds, backers, publishers, multi million dollar incomes and top talent, still have a hard time hitting dead lines on expansions, not making the game, just expanding on their existing game, so much so, that missing dead lines is a cliche.
So it really says something about anyone that is willing to bet their money on some untested studio that claims they are going to make a game with all kinds of never seen before ground breaking unique features and systems, that in some cases other professionals in the field have written off as being anything from unrealistic to downright impossible, no backer in their right mind will touch it, publishers won't go near it.. as they are often citing unproven tech that will somehow make it happen.. .. mind.. nothing good is being said.
Couple that with the fact that some of these people even seem legitimately shocked that the game is not anywhere near or even remotely close to being made when the proverbial dead line shows up, which too often would have in most cases hard for a predictable product by a time tested studio to pull off.. is even more hilarious.
But that is just my feels.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I think this whole issue is one of the best examples of a double edged sword. I can see the idea behind it and I remember the beginning. So many thoughts of "cut out the greedy publishers!" "No more rushed products!" "Creative freedom!"
Yet I haven't noticed a change in product content, quality or whatever outside of a couple games. Crowdfunding has bread imo a culture of procrastination and lack of responsibility. Not everything works in every situation and I think in our hobby crowdfunding is very situational and doesn't work for the vast majority of developers out there.
Now if you look back when everything was controlled by publishers, you had way less communication then you do now, so that has been pretty nice and cool. A lot more details are released which can be a good or bad depending on you patience level.
I don't know if crowdfunding has been a real good or a bad. I think it hasn't been the best but I think it could get better if the community would funding cash grabs. Id like to see more effort from devs and less excuses.
The primary rule that's guided my kickstart donations is: Can I afford to throw this money down a well?
If I have that money, then I can look at the other reasons I might want to back a project. Do I want to help an idea, a concept, come to fruition? (Crowfall, Graveyard Keeper, Camelot Unchained, Make Sail, Sunless Skies)
Is it a game I just really want to see made? (Battletech, Divinity: OS 1/2, Pillars of Eternity 1/2, Underworld Ascendant)
Is it a game I want to take part in during development (Planet Nomads, Star Sector)
Is it a game I am willing to throw a minimum amount into just to get in the door if it actually comes out (Star Citizen, Beautiful Desolation, Ancient Cities)
And there are games I either consider a failure, or were actually failures (Landmark, Project Resurgence, H1Z1, Breaking Point, Archeage)
And I'm good with all of these, thanks to my first rule.
The primary rule that's guided my kickstart donations is: Can I afford to throw this money down a well?
This is a good way to look at it, after all, even if they meet their goal, this is not a guarantee, it is an attempt.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Why call it a donation though, when even you agree it's clearly not? I don't think it provides the clarity you're trying to create.
KS is more of a high risk bet or gambling. Why not call it that?
Because I think the net result of what it is is closer to being a donation than anything. If you TREAT it like a donation, then you're on the right track.
It's not really like gambling, either. There's no real element of chance. Maybe in a sense you could say it's similar to Angel Investments sans equity, but that's not totally correct either.
In the end, the best way I've found to phrase it is to say that it's a donation to a project you want to support, in the same way that Patreon is. I support a couple folks through Patreon and I get access to extra content, a coffee mug, and some stuff like that. I'm not buying any of that. I'm supporting a project/person and getting some perks from it. Whether kickstarting a game or donating a few bucks a month to someone on Patreon, a streamer on Twitch, or whatever. It's all just a donation towards something I want to support.
I get your point but what I say about it is insignificant compared to what those structuring the crowdfunding tiers are saying about it by adding future in game perks of increasing perceived value.
It's the message implicit in what they do and how they structure it that will be heard not what you or I have to say about it.
Put simply: it's being perceived as an exchange of goods for money by the majority of donors because it is structured deliberately to look that way.
How to price. Be fair. When people think about backing your project, they’re asking themselves whether your rewards are a good trade for what they’re contributing.
KS itself talking about a "good trade" is what you're fighting against when you try to convince people to see it as a donation.
That's advice, not a rule. Same applies to anything else. For instance, Philip DeFranco is a Youtube dude I watch a lot. He started Patreon... GoFundMe? One of those. I donate to it. In exchange I get stuff. When his team setup the tiers, they tried to make sure people felt they were getting value, but it's still a donation.
It worked, because when I was picking a tier, I donated a little extra because the next tier had a few things in it that I thought would be cool. That happened, because they worked to make sure the price difference in tiers felt like a good trade.
When I donate to the Army balls, I get free tickets and they sit me at the commander's table. Other people donate, too. They sit at other tables. They put me where they do because they want me to feel like they appreciate my donations and want to make sure they give me value for them.
What you're describing is donation 101. Anyone who's ever run a nonprofit will be able to check nearly every box for a good Kickstarter.
I'm going to treat the next guy begging for money at the side of the road as 'Kickstarting their alcoholism problem'. Nope. Calling it a donation doesn't change the fact that I see the entire Crowd Funding concept is a form of corporate panhandling.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I'm going to treat the next guy begging for money at the side of the road as 'Kickstarting their alcoholism problem'. Nope. Calling it a donation doesn't change the fact that I see the entire Crowd Funding concept is a form of corporate panhandling.
There was a famous Canadian politician in the '70s, David Lewis, who used to talk about govt. business subsidies as catering to the "corporate welfare bums." I always liked him
"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
I like crowdfunding. Then again, I've got disposable income and half a brain.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I like crowdfunding too. The platform for games needs to improve, not just for the supporters, but as a deliver and ongoing revenue system for self-publishing indies. It's why I brought up Fig in my first post in the thread.
We can banter all day about how traditional platforms are lacking and how we're okay with that or not, but it doesn't do much to move things forward. As a community, we're great at picking things apart, not so great at pragmatic action.
How can indies self-fund, seed, prototype, launch, publish, and bring in revenue, all while promoting their title and studio and providing a vetted curated accountable experience for gamers to throw money at? That's where we need to go with these discussions if we want to win.
If Walsh's reactions to the criticisms of his project from the beginning are genuine, one of the things that would help indies is an educated assessment of what they can expect to accomplish using these crowdfunding platforms. His arrogance reeked of ignorance about what he and his team would be able to accomplish in the timeframe set out with the funding they would receive. An ignorant dev going to crowdfunding is a disaster for everyone involved.
Comments
I am not going to write a book on why you need to design a game properly and without an unknown budget,that should be obvious.
Even if you have a known budget but it is too low,you are NEVER going to deliver a HQ game,you are going to deliver a half assed or even really bad game.
Let's look at SC,the most successful CF game ever and by a mile.They almost NEVER show us any lengthy game play,it is always some talk about fixing code or how much time it takes them to get a simple animation right.
Well you know darn well that if SC "example"had some real amazing game play to show us,we would see it because it would be the ultimate form of advertising,they DON'T have anything much to show us that is why they just show us ship sales.A few npc's walking around that one same space station,a hangar,some boring space,unless someone wants to BS us and tel us how amazing star textures and a black backdrop look.
I am not saying that just because Robert's can't pull off AAA with a crazy amount of money it is not possible but that amount of crowd funded money is unprecedented and will happen on a VERY rare occasion.
So do we really want to see an epidemic of millions of developers with the hopes that maybe 3-5 games turn out DECENT?So far we have NONE.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I can see the sense of thinking of them as donations for the sake of peace of mind, but in the context of gaming pre-order bonuses, special editions and all the other extras that the game buying public has become accustomed to, it is easy to see why most don't look at it that way.
Those increasingly more bountiful bonuses as your donation increases in value bear an uncanny resemblance to the same types of bonuses games that are not crowdfunded sell.
The lack of recourse for non-delivery that you say differentiates this type of transaction from regular purchases and makes them donations is also not really all that clear cut nor definitive since some of the better crowdfunded projects do have refund guarantees.
When I donate to a charity, which is the type of donation we are all most familiar with, there is no expectation of any kind of consideration for my donation. Crowdfunded games muddle this with their in-game bonus considerations and IMO, this is deliberate in order to generate more and bigger "donations."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Donations to charity, even when they give you some kind of goodie (a T-Shirt, wristband, etc.) is still very clear in its intent: you're donating to a project or cause that doesn't benefit you personally (unless the cause benefits a condition you have personally, then there's indirect benefit seen, but in either case it's not couched in a retail transaction framework).
EDIT- clarity of point.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you should stop saying it. Not that you're exactly wrong, but it's important we start making sure people know that these campaigns aren't selling anything. They should be supported because you want to support it, not because you expect anything out of it. The "rewards" are really just gifts from the project that's getting your money.
Don't think you're being shouted down. I'm not countering your points because you're wrong. It's just that I think what you're saying will confuse folks who need to be aware that they're NOT making a purchase. Thus, it's really important to be careful about how you phrase it. Saying it's a donation is going to lead people to a much better conclusion than telling them it's a purchase.
That sort of make sense?
The backers of any project can only hope that the game will get completed and that you get what was promised. If it fails the backers have no recourse to get their money back or any restitution, unlike a lending institution that has the power to sue.
Crowed funding has it's place for small Indy games but that's about it! I know there will be some that are going to say that's BS,,,, look at SC it's a huge game,,,,,!! My answer to that is ,,,, It's not a game,,,, it just a concept that's in alpha testing!!
Needless to say crowed funding is something I stay away from!!
Its a proof that loads of money does not buy discipline.
So sure, we might get some nice indy games here and there...
but speaking from experience as a person who has coded Total Game Conversions before...
These Crowd Funded groups do not really have a leg to stand on.
I stay away from them like the plague.
Don't get me wrong...
They aren't bad at making a small game
but MMOs are a different beast altogether.
KS is more of a high risk bet or gambling. Why not call it that?
It's the message implicit in what they do and how they structure it that will be heard not what you or I have to say about it.
Put simply: it's being perceived as an exchange of goods for money by the majority of donors because it is structured deliberately to look that way.
Have a quick read of the KS Creator's Handbook Building Rewards page. Specially this bit:
Be fair. When people think about backing your project, they’re asking themselves whether your rewards are a good trade for what they’re contributing.
KS itself talking about a "good trade" is what you're fighting against when you try to convince people to see it as a donation.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Of course, they won't do that because then "donations" would dwindle. How it is being used is really a perversion of real donations.
So they can hide behind the concept of a "donation" all they want but in reality, it is simply a pre-purchase which in most cases is designed to grant desired items around tiers. Just like you can buy Shadow of War, Shadow of War Silver, Shadow of War Gold and Shadow of War Mithril Edition.
As others have said the only TRUE donations are the lowest tiers.. donate a buck or two. After that, you are essentially purchasing copies of the game and then digital (or physical) items and experiences.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I think the people that invest into these ideas are the largest problem. I mean, walking into a Crowed Funded MMO, with any hope or dream of this getting done on time or in budget, is like betting on a mule in a horse race.
Unrealistic Ideals,foolish notions, and just in some cases, good old fashion stupidly seems to be menu for the day with many of the people that get into these schemes. Sure.. that is often only the vocal minority, as I am certain there are enough level headed backers realizing that they are never getting their money back, no matter what happens, and understand this is not funding a game, it's funding an attempt at making a game.
But that does not stop the hilarity of what often follows these Crowed Funded Ventures.
Truth is, even AAA MMO's, that have funds, backers, publishers, multi million dollar incomes and top talent, still have a hard time hitting dead lines on expansions, not making the game, just expanding on their existing game, so much so, that missing dead lines is a cliche.
So it really says something about anyone that is willing to bet their money on some untested studio that claims they are going to make a game with all kinds of never seen before ground breaking unique features and systems, that in some cases other professionals in the field have written off as being anything from unrealistic to downright impossible, no backer in their right mind will touch it, publishers won't go near it.. as they are often citing unproven tech that will somehow make it happen.. .. mind.. nothing good is being said.
Couple that with the fact that some of these people even seem legitimately shocked that the game is not anywhere near or even remotely close to being made when the proverbial dead line shows up, which too often would have in most cases hard for a predictable product by a time tested studio to pull off.. is even more hilarious.
But that is just my feels.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Yet I haven't noticed a change in product content, quality or whatever outside of a couple games. Crowdfunding has bread imo a culture of procrastination and lack of responsibility. Not everything works in every situation and I think in our hobby crowdfunding is very situational and doesn't work for the vast majority of developers out there.
Now if you look back when everything was controlled by publishers, you had way less communication then you do now, so that has been pretty nice and cool. A lot more details are released which can be a good or bad depending on you patience level.
I don't know if crowdfunding has been a real good or a bad. I think it hasn't been the best but I think it could get better if the community would funding cash grabs. Id like to see more effort from devs and less excuses.
It's not really like gambling, either. There's no real element of chance. Maybe in a sense you could say it's similar to Angel Investments sans equity, but that's not totally correct either.
In the end, the best way I've found to phrase it is to say that it's a donation to a project you want to support, in the same way that Patreon is. I support a couple folks through Patreon and I get access to extra content, a coffee mug, and some stuff like that. I'm not buying any of that. I'm supporting a project/person and getting some perks from it. Whether kickstarting a game or donating a few bucks a month to someone on Patreon, a streamer on Twitch, or whatever. It's all just a donation towards something I want to support.
It worked, because when I was picking a tier, I donated a little extra because the next tier had a few things in it that I thought would be cool. That happened, because they worked to make sure the price difference in tiers felt like a good trade.
When I donate to the Army balls, I get free tickets and they sit me at the commander's table. Other people donate, too. They sit at other tables. They put me where they do because they want me to feel like they appreciate my donations and want to make sure they give me value for them.
What you're describing is donation 101.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer