Originally posted by Toferio That's a weird argument. It's like suggesting for me to put money on a horse I know is old and lost all the races, instead of taking the risk and betting on a healthy newcomer. MO had it's chance and blew it, I would rather take a chance with Pathfinder.
Your analogy does not fit but however, I was not bringing up the topic of "supporting", I only pointed out that if you really want to support, do it in a sensible way.
That's a weird argument. It's like suggesting for me to put money on a horse I know is old and lost all the races, instead of taking the risk and betting on a healthy newcomer. MO had it's chance and blew it, I would rather take a chance with Pathfinder.
Your analogy does not fit but however, I was not bringing up the topic of "supporting", I only pointed out that if you really want to support, do it in a sensible way.
And I pointed out that to me it seems to be more sensible to support a promising newcomer than a failed existing product
Originally posted by Toferio And I pointed out that to me it seems to be more sensible to support a promising newcomer than a failed existing product
No, you did not pointed out anything, just made a statement unrelated to anything I said.
Your proposition is not more sensible, on the contrary.
As I said before, donating money means that there is no responsibility or obligation for the developer, unlike mr. Dancey is trying to bully you - at the end, that is a reason why they are doing it, they are asking you to bear the risk of the failure instead of them.
The project may fail, it may result in an awful product miles away from what was promised, developer my run with the money, anything can happen because there is no pressure, no responsibility for money you donated and supporting such behavior is not more sensible than supporting someone who already did go through all this and released the product successfully.
No investor ever would accepted what they are asking, why would you?
Supporting fancy words of empty promises will only encourage more fancy words of empty promises.
If you want more released games, you have to support released games. No way around it.
I hope that Kickstarter IS the future. Why? Because if so, we can get away from the asshats who run ActivisionBlizzard, EA, and others who screw developers and ruin games. Also we can move away from investors who are ONLY interested in money.
With Kickstarter, people at least have the opportunity to help support games they TRULY like, rather than the next steaming turd the mega publishing studios dump on us.
If you don't like Kickstarter, that's fine, don't support them or any of the projects listed there. You are free to do what you wish with your money, as is everyone else. This is called Free Market Economics.
I agree. The thing for me is that for years I have "invested" tons of money in games by "reputable" developers with decent track records, only to find out the games suck and I wasted my money.
Theres always been some level of risk involved in buying games, but at least with Kickstarter I can help fund the games I actually want to play, rather than funding games that I ultimately hate, but lead to more games like it being made, because a lot of people like me bought the game and were stuck with it whether we liked it or not.
The gatekeepers don't care if we like the games, they don't care if they are even good, just so long as we buy them. Kickstarter gives us at least a tiny voice, rather than silence in a sea of mediocrity.
It's like an exec at Sony said about Dan Harmon, creator of Community (Paraphrasing) "We highered you to make a profitable show, no where in your contract did we state that it had to be good, whether it's good or not is on you, we only care that it makes money."
And I pointed out that to me it seems to be more sensible to support a promising newcomer than a failed existing product
No, you did not pointed out anything, just made a statement unrelated to anything I said.
Your proposition is not more sensible, on the contrary.
As I said before, donating money means that there is no responsibility or obligation for the developer, unlike mr. Dancey is trying to bully you - at the end, that is a reason why they are doing it, they are asking you to bear the risk of the failure instead of them.
The project may fail, it may result in an awful product miles away from what was promised, developer my run with the money, anything can happen because there is no pressure, no responsibility for money you donated and supporting such behavior is not more sensible than supporting someone who already did go through all this and released the product successfully.
No investor ever would accepted what they are asking, why would you?
Supporting fancy words of empty promises will only encourage more fancy words of empty promises.
If you want more released games, you have to support released games. No way around it.
I would rather "donate" 5 or 10 dollars to a potential project that I love the sound of, and get cool rewards for doing so, rather than "donating" 60 bucks, and a subscription to a failed game that really has no potential of ever being decent, much less great.
Someone said that there was no potential of Kicstarter ever funding a multi million dollar project, but the thing is, it already has. The E-Watch has already made over 10 million dollars in donations, it's only going to go up as more people become familiar and comfortable with crowdsourcing. A few successful projects happen because of kickstarter and it's only going to increase it's reputation.
So it's completely possible for multi-million dollar projects to be funded, it's just a matter of not many people are going to fund a Theme Park MMO like WoW, when investors are already falling over themselves to fund those projects. People are going to fund the projects that aren't being made by the big guys, the stuff that investors are to afraid to invest in.
Even accomplished Hollywood film makers are turning to kickstarter to fund their movies cause they want to break free of the suffocating atmosphere of Hollywood studios.
Throwing money at people based on their optimistic ideas and visions without gaining a share in the project just seems really wierd to me. It's not investing money since you don't get any share of the profit, it's throwing money at someone and hoping they do something good with it.
I don't think most people who give money on kickstarter realize how beneficial that kind of funding is for the developer compared to getting regular investor money, they take no risk at all with that kind of funding. No risk means you get delusional optimists with wacky ideas looking for people to throw money at them. It may look and sound good on kickstarter but taking it from the concept stage to an actual good game takes alot of work from talented people.
I would consider investing money in a project I believe in to support it and make some money if there's proper security for my investment. That way the developer is taking a risk so if things go south he takes a hit aswell, which means he believes in the project enough to take a risk aswell.
I'm anticipating the first big kickstarter scandal/scam in the near future and I don't think it will be pretty.
THIS^
Only if you consider it an invstment, which it isn't. It's a charity and people give as much for a feeling of participation as anything else.
Oh, it IS an investment. Seems like some of you forget that an investment doesn't always mean that you will come through in the positive. Your "share" could end up worth less than what you put in at.
That said, someone needs to go read the Pathfinder Kickstarter. For the amount I put in I'm getting some nifty stuff. Stuff that I deemed worthy of the investment should this game go all the way to gold and launch.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I will start with the declaration that I have not given money to a kickstarter project to date. I am not sold on kickstarter being able to generate enough money to actually deliver a polished product that I would want to play...I will admit that I am on the fence, and I make enough money that I am not going to miss my donation....I also do not throw away money either...If someone was making a UO2, I think logic would go out the window, and I would be throwing money down
The logic that people should support a turd, if they want someone to make a good mmo is stupid....If I had a gun to my head and had to make a choice, I would give money to someone that shows promise, instead of someone who has demonstrated incompetance with a buggy game that cheating/macroing/duping/corruption is the norm in.
I can deal with bugs, but they lack of integrity in a lot of current titles like DF/MO, thats where they lose me....So no, I would rather hit my computer with a sledgehammer, than give them money for the 'future'....If MO got their act together, and made a new server, I may play it....Big if though.
We certainly get a lot of devs these days on the forums answering general MMORPG.com banter.
It's because the definition of a Dev is now as obscure as the definition of an MMO these days lol.
More like they are tired of the obvious BS that is getting started by random nobodies that potentially could spread like wildfire and end up with a failed attempt. Seriously, I have been following the PFO project since announced. Everything...EVERY FING THING that the OP had "questions" about has previously been answered in their blogs. Everything.
But the OP appears to not have the time to go read them (which should have been done with the time used to make this post) and instead post his questions on the integrity of a subdivision of a company that has been around probably longer than he/she has been gaming in any form.
I have no issue with people questioning others motives when they do it from an informed position. It is easy to tell when someone has read up on a topic first, then posted concerns as opposed to when someone has had a "fear" come up in their mind, picked a random target and then let losse with all guns.
All that above AND the Goblinworks team (and Paizo) are just awesome folks who had a TRADITION of interacting with the community that enjoys their products.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I have a kickstarter project approved, and I have absolutely nothing but an idea, and a piece of concept art. It got approved, and I could be milking people right now. I obviously am not going to do that because I really want to see my idea take off. I did not dream this up as a scheme. I do see the potential for an unsavory poster to cheat people on kickstarter and hope that the donators have enough sense to give to the right projects.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Originally posted by AticusWellesI would rather "donate" 5 or 10 dollars to a potential project that I love the sound of, and get cool rewards for doing so, rather than "donating" 60 bucks, and a subscription to a failed game that really has no potential of ever being decent, much less great.
The thing is, this "failed game" is the same game you once loved the sound of, the only difference is that it was released and busted your illusions.
Studios are not turning to Kickstarter because "suffocating atmosphere" but simply because it is a source of free money with no obligations, something no investor would ever provided.
And it is those obligations and responsibility for the money that force the quality onto products.
I would rather "donate" 5 or 10 dollars to a potential project that I love the sound of, and get cool rewards for doing so, rather than "donating" 60 bucks, and a subscription to a failed game that really has no potential of ever being decent, much less great.
The thing is, this "failed game" is the same game you once loved the sound of, the only difference is that it was released and busted your illusions.
Studios are not turning to Kickstarter because "suffocating atmosphere" but simply because it is a source of free money with no obligations, something no investor would ever provided.
And it is those obligations and responsibility for the money that force the quality onto products.
Ok first of all, you have no idea what the motivations of others are, unless they tell you with honesty, until then it's your suspicions and opinion, second of all, filmmakers are not "companies". They are artists that are trying to escape the tyranny of an entity that doesn't give them the freedom to pursue their artistic visions. So they are turning to the people that will support their ideas. Which is a good thing for the people who want new, fresh ideas created, instead of relying so heavily on tried and true formulas (do we really need ANOTHER comic book movie, sequel, prequel, reboot, remake, old tv show turned movie, or movies based on board games and toys? Really?). Not to mention that these filmmakers that you think are only out for the money, have put up a huge sum of their own money as well.
As for the "game", it was released unfinished, buggy, and unpolished because the publisher/investor cut off funding before the developer had managed to finish working on it, and was forced to release it prematurely.
I'm not interested in supporting that model any longer. Yes, there's potential for the same thing to happen with Kickstarter, but there's also potential for something great to happen. I'd rather support artists who have a vision rather than a corporation that only cares about profits and feeding the masses junkfood media.
Kickstarter lets me bypass the money grubbing corporations and invest directly into the artists that I like. Eventually the right MMO idea with the right developer will come along, and will get the support that an idea like the E-watch is getting, or a musician like Amanda Palmer, until then, I'm happy to donate 5 - 10 dollars here and there when I can.
We certainly get a lot of devs these days on the forums answering general MMORPG.com banter.
It's because the definition of a Dev is now as obscure as the definition of an MMO these days lol.
More like they are tired of the obvious BS that is getting started by random nobodies that potentially could spread like wildfire and end up with a failed attempt. Seriously, I have been following the PFO project since announced. Everything...EVERY FING THING that the OP had "questions" about has previously been answered in their blogs. Everything.
But the OP appears to not have the time to go read them (which should have been done with the time used to make this post) and instead post his questions on the integrity of a subdivision of a company that has been around probably longer than he/she has been gaming in any form.
I have no issue with people questioning others motives when they do it from an informed position. It is easy to tell when someone has read up on a topic first, then posted concerns as opposed to when someone has had a "fear" come up in their mind, picked a random target and then let losse with all guns.
All that above AND the Goblinworks team (and Paizo) are just awesome folks who had a TRADITION of interacting with the community that enjoys their products.
excuse me for making a "hasty" thread that has sparked the most indepth online discussion of kickstarter to date. maybe i should ask the thread be locked because putting "an opinion" IN the thread title wasnt enough to leave margin for error. but i wont, im sorry.
ive already apologized for my misconeptions, but you can continue to flame me if you wish. to each his own.
PS. i read the kickstarter page and found what i linked to be the only "game description" available. these things need to be more easily accessable to the investor FROM the kickstarter page itself imo. not anywhere else.
Throwing money in the wind for a game that's not even in any alpha or beta stage? That the only things you know about it are vague promises of what the released game should be?
That's as stupid as clinging to an MMORPG for the vague and highly optimistic patches that developers will later put into a game.
What I've oftenly encountered is that will not be true. Companies will say anything, do anything to get that money out of you for as little effort on their part than they have to, and it really doesn't mean sticking to their word. You fork over their money on blind and vague promises, then they got you by the balls and you can't do anything about it.
Too bad, so sad. If someone gets burned by developers in this manner, I have no pity for them. Jeez people, if you're going to donate money, there's few organizations and charities that are worth donating to out in the world. But a video game company should not be one of those types. Never.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Anyone asking for money on Kickstarter is not trustworthy just by principle.
People asking for donations for commercial project have already failed at their business - gathering money on their own or finding an investor, or they simply intentionally suck money from naive people.
If that does not ring your bell, I wonder what else will...
Well trust is certainly something not to be given automatically. It's earned.
But let's not pretend that investors are 100% accurate barometers of public interest or product viability. They're often pretty similar to popular opinion: they latch onto things they know they've liked in the past, but are hesitant to try innovative things.
Granted the most successful Kickstarters are exactly that: known, non-innovative quantities from known, successful designers.
While most of the innovative things companies try tend to fail, the few that succeed tend to be the big game-changers which make tons of money. But companies struggle to fund this kinda thing with either method because it's so unreliable.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Monveda It also forces the same boring , safe , done to death game designs onto products because all big companies care is money and nothing else.
There are plenty of people willingly shelling out truck loads of money for this "boring and done to death game design" games that disagree with you.
Or you imply they are forced to their subscriptions? I hope not...
We certainly get a lot of devs these days on the forums answering general MMORPG.com banter.
It's because the definition of a Dev is now as obscure as the definition of an MMO these days lol.
More like they are tired of the obvious BS that is getting started by random nobodies that potentially could spread like wildfire and end up with a failed attempt. Seriously, I have been following the PFO project since announced. Everything...EVERY FING THING that the OP had "questions" about has previously been answered in their blogs. Everything.
But the OP appears to not have the time to go read them (which should have been done with the time used to make this post) and instead post his questions on the integrity of a subdivision of a company that has been around probably longer than he/she has been gaming in any form.
I have no issue with people questioning others motives when they do it from an informed position. It is easy to tell when someone has read up on a topic first, then posted concerns as opposed to when someone has had a "fear" come up in their mind, picked a random target and then let losse with all guns.
All that above AND the Goblinworks team (and Paizo) are just awesome folks who had a TRADITION of interacting with the community that enjoys their products.
excuse me for making a "hasty" thread that has sparked the most indepth online discussion of kickstarter to date. maybe i should ask the thread be locked because putting "an opinion" IN the thread title wasnt enough to leave margin for error. but i wont, im sorry.
ive already apologized for my misconeptions, but you can continue to flame me if you wish. to each his own.
PS. i read the kickstarter page and found what i linked to be the only "game description" available. these things need to be more easily accessable to the investor FROM the kickstarter page itself imo. not anywhere else.
Gotta say I did not think much of this thread: Lack of research, messy organization of motion/opinions, low post history. But, saying all that:
OP has followed own thread : )
OP acknowledges their lack of info and reviews their opinion.
A dev pops in and posts some interesting answers: Result!
Who am I to blow against the wind?! lol
- -
IMO, Kickstarter is likely more of rallying point for MMORPG than full funding for a game and used that way, it's worth reassessing Kickstarter + mmorpgs potential for.
Do agree, on it's own appears not enough to pull a mmorpg from gdd to gold. But it KS has additional uses and for some the actual rewards, participation, following up to the point of completion of development are value for cash already.
Originally posted by Axehilt Well trust is certainly something not to be given automatically. It's earned. But let's not pretend that investors are 100% accurate barometers of public interest or product viability. They're often pretty similar to popular opinion: they latch onto things they know they've liked in the past, but are hesitant to try innovative things. Granted the most successful Kickstarters are exactly that: known, non-innovative quantities from known, successful designers. While most of the innovative things companies try tend to fail, the few that succeed tend to be the big game-changers which make tons of money. But companies struggle to fund this kinda thing with either method because it's so unreliable.
I am not particularly sure what point you are trying to make, if there is any.
In average, about 80% of newly established businesses do not survive first 3 years. If you ask any successful businessman how did they start, they will most likely tell how they failed and went bankrupt several times before they had a success.
This is how business operates in general - it is unreliable venture. Does that mean we should donate those ventures? Surely not.
It is the responsibility and extreme pressure from failure that actually motivates the project to succeed and product to improve.
You remove the responsibility, you remove motivation. People asking for donation are asking for removal of said responsibility.
Originally posted by AticusWelles They are artists that are trying to escape the tyranny of an entity that doesn't give them the freedom to pursue their artistic visions.
Funny how you are fine with tyranny of those "artists" who arrogantly ask for money to pursuit their visions regardless but their own self-satisfaction and then you are loathing about "tyranny" of "money grabbing" companies doing, supposedly, the same...
Originally posted by zymurgeist The responsibility remains. They're asking for an opportunity. I wouldn't give to someone who isn't investing their own time and money any more than I would invest in them. If anything it puts more pressure on them to perform, not less.
Do you sincerely believe that the responsibility of putting yourself in debt, risking losing your house and everything you have, is the same as if some stranger comes and hands you over all the funds you need and never ask questions or returns?
If so, I am afraid you are deeply in self-delusion.
Originally posted by zymurgeistOdds are they're doing both. Read the third sentence again.
I did read it, however it does not change a thing about a point I made.
You are helping to remove part of risk, a risk that is healthy for the business.
In words of mr. Dancey:
Originally posted by rsdancey This is a high-risk venture, and every dollar we raise helps us reduce the direct personal financial risk of working on it. Without Kickstarter we'd be funding this demo out of pocket. With the Kickstarter, we're going to have a big portion of those costs shared with the community.
Which means: If this project fails, we want your money to be lost, not ours.
Originally posted by zymurgeist So people who invest their own time and money feel less pressure if a part of the money isn't theirs?
Of course, they don't feel the same pressure.
That is what whole Kickstarter is about. You do not think much about throwing 5USD donation but you would think hell a lot if you had to donate 10k USD.
And that is what Kickstarter and projects on there rely on - people not thinking too much about their money...
We certainly get a lot of devs these days on the forums answering general MMORPG.com banter.
It's because the definition of a Dev is now as obscure as the definition of an MMO these days lol.
Not really. The definition is still the same, it's just that the barrier to entry is lower now. The gatekeepers are no longer able to keep people from jumping over the fence, in part, thanks to Kickstarter and it's equivalants.
It's neither. It's that there are a lot of posters who think that because they scribbled something in Word and called it a Design Document they are now a 'Game Designer' or 'Game Developer'. It's an amazing level of arrogance. I played Minecraft a lot, so I probably should start calling myself an Architectural Engineer.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I dont understand how anyone could dish out 100 grand for a game that doesnt have any details about ANY game features or systems or models, screenshots, videos of gameplay, or any other info besides : heres our team they have a lot of experience give us money. ie: Pathfinder Online
direct quote from their kickstarter page:
"Pathfinder Online is a hybrid sandbox/theme park-style MMO where characters explore, develop, find adventure and dominate a wilderness frontier in a land of sword and sorcery. The Pathfinder world is high fantasy in the tradition of epics like The Lord of the Rings, Conan, The Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones.
The Pathfinder setting includes many different classic and modern fantasy elements, from lost cities shrouded in misty jungles to decaying pyramids amidst deserts of burning sands to a fantastic island metropolis where folk from across the world live side by side with all manner of fantastic creatures. The Pathfinder world has a place for any story a player wants to tell."
does anyone else find this to be extremely vague? i mean wtf is going on here? honestly? this game has 100k$ pledged into it, and i cant find a screenshot of gameplay. needless to say this worries me a tad.
it seems this game and EoC as well, are getting tons of money, based off of proposed ideas and promise of delivery ALONE. this doesnt suit me at all. i personally sparked a thread created by a dev today based off the fact that EoC hasnt even begun to hash out the details behind their games Stat system.
i offically predict here that the kickstarter site, within 1 year will soon feel like a "pay for promise" site and that much of this "funding" is going to dissapoint people in the long run, leading to people thinking throwing money at ideas is the future of mmo deveolpment, which i hope to god its not. i smell the breath of money, and it stinks.
It's not like a single person wrote them a check for $100,000.
Paying a small amount of money to see created that seems like it might be cool isn't that big of a deal unless you pinch every penny you earn.
Comments
Your analogy does not fit but however, I was not bringing up the topic of "supporting", I only pointed out that if you really want to support, do it in a sensible way.
some are obvious shady people trying get extra cash other not so obvious just be carefull
And I pointed out that to me it seems to be more sensible to support a promising newcomer than a failed existing product
No, you did not pointed out anything, just made a statement unrelated to anything I said.
Your proposition is not more sensible, on the contrary.
As I said before, donating money means that there is no responsibility or obligation for the developer, unlike mr. Dancey is trying to bully you - at the end, that is a reason why they are doing it, they are asking you to bear the risk of the failure instead of them.
The project may fail, it may result in an awful product miles away from what was promised, developer my run with the money, anything can happen because there is no pressure, no responsibility for money you donated and supporting such behavior is not more sensible than supporting someone who already did go through all this and released the product successfully.
No investor ever would accepted what they are asking, why would you?
Supporting fancy words of empty promises will only encourage more fancy words of empty
promises.
If you want more released games, you have to support released games. No way around it.
I agree. The thing for me is that for years I have "invested" tons of money in games by "reputable" developers with decent track records, only to find out the games suck and I wasted my money.
Theres always been some level of risk involved in buying games, but at least with Kickstarter I can help fund the games I actually want to play, rather than funding games that I ultimately hate, but lead to more games like it being made, because a lot of people like me bought the game and were stuck with it whether we liked it or not.
The gatekeepers don't care if we like the games, they don't care if they are even good, just so long as we buy them. Kickstarter gives us at least a tiny voice, rather than silence in a sea of mediocrity.
It's like an exec at Sony said about Dan Harmon, creator of Community (Paraphrasing) "We highered you to make a profitable show, no where in your contract did we state that it had to be good, whether it's good or not is on you, we only care that it makes money."
I would rather "donate" 5 or 10 dollars to a potential project that I love the sound of, and get cool rewards for doing so, rather than "donating" 60 bucks, and a subscription to a failed game that really has no potential of ever being decent, much less great.
Someone said that there was no potential of Kicstarter ever funding a multi million dollar project, but the thing is, it already has. The E-Watch has already made over 10 million dollars in donations, it's only going to go up as more people become familiar and comfortable with crowdsourcing. A few successful projects happen because of kickstarter and it's only going to increase it's reputation.
So it's completely possible for multi-million dollar projects to be funded, it's just a matter of not many people are going to fund a Theme Park MMO like WoW, when investors are already falling over themselves to fund those projects. People are going to fund the projects that aren't being made by the big guys, the stuff that investors are to afraid to invest in.
Even accomplished Hollywood film makers are turning to kickstarter to fund their movies cause they want to break free of the suffocating atmosphere of Hollywood studios.
Oh, it IS an investment. Seems like some of you forget that an investment doesn't always mean that you will come through in the positive. Your "share" could end up worth less than what you put in at.
That said, someone needs to go read the Pathfinder Kickstarter. For the amount I put in I'm getting some nifty stuff. Stuff that I deemed worthy of the investment should this game go all the way to gold and launch.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I will start with the declaration that I have not given money to a kickstarter project to date. I am not sold on kickstarter being able to generate enough money to actually deliver a polished product that I would want to play...I will admit that I am on the fence, and I make enough money that I am not going to miss my donation....I also do not throw away money either...If someone was making a UO2, I think logic would go out the window, and I would be throwing money down
The logic that people should support a turd, if they want someone to make a good mmo is stupid....If I had a gun to my head and had to make a choice, I would give money to someone that shows promise, instead of someone who has demonstrated incompetance with a buggy game that cheating/macroing/duping/corruption is the norm in.
I can deal with bugs, but they lack of integrity in a lot of current titles like DF/MO, thats where they lose me....So no, I would rather hit my computer with a sledgehammer, than give them money for the 'future'....If MO got their act together, and made a new server, I may play it....Big if though.
More like they are tired of the obvious BS that is getting started by random nobodies that potentially could spread like wildfire and end up with a failed attempt. Seriously, I have been following the PFO project since announced. Everything...EVERY FING THING that the OP had "questions" about has previously been answered in their blogs. Everything.
But the OP appears to not have the time to go read them (which should have been done with the time used to make this post) and instead post his questions on the integrity of a subdivision of a company that has been around probably longer than he/she has been gaming in any form.
I have no issue with people questioning others motives when they do it from an informed position. It is easy to tell when someone has read up on a topic first, then posted concerns as opposed to when someone has had a "fear" come up in their mind, picked a random target and then let losse with all guns.
All that above AND the Goblinworks team (and Paizo) are just awesome folks who had a TRADITION of interacting with the community that enjoys their products.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I have a kickstarter project approved, and I have absolutely nothing but an idea, and a piece of concept art. It got approved, and I could be milking people right now. I obviously am not going to do that because I really want to see my idea take off. I did not dream this up as a scheme. I do see the potential for an unsavory poster to cheat people on kickstarter and hope that the donators have enough sense to give to the right projects.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
The thing is, this "failed game" is the same game you once loved the sound of, the only difference is that it was released and busted your illusions.
Studios are not turning to Kickstarter because "suffocating atmosphere" but simply because it is a source of free money with no obligations, something no investor would ever provided.
And it is those obligations and responsibility for the money that force the quality onto products.
Ok first of all, you have no idea what the motivations of others are, unless they tell you with honesty, until then it's your suspicions and opinion, second of all, filmmakers are not "companies". They are artists that are trying to escape the tyranny of an entity that doesn't give them the freedom to pursue their artistic visions. So they are turning to the people that will support their ideas. Which is a good thing for the people who want new, fresh ideas created, instead of relying so heavily on tried and true formulas (do we really need ANOTHER comic book movie, sequel, prequel, reboot, remake, old tv show turned movie, or movies based on board games and toys? Really?). Not to mention that these filmmakers that you think are only out for the money, have put up a huge sum of their own money as well.
As for the "game", it was released unfinished, buggy, and unpolished because the publisher/investor cut off funding before the developer had managed to finish working on it, and was forced to release it prematurely.
I'm not interested in supporting that model any longer. Yes, there's potential for the same thing to happen with Kickstarter, but there's also potential for something great to happen. I'd rather support artists who have a vision rather than a corporation that only cares about profits and feeding the masses junkfood media.
Kickstarter lets me bypass the money grubbing corporations and invest directly into the artists that I like. Eventually the right MMO idea with the right developer will come along, and will get the support that an idea like the E-watch is getting, or a musician like Amanda Palmer, until then, I'm happy to donate 5 - 10 dollars here and there when I can.
excuse me for making a "hasty" thread that has sparked the most indepth online discussion of kickstarter to date. maybe i should ask the thread be locked because putting "an opinion" IN the thread title wasnt enough to leave margin for error. but i wont, im sorry.
ive already apologized for my misconeptions, but you can continue to flame me if you wish. to each his own.
PS. i read the kickstarter page and found what i linked to be the only "game description" available. these things need to be more easily accessable to the investor FROM the kickstarter page itself imo. not anywhere else.
It also forces the same boring , safe , done to death game designs onto products because all big companies care is money and nothing else.
Throwing money in the wind for a game that's not even in any alpha or beta stage? That the only things you know about it are vague promises of what the released game should be?
That's as stupid as clinging to an MMORPG for the vague and highly optimistic patches that developers will later put into a game.
What I've oftenly encountered is that will not be true. Companies will say anything, do anything to get that money out of you for as little effort on their part than they have to, and it really doesn't mean sticking to their word. You fork over their money on blind and vague promises, then they got you by the balls and you can't do anything about it.
Too bad, so sad. If someone gets burned by developers in this manner, I have no pity for them. Jeez people, if you're going to donate money, there's few organizations and charities that are worth donating to out in the world. But a video game company should not be one of those types. Never.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Well trust is certainly something not to be given automatically. It's earned.
But let's not pretend that investors are 100% accurate barometers of public interest or product viability. They're often pretty similar to popular opinion: they latch onto things they know they've liked in the past, but are hesitant to try innovative things.
Granted the most successful Kickstarters are exactly that: known, non-innovative quantities from known, successful designers.
While most of the innovative things companies try tend to fail, the few that succeed tend to be the big game-changers which make tons of money. But companies struggle to fund this kinda thing with either method because it's so unreliable.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There are plenty of people willingly shelling out truck loads of money for this "boring and done to death game design" games that disagree with you.
Or you imply they are forced to their subscriptions? I hope not...
Gotta say I did not think much of this thread: Lack of research, messy organization of motion/opinions, low post history. But, saying all that:
Who am I to blow against the wind?! lol
- -
IMO, Kickstarter is likely more of rallying point for MMORPG than full funding for a game and used that way, it's worth reassessing Kickstarter + mmorpgs potential for.
Do agree, on it's own appears not enough to pull a mmorpg from gdd to gold. But it KS has additional uses and for some the actual rewards, participation, following up to the point of completion of development are value for cash already.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I am not particularly sure what point you are trying to make, if there is any.
In average, about 80% of newly established businesses do not survive first 3 years. If you ask any successful businessman how did they start, they will most likely tell how they failed and went bankrupt several times before they had a success.
This is how business operates in general - it is unreliable venture. Does that mean we should donate those ventures? Surely not.
It is the responsibility and extreme pressure from failure that actually motivates the project to succeed and product to improve.
You remove the responsibility, you remove motivation. People asking for donation are asking for removal of said responsibility.
Funny how you are fine with tyranny of those "artists" who arrogantly ask for money to pursuit their visions regardless but their own self-satisfaction and then you are loathing about "tyranny" of "money grabbing" companies doing, supposedly, the same...
Do you sincerely believe that the responsibility of putting yourself in debt, risking losing your house and everything you have, is the same as if some stranger comes and hands you over all the funds you need and never ask questions or returns?
If so, I am afraid you are deeply in self-delusion.
I did read it, however it does not change a thing about a point I made.
You are helping to remove part of risk, a risk that is healthy for the business.
In words of mr. Dancey:
Which means: If this project fails, we want your money to be lost, not ours.
Of course, they don't feel the same pressure.
That is what whole Kickstarter is about. You do not think much about throwing 5USD donation but you would think hell a lot if you had to donate 10k USD.
And that is what Kickstarter and projects on there rely on - people not thinking too much about their money...
It's neither. It's that there are a lot of posters who think that because they scribbled something in Word and called it a Design Document they are now a 'Game Designer' or 'Game Developer'. It's an amazing level of arrogance. I played Minecraft a lot, so I probably should start calling myself an Architectural Engineer.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It's not like a single person wrote them a check for $100,000.
Paying a small amount of money to see created that seems like it might be cool isn't that big of a deal unless you pinch every penny you earn.