Originally posted by mmoguy43 Now you know what it is like to be an investor.
Yeah.
Isn't Kickstarter perfect for the gamer? Instead of 'suits' putting up money just to make money, it's left to gamers to invest in an idea they'd like to see become reality.
The problem is most game development NEED more money than they can get from Kickstarter - period. THink penny stocks and this is akin to Kickstarter.
And those 41% that fail... no one payed a dime for. If a project fails, no one gets charged.
The end result isn't much different than pre-ordering
Except for the fact that, you know, without Kickstarter, the game you're paying for would not even exist in the first place...
That isn't true at all and horrible logic.
It's not logic, it's fact. Many of the games that broke through with Kickstarter, like the DoubleFine game and Wasteland 2, were games that the developers tried, and failed, to get funded by traidtional publishers for years beforehand.
I think people are quoting things from either the worst or best of both worlds when trying to prove their point. There is "bad" pre-ording and "bad" kickstarting just as there is "good" pre-ordering and "good" kickstarting.
A bad pre-order would be if you offered someone something that was better than what is available in game or will be better than whatever you start with. The prospect of "beta" or "early access" being bad is really only if there's a competitive edge to the game that requires levels and has vast differences in gear (though still, learning systems before someone else would still give an hour or two advantage depending on the learning curve of the game). If it's wholely aesthetics or some such then it's just a matter of entitlement in that people decided not to pre-order it themselves when they had the opportunity. Granted, there is a growing resentment in that they may have taken something that was already in the game simply to make it exclusive and get people into subscribing.
I use to fall for this sort of pre-ordering all the time, but it became increasingly obvious that I was buying the pre-order and not the game when Defiance came around. I'm not a fan of FPS games at all, and played a couple beta weekends of Defiance; it was a decent enough game to keep my attention for the time I played, but I kept on catching myself saying that I needed to buy this game simply because of the pre-order bonuses offered on Steam. It wasn't "I need to buy it because I like it" or "I should buy it because I think it's good", but rather the bonuses were the sole reason I kept on citing whenever talking about it.
In hindsight, the fact that they advertise "the fastest car in the game" (steam video) as being a part of the pre-order, I'm especially content that I did not buy the game. Whether or not it is the fastest car or the game, and you can get the best vehicle at the start if you pre-order, isn't the whole point though. Sure, it just means you'll be faster than everyone else, and you'll finish the game quicker, and get to higher levels faster... but the fact they were advertising such allowed me to have an epiphany with regards to this whole pre-order thing.
Back in the day you only pre-ordered just to make sure a popular game wouldn't run out and you'd be out of luck for weeks or even months. In the digital age, it's just to gauge how the game is going to do, and to influence one's decision to get the game by offering exclusive items that were ripped from the complete game. If one does not find this appaling in some way, then that's their prerogative as I have no right to say "dude, you're wrong". But I do find it a tad hypocritical if one is against day one DLC and then supports this type of digital pre-order. Not to mention, you now have to consider what outlet you want to buy from depending on what different thing they offer (more things you won't have access to that were ripped from the game, only this time it's impossible for even pre-orders to get everything because of it) instead of just using your favorite or most trusted source for buying products.
When it comes to Kickstarter there is typically two things to consider. Is the game being made by a company or publisher that has the means to make the game themself? Or is it a somewhat Indie company asking for help (or someone you know isn't that big / aren't able to get investor support and has an idea they want to try that may be risky to said investors) to actually get it started from the ground up.
Now, if for some reason specific items are offered to these people, it depends if it's okay or not depending on your perspective. Since the game has yet to be created yet, there is no ripping content out of the game as the game will not exist without these types of support. But, the offering of "the fastest vehicle" or a gun that has "plus one stat" or something will still be pushing it in terms of being "okay" in my opinion.
But ultimately if you're a fan of a niche genre that isn't well represented (or hasn't been for a near decade!) then kickstarter is great for developer and fan alike. It would have to be foolish to think otherwise when these type of conditions are met as a whole. To date I have only supported two games on Kickstarter: There was Shadowrun and some kind of sandbox game that an unheard of development house needed the funs to actually purchase some kind've engine. Both I sent around $15 to, and there were a few games that I just donated $1 to because I liked the idea, but think they could've done it themselves in some way without involving kickstarter.
When looking at things in a black and white kind've way, one can say "oh you're getting what is essential a pre-order bonus by doing this" but the fact is that conditions are different, not all offer items that give unfair advantages, and many would be supporting this game even if rewards weren't offered. I would've still gave $15 to shadow run even if they didn't give me a copy of the game when it was finished. In fact, I still plan to buy a couple copies of it despite all that, because it's something I want to support and would like to see more of the same coming out on the market to help overshadow all these first person shooter games. Indeed, and unlike my second paragraph above, I do not find myself saying "I should do this because I get an awesome car" as opposed to "I should do this because I will help create a potentially awesome game that otherwise wouldn't be funded or created".
It's okay for most to be shortsighted or see things in black and white, but there are major and significant differences from buying a complete game just for items that were ripped from it and offered as exclusive pre-order content and helping a game even get started because there are few people that investors see which are interested in a particular game. There's nothing bad with either of them as it's a matter of if you want to do it or not, and nobody should be telling you otherwise. But, all the same, there is a difference (for those willing to do the research on both the pre-orders and kickstarters to see if they fit the conditions that match your own morales on a case by case basis).
All in all, here is a poorly construed example:
If Blizzard Entertainment decided they wanted to make a FPS Starcraft game, investors would be lining up with dollar signs in their eyes (heck they could probably fund it themselves because they're so successful). If they instead went to Kickstarter, then that would be cause to quirk and eyebrow.
If Stormshadow gaming (made up), an indie developer that has only one product under their name, went to investors with an idea of a tactical RPG that was a throwback to the 90s and was hardcore in difficulty... Investors would likely just laugh at them and their idea. The game would not be created unless they went to kickstarter and asked for help from people who enjoyed those types of games (especially if hard in difficulty and not casual friendly (which would make it even more niche) when they were made. It would be up to them to make sure rewards were tasteful, but these are things because of kickstarter and wouldn't be in game otherwise (or the game wouldn't even be made anyway).
Though there is also another point to kickstarter, in that sometimes it's used to show investors that there is interest in the game. If it's a high budget game, then it's likely that this is the case. Some also cite using kickstarter so they don't have to deal with investors wanting them to "change" their vision of the game so that they can make more money (if it's a game that doesn't need a huge budget and just a few dedicated developers).
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
People get so much flak for pre ordering a MMO for merely 50 to 60 bucks while people pledge hundreds of dollars of their hard earned money on kickstarters. How is it any different? all you got is word of the developers and big promises. You don't get to participate before hand or test anything before handing out your hard earned cash.
Atleast, people who pre order have enough videos, previews and beta testing to make up their mind while pledgers just go by someone's word alone and promises which might be as real as pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Can anyone help me understand why former is bad and looked down upon in general while later is ok and encouraged?
At least with Kickstarter the developers is trying to make the type of game I want. People can naysay and take a negative view all they want but honestly it is not until later on this year that the first game kickstarters from well known developers are scheduled to release. THEN judgements can factually be made. As far as efforts from indie, first timers...I personally don't kickstart such projects.
Projects done traditionally with a publisher and have a pre-order are usually games that I'm not 100% on board with but I get bombarded with "Give it a try, you may like it!" So I try and then I don't like it.
Again, at least with the KS games I've backed I've liked the total direction they outline. And since they don't have a publisher breathing on their necks, when the game is done it should be all that is advertised as opposed to having cut X and Y to make the publishers demanded release date.
"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..."
Pre-orders where made so the stores know how much product they need to make their most valuable customers happy and not to overstock on games that fail out of the gates. It had nothing to do with putting up THE FULL PRICE of the game to get into beta or alpha or to get some worthless digital items.
"Pre-ordering" a game digitally for full price or even more is completely INSANE. Of cause everyone is entitled to do stupid things.
"Pre-Ordering", you are guaranteed a product.
Kickstarter is a nice idea on paper, i will admit that. The reality however is that you give away money for the promise that you get a product within a reasonable timeframe. You give money away, thats it, donations. It's gone and neither Kickstarter nor the Project creator has to deliver anything if they do not want to. It's that simple. You have no way to get back your money.
Kickstarter you are not guaranteed anything. ALL the risk is ON YOU.
The next logical step, not a big one at all, would be if you just give me your money. No questions asked. I take it and we are both happy. Can we do this, please?
"Give players systems and tools instead of rails and rules"
Preordering is much less risky than funding a game on KS. The reason is that you can cancel your preorder at anytime. I think with KS (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the only way you can get your money back is if the project fails to fund. Also, if you preorder on Amazon, you are charged nothing until the game actually ships. There is 0 down payment and you can cancel at anytime, so there is 0 risk. I think with gamestop you have to put $5 down (again correct me if I'm wrong), but even that is much less risky than any kickstarter.
Also, if a game is up for preorder, it is probably mostly already finished and is backed by a reputable publisher/studio where as in KS, the game's development may not have even begun!
So there really is no comparison in terms of risk when it comes to preordering vs KS.
Originally posted by mmoguy43 Now you know what it is like to be an investor.
Yeah.
Isn't Kickstarter perfect for the gamer? Instead of 'suits' putting up money just to make money, it's left to gamers to invest in an idea they'd like to see become reality.
The problem is most game development NEED more money than they can get from Kickstarter - period. THink penny stocks and this is akin to Kickstarter.
And those 41% that fail... no one payed a dime for. If a project fails, no one gets charged.
The end result isn't much different than pre-ordering
Of course it does. If the KS is funded, and the project fails, and no game is produced, you lost your money. You can always cancel a pre-order and get your money back.
The next logical step, not a big one at all, would be if you just give me your money. No questions asked. I take it and we are both happy. Can we do this, please?
What .. you don't have at least a bridge to sell?
In fact, i think i will start a KS campagin to promise a bridge to the gaming heaven, and i have the low-low funding goal of just $1000.
Originally posted by Normandy7 No publisher to get in the way of development. That is why Kickstarter is better.
This.
Popular wisdom among publishers was 'No one is interested in space games'. Boom, Kickstarter funds two games to multiple millions.
Popular publisher wisdom said noone was interested in old school RPGs. Guys with serious old school RPG experiance raise millions on Kickstarter.
Kickstarter projects absolutely show levels of support for games and genres. Now, if you aren't very choosey about where you send your dollars, you might end up patronizing dubious projects (be they inept or crooked). But Kickstarter is a method of mass patronage, and it cuts out the publisher gatekeepers who could otherwise decide what gets published, or make serious (and terrible) decisions about the development of a game.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
The next logical step, not a big one at all, would be if you just give me your money. No questions asked. I take it and we are both happy. Can we do this, please?
What .. you don't have at least a bridge to sell?
In fact, i think i will start a KS campagin to promise a bridge to the gaming heaven, and i have the low-low funding goal of just $1000.
I said please
Try it, you might even get your $1000 if your campaign is original and you have a good picture of that bridge.
Beat you to it!
"Give players systems and tools instead of rails and rules"
Originally posted by zymurgeist People really don't know how this works. If a Kickstarter doesn't fund you don't get your money back. Your money never left. It's still right where it was. Kickstarter doesn't take any money until the project meets it's goal.
That is only true if it doesn't meet the financial goals. Once the financial goals are met, your money is gone. If the project tanks after that and the company does not reimburse your only option is leave it, or sue.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by zymurgeist People really don't know how this works. If a Kickstarter doesn't fund you don't get your money back. Your money never left. It's still right where it was. Kickstarter doesn't take any money until the project meets it's goal.
That is only true if it doesn't meet the financial goals. Once the financial goals are met, your money is gone. If the project tanks after that and the company does not reimburse your only option is leave it, or sue.
This ^^^
BTW, this has already been repeated .. why is people not understanding this?
Your money is not protected. If the KS goal is met, your money is gone, whether the game is produced at the end.
I can't understand the investor comparison for Kickstarter as surely an investor looks forward to and aims for a return (of which you cannot see via Kickstarter), Kickstarter is far more like a donation...for a project you like the sound of...before anything is put in motion. I can understand people would like to see good games but is there really that little out there that we are now moving into the era of paying for the chance to have a game you like?
Ultimately I can decide how I spend my money, who am I to tell others how to spend theirs?
If people want to throw money at developers go for it if it makes them happy.
I've preordered lots of games (not hundreds, but close) and have yet to be disappointed. I don't typically waste my time downloading games of demos I'm sure I'm going to purchase anyway and a lot of my preorders of MMOs at least I do play the beta before preordering. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. I usually don't preorder for incentives or anything, I just want to play the game immediately when it is released. You can call it hype or whatever, but I have yet to be disappointed yet. I typically only preorder a game I have a lot of information about (mainly gameplay trailers) and from companies I trust.
I also use Kickstarter. I can say that I have been disappointed with it a few times, but I understand Kickstarter is more of a gamble. I've only Kickstarted 14 projects in about 2 years time here, and I've only had one project fully deliver (three partially delivered so far) and many projects are now late on their proposed deadlines, though a few still have time to reach there. Still, I like the concept of Kickstarter. I generally use Kickstarter for different reasons than preordering:
Typically when I look at Kickstarter projects and decide whether or not to back I look at the following:
Developer's experience and reputation. Did they develop commerical games? Were these quality games? Are these the kind of games I enjoyed? Do they always deliver on promises?
Scope versus Funding Goal: Is the scope realistic within the budget they are asking?
Is the project unique (or just different) in such a way that they definitely couldn't get it accepted by a publisher/distributor in this day and age or would a publisher/distributor just interfere with the overall design?
Does the game (or other project) itself look like it's going to be a lot of fun or something I need?
Are other people confident enough to back it? I use Kicktraq to determine mean backing amount and trends to decide if it will be successfully funded or not. Projects that are close to their backing goal on the trend or close to a stretch goal I want tend to give me more incentive to back the project because it feels like my money is helping it reach it's goal moreso than a project that is way over their goal.
Are the incentives for backing something I want / will use? Are the reward goals fair? Am I benefitting specifically for backing the project early or would it be better to just wait for the project to reach a bargain price?
Are the developers active in Kickstarter updates for the project? Sometimes I'll send an e-mail with questions to see how fast they respond. This tells me the developer will be active in keeping updates when the Kickstarter ends and possibly even have feedback influence design decisions.
The overall quality and effort that went into the Kickstarter page and video. Again, it tells me if they are taking the Kickstarter as their means of funding seriously or not.
One additional note is I don't think I've ever backed early. The earliest I've ever backed a Kickstarter project is about 10 days in.
I know I went a little off topic, but I think understanding my reasoning on why I back particular Kickstarter projects is better than just saying general reasons for backing projects on Kickstarter in the first place.
Isn't Kickstarter perfect for the gamer? Instead of 'suits' putting up money just to make money, it's left to gamers to invest in an idea they'd like to see become reality.
Suits come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes they even wear jeans and a t-shirt. Sometimes they even put up YOUR money just to make THEIR money.
The reason is because most people are children that never grow up. They are immune to logic and are easily swayed by appeals to emotion.
This why they can yell at you for paying money to the big corporate for a pre-order, then go out and plop down $250 dollars for a game made by an indie company, with employees who use to be from the big corporate.
Originally posted by Burntvet Both are stupid, it is only worse for KS, as the numbers tend to be bigger and at least for pre-ordering (which I will not ever be doing), there is a game, i.e. it exists. Throwing down hundreds of dollars or more for an MMO that might not ever come to be, and no recourse to reclaim that money if it doesn't is not something I could ever see myself doing. Call me crazy, but I actually want to get what I pay for, and I'll pay when I get it. So, at this point: Pre-order MMO - dumb, Pre-order MMO-LTS - really dumb, KS "donation" at a high level for a theoretical MMO - "stop eating the lead paint chips" time.
It's astounding how many people don't even understand the basic idea of Kickstarter.
You can't get "scammed" out of money. The person using Kickstarter is legally obligated to produce a product and use the money they get exactly for what they said they would. Jesus christ people.
This.
All y'all talking about people getting "scammed" by Kickstarter have obviously never read Kickstarter's terms. They're very clear that the fund recipient is legally obligated to turn out progress reports and a final product. If he or she cannot meet deadlines, then he or she is legally obligated to explain why or make arragments to return those funds that were donated through Kickstarter.
Kickstarter is simply a means for indie developers whom studios won't take a chance on to generate the revenue to get the games we want to see get made, made. You piss and moan about the big studios and production houses not making good games or nerfing good features due to bean counters, then piss and moan because someone came up with an alternative.
Pick one. Either be happy the games have an alternative source of funding, or sit down, shut up and play the garbage that EA and Activision give you and quit complaining that you want something different.
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
What business is it for anyone to tell others how to spend their money? As long as they can afford it, its legal and doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else those that are judging can piss off. As soon as they start making my money for me, THEN they can start telling me how to spend it.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Originally posted by Ginaz What business is it for anyone to tell others how to spend their money? As long as they can afford it, its legal and doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else those that are judging can piss off. As soon as they start making my money for me, THEN they can start telling me how to spend it.
Missed the whole point of topic didn't ya bud? no one is telling you to where and how to spend your money. You can light up all your money and dance around it for all i care.
I was simply asking why pre orders are looked down upon while kickstarters is the new cool thing in. When basic prinicple behind both is almost the same. You are buying something on basis of future promise which may or may not turn out to be true.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
What's so difficult about understanding the concept of an investment?
Kickstarter is a fragmented way for people to invest large sums of money. People UNDERSTAND when they make an investment THAT IT MAY FAIL. People CHOOSE TO INVEST because they DECIDE that the POTENTIAL REWARD FOR THEM is greater than the POTENTIAL LOSS.
Really this shouldn't need a thread, I understand people criticizing individual projects, but the whole thing? Obviously you have failed to understand the concept of investment.
Unless you are criticizing the fee or functionality of the actual website what you are actually doing is criticizing the whole idea of investments, which is beyond stupid.
The concept of investment generally involves a return on that investment. You put money into something with an expectation that you will recieve money back from it - and then some. There is always risk involved when you invest in something, but the goal is to make money when you invest.
In this case, Mark Jacobs is hedging his own personal bet (something like $2+ million) by using yours (and others) money to fund his project that he will use to make profits for himself (not you). With Kickstarter, you are not investing, but purchasing a future potential product. In this case a game, some subs and a t-shirt (or whatever your tier brings you in virtual or tangible goods).
The only way in which investments are similar to crowd funding is that they both involve risk. In one situation, you are potentially getting a return on your investment. In the other, you are purchasing potential future product(s).
I've seen people try and compare it to PBS as well which I think is very far off the mark. PBS provides a service you get right away. There is not a long term commitment. You donate, they give you a mug or whatever and you feel happy that you have helped provide funding for a service you enjoy. There isn't an actual risk involved which makes it different than both other types of funding.
The potential future product is the return on your investment. The consumer understands this. You do not need to tell them that it's different from money, they get it.
Believing it's a financial investment is beyond stupid.
Did I say financial? No. Here's the dictionary definition in case you're still stuck. You are the one misusing the word.
The action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
I can't understand the investor comparison for Kickstarter as surely an investor looks forward to and aims for a return (of which you cannot see via Kickstarter), Kickstarter is far more like a donation...for a project you like the sound of...before anything is put in motion. I can understand people would like to see good games but is there really that little out there that we are now moving into the era of paying for the chance to have a game you like?
For some of us, yes.
Those who are content with what's being shoveled out these days, will obviously feel differently. But for some of us, all we see is a whole lot of "not interesting" and very little "interesting." So we're a bit more wiling to risk our money on a potential project that does look interesting. And why not? It's not like that money is getting spent on any of the games that don't interest us.
Really didn't read the bulk of the thread...don't care about it much except to clarify.
The simple answer:
Kickstarter actually goes to the game and the development, the game development literally is based on whether or not they raise enough money.
Pre-orders go to the company, the game is being made either way, you pre-ordering just gives them confidence in the market awaiting the game.
Personally I don't do either. If it's on Kickstarter and gets funded then I know there will be enough of a base to actually play the game, hopefully. At this point there's no point to pre-ordering because they don't ever sell out completely. This didn't used to be the case back when they started pre-ordering, so the idea is more just for the bonuses (if they're worth it).
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Can anyone help me understand why former is bad and looked down upon in general while later is ok and encouraged?
One of the easiest ways to solve the problem of something getting a bad reputation is to simply change the name. The truth is today's gamers are an easy mark, and marketing teams have been successfully playing the polarization and bias of the consumer base rather well.
It's about getting people to pay for a product before the product is even shipped. So far, with MMO gamers, there really hasn't been any fear of gamers catching on, especially since the gamers are doing the work for them. As distribution changes, so do the ways that developers/publishers get people to pay for products before they are even created. The shift to digital drove the necessity to change how to get money prior to shipping.
Pre-orders led to pre-order with bonus to pre-purchase and pre-purchase with bonus
which then opened the door for deluxe and collectors editions but they still required a physical product
because, seriously, who's going to pay 60-160 USD for a download?
Well, no one until that becomes more commonplace which is about where we are now
Companies can now pick and choose how they are going to get their early cash
Kickstarter and IndieGoGo (WTF would anyone back an IndieGoGo project???) to get support money rolling in
Microtransactions during beta (usually with points refunded at release) allows people to buy in at the level they want to in earlier stages
Buy to Play - the newest and the golden egg for Western F2P devs. Gamers handed devs this gem on a silver platter. What do MMO gamers rage against? F2P. Why do they rage against it? The microtransactions. Somewhere in the wide world of GW2 awesomenewss, players latched on to "Buy to Play" and bought into it hardcore. Expect more devs to start using that term, because 1) F2P is still viewed by many as lesser quality 2) F2P is perceived as 'pay to win' and 3) old myths and false talking points such as "it will cost more than a subscription per month" couldn't even be pried from a jaded gamer's cold dead typing hands. Buy to Play is brilliant. It let's the consumer position positively against subscription without it being perceived as free to play. Dodges the usual F2P bullets, AND gets people to pay a box fee up from for a F2P game.
Kickstarter is just one of several current ways to get money from gamers up front. It isn't too far removed from pre-order, except that pre-order guarantees you'll get a product or your moeny back eventaully. Kickstarter carries no such guarantee.
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
Comments
It's not logic, it's fact. Many of the games that broke through with Kickstarter, like the DoubleFine game and Wasteland 2, were games that the developers tried, and failed, to get funded by traidtional publishers for years beforehand.
I think people are quoting things from either the worst or best of both worlds when trying to prove their point. There is "bad" pre-ording and "bad" kickstarting just as there is "good" pre-ordering and "good" kickstarting.
A bad pre-order would be if you offered someone something that was better than what is available in game or will be better than whatever you start with. The prospect of "beta" or "early access" being bad is really only if there's a competitive edge to the game that requires levels and has vast differences in gear (though still, learning systems before someone else would still give an hour or two advantage depending on the learning curve of the game). If it's wholely aesthetics or some such then it's just a matter of entitlement in that people decided not to pre-order it themselves when they had the opportunity. Granted, there is a growing resentment in that they may have taken something that was already in the game simply to make it exclusive and get people into subscribing.
I use to fall for this sort of pre-ordering all the time, but it became increasingly obvious that I was buying the pre-order and not the game when Defiance came around. I'm not a fan of FPS games at all, and played a couple beta weekends of Defiance; it was a decent enough game to keep my attention for the time I played, but I kept on catching myself saying that I needed to buy this game simply because of the pre-order bonuses offered on Steam. It wasn't "I need to buy it because I like it" or "I should buy it because I think it's good", but rather the bonuses were the sole reason I kept on citing whenever talking about it.
In hindsight, the fact that they advertise "the fastest car in the game" (steam video) as being a part of the pre-order, I'm especially content that I did not buy the game. Whether or not it is the fastest car or the game, and you can get the best vehicle at the start if you pre-order, isn't the whole point though. Sure, it just means you'll be faster than everyone else, and you'll finish the game quicker, and get to higher levels faster... but the fact they were advertising such allowed me to have an epiphany with regards to this whole pre-order thing.
Back in the day you only pre-ordered just to make sure a popular game wouldn't run out and you'd be out of luck for weeks or even months. In the digital age, it's just to gauge how the game is going to do, and to influence one's decision to get the game by offering exclusive items that were ripped from the complete game. If one does not find this appaling in some way, then that's their prerogative as I have no right to say "dude, you're wrong". But I do find it a tad hypocritical if one is against day one DLC and then supports this type of digital pre-order. Not to mention, you now have to consider what outlet you want to buy from depending on what different thing they offer (more things you won't have access to that were ripped from the game, only this time it's impossible for even pre-orders to get everything because of it) instead of just using your favorite or most trusted source for buying products.
When it comes to Kickstarter there is typically two things to consider. Is the game being made by a company or publisher that has the means to make the game themself? Or is it a somewhat Indie company asking for help (or someone you know isn't that big / aren't able to get investor support and has an idea they want to try that may be risky to said investors) to actually get it started from the ground up.
Now, if for some reason specific items are offered to these people, it depends if it's okay or not depending on your perspective. Since the game has yet to be created yet, there is no ripping content out of the game as the game will not exist without these types of support. But, the offering of "the fastest vehicle" or a gun that has "plus one stat" or something will still be pushing it in terms of being "okay" in my opinion.
But ultimately if you're a fan of a niche genre that isn't well represented (or hasn't been for a near decade!) then kickstarter is great for developer and fan alike. It would have to be foolish to think otherwise when these type of conditions are met as a whole. To date I have only supported two games on Kickstarter: There was Shadowrun and some kind of sandbox game that an unheard of development house needed the funs to actually purchase some kind've engine. Both I sent around $15 to, and there were a few games that I just donated $1 to because I liked the idea, but think they could've done it themselves in some way without involving kickstarter.
When looking at things in a black and white kind've way, one can say "oh you're getting what is essential a pre-order bonus by doing this" but the fact is that conditions are different, not all offer items that give unfair advantages, and many would be supporting this game even if rewards weren't offered. I would've still gave $15 to shadow run even if they didn't give me a copy of the game when it was finished. In fact, I still plan to buy a couple copies of it despite all that, because it's something I want to support and would like to see more of the same coming out on the market to help overshadow all these first person shooter games. Indeed, and unlike my second paragraph above, I do not find myself saying "I should do this because I get an awesome car" as opposed to "I should do this because I will help create a potentially awesome game that otherwise wouldn't be funded or created".
It's okay for most to be shortsighted or see things in black and white, but there are major and significant differences from buying a complete game just for items that were ripped from it and offered as exclusive pre-order content and helping a game even get started because there are few people that investors see which are interested in a particular game. There's nothing bad with either of them as it's a matter of if you want to do it or not, and nobody should be telling you otherwise. But, all the same, there is a difference (for those willing to do the research on both the pre-orders and kickstarters to see if they fit the conditions that match your own morales on a case by case basis).
All in all, here is a poorly construed example:
If Blizzard Entertainment decided they wanted to make a FPS Starcraft game, investors would be lining up with dollar signs in their eyes (heck they could probably fund it themselves because they're so successful). If they instead went to Kickstarter, then that would be cause to quirk and eyebrow.
If Stormshadow gaming (made up), an indie developer that has only one product under their name, went to investors with an idea of a tactical RPG that was a throwback to the 90s and was hardcore in difficulty... Investors would likely just laugh at them and their idea. The game would not be created unless they went to kickstarter and asked for help from people who enjoyed those types of games (especially if hard in difficulty and not casual friendly (which would make it even more niche) when they were made. It would be up to them to make sure rewards were tasteful, but these are things because of kickstarter and wouldn't be in game otherwise (or the game wouldn't even be made anyway).
Though there is also another point to kickstarter, in that sometimes it's used to show investors that there is interest in the game. If it's a high budget game, then it's likely that this is the case. Some also cite using kickstarter so they don't have to deal with investors wanting them to "change" their vision of the game so that they can make more money (if it's a game that doesn't need a huge budget and just a few dedicated developers).
At least with Kickstarter the developers is trying to make the type of game I want. People can naysay and take a negative view all they want but honestly it is not until later on this year that the first game kickstarters from well known developers are scheduled to release. THEN judgements can factually be made. As far as efforts from indie, first timers...I personally don't kickstart such projects.
Projects done traditionally with a publisher and have a pre-order are usually games that I'm not 100% on board with but I get bombarded with "Give it a try, you may like it!" So I try and then I don't like it.
Again, at least with the KS games I've backed I've liked the total direction they outline. And since they don't have a publisher breathing on their necks, when the game is done it should be all that is advertised as opposed to having cut X and Y to make the publishers demanded release date.
"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
Pre-orders where made so the stores know how much product they need to make their most valuable customers happy and not to overstock on games that fail out of the gates. It had nothing to do with putting up THE FULL PRICE of the game to get into beta or alpha or to get some worthless digital items.
"Pre-ordering" a game digitally for full price or even more is completely INSANE. Of cause everyone is entitled to do stupid things.
"Pre-Ordering", you are guaranteed a product.
Kickstarter is a nice idea on paper, i will admit that. The reality however is that you give away money for the promise that you get a product within a reasonable timeframe. You give money away, thats it, donations. It's gone and neither Kickstarter nor the Project creator has to deliver anything if they do not want to. It's that simple. You have no way to get back your money.
Kickstarter you are not guaranteed anything. ALL the risk is ON YOU.
The next logical step, not a big one at all, would be if you just give me your money. No questions asked. I take it and we are both happy. Can we do this, please?
Preordering is much less risky than funding a game on KS. The reason is that you can cancel your preorder at anytime. I think with KS (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the only way you can get your money back is if the project fails to fund. Also, if you preorder on Amazon, you are charged nothing until the game actually ships. There is 0 down payment and you can cancel at anytime, so there is 0 risk. I think with gamestop you have to put $5 down (again correct me if I'm wrong), but even that is much less risky than any kickstarter.
Also, if a game is up for preorder, it is probably mostly already finished and is backed by a reputable publisher/studio where as in KS, the game's development may not have even begun!
So there really is no comparison in terms of risk when it comes to preordering vs KS.
Of course it does. If the KS is funded, and the project fails, and no game is produced, you lost your money. You can always cancel a pre-order and get your money back.
What .. you don't have at least a bridge to sell?
In fact, i think i will start a KS campagin to promise a bridge to the gaming heaven, and i have the low-low funding goal of just $1000.
This.
Popular wisdom among publishers was 'No one is interested in space games'. Boom, Kickstarter funds two games to multiple millions.
Popular publisher wisdom said noone was interested in old school RPGs. Guys with serious old school RPG experiance raise millions on Kickstarter.
Kickstarter projects absolutely show levels of support for games and genres. Now, if you aren't very choosey about where you send your dollars, you might end up patronizing dubious projects (be they inept or crooked). But Kickstarter is a method of mass patronage, and it cuts out the publisher gatekeepers who could otherwise decide what gets published, or make serious (and terrible) decisions about the development of a game.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I said please
Try it, you might even get your $1000 if your campaign is original and you have a good picture of that bridge.
Beat you to it!
That is only true if it doesn't meet the financial goals. Once the financial goals are met, your money is gone. If the project tanks after that and the company does not reimburse your only option is leave it, or sue.
This ^^^
BTW, this has already been repeated .. why is people not understanding this?
Your money is not protected. If the KS goal is met, your money is gone, whether the game is produced at the end.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
It's not the same people.
What do I win?
I personally think it's bad for both but eh.
I can't understand the investor comparison for Kickstarter as surely an investor looks forward to and aims for a return (of which you cannot see via Kickstarter), Kickstarter is far more like a donation...for a project you like the sound of...before anything is put in motion. I can understand people would like to see good games but is there really that little out there that we are now moving into the era of paying for the chance to have a game you like?
Ultimately I can decide how I spend my money, who am I to tell others how to spend theirs?
If people want to throw money at developers go for it if it makes them happy.
I've preordered lots of games (not hundreds, but close) and have yet to be disappointed. I don't typically waste my time downloading games of demos I'm sure I'm going to purchase anyway and a lot of my preorders of MMOs at least I do play the beta before preordering. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. I usually don't preorder for incentives or anything, I just want to play the game immediately when it is released. You can call it hype or whatever, but I have yet to be disappointed yet. I typically only preorder a game I have a lot of information about (mainly gameplay trailers) and from companies I trust.
I also use Kickstarter. I can say that I have been disappointed with it a few times, but I understand Kickstarter is more of a gamble. I've only Kickstarted 14 projects in about 2 years time here, and I've only had one project fully deliver (three partially delivered so far) and many projects are now late on their proposed deadlines, though a few still have time to reach there. Still, I like the concept of Kickstarter. I generally use Kickstarter for different reasons than preordering:
Typically when I look at Kickstarter projects and decide whether or not to back I look at the following:
Suits come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes they even wear jeans and a t-shirt. Sometimes they even put up YOUR money just to make THEIR money.
[mod edit]
The reason is because most people are children that never grow up. They are immune to logic and are easily swayed by appeals to emotion.
This why they can yell at you for paying money to the big corporate for a pre-order, then go out and plop down $250 dollars for a game made by an indie company, with employees who use to be from the big corporate.
This.
All y'all talking about people getting "scammed" by Kickstarter have obviously never read Kickstarter's terms. They're very clear that the fund recipient is legally obligated to turn out progress reports and a final product. If he or she cannot meet deadlines, then he or she is legally obligated to explain why or make arragments to return those funds that were donated through Kickstarter.
Kickstarter is simply a means for indie developers whom studios won't take a chance on to generate the revenue to get the games we want to see get made, made. You piss and moan about the big studios and production houses not making good games or nerfing good features due to bean counters, then piss and moan because someone came up with an alternative.
Pick one. Either be happy the games have an alternative source of funding, or sit down, shut up and play the garbage that EA and Activision give you and quit complaining that you want something different.
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Missed the whole point of topic didn't ya bud? no one is telling you to where and how to spend your money. You can light up all your money and dance around it for all i care.
I was simply asking why pre orders are looked down upon while kickstarters is the new cool thing in. When basic prinicple behind both is almost the same. You are buying something on basis of future promise which may or may not turn out to be true.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
The concept of investment generally involves a return on that investment. You put money into something with an expectation that you will recieve money back from it - and then some. There is always risk involved when you invest in something, but the goal is to make money when you invest.
In this case, Mark Jacobs is hedging his own personal bet (something like $2+ million) by using yours (and others) money to fund his project that he will use to make profits for himself (not you). With Kickstarter, you are not investing, but purchasing a future potential product. In this case a game, some subs and a t-shirt (or whatever your tier brings you in virtual or tangible goods).
The only way in which investments are similar to crowd funding is that they both involve risk. In one situation, you are potentially getting a return on your investment. In the other, you are purchasing potential future product(s).
I've seen people try and compare it to PBS as well which I think is very far off the mark. PBS provides a service you get right away. There is not a long term commitment. You donate, they give you a mug or whatever and you feel happy that you have helped provide funding for a service you enjoy. There isn't an actual risk involved which makes it different than both other types of funding.
The potential future product is the return on your investment. The consumer understands this. You do not need to tell them that it's different from money, they get it.
Believing it's a financial investment is beyond stupid.
Did I say financial? No. Here's the dictionary definition in case you're still stuck. You are the one misusing the word.
For some of us, yes.
Those who are content with what's being shoveled out these days, will obviously feel differently. But for some of us, all we see is a whole lot of "not interesting" and very little "interesting." So we're a bit more wiling to risk our money on a potential project that does look interesting. And why not? It's not like that money is getting spent on any of the games that don't interest us.
Really didn't read the bulk of the thread...don't care about it much except to clarify.
The simple answer:
Kickstarter actually goes to the game and the development, the game development literally is based on whether or not they raise enough money.
Pre-orders go to the company, the game is being made either way, you pre-ordering just gives them confidence in the market awaiting the game.
Personally I don't do either. If it's on Kickstarter and gets funded then I know there will be enough of a base to actually play the game, hopefully. At this point there's no point to pre-ordering because they don't ever sell out completely. This didn't used to be the case back when they started pre-ordering, so the idea is more just for the bonuses (if they're worth it).
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
One of the easiest ways to solve the problem of something getting a bad reputation is to simply change the name. The truth is today's gamers are an easy mark, and marketing teams have been successfully playing the polarization and bias of the consumer base rather well.
It's about getting people to pay for a product before the product is even shipped. So far, with MMO gamers, there really hasn't been any fear of gamers catching on, especially since the gamers are doing the work for them. As distribution changes, so do the ways that developers/publishers get people to pay for products before they are even created. The shift to digital drove the necessity to change how to get money prior to shipping.
Pre-orders led to pre-order with bonus to pre-purchase and pre-purchase with bonus
which then opened the door for deluxe and collectors editions but they still required a physical product
because, seriously, who's going to pay 60-160 USD for a download?
Well, no one until that becomes more commonplace which is about where we are now
Companies can now pick and choose how they are going to get their early cash
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