That's because most of the Kickstarters are for games being developed by people with absolutely ZERO experience with developing a game. They have what they think is a "good idea", and they find some fertile ground with the disenfranchised few on this website that will literally get behind anything that's "anti-establishment".
All of these games will be raked over the coals if or when they actually release. All of them. And they'll be torn apart by those that funded them.
This is not actually true in most cases. Most people would not back a project made by someone with zero experience. Most Kickstarters are made by frustrated devs who want freedom to work on their dream project.
OP...Kickstarters exist because many people aren't happy with what trad publishing is giving or just see a cool concept that they want to see realized but know no publisher will touch. Take "The Mandate" for example. Really cool game idea but can you see an AAA publisher ever coming out with a spaceship crew RPG based on an alternate history timeline where Tsarist Russia was the dominant power? No, even if they did make it they'd change it to brown haired American Space Marines or something equally boring. That kind of game can probably only be made properly with Kickstarter or some self-financed devs.
You should not back Kickstarters with money you really need. It's not an investment and there's no guarantee of anything but it is still a cool way of putting your money where our mouth is if you have some disposable income you are willing to risk. If not just ignore it. There are plenty of non-kickstarter games coming out.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD people should not think of crowdfunding as an investment, its a donation.
If you donate money you are not necessarily getting anything other than "the good feeling that you donated money".
In crowdfunding you are getting a result that you want provided that those you gave money to can pull it off.
again..people do not crowdfunding expecting anything in return. they are just trying to help. really nothing more.
'early Access' is more in line with what you are thinkgin
no, you are getting something "the creation of a game that aligns with your interstes that might not have come to be without initial funding".
I suspect that you feel you have to "own" something in order to benefit from it.
We can go round and round like this all day but I suspect that you and i have very different definitons about many things.
I cant tell you how many videos I have seen as well as friends who have said this 'I funded it and I know I might not get any game at all'
early access is different....
That's true, you might not. There is your risk.
The issue here is the word "investment". If one can only think that you get monetary gain from "an investment" then that is where the discussion ends.
If one can accept that one can invest for an outcome that you find favorable to yourself, regardless of how it manifests then the word "investment" can be used.
If I give money to the salvation army that is a donation because I'm not really going to benefit from it. If I believe that their mission is beneficial to society and that I might obtain some benefit from it (removing homeless from my neighborhood (hypothetical, there are no homeless in my neighborhood) then one could construe that is an investment in the betterment of my neighborhood.
If I enjoy a new music group and give them money then one can say "well you are donating" however because I have interest in their continuation and get great enjoyment from their concerts and therefore benefit from them I can consider it an investment in my entertainment.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
AAA mmos give you hype and promise....A kickstarter needs you to believe even more... So what make you think they should be above what a AAA project is doing? Should they say that they don't know if they can do it, but please give me your money anyway? That would scream donate.
People come by my house wanting to sell me stuff, have me switch utilities and not only exaggerate, but pretty much insinuate that they are the company I am using for a service now....People selling stuff always promise the moon.
Your job is to determine how likely they are to deliver it by looking at who they have working with them, where they say they are already, etc.... Just blindly donating means you will miss way more than you hit.
So if you donate money to a $20,000 kickstarter for a mmo, and they have nothing but a demo that can be made for free on a trial version of a mmo maker program, and they have no one known in the industry, verse say Richard Garriot and his SoTA I think it is clear which one has more chance of happening.
So if you are gonna gamble, be smart or know the risk.
I wouldn't mind seeing a list of all these funded kickstarters which were overhyped, broke promises and delivered nothing. In my experience over the 20 or so projects I've backed with 6 which have actually delivered, all are trying in good faith to deliver on what has been promised. This 'problem' with hype and promises is probably nothing more than frustration with the length of time is actually takes to deliver on a project, not that they fail to deliver or deliver a turd whilst promising a diamond.
Now normally I don't like writing naysayer articles ,and normally I love backing mmorpg that need help being developed.
But here is the clux of it this plague we are seeing called kick-starter... Sure the premise of this scheme sounds like a logical thing . You put your ideas on and try to convince people to invest in your idea so your idea can become a reality. It's great and the ideas out there for upcoming games is brilliant.
Until you realise that the money you give them is totally non accountable and they are at no obligation if they fail to give anything back to you.
This brings up the other point witch is maybe why I am being so negative . I love my games and I play a hell of a lot of them so when a new games is announced I look and read and try as manny new mmofps and mmorpgs as possible.
But latterly I hear about a game but with all the information they give you ohh by the way it's not due out til 5 years from now....
now I use this as an example maybe my age is starting to gain on me but as I have been playing so long I am over the hype...
Kickstarter is just the "middle person" It's just a place that bring YOU the backer together with the PROJECT.
So I don't see why kickstarter should be accountable for anything. They are NOT involved in any of the projects.
So isn't it logical that the "project" is accountable and not kickstarter?
Also if a project is not fully funded then there will be no money transfers from your bank account. And I feel it's our own responsebility as gamers that if we pledge for a game we need to be sure what happens if said project might fail. Which should be explained either in the faq or just frontpage of the their kickstarter page. If there is no documentation for what happens when a fully funded game fails, then I would not suggest to pledge to such games.
So overall it's just about taking responsibility's for your own actions.
My first rule before investing into something is always to look at all the bad that can happen and see if the other party has all the bad covered.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD people should not think of crowdfunding as an investment, its a donation.
If you donate money you are not necessarily getting anything other than "the good feeling that you donated money".
In crowdfunding you are getting a result that you want provided that those you gave money to can pull it off.
again..people do not crowdfunding expecting anything in return. they are just trying to help. really nothing more.
'early Access' is more in line with what you are thinkgin
no, you are getting something "the creation of a game that aligns with your interstes that might not have come to be without initial funding".
I suspect that you feel you have to "own" something in order to benefit from it.
We can go round and round like this all day but I suspect that you and i have very different definitons about many things.
I cant tell you how many videos I have seen as well as friends who have said this 'I funded it and I know I might not get any game at all'
early access is different....
That's true, you might not. There is your risk.
The issue here is the word "investment". If one can only think that you get monetary gain from "an investment" then that is where the discussion ends.
If one can accept that one can invest for an outcome that you find favorable to yourself, regardless of how it manifests then the word "investment" can be used.
If I give money to the salvation army that is a donation because I'm not really going to benefit from it. If I believe that their mission is beneficial to society and that I might obtain some benefit from it (removing homeless from my neighborhood (hypothetical, there are no homeless in my neighborhood) then one could construe that is an investment in the betterment of my neighborhood.
If I enjoy a new music group and give them money then one can say "well you are donating" however because I have interest in their continuation and get great enjoyment from their concerts and therefore benefit from them I can consider it an investment in my entertainment.
if you give a bum some money in hopes that he will survie the night well feed is that an investment risk given that he might spend it on drugs?
if so then all donations are investments according to your logic
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD people should not think of crowdfunding as an investment, its a donation.
If you donate money you are not necessarily getting anything other than "the good feeling that you donated money".
In crowdfunding you are getting a result that you want provided that those you gave money to can pull it off.
again..people do not crowdfunding expecting anything in return. they are just trying to help. really nothing more.
'early Access' is more in line with what you are thinkgin
no, you are getting something "the creation of a game that aligns with your interstes that might not have come to be without initial funding".
I suspect that you feel you have to "own" something in order to benefit from it.
We can go round and round like this all day but I suspect that you and i have very different definitons about many things.
I cant tell you how many videos I have seen as well as friends who have said this 'I funded it and I know I might not get any game at all'
early access is different....
That's true, you might not. There is your risk.
The issue here is the word "investment". If one can only think that you get monetary gain from "an investment" then that is where the discussion ends.
If one can accept that one can invest for an outcome that you find favorable to yourself, regardless of how it manifests then the word "investment" can be used.
If I give money to the salvation army that is a donation because I'm not really going to benefit from it. If I believe that their mission is beneficial to society and that I might obtain some benefit from it (removing homeless from my neighborhood (hypothetical, there are no homeless in my neighborhood) then one could construe that is an investment in the betterment of my neighborhood.
If I enjoy a new music group and give them money then one can say "well you are donating" however because I have interest in their continuation and get great enjoyment from their concerts and therefore benefit from them I can consider it an investment in my entertainment.
if you give a bum some money in hopes that he will survie the night well feed is that an investment risk given that he might spend it on drugs?
if so then all donations are investments according to your logic
If you think that is my logic then you really never read what I wrote.
if you give a bum some money in hopes that he will survie the night well feed is that an investment risk given that he might spend it on drugs?
if so then all donations are investments according to your logic
Charity is generally given in the hopes of generally supporting or helping some cause. You usually don't give charity to achieve a specific result with the exception of those "sponsor a child in Africa" programs which are much closer to the way crowdfunding works.
Crowdfunding is probably closest to Renaissance patronage system where an aristocrat would ask an artist to make a particular work of art for you and pay them for it plus pay their expenses.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD people should not think of crowdfunding as an investment, its a donation.
If you donate money you are not necessarily getting anything other than "the good feeling that you donated money".
In crowdfunding you are getting a result that you want provided that those you gave money to can pull it off.
again..people do not crowdfunding expecting anything in return. they are just trying to help. really nothing more.
'early Access' is more in line with what you are thinkgin
no, you are getting something "the creation of a game that aligns with your interstes that might not have come to be without initial funding".
I suspect that you feel you have to "own" something in order to benefit from it.
We can go round and round like this all day but I suspect that you and i have very different definitons about many things.
I cant tell you how many videos I have seen as well as friends who have said this 'I funded it and I know I might not get any game at all'
early access is different....
That's true, you might not. There is your risk.
The issue here is the word "investment". If one can only think that you get monetary gain from "an investment" then that is where the discussion ends.
If one can accept that one can invest for an outcome that you find favorable to yourself, regardless of how it manifests then the word "investment" can be used.
If I give money to the salvation army that is a donation because I'm not really going to benefit from it. If I believe that their mission is beneficial to society and that I might obtain some benefit from it (removing homeless from my neighborhood (hypothetical, there are no homeless in my neighborhood) then one could construe that is an investment in the betterment of my neighborhood.
If I enjoy a new music group and give them money then one can say "well you are donating" however because I have interest in their continuation and get great enjoyment from their concerts and therefore benefit from them I can consider it an investment in my entertainment.
if you give a bum some money in hopes that he will survie the night well feed is that an investment risk given that he might spend it on drugs?
if so then all donations are investments according to your logic
If you think that is my logic then you really never read what I wrote.
The problem with that line of logic is that people are trying to equate an investment like stocks with the investment of giving a bum money. That is a disassembly of language to justify everything as a pure ecomonic motive and its a faulty logic.
In other words, is it an investment? yes but to equate it to a stock investment in anyway is faulty. Its like equating walking with a car because both are movement.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem with that line of logic is that people are trying to equate an investment like stocks with the investment of giving a bum money. That is a disassembly of language to justify everything as a pure ecomonic motive and its a faulty logic.
In other words, is it an investment? yes but to equate it to a stock investment in anyway is faulty. Its like equating walking with a car because both are movement.
I think the investment is more about an investment in people and by their betterment you are bettering society.
Giving a homeless person money is not an investment unless one were to really make a stretch.
If there are many homeless people in your neighborhood and you give to an organization that takes them off the street , feeds, clothes them and gives them training so that they may function "on some level" in society then that would be an investment in your community in your neighborhood.
The issue is that it requires a paradigm shift that some apparently aren't willing to make.
But it really doesn't matter.
I feel that of the "two" games I supported in kickestarter that I invested in their creation and that at the end I will get (hopefully but seemingly so) two games that I want made and that I will benefit from.
edit: and my point is that the word "investment" has been used in a context other than financial gain and therefore is not beyond the pale in using it in another context.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The problem with that line of logic is that people are trying to equate an investment like stocks with the investment of giving a bum money. That is a disassembly of language to justify everything as a pure ecomonic motive and its a faulty logic.
In other words, is it an investment? yes but to equate it to a stock investment in anyway is faulty. Its like equating walking with a car because both are movement.
I think the investment is more about in people and by their betterment you are bettering society.
Giving a homeless person money is not an investment unless one were to really make a stretch.
If there are many homeless people in your neighborhood and you give to an organization that takes them off the street , feeds, clothes them and gives them training so that they may function "on some level" in society would be an investment in your community.
The issue is that it requires a paradigm shift that some apparently aren't willing to make.
But it really doesn't matter.
I feel that of the "two" games I supported in kickestarter that I invested in their creating and that at the end I will get (hopefully but seemingly so) two games that I want made and that I will benefit from.
I think it doesnt matter if we call it 'barney rubble' instead of 'investment'. I think what does matter is to equate it with economic investment like stocks is faulty however equating it with a donation to the church is closer to what we are talking abtou here.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem with that line of logic is that people are trying to equate an investment like stocks with the investment of giving a bum money. That is a disassembly of language to justify everything as a pure ecomonic motive and its a faulty logic.
In other words, is it an investment? yes but to equate it to a stock investment in anyway is faulty. Its like equating walking with a car because both are movement.
I think the investment is more about in people and by their betterment you are bettering society.
Giving a homeless person money is not an investment unless one were to really make a stretch.
If there are many homeless people in your neighborhood and you give to an organization that takes them off the street , feeds, clothes them and gives them training so that they may function "on some level" in society would be an investment in your community.
The issue is that it requires a paradigm shift that some apparently aren't willing to make.
But it really doesn't matter.
I feel that of the "two" games I supported in kickestarter that I invested in their creating and that at the end I will get (hopefully but seemingly so) two games that I want made and that I will benefit from.
I think it doesnt matter if we call it 'barney rubble' instead of 'investment'. I think what does matter is to equate it with economic investment like stocks is faulty however equating it with a donation to the church is closer to what we are talking abtou here.
again a paradigm shift is needed. You invest in people and by their betterment you are bettering society. This is not a new idea and has been used for years.
edit: going back over this and to clarify: it is not like stocks, you are correct because stocks require you to get a financial return. It IS like investing in a company in that there is a risk and reward which was the reason I used the "investing in a company".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The problem with that line of logic is that people are trying to equate an investment like stocks with the investment of giving a bum money. That is a disassembly of language to justify everything as a pure ecomonic motive and its a faulty logic.
In other words, is it an investment? yes but to equate it to a stock investment in anyway is faulty. Its like equating walking with a car because both are movement.
I think the investment is more about in people and by their betterment you are bettering society.
Giving a homeless person money is not an investment unless one were to really make a stretch.
If there are many homeless people in your neighborhood and you give to an organization that takes them off the street , feeds, clothes them and gives them training so that they may function "on some level" in society would be an investment in your community.
The issue is that it requires a paradigm shift that some apparently aren't willing to make.
But it really doesn't matter.
I feel that of the "two" games I supported in kickestarter that I invested in their creating and that at the end I will get (hopefully but seemingly so) two games that I want made and that I will benefit from.
I think it doesnt matter if we call it 'barney rubble' instead of 'investment'. I think what does matter is to equate it with economic investment like stocks is faulty however equating it with a donation to the church is closer to what we are talking abtou here.
I would agree and would also think of it more like patronage of some sort (still not exactly right but probably the closest term I can think of)
I was the one who brought up 'stocks' but wasnt meaning anything regarding how it IS but rather what I would like to see with these huge games (a Million +)
When the budgets are hitting 30 million (Star Citizen) everything the dev team is going to make is profit. The entire investment portion has been paid for by fans. Taking away the initial monetary requirment is huge since normally a game needs X money just to break even- Thanks to 30 Million from fans, this game will start at (or close to) even plus pay people an undisclosed amount f money to work on the game.
With someone making a smaller scope game, or someone just kickstarting to get better graphics for a game they have been working on- I Love the patronage idea.
For someone starting a million dollar company that of successful will reap tens of millions and have no stockholders or "greedy" Corporate types to answer to- I want some action and not just early game access or a ship.
And I am not picking on SC (I hope it works- looks cool) just explaining where I equated stocks into this and why. I am more to happy to pre pay for a simple game to help a starving artist or creative person. I am not a charity for a million dollar company .
I think these huge projects are not in the spirit of kickstarter (or what I thought kickstarter would be)
-Nothing against the games themselves. Nothing against the people who feel this is fine. I am voicing my opinion on how I see this.
I think it doesnt matter if we call it 'barney rubble' instead of 'investment'. I think what does matter is to equate it with economic investment like stocks is faulty however equating it with a donation to the church is closer to what we are talking abtou here.
I have backed 3 kickstarters so far and all three of those backings came with a copy of the game. I look at backing as a PRE-ORDER that helps fund a non-corporate controlled game actually being made by people that want to make a good game first, not a good profit first.
If you are sick of clones and copycat games then you need to help break the stranglehold corporations have on the gaming industry.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Originally posted by Quirhid More like patronage than investment or charity.
It's sort of a dated word, but it is probably more accurate.
I think so too.
Whoever noted that was spot on with closest thing this actually is. Quite brilliant. I was trying to think of it as a dionation and it was as close as I could get until someone on this thread mentioned patronage =P
It takes a very special type of person to go out into the world(online or not) and ask for money. there realy are only 3 types that do it.
The charity worker. Usualy pocketing 80-90%
The abstract researcher Tied into a branch of science that is so hookey they need to beg to get funding. EI museum curator or searching for alien life
The homless. This speaks for itself...yea
The whole base of operating under the guise of asking for money is charlitanism. There are literaly zero sucsessful enterpizes in any public sector based on asking for funding. ALL of the decent ones have some kind of government backing or subsidizing in place to float the boat when the money doesnt come in.
Its flaky and irresposible to give these people money
Now all of this is not to say that the corprate world is really any better but the simple fact reamins that if one wants to start a buisnes they can and should have little to no issue working a part time job and funding their own susstanance while putting in real effort with the rest of their time. I mean to say and I can not stress this enough that the whole idea of sustaining a meager exisitance in an effort towards something better lays completly in the relm of hard work and sacrifice. In no case whatsoever would gaining something for nothing ever entice someone to work harder faster or more effeciently.
Kickstarter. I am tired of hearing that it is the savior for all that ails you. That hype train is getting old. Having "games in theory" being pointed to as what players are seeking is getting old.
The worst problem with Kickstarter is that in today's "Instant Everything" world, it is NOT an instant thing. People are getting more and more used to clicking a button and seeing results. Not so for many Kickstarter projects. Especially in the games, we are seeing turn around times measured in years, not mere weeks or months. So for years, we will be hearing about this great thing or that great thing until it finally reaches fruition, if at all.
I see Kickstarter as both a bane and boon for the gaming industry.
It is a boon because there is no accountability, developers are free to do what they wish. Even though backers think they are now corporate executives, they are not. They can whine and moan on the message boards, but they have no pull.
Backer: "But... But... I gave you $1000 for this project!" Developer: "Well, thank you, but shut up. This is *MY* game, not yours."
Maybe not very politic of the developer, but try to take back your pledge
It is a bane because people put too much faith into it. When general descriptions are presented, players will "fill in the blanks" with what they want to hear. Just drop the word "sandbox" (which DETAILS nothing), and players flock to your project.
It will be a good 10 years before anyone can evaluate how Kickstarter has performed.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
It takes a very special type of person to go out into the world(online or not) and ask for money. there realy are only 3 types that do it.
The charity worker. Usualy pocketing 80-90%
The abstract researcher Tied into a branch of science that is so hookey they need to beg to get funding. EI museum curator or searching for alien life
The homless. This speaks for itself...yea
The whole base of operating under the guise of asking for money is charlitanism. There are literaly zero sucsessful enterpizes in any public sector based on asking for funding. ALL of the decent ones have some kind of government backing or subsidizing in place to float the boat when the money doesnt come in.
Its flaky and irresposible to give these people money
Now all of this is not to say that the corprate world is really any better but the simple fact reamins that if one wants to start a buisnes they can and should have little to no issue working a part time job and funding their own susstanance while putting in real effort with the rest of their time. I mean to say and I can not stress this enough that the whole idea of sustaining a meager exisitance in an effort towards something better lays completly in the relm of hard work and sacrifice. In no case whatsoever would gaining something for nothing ever entice someone to work harder faster or more effeciently.
Some kind of subsidizing? You mean like kickstarter?
Comments
If you donate money you are not necessarily getting anything other than "the good feeling that you donated money".
In crowdfunding you are getting a result that you want provided that those you gave money to can pull it off.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
again..people do not crowdfunding expecting anything in return. they are just trying to help. really nothing more.
'early Access' is more in line with what you are thinkgin
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
no, you are getting something "the creation of a game that aligns with your interstes that might not have come to be without initial funding".
I suspect that you feel you have to "own" something in order to benefit from it.
We can go round and round like this all day but I suspect that you and i have very different definitons about many things.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I cant tell you how many videos I have seen as well as friends who have said this 'I funded it and I know I might not get any game at all'
early access is different....
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is not actually true in most cases. Most people would not back a project made by someone with zero experience. Most Kickstarters are made by frustrated devs who want freedom to work on their dream project.
OP...Kickstarters exist because many people aren't happy with what trad publishing is giving or just see a cool concept that they want to see realized but know no publisher will touch. Take "The Mandate" for example. Really cool game idea but can you see an AAA publisher ever coming out with a spaceship crew RPG based on an alternate history timeline where Tsarist Russia was the dominant power? No, even if they did make it they'd change it to brown haired American Space Marines or something equally boring. That kind of game can probably only be made properly with Kickstarter or some self-financed devs.
You should not back Kickstarters with money you really need. It's not an investment and there's no guarantee of anything but it is still a cool way of putting your money where our mouth is if you have some disposable income you are willing to risk. If not just ignore it. There are plenty of non-kickstarter games coming out.
That's true, you might not. There is your risk.
The issue here is the word "investment". If one can only think that you get monetary gain from "an investment" then that is where the discussion ends.
If one can accept that one can invest for an outcome that you find favorable to yourself, regardless of how it manifests then the word "investment" can be used.
If I give money to the salvation army that is a donation because I'm not really going to benefit from it. If I believe that their mission is beneficial to society and that I might obtain some benefit from it (removing homeless from my neighborhood (hypothetical, there are no homeless in my neighborhood) then one could construe that is an investment in the betterment of my neighborhood.
If I enjoy a new music group and give them money then one can say "well you are donating" however because I have interest in their continuation and get great enjoyment from their concerts and therefore benefit from them I can consider it an investment in my entertainment.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
AAA mmos give you hype and promise....A kickstarter needs you to believe even more... So what make you think they should be above what a AAA project is doing? Should they say that they don't know if they can do it, but please give me your money anyway? That would scream donate.
People come by my house wanting to sell me stuff, have me switch utilities and not only exaggerate, but pretty much insinuate that they are the company I am using for a service now....People selling stuff always promise the moon.
Your job is to determine how likely they are to deliver it by looking at who they have working with them, where they say they are already, etc.... Just blindly donating means you will miss way more than you hit.
So if you donate money to a $20,000 kickstarter for a mmo, and they have nothing but a demo that can be made for free on a trial version of a mmo maker program, and they have no one known in the industry, verse say Richard Garriot and his SoTA I think it is clear which one has more chance of happening.
So if you are gonna gamble, be smart or know the risk.
I wouldn't mind seeing a list of all these funded kickstarters which were overhyped, broke promises and delivered nothing. In my experience over the 20 or so projects I've backed with 6 which have actually delivered, all are trying in good faith to deliver on what has been promised. This 'problem' with hype and promises is probably nothing more than frustration with the length of time is actually takes to deliver on a project, not that they fail to deliver or deliver a turd whilst promising a diamond.
Kickstarter is just the "middle person" It's just a place that bring YOU the backer together with the PROJECT.
So I don't see why kickstarter should be accountable for anything. They are NOT involved in any of the projects.
So isn't it logical that the "project" is accountable and not kickstarter?
Also if a project is not fully funded then there will be no money transfers from your bank account. And I feel it's our own responsebility as gamers that if we pledge for a game we need to be sure what happens if said project might fail. Which should be explained either in the faq or just frontpage of the their kickstarter page. If there is no documentation for what happens when a fully funded game fails, then I would not suggest to pledge to such games.
So overall it's just about taking responsibility's for your own actions.
My first rule before investing into something is always to look at all the bad that can happen and see if the other party has all the bad covered.
if you give a bum some money in hopes that he will survie the night well feed is that an investment risk given that he might spend it on drugs?
if so then all donations are investments according to your logic
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you think that is my logic then you really never read what I wrote.
Also, for your edification:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci/investing_en.htm
http://www.habitat.org/lc/stories_multimedia/why_we_build/WWB.investment.aspx
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Charity is generally given in the hopes of generally supporting or helping some cause. You usually don't give charity to achieve a specific result with the exception of those "sponsor a child in Africa" programs which are much closer to the way crowdfunding works.
Crowdfunding is probably closest to Renaissance patronage system where an aristocrat would ask an artist to make a particular work of art for you and pay them for it plus pay their expenses.
The problem with that line of logic is that people are trying to equate an investment like stocks with the investment of giving a bum money. That is a disassembly of language to justify everything as a pure ecomonic motive and its a faulty logic.
In other words, is it an investment? yes but to equate it to a stock investment in anyway is faulty. Its like equating walking with a car because both are movement.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think the investment is more about an investment in people and by their betterment you are bettering society.
Giving a homeless person money is not an investment unless one were to really make a stretch.
If there are many homeless people in your neighborhood and you give to an organization that takes them off the street , feeds, clothes them and gives them training so that they may function "on some level" in society then that would be an investment in your community in your neighborhood.
The issue is that it requires a paradigm shift that some apparently aren't willing to make.
But it really doesn't matter.
I feel that of the "two" games I supported in kickestarter that I invested in their creation and that at the end I will get (hopefully but seemingly so) two games that I want made and that I will benefit from.
edit: and my point is that the word "investment" has been used in a context other than financial gain and therefore is not beyond the pale in using it in another context.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think it doesnt matter if we call it 'barney rubble' instead of 'investment'. I think what does matter is to equate it with economic investment like stocks is faulty however equating it with a donation to the church is closer to what we are talking abtou here.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
again a paradigm shift is needed. You invest in people and by their betterment you are bettering society. This is not a new idea and has been used for years.
edit: going back over this and to clarify: it is not like stocks, you are correct because stocks require you to get a financial return. It IS like investing in a company in that there is a risk and reward which was the reason I used the "investing in a company".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I would agree and would also think of it more like patronage of some sort (still not exactly right but probably the closest term I can think of)
I was the one who brought up 'stocks' but wasnt meaning anything regarding how it IS but rather what I would like to see with these huge games (a Million +)
When the budgets are hitting 30 million (Star Citizen) everything the dev team is going to make is profit. The entire investment portion has been paid for by fans. Taking away the initial monetary requirment is huge since normally a game needs X money just to break even- Thanks to 30 Million from fans, this game will start at (or close to) even plus pay people an undisclosed amount f money to work on the game.
With someone making a smaller scope game, or someone just kickstarting to get better graphics for a game they have been working on- I Love the patronage idea.
For someone starting a million dollar company that of successful will reap tens of millions and have no stockholders or "greedy" Corporate types to answer to- I want some action and not just early game access or a ship.
And I am not picking on SC (I hope it works- looks cool) just explaining where I equated stocks into this and why. I am more to happy to pre pay for a simple game to help a starving artist or creative person. I am not a charity for a million dollar company .
I think these huge projects are not in the spirit of kickstarter (or what I thought kickstarter would be)
-Nothing against the games themselves. Nothing against the people who feel this is fine. I am voicing my opinion on how I see this.
I have backed 3 kickstarters so far and all three of those backings came with a copy of the game. I look at backing as a PRE-ORDER that helps fund a non-corporate controlled game actually being made by people that want to make a good game first, not a good profit first.
If you are sick of clones and copycat games then you need to help break the stranglehold corporations have on the gaming industry.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
It's sort of a dated word, but it is probably more accurate.
I think so too.
Whoever noted that was spot on with closest thing this actually is. Quite brilliant. I was trying to think of it as a dionation and it was as close as I could get until someone on this thread mentioned patronage =P
Heres the thing...
It takes a very special type of person to go out into the world(online or not) and ask for money. there realy are only 3 types that do it.
The charity worker. Usualy pocketing 80-90%
The abstract researcher Tied into a branch of science that is so hookey they need to beg to get funding. EI museum curator or searching for alien life
The homless. This speaks for itself...yea
The whole base of operating under the guise of asking for money is charlitanism. There are literaly zero sucsessful enterpizes in any public sector based on asking for funding. ALL of the decent ones have some kind of government backing or subsidizing in place to float the boat when the money doesnt come in.
Its flaky and irresposible to give these people money
Now all of this is not to say that the corprate world is really any better but the simple fact reamins that if one wants to start a buisnes they can and should have little to no issue working a part time job and funding their own susstanance while putting in real effort with the rest of their time. I mean to say and I can not stress this enough that the whole idea of sustaining a meager exisitance in an effort towards something better lays completly in the relm of hard work and sacrifice. In no case whatsoever would gaining something for nothing ever entice someone to work harder faster or more effeciently.
Kickstarter. I am tired of hearing that it is the savior for all that ails you. That hype train is getting old. Having "games in theory" being pointed to as what players are seeking is getting old.
The worst problem with Kickstarter is that in today's "Instant Everything" world, it is NOT an instant thing. People are getting more and more used to clicking a button and seeing results. Not so for many Kickstarter projects. Especially in the games, we are seeing turn around times measured in years, not mere weeks or months. So for years, we will be hearing about this great thing or that great thing until it finally reaches fruition, if at all.
I see Kickstarter as both a bane and boon for the gaming industry.
It is a boon because there is no accountability, developers are free to do what they wish. Even though backers think they are now corporate executives, they are not. They can whine and moan on the message boards, but they have no pull.
Backer: "But... But... I gave you $1000 for this project!"
Developer: "Well, thank you, but shut up. This is *MY* game, not yours."
Maybe not very politic of the developer, but try to take back your pledge
It is a bane because people put too much faith into it. When general descriptions are presented, players will "fill in the blanks" with what they want to hear. Just drop the word "sandbox" (which DETAILS nothing), and players flock to your project.
It will be a good 10 years before anyone can evaluate how Kickstarter has performed.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I invested £20 in the Elite kickstarter.
If it does not publish I lose my £20.
if it does I get a £40 or £50 game that I would want to buy anyway.
The return on my investment is 100% if successful.
It is an investment, however the risk is everything I put in and the reward is limited as per the pledge level.
Some kind of subsidizing? You mean like kickstarter?