Originally posted by DeserttFoxx crowdfunding is a fucking scam, its devs asking for money and giving you the oppertunity to pay for the product you paid to create, its double dipping, worst then day one dlc.
The George Costanza's of the world just don't understand why double dipping is bad.
It's just desperation to play a certain type of game on desperate peoples part, and just like the television evangelist, indie developers will step in to provide "salvation" and fill a niche and take peoples money. I love playing good video games, but I just haven't reached the evercracked depths that I think paying someone to maybe possibly make it for me one day, if they feel like it, is a good idea.
This is like paying a hooker to consider the possibility that she may have sex with you, but ultimately it's at her discretion.
Yeah, if the whole thing just reeks of a Seinfeld episode, chances are there's an idiot getting ripped off.
Crowd funding has delivered some of my favourite games of recent times (Banner Saga, Wasteland 2, and now E: D), as well as some good ones (Shadowrun, Broken Sword), so I have to say that I love crowdfunding for games. None of these would have ever been made without CF.
This isn't even touching on how it works for me as a tabletop gamer.
So, yeah, carry on trying to rip it down, it's easy to focus on the negative in all things, but I and others obviously find a lot of worth in Kickstarter and others.
They have helped revive genres declared 'dead' by AAA devs simply because they didn't deliver as much cold profit as MoH or whatever. They have helped, alongside other elements like Steam, fertilise gaming at it's grassroots. For that I can cheer them on, despite the stumbles of some.
Now... If I can just get SOE to reform Verant and them make a KS for Everquest Classic....
Just thought I'd make that a little more clear. If you think that standing by or refusing to contribute to crowdfunding campaigns is somehow helping, then you're wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, until I'm blue in the face, the only message you're sending by not supporting crowd-funded games is that there is no market for those games. If you think that AAA publishers aren't watching crowd-funding campaigns with lots of interest, then you're sorely mistaken. Actually, it's more effective than a forum post, or a strongly-worded email, or a petition because it puts your money where your mouth is.
You want a sandbox? Then get up off your arse and crack that wallet for these games like Shards Online that want to do something truly innovative. I hear plenty of talk on here about "When are AAA publishers going to listen and make a sandbox game?" Then something like Shards comes along and are sitting at less than 500 people who have backed it. Yup! 10-4, message received. Over and out!!! Granted, it's not indicative of the true market size or potential, but I'm sure they have pretty good metrics of previous campaigns and what they ended up converting into once they released. Either way, the whole point is that they know immediately that the size of the market is small, and they simply don't want to spend the money, themselves, to get there.
Crowd funding has delivered some of my favourite games of recent times (Banner Saga, Wasteland 2, and now E: D), as well as some good ones (Shadowrun, Broken Sword), so I have to say that I love crowdfunding for games. None of these would have ever been made without CF.
This isn't even touching on how it works for me as a tabletop gamer.
So, yeah, carry on trying to rip it down, it's easy to focus on the negative in all things, but I and others obviously find a lot of worth in Kickstarter and others.
They have helped revive genres declared 'dead' by AAA devs simply because they didn't deliver as much cold profit as MoH or whatever. They have helped, alongside other elements like Steam, fertilise gaming at it's grassroots. For that I can cheer them on, despite the stumbles of some.
Now... If I can just get SOE to reform Verant and them make a KS for Everquest Classic....
Just thought I'd make that a little more clear. If you think that standing by or refusing to contribute to crowdfunding campaigns is somehow helping, then you're wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, until I'm blue in the face, the only message you're sending by not supporting crowd-funded games is that there is no market for those games. If you think that AAA publishers aren't watching crowd-funding campaigns with lots of interest, then you're sorely mistaken. Actually, it's more effective than a forum post, or a strongly-worded email, or a petition because it puts your money where your mouth is.
I don't see how paying or not paying for crowd funding has any bearing on your approval of a product, that's not how capitalism works. You can't approve or disapprove of a product that doesn't exist. People generally get paid to participate in market research, not the other way around. You're basically saying you feel obligated to pay money to someone because nobody takes your opinion seriously otherwise. That's utterly retarded.
I disagree with you OP. Kickstarter is the BEST thing that has happened to humanity.
Think about it. Risk free money. Money you can use that others have provided. People who would have wasted it anyway. In a way, kickstarter is a charity because you are extracting the money from those who squander it and put it into the hands of those more able-minded.
You can use other peoples' money to do as you please. Just put up a flashy video, promise the world and you're set. Now even you can be an investment banker, gambling with other peoples' money. Did I MENTION it was risk free? If you fail, the governement or in this case, the backers, have your back. Like you said, all profit goes to you, all losses go to your funders.
100% profit, no losses.
It is therefore the next step in human development. In the early days, you took a loan and gambled your life to develop your vision. When your product was out, you could see wheter that vision was foolish or briliant.
Next, some geniusses thought of selling the alpha and beta. Why wait to sell a complete product if you have people who are willing to pay to test a game for you? Whoever thought of this was a very blessed man. However, it could still backfire because a shitty alpha/beta could give you bad marketing, making the product sell like crap.
Now, the next step is the epitome of human ingenuity. I think God himself must have introduced this concept because I cannot fathom that a mere mortal would have thought of something so smart. Instead of selling something tangible, why not sell dreams and visions? Your mind will always make them look good, it's like autocorrection on word. There is litterally no way to fuck up a dream, it will always look good because the human mind is moldible. Put up some good flashy concept art, give the impression you can do it and let the cash flow stream! Should some of the backers become more wise and criticise some of the crap you put out, justify it by saying it's pre-alpha! They will swallow it like sweet candy!
In fact, I think we can already spot the next step in gaming which is having a cash shop for a game that does not exist yet. Just tell people they are part of the development and are special (LOL!) by giving you free unrestricted cash. Addittionally, I think big companies are already having kickstarters, to alleviate the wealthy shareholders and pump up the profit. IMO they are doing the work of God by taking the cash of those who would have squandered it anyway and put it into the hands of those who are more money-savy. As momma always said, do not let things go to waste. If people are giving it to you freely, who am I to say no?
So can you see, my friend why it is the best thing ever? Why let money go to waste in the hands of those backers when you can put it to good use?
Star Citizen. Nice post.
You do know many big name companies do this all the time. They Sell dreams and hype. Yes they do generally release a physical product but is it any good? WHen the investers and backers force the release of buggy craptastic games what have you really got for you safe money handed over to the suites?? Keep telling yourself that Big busness game companies have your back, that they won't release shoddy products rushed out the door way too soon for a money grab or to satisfy some suit backers. EA/bioware went out of their way to state Mass effect 3 wouldn't have cookie cutter A,B, C endings and that your actions in the game would matter. What did they deliver cookie cutter A, B, C (or in their case red, green, blue endings that were basically all the same and in which your actions basically had no effect. (save this race or don't save that race made no difference at all) in the end they got away with it no problem at all.
Currently some of the best games out are made from kickstarters Divine Divinty for example,and some of the worst games out Aliens: Colonail Marines for example are made by big businesses so really who is the crook here? Does this mean all kickstarters are good? No. Does it mean all Big business, big advertising massive hype games are bad? Nope. things tend to be 50/50. More choice is always good and anyone saying only big business should be able to make games is just limiting choices.
You always have to worry about people who want to take away others peoples right to choose wether that choice is for good or bad
Crowd funding has delivered some of my favourite games of recent times (Banner Saga, Wasteland 2, and now E: D), as well as some good ones (Shadowrun, Broken Sword), so I have to say that I love crowdfunding for games. None of these would have ever been made without CF.
This isn't even touching on how it works for me as a tabletop gamer.
So, yeah, carry on trying to rip it down, it's easy to focus on the negative in all things, but I and others obviously find a lot of worth in Kickstarter and others.
They have helped revive genres declared 'dead' by AAA devs simply because they didn't deliver as much cold profit as MoH or whatever. They have helped, alongside other elements like Steam, fertilise gaming at it's grassroots. For that I can cheer them on, despite the stumbles of some.
Now... If I can just get SOE to reform Verant and them make a KS for Everquest Classic....
Just thought I'd make that a little more clear. If you think that standing by or refusing to contribute to crowdfunding campaigns is somehow helping, then you're wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, until I'm blue in the face, the only message you're sending by not supporting crowd-funded games is that there is no market for those games. If you think that AAA publishers aren't watching crowd-funding campaigns with lots of interest, then you're sorely mistaken. Actually, it's more effective than a forum post, or a strongly-worded email, or a petition because it puts your money where your mouth is.
I don't see how paying or not paying for crowd funding has any bearing on your approval of a product, that's not how capitalism works. You can't approve or disapprove of a product that doesn't exist. People generally get paid to participate in market research, not the other way around. You're basically saying you feel obligated to pay money to someone because nobody takes your opinion seriously otherwise. That's utterly retarded.
Noooooo, what I'm saying is that if a product is successful then it proves there is a market for that type of game, not the singular product.
I don't feel obligated to pay for anything. However, when there is a game that I want to see made, I fund it. Take it as anecdotal evidence, but the number of highly-funded CRPGs over the last year or two has spurred a bunch of efforts on that front.
You're right, people DO get paid for market research, but that doesn't mean that it's any more or less relevant than something like Kickstarter. In fact, Kickstarter specifically says that "this many people backed this product up with real money in the amount of X", opposed to someone sitting in a room answer questions how they THINK you want to hear it. I'm still confused how 4 out of 5 doctors recommend 5 different brands as the "best". Yes, that's ultra helpful market research.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the Kickstarter is a great predictor of industry trends. You still have to wade through tons of BS to get to your final destinations, but it does give you metrics. To deny that there is measurable data available from Kickstarter, that is more relevant than a forum post or petition signature, is utterly retarded.
I don't see how Kickstarter is bad when it's bringing us products like Divinity Original sin, Wasteland 2, PIllars of Eternity, etc...
Publishers don't tend to invest in such games, so it's how we're getting them. If you don't wanna donate, you don't have to, wait til they release...yet I would certainly hope you're not enjoying games like that and then writing crap like this...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Crowd Funding has never been an issue for me. They don't force you to pay, and they often give you enough ideas as well as some type of recognition for helping to make it worthwhile.
The thing is, that its not really that much different than any other kind of preorder when you are talking about it as far as games go. For example, when I originally preordered The Matrix Online, I was expecting LOTS of things based on all the information we had -- and what was delivered was pretty amazingly not great. It did not live up to anything that I expected it to be and it shut down.
Now because I played the game (albeit for a short time) does that count as me receiving the finished product I purchased?
On that note, I backed the kickstarter project Pathfinder Online. In that same avenue they currently have a Beta that you can play -- and while its completely unfinished (as we can all see) I can't argue anything in the way that it is any MORE or LESS playable than when I bought The Matrix Online - especially in a beta stage.
In the event the game doesn't launch at this point -- does the fact that I played it at all make it any better or worse of an investment then a launch title that failed with equal splendor?
That being said, if and when I crowdfund, I'm very wary of what I choose, and I do consider it an investment in a way. Not that I'm investing in a company, but that I'm investing in a product. For example a new Hoodie that is coming out that I find to be fashionable, or a wallet that I can drop from space and my money stays safe and sound.
When I look at these items in a crowdfunding capacity, I determine the likelihood of each of them actually being created, sent to me, and them being what I want and I invest in THAT. And then I receive the item. Call me a gambler if you want. Sometimes risk equals the best reward.
As with everything else, if you don't want to contribute to a crowdfunding, don't. I'm not sure this really need a while thread to itself to hash out, did it? Basically, Mr op. you just wanted a public forum to make fun of people who do. And you are much cooler for it. Gratz.
Crowd funding has delivered some of my favourite games of recent times (Banner Saga, Wasteland 2, and now E: D), as well as some good ones (Shadowrun, Broken Sword), so I have to say that I love crowdfunding for games. None of these would have ever been made without CF.
This isn't even touching on how it works for me as a tabletop gamer.
So, yeah, carry on trying to rip it down, it's easy to focus on the negative in all things, but I and others obviously find a lot of worth in Kickstarter and others.
They have helped revive genres declared 'dead' by AAA devs simply because they didn't deliver as much cold profit as MoH or whatever. They have helped, alongside other elements like Steam, fertilise gaming at it's grassroots. For that I can cheer them on, despite the stumbles of some.
Now... If I can just get SOE to reform Verant and them make a KS for Everquest Classic....
Just thought I'd make that a little more clear. If you think that standing by or refusing to contribute to crowdfunding campaigns is somehow helping, then you're wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, until I'm blue in the face, the only message you're sending by not supporting crowd-funded games is that there is no market for those games. If you think that AAA publishers aren't watching crowd-funding campaigns with lots of interest, then you're sorely mistaken. Actually, it's more effective than a forum post, or a strongly-worded email, or a petition because it puts your money where your mouth is.
I don't see how paying or not paying for crowd funding has any bearing on your approval of a product, that's not how capitalism works. You can't approve or disapprove of a product that doesn't exist. People generally get paid to participate in market research, not the other way around. You're basically saying you feel obligated to pay money to someone because nobody takes your opinion seriously otherwise. That's utterly retarded.
Noooooo, what I'm saying is that if a product is successful then it proves there is a market for that type of game, not the singular product.
I don't feel obligated to pay for anything. However, when there is a game that I want to see made, I fund it. Take it as anecdotal evidence, but the number of highly-funded CRPGs over the last year or two has spurred a bunch of efforts on that front.
You're right, people DO get paid for market research, but that doesn't mean that it's any more or less relevant than something like Kickstarter. In fact, Kickstarter specifically says that "this many people backed this product up with real money in the amount of X", opposed to someone sitting in a room answer questions how they THINK you want to hear it. I'm still confused how 4 out of 5 doctors recommend 5 different brands as the "best". Yes, that's ultra helpful market research.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the Kickstarter is a great predictor of industry trends. You still have to wade through tons of BS to get to your final destinations, but it does give you metrics. To deny that there is measurable data available from Kickstarter, that is more relevant than a forum post or petition signature, is utterly retarded.
Kickstarter isn't market research, that's just the angle you're taking to try to justify paying someone to possibly make something for you so that you might be afforded the opportunity to buy it...again. The big developers are already aware there are plenty of suckers out there who will pay more for something than everyone else, they're called whales and that's why we have FTP games. You're definitely deluding yourself if you think the crowd funding practice is sending any kind of positive message to the gaming world, you're just perpetuating what has already been established.
For every crowd funded game you throw money at I'm going to not give money to 5 of them. So get out there and start spending so I don't meet my quota.
Kickstarter isn't market research, that's just the angle you're taking to try to justify paying someone to possibly make something for you so that you might be afforded the opportunity to buy it...again. The big developers are already aware there are plenty of suckers out there who will pay more for something than everyone else, they're called whales and that's why we have FTP games. You're definitely deluding yourself if you think the crowd funding practice is sending any kind of positive message to the gaming world, you're just perpetuating what has already been established.
I'm confused which crowdfunding project made you buy the game again that you'd already backed. I've never seen that and it doesn't make any sense.
Kickstarter has proven that there is interest in the turn based RPG and the space sim that big companies didn't think was there. Surely it's not that hard to understand how actually risking your money on an idea sends a stronger signal than just saying "Sure I may play that if it existed." You can think the process of crowdfunding is bad if you want but it is good for telling publishers what a certain niche of customers really want.
you discussion begins wrong mentioning the crowdfunding as an investment and in general your approach in crowdfunding is wrong cause you expect to gain profit ...
well never i saw a video in kickstarter or elsewhere that you will get profits ... is like coming an errand infront your house asking for help to build the neighborhood's park and you expect to get profit ...
if you change your point of you OP, you will see that crowdfunding is on the internet finest examples of the ability to support the product of your desire .
As an indie developer, I find crowd funding to be a win-win for both players and developers.
1. Developers receive low risk money to build larger, more expensive, and riskier games then they could ever build via self funding.
2. Players, in return, are rewarded with the ability to influence early game development. Their feedback will find much greater reception in a half done game than a completed project where the developers are already being re-tasked to a new project.
Originally posted by Ket_Viliano Crowd funding is the best thing to ever happen, not only to games, but for all entrepreneurial efforts.
We got a lot more bad and mediocre games and it's much harder to know which games are good than it was in the past.
For me and for many others who only buy games every once in a while and only want to spend money on the best games, crowdfunding has been more a nightmare than a blessing. The market has been flooded with games of questionable quality.
Kickstarter for games, is similar to what happened with Amazon. There aren't 10 skilled writers like in the past, there are now 11 skilled writers, and 100000 mediocre writers.
You could argue it is worth flooding the market with 100000 mediocre writers, so that 11th writer becomes a success, but I disagree with that notion. It's not worth flooding a market with mediocre material to justify wasting your time trying to find a gem in a mountain of mediocre and frankly often bad games.
I'll not even start with the crowdfunded game companies and people, who simply take $500,000 to make 2 youtube videos, or to update their game once every 2 years....and basically ran off with the money.
$500,000 in kickstarter money.....used questionably.....the game never got made.....claiming the game they were making wasn't going to appeal to the public
they refunded a grand total of..............$700
The kickstarter protection of backers is non-existent. A bank lending money to people, expects a return on investment. When a bank gives you $500,000...they expect you to pay back $500,000 and usually around 8% interest.
Kickstarter expects nothing, it just expects you to give away your money and hope for the best. No kidding that Kickstarter is popular, it's like getting money for free.
So why is it bad? Your bullets are just why you disagree with crowd-funding. Personally, I will never fund a game. You're investing in something but you get no return. That's called a sucker.
However, it seems like a brilliant idea. You don't like it, don't do it. Its not bad, though.
Yes, there is a huge risk. Its an investment. Just because the OP claims its not, doesn't make it so. Not all investments return monetary gain. Relationships, time, etc, are all investments that don't necessarily return a monetary gain. It still doesn't make it bad. Its just the nature of the beast.
$500,000 in kickstarter money.....used questionably.....the game never got made.....claiming the game they were making wasn't going to appeal to the public
they refunded a grand total of..............$700
I agree that one is shady but it's one Kickstarter out of thousands. I don't think anyone is saying there's no risk at all plus early access is not real crowdfunding to me. I really dislike early access because there really is no accountability or even specific plans offered.
I agree that one is shady but it's one Kickstarter out of thousands. I don't think anyone is saying there's no risk at all plus early access is not real crowdfunding to me. I really dislike early access because there really is no accountability or even specific plans offered.
There are exceptions. One is Divinity Original Sin. It was a massive success and one of the best games of the year.
But, Larian Studios is a big developer with a really good reputation. They are what people call A list developers. They would have gathered the money for their project without Kickstarter too, it was just less risky through Kicstarter.
But Larian Studio is the exception, for most people Kickstarter is a way to get money, without responsibility, and many many projects have abused that. Projects that a bank would have never funded, for good reason.
Unlike a bank that protects it's investment and will use legal means if you can't pay back your loan, Kicstarter backers have 0 protection. This is also the reason why Kickstarter is so popular, because you as a project manager are not forced to pay back anything.
This is also why so many projects on Kickstarter fail. You don't go to Kickstarter for projects you're certain of, you take those to a bank. You go to kickstarter if you lack experience, aren't sure of yourself or your project, and you don't want to be responsible for it if you fail and the bank wants it's money back.
what happens each time a kickstarter project fails or when they use 1% on their project and run off with the rest
none of these backers are protected by anyone, they are completely on their own and they all got taken advantage of:
I support crowdfunding. Without it some of my faveourite games wouldn't exist, let alone wasteland 2, the new pillars of eternity game and the upcoming plansecape torment game which I cant wait for.
Originally posted by Ket_Viliano Crowd funding is the best thing to ever happen, not only to games, but for all entrepreneurial efforts.
We got a lot more bad and mediocre games and it's much harder to know which games are good than it was in the past.
For me and for many others who only buy games every once in a while and only want to spend money on the best games, crowdfunding has been more a nightmare than a blessing. The market has been flooded with games of questionable quality.
Kickstarter for games, is similar to what happened with Amazon. There aren't 10 skilled writers like in the past, there are now 11 skilled writers, and 100000 mediocre writers.
You could argue it is worth flooding the market with 100000 mediocre writers, so that 11th writer becomes a success, but I disagree with that notion. It's not worth flooding a market with mediocre material to justify wasting your time trying to find a gem in a mountain of mediocre and frankly often bad games.
I'll not even start with the crowdfunded game companies and people, who simply take $500,000 to make 2 youtube videos, or to update their game once every 2 years....and basically ran off with the money.
So basically what you're saying is you're too lazy to do any form of research so you can make an informed decision. That you'd rather trust companies like EA and Ubisoft to deliver "quality" products to you.
Can't even believe i'm reading this. Some people's logic just amazes me.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by Ket_Viliano Crowd funding is the best thing to ever happen, not only to games, but for all entrepreneurial efforts. The ability to pre-sell product is critical to establishing actual market demand, before shelling out scarce or hard to replace capital. The funds received can either free the developer from control risk, or prove to an investor that the demand is real, thereby securing the investment. Because of crowd funding, we will be seeing games come to market, that would otherwise never have been made.
If it was a manufacturer of kitchen sinks you would not feel the same way. Stop thinking with the heart and start with the head.
You ask for an opinion, then when you dislike what someone says, you say this? This is the problem with people today they think there opinion is the only one that matters.
I for one been a gamer for over 30 years, I decided to make games, if it wasn't for places like Kickstarter indies who are not rich would of never been able to makes games that people love...
What they need to do is not allow people to develop a game unless they can show they have the experince or and an education in that field, I for one have a BA in Game Produciton and worked for AAA's I hated it because most devs have little to no say, I always see gamers saying OMG you fing devs, when it fact we have no say or little.
When devs like myself can make a better game and have a say, we need Kickstarter.... Banks won't give loans.. I see other countrys give grants for 45k, 90k, were in the US they claim they will help, they do not I have a business now and I did it out of pocket which is scary because we could lose everything we own... But i'm stuck making Android games since I do not have millions, people like us who have good ideas you guys will never see, people who have the experince like my team, you may never see with out Kickstarter, so not everyone is bad who is using Kickstarter.
I do agree there is been to many bad companies who have cheated people which I seen from the start they were full of BS, so I always laugh at how stupid people can be, so my advise is to check out the company you are backing before you back.
When I bought my house I did not do it blind, when I hired my employeess I did not do it blind, I checked everything out, you guys need to do the same.
Thats my 2 cents on the subject. This is coming from a gamer who went Dev...
Originally posted by Ket_Viliano Crowd funding is the best thing to ever happen, not only to games, but for all entrepreneurial efforts.
We got a lot more bad and mediocre games and it's much harder to know which games are good than it was in the past.
For me and for many others who only buy games every once in a while and only want to spend money on the best games, crowdfunding has been more a nightmare than a blessing. The market has been flooded with games of questionable quality.
Kickstarter for games, is similar to what happened with Amazon. There aren't 10 skilled writers like in the past, there are now 11 skilled writers, and 100000 mediocre writers.
You could argue it is worth flooding the market with 100000 mediocre writers, so that 11th writer becomes a success, but I disagree with that notion. It's not worth flooding a market with mediocre material to justify wasting your time trying to find a gem in a mountain of mediocre and frankly often bad games.
I'll not even start with the crowdfunded game companies and people, who simply take $500,000 to make 2 youtube videos, or to update their game once every 2 years....and basically ran off with the money.
So basically what you're saying is you're too lazy to do any form of research so you can make an informed decision. That you'd rather trust companies like EA and Ubisoft to deliver "quality" products to you.
Can't even believe i'm reading this. Some people's logic just amazes me.
To be honest, I would say a lot fo the kick starter games ive played are better than ea games. The main thing Ive found about ea is they try to get you to buy a game which is fine and then release dlc which has the core bit of the storyline in it like the leviathons and how the reapers were created in me 3 or dlc which makes all starter weapons obsolete like in battlefield.
They basically trick you into thinking you only have to pay the face value of a game then charge you double for dlc which you need for multiplayer or dlc which has things which should have been in the game anyway like the origin of the reapers in mass effect3.
On the other hand, kick starter games have created wasteland2, divinity original sin,the new pillars of eternity game, the new planescape torment game and a whole host of other amazing games which have more gameplay hors than ea games at a cheaper price with no hidden costs.
Kick starte games just seem more genuine to me for that reason.
Oh yeh and ea has a long history of buying loved companies and ruining them like westwood studios, bullfrog games and bioware which isn't ruined yuet but will be. Ea already ruined the mass effect 3 and dragon age 2, even mass effect 2 if you consider that the dlc costs 5 pounds for 1 character / level ant all together costs far more than the original game.
I have all the dlc for me2 but it was a massive waste of money, you end up just grinding for ages on ranbdom stages which don't actually fit into the game. They don't act like a reputable company and create a legitimate expansion of decent size and price which integrates into the story but rather ruin games by putting in random dlc which don't even fit into the game properly.
Comments
i don't crowdfund video games too often
but kickstarter is a fantastic tool for new boardgames / rpg books
Arcadia Quest being one of the boardgames I happily supported/own
http://arcadiaquest.com/en/
EQ2 fan sites
The George Costanza's of the world just don't understand why double dipping is bad.
It's just desperation to play a certain type of game on desperate peoples part, and just like the television evangelist, indie developers will step in to provide "salvation" and fill a niche and take peoples money. I love playing good video games, but I just haven't reached the evercracked depths that I think paying someone to maybe possibly make it for me one day, if they feel like it, is a good idea.
This is like paying a hooker to consider the possibility that she may have sex with you, but ultimately it's at her discretion.
Yeah, if the whole thing just reeks of a Seinfeld episode, chances are there's an idiot getting ripped off.
Absolutely
I don't see how paying or not paying for crowd funding has any bearing on your approval of a product, that's not how capitalism works. You can't approve or disapprove of a product that doesn't exist. People generally get paid to participate in market research, not the other way around. You're basically saying you feel obligated to pay money to someone because nobody takes your opinion seriously otherwise. That's utterly retarded.
You do know many big name companies do this all the time. They Sell dreams and hype. Yes they do generally release a physical product but is it any good? WHen the investers and backers force the release of buggy craptastic games what have you really got for you safe money handed over to the suites?? Keep telling yourself that Big busness game companies have your back, that they won't release shoddy products rushed out the door way too soon for a money grab or to satisfy some suit backers. EA/bioware went out of their way to state Mass effect 3 wouldn't have cookie cutter A,B, C endings and that your actions in the game would matter. What did they deliver cookie cutter A, B, C (or in their case red, green, blue endings that were basically all the same and in which your actions basically had no effect. (save this race or don't save that race made no difference at all) in the end they got away with it no problem at all.
Currently some of the best games out are made from kickstarters Divine Divinty for example,and some of the worst games out Aliens: Colonail Marines for example are made by big businesses so really who is the crook here? Does this mean all kickstarters are good? No. Does it mean all Big business, big advertising massive hype games are bad? Nope. things tend to be 50/50. More choice is always good and anyone saying only big business should be able to make games is just limiting choices.
You always have to worry about people who want to take away others peoples right to choose wether that choice is for good or bad
Noooooo, what I'm saying is that if a product is successful then it proves there is a market for that type of game, not the singular product.
I don't feel obligated to pay for anything. However, when there is a game that I want to see made, I fund it. Take it as anecdotal evidence, but the number of highly-funded CRPGs over the last year or two has spurred a bunch of efforts on that front.
You're right, people DO get paid for market research, but that doesn't mean that it's any more or less relevant than something like Kickstarter. In fact, Kickstarter specifically says that "this many people backed this product up with real money in the amount of X", opposed to someone sitting in a room answer questions how they THINK you want to hear it. I'm still confused how 4 out of 5 doctors recommend 5 different brands as the "best". Yes, that's ultra helpful market research.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the Kickstarter is a great predictor of industry trends. You still have to wade through tons of BS to get to your final destinations, but it does give you metrics. To deny that there is measurable data available from Kickstarter, that is more relevant than a forum post or petition signature, is utterly retarded.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I don't see how Kickstarter is bad when it's bringing us products like Divinity Original sin, Wasteland 2, PIllars of Eternity, etc...
Publishers don't tend to invest in such games, so it's how we're getting them. If you don't wanna donate, you don't have to, wait til they release...yet I would certainly hope you're not enjoying games like that and then writing crap like this...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
crow founding is not bad ,for me it is just good priced preorder .
But very bad is what is possible to coming after founding ; cash grab shop ,owerpriced pixels,stretch goals,early acces ,alpha forever ...
I dislike when big names in game industry beg for money on KS ;Richard Gairott who traveling in space as tourist ...etc...
Crowd Funding has never been an issue for me. They don't force you to pay, and they often give you enough ideas as well as some type of recognition for helping to make it worthwhile.
The thing is, that its not really that much different than any other kind of preorder when you are talking about it as far as games go. For example, when I originally preordered The Matrix Online, I was expecting LOTS of things based on all the information we had -- and what was delivered was pretty amazingly not great. It did not live up to anything that I expected it to be and it shut down.
Now because I played the game (albeit for a short time) does that count as me receiving the finished product I purchased?
On that note, I backed the kickstarter project Pathfinder Online. In that same avenue they currently have a Beta that you can play -- and while its completely unfinished (as we can all see) I can't argue anything in the way that it is any MORE or LESS playable than when I bought The Matrix Online - especially in a beta stage.
In the event the game doesn't launch at this point -- does the fact that I played it at all make it any better or worse of an investment then a launch title that failed with equal splendor?
That being said, if and when I crowdfund, I'm very wary of what I choose, and I do consider it an investment in a way. Not that I'm investing in a company, but that I'm investing in a product. For example a new Hoodie that is coming out that I find to be fashionable, or a wallet that I can drop from space and my money stays safe and sound.
When I look at these items in a crowdfunding capacity, I determine the likelihood of each of them actually being created, sent to me, and them being what I want and I invest in THAT. And then I receive the item. Call me a gambler if you want. Sometimes risk equals the best reward.
Kickstarter isn't market research, that's just the angle you're taking to try to justify paying someone to possibly make something for you so that you might be afforded the opportunity to buy it...again. The big developers are already aware there are plenty of suckers out there who will pay more for something than everyone else, they're called whales and that's why we have FTP games. You're definitely deluding yourself if you think the crowd funding practice is sending any kind of positive message to the gaming world, you're just perpetuating what has already been established.
For every crowd funded game you throw money at I'm going to not give money to 5 of them. So get out there and start spending so I don't meet my quota.
I'm confused which crowdfunding project made you buy the game again that you'd already backed. I've never seen that and it doesn't make any sense.
Kickstarter has proven that there is interest in the turn based RPG and the space sim that big companies didn't think was there. Surely it's not that hard to understand how actually risking your money on an idea sends a stronger signal than just saying "Sure I may play that if it existed." You can think the process of crowdfunding is bad if you want but it is good for telling publishers what a certain niche of customers really want.
you discussion begins wrong mentioning the crowdfunding as an investment and in general your approach in crowdfunding is wrong cause you expect to gain profit ...
well never i saw a video in kickstarter or elsewhere that you will get profits ... is like coming an errand infront your house asking for help to build the neighborhood's park and you expect to get profit ...
if you change your point of you OP, you will see that crowdfunding is on the internet finest examples of the ability to support the product of your desire .
cheers and sorry for my bad grammar
As an indie developer, I find crowd funding to be a win-win for both players and developers.
1. Developers receive low risk money to build larger, more expensive, and riskier games then they could ever build via self funding.
2. Players, in return, are rewarded with the ability to influence early game development. Their feedback will find much greater reception in a half done game than a completed project where the developers are already being re-tasked to a new project.
-WL
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
We got a lot more bad and mediocre games and it's much harder to know which games are good than it was in the past.
For me and for many others who only buy games every once in a while and only want to spend money on the best games, crowdfunding has been more a nightmare than a blessing. The market has been flooded with games of questionable quality.
Kickstarter for games, is similar to what happened with Amazon. There aren't 10 skilled writers like in the past, there are now 11 skilled writers, and 100000 mediocre writers.
You could argue it is worth flooding the market with 100000 mediocre writers, so that 11th writer becomes a success, but I disagree with that notion. It's not worth flooding a market with mediocre material to justify wasting your time trying to find a gem in a mountain of mediocre and frankly often bad games.
I'll not even start with the crowdfunded game companies and people, who simply take $500,000 to make 2 youtube videos, or to update their game once every 2 years....and basically ran off with the money.
http://qz.com/268852/neal-stephensons-failed-500000-video-game-and-the-perils-of-using-kickstarter/
$500,000 in kickstarter money.....used questionably.....the game never got made.....claiming the game they were making wasn't going to appeal to the public
they refunded a grand total of..............$700
The kickstarter protection of backers is non-existent. A bank lending money to people, expects a return on investment. When a bank gives you $500,000...they expect you to pay back $500,000 and usually around 8% interest.
Kickstarter expects nothing, it just expects you to give away your money and hope for the best. No kidding that Kickstarter is popular, it's like getting money for free.
So why is it bad? Your bullets are just why you disagree with crowd-funding. Personally, I will never fund a game. You're investing in something but you get no return. That's called a sucker.
However, it seems like a brilliant idea. You don't like it, don't do it. Its not bad, though.
Yes, there is a huge risk. Its an investment. Just because the OP claims its not, doesn't make it so. Not all investments return monetary gain. Relationships, time, etc, are all investments that don't necessarily return a monetary gain. It still doesn't make it bad. Its just the nature of the beast.
I agree that one is shady but it's one Kickstarter out of thousands. I don't think anyone is saying there's no risk at all plus early access is not real crowdfunding to me. I really dislike early access because there really is no accountability or even specific plans offered.
There are exceptions. One is Divinity Original Sin. It was a massive success and one of the best games of the year.
But, Larian Studios is a big developer with a really good reputation. They are what people call A list developers. They would have gathered the money for their project without Kickstarter too, it was just less risky through Kicstarter.
But Larian Studio is the exception, for most people Kickstarter is a way to get money, without responsibility, and many many projects have abused that. Projects that a bank would have never funded, for good reason.
Unlike a bank that protects it's investment and will use legal means if you can't pay back your loan, Kicstarter backers have 0 protection. This is also the reason why Kickstarter is so popular, because you as a project manager are not forced to pay back anything.
This is also why so many projects on Kickstarter fail. You don't go to Kickstarter for projects you're certain of, you take those to a bank. You go to kickstarter if you lack experience, aren't sure of yourself or your project, and you don't want to be responsible for it if you fail and the bank wants it's money back.
what happens each time a kickstarter project fails or when they use 1% on their project and run off with the rest
none of these backers are protected by anyone, they are completely on their own and they all got taken advantage of:
So basically what you're saying is you're too lazy to do any form of research so you can make an informed decision. That you'd rather trust companies like EA and Ubisoft to deliver "quality" products to you.
Can't even believe i'm reading this. Some people's logic just amazes me.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
You ask for an opinion, then when you dislike what someone says, you say this? This is the problem with people today they think there opinion is the only one that matters.
I for one been a gamer for over 30 years, I decided to make games, if it wasn't for places like Kickstarter indies who are not rich would of never been able to makes games that people love...
What they need to do is not allow people to develop a game unless they can show they have the experince or and an education in that field, I for one have a BA in Game Produciton and worked for AAA's I hated it because most devs have little to no say, I always see gamers saying OMG you fing devs, when it fact we have no say or little.
When devs like myself can make a better game and have a say, we need Kickstarter.... Banks won't give loans.. I see other countrys give grants for 45k, 90k, were in the US they claim they will help, they do not I have a business now and I did it out of pocket which is scary because we could lose everything we own... But i'm stuck making Android games since I do not have millions, people like us who have good ideas you guys will never see, people who have the experince like my team, you may never see with out Kickstarter, so not everyone is bad who is using Kickstarter.
I do agree there is been to many bad companies who have cheated people which I seen from the start they were full of BS, so I always laugh at how stupid people can be, so my advise is to check out the company you are backing before you back.
When I bought my house I did not do it blind, when I hired my employeess I did not do it blind, I checked everything out, you guys need to do the same.
Thats my 2 cents on the subject. This is coming from a gamer who went Dev...
To be honest, I would say a lot fo the kick starter games ive played are better than ea games. The main thing Ive found about ea is they try to get you to buy a game which is fine and then release dlc which has the core bit of the storyline in it like the leviathons and how the reapers were created in me 3 or dlc which makes all starter weapons obsolete like in battlefield.
They basically trick you into thinking you only have to pay the face value of a game then charge you double for dlc which you need for multiplayer or dlc which has things which should have been in the game anyway like the origin of the reapers in mass effect3.
On the other hand, kick starter games have created wasteland2, divinity original sin,the new pillars of eternity game, the new planescape torment game and a whole host of other amazing games which have more gameplay hors than ea games at a cheaper price with no hidden costs.
Kick starte games just seem more genuine to me for that reason.
Oh yeh and ea has a long history of buying loved companies and ruining them like westwood studios, bullfrog games and bioware which isn't ruined yuet but will be. Ea already ruined the mass effect 3 and dragon age 2, even mass effect 2 if you consider that the dlc costs 5 pounds for 1 character / level ant all together costs far more than the original game.
I have all the dlc for me2 but it was a massive waste of money, you end up just grinding for ages on ranbdom stages which don't actually fit into the game. They don't act like a reputable company and create a legitimate expansion of decent size and price which integrates into the story but rather ruin games by putting in random dlc which don't even fit into the game properly.