Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Crownfunding Accountability
laxie
Member RarePosts: 1,123
Within the traditional external investor (publisher) model, developers are accountable for their work, needing to meet the demands of the investor on a regular basis.
This has its faults, as often the investor does not fully understand the development process. It may lead to poor decisionmaking in the long run, rushed deadlines, games that are released with lacking features or bugs.
Crowdfunded projects do not face this issue, as all of the investment is collected from the players. The issue I see is the fact that developers are not directly accountable to the investor (players). They are not obliged to openly publish their financials, disclose any information about the project, and in some cases not even obliged to finish the project.
This lack of a main investor seems to be double edged sword. The developers are free to do whatever they feel is best, but the "inverstors" (players) have virtually no control over the project, even though they are financing everything. The investor is a huge mass of players, making it very difficult to communicate with. There is no representative, or any sort of main voice for the investors (players), resulting in noone being able to keep the spending in check.
I'd love to hear your opinion on this. Do you think crowdfunded project suffer from the absence of an investors? Is there a way to bypass this issue, perhaps electing an "overseer" from the ranks of the players?
Please keep this discussion on point and civil.
Comments
You had a couple incorrect terms in there. I fixed them for you. Hopefully that helps answer some of your questions for you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It's not investing, no. But it is an atypical sort of donation as well: one that pushes things into a gray area. When someone gives to a charity, it's not often with the expectation that they'll somehow benefit directly from the charity's work. Yes, it may help someone else out there, or act as a write-off, and the charity may even send a token of appreciation to the donor. But the staple of crowdfunding is funding something that will be of direct benefit to the donor (ie a finished game, some special titles or in-game benefits).
When this subject is brought up it's very rare to find someone who just donates to things willy-nilly without anticipating something in return; quite unlike more traditional donations.
I look at it this way.the developer SHOULD have a well designed,laid out plan for his game design BEFORE asking for any money from anyone.They need to do that with investors so it should be expected no matter what.
Then this so called "qualified" developer decides on how much this will cost,he likely has some cohorts to discuss this with as well.Then you have a business standard and coming from the VERY long line of game development that both he and his brother had,they SHOULD be able to come up with a fair over spending %,perhaps 15%.
So if the developer deems it will cost 20 million,you set the goal at 23 million to cover your ass.
Now this game design SHOULD be fully thought out,there is little room to all of a sudden say ok i don't like this idea because then you did not put in enough thought before hand.Also the funding was based on that original design not something you think of later,besides constantly changing your mind,NEVER gets anything done.
Now if this developer all of a sudden is soaking up such a money grab that he is going way over that budget and game design,something is wrong,GREED comes to mind.You think about it and hmmm ok not so bad if he hires more people and improves everything from the sound quality to graphics to visuals to animations,then it is ok.However you still need to keep it in perspective,since we are talking about CSI is 85 mil a tad overkill on the original 2 million....roflmao you betcha.
Darn skippy it should be scrutinized.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
What bothers me the most, is also one of the things that most gamers (in general are incredible ignorant about). I'm not a game developer, but I've been on massive software projects that cost the same as what a AAA does.
The thing is, throwing 85 Million Dollars after something doesn't mean the game will suddenly be made faster, or the quality will be higher. People always throw around "This cost 300 million dollars. What did they use all the money on?" or 85 million in the case of Star Citizen.
The thing is - The more people and money you throw at a project (game or otherwise) the more problem you create. Assassins Creed Unity is a perfect example. There was over 1000 developers on that team, and that game turned out to be quite barebones and suffered from quality issues.
Then on the other hand you have a smaller teams and budgets who can make much larger and higher quality experiences for less and with less man power. Witcher 3 is an example of a big sized team, but smaller than many other teams who ended up making way less with way more resources.
And it's annoying to me that people think that big budgets and staffs suddenly make good games. That's the "bad" EA and Activision method. Throw more staff at the problem until it turns to gold.
But management is everything, and being able to deal with game breaking compromises on a daily basis makes sure that the end product almost never ever turn into what was pitched. That is the case for many of our favorite games. Things get scrapped, compromises are made, delays happen. You wake up, go to work, and the first thing you hear is that 5 programmers didn't go home last night because a bug in the latest code fucked everything up. Now out of nowhere- you're set 2 weeks back (estimate) and everyone has to work twice as hard, as you have less staff, time and resources just trying to get back into schedule.
That is how it is every single day to make games. And other multi million dollar software. And it sucks.
There is a reason why many talented development teams pump out failed games. It happens all the time. The difference with Star Citizen (and crowdfunding) is that now the community gets to see so much behind the scenes, and suddenly - what is the norm in the video game industry gets played out like so big controversy. Not meeting deadlines, features getting cut and pushed, more money and time being added. That is what happens as you try to reach your milestones before meeting your investors.
Sometimes people give up. Like When the original Battlefront 3 game was let go. Or the new Phantom Dust remake. Microsoft just said - "Look - you're not where we want you to be. We're giving this to someone else". That's how Platinium got the Metal Gear Rising game. The game wasn't working and Konami decided someone else could do it faster and better.
What 85 million dollars in crowdfunding gives you, is that nobody breathes down your neck. It doesn't give you an assurance that your game will be great. Often, a mediocre demo doesn't turn into a real great game except towards near the end of development.
Developers keep things close to the chest, because nothing hurts more than cutting features. So the community demanding 8 specific things - Well, it makes sense the devs don't want to talk about it. Everything is subject to change. Some things, and some times things are let out early, so the community feedback can shape the feature/policy as it is being developed.
I have no idea if SC will be good. I just want people to stop the 85 mill = DO IT FASTER/whatever. The bureaucracy you get with big teams, staffs and budgets slows everything down.
Many developers want to work on small indie games because a lot of the crazy you get with big teams go away. Just listen to David Jaffe - One of the most influential game creators. His Santa Monica team that worked on God of War was one of the most well funded teams, not just at Sony, but on the west coast entirely. He now only works on small games. The same argument is true for other industries.
When everything is so big and involves potentially thousands of peoples and massive budgets, you're merely trying to keep it afloat. you have so many problems and management based things that slow things down. It's the nature when you're trying to manage a big number of people doing very specific things as they are overworked half to death. Being a Video Game developer is not a cozy, glamerous or fun existence. You only get into this if your passion for games is unreal. The turnover is poor but for the few very successful franchises.
That is what you would EXPECT it to be,but devs just want donations but in reality,they most certainly are investors.
The reason is simple,this money is WELL KNOWN to be going toward investing into a project/game,there is no other way of looking at it.This is not a simple donation where by you can ask for a tax return although i think people should be getting one.This is not money saying "here you go" have a nice time in the Bahamas.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Look, regardless of if you are in investor or donator there needs to be some form of accountability for crowdfunding projects.
Other places that run on donations (Red Cross as an example) are accountable for the money they take in. The same needs to be done with any crowdfunded project. We have seen some of those projects go belly up lately and what has happened to the money? Who knows and besides maybe trying to sue those people there really isn't much that can be done.
So, let's stop arguing about if it is investing or donating, let's try to agree that these people need to be held accountable for these funds.
The very reason Kickstarter exists is because it's unregulated. The developer gets access to cash while retaining complete control of the project. You are suggesting that the developer lose that control to a third party, thus nullifying the main attraction of crowdfunding.
Developers get access to a large chunk of cash with minimal strings attached, and negligible risk in the case of genuine failure or events outside of their control (as long as they can reasonably prove they tried their best).
The moment you try to add liability clauses to that process, 99% of Kickstarter game projects will stop. Indie developers can't accept those kinds of risks, one misstep and they could be ruined for life. Game development will go back to large corporate groups, where the developers are shielded from the legal consequences of failure. They may lose their jobs, but their house, car and bank account is safe.
a) People are not suggesting that the donators get full control of the project and can tell devs how the product should be.
They are suggesting that there should be some accountability, so that the devs can't just waste the money on things that don't contribute to the dev process or funnel it to their private accounts and just say "Oops it's gone. No idea.. hmmmm. Software and stuff. I think."
Two very different things.
b) Indie devs can be just as shielded, in most places it is very simple to make a company with limited liability. If you don't run outright scams, you will be fine.
Looking into such things is a must before running a bigger Kickstarter, it's a "you gotta learn to walk before you try to run or you will stumble" kind of thing. If you can't make a limited liability company... then you are not ready for a big gamedev project with Kickstarter push anyway.
I do fully agree that the rules can't be so strict that it stifles creativity and the draw of Kickstarter.
But in moderation, they would actually make Kickstarter a more desirable platform, due to donators not having to be paranoid about being scammed.
All of the comments about donators not being investors are fair. It would very likely be a disaster if every single backer had a direct say in the development process.
At the same time, every donator, regardless of what business area we are talking about, expects results for the money they chip in. If there is an earthquake and a donation fund is set up, I expect my 50$ I donate will have an impact. I suppose with crowdfunding it gets tricky, as we are donating towards products.
Products are often an all-or-nothing result. If I donate towards an earthquake fund promising 10,000 new houses and 5,000 houses are built instead, I'll go "Well, my 50$ helped 5,000 people, that's not bad." If I donate 50$ towards a product and the money runs out halfway through, I will not be happy (I gave a handful of developers a job for a couple of years, that's about the final result).
This is not a video-game specific issue. I have backed several projects on Kickstarter and many of those underestimate the costs, completely misjudge deadlines, or simply never finish the project. Some people in this thread made great points about the company needing to have a solid plan beforehand.
Back to my very original point, would it not be in the best interest of everyone if Kickstarter conducted compulsory reviews of every project, directly going over the expenditures and targets?
If a company asks for 2M$ to make a game with a target of 2 years, Kickstarter sends in a review probe 1 year in. "Ok, you have spent 1.2M$ so far and have done about 20% of total work. How can we invest the 800k$ so that this project is finished?"
I feel that sort of a safety-check would dramatically decrease the chances of a product not being delivered. As I am writing this, my smart drinking cup I pledged for 2 years ago (with a 1 year target) is undergoing fourth material design re-iteration. There was a working prototype two years ago, yet somehow all of the money is gone and we are back to the drawing board.
As backers have no say in the matter, situations like these have no way of being prevented - unless the company has a flawless production plan. To me, the role of the "investor" seems to be crucial in many ways and there is no party to take on the investor's role.
This isn't an investment. When you invest in a company specifically a game type of company you should see a business plan and a design document. There are other things that could be involved such as a software escrow. Kickstarters don't do this as far as I am aware of.
Before you put money into this did you read the business plan? Did you read their design document for the game? Did you see anything milestone documents? Why not become a better consumer and ask for these things BEFORE YOU HAND OVER YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why don't people had over their money take more responsibility for their part?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
That side of the equation is immaterial at this point. It's the delusion on the part of donors that they a) are investors and b) have some kind of stake or say in the operation of the company or development of the game.
You can regulate crowdfunding as much as you want. It still won't stop an idiot from irresponsibly throwing cash at something based on a prioritization of hope over data, fact, history and even personal experience. Worse, it won't stop that same idiot from feeling entitled and outraged once the development doesn't go how he dreamed it would and instead goes how data, fact, and history has proven it will.
Retail box pre-orders > special/collectors/deluxe editions > Founders and VIP packs > paid beta / early access > crowd funding
No step in that path to where we are today would exist if the previous path didn't prove more lucrative and lower risk than the one before it. Blame the devs all you want. Regulate them all you want. That's not going to fix anything because they're just following the money.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
So, let's stop arguing about if it is investing or donating
I don't agree that it is investing.
let's try to agree that these people need to be held accountable for these funds.
Ok, you want to talk about accountability here. Well if you want to play little billy "the investor" how about you take some responsibility to act like an investor? Before you put a single penny be responsible. Ask for their completed business plan and game design document. Demand a software escrow so "the investors" get code when the game goes defunct. How about milestone plan? You could get access to the code repository and bug databases to monitor that work is getting done and bugs are getting addressed.
Don't settle for excuses like oh, we need money so we can create the design document and business plan. Do you think that would work with real investors?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
SpottyGekko is correct, no suits and investors to manage your product and/or pull the financial plug, which is IMO the biggest reason for that other goat rope you might have heard about hear on MMORPG.com with KS.