Plus I will shamefully admit the thought of hundreds of thousands of white knights with Accelerwraith leading their ranks hitherto trying to Keep Starcitizen Working running from the thermonuclear crater that once was the crowdfunding effort has a certain poetic appeal.
I just can't see myself playing with someone that sends dick pics across the internet thinking that's a good idea, while having spent close to $30,000 on a fleet of imaginary spaceships.
To be fair, $8000 went on personal gifts to the Roberts/Gardiner/Lesnick inner circle. Creepy as hell.
I believe that the people behind Star Citizen, Chris Roberts and all never set out to scam anyone. They are working on the game but whether they succeed is another question all together and looking at how things are going I have my doubts.
That FTC complaint has been drafted with legal action in mind. It has the actionable terms. Usually when you prepare a statement of claim it has to contain certain legal terms that you base your case on that complaint has been drafted carefully and someone with legal knowledge has drafted it. It highlighted the dichotomy of sale and donation and drew notice to how those terms have been used interchangeably .
Is there a threshold for FTC complaint before they look into it. Does it have to have 10 or 20 or 100 supporting it before they act ? Is it sufficient that the complaint has grounds for them to take action even if it is just one letter for them to do so ?
I have no personal stake in this but I would not want my fellow gamers to lose their money and what seems like a good idea for a game crash and burn.
For some people, it would quite obviously be far more enjoyable to see SC fail than to see it succeed. Perhaps they got tired of trying to bring down WoW, and decided it would be easier to prevent a major success, rather than destroy it after it has already happened ?
I wouldn't be surprised if some pledgers collect virtual ships as a hobby without caring too much for the game itself. I've witnessed this kind of mentality among gamers. Some people have thousands of dollars worth of games at Steam or other gaming resources, but they have never played even half of them. Fans of collectible cards are another group with this mentality.
As an original backer I dont want the game to fail and I am concerned with all the noise being made over early access and scams in the gaming industry because next year is an election year and the politicians like to get involved in the noise.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I do want it to fail, so kickstarter is forced to change how they are done.
WTH does SC have to do with Kickstarter? WTH are you rambling about??
95%
of their budget is from SC`S OWN SITE, done on THEIR OWN TERMS, [mod edit]
READ
AGAIN: KS has nothing of importance to do with SC apart from being
offered as an alternative pledge site for a few weeks in November 2012. [mod edit] BUDGET FROM KICKSTARTER: 2 MILLION
BUDGET FROM RSI SITE SC as of 10/2015: 92 MILLION
I hope that´s finally clear now and puts things in perspective. [mod edit]
For publishers it could be a really good thing if Star Citizen fails. Competition from crowdfunded projects in AAA title category would diminish if a high-budget crowdfunded project turns out to be a bubble. It would be highly unlikely that another high-budget crowdfunded project would emerge again. Developer and consumer preference might shift from crowdfunding back to the traditional model in which a publisher funds developers and they release a game.
For PC gaming enthusiasts it would be a bad thing. Return to the traditional publisher model could mean once again less innovation and risks in game development.
For gaming press it might be a good thing. They would get a lot of readers and viewers coming to their websites to read about the sensational news of Star Citizen failure. A return to traditional publisher model could also be beneficial for the gaming press because it uses less open approach to game development. In the traditional publisher model companies hold press conferences and then the mass media pass on the information to its readers and viewers. The crowdfunded model has seen rise in open development approach, when gamers can learn new information about a game directly from developers, bypassing the mass media.
For Derek Smart it might be a good thing. His legacy in space game genre
wouldn't become overshadowed by Chris Roberts's legacy.
While my immediate gut reaction (to the OP) was to think that someone would have to be crazy to want SC to fail, I'd concede this post might be a fairer run-down.
The publisher comments are a little off though, as I see crowdfunding as largely additive and not a direct competitor with the publishing model. They're not complete unrelated, but they're unrelated enough that I don't think publishers really care whether crowdfunding succeeds or fails long-term.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think Kickstarter/crowdfunding needs any regulation.
I think people need to learn to be more responsible for their actions. It's common in this day and age for people to do stupid things and then demand someone else clean up for them. Smarten up and stop trying to have the government babysit you to make sure you don't do something you may later regret. Last thing we need is a Nanny State.
If you can't control yourself from donating money to a project or a cause, that's your problem. If you don't like the idea of others donating to something you don't believe in, that's your problem, and honestly not your business. If someone gives money to buy a bridge some dude is selling, I could care less.
I have no sympathy for stupid.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
For Derek Smart it might be a good thing. His legacy in space game genre
wouldn't become overshadowed by Chris Roberts's legacy.
DS games are not significant enough to be over-shadowed by anything.
I think the #1 good thing that DS will get .. is to be able to say "I told you so", and "I am right".
If it succeeds he will also have the "It was because of me!" and "I made this happen". So either way he will a 'win'
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I don't think Kickstarter/crowdfunding needs any regulation.
I disagree. I think crowdfunding needs to be regulated just like advertising and the financial market.
No matter no "responsible" you are, there is little defense against devs saying anything to get a buck and i am not only talking about the no-names. Even those with reputations can decide to cash in their reputation one last time (if they are desperate enough).
There should be consequences for those who knowingly deceives consumers.
1. No. It would be a significant setback for MMOs if Star Citizen fails. It's one of the few big-budget MMOs that isn't following the 'WoW' model. Kiss any big-budget innovation goodbye for years if it fails.
2. Kickstarter is a form of patronage. It's basically impossible to enforce any policies there. All a project has to do is show they made a slight attempt and no laws apply.
I don't think Kickstarter/crowdfunding needs any regulation.
I disagree. I think crowdfunding needs to be regulated just like advertising and the financial market.
No matter no "responsible" you are, there is little defense against devs saying anything to get a buck and i am not only talking about the no-names. Even those with reputations can decide to cash in their reputation one last time (if they are desperate enough).
There should be consequences for those who knowingly deceives consumers.
It should come down to personal accountability.
You don't have to give them money. You can wait for a finished product.
The more you regulate life, the less responsible people become for their own actions.
Now if Kickstater decided to implement a milestone system for fund dispersal, that wouldn't be as bad. What we don't need is more things given to the government to manage.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I don't think Kickstarter/crowdfunding needs any regulation.
I disagree. I think crowdfunding needs to be regulated just like advertising and the financial market.
No matter no "responsible" you are, there is little defense against devs saying anything to get a buck and i am not only talking about the no-names. Even those with reputations can decide to cash in their reputation one last time (if they are desperate enough).
There should be consequences for those who knowingly deceives consumers.
You can't regulate patronage. Too subjective and why governments don't attempt to. Patronage isn't anything new and has existed since the beginning of civilization; Kickstarter is just the newest form of it.
I do want it to fail, so kickstarter is forced to change how they are done.
WTH does SC have to do with Kickstarter? WTH are you rambling about??
95%
of their budget is from SC`S OWN SITE, done on THEIR OWN TERMS, you
keep hallucinating about Shitstarter terms and all sorts of mental nonsense and you´re going on and on and on and on. Just showing how you
and your hate cult club are resistent to any reasoning and facts.
READ
AGAIN: KS has nothing of importance to do with SC apart from being
offered as an alternative pledge site for a few weeks in November 2012.
No one with half a brain gives a flying **** about SC´s Kickstardurrr.
BUDGET FROM KICKSTARTER: 2 MILLION
BUDGET FROM RSI SITE SC as of 10/2015: 92 MILLION
I hope that´s finally clear now and puts things in perspective. So please, take that Kickstarter date nonsense and shove it up a place where the sun doesn´t shine.
You either need more fibre in your diet or need to read a little better what you are quoting, perhaps both since you seem to just be ranting for the sake of ranting.
I don't think Kickstarter/crowdfunding needs any regulation.
I disagree. I think crowdfunding needs to be regulated just like advertising and the financial market.
No matter no "responsible" you are, there is little defense against devs saying anything to get a buck and i am not only talking about the no-names. Even those with reputations can decide to cash in their reputation one last time (if they are desperate enough).
There should be consequences for those who knowingly deceives consumers.
It should come down to personal accountability.
You don't have to give them money. You can wait for a finished product.
The more you regulate life, the less responsible people become for their own actions.
Now if Kickstater decided to implement a milestone system for fund dispersal, that wouldn't be as bad. What we don't need is more things given to the government to manage.
I think folks who spent thousands of dollars on this collecting ships might have been misled, It all comes down to if the company intended to defraud their customer base. It is hard to know.
I know for me I got in at a couple of hundred bucks, then the game turned into a collect a star ship, at that point my red flags went off, saying well they are just building starships instead of game design, so at that point I backed off. I was willing to par with a couple of hundred bucks hoping there would be a great game. Once I realized it was vaporware, I was done with them. Yep I lost a couple of hundred, but was not stupid enough to keep pouring more cash at a game that seemed to be all about starship pixels and little else.
So we are back at square one, was the game maker intended to defraud their customer base, a question that we will never know unless it makes it to into a courtroom.
I have nothing for anybody who spent several thousands of dollars, the writing was on the wall early on that something looked very shady about the entire mess.
For publishers it could be a really good thing if Star Citizen fails. Competition from crowdfunded projects in AAA title category would diminish if a high-budget crowdfunded project turns out to be a bubble. It would be highly unlikely that another high-budget crowdfunded project would emerge again. Developer and consumer preference might shift from crowdfunding back to the traditional model in which a publisher funds developers and they release a game.
For PC gaming enthusiasts it would be a bad thing. Return to the traditional publisher model could mean once again less innovation and risks in game development.
For gaming press it might be a good thing. They would get a lot of readers and viewers coming to their websites to read about the sensational news of Star Citizen failure. A return to traditional publisher model could also be beneficial for the gaming press because it uses less open approach to game development. In the traditional publisher model companies hold press conferences and then the mass media pass on the information to its readers and viewers. The crowdfunded model has seen rise in open development approach, when gamers can learn new information about a game directly from developers, bypassing the mass media.
For Derek Smart it might be a good thing. His legacy in space game genre
wouldn't become overshadowed by Chris Roberts's legacy.
I'm not so sure publishers are particularly suffering from crowdfunded AAA games. They are few and far between and also, the ones that have succeeded might not have been considered "marketable" products. There's a difference between what publishers want to publish vs what indie game devs want to make. Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original Sin, stuff like that got funded and released to much applause - they are great games. But if we're honest, the market hasn't been hopping with games like that so it's far more likely that they would have been passed over by a publisher. Basically this a long way of saying, I don't think they're in direct competition, if anything, publishers get to avoid taking risks watch how the market reacts and then decide to fund similar games accordingly.
For PC gamers - I'm not sold on the "innovation" front. Most of the successful games have been rooted in past glory days. Like the two mentioned before, I'd need quite a bit of convincing to agree that they have moved the RPG genre forward. What I do see are great, classical PC style games that I enjoyed then and enjoy now. But I have not seen the innovation. SC is (theoretically at least) innovating on the space sim genre, though it's doing it with old concepts that have never been realized all together in a single game. But I will count it as innovative. However, publishers have delivered a lot of amazing games (mostly single player) so I think we're not giving them enough credit for the risks they have taken because we still view them as greedy jerkoffs (which they also are).
For the gaming press it'll be good both ways. A failure would be a quick burst of hits and articles, but a success would mean a long slow burn of bickering between people who like it and people who don't which would translate into more hits/clicks over time. Not to mention patches and expansion news which would generate more traffic. A failed game goes boom! And everyone talks about it for a bit and then people ignore it because no one cares. A successful game really pisses [some] people off.
Derek Smart doesn't have a legacy in the space game genre and his voice has been blown way out of proportion. He's a teacup Pomeranian with a lion's roar. I'd say Derek Smart's games have been overshadowed by literally every single other space game ever, even if SC is half the game Robert's claims it will be, it will still be leagues ahead of Smart's.
Derek Smart doesn't have a legacy in the space game genre and his voice has been blown way out of proportion. He's a teacup Pomeranian with a lion's roar. .
This literally made me laugh out loud.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I don't think Kickstarter/crowdfunding needs any regulation.
I think people need to learn to be more responsible for their actions. It's common in this day and age for people to do stupid things and then demand someone else clean up for them. Smarten up and stop trying to have the government babysit you to make sure you don't do something you may later regret. Last thing we need is a Nanny State.
If you can't control yourself from donating money to a project or a cause, that's your problem. If you don't like the idea of others donating to something you don't believe in, that's your problem, and honestly not your business. If someone gives money to buy a bridge some dude is selling, I could care less.
I have no sympathy for stupid.
Does it need strict regulations? I dont think so but it needs something in place if project creators screw up. If its simply a oops we misjudged our timeline and we need X more time then they should have to show backers financials to a certain extent (no misuse of funds and yes some people won't understand the numbers and bitch but too bad) as a sign of good faith and a new revised timeline that is reasonable (meaning no delayed indefinetly).
Any wordsmith can come on and make very convincing promises to part you of your money but if they can't deliver or have no intention to deliver then that is where the regulation comes in.
If drama is what you're looking for.... It will be far more entertaining if SC fails.
No drama in success.
As far as crowdfunding goes. I believe that when you're producing a product using Donations and Pledges, that some financial accountability is in order. I would suggest that financial reporting similar to a public company or a charity makes sense. Unfortunately it will always take a large scam or disaster that gets mainstream media attention before some common sense rules will be legislated.
If drama is what you're looking for.... It will be far more entertaining if SC fails.
No drama in success.
As far as crowdfunding goes. I believe that when you're producing a product using Donations and Pledges, that some financial accountability is in order. I would suggest that financial reporting similar to a public company or a charity makes sense. Unfortunately it will always take a large scam or disaster that gets mainstream media attention before some common sense rules will be legislated.
Public companies and charities have a bunch of laws they have to follow (or legally can't exist).
Crowdfunding is just another form of patronage which is too subjective for any government to attempt to enforce other than a select case here and there of blatant fraud.
If drama is what you're looking for.... It will be far more entertaining if SC fails.
No drama in success.
As far as crowdfunding goes. I believe that when you're producing a product using Donations and Pledges, that some financial accountability is in order. I would suggest that financial reporting similar to a public company or a charity makes sense. Unfortunately it will always take a large scam or disaster that gets mainstream media attention before some common sense rules will be legislated.
Public companies and charities have a bunch of laws they have to follow (or legally can't exist).
Crowdfunding is just another form of patronage which is too subjective for any government to attempt to enforce other than a select case here and there of blatant fraud.
Subjective? please expand
How could it be any more or any less subjective than a charity? In fact in many many cases crowdfunding is nothing but a charity.
I do want it to fail, so kickstarter is forced to change how they are done.
WTH does SC have to do with Kickstarter? WTH are you rambling about??
95%
of their budget is from SC`S OWN SITE, done on THEIR OWN TERMS, [mod edit]
READ
AGAIN: KS has nothing of importance to do with SC apart from being
offered as an alternative pledge site for a few weeks in November 2012. [mod edit] BUDGET FROM KICKSTARTER: 2 MILLION
BUDGET FROM RSI SITE SC as of 10/2015: 92 MILLION
I hope that´s finally clear now and puts things in perspective. [mod edit]
2 million from Kickstarter that was never used to make the game Roberts said he could. I hope that is clear to you.
Comments
Just getting a bunch of people give you a lot of money may not be a success if they get you later. Just look at Madoff.
To be fair, $8000 went on personal gifts to the Roberts/Gardiner/Lesnick inner circle. Creepy as hell.
That FTC complaint has been drafted with legal action in mind. It has the actionable terms. Usually when you prepare a statement of claim it has to contain certain legal terms that you base your case on that complaint has been drafted carefully and someone with legal knowledge has drafted it. It highlighted the dichotomy of sale and donation and drew notice to how those terms have been used interchangeably .
Is there a threshold for FTC complaint before they look into it. Does it have to have 10 or 20 or 100 supporting it before they act ? Is it sufficient that the complaint has grounds for them to take action even if it is just one letter for them to do so ?
I have no personal stake in this but I would not want my fellow gamers to lose their money and what seems like a good idea for a game crash and burn.
* more info, screenshots and videos here
95% of their budget is from SC`S OWN SITE, done on THEIR OWN TERMS, [mod edit]
READ AGAIN: KS has nothing of importance to do with SC apart from being offered as an alternative pledge site for a few weeks in November 2012. [mod edit]
BUDGET FROM KICKSTARTER: 2 MILLION
BUDGET FROM RSI SITE SC as of 10/2015: 92 MILLION
I hope that´s finally clear now and puts things in perspective.
[mod edit]
The publisher comments are a little off though, as I see crowdfunding as largely additive and not a direct competitor with the publishing model. They're not complete unrelated, but they're unrelated enough that I don't think publishers really care whether crowdfunding succeeds or fails long-term.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think people need to learn to be more responsible for their actions. It's common in this day and age for people to do stupid things and then demand someone else clean up for them. Smarten up and stop trying to have the government babysit you to make sure you don't do something you may later regret. Last thing we need is a Nanny State.
If you can't control yourself from donating money to a project or a cause, that's your problem. If you don't like the idea of others donating to something you don't believe in, that's your problem, and honestly not your business. If someone gives money to buy a bridge some dude is selling, I could care less.
I have no sympathy for stupid.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I think the #1 good thing that DS will get .. is to be able to say "I told you so", and "I am right".
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I disagree. I think crowdfunding needs to be regulated just like advertising and the financial market. No matter no "responsible" you are, there is little defense against devs saying anything to get a buck and i am not only talking about the no-names. Even those with reputations can decide to cash in their reputation one last time (if they are desperate enough). There should be consequences for those who knowingly deceives consumers.
2. Kickstarter is a form of patronage. It's basically impossible to enforce any policies there. All a project has to do is show they made a slight attempt and no laws apply.
You don't have to give them money. You can wait for a finished product.
The more you regulate life, the less responsible people become for their own actions.
Now if Kickstater decided to implement a milestone system for fund dispersal, that wouldn't be as bad. What we don't need is more things given to the government to manage.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I know for me I got in at a couple of hundred bucks, then the game turned into a collect a star ship, at that point my red flags went off, saying well they are just building starships instead of game design, so at that point I backed off. I was willing to par with a couple of hundred bucks hoping there would be a great game. Once I realized it was vaporware, I was done with them. Yep I lost a couple of hundred, but was not stupid enough to keep pouring more cash at a game that seemed to be all about starship pixels and little else.
So we are back at square one, was the game maker intended to defraud their customer base, a question that we will never know unless it makes it to into a courtroom.
I have nothing for anybody who spent several thousands of dollars, the writing was on the wall early on that something looked very shady about the entire mess.
For PC gamers - I'm not sold on the "innovation" front. Most of the successful games have been rooted in past glory days. Like the two mentioned before, I'd need quite a bit of convincing to agree that they have moved the RPG genre forward. What I do see are great, classical PC style games that I enjoyed then and enjoy now. But I have not seen the innovation. SC is (theoretically at least) innovating on the space sim genre, though it's doing it with old concepts that have never been realized all together in a single game. But I will count it as innovative. However, publishers have delivered a lot of amazing games (mostly single player) so I think we're not giving them enough credit for the risks they have taken because we still view them as greedy jerkoffs (which they also are).
For the gaming press it'll be good both ways. A failure would be a quick burst of hits and articles, but a success would mean a long slow burn of bickering between people who like it and people who don't which would translate into more hits/clicks over time. Not to mention patches and expansion news which would generate more traffic. A failed game goes boom! And everyone talks about it for a bit and then people ignore it because no one cares. A successful game really pisses [some] people off.
Derek Smart doesn't have a legacy in the space game genre and his voice has been blown way out of proportion. He's a teacup Pomeranian with a lion's roar. I'd say Derek Smart's games have been overshadowed by literally every single other space game ever, even if SC is half the game Robert's claims it will be, it will still be leagues ahead of Smart's.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Does it need strict regulations? I dont think so but it needs something in place if project creators screw up. If its simply a oops we misjudged our timeline and we need X more time then they should have to show backers financials to a certain extent (no misuse of funds and yes some people won't understand the numbers and bitch but too bad) as a sign of good faith and a new revised timeline that is reasonable (meaning no delayed indefinetly).
No drama in success.
As far as crowdfunding goes. I believe that when you're producing a product using Donations and Pledges, that some financial accountability is in order. I would suggest that financial reporting similar to a public company or a charity makes sense. Unfortunately it will always take a large scam or disaster that gets mainstream media attention before some common sense rules will be legislated.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Crowdfunding is just another form of patronage which is too subjective for any government to attempt to enforce other than a select case here and there of blatant fraud.
How could it be any more or any less subjective than a charity? In fact in many many cases crowdfunding is nothing but a charity.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!