Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
best example why i voted bad is star cititen.... i found some truly amazing games on kickstarter/early access... but 90% either never leave early access... are just a scam for a already finished product.... paid betas.... or never gets realized
Gamers have now become used-to the fact that games are delivered incomplete and buggy as hell. It's accepted though, because they are generally "cheap" and provide a few weeks worth of entertainment.
You pay for promises, because the game "will be amazing when it's complete". Of course, that "complete" state is somewhere in the distant future, and may never actually materialise. All good, because you can play something NEW right now, even if it's just a shade of what it will be one day. IF it becomes anything one day...
But gamer's are speaking with their wallets. They buy cheap Early Access games by the hundreds.
A tiny percentage of these indie Early Access games will be a huge success. The rest will flounder and be forgotten as the months turn into years and progress slows to a crawl. Limit Theory was a very "promising" game, but a quick glance at their recent forum posts paints a different picture.
The inherent risks of indie "small team" development are clearly illustrated by Limit Theory's history. The lead dev (only dev ?) had some RL "personal issues", and took a 8-month break from development. Didn't tell anyone though, just stopped posting updates...
I vote GOOD, because we have couple of gems that we wouldn't have. Having to dig through pile of garbage looking for one, is half the fun!
So, you equate it with Dumpster Diving? i won't say your wrong, because i think you are spot on in that you really have to sort through all the garbage to find those 'gems'. Difference is i think thats a bad thing, not a good thing.
Understand What I find entertaining is to read about bunch of games, watching lets plays and even laughing sometimes how anyone with a sound mind would buy a game that is utter garbage.
best example why i voted bad is star cititen.... i found some truly amazing games on kickstarter/early access... but 90% either never leave early access... are just a scam for a already finished product.... paid betas.... or never gets realized
Please, feel free to give your statistical reference. Based on my research, over 80% of games that have been crowdfunded through Kickstarter are shipped. I'd be soooooo, interested to see your detailed overview showing that 90% never leave EA or fail.
I'm undecided. I love the IDEA of crowdfunded games and I think that it's valuable. On that side, it's good. On the bad side, there is a severe lack of education surrounding the process and, also, there is a great deal of people running around spitting out completely unsupported, bullshit numbers (like 90% of games never ship) which hurts gaming, overall, because people actually believe this bullshit without any support from actual, factual information.
It's great because it provides an avenue for developers to be innovative and undertake more risky projects that wouldn't have been developed otherwise. On the bad side, riskier projects mean more failures, which means that people fixate on the failures and dismiss the successes. However, the reality is that crowdfunded games actually ship at a higher rate than games attached to publishers. The difference is that people don't often see or hear about the games cancelled by publishers.
Finally, on a positive side, it crowdfunding gives a way for people who care about a game to actually fund a game and buy into early access stages. They may not have been able to do this previously as early phases were much more exclusive. Also, the funding for this goes directly to the developer. Remember that beta access has been sold since the 90s through various means including BBS, auction sites, etc. So instead of this money going to some person who has made it their living to just sell access to betas, this money goes to the developer, instead. Also, access is much cheaper than what it would have been, since it's an open market and not exclusive. On the negative side of this, the meaning of "beta" over the years has been degraded from an actual, helpful testing phase to something where a final product is expected. So when someone actually DOES try to adhere to a true beta cycle, they give the impression that their product is of lesser quality because people have come to expect release games at a beta stage. So now Alpha has become the term which has effectively replaced betas. So what is Alpha now? Play test? who knows. This is a bit of ugliness for sure.
There will always be some good in an overly bad situation. It doesn't change the situation from being overly bad though. People can hate corporate projects and such but the reliability is much higher and less risk. Early access and kickstarters only exist because people are honestly impatient. Companies honestly can't make "good games" anymore because the market is oversaturated, so "quality" has to take a hit to keep up with competition since there will always be a competitor willing to sacrifice said quality for more money.
There will always be some good in an overly bad situation. It doesn't change the situation from being overly bad though. People can hate corporate projects and such but the reliability is much higher and less risk. Early access and kickstarters only exist because people are honestly impatient. Companies honestly can't make "good games" anymore because the market is oversaturated, so "quality" has to take a hit to keep up with competition since there will always be a competitor willing to sacrifice said quality for more money.
I think that Steam would disagree with you. I did a sampling of the few hundred Kickstarter games on steam versus a few thousand published games. The result was that there is , effectively, no difference. Based on the steam rating system the percentage of games which are thumbs up, versus neutral, versus thumbs down are largely the same regardless of how they were funded.
Even though we maybe only talking $30-$40 in many cases, I'm risking my hard earned money for a copy of a game.
Eat me.
Make that $30-$40 equal a share in the venture, which includes a copy of the game. Then I might be interested.
Easy money has a way of attracting the less savory types.
It will be a cold day in hell before I'll give Kick Starter free money. 5% is a fucking joke, that's who the real winner is, talk about easy money. Hell the Credit Card Companies charge me less than half that and they supply the machines and take all the financial risk on the transactions made through them.
I love getting in early and seeing if the product is worth a bigger investment. Also being able to give feedback early to games I love. IMO this is the way to go.
Kickstarters for me are starting to feel like that guy at the traffic light trying to wash my window for money. Im just sick of saying no at every major traffic light.
Kickstarters is a mix bag of nuts. IMO most of it has been a lazy approach to making a game. Often people asking for money before proof of concept. Some kickstarters listing a long list of features with stretch goals. All goals met and 6 months later they are asking for more money.
There has been some good games thats come out of this like Bannersaga. If you have not played it, its a must but on the other hand we have lots of games that have been ditched with no proof that the money was even spent on trying to make a game.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So it comes down to if you find a KS game you've enjoyed you are in favor, and if not then thumbs down.
I have found a few gems but I am still a thumbs down. For me its a quagmire. More bad has come from it then good. Didnt vote because I dislike KS program but I am all about early access.
So it comes down to if you find a KS game you've enjoyed you are in favor, and if not then thumbs down.
I have found a few gems but I am still a thumbs down. For me its a quagmire. More bad has come from it then good. Didnt vote because I dislike KS program but I am all about early access.
You dislike the KS program, specifically? What about indiegogo? Or is it the crowdfunding program in general?
I did see that Fig actually allows people to invest now, in addition to just laying down some change for a copy of the game. Should be interesting to see how that goes. I know people have been calling for it for years.
I've never really had an issue with KS. I've thrown money at a few (like 6 or 7) projects on there and then also threw some money at EA. I don't really see the difference.
I've never really had an issue with KS. I've thrown money at a few (like 6 or 7) projects on there and then also threw some money at EA. I don't really see the difference.
The difference to me is very clear: KS is about pitching what they hope they'll be able to make. EA has something already made that can be judged immediately.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So it comes down to if you find a KS game you've enjoyed you are in favor, and if not then thumbs down.
I have found a few gems but I am still a thumbs down. For me its a quagmire. More bad has come from it then good. Didnt vote because I dislike KS program but I am all about early access.
You dislike the KS program, specifically? What about indiegogo? Or is it the crowdfunding program in general?
I did see that Fig actually allows people to invest now, in addition to just laying down some change for a copy of the game. Should be interesting to see how that goes. I know people have been calling for it for years.
I've never really had an issue with KS. I've thrown money at a few (like 6 or 7) projects on there and then also threw some money at EA. I don't really see the difference.
I posted above "IMO most of it has been a lazy approach to making a game. Often people asking for money before proof of concept. Some kickstarters listing a long list of features with stretch goals. All goals met and 6 months later they are asking for more money.
There has been some good games that have come out of this on the other hand we have lots of games that have been ditched with no proof that the money was even spent on trying to make a game."
There has been some cases where its clear it was a total scam. Yogscast promised an MMO for 500k and everything they showed us was being done by one guy and it was just a few tech demos. They claimed the guy took off with the money but that was the end of that. There are to many stories just like that. IMO there needs to be oversight to make this work. Or some type of trust set up for the money with prof being handed over to get chunks of the money.
Until KS rules are changed to "When they take your money and don't delver then they have to refund". Too many companies take the KS money and run and all they have to say is, 'Sorry, can't deliver'.
Until KS rules are changed to "When they take your money and don't delver then they have to refund". Too many companies take the KS money and run and all they have to say is, 'Sorry, can't deliver'.
in a different conversation I was in the position was suggested that games with only about 1000 owners are not that important data point. So I looked up some numbers. 7 days to die is not the best selling early access game out there but yet it has 1.7 million owners. That would require one to find 17,000 examples of bad games in which the owner base is around 1000 to just balance out ONE of the top tier games.
so yeah, it does appear number of owners do matter.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think it's good for those who are aspiring to become programmer, artist or designer of video games; there is a lot to learn from Kickstarter projects. Generally for the gamers it would be bad: paying so much to get rewards of so little value, often after massive delays and sometimes none at all when the project gets canceled. The quality of the games released thanks to crowdfunding seems way lower than what we used to get from the traditional studio/investor/publisher way, yet at launch the price is similar to that one of a AAA title.
There are some exceptions imo - Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen, Pillars of Eternity, etc. - but overall I'd say crowdfunding and early access impacted negatively on the video game industry.
So it comes down to if you find a KS game you've enjoyed you are in favor, and if not then thumbs down.
I have found a few gems but I am still a thumbs down. For me its a quagmire. More bad has come from it then good. Didnt vote because I dislike KS program but I am all about early access.
You dislike the KS program, specifically? What about indiegogo? Or is it the crowdfunding program in general?
I did see that Fig actually allows people to invest now, in addition to just laying down some change for a copy of the game. Should be interesting to see how that goes. I know people have been calling for it for years.
I've never really had an issue with KS. I've thrown money at a few (like 6 or 7) projects on there and then also threw some money at EA. I don't really see the difference.
I posted above "IMO most of it has been a lazy approach to making a game. Often people asking for money before proof of concept. Some kickstarters listing a long list of features with stretch goals. All goals met and 6 months later they are asking for more money.
There has been some good games that have come out of this on the other hand we have lots of games that have been ditched with no proof that the money was even spent on trying to make a game."
There has been some cases where its clear it was a total scam. Yogscast promised an MMO for 500k and everything they showed us was being done by one guy and it was just a few tech demos. They claimed the guy took off with the money but that was the end of that. There are to many stories just like that. IMO there needs to be oversight to make this work. Or some type of trust set up for the money with prof being handed over to get chunks of the money.
Oh yeah, I wasn't criticizing you, so I don't want you to think that. I just don't really differentiate between EA and KS.
I agree that there has been some amount of what you're talking about, but I don't think it's pandemic like you're saying. Actually, I feel like we've become much more educated and we don't allow these proof-of-concept pieces to be funded anymore. John Romero is a great example of this. He ran 2 wildly unsuccessful Kickstarters. Ask Mark Jacobs how close he came to not making it without a good tech demo. How about Brad McQuaid? I think it's just like anything else, while there is a lack of education surrounding ANYTHING, we'll tend to be skeptical, or I hope we would be. That being said, there have been some scammers. Most notable would have been Greedmonger, Yogcast, and Divergence (I think anyway).
There are GREAT examples on the other side of the fence, too, where people have given money to EA games and it hasn't gone anywhere, become de-listed, etc. Stomping Land (also KS btw), Under the Ocean, Earth: Year 2066, Smash+Grab, anything that Digital Homicide made.
That being said, all of these failures don't mean that we have a bad system. If we were to believe Steam's rating system, there is no difference in the quality of game between KS games and any other published game. So you could just as easily make the argument that there are a disproportionate number of crappy quality games being made today, as there are bad KS games. In fact, what would the difference be between a released game that was a huge pile of shit, that you played for less than an hour, and something you threw $30 at and it never saw the light of day? I'm not sure which is more disappointing, to be honest.
Anyway, just my opinion. I wasn't sure of your differentiation, so I figured I'd ask
I went with undecided because some do leave beta, or come out and are enjoyable- so.. as long as you know there's a chance, and the risks, I figure there can't be anything inherently bad with something that has the potential to do a lot of good- it's just a risk, like a lot of things in life.
I think its important for everyone to understand that a game that has 1.7 million owners has more weight in measuring a system then a game that has 1000 owners.
just throwing that out there for reflection.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So it comes down to if you find a KS game you've enjoyed you are in favor, and if not then thumbs down.
I have found a few gems but I am still a thumbs down. For me its a quagmire. More bad has come from it then good. Didnt vote because I dislike KS program but I am all about early access.
You dislike the KS program, specifically? What about indiegogo? Or is it the crowdfunding program in general?
I did see that Fig actually allows people to invest now, in addition to just laying down some change for a copy of the game. Should be interesting to see how that goes. I know people have been calling for it for years.
I've never really had an issue with KS. I've thrown money at a few (like 6 or 7) projects on there and then also threw some money at EA. I don't really see the difference.
I posted above "IMO most of it has been a lazy approach to making a game. Often people asking for money before proof of concept. Some kickstarters listing a long list of features with stretch goals. All goals met and 6 months later they are asking for more money.
There has been some good games that have come out of this on the other hand we have lots of games that have been ditched with no proof that the money was even spent on trying to make a game."
There has been some cases where its clear it was a total scam. Yogscast promised an MMO for 500k and everything they showed us was being done by one guy and it was just a few tech demos. They claimed the guy took off with the money but that was the end of that. There are to many stories just like that. IMO there needs to be oversight to make this work. Or some type of trust set up for the money with prof being handed over to get chunks of the money.
Oh yeah, I wasn't criticizing you, so I don't want you to think that. I just don't really differentiate between EA and KS.
I agree that there has been some amount of what you're talking about, but I don't think it's pandemic like you're saying. Actually, I feel like we've become much more educated and we don't allow these proof-of-concept pieces to be funded anymore. John Romero is a great example of this. He ran 2 wildly unsuccessful Kickstarters. Ask Mark Jacobs how close he came to not making it without a good tech demo. How about Brad McQuaid? I think it's just like anything else, while there is a lack of education surrounding ANYTHING, we'll tend to be skeptical, or I hope we would be. That being said, there have been some scammers. Most notable would have been Greedmonger, Yogcast, and Divergence (I think anyway).
There are GREAT examples on the other side of the fence, too, where people have given money to EA games and it hasn't gone anywhere, become de-listed, etc. Stomping Land (also KS btw), Under the Ocean, Earth: Year 2066, Smash+Grab, anything that Digital Homicide made.
That being said, all of these failures don't mean that we have a bad system. If we were to believe Steam's rating system, there is no difference in the quality of game between KS games and any other published game. So you could just as easily make the argument that there are a disproportionate number of crappy quality games being made today, as there are bad KS games. In fact, what would the difference be between a released game that was a huge pile of shit, that you played for less than an hour, and something you threw $30 at and it never saw the light of day? I'm not sure which is more disappointing, to be honest.
Anyway, just my opinion. I wasn't sure of your differentiation, so I figured I'd ask
EA I have a game I can play for the money I have spent. KS means I am chucking money at something that may never come to be. Big difference.
EA I have a game I can play for the money I have spent. KS means I am chucking money at something that may never come to be. Big difference.
but at the end of the day we are not playing 'promise simulators' at the end of the day what really matters is was the hour(s) we played game X more enjoyable then other options. For me it has been. I have had more fun the past two years playing unfinished games then I have most likely a majority of my pre-early access game life. Although that might be marginally a majority now that I think about it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
I do believe I will be keeping my money to myself until games are 100% finished from now on.
I'll remain undecided until I see a MMORPG launch or reach more than a MVP state.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Gamers have now become used-to the fact that games are delivered incomplete and buggy as hell. It's accepted though, because they are generally "cheap" and provide a few weeks worth of entertainment.
You pay for promises, because the game "will be amazing when it's complete". Of course, that "complete" state is somewhere in the distant future, and may never actually materialise. All good, because you can play something NEW right now, even if it's just a shade of what it will be one day. IF it becomes anything one day...
But gamer's are speaking with their wallets. They buy cheap Early Access games by the hundreds.
A tiny percentage of these indie Early Access games will be a huge success. The rest will flounder and be forgotten as the months turn into years and progress slows to a crawl. Limit Theory was a very "promising" game, but a quick glance at their recent forum posts paints a different picture.
The inherent risks of indie "small team" development are clearly illustrated by Limit Theory's history. The lead dev (only dev ?) had some RL "personal issues", and took a 8-month break from development. Didn't tell anyone though, just stopped posting updates...
What I find entertaining is to read about bunch of games, watching lets plays and even laughing sometimes how anyone with a sound mind would buy a game that is utter garbage.
Please, feel free to give your statistical reference. Based on my research, over 80% of games that have been crowdfunded through Kickstarter are shipped. I'd be soooooo, interested to see your detailed overview showing that 90% never leave EA or fail.
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
----------------
It's great because it provides an avenue for developers to be innovative and undertake more risky projects that wouldn't have been developed otherwise. On the bad side, riskier projects mean more failures, which means that people fixate on the failures and dismiss the successes. However, the reality is that crowdfunded games actually ship at a higher rate than games attached to publishers. The difference is that people don't often see or hear about the games cancelled by publishers.
Finally, on a positive side, it crowdfunding gives a way for people who care about a game to actually fund a game and buy into early access stages. They may not have been able to do this previously as early phases were much more exclusive. Also, the funding for this goes directly to the developer. Remember that beta access has been sold since the 90s through various means including BBS, auction sites, etc. So instead of this money going to some person who has made it their living to just sell access to betas, this money goes to the developer, instead. Also, access is much cheaper than what it would have been, since it's an open market and not exclusive. On the negative side of this, the meaning of "beta" over the years has been degraded from an actual, helpful testing phase to something where a final product is expected. So when someone actually DOES try to adhere to a true beta cycle, they give the impression that their product is of lesser quality because people have come to expect release games at a beta stage. So now Alpha has become the term which has effectively replaced betas. So what is Alpha now? Play test? who knows. This is a bit of ugliness for sure.
So that's why I'm undecided.
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 think that Steam would disagree with you. I did a sampling of the few hundred Kickstarter games on steam versus a few thousand published games. The result was that there is , effectively, no difference. Based on the steam rating system the percentage of games which are thumbs up, versus neutral, versus thumbs down are largely the same regardless of how they were funded.
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
----------------
Even though we maybe only talking $30-$40 in many cases, I'm risking my hard earned money for a copy of a game.
Eat me.
Make that $30-$40 equal a share in the venture, which includes a copy of the game. Then I might be interested.
Easy money has a way of attracting the less savory types.
It will be a cold day in hell before I'll give Kick Starter free money. 5% is a fucking joke, that's who the real winner is, talk about easy money. Hell the Credit Card Companies charge me less than half that and they supply the machines and take all the financial risk on the transactions made through them.
Fuck Kick Starter.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Kickstarter: Mostly bad
I love getting in early and seeing if the product is worth a bigger investment. Also being able to give feedback early to games I love. IMO this is the way to go.
Kickstarters for me are starting to feel like that guy at the traffic light trying to wash my window for money. Im just sick of saying no at every major traffic light.
Kickstarters is a mix bag of nuts. IMO most of it has been a lazy approach to making a game. Often people asking for money before proof of concept. Some kickstarters listing a long list of features with stretch goals. All goals met and 6 months later they are asking for more money.
There has been some good games thats come out of this like Bannersaga. If you have not played it, its a must but on the other hand we have lots of games that have been ditched with no proof that the money was even spent on trying to make a game.
I went from literally throwing away STALKER into the trash (literally) to 800 hours of 7 days to die. just as one example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You dislike the KS program, specifically? What about indiegogo? Or is it the crowdfunding program in general?
I did see that Fig actually allows people to invest now, in addition to just laying down some change for a copy of the game. Should be interesting to see how that goes. I know people have been calling for it for years.
I've never really had an issue with KS. I've thrown money at a few (like 6 or 7) projects on there and then also threw some money at EA. I don't really see the difference.
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
----------------
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
There has been some good games that have come out of this on the other hand we have lots of games that have been ditched with no proof that the money was even spent on trying to make a game."
There has been some cases where its clear it was a total scam. Yogscast promised an MMO for 500k and everything they showed us was being done by one guy and it was just a few tech demos. They claimed the guy took off with the money but that was the end of that. There are to many stories just like that. IMO there needs to be oversight to make this work. Or some type of trust set up for the money with prof being handed over to get chunks of the money.
Read the story here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2apng1/yogscast_cheat_backers_for_567000_on/
7 days to die is not the best selling early access game out there but yet it has 1.7 million owners. That would require one to find 17,000 examples of bad games in which the owner base is around 1000 to just balance out ONE of the top tier games.
so yeah, it does appear number of owners do matter.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There are some exceptions imo - Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen, Pillars of Eternity, etc. - but overall I'd say crowdfunding and early access impacted negatively on the video game industry.
Oh yeah, I wasn't criticizing you, so I don't want you to think that. I just don't really differentiate between EA and KS.
I agree that there has been some amount of what you're talking about, but I don't think it's pandemic like you're saying. Actually, I feel like we've become much more educated and we don't allow these proof-of-concept pieces to be funded anymore. John Romero is a great example of this. He ran 2 wildly unsuccessful Kickstarters. Ask Mark Jacobs how close he came to not making it without a good tech demo. How about Brad McQuaid? I think it's just like anything else, while there is a lack of education surrounding ANYTHING, we'll tend to be skeptical, or I hope we would be. That being said, there have been some scammers. Most notable would have been Greedmonger, Yogcast, and Divergence (I think anyway).
There are GREAT examples on the other side of the fence, too, where people have given money to EA games and it hasn't gone anywhere, become de-listed, etc. Stomping Land (also KS btw), Under the Ocean, Earth: Year 2066, Smash+Grab, anything that Digital Homicide made.
That being said, all of these failures don't mean that we have a bad system. If we were to believe Steam's rating system, there is no difference in the quality of game between KS games and any other published game. So you could just as easily make the argument that there are a disproportionate number of crappy quality games being made today, as there are bad KS games. In fact, what would the difference be between a released game that was a huge pile of shit, that you played for less than an hour, and something you threw $30 at and it never saw the light of day? I'm not sure which is more disappointing, to be honest.
Anyway, just my opinion. I wasn't sure of your differentiation, so I figured I'd ask
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
----------------
just throwing that out there for reflection.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me