Yantelope V2

Well, it's either A: a donation where you expect nothing in return or it's B: an investment where you at least hope to get something in return. There's no middle ground here that you guys are trying to invent. As a donation it's a simple waste of money as an investment it's a poor one.

Yeah, the Soviets vs. Nazis was a disgusting display of what can happen when two nations who put no value on human life go to war.

Okay, so donating money to people so they can go make money is stupid. "On May 14, 2009, Take-Two filed a lawsuit against 3D Realms over their failure to complete Duke Nukem Forever, citing that they paid $12 million to Infogrames in 2000 to acquire the publishing rights.[47] 3D Realms argued, however, that they never received that money, as it was a direct agreement between Infogrames and Take-Two.[48]"http://en.wikipedia....e_Nukem_Forever They settled out of court so we don't know everything but yes, They were wasting other people's money too. Dean: "donating to a project, not with a guarantee of return (as you would a purchase) but at the very least an expectation of a return(as you would with stocks), while also investing in an idea." and here's one definiton of invest: "To spend money, time, or energy into something, especially for some benefit or purpose."

Nice, I still have a mini weber grill and those things are awesome. I upgraded recently to a bigger grill though for when people come over.

Okay, so to clarify, if it is truly a donation out of the goodness of your heart to someone else to make a videogame then yes, I think it's foolish. But, that's not what you guys are telling me you're doing.

You keep using that word. Charity. Charity. Charity. This has nothing to do with charity. A charity is something else entirely. You can donate without donating to a charity. That's why you have to say "donate to a charity" instead of just "donate." That's why those words exist. But that's exactly my point, you don't consider it a donation. You consider it a tenuous investment. If that's what you guys like to do then cool but I'll pass. That's all I've been saying. Some people got awful upset. Do whatever you want, I don't care. @Dean, DNF is a great example because 3D realms wasted tons of everyone's money until they finally got sued and lost the rights to the game at which point Gearbox was called in to sew it up and ship it no matter how crappy it was. Yes it sold well, consumers do stupid things some times but it was an example of a developer screwing over a publisher.

You consider game development a worthwhile charity?

When did I say you shouldn't donate? I said there are better places to spend your money if you're looking to donate money. Am I wrong all of a sudden? If you've got $15 to spend and you can feed a child for a day or fund a videogame which is better in terms of charity? If it's not charity and it's an investment then why not buy a game that's already real? If it's a game you really want and you're willing to front the cash in hopes that someone will make it an willing to take the risks associated with it (which is what I hear you people saying) then that's also fine too I just personally prefer to actually buy a game. Now where is it I told you that you were wrong for donating?

Only PGA 12 and 13 work with the move AFAIK.

Well, we're going back to an old old argument but I'd argue that's exactly how it works.

Well, if it's a hybrid of donation and investment I'm still arguing that it's not exactly a great example of either. The moral high ground you guys are taking is that these games are somehow something artistic or culturally important in order to justify the donation side of it "investing in our sons future" is where I go back to the whole "not exactly a worthy cause". As far as "an expectation of a return" that's fine, and it sounds like you're saying that expectation is mostly met so maybe the risks are low so good. I'd still rather just order something off amazon. That's all I'm saying. Lets go back to this artistic argument again. It seems as if you guys feel there is something noble about funding these sorts of games. Maybe it's like giving to an artist for creating a painting or something to enrich the world. Well if that's what we're discussing then it's all a matter of opinion so really it's not much point in arguing it other than to state opinions but my stated opinion if it matters is that people seem quite happy to create art all the time without funding and I'd rather put my money somewhere else. Back onto Wasteland 2. Why couldn't wasteland 2 be developed like many other indie games? Is the scope of it too big, is it going to be of noticiably better quality or scale? If you're trying to say that perhaps kickstarter fills some gap between EA and indie then you might have a point. Are there any good examples of these games to go off of? I do understand not wanting to be tied to a publisher and that's a tough thing. It goes both ways too because developers can end up wasting tons of publisher money and produce nothing in return. That being said, I understand why game developers love kickstarter, I still don't think I'd invest in kickstarter rather than buying an actual game or giving to a real charity. One other minor point, didn't some of you guys argue that you absolutely have to try before you buy in the pirating thread?

IE: people are not rational. Proabably still a durr but it cuts both ways, even to those who only believe in science.

Yeah, it's mostly my grumpy old man side but many times I just want to be left alone to play games. In a way that's maybe why I don't like the social integration. You're right though, I can always unplug my xbox from the internets... hopefully. Uploading videos directly to youtube of your kills in MW3 is pretty awesome though.

Okay, for starters you guys are trying to have it both ways, if we call it a donation you say "no, it's an investment" or vice versa. Which is it? 1) if you're not preordering anything and not expecting anything back then it's a donation. 2) how do you get your money back if it's not funded? Kickstarter has set goals? What if it is funded but the project doesn't succeed or the developer wastes the money? 3)ok good, suing usually costs money though, probably wouldn't be worth it for small kickstarters 4)okay, good 5)Here's the sticky part. You and dean both make the point that these games wouldn't exist if it weren't for kickstarters. Evil corporations like EA have killed the games you love and the only way to bring them back is through public donations. This whole logic confuses me because the exact reason EA doesn't make these games is because when they do people don't buy them. So what you have here is a large group of consumers that wont actually pay for a game when it's released by a major publisher but will donate money to developer to make a game? This is the whole concept that I find confusing. I understand that EA makes cash -in games like Madden but they strike out and make new IPs all the time too. The fact remains that many great new IPs don't sell. So the whole idea of funding unmade games with tenuous prospects for a return while ignoring new releases makes my head spin a bit. Besides, I thought the indie game market was thriving on steam without kickstarter?

Donation. A voluntary gift or contribution for a specific cause. I don't think people making games is a worthwhile cause requiring charity. Care to debate that then fine. If you want to buy games then buy games. I'm fine with that. I'm not going to pre-order a game that may never come and I'm not going to get a refund on and it might not even be good because it's not even in development yet. That seems a bit silly to me but again that's your choice. Now why you guys think those opinions are worth of resulting to name calling rather than actually having a discussion I don't know. If it's worked out for you in the past that's also fine. I don't care. Donate to Tim Schafer if you want, that's double fine. I just would rather either buy a game or donate to a real charity and not try to confuse the two.

You guys really are taking this a bit too seriously no? Why are you so upset? All I said was that you're taking a risk with your money so that some other people can make money. It's a little silly to me but if you want to do it than go for it. I never said it was bad or wrong. I did say that other things you could do with your money could be more constructive. I suppose that's true of all games though.

http://www.bungie.net/stats/reach/online.aspx Holy Crap, we've killed more people in halo than have ever lived.

Sorry, you guys have already donated to kickstarter haven't you...

Yeah, sorry, when I said juicy rumors I was being sarcastic. I fully expect the new consoles to push 1080p as standard and I'm crossing my fingers that they will be pushing 3D as a requirement for all their games much like HD was a requirement for the last generation. Beyond that I don't expect many crazy things. I do greatly fear social integration is going to be a big part of it and frankly I don't want Facebook posting everything I'm playing and I don't care to tweet that I just finished Halo 5.

Hey, if you do actually end up getting a copy of wasteland 2 as a result then great. I'm happy for you. I'm not saying everyone will abuse this system. I'm just saying that I find it hard to part with my personal money on the chance that somebody may use to to make a game that might be good eventually.

I will say that people believe others more if they agree with them. I think that's part of the point that article was making.

What TN said. If you're going to invest then invest. If you're going to throw your money to people then at least pick a good cause.

Target is clearancing their copies of it out for $35. Check your local store if you care. I really want to try the move integration on this. Reviews of 12 were going on about how it is pretty good.

What I don't get is how people are donating money to people looking to make money. If I went around asking people to donate money to me so that I could start an oil change center and make some money they'd laugh at me. Even if I promised them a free oil change when or if it did get built. There's plenty of things in this world worth donating to, I'm not sure that "people making money" is a worthy cause. So, basically what I'm hearing is that we all need to set up a "Press X or Die" kickstarter advertising some really cool idea for a new game and then just pocket the cash? Sounds like a plan to me.

Nobody will ever use that though because the performance impact is to harsh. I think PC games are showing that FXAA is actually the future. It works extremely well in BF3. The only downside is that FXAA is an Nvidia technology as I recall so MS or Sony goes ATI then it will be off the table. I think ATI has a competing tech which isn't quite as good.