Kickstarter

[deanb]

1. What if they take the money and run?

Well you're SOL, however you have their name, social details, and Kickstarter don't exactly rule out you taking legal action:

A failure to do so could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action on behalf of your backers.

However it's worth noting that it's kind of on your head as a backer to be looking into these guys. Quick google search and hey presto:

http://en.wikipedia....ine_Productions

http://www.doublefine.com/

 

You've got some research on the kickstarter guys. Google not bringing anything up, well Kickstarter lets you ask the project dudes questions if you have any queries. Most of the time they should have at least something to show. Some kind of portfolio of work, a prototype or similar in order to show that they are able to make this. If for example I was to make a Kickstarter for this awesome idea for my epic RPG set in a stone for stone likeness of North Yorkshire you'd have jack all to go on cos I haven't the foggiest of where to start. So most likely your'e not going to be backing me. But if I've got like 20 years of making this kind of stuff, then you know I can rather competently get to work on doing this.

 

2. Why will people pay $250 for horse armour but bitch if EA was to charge a tenth of that

Well this is answered threefold:

1. They're not paying $250 for horse armour, they're paying $250 for a game/product that most otherwise wouldn't exist because EA & Co don't see it as profitable, unlike their $25 horse armour.

2. $250 is a hell of a lot cheaper to get said game made than the $2.5billion shares you'd need for a controlling stake in EA in order to get the game made.

3. Yeah there's a warm fuzzy feeling involved. EA have general goodwill and fuzz feelings in the negatives, and the little guy bringing back the old style of games guys fondly remember, rather than butchering them up, comes with spades of warm fuzzy feelings.

 

3. $2million!!!

This is like the ones with guys that can easily back up that they can do the work, and show such a high want of that project, unavailable in today's modern market. They're also such high profile guys that just walking off with that $2million isn't going to go well for them. Most projects are only a few grand, much smaller scale. A few grand going walkies isn't as much a big a deal, nor is it much that folks could really do much with.

 

4. What if they go to a publisher with the game?

Well they go to a publisher with the game. It's a kickstarter, not a be all and end all. There's no "well you made your $4k to start the project, you're banned from making a penny more". That's just a stupid suggestion.

 

5. Why not just invest

You know donating to kickstarter, or the actual existence of it, doesn't preclude the possibility of a bit of good old fashioned investing right? Such as in nice and stable firms like Enron. The internationally expanding GAME Group. Petrol and matches. You spend $15, maybe get a game. Or spend $15 and get a game. Depends which games you're in to.

 

As for the whole donating to a more worthwhile cause, I linked this on twitter other day but for a different reason. I think this segment is relevant:

 

In short, it looks to me like a bubble that is waiting to burst as it is a structure built on goodwill and honesty, both of which are (in my opinion) in short supply.

You need to get out the shade of EA once in a while I think.

 

Yeah, Dean didn't even give me a free game. Good point.

What are you currently commenting on?

Also for all this talk of worthwhile causes, what makes me any more worthwhile than a pressure sensitive iPad stylus? What's to say I don't just up and leave with the cash?

 

 

It's crowd-sourcing. It's the ideas the guys at Dragons Den don't think is worth their money, but you'd still like it. Places like Kickstarter n Indiegogo let you fund it and make it a reality. Don't care for the idea? Don't fund it. Like the idea? Throw a few quid their way. These are things that in ye olde fashioned way would require massive corporations, that think you want an FPS, or Uncle Moneybags, to fund. But with the Power of the InternetTM, you, a single person with a few quid in the sofa, tied with the power of a few other thousand people with money in the sofa, can fund this project and make it a reality.

 

I'm kinda confused why it's such a hard to understand concept actually.

 

edit: I should mention in writing this I think there was like 12 or so posts made. I've tried to respond as more stuff got added but I may have skipped on some things.

[madbassman39]

I actually haven't heard much of Kickstarter before it got its gaming boom, but honestly I think its great. I haven't donated money, but its a great way to finance your own game/movie/whatever without having to sell your idea/intellectual property to a publisher in order to make it happen.

 

I can't afford to make awesome movies, but I sure want to, and kick starter could allow me to make such movies where I might not otherwise be able to raise money for it.

 

As for those who donate, that's their choice, and ultimately their risk. I know people who ask money from family and friends to help them start their own business and people do. It happens all the time, because people hope that they will make good on the business model presented and they actually want to see that person succeed. Kickstarter is basically the same idea, but asking people who are also fans of your business model/idea and want to see it become a reality.

[Yantelope V2]

1) You're not pre-ordering anything 2) You get your money back if the project isn't funded 3) It's likely in the ToS that people can be sued over this 4) There hasn't been a case (that I can think of) of people taking the money and running 5) Many of these projects would not exist if it wasn't for fan donations. You wouldn't get to the part of even having the choice to buy the game when it's out because it wouldn't exist. This isn't true for every Kickstarter of course but for many of them it is. Also I think things like giving the creators control is a very big positive of Kickstarter. It's something I support in all industries.

 

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?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[deanb]

Not having it both ways, just not having it in the extremely specific definitions you have. It falls into neither an investment, as you'd get with investing in stocks, nor is it a donation as you'd have with Red Cross.

However you're not purchasing a product, you're not pre-ordering a product, or any of that stuff. What you are doing is, 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. (much more in line with the "investing in our sons future" kind of investing than "I'm investing in Enron" kind of investing).

 

 

2) how do you get your money back if it's not funded? Kickstarter has set goals?

Errm yeah. Please tell me that we've gotten onto page two of this discussion and you actually have a basic understanding of what Kickstarter is and does.

 

Suing the kickstarters that get away isn't really worth it at all. They're small so you'll likely have only paid a small amount anyway. No more loss than betting on the lotto once a week.

 

 

Your example of a "new IP that doesn't sell" is a game that sold 2million copies? Not really much of a great example. What it didn't do is sell the 3 million EA actually wanted, therefore it's a "failure". That is why many of these projects won't be funded by the likes of EA. Stuff like Wasteland 2 isn't going to be the next Call of Duty. It's not going to sell gang busters. Thus EA and co want nothing to do with it and it's ilk. But there's 40,000 people that do want it, and while one person alone can't easily raise $900K, well several thousand people together can.

[SixTwoSixFour]

Truncated, just showing who I'm replying to.

 

1) It's a donation. People who are calling it an investment are incorrect. It's like NPR (I'm sure you hate that)- you donate, and they give you shit as a reward for doing so, but are not legally obligated to give you shit. They are, however, legally obligated to use the money in the way that they say they will.

2) Yes, every project has a goal. Yes, if it's not met, Kickstarter doesn't take your money. Yes, it's possible to take the money and run. You'll notice that Coca-Cola could do that with investor's money as well, there's nothing special about Kickstarter in that regard. Thieves are not exclusively the domain of internet donations.

3 and 4) We've pretty well covered these two, I think.

 

5) Publishers are a sub-optimal, inefficient way of doing business. Take, for example, this excerpt from an interview with Brian Fargo.

 

MF: Does working with the publisher inflate the budget?

 

BF: In my experience, yes.

 

MF: About how much?

 

BF: At least 25%. In some cases, 35%, because sometimes they insist on taking over functions like doing all the casting and audio recording, where they would spend way more than what we would, if it was our money. I mean, it is our money, because it’s advances, but they insist on taking it over. They can trump the cost up. When we did all of our directing, for all of our games, every project I had ever done, including Bard’s Tale with Cary Elwes, we directed the talent. We knew the material, so we could give them the context for each line. Well, the publishers would allow us to visit the studio, but we weren’t allowed to speak directly with the people doing the recording. They send some very expensive voice director in, and he directs them. We don’t even get to handle it. So, if the audio doesn’t come out quite right, the developer gets the negative mark, yet they aren’t the ones who get to be in charge of it. They aren’t allowed to. They aren’t allowed in the room.

 

Publishers are responsible for some parts of a project, and they manage to fuck those up with surprising regularity. The Dragon Age Origins trailer with fucking Marilyn Manson over it? Konami not even knowing the release date for Blades of Time? Capcom's constant typos on its products? These are not so common that they are overwhelming, but they are hardly unheard of, and they are indicative of the idea that publishers are not pulling their weight in the publisher-dev agreement.

 

And sometimes, games that are great new IPs sell far better than expected. Sometimes games that are major releases in established IPs tank. It's really not as simple as saying "new IPs are too risky." They are a gamble, but if they succeed, they earn your company far more respect than another sequel to an old series would, and they give you something new to milk. Someone had to step out and make Call of Duty at one point for us to be at Call of Duty 7.

[Yantelope V2]

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?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Johnny]

Moral high ground? For fuck's sake, you're the one trying to argue that one shouldn't donate. We're not saying you're wrong if you're not donating.

[Yantelope V2]

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?

[Johnny]

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

 

There, for example.

[Yantelope V2]

You consider game development a worthwhile charity?

[SixTwoSixFour]

You consider game development a worthwhile charity?

 

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.

[deanb]

Sometimes games that are major releases in established IPs tank.

These are great examples of the whole "why going through a publisher isn't always a great idea". (Throw the new syndicate on the pile too). Quite often people just want more of the same (something Nintendo learned long ago) and that does well enough. Whereas publishers seems to have this idea of "well selling genre" + "well selling franchise" = mega bucks. Doesn't always work out that way. In fact more often than not it doesn't work out that way. Most of the high profile kickstarters we've had have been sequels to genres/types of games long since lost.

 

 

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

Where the hell have any of us said that? The only person attempting to take a moral high ground here is you with the whole "worthy cause" stuff you started with on the second post.

 

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.

Well order something off Amazon then. No one is stopping you. I've already pointed out those that wish to donate to "worthy causes" or invest in billion dollar companies or just buy existing games....you can!

 

It goes both ways too because developers can end up wasting tons of publisher money and produce nothing in return.

Actually DNF was developed with $20million of Broussards own cash. At most it cost TakeTwo the cost of polishing the game up and the game sold rather well, despite critics bashing it. (This is your second cruddy example btw)

 

 

Now where is it I told you that you were wrong for donating?

 

There's plenty of things in this world worth donating to, I'm not sure that "people making money" is a worthy cause.

 

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.

[Johnny]

There are certain gaming projects that I, if I had the spare cash, would happily donate to because I'd like to see them get made. Because I care about games and the gaming medium.

 

Like Six says, it's not a charity... But I do think it's a worthy cause to donate to.

Besides, it's my money, why should I not be able to spend it on whatever cause I feel like?

[Yantelope V2]

You consider game development a worthwhile charity?

 

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.

 

 

There are certain gaming projects that I, if I had the spare cash, would happily donate to because I'd like to see them get made. Because I care about games and the gaming medium.

 

Like Six says, it's not a charity... But I do think it's a worthy cause to donate to.

Besides, it's my money, why should I not be able to spend it on whatever cause I feel like?

 

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.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[SixTwoSixFour]

But that's exactly my point, you don't consider it a donation. You consider it a tenuous investment.

 

1) It's a donation. People who are calling it an investment are incorrect. It's like NPR (I'm sure you hate that)- you donate, and they give you shit as a reward for doing so, but are not legally obligated to give you shit. They are, however, legally obligated to use the money in the way that they say they will.

 

When you give a gift, that's a donation. That's the definition. So the fact that you are giving your money to these people, freely, not in trade, means it is a donation.

 

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.

If you're still claiming that in the face of a series of posts consisting of you being quoted telling people that Kickstarter should be beneath them, then perhaps you should visit an optometrist.

[Yantelope V2]

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.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[deanb]

@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.

No it wasn't. They wasted....their own money. Not everyone's money. Not publishers money. They wasted their own money. From Duke Nukem 3D and other previous projects. You honestly believe that the project would have gone on for 15 years if it was a publisher funding they game? No it wouldn't. Because it was a 3D realms funded and developed game.

 

 

 

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.

No we don't consider it a charity. It is a donation though. ThursdayNext and yourself are the ones comparing it to investment.

[Yantelope V2]

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."

Edited April 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[SixTwoSixFour]

Okay, so donating money to people so they can go make money is stupid.

 

But donating money to people so they can discriminate against minorities is totally cool.

[deanb]

Except, by your very link, they were taken to court over money TakeTwo paid to Infogrammes for the publishing rights. It's not money that TakeTwo paid to 3DRealms for developing the game. It is not money 3DRealms had, so it's not money 3D Realms wasted. Because, and I will repeat this real slowly, 3D Realms. Spent. Their. Own. Money.

 

Also you've made it quite clear by now you only like to donate to registered charities and buy games that have already been made. Can we move on to another topic or query you have with crowdsourcing cos this horse is so beaten now I don't think we can even make a single pritt stick from it.

 

edit:

in·vest/inˈvest/

Verb:

• Expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or...: "getting workers to invest in private pension funds"; "the company is toinvest $12 million in its new manufacturing site"
  
• Devote (one's time, effort, or energy) to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.
  

You're mostly using the first one. We're using the second. The joy of the english language, a lot of words have more than one meaning.

 

Here's a meaning of another multiple-meaning word:

• A mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.
  

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Okay, so donating money to people so they can go make money is stupid.

 

See, it's stuff like calling it stupid where you're failing here. What makes it stupid? You can not do it yourself. I don't care. But calling it stupid is something else entirely.

 

and here's one definiton of invest: "To spend money, time, or energy into something, especially for some benefit or purpose.

 

I'm investing time in this forum. This definition is far too basic for what we're talking about. Or rather, what you're talking about, because everyone else knows what they're doing with their money yet you seem to want to control them.

[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.

[deanb]

Let's break this down (with your defintions):

 

A )Donation:

A payment upon where you expect nothing in return.

Donations like to a forum, where you expect nothing in return except continued running of said forum, private chat and member titles? Or a donation to comic relief where you expect nothing in return except a nose (I don't know of many US charities for examples here)

 

B) Investment

A payment where you at least hope to get something in return

Well yeah. We've already covered this one before. We hope to get the reward. Not always going to happen though.

 

We're not inventing a middle ground, you're inventing strict black and white definitions. As I've already told you, it's crowd sourcing. It's a bit of everything.

[TheMightyEthan]

Poor investment by your standards (and mine, I would have to be REALLY excited about something to donate to a kickstarter for it), but if the thing you're looking to get out of it is just "I helped this game get made" then seems like a decent investment to me.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

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.

 

What do you mean it's either? Who are you to decide that it's this black and white? Kickstarter itself has shades of grey represented by the pledge levels. On many levels you just donate money. Straight up. No gifts. No anything. You're ignoring the fact that Kickstarter is very much in the middle ground. It's a new concept. Something your mind seems to have trouble with.