Kickstarter

[MasterDex]

I thought the concept of Kickstarter was rather simple. After reading this thread, I'm not so sure anymore...

 

I'm all for it personally. It helps to engender a much healthier relationship between the developer and the consumer. It's not like this is an entirely new concept either. I'm sure the Adams brothers are doing well enough for themselves with the help of those Dwarf Fortress donations. It's surely keeping them working on the game, I know that much. Oh look! I'm using Firefox! I'm sure I saw a donation button somewhere on their site. I wonder what they use that for?

 

It also opens up great opportunities for budding developers, allowing them to stay true to a vision without the compromises of big business. To consider all that foolish or stupid is really narrow-minded.

[Luftwaffles]

You know, I think it's worth noting that Kickstarter isn't only for games. Just looking at the front page right now there's one local farm, a musical album, tons of different shit that isn't game related in any way.

 

So much of this argument seems to be based around projects that will eventually bring in some sort of revenue for the developer/person who recieves the money, when really, so much of Kickstarter is about non-revenue producing products.

 

I understand this is about games specifically, but I feel like when talking about the ethics or morals of Kickstarter in general it seems like the nature of the majority of site should factor into the argument...

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Given the recent statistics about the DoubleFine Kickstarter most people didn't know about it before then that donated. 71% of people who donated to that were new to Kickstarter. I definitely see that reflected in this thread. I feel like I'm the old man of Kickstarter around these parts. Supporting videogames on it is the new concept to me. I've supported a few bands and a couple of other little things here and there... but games only recently.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Faiblesse Des Sens

[RockyRan]

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about Kickstarter is that there is precisely 0 onus on the person running the project to do anything with it. They can take your money, have a crack at the project and then shrug their shoulders and say "Well, that didn't work. Thanks for donating anyways." There's no contract formed between people who pledge and the people asking for money so if something doesn't go right there's no recourse should stuff just not work out the way the donee hoped.

 

Even more disreputably, after failing they can then sell the project on to a publisher and make money out of the deal, and they still won't be obliged to send you a lithograph or whatever else they promised.

 

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.

 

A tad overly cynical aren't we? The Double Fine Adventure kickstarter was what, two months ago? Hardly what I'd call a "fad" or a "bubble". Let's wait until any of what you said has any chance of happening before cheering for its failure.

[deanb]

You know, I think it's worth noting that Kickstarter isn't only for games. Just looking at the front page right now there's one local farm, a musical album, tons of different shit that isn't game related in any way.

 

So much of this argument seems to be based around projects that will eventually bring in some sort of revenue for the developer/person who recieves the money, when really, so much of Kickstarter is about non-revenue producing products.

 

I understand this is about games specifically, but I feel like when talking about the ethics or morals of Kickstarter in general it seems like the nature of the majority of site should factor into the argument...

Yeah I'm aware it's more than just games. But it's a part of Kickstarter folks are more specifically aware of, so was a good springboard to get the groundwork down before moving onto more complex topics.

[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.

 

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.

 

Pledge levels don't make it grey. It's just different levels of investment. The difference between investment and donation is strictly in your mind and whether or not you expect to get anything in return which Dean just pointed out. It's all about expectation. If you can't tell the difference then the grey area is simply in your mind. That's why I said you made it up.

 

Edit: just because you only "hope" to get something doesn't make it grey either. It's just a very very low expectation.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Still calling it investment?

 

Yeah, fuck "discussing" this with you. You're not capable of that.

[Yantelope V2]

At least I'm actually posting real responses.

[MasterDex]

I don't see the point you're making here, Yant. With the traditional charity donation, you're still hoping for something out of it - be that your own good feeling or the benefit of others. You hardly go blindly dropping money in any box, do you? One would usually choose carefully where they donate their money, or so I've found. Kickstarter is no different. You're putting down your money in the hopes of seeing a result but you're not just looking for the result. You're also looking to give someone a chance to achieve that result.

 

Yant, you've been circling around for most of the thread and dismissing the whole idea of Kickstarter as stupid. How is that posting real responses? You're getting really hung up on this investment/donation thing but it's been well explained to you what it is by now. Let's move past it.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Sorry to jump in the middle of forum drama. Just wanted to pipe up that I think Kickstarter is a wonderful idea for those who want to financially support devs or projects they love. Think about all the times as a kid you'd think how awesome it would be if X or Y game got a sequel; just now we're getting the chance to actually effect the results we want in an easy and effective way.

 

Heck, one of my old favorite ska bands from the '90s was able to raise up the $30,000 that they needed to record a new album and tour in just one hour, raising a KS record $210,000 for a music group over 2 months. That's absolutely fantastic and wouldn't have been feasible before programs like Kickstarter sprung up. Sure, not every developer or cause is going to be on the same moral level as giving money to actual charities doing good around the world, but it's people's own money. They can do what they want with it and I think it's awesome that they get this opportunity.

 

Edit: Some have expressed distrust that kickstarter project owners will follow through on their promises. The solution is simple: donate only to devs you trust.

[Mal]

Kickstarter is indeed pretty weird when it comes to games. I've known about it for a while but I never did anything with it since there was nothing there that I wanted to give to. With that said, I see Kickstarters as more of paying for a service combo'd with a product if you pay enough.

 

I know some of you folks HATE analogies but I think I have a somewhat close one that I can relate to. I've been around restaurants and seen how they can be run in many different ways. One way is that you pay first and you get the food later. Another one (Just thought about it) is online shopping, especially at places like Ebay. You don't buy from just anybody. You buy stuff from people that can be trusted. To find out who can be trusted, you will have to do some research.

In both cases, you may think you are paying for just a product but you are getting a service as well. That service is them preparing the product for you, it doesn't matter how they prepare it. It could be just packing it or they have to make the entire thing.

 

Yes there are risks with Kickstarters but like online shopping or even restaurants (as a whole), you should do some research before you jump in. I'm not going to jump blindly into any of those three without knowing anything. In Kickstarters' case, I am not going to open my wallet if I don't see something. The more the better. An excellent example of who I would open my wallet to is these guys:

http://www.sauropodstudio.com/

 

A few months back they came out with a video and a pretty good concept of what they want to do with the game. If they had a Kickstarter then, I might of given them some money. They haven't done it yet (or will) but they have progressed with the development in some good ways. Slow going but it is good. If they do one now, I would give them money for sure.

 

So yeah... tl;dr: Folks on Kickstarters are selling concepts. Some of these concepts may involve a products, especially in the case for games. For me to give anything money, first I have to like it and second they have to show concepts and a game plan.

[Yantelope V2]

I'm not really arguing with what the last 3 of you guys have said. If you're going to invest your money in that way in hopes of getting a great game (or ska CD) out of it then that is certainly your business. What I said is if I'm going to buy something I prefer to buy a real product that already exists.

 

The only place where I get confused is after it's something that has been a commercial failure. I haven't gotten any response on this point beyond Dean pointing out that not everyone's idea of a commercial success is the same, which is valid. In this ska band for example, how did you already know about them but they didn't have money for a new CD? Most established bands should be able to produce a new CD unless they're unsuccessful in which case they would need their fan base to throw them extra money to try to float them. Perhaps that's the only point of kickstarter is to float unsuccessful business ventures that have a niche demand. I suppose that's a void it could fill.

 

Again, are there any examples of games that have actually been completed from kickstarters and why they're different than traditional indie games which secure other forms of funding? Why can't these people take out small business loans?

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

In the case of the band, they'd been disbanded (heh) for a decade and were all working normal jobs so couldn't just pull out of their families' savings to embark upon the touring dream once again.

 

I guess my point is, who cares if it's an idea that's not commercially viable? That's the whole point of this: people can support ideas that the old free market model wasn't conducive towards. If I were a billionaire and wanted to throw a few million bucks at a new Black & White game that otherwise wouldn't get made, what's that to you or to other gamers out there? If the free market doesn't respond to a concept, there's always charity, and I think this is a great way to organize it.

[Yantelope V2]

Yeah, and I never said that was wrong. If you want to do that fine. Go for it. It'd be cool to have that kind of money. I don't have that kind of money so I prefer not to spend my money in such a way. It's not what I'd define as charity though. I wouldn't consider it a charitable contribution to society. Maybe if they were going to give the game away for free to people upon completion you could consider it charitable. If you were giving millions to someone to make the game and then sell it for a profit and keep the money themselves, I think that'd be a bit silly of you. You could do it, but I think it'd be silly.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

how did you already know about them but they didn't have money for a new CD?

 

In the music kickstarters I've supported, they've put out the CD by themselves, without a label. Which means all of the profits, all of the creative control. The last artist I supported has had about 5 albums so far but he wanted to release one on his own for once. I'm all for the self-supporting musician. Enemies List is one of my favorite labels.

 

You keep framing this in terms of business. Why? Plenty of this is art. You know plenty of people put art before money.

 

Why can't these people take out small business loans?

 

Interest rates? No proof of demand? What bank would give an independent musician a small business loan? They'd just laugh at them. That's the case for many of these projects. It's showing that the demand is there. Another example is Indie Game: The Movie. It seemed like a good idea at first... but would people get behind it? Turns out, people wanted to see it, so much they successfully funded two Kickstarters and of course the movie came out and it's great. That's what's happening with these indie games. These aren't just any indie games, we're seeing a resurgence in genres thought dead or near dead. It's a gauge of interest.

 

Yeah, and I never said that was wrong. If you want to do that fine. Go for it. It'd be cool to have that kind of money. I don't have that kind of money so I prefer not to spend my money in such a way.

 

I'm a broke worthless 20 something and I have no problem supporting these things every once in a while. Gotta stick with what you believe in. Plus, dropping $15 on a good cause just means not eating out for a night or getting a cup of coffee for a week. Big whup. I'd like to think that I'm a keen enough person to only support Kickstarters that look like they'll actually work out. I have to be convinced to put my money into something. I'm not very easy to convince.

[RockyRan]

Yeah, and I never said that was wrong. If you want to do that fine. Go for it. It'd be cool to have that kind of money. I don't have that kind of money so I prefer not to spend my money in such a way. It's not what I'd define as charity though. I wouldn't consider it a charitable contribution to society. Maybe if they were going to give the game away for free to people upon completion you could consider it charitable. If you were giving millions to someone to make the game and then sell it for a profit and keep the money themselves, I think that'd be a bit silly of you. You could do it, but I think it'd be silly.

 

Plenty of charities do really dickish things with your money. Plenty more, especially those "send a dollar to an African kid", have 99% of the money you donate taken by the charity itself to cover costs, and the 1% that's left is "lost" by the government that's supposed to funnel the money to its final destination. In short, donating to a random charity isn't inherently more productive, meaningful, spiritually sound, or what have you, than donating to one of these video game Kickstarter campaigns. Hell, I'd wager the Kickstarter campaigns actually get far more shit done than your average charity that uses the vast majority of donated money just for overhead costs and corrupt governments swallowing the rest.

 

You seem to try to discredit the folks who donate to these Kickstarter campaigns with the sole purpose of helping their beneficiaries make money. I'm sorry, but am I simply not allowed to support an independent studio and help them make more profit such that they can continue to develop games that I find to be a welcome addition to the gaming industry? I'm not talking about Activision, who blow money out their ass while giving the finger to consumers. I'm talking about the studio that can't get funding from publishers because they're too idiotic to recognize that not everyone wants to play with guns and tits all day. Would you rather all these Kickstarter projects disappear into the ether rather than have a chance at existing simply because of the possibility that these MIGHT be profitable to the studios development? I think it goes without saying that's actually the whole damn reason why many backers are giving money in the first place. There is absolutely nothing "silly" about supporting a project you like. To suggest otherwise is, in itself, what is truly silly.

Edited April 3, 2012 by RockyRan

[Thursday Next]

Ok, wow, that got pretty heated pretty quickly. Some thoughts from me:

 

@Dean: It's $250 for Horse Armour because the only difference between the $250 donation and the $500 donation is that you get an in game badge saying "I donated $500!" on top of the $250 stuff. Also, FDS started throwing the word "invest" around not me or Yant.

 

As Yantelope said (before things got really out of hand) if you get stiffed (hopefully you won't) suing the Kickstarters costs money, since you're generally looking at low value investments it's not going to be worth your while chasing for the money. You could maybe set up a Kickstarter to fund the legal action though.

 

I totally see the value in the "feel good factor". I buy games new and I spend silly money on Signature Editions and such because I like games and I like supporting the industry, I am under no illusions that the cost of the items in these super special editions comes anywhere near the value of the contents of the box. If this is how you get that buzz, more power to you.

 

For me Kickstarter is a big risk that I'm not willing to take. Double Fine make good games. Sure, but they also made Brutal Legend which was not as good (or at least, I was not as fond of). They aren't perfect, they can slip up. Paying someone $40 so that they may or may not finish a game that may or may not be any good is not a risk I'm willing to take. I'm not as broke as Jonny, but I still can't stomach the idea of slinging $40 at something without a guarantee of a return.

 

@RockyRan At no point did I say that I want the Kickstarter bubble to burst. I don't want anyone here to donate to a project that hits its target and then fails to deliver. At the moment the media, supported by Double Fine and others is treating Kickstarter like the second coming of Christ, as others have pointed out, it's no less risky than putting your money in anything else, it could fail and I am interested to see what the backlash will be like when a high profile project does eventually fail.

 

Finally, with people paying in advance, especially with Takedown, there is a lot of talk of getting community input. We've discussed a lot in the ME3 thread about where the line between author ownership and community ownership is drawn. This particular Kickstarter seems to blur that line even more. I know they say on their Kickstarter page that this is not "design by committee" but that won't stop people complaining if the game is not as open as they hoped, is not as tactical as they wanted and so forth, and having paid to develop it you may (in my opinion rightly) feel a sense of entitlement that when they used your money to make your game they should have made it the way you wanted.

 

I think I'd honestly be more comfortable with Kickstarter if it was just "I'm doing a thing, donate some money please." It's the offer of a gift that puts me on edge because once you have established an expectation of a reward in exchange for money, that starts to feel less like a donation and more like a transaction.

[Yantelope V2]

You keep framing this in terms of business. Why? Plenty of this is art. You know plenty of people put art before money.

 

No I don't, in fact, two pages ago I said

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.

 

 

Interest rates? No proof of demand? What bank would give an independent musician a small business loan? They'd just laugh at them. That's the case for many of these projects. It's showing that the demand is there. Another example is Indie Game: The Movie. It seemed like a good idea at first... but would people get behind it? Turns out, people wanted to see it, so much they successfully funded two Kickstarters and of course the movie came out and it's great. That's what's happening with these indie games. These aren't just any indie games, we're seeing a resurgence in genres thought dead or near dead. It's a gauge of interest.

 

No musician needs a small business loan to start a band or record a CD. Anyone can do that with the money they could make during a day job. I know a lot of people who do. Music is also an industry that is really oversaturated and not very profitable right now. Small games development on the other hand is a full time job requiring funding (unless it's a really small indie game) and so it should be possible to find an investor to start up a small company if you've got a good idea and you could convince someone it can be reasonably profitable. Relaunching dead genres isn't usually a palatable idea for a serious investor.

 

Gotta stick with what you believe in. Plus, dropping $15 on a good cause just means not eating out for a night or getting a cup of coffee for a week. Big whup.

Okay, now here's where you begin to argue that there's some sort of "good cause" that you're donating to. That's where I argue that I don't think it's a good cause. I've already admitted that this is simply opinion. I'll state it again here though so you can read it again.

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.

 

Plenty of charities do really dickish things with your money. Plenty more, especially those "send a dollar to an African kid", have 99% of the money you donate taken by the charity itself to cover costs, and the 1% that's left is "lost" by the government that's supposed to funnel the money to its final destination. In short, donating to a random charity isn't inherently more productive,

 

I don't donate to random charity. I donate to productive charities making them productive. You're not donating to any charity by giving to a kickstarter. You're donating to a business. Give some money to EA while you're at it. There's no moral difference.

 

You seem to try to discredit the folks who donate to these Kickstarter campaigns with the sole purpose of helping their beneficiaries make money. I'm sorry, but am I simply not allowed to support an independent studio and help them make more profit such that they can continue to develop games that I find to be a welcome addition to the gaming industry? I'm not talking about Activision, who blow money out their ass while giving the finger to consumers. I'm talking about the studio that can't get funding from publishers because they're too idiotic to recognize that not everyone wants to play with guns and tits all day. Would you rather all these Kickstarter projects disappear into the ether rather than have a chance at existing simply because of the possibility that these MIGHT be profitable to the studios development? I think it goes without saying that's actually the whole damn reason why many backers are giving money in the first place. There is absolutely nothing "silly" about supporting a project you like. To suggest otherwise is, in itself, what is truly silly.

 

What does it matter if it's a small company or Activision. Since Activision wasted money and another business didn't it makes it better to give them money? It'd be okay to donate money to Honda instead of Chevrolet because they didn't take government money? Who gives a crap? You're still giving your hard earned money to a business which is not charity.

 

So back to my original questions that you people can't seem to answer.

 

Why couldn't wasteland 2 be developed like many other indie games?

 

Are there any good examples of (kickstarted games) to go off of?

 

What makes a kickstarter game different from a traditional indie game other than you giving your money away to them?

[MasterDex]

Give some money to EA while you're at it. There's no moral difference.

 

Really? You don't see any moral difference between giving money to a multi-million dollar corporation and a small developer? Of course we're not talking the moral ravine between giving money to a dictator or giving it to charity but c'mon! You can't view yourself so morally superior to the rest of us that you can't see the moral justification for giving a small start up a chance at success over giving a megacorp like EA some more pocket money to piss away on self-important investors and marketing fuck-ups. The concept has been really well explained to you by now but your response keeps going back to "No, it's stupid, it's of no moral advantage, it's not a donation, they don't need it, you're going to get screwed over". I don't like being completely blunt but I don't think that a lot of people here care what your view is of Kickstarter now. You've made your position on it, and those of us that support it, clear. I don't think there's any further need for you to tell us how silly, pointless or morally inadequate it is any more than you already have.

 

 

Why couldn't wasteland 2 be developed like many other indie games?

 

Like many other indie games? Like what? The successful ones? That often take donations from their site? The small ones that don't need donations? Why didn't they just go to a publisher? Oh that's right, because they want to make it true to the original and not a "modern" adaptation. Maybe, just maybe, the developers of wasteland saw the success of Double Fine's Kickstarter project and said "You know what? This would be a great way to get funds to create this awesome sequel we've always wanted to create without licking the shoes of a publisher or compromising our vision. Lo and behold, it was. And people hoping to see a sequel to Wasteland, just like the developers, gave their money towards the project. Because they want to see the game made. Just like the developers.

 

P.S. The fact alone that Kickstarter allows developers to avoid the strong arm of publishers is justification enough for me to see Kickstarter as morally superior to investing in a corporation like EA. Don't think so? I don't care.

[Yantelope V2]

Really? You don't see any moral difference between giving money to a multi-million dollar corporation and a small developer? Of course we're not talking the moral ravine between giving money to a dictator or giving it to charity but c'mon! You can't view yourself so morally superior to the rest of us that you can't see the moral justification for giving a small start up a chance at success over giving a megacorp like EA some more pocket money to piss away on self-important investors and marketing fuck-ups.

 

What's the difference exactly? One company makes better games than another company or spends their money more wisely? I already support good games. It's called buying games.

 

So whatever your justification is for giving money to your kickstarter is changes a lot. Some people are saying it's "for games that wouldn't get made otherwise" or "art" or "supporting what you believe in" or whatever. I'm hearing a hundred different excuses as to why it's not an investment (because everyone seems to agree that as an investment it'd be silly) but then apparently I'm the one giving you the runaround when I try to say that all your arguments of justification for a donation to a company still don't matter because you're only giving your money away to someone who's only using it to make money for themselves. That's not charity. You're determined it's not an investment, and it's clearly not charity. What am I supposed to argue with. You've created some untenable nebulous stance basing it on some high ground that doesn't exist. I don't care if you don't agree with my opinions but your statements are simply contradictory.

 

The fact is this: Kickstarter is an investment, and it's a poor one. It's that simple.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[TheMightyEthan]

I think the idea of kickstarter is cool, though it's unlikely I'll ever give to any project on it (would totally give to Castle Story without hesitation though), however somebody at some point is going to try to cash in, eventually a highly funded project won't come to fruition, and like Thursday I'm interested to see what the fallout of that will be.

 

We may already have a high-profile cash-in now: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/02/leisure-suit-larry-in-the-land-of-the-kickstarters/

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

So whatever your justification is for giving money to your kickstarter is changes a lot.

 

Because there's multiple reasons to donate and it can change based on the Kickstarter. Jesus christ you're thick.

 

What am I supposed to argue with.

 

How about you quit being a stubborn bastard and don't? Clearly you don't want to donate and we do so leave it at that.

[TheMightyEthan]

I think the reason that the explanations seem contradictory is that different people do it for different reasons.

 

The fact is this: Kickstarter is an investment, and it's a poor one. It's that simple.

 

Again, poor one BY YOUR STANDARDS. Your standards are not fact.

[Yantelope V2]

I think the reason that the explanations seem contradictory is that different people do it for different reasons.

 

The fact is this: Kickstarter is an investment, and it's a poor one. It's that simple.

 

Again, poor one BY YOUR STANDARDS. Your standards are not fact.

 

Well, yes, by my standards it's poor. Fact is it's an investment, not a charitable donation.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Thursday Next]

Well, it's technically only an investment if it happens to be one of the Kickstarters offering rewards. Otherwise it's a straight up donation.