Do you help crowd fund video games?
No, I don't do it because I don't shit money (translation = I'm not rich) and I'd prefer to give a surplus of money to a poor person on the street, rather than a video game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Funny. Everything you say is a stereotype that's extremely ignorant.
Let's play a game: You find the examples of bad life choices while I find examples of "talent" on Kickstarter.
Now, other than me finding way more real examples than you without a doubt, you do realize that this wouldn't do anything? The reason is that we'd both be looking for fringes in the two communities.
Comment has been collapsed.
I want concrete studies, yes. See, the differences between our claims are noticeable.
Your claim can only be proven with actual studies and even that way you can't really prove your entire statement. You can only prove objective claims. Not stuff like "Poor life choices".
In 2 minutes I was able to find a study called "Unprotected Sex of Homeless Youth: Results from a Multilevel Analysis of Individual, Social Network, and Relationship Factors" by David P. Kennedy, Joan S. Tucker, Harold D. Green, Jr, Daniela Golinelli, and Brett Ewing.
To most part, this correlates with the CDC's information on sex amongst the same age demographic.
If you want to do interviews, then fine by me. It'll be useless and mean nothing unless you do it with a fair few of them. You want to use the fallacy that you can't definitively prove this thing, but for the most part, as of 2 years ago, you can.
Stereotypes do form for a reason, you're correct. What you fail to realize is that stereotypes don't form because of factual evidence. Sometimes it does, like HIV being more common in the homosexual community, but some are just stereotypes that have been created in fear or miscommunication.
Like the idea that homeless shelters help the homeless. Or the idea of only admitting completely sober homeless people in those said shelters. Facts have shown that while they're good temporary aids, they do nothing in the long run.
Take Utah for example. In 10 years they reduced homelessness by 91%. Chronically homeless, that is. The way they did it was giving them cheap and small housing. Through that, they gave those people something to hold, cherish and care for. They had the start and most of the homeless started looking for jobs and in most cases had an easier time getting rid of their addictions.
Now, of course, they still need help. Mentors and formerly homeless people do tend to be interested in helping those that are currently in the situation that they were in years ago.
Not only did it help the homeless people, it also helped the government, the tax payer and emergency services. For one, tax payer money overall expenditure was lower, two, the government had to spend less time on helping those homeless people. And three, the emergency services didn't have to help those people anymore. One year of emergency care per person went down once they gave them housing. It's not perfect, but it's better than relying on those stereotypes that you currently seem so interested in.
But if you want to cling to stereotypes, then make sure that mostly blacks drink Pepsi, whites drink Coke. That Americans only eat cheeseburgers and ride monster trucks. Also, that they're all either overweight or obese. Also that-a the Italianos speak-a da way like-a da Maaaaario.
Of course, there are true ones too, like women driving slightly worse than men or men being slobs.
The homeless stereotypes were born out of fear for them. Dirty people that loiter and sleep in public aren't really the average in societies. So, because of that, stereotypes galore!
As to the "finding talent on Kickstarter", it's pretty easy. There are studies on these topics now. For example, 9% of Kickstarter projects fail. I'm guessing that's where you took your talent portion of your argument. I can see why that looks like the real dea, but it isn't. While yes, the failure percentage is 9%, the actual percentage goes up with software. Also, we need to learn the definition of "failed". In the report, "failed" means only that the project wasn't completed and the backer didn't receive anything. In reality, there are more failed projects because of this. If you were to make a game and then only send out a pre-alpha version, then your kickstarter is considered a success. Also, don't forget that Kickstarter isn't just about the digital medium. People just use it to print books, make simple clothing and they make different foods. Some use Kickstarter to support their honey harvesting. Some use it to open a restaurant. Some quite literally just make "gaming communities" that succeed once the person has made a Discord channel. Not to mention that most of the crap just doesn't get funded, so they're not counted into the statistic.
But yeah, I could keep talking all day long. I could dig up more studies and statistics, but who would that really help. You probably won't read this and if you do (Kudos for that) you'll probably be doubtful of even wanting to spend the time typing out a response that would address everything, counter them and provide new arguments.
But that's just a stereotype on commenters ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm also in a post-soviet country. We also had the same issues. What we did was give them a place to stay. Stability, to give them a chance to start a life. It's hard to start climbing if you can't even reach the ladder.
I agree, giving free stuff to the homeless seems unfair. But your feelings of unfairness are hurting you yourself. You're spending more money on their emergency services, lessen public safety, increase prison costs, increase environment pollution and decrease public happiness. If you're willing to sacrifice your wellbeing and the well being of others for moral/financial superiority, then by all means. I personally try and not be too selfish as long as I can live comfortably enough.
Your Kickstarter idea goes against your homeless idea. Essentially, support those that promise something and don't support those that don't promise things. Funny how both have statistics that are almost similar. One side gets jobs and becomes productive members of society while the other "finishes" their products. At least one's not left to interpretation.
It's fine if you're not dedicated enough.
"maybe you should value your time and energy more too." - What a pretentious joke. Gathering knowledge and proving your own points to yourself is what actually makes you a better person. If I had "valued my time more", then I wouldn't know half of the things I do. It's fine if you insinuate that educating myself is a waste of time, but I want to be sure of what I say and not just make broad statements that can be knocked over with a 3 minute Google Search.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I don't spend money" - Tax evasion is a crime.
"neither does government" - Didn't know you guys had no electricity, running water, roads, emergency services, lifeguards, streetlights, agrarian supports, government buildings, libraries, post offices, internet connection or prisons. My bad.
"doesn't give a crap about anything other than getting rich and staying in power." - Now that's an actual issue.
"I can't care less if some sadsack promises to kick the habit, find a job and make society proud of himself, I can't care less if he delivers on his promise in a year, however when my favorite devs say I'll be getting a new Shadowrun game, that's completely another thing" - Yeah, you're talking about Kickstarter in general, which actually gives you an incentive to not work on your project. Getting your money up front is a good way to show people that you don't need to work to get any gains. You just promise them something that you'd like. But, of course, let's bring out one of the only bastions of software development on Kickstarter and pretend like they're the average for that site. Let's keep our blinders on. It's like saying that person x couldn't murder someone because person y contributes to charities and has saved multiple lives by self-sacrifice. Homeless people actually have an incentive. Lose the habit or lose everything again. But, if you think a couple of middle-class IT-students who just got $70,000 will want to work just to get a small fraction extra, then you're the naive one here.
"they promise ME something I want and something, that might not happen if its niche audience won't vote for its existence with their wallet." - Yeah, the Shadowrun games are notoriously underperforming... Plus, why is their promise more important/believeable than the person's that wants to see their kids and not die under a bridge in the next year?
"I'm all for self-education, but I didn't know this topic is so interesting and relevant to you and that's why you're digging this deep into it." - It's not the specific topic. It's the idea that if you speak on something, then you better damn well know about it more than "Oh, I've heard someone say these things". Of course, one can keep doing that and in most cases nothing will come of that. Arguments are like bridges. You can go ahead and build one and it might easily hold for a while, but if it's not built well, then it will collapse as quickly as you built it.
So, no, I'm not especially interested in this topic. I'm just speaking on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some years in the 90's the Soviet Union was actually still dissolving while having massive infrastructure issues and leaving behind that legacy. Saying that things were bad in the 90s in a post-soviet country is like saying that 1945-1950 were bad years for the Germans.
You assume that people on Kickstarter are from poor countries, not that the majority are from the United States and the more professional ones don't base themselves in tax havens.
The Shadowrun comment was sarcasm. They always sell extremely well. They never really needed the money. Publishers were dying to support them and their profits post crowdfunding were also huge.
Oh, but importance is not subjective. Importance to you is subjective. I also don't care for human beings too much, yet I also know that their success is our success. It'd benefit us, it'd benefit others. A better functioning society is objectively more useful than a video game. Now, those companies can bring in money for the country they're based in, true. But that point gets negated if they're crowdfunded because most don't pay taxes on what they've received.
No, you're not a degenerate. But at the same time, saying that those who actually do those "explorations" and those who try and better themselves are wasting their time is actually ridiculous.
It's not a mental exercise if you don't exercise anything. You're going against the definition at that point. Exercise is supposed to improve you in some way. Saying random things is anything but.
I don't treat it seriously. Otherwise, you'd actually see me do more than the bare minimum I've done so far.
But yeah, it's fine if people talk to each other without knowing what they're really talking about other than rumors, stereotypes, and word-of-mouth. It's just that it's not productive. I spent time and it's not the best use of my time, sure. But being on these forums is never the best use of anyone's time. Spending time saying general statements and never actually challenging yourself and hiding behind the "I don't take this seriously" curtain is genuinely a waste of time. Not a subjective statement. It's very objective. I used to say the same thing. "Oh, I don't take this seriously, so it's fine if I don't actually learn anything new or interesting". One day I saw that all of the time that I spent gave me nothing. Every time I had something new come against me, I just gave up and excused it with either "I'm not taking it seriously" or "You're taking it too seriously". I said that, but it never changed the fact nothing ever improved.
I'm guessing you're a blue-collar worker then. Or maybe just a young student. Otherwise I don't understand how you can't see how this is a "non-paying job".
Comment has been collapsed.
Do we not have anything else? I've listed so many things. Things that many of us couldn't live without. Affordable food comes to mind and also the tax-free necessities too. Not to mention having roads, transportation, and welfare. Also all of the other stuff that I mentioned. You might be the first person that voluntarily doesn't consume any liquids or go outside of their house (which was most likely built during the Soviet era, meaning that it was supported financially by the government.).
"I believe, that a better functioning society (better than how it gets better naturally when it does)" - Good thing that medical research, education, space exploration, ocean exploration and more efficient sewage systems don't exist. Otherwise you'd be wrong.
"A game developer who wants to make niche games is still a game developer who's project no publisher would want to support." - I wonder how you think start-ups exist. Trust me, they don't just go and crowdfund their money. Especially the companies that have already shown what they can do. Like the Shadowrun people. Yes, the first game was niché and getting it funded was a great thing. But after the first one, they never needed to crowdfund anymore.
Plus, again, most developers still fail while taking the money with them.
"And since you like to dig up articles and statistics, could you support your claim and tell me which publishers were dying to fund the next SR game, how much they sold and how much money did they need, and most importantly, how much money they earned became the part of their next game?" - Jeesh, this is easy. Steamspy data: 2,4 million copies sold in total. Even if (and it's actually not the case) they were all sold at the 5€ discount, then they would still have made around $10 million. For the first game, which made around $1.8 million from KS and $5-$12 million on Steam, they asked for $400,000. Yeah, they made some money from it. Even if we take the most conservative estimates, they still made around $6.4 million. Most likely it's in the $8 million range and most generously, $13.5 million.
On the second game, SR: Hong Kong required only $100,000. They got $1.2 million, plus $4-10 million on Steam. This earned them $5-$9 million.
The first one I understand, but the second one? Unnecessary.
Making a total of $48 million with all of their games.
Comment has been collapsed.
The flaw in your arguement here is that while the companies involved are using gamers to replace traditional investors said gamers aren't meant to be said typical investors.
They see the potential in a game, they donate, they may never see said game. Everyone knows from the start then project may fail and if you aren't happy "losing" that money you dont donate/invest.
Just like with Early Access or mystery bundles you get what you pay for and anything else is a bonus. If you aren't happy with the current state of an EA game you dont buy it. If you already own 10k+ games and think a mystery bundle (especially one with limitations, say a square Enix Suprise Box) is too risky you dont buy it.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you are doing is intellectual dishonesty. The game company is attempting to replace an investor who expects a return on investment with an investor who is ignorant. That is what is happening.
An early access title, is still a product/service in exchange for capital. It is the same thing as purchasing an apple at the store. That apply may not yet be ripe, but you still receive an apple. When you crowd fund, you receive nothing but a promise... a promise that is not lawfully required to be fulfilled.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why are you implying that I'm scamming money out of people?
I already agreed with the first paragraph in my first post.
And whilst an early access title is a product that doesn't matter, a crowd funding customer isnt paying for a product/service in the first place, but the chance to make said product/service happen in the first place. In the end they still get exactly what they paid for - which is nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
"And whilst an early access title is a product that doesn't matter, a crowd funding customer isnt paying for a product/service in the first place, but the chance to make said product/service happen in the first place. In the end they still get exactly what they paid for - which is nothing."
That is precisely the problem with the current state of crowd funding - which is the entire point of this topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's only a problem for those that think like you that crowd funding is something that it isn't.
The companies seeking crowdfunding absolutely recieve a better financial deal then they could get through traditional investment but just because they benefit in a more direct manner than the customer who may ultimately walk away with nothing it doesn't mean it's a scam. They customers pay knowing they may get nothing and at the very least thy get exactly that.
Some people may not understand how the process works but that's a different matter. There are also people specifically using crowdfunding for actual scams but again that's another matter entirely.
So whilst companies seeking crowdfunding benefit more than this providing the funding it isn't inherently a scam.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I don't think crowd funding is something that it isn't.
I think that if you allow crowd funding to continue in the manner under which it currently operates you are going to have a long term issue - that is something you fail to recognize.
Crowd funding needs to move to purchasing a share of project EQUITY. That is the way to protect the consumer long term.
Comment has been collapsed.
You think it's a traditional investment opportunity which it isn't. The companies are seeking funding, not investment. The funders are funding, not investing.
If a company wanted to offer investment they could at which point the investors would be right to expect a return but that isn't what's happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you basically say it's a credit, which you lost from the begin just because reason?
That's very negative for games. A serious company would offer you at least a copy of the game they try to develop to see what you enabled with your 'funding'.
Comment has been collapsed.
If your pledge is at/above a certain amount then you will be offered a copy of the game. However offering you a copy of the game doesn't mean the project will succeed and you'll receive it.
In some cases you may receive immediate access to rewards in the way of alpha/beta builds, backer forums, in progress artbooks/soundtracks etc. In most cases though you're funding a project for no immediate reward, with a chance at getting the rewards for your pledge level down the line of the project does complete.
This ties in to my early access comparison earlier. If an EA game currently offers one game type on one map then you buy that game on the assumption that it won't receive any further updates. If you aren't happy with what you're getting at the point of purchase then you dont buy it, if you are then you get what you paid for and any further content is a bonus. If you aren't happy recieving nothing for funding a project then you dont fund it.
Comment has been collapsed.
However offering you a copy of the game doesn't mean the project will succeed and you'll receive it.<< A total loss?
EA at least mean, that your opinion has a weight in the development, mean you indirectly dictate how the product have to look like and a basic game. But still this can be scam too.
Crowd funding is 100% risk and 0% guarantee. You can 'get' something with their 'generosity', but they don't have to do.
If you aren't happy recieving nothing for funding a project then you dont fund it.<<
How is that different from robbery? We could change the law to being just a crime, if the victim see it as such?
Crowd funding is for projects, that don't have a business behind them. Else you want a credit without the risk to need to pay it back. That's an abusive behavior on a normally nice way to start good projects.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is that different from robbery? We could change the law to being just a crime, if the victim see it as such?
You're making a donation. You are not forced to give them anything. Has everyone ever held a gun to your head asking you to back a crowdfunding project? If someone is donating money to a charity, is it also a crime in your eyes?
Crowdfunding is a donation that comes with the promise of a reward (usually a copy of the game) if the project gets completed. As thegodoftitsandwine said, if you're not okay with receiving nothing in return for your donation, then simply don't fund the project and wait for the final product.
Comment has been collapsed.
Under donation I understand charity. Those don't do charity, they do business. That's a complete different thing. Just because they found generous fools instead of banks for their 'credit' doesn't mean they don't have an abusive will. They abuse the generosity of people to fund THEIR business.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those people are still donating money of their own free will. You were asking "how is that different from robbery", well in a robbery your money is taken without your consent.
You are allowed to not like the idea of crowdfunding, and nobody is forcing you to participate in one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would you do that? No one is getting duped here.
Unless it's a fake campaign and the creator simply pocket the money without even attempting to build the game, there is no fraud being committed.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA at least mean, that your opinion has a weight in the development, mean you indirectly dictate how the product have to look like and a basic game. But still this can be scam too.
A game being in EA doesn't mean player feedback will be considered, just as I already mentioned backer forums. So whether a game is crowdfunded or EA is irrelevant to this point, in both cases you may influence development or you may not. The 0% guarantee is a non-issue as you know that from the start.
How is that different from robbery? We could change the law to being just a crime, if the victim see it as such?
It's significantly different. You choose to fund a project you don't choose to get robbed.
Else you want a credit without the risk to need to pay it back.
I've already agreed several times that the companies involved get all of the benefits of traditional investment without the risks but it being investment for the company doesn't mean it has to be investment for the funder. If you participate in a crowdfunded project you aren't an investor you're a customer and the product you are buying is intangible and may never exist in any other state than the idea that interested you enough to say "Wow, I want to try and help make this happen!"
Comment has been collapsed.
If you participate in a crowdfunded project you aren't an investor you're a customer
I participate to show my generosity and to add to charity in such projects. Business doesn't match charity in any way. Abusing people's generosity to finance their business is a shit morale. If they want to start a business, they can go to a bank or something like that.
Crowd funding is for non-business/charity projects. With such things happening, they destroy the reputation and fool people using this.
the product you are buying is intangible and may never exist in any other state
This is easy to claim.
I find the opposite is true. Better products make its way without this form, so why such one need it? That's just destroying competition(as the other NEED to take the credit) and need the success to not ruin themself. They normally deliver better quality(as this is the selling point) as just presenting the product they make.
Comment has been collapsed.
Crowfunding is not an investment, it's basically the same thing as giving money to a beggar who told you he might become a famous painter and make a portrait of you in the future. I find the comparison to stock exchange pretty irrelevant. It appeals to generosity, not profit.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree on your analogy, if the painter becomes famous, your painting will be worth money.
Maybe more like a beggar who offers to play some music for you after you pay him/her - the beggar might just run away, or might play something awful (and maybe run away after a few bars), or quite possibly the beggar might play something wonderful.
But I don't give directly to beggars either, because I've talked to beggars, and from what I learned, there's a pretty decent chance that they don't need it surprisingly often or will waste it drugs, alcohol, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your analogy is indeed better.
I usually give to beggars, unless they're very obnoxious or it's pretty obvious they're part of some organized crime extortion thing. I don't care if they waste my money on drinks or smokes. I waste it on videogames and books so I'm not really better than them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really consider it investing, as those videogames and books won't bring me more money, unless you consider that recommending books I read to other people is what justifies my pay as a librarian. They're just things I like to do, which happen to cost money in the first place, same as when people who like gardening or tinkering have to buy tools first.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course not everything is about money, but the concept of "investment" is (or at least, it's about capital, and return). I don't get cultural goods for a return on investment, I get them because I like them. Whether they cost money or not is mostly irrelevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which is exactly in line with my statement of:
Anyone who has the slightest clue on what monetary appreciation and investing is would instantly realize that crowd funding is a complete scam (except to those who use it as a platform for charitable contributions)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with that. My point was that crowdfunding is usually presented (or understood) as an investment, but actually isn't. It's just throwing money around to people you like, but I don't see anything wrong with that as long as you're fine with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just goes to show you that even the most staunch differences of ideologies will eventually agree on something ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't get why if it isn't for you, it's only for suckers. I'm very satisfied with games like Starbound that I've supported at that stage, and why I've thought about crowdsourcing for my games. As a way to gauge interest and add some extra money to help find/pay for professional help in different fields and stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
As other users have mentioned, crowdfunding is not a financial investment, with some exceptions (most notably the BrewDog Equity for punks crowdfunding).
With your donation you are making it possible for a product/service/work of art to be created. It is a great way for creators to have the independence to do what they want and still be able to make a living. If you want to compare it to something, it is the modern equivalent of patronage by the masses.
It is not a scam but a way to get your project financed. Another thing, most charitable contribution platforms are not exactly what they seem (just check the organization tree, income and salaries of any large NGO)
Comment has been collapsed.
It is a scam in that they replace a real investor who expects a return on investment with a gamer who expects nothing lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
I fail to understand your definition of a scam. You talk as if everything that doesn't have a profit goal is a scam but you are definitely wrong on that account.
Also, removing the middleman ("investors") and bridging the gap between developer and consumer is not a bad thing on my book, quite the opposite. "Investors" are not an essential part of the development cycle and are mostly enablers because the people doing the real work have bills to pay and tools to buy.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you fail to see is that you the gamer have become the investor - with no return on investment - and you are happy about it! It defies all logic! That is a scam. To replace the investment source and remove the incentive. That is literally a scam!
Comment has been collapsed.
"Scam: a dishonest scheme; a fraud"
That is not literally a scam...
We don't want to take money from people who need it for bills, families, etc. we want to give them a helping hand in creating something we'd enjoy putting time into... How does trying to be helpful defy all logic? If that's the case, it's pretty crazy how horrible the human race has become...
Comment has been collapsed.
What logic is there in only doing stuff that makes money?
There is plenty of incentive in creating something one is proud of and supporting and enjoying what other people create. Money isn't everything in life and there are not many things I expect a ROI from, let alone from a hobby.
Comment has been collapsed.
The debate is not whether you are allowed to spend your own money as you would please, the debate is whether the crowd funding (and the indie video game industry) be better served through a return on investment or in the current capacity.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you'd consider human exploitation an individual right.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not going to initiate a discussion regarding all the different fields and topics that you mixed into one here (either way this thread is about crowdfunding), but are you implying that human exploitation isn't taking place? My statement was pretty straight forward.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was replying to blinkdog's comment about capitalism being highway robbery, and yours about exploitation. What fields and topics have I mixed together? As for your question, you'd have to clearly define what you mean by exploitation as the definition can vary based on who you ask.
Comment has been collapsed.
Life span has to do with many different factors and standard of living is debatable (in statistics, if I eat one chicken and you zero, it appears that we both ate half a chicken). Anyway my point was that (no matter how you define) human exploitation (it) shouldn't be considered as an individual right. This is not the thread to analyze it further.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, well if your point was that human exploitation shouldn't be considered an individual right, then I agree with you. The way you phrased it lead me to believe you were saying exploitation (which you haven't defined) was an inherent characteristic of capitalism, with which I would disagree.
Comment has been collapsed.
You derailed the topic towards human exploitation; capitalism itself is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." The original problem of highway robbery being the same as private owners controlling industry and trade has nothing to do with eachother. Neither the exploitation, as it's not part of the definition of capitalism at any level - having your own little shop with only you working there is still part of capitalism :)
Comment has been collapsed.
What do you think about Star Citizen - the game that raised $65,000,000 (yeah million) in crowd funding? Excuse me, the total crowd funding rounds was $148,000,000.
Comment has been collapsed.
if they're asking for more than about $20,000 then they're either overly ambitious
While many projects overshoot the money required, you idea is laughable. You know that this money is intended to pay for developers' housing, food and bills as they are working in full-time on the game, while having no other income?
https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget on average your 20.000 budget is enough for ONE person'ss housing and food for a year, with 4k remaining for bills, upkeeps, operational costs, transportation, clothing and everything else. And I guess the remaining people of the studio should just try begging on the streets.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they're working full-time as a games developer, why are they having to resort to crowd funding to raise their income?
Because if they are employed then they are working for someone, doing their stuff instead of what's the kickstarter is for? :| So if they work on the kickstarter-project, then they don't get pay from anyone...
And you're missing the point by a mile. Many indie studios aren't permanent, they are set up for individual projects: Just look it up - contracted work. It's not that they want a project for a studio of 15 people, but they need 15 people to do the project, and they have to pay them from something so the game can be craeted at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thousands of indie games were developed before the creation of Kickstarter and modern crowd funding websites. They seemed to manage okay.
Of course, some indie developers do manage to make a game by working on it part-time while holding another job that pays the bills. It can work alright for a smallish game but some larger projects would take many years to develop in that way. Take Grim Dawn for example, the guys had been working on the game like that for a while but then made their Kickstarter saying: "we've brought the game so far, but we need to quit our day jobs and concentrate 100% of our time on this game if we ever hope to deliver a finished product".
An established studio could very well have an ambitious project that they can't afford to make because they don't have the required funds to pay the salaries for the team that would be required to complete such a project. The revenue stream from a game past a certain point after release will trickle down. To stay alive, studios need to release new games within a certain time frame to keep the required revenue stream needed to pay their employees. If a project takes too long to create, you risk being unable to afford development and having to close down your studio halfway through the project.
Traditional funding through publishers comes with strings attached and a lot of compromises often have to be made. Crowdfunding can allow a developer to create something they would not be able to within the constraint of a traditional publisher.
That being said, no one should blindly support a project. Unless a developer can make a compelling argument on why they need the extra funding, I will gladly ignore them and so should everyone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if it didn't sell very well the first time around it will definitely not be possible to secure funding from a publisher to re-do the game. The only surprising thing about such a campaign is that they would find enough support to successfully fund the development of their game.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you admit that you are asking me the investor to bank roll your gaming studio, so you can hire additional programmers to finish your product and make a profit - all while intentionally ensuring that you don't have to return my capital or any appreciation or profit sharing.
How is it that you understand the above, and don't see that as a problem?
Comment has been collapsed.
Make no mistake, that a crowd funding campaign is a request for investment. Whether you the investor sees it as an investment or not, does not change the fact that it is, in fact, an investment. If the game company who seeks your investment would provide you with some (limited) profit sharing as a return on your investment, then you might see crowd funding being MUCH MUCH larger in the future and the ability to remove ALL game publishers from the process entirely - which only goes to improve 1) the game development cycle, 2) the game development studios profit margins, and 3) the gamer who invested.
Yet people seem to be in willful ignorance of that.. why?
Comment has been collapsed.
Kickstarter and the like were not founded to be investment (for financial gain) platforms. The reason for this is that it is aimed at funding creative projects which are separate from investor's control -- giving the artists and creators full control and vision over their own projects instead of letting a company like EA dictate what needs to be put in the game and forcing microtransactions or other such things in order to satisfy its stockholders profit demands and bottom lines, which often ends up limiting or ruining the original artistic vision.
It is basically stated in its terms of service that it is a donation to a cause you'd like to see succeed but which you acknowledge may not come to fruition. They were founded more in line with being a patron of the arts, like when individuals donate to a museum or something like that with their expendable income to help a greater cause or their own (non-financial) interests in the promotion of unique artistic endeavors... which otherwise often do not have a way of getting financial backing.
It is only the willfully ignorant that treat the current crop of crowdfunding platforms as investment vehicles. For some reason, even when it is explicitly mentioned in the site terms to not treat your contribution as a a financial investment or a purchase, that people do so because they somehow think that throwing money around entitles them to something despite entering into a contract that explicitly states the opposite.
I do think a micro-investment for-profit platform could succeed, but it runs into a lot of issues with liabilities and financial regulations and would be much more difficult to maintain properly without devolving into a mess of lawsuits, debts, and even more internet rage than there already exists.
Comment has been collapsed.
And the entire point of this thread is to discuss how things move forward into the future and my sole belief is that the future of crowd funding should be crowd funding for equity. I am not interested in what the current platforms offer, I am interested in what the platforms moving forward offer.
Comment has been collapsed.
And that's your main problem right here.
You treat the current platform as a scam because YOU are not personally interested in what it provides, not because they don't offer anything of value.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, its because I see it for what it is, a problem moving forward as larger and larger dev studios start their own crowd funded games. If you allow a AAA gaming studio to crowd fund a game and shift the burden of capital risk from the game studio to the consumer, then you are running a very problematic situation for the future of game development. Your main problem is your failure to acknowledge that aspect of the current system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unless they put a gun to the consumer's head, everyone is free to donate money to any studio to help them create their game. Just because YOU are driven by money and profit doesn't mean others have to.
If you don't want to share the burden of funding a game, then don't. it's as simple as that. That's called taking responsibilities for the decisions you make. Just because you don't understand why someone would be willing to donate money towards the completion of a project doesn't mean it's wrong in any way.
I have personally funded a couple of projects I really wanted to succeed, and ignored a whole lot of others that interested me because that was not something I wanted to give my money to before the actual product was available.
Comment has been collapsed.
The entire world is driven by money and profit - including the game studio who you are 'donating' money to. So why don't you retire that baseless statement.
How you respond to my comment without addressing anything that has been said in it is truly amazing.
As more and more, larger and larger game studios start crowd funding... do you think AAA studios are not watching? Do you think that they would rather let you pay for their game development or them pay for their game development? A part of business is risk, and you are essentially giving these businesses an unfair advantage over others by mitigating their risk. That is the base issue. And then you think that won't have drastic effects on other industries moving forward - or at least you refuse to address that. What happens when Adidas decides they are not going to manufacture a new shoe until their kick starter campaign is funded? What happens when Nissan doesn't start producing a new line of cars until their kick starter campaign is funded?
All businesses want to mitigate their risk... business is in the business of profit. If I can get you to "INVEST" today in a product that does not exist, then you take the full risk and my business has none. I do not risk having lost my capital on a business pursuit. I guarantee myself profits. And if you think other businesses do not want a part of that, then you don't know much about business. The current state of crowd funding sets a very bad precedent for businesses moving forward who will now seek to crowd fund future endeavors - and that is concerning and something you ignore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Businesses, as well as SOME people are driven by money and profit. "The entire world" is an abstract concept that is driven by nothing.
Big companies are free to try and secure secure funding in any way they want. What if an AAA studio, Adidas or Nissan chose to go with crowdfunding for their next product? Well, two things might happen. Either they would find enough people willing to donate money to them to bring their next product to market, or they would simply fail because not enough people would be willing to give away money to a big company that clearly doesn't need to go this route. Again, no one is forcing anyone to donate their money so, if a sufficient number of people would be willing to donate money to them why would they not use this method for funding?
Your point was that there should be some kind of profit sharing for people who are "investing" in a project's development, and I did address it by telling you that if you want profit sharing, then simply don't fund any crowdfunding project. That's not what they're for. The reason why crowdfunding is successful is that there are enough people who do not share your opinion and are willing to put their own money towards a project they believe in without a ROI. As I said, just because you can't understand why people would adhere to a system you don't agree with doesn't mean it's bad.
What you want is crowdinvesting, which already exists. You are also free to support (or even start your own) crowdinvesting platforms where there will be some sort of profit sharing with investors. If people really prefer this, then it will thrive and supplant the current ones. That's called free market.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the comment you just now replied to, I am addressing the FACTS of business pursuit - and I will absolutely be dismissive of an opinion that is direct contradiction with facts.
If you try to argue that a business is not in the business of making money, and has no interest in maximizing profits - then consider your opinion dismissed. I am point out that crowd funding is a way for a business to maximize their profits and mitigate their risks - again that is a FACT and not an opinion.
I then suggest that in the future, you will see big businesses looking to do some sort of crowd funding. That is an opinion and that can be challenged. Yet, morons choose to challenge the FACTS and not my OPINION. If you want to challenge my opinion, you will not be dismissed, but when you suggest that an opinion should be able to challenge the merit of facts then you will absolutely be dismissed and rightfully so.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can certainly see how everyone seems to be an idiot in your eyes if you have so little faith in others. Just because big publishers have the option to use the crowdfunding it does not mean that people will be pledging money to their cause.
I get your point on companies being profit driven - reducing risks and so on but for the most part, mostly thanks to the way you are communicating, this whole thing seems like a rant on YOU not being able to profit from "investing" (pledging) into a dev project.
Finally, I responded to this comment because at this point of discussion I got fed up with how rude you are towards anyone who disagrees with you, not to challenge your claims in said comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't compare a typical investor with one gamer of a crowd funding campaign. They don't have interest in the physical goods in the end, but only want a ROI. Also in the crowdfunding process the risk is distributed on many and the loss in case of failure doesn't weight so much.
Typically you're not investing more than you will get for the campaign, maybe even lowered due to the risks. So if you're crowdfunding a game (without any special privileges), you shouldn't participate with more than 50 bucks. If the campaign succeed, you get the game. If not, bad luck. Sometimes you still get something, sometimes not, but that's the gambling/investment with risks part.
Comment has been collapsed.
I absolutely disagree with your fist paragraph. Let's look at a video game publisher - such as Activision Blizzard. It is a publicly traded and owned company. As such, every single stock owner (see 753.66 Million owners) is participating in the risk of funding a new game. The commercial failure of a game title can (and will) drastically alter the stock price of the company - and that drastically alters the value of those shares and the overall wealth of the share owners. To suggest that the only risk holder is the company itself and not its underlying share holders AKA owners is ignorant at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
Comment has been collapsed.
To suggest that the only risk holder is the company itself and not its underlying share holders AKA owners is ignorant at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
I neither stated nor suggested that.
With typical investor I meant banks, investment fonds, companies and other major stockholders. They are only interested in ROI or influence. There are only few stocks where the majority is in private consumer ownage.
You usually don't spend only 50 bucks or less on stocks.
Comment has been collapsed.
A typical investor such as Bank of America, Goldman Sachs Bank, Morgan Stanley Bank, or ahem any bank on the face of the earth... all of which have share holders and are accountable to private investors. So again, the individual investor or owners of the company are risk holders.
All investors should be interested in is ROI - its in the name and definition of INVESTING.
When a game studio raises capital (regardless of from whom) they are seeking an INVESTMENT. You as the individual gamer fail to realize that because 'meh I just want the game'. I comprehend that the individual gamer investor is not looking for a return on investment - but if he were a smart investor, he certainly would be.
I can purchase a share of Morgan Stanley for $48. While I do not personally make purchases in the NYSE in amounts less than 100K, many people have what's called an IRA or 401K where they do just that... purchase shares or partial shares of stocks and mutual funds for 50 bucks or less depending on their contribution and employer match. That is STILL investing.
Comment has been collapsed.
When a game studio raises capital (regardless of from whom - an individual, a bank, an investor, a gamer on kickstarter) they are seeking an INVESTMENT.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you seek FUNDING for a company or project that has no product or service or anything tangible, you are seeking either an INVESTMENT or A CHARITABLE DONATION.
Comment has been collapsed.
Crowdfunding IS a donation, not an investment.
There is the promise of a reward (usually the game itself on game crowdfundings) if and when the project sees completion, but any money you put into crowdfunding is not an investment. That money is given with the explicit understanding that you may not receive anything in return if the project fails.
Comment has been collapsed.
Investment defined as "an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result."
I devoted my money (see time) to a particular undertaking (see kickstarter campaign) with the expectation of a worthwhile result (see the game)
Comment has been collapsed.
You already stating it yourself: result = game.
You want ROI additionally, that's okay. But then you have to seek for campaigns which offer additional ROI as result. If there aren't any, then there seems to be not enough demand for it. Yet you blame other people as idiots though they just want a game as a result.
Just because the world isn't playing by my rules, I don't blame the world for being dumb.
Comment has been collapsed.
Look, it is very simple. When you pay money today for the opportunity (not explicit guarantee) of a receiving a product in return - that is an investment. You didn't buy a product... no product existed... no product may ever exist.
You invested. It is that simple. You just invested for a copy of the game - which I personally see as a poor investment by someone who is naive about monetary appreciation. I am trying to help you, and the other 'stupid gamers' invest better!
Comment has been collapsed.
no product existed
Wrong. No finished product existed. I don't know which examples you have seen, but those I checked didn't only have a text concept or a stickman drawing. Yes, you're paying for a proposal of a game and it's not guaranteed that the game gets finished or that the finished game really appeals to you.
Therefore you wouldn't back a campaign for a GTA clone. You would just buy the original. But there are campaigns for games which doesn't exist in another way (either completely new setting or a niche which isn't supported by big publishers, because they don't believe in big enough sales). I would neither back Paradox (as you mentioned in another posting) regardless of the proposed game, because it's a big publisher and they should have enough possibilities to fund a game development. That's abuse of this system in my eyes, too.
But that doesn't mean that crowdfunding is bad per se. The world isn't black or white. And noone will listen to you, when you start a discussion by calling people with other opinions idiots.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't believe that you are in any position to suggest what did or did not exist in relation to any crowd sourced campaign that received funding and delivered no product to its investors.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure I understand your comparison with the stock exchange correctly. Because you say the one is fine while the other is only done by idiots. Yet, they are absolutely the same. For strange reason you talk of benefits for the stock exchange while calling it potential reward in case of crwod funding. For the stock exchange you also have just potential reward. If the company you invest in does bad you lose money. If the crowd funding project you invest does bad you lose money. If the company you invest does good you gain money. If the crowd funding project you invest does good you get a product/products. The only differences are that you have chosen your reward before hand although it is same principle with higher invest comes higher risk/reward (Tier system). And maybe that instead of a yearly calculation of gains/losses versus a one time gain/loss calculation after the project has ended (or failed).
Are you applying the same logic to start-ups? Is investing there also done by idiots? Is investing in something you see a potential reason enough to be called an idiot? Crowd funding has it' ups and downs of course but calling everyone doing it a sucker is narrow-minded. Like everytime you invest you should carefully before doing so and then everything is fine.
I supported crowd funding once and got a product of high quality for a lower price as it has been sold for a long time. So, I saved money and helped a game to be created thousand of people enjoyed. Sorry for being stupid -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
When you. the gamer. are being asked to fill the position of a bank or private investor so the game studio can fund its project and has zero interest or intention of providing you a return on your capital and you think that is an acceptable business practice - then absolutely you kind of are an idiot.
How long before you are being asked to crowd source the creation of the new Apple iPhone? How long before you are being asked to crowd source the planting of corn fields?
As the financier, I am in a traditional sense, the owner. In a crowd funding environment, you finance the project and own nothing - hence you are a sucker. How someone can fail to realize that is beyond reasoning.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why someone has to insult others in order to get his points across is beyond MY reasoning but whatever. My main argument is that the stock exchange is the very same principle. You don't owe anything. You hold fictional money. If the company goes bankrupt you have nothing. And the same applies for the crowd funding. The project fails you have nothing. You can argue about the investment to risk/reward ratio. Yes. But the principle is identical. You can't condemn the one and say the other is okay. There is no logic in that.
And if you haven't noticed: The new IPhone is already crowd sourced by all the people buying shares of apple.
Comment has been collapsed.
You seem to lack a broad understanding of business, investing and economics.
If I purchase shares of a company, if the company goes bankrupt, the liquidation of assets is returned to the investor... so you do not have nothing - furthermore, you are able to sell your company shares whenever you are so inclined to do so. You cannot refund your kick starter contribution if life circumstances have changed and need those funds.
The iPhone is not crowd sourced by share holders of apple. Apple has done no sale of a new stock series. Funds were raised for company operations when the shares went public and whenever new series of shares are released for sale. The shares people are buying today are being traded between INVESTORS - the company does not profit from those share sales.
The iPhone is being funded through capital reinvestment. Apple has previously made a profit on goods/services and takes that money and reinvests it into R&D and additional product development.
Why someone would have such a concrete position on a topic they have no understanding of is beyond MY reasoning.
Comment has been collapsed.
Implying the liquidation of assets is enough so i see something from it. As a common stockholder I am only at place three. In case of bankruptcy everything which can be sold will be sold. From this money first the debtees will be paid and then the preference shareholders will get their money. And just in case something is left the common stockholders will get paid. Depending on the numbers this will be either nothing or close to nothing. But okay it is not nothing per defintion just nearly nothing. As for a return for the funds at any given moment. I give you that point. It is right.
We can discuss about semantics. But as you said the moment the shares are created they are sold from the company. So they got money from any share holder which does now "own" a part of this company. By buying this share this part goes over to me. So my money is somewhere in circulation in the company. They do deposit all the money from shares somewhere. They use it for their operations. This also means that the money which goes to R&D to this tiny part I "own" of the company is from my money. And as such the moment they have gone to the stock exchange every future product is crowd funded. It doesn't matter how you call it. The products are crowdfunded as my money is to a part in there.
I understand your position and there are valid points in it. And crowd sourcing has points which need to be addressed to keep the method alive for the future but it doesn't make the status quo inherently bad. But maybe understand that people can differ from your opinion and still being valid.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your example is not valid.
I did not specify which series of shares you as the investor purchased - you picked common series shares in an effort to make the example more in line with the theory of total loss.
If I 'crowd fund' a game, and that game makes money. Then the developer takes his profits and puts that money into making a second game - its not crowd funded, the company just participated in growth capex - just like a company on the stock exchange that takes its profits and continues to operate. You as the second hand owner of the shares of a company - never funded the company to begin with, and the company certainly did not receive any profit of the sale of those shares regardless of how much those shares appreciated in value.
Your ownership today (as a second hand owner), constitutes no funding of anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I assume we won't come to a point where we agree we each other. There are just some points which can be interpreted in different ways. So maybe you agree with me to let this stand here right as it is and other people may bring in how they see it. Just before there will be an unncessary heated debate.
Comment has been collapsed.
debate is the lifeblood through which democracies flourish... not something that is unnecessary or something to shy away from. But if you want to agree to disagree, that is your prerogative.
Comment has been collapsed.
When I back up a game like this, it's because I find the project very appealing, the devs are not ringing any shady bell in my mind, and the crowd funding price is really lower than the future retail price. The deal is something like "pre-purchase for a big discount" while day one buyers will pay much more. This model seems ok to me for videogames from indie /starting companies. Of course, when I see an old company doing it, I don't feel the same, and don't back them up usually.
I agree on the fact crowd funding can be a major swindle sometimes, the best example coming to my mind is the scumbag who became rich selling his crowdfunded unfinished gaming VR device to Mark Z. Crowd funders in this case have been totally screwed up.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you would not feel comfortable in crowd funding a Paradox game title - since that studio has a history of successful game launches and made a lot of money? They recently had a crowd fund of $11 million - despite not needing the money to develop the game title.
This was a blatant way to increase local studio profits at the expense of the investor since they 'crowd sourced' the investor.
When people say 'oh, crowd sourcing is good' they fail to understand the overall market impact for the future. Just like a massive DLC scheme and day 1 DLC and microtransactions and everything else that is absurd today. It slowly creeps in, while the ignorant and fanboys defend the change that overall degrades the gaming experience in the future - consequences that are not truly understood at the onset.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you're just paying for the game (and even at a lower backer price) you're essentially just preordering a game without money back guarantee if you change you're mind. You don't deserve money off of its success for "investing" $50, that's ridiculous.
You're getting your money's worth when the game comes out. If it doesn't or it's trash, well, that's one risk you sign up for but it's not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You don't deserve money off of its success for "investing" $50, that's ridiculous."
Your contention is that due to the small investment size, that you should not be eligible for any profit sharing? Do I not deserve the dividends afforded to me when I purchase shares of Lloyds Banking Group at roughly $3.50 per share on the NYSE? Your position is absolutely absurd.
Comment has been collapsed.
Once again, being extremely dramatic, and the comparison doesn't work. Why? Because when you buy shares you're not buying a product, you're buying a (tiny) part of a company aka investing. But when you crowdfund a game for those $50 you're buying a product.
You're not buying a stake in the company, you're buying something the company makes. Period. And again of course there's a risk factor because you might not actually get it but so is investing, which is the only similarity, you gotta pick them wisely.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you exchange cash for a future outcome - that is called investing. You did not buy a product, because no product exists.
Comment has been collapsed.
That concept already exists, it's called preorders and that's exactly what this is except there isn't a guarantee you'll actually get it depending on the developer. Companies like Larian or Obsidian will always come through, others are risks, it's a judgment call. Ultimately you're paying for the product and that's what you get for your money.
Comment has been collapsed.
A pre-order is something that comes with an explicit guarantee of fulfillment. As there may never be a product created - you are not pre-ordering as you cannot pre-order something that does not now nor ever will exist. If you think you can pre-order something that may never exist then you are delusional. It is an investment, nothing more, nothing less... its time to come back in from the fringe.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was clear when I started that no matter what you'll keep obsessing over this idea that you deserve more than the product you pay for. Yes you may not ever get it, but that's the risk you take with crowdfunding.
Nobody is putting a gun to your head to PREORDER (since I know it annoys you at this point that's what I'm calling it) a game that you may not actually get, you don't deserve money back on top of the game for buying a discounted game that may or may not get finished.
It's crowdfunding not Wall Street.Get over it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You didn't buy a product. No one is buying a product. Crowd funding is either a) an investment or b) a charity. You didn't buy anything. When you BUY something, you have what is commonly referred to as CONSUMER RIGHTS. You don't have any, because you DIDN'T BUY ANYTHING.
Get that through your thick skull already.
You invested, and if you personally don't want a return on your investment, then that is your own business of being naive. Meanwhile actual investors would like to see a return on their investment - as seen through comments and the poll. Maybe you should reflect on that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, first of it would help if you didn't call everyone stupid and then ask for a serious discussion.
The way I see it, you act as a donor for something to happen. Your reward is simply be ABLE to play the game which may or may not have been made otherwise without your donation.
You should not see it as an investment in terms of money since it's clear from the start to everyone that you will not be getting your investment back as profit. To this credit, a lot of great games have been created due to this process which the whole world gets to enjoy (eg. Pillars of Eternity). And if you are thinking, why should I invest, some other "dumbass" will do it for me, then you are you are simply ignoring the fact that with that mindset nothing would ever have been created. An analogy for voting comes to mind as in my vote does not matter.
Some kickstarter campaigners (for a movie) have talked about how having a real investment platform would be cool and fair to have. Everyone would share the success of the movie and get paid in the process. And I fully agree that this would be awesome to have and very fair. Kickstarter and other websites are not this, and do not pretend to be and thus should not been interpreted as such.
And sure, some studios exploit websites like Kickstarter to get even more profit, and yes, it's an issue, but you can never really know if some companies are exploiting it or really need the funding. Same with scammers - a few bad examples should not determine the sentiment towards these kind of things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for taking the opportunity to explain what the purpose of kickstarter is - as if that was lost on anyone. The discussion is not about what the current situation IS, it is a discussion on what the situation SHOULD BE.
"And if you are thinking, why should I invest, some other "dumbass" will do it for me, then you are you are simply ignoring the fact that with that mindset nothing would ever have been created."
Not true, in a free market capitalist society, so long as there is potential profit to be made, the free market does and will fill the need of the market. Either the developer would find a bunch of other 'dumbasses' to fund them, or they will take on the risk of self funding or seek to share that risk with a bank and/or private investor who would demand a share of the reward. Just because you the gamer are the dumbest investor on the planet, does not circumvent that you are making an investment... you are just making a really stupid one... because you clearly do not understand monetary value.
Comment has been collapsed.
My statements speak for themselves. Your inability to reason speaks for itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Kickstarter is just a tool. It all depends on who and how uses the tool.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know its a mega man clone and for sale on steam, not sure what else I should know about it or why it is applicable here. Can you please expand on that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely!
I think Mighty No. 9 is probably one of the most disappointing crowd-funded games in recent history. The creator of MN9, Keiji Inafune, was actually a producer at Capcom related to the original Mega Man series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiji_Inafune
After massive delays in the game's release, the product that was produced was so disappointing to most fans, that the game still gets a mixed / negative review on steam. (http://store.steampowered.com/app/314710/Mighty_No_9/)
Even with a seasoned individual in the gaming industry attempting to create a game that everyone sunk a massive amount of Kickstarter money into ($3.8 Million!), the result was, in most persons' eyes, sub-par, and a huge disappointment.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mightyno9/mighty-no-9
They still sell the game, still make a profit, and the people who backed this game, well, they got a long wait for something they didn't count on. (And paid $20 minimum for the game's "pre-order", while the game sells now for $19.99).
Comment has been collapsed.
PS, you can get a mighty deal on Mighty No. 9 right now on Humble Bundle's Saints Row Bundle!
Comment has been collapsed.
My take away from reading that, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the Might No 9 is a perfect example of someone 'gaming' the system and pulling one over on those investors (gamers) who pledged money to the kickstarter? It almost sounds as if the game creator knowingly or willfully mislead his backers and then individually profited from a fraudulent activity. What makes that okay? And why would half of the posters here defend that?
Comment has been collapsed.
See, that's the question, did they willingly defraud. Some people seem to think so. At the very least, definitely a horrible management of time and money. Is it right? No. I'd say there should be some accountability, but I think that would have to be in the hands of the fund raising company. Perhaps an overseer from Kickstarter on the whole process and what was going on might have been a good idea (though I'm sure they don't do that).
I can say, though, there are some games that have come out of the whole process, such as Jotun and Sundered, that weren't such horrible outcomes. It all depends, it's a gamble! In any event, just like someone knocking on your door to "save the whales" or to invest in a product idea they have, expect your money not to come back to you.
Does it make it right? Maybe not, but even before crowd funding, this process has been going on for, probably, hundreds of years, investment and risk. It's up to the person fronting the money to decide whether the benefits (if any) outweigh any risk, and if they are willing to do so. I can't say I'd go either way. Lots of vaporware, but some good has come out of it all. I think you'd find that with most things, 99% crap, 1% diamonds. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I am in complete agreement. There have been some great games that were developed through the use of crowd funding - definitely the exception to the rule though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I generally agree, yet I've taken part, but hear me out;
There are only two projects I've backed on Kickstarter.
The only reason I've backed them, is because I didn't see them as big of a risk as I only invested a small amount of money.
I would never back a project that wants like 30€+ for a game that may or may not come out in a few years. It's too big of a gamble.
But a small investment of 5-10€ I'm fine with as long as the game already seems like it's well on its way and doesn't look overly ambitious etc.
So in other words, I'm all for "smaller" projects on Kickstarter that aren't looking for a ton of money as I probably won't be disappointed even if the game comes out really late and isn't even that good as I basically only risked a meal's worth of money on it.
If the game turns out to be good, well then I consider it a good investment as I got a good game for half the price of retail.
And yes, things like coming back to ask for money on another project after making bank on the previous is quite atrocious.
I guess I got lucky as the first game I backed I got much more than I even bargained for.
I gave the smallest possible amount for a copy of the game, with no promise of extra stuff.
What I ended up getting was not only the game (which I don't think was even late (crazy, I know)), copies of three previous games in the series and I even got the follow-up game a couple of years later.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have joined the Divinity OS 1+2 Kickstarter campaigns, since it was veryclear in advance what kind of game and quality I have to expect.
As far as Divinity Original Sin 2 goes, I bought 4 copies together with my friends for <20€ each. If I were to pich up the game right now on Steam, it would cost me 45€. While I did not get a bonus for my investment in case the game is a success, I got a massive discount for it.
In fact even if 1/3 of my supported games that offer a similar deal turn out to be garbage, it would still be a good investment for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you are happy with your return on investment, then you are happy. I am merely pointing out that you could have gotten a much greater return on that investment if you were abridged the same terms as a traditional investor. Either way, at least you have the understanding that the act was in fact an investment ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just curious if you've actually encountered anyone who crowd funded a video game that expected a monetary return on investment.
I get where you're coming from, and don't entirely disagree with you, but I don't think the people who fund these things are as dumb as your post suggests.
Also, one point your post misses is that crowd-funding gives the game studio more creative control over their product (for better or worse) than when they are beholden to traditional investors or a publisher.
Comment has been collapsed.
the developer is under NO obligation to deliver a finished product
While this was initially true, Kickstarter updated some policies a long time ago, and now it's only somewhat true (requires a good faith effort to fulfill all rewards and promises sort of thing), and there is a legal obligation, although the onus is on the backers to enforce that.
https://www.kickstarter.com/section4?ref=faq-basics_creatoroblig
Comment has been collapsed.
For video games, none that I'm aware of.
There's a card game (that eventually delivered) that had a state-level court ruling against it, and a board game (that eventually delivered) where the Federal Trade Commission got involved, but that's the best I can turn up from a decent search.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, fig offers investing, if that's what you're looking for ... if you disagree with the rest, stay away from it? Backers get more stuff than even some of the people who work on games get, so I really don't see what your problem is (example: I work in localization, I've never gotten name credit as most backers get even at the lowest tiers (at most the agency gets mentioned), and I'm not allowed to talk about any projects, while backers get to brag about it)
Also: Pretty much all crowdfunding projects I've seen for games so far offered the game at a tier priced at or below the final retail price, so if from the trailer and other material offered it looks like something you'd want, why not buy/"pre-order" it? Crowdfunding sites always remind you that the product might not get made or come out differently, so you know about the risks. (I should also state that I only back all-or-nothing-campaigns where you get your money back if it doesn't get fully funded - everything else already seems super shady)
Comment has been collapsed.
I see crowd-funding as the modern-day version of patronage or sponsorship.
We're giving money to creators of art. We believe that they will create art that will have a positive impact on our lives when it's completed, while understanding that there is a risk that it will never be completed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, thanks for telling me what I don't know. That is a great way to continue a conversation!
It's not an exact analogy -- of course today's "patrons" don't have as much control over the final product as Renaissance patrons did, and I doubt any Kickstarter backers are going to demand that game developers live in their house with them -- but it's broadly similar in concept: paying a "creator" to create something that you believe will be valuable.
It's essentially the evolution of patronage.
As to whether games are a type of art --
If you expand your definition of "art" just a bit, then it's not hard to see creators as artists. Whether they create a painting or a sculpture or a novel or a poem or a musical composition or a rocking chair or a video game.
Actually, you don't even need to expand the definition of art:
art
(noun)
Comment has been collapsed.
Patrons demanded a well done product for their money and they controlled the quality. "Free artistry" is an illusion. Analogy for kickstarted games for Renaissance is when you buy a barrel of wine in winter with a discount, and you will get it in autumn, or maybe not, if the summer is cold. The same scheme. Because the game and the barrel of wine are products. Don't try to fool yourself into these dreams about art, charity etc. After all, it's all about money. Some get money, some get imaginary feeling of being charitable.
Your definition is vague. Something is art when experts identified it as art. 30 games were exhibited in MoMA, and these are art objects. Other - not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Something is art when experts identified it as art.
You actually typed that. I think you might actually believe it! So you and I and millions -- billions! -- of other people are incapable of discerning whether something is art, unless confirmed by "experts."
Wow.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is how it works, there are experts and curators, they define what's art and what's not. Your definition is generic and nonfunctional. With this definition we'll drown in a garbage, because everything will have value, while it's not. People are free to call the drawings of their toddlers "art", they can even try to sell it, but the situation won't change.
We don't call TV shows art. Why should we call video games, which are still have a way to go to the level of modern TV shows?
Comment has been collapsed.
You're mistaken. Cultural objects - yes, art - no. Epigonism, imitations, copies - not art by definition. Art is something unique and creative, something that was done for the first time. Luis Buñuel's "An Andalusian Dog" is an art. Hundreds of other movies filmed in 1929 are not.
Comment has been collapsed.
What?
Speaking of video games, the only arty thing I can think of are the games of the Ice-Pick Lodge studios, but not even all of them. Dybovsky, the studio leader, has an art background, he played by the art rules, he did an art manifest, and he put most of his works in the art context. Pathologic and The Void are art. And probably there are also a couple of cases in Japan, I'm not into consoles.
Art is an institution, with rules and barriers, you must be an inside player, common people do not understand this. "Let's make an indie game, with nice graphics and stuff, with the plot about love and death, it will be art duh" - no, it's not working this way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently, I should give you a break and consider where you're from. Russia is not exactly the beacon of artistic freedoms or value. And America is not exactly short on opinions! =P
So, I did a little research. I found an article "Tight restrictions on freedom of art in Russia" [http://www.dw.com/en/tight-restrictions-on-freedom-of-art-in-russia/a-18411624] that helped me understand your perspective a bit better.
"The legendary film specialist Naum Kleiman was forced to abandon the film museum he had founded himself: He'd showed too many Western films."
Comment has been collapsed.
Oooohh look, American is being politically incorrect from this nice little position of "higher moral ground".
You don't know shit about me, about my background, about my political views, and you don't know shit about art in Russia either.
This deserves a report. Upd: reported.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then it's even worse. I never refered to country or nation or whatsoever, and you're making stereotipical propaganda statements, not seeing any problem in this, while thinking you're representing a freedom of thought and speech. Wanna play that game, heh? Wanna hear: "stupid Murcan, you know nothing about art because you don't have the European tradition of art, your media are shit and your freedom of speech is over, it's a total war of pro- and anti- Trump shills", happy now? I'm not thinking what I wrote just now, I did it for comical reasons, so you could see yourself from the side.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol. Except that's nothing like what I had initially written. America has plenty of problems - I can happily agree with that. I will never agree to your definition of art; especially trying to define art as something that requires approval from other artists. Art is in the eye of the beholder. The only judge is the observer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly what you've said.
If the definition defines all and nothing it's not a definition. Not mine, it's how things actually work, the definition may be not intuitively understandable for some, but it's functional. Often concepts in modern natural and social sciences are beyound common intuitive understanding. One observer is not enough, because he could be under drugs or mentally ill. Under drugs one can think he created something genious, but then he gets the feedback or self-critizism kicks in. There must be a social agreement on art.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your definition
LOL, is it "my definition"? I forgot that I wrote the dictionary!
You should contact the people who publish dictionaries that they need to change the published definition of art, so that it fits with your worldview:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination...but only if approved by experts or curators."
Comment has been collapsed.
Semantical definition of common language meaning is not the concept. Common meaning of "animal" is a hairy living creature with 4 paws. The concept of animal is multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (also called Metazoa). You should go college to understand a difference.
Now read carefully:
Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not a scam, a high-risk low-value proposition for consumers. Just like Early access is. At best you get a slight discount for pre-ordering a game not yet in development.
There is no scam, the terms are clear enough if you take them that's up to you. You should only do it if you won't miss that money.
The only "scams" are when people misuse it and run away with the $.
In my opinion, there should be protection/insurance to protect/reimburse the consumers when the project fails or a profit share. Otherwise, consumers get the risks, but no real benefits aside from "getting the game built", which is often more a problem of not being able to sell a concept, rather than there being no interest. There's also many companies (most of the noteworthy ones) who do joint ventures where the crowdfunding is a small part of the budget but creates a community of testers and publicity agents.
I've supported 4 kickstarters:
What I got was PC copies for the first 2, and PS4 copies for the last 2, both at a bit of a discount.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is a scam in that it replaces the traditional investor with multiple gamer investors who don't know anything about capital appreciation and valuation... and as a result willingly invest their capital with no interest on a return on their investment.
Anyone who understands financial concepts would tell you that is a scam when done so with implicit intent - which it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a scam, by definition:
scam: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
There is no fraud and there is no deception. I.e. not a scam. You may not like it, but that's what the word means.
Yeah, it's all malicious and designed to prey on the uninformed. Everyone who uses it is evil or foolish. We need to stop people from losing the return on their $10 (about $0.80 over 4 years) to pre-purchase and help fund a game because the dev is lacking in the aptitude, desire or opportunity to get it funded in a different way.
Let's pretend everything out of crowdfunding would have still been made with traditional funding sources and call anyone who relies on it a scammer.
That's for the tip, professor.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are welcome to believe whatever it is that you want to believe. There is no need to rhetorically refer to me as professor because you have a difference of opinion, it is simply done in bad taste and really shows your character.
It is most certainly a deceptive act, in that it makes backers believe they have purchased something when in reality they have invested yet receive no return on that investment, nor did the developer ever intend to deliver a return to the investors investment. That is called implicit intent. Most would refer to this activity as fraudulent or at the very least as deceptive or 'a scam'. If you choose not to see it that way, then you are welcome to have your own opinion, just understand your opinion is not the authority nor is it shared by the majority.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone who understands financial concepts
Professor was a reference to that appeal to attach authority to yourself while implying anyone who disagrees is not well-versed in the subject. Which shows your character.
your opinion is not the authority nor is it shared by the majority.
And yours is. Thanks for proving my point.
Comment has been collapsed.
I opened the door for conversation and debate, you are closing the door stating that your opinion is the authority... which it is not. What point are claiming to have been proven exactly?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nevermind that point, I guess you are not very self-aware.
Regarding your proposition, it relies on your presumption that everyone who funds something misunderstands the process and that the people who ask for the funds are doing it to purposefully exploit that ignorance. Both thesis I can't agree with and would require proof on to do so.
The terms of the system are available and presented clearly enough, in my opinion. Anyone who supports a Kickstarter expecting no-risk and profit beyond the rewards promised, simply misunderstands how the system works. There is no purposeful obfuscation of the risks involved (there's even a section on Risk on most if not all KS pages) or the terms of the investment. Neither is there an implication of future returns if the game is completed or, given that, also successful.
There is no purposeful deception, as you claim, and being given what you are promised is not fraud.
I disagree with your thesis and as such with your hypothesis, and I simply resent the implication that, the makers of Shovel Knight, Divinity: OS, Darkest Dungeon, and HLD, to name a few, are scammers and used crowdfunding to prey on their customers.
A bad value proposition that relies on charity rather than the pursuit of personal profit is not the same as a scam, and everyone who supports these campaigns doesn't do so unaware of the risks and expecting to profit on their investment (using the meanings which allow investment without the expectation of profit).
Obviously, crowd funding is a stupid thing to do as an investment one wants to profit from. And, we may disagree on this, asking for charity or assistance doesn't necessitate evil or laziness.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Regarding your proposition, it relies on your presumption that everyone who funds something misunderstands the process and that the people who ask for the funds are doing it to purposefully exploit that ignorance. Both hypothesis I can't agree with and would require proof on to do so."
When you make a statement like this, you seem to believe that I am discussing the CURRENT state of crowd funding - which is not what I am doing. I am discussing how the current state of crowd funding needs to evolve into a system that sells equity in the future in order to combat the larger and larger gaming studios from coming on and taking advantage of the system as is - which is essentially unfair business practices. When you allow a professional gaming studio to crowd fund something, you are removing their capital risk from their development process. That is a complete game changer for studios... especially if that studio was Rockstar and the game was GTA V.
Now, GTA VI may be internally funded now, but you must understand that larger and larger companies are looking at the viability of crowd funding their endeavors too. That ultimately has a negative impact on the market as businesses will not invest their own capital to create products/services (because you will invest or not) which leads to less choice for the consumer.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was addressing what you were saying about the current situation, but sure protecting customers should be a greater priority especially when it comes to devs that don't need to do crowd funding and just want to pass the risk to the customers, considering how little accountability and assurances there are. Large companies should be completely liable for anything they collect, being the only entities able to return what they took or even make due without the campaign.
You may already know that Fig is doing that, offering the option to treat crowd funding as an investment.
There are things where it makes little sense to move to that model like board games where the point is to amass a large one-time single order to allow for the printing and production of the game and as such the tiers are often limited and not too far from the retail cost of the game. In those cases moving to an investment-model makes little sense.
In particular, for the low-cost tiers, I don't see a necessity for expecting a return. Maybe you should get something to counter the risk, but getting a return on a $10 to $20 "purchase" doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference, and those funds may be better served funding the next game. Like the Banner Saga, devs should have done.
When it comes to large donations, $100+ there some degree of ownership would be warranted. And at the $1,000 to $10,000 that should absolutely be handled as an investment in the company, entitling one to dividends or some other form of returns.
Comment has been collapsed.
your opinion is not the authority nor is it shared by the majority
You should read that last sentence and realize that it applies to yourself as well. You have been acting as if you were right on this all over this thread even though the majority have proved you wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Facts are required to prove something wrong... no facts have been provided to contradict my position.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, no facts have been provided to support your opinion either. The vast majority simply has an opinion that contradict yours.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The vast majority simply has an opinion that contradict yours."
The poll results show this statement to be a lie.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the poll, only 24% agrees with you. You're the only one lying here.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the poll, 11% agree that "believe that my capital investment is not worth any return other than a copy of the game." which is your position. Meanwhile the highest percentage believe they deserve more.
The other options are not in relation to money and thus on a dollar for dollar scale, people agree that they are investing and agree with my position.
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL! The sad thing is that you probably believe the bullcrap you just wrote.
You act as if any option that isn't about money is irrelevant to the argument, which is a complete fallacy. Especially since every poll option is in relation to money since people are choosing to put money (or not) into these projects for various reasons. They're just not related to ROI.
And even with your highly biased poll options, your opinion is still the least popular one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you absolutely delusional? Rhetorical question.
19% do not fund and want an ROI.
5% do fund and want an ROI.
24% want an ROI.
14% provide a charitable contribution by funding indie game developers
11% believe a game copy is their ROI.
You can't just alter facts to fit your narrative. Your conclusions are completely erroneous.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't just alter facts to fit your narrative. Your conclusions are completely erroneous.
Yet that's what you just did.
The last 2 options are people who do not expect to receive anything more for their contributions. So that's 25% who are not interested in a ROI beyond what is already offered. Just because that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean you can ignore the facts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't tell if you are actually dumb or just deceitful.
When someone pledges $5 for a thank you, they do not expect a copy of the game or an ROI - it is called a charitable contribution.
Comment has been collapsed.
And when I pledge $20, $40, or $100 for a reward tier that includes a copy of the game, I'm still making a donation. I do hope that the project will complete and that I will get a copy of the game in the end, but I'm also fully aware that I might actually get nothing in return. In both cases,
The fact is, for 76% of the responses you got on your poll it's not about ROI. The vast majority of people are either not looking for a ROI (beyond a possible copy of the game), or are simply not interested in risking their money at all. Any other interpretation on your part is just deceitful.
Calling me names will not change the underlying facts.
Comment has been collapsed.
The facts of the poll are:
The largest amount of people giving money to crowd funding are donating to charity.
The second largest amount of people giving money to crowd funding are investing for a return of the completed game.
The final sect of people giving money to crowd funding believe they should be entitled to a return on their investment in addition to the game.
It further goes on to say that there is a large sect of people who would invest if there was a return.
As such, the conclusion of the poll is that, UNSURPRISINGLY, people who invest their money want a return. And there would be more funding available if crowd funding included equity - as I suggest in my POST.
Even despite the above, there will always be an overwhelmingly majority of people who WILL NEVER donate or invest in crowd funding.
To draw any other conclusion than the above is absolute fiction and is irrespective of factual data points as supplied by the poll itself.
I also didn't call you any names, I said you are either DUMB or DECEITFUL, the readers can choose which of those is correct. Also, attempting to deflect through virtue signaling does not change the underlying facts. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend the data and was merely pointing out that you are unable to do so or are blatantly making false claims to support your individual narrative.
Comment has been collapsed.
I also didn't call you any names, I said you are either DUMB or DECEITFUL
And since I'm neither of those, that's name-calling right there. At this point you're just being dishonest.
As such, the conclusion of the poll is that, UNSURPRISINGLY, people who invest their money want a return.
The ACTUAL conclusion of the poll is that
That's 24% who want more of a ROI than what crowdfunding can offer them, 26% who are happy with the current options, and 50% who don't care either way.
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL... you continue to combine two categories which are completely separate and are absolutely dishonest.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your original argument is that people should get some sort of profit sharing in return for their "investment". In that context, these two categories are one and the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, they absolutely are not... and inferring as such is dishonest. Investing in a crowd funding campaign in exchange for only a copy of the game is quite clearly distinguishable compared to donating to a crowd funding campaign that has no 'reward' or a 'thank you' from the developer. At this point, I have to assume you are just trolling here and will no longer be responding to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
In both cases you are not getting any kind of profit sharing, which is the basis of your original argument. The level of intellectual dishonesty you're showing is simply appalling.
The only one trolling here is you... and it's been a fun ride feeding the troll. I wish you a good day!
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't agree with 'crowdfunding' (which really isn't a new concept at all, as many people seem to believe) being a complete waste of money in total, since first you'll ideally receive the game you gave them money for and second to me it's more of some sort of indulging a passion anyway, but the frequent general lack of basic economical understanding coupled with naiveté and, from a consumer's side, how one evaluates an 'investment' in the first place plus a basic lack of professionalism and business skills, sprinkled with a big portion of shadiness and dishonest intentions from wannabe developers, also tend to baffle me again and again. Especially with such abstract products like digital ones, it seems to be quite easy to convince people to throw their money at you, though several ridiculous Kickstarters and even other, more normal/conservative investments or high profile projects constitute additional evidence that human stupidity isn't limited to video games, nor ever was. It's pretty easy, in most cases there's usually a reason for why some of them couldn't come up with any real equity to begin with and why nobody cared to invest before. Sad thing to me is that honest people with good ideas consistently suffer because of that and thus cool things get buried under all that trash I can only imagine you have to be pretty deluded, crooked or simply mentally unstable to come up with anyway. Additionally an overall sense of entitlement comes into play, with people assuming they would've a bigger say in the project than anyone ever promised them or on the other side can do whatever they want with the bucks they received, evermore fueling my belief that many people utterly fail to grasp that every investment or donation usually comes with obligations and responsibilities, even if they are just of a moral sort.
So, standard human behavior to me :>.
Comment has been collapsed.
269 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Wok
6 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by steveywonder75
150 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Hawkingmeister
1,247 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by WaxWorm
82 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by GarlicToast
71 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by LighteningOne
145 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by seaman
645 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by osteburger
40 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by nickchanger
165 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by Kyog
8 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Vampus
86 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by Mhol1071
2,438 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by perfvillain
62 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by ChimChakMan
I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the video gaming industry in general, however this is something that pisses me off more than anything.
I can certainly appreciate that more and more indie gaming studios keep popping up and want to develop new games, but I cannot appreciate the fact that these studios believe that YOU the gamer should take on the risk of funding while being excluded from the potential rewards of development success.
Anyone who has the slightest clue on what monetary appreciation and investing is would instantly realize that crowd funding is a complete scam (except to those who use it as a platform for charitable contributions). I have to tell you that anyone who would willingly invest in a company (in this case a game studio) with zero potential return on investment is a complete sucker. The proposition is quite simple - you lend me some money today, and in the future, I may or may not give you a completed product in exchange for your money and the time between donation and delivery (where you could have achieved capital appreciation).
Stock exchanges are crowd funding devices. A company lists itself in an IPO (initial public offering) and you purchase a share of stock - which is partial ownership of that company - which entitles you to the rewards of the companies prosperity (ie success). That success comes in the form of share price appreciation and/or dividends and/or favorable splits (or a combination thereof). Those who share in the risk are also included in the rewards.
And yet, now today, these gaming companies believe that there are so many stupid gamers (see YOU) around who would willingly fund them without any potential rewards that even larger and accomplished studios and developers are turning to crowd funding instead of traditional game publishers and/or private investors so that they can create their game and cut post success expenses of having to share the game profits.
Now, I can appreciate that some studios are unable to locate private funding themselves because the game they are developing (or want to develop) does not on the onset appear to have a future of commercial success - which is why crowd sourcing is a good thing - however, crowd sourcing is only a good thing so long as the investor (see YOU, the currently stupid gamer) is provided with the final product in addition to a return on their capital investment based on commercial sales volume. In the current system, I cannot understand how any reasonable human being would even consider donating to a crowd sourced for profit project... yet thousands seem to funded.
In fact, I have seen the same studio crowd sourcing more than 1 game (they were funded and delivered a product - and presumably also made commercial sales in addition to the funding campaign - and then instead of reinvesting their own capital in their own company, came back with their hands out to YOU (see sucker) who then obliged to fund another of their games. What?!
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Comment has been collapsed.