Crowd Funded Video Games [Please STOP]

As someone who's making a game right now, I don't think I'd ever ask people to give money in support of an idea upfront and risk their money like that. Some sort of early access (not speaking about steam, more like alpha/beta access outside of steam) for greatest supporters who understand the risk and are actually doing it to support the project is okay...

Never participated in any game kickstarters or other crowndfundings. I have given some money to other projects (educational, for example), but even then because I wanted to support people I knew can be trusted, never for the product itself.

There hasn't been any big game crowdfunded on www.fig.co that would be already released, so we will have to see how this idea works out... (some big ones that are in development are Psychonauts 2 and Pillars of Eternity II)

If you are not aware of it - the idea behind Fig is that you have two options: crowd fund the game the usual way or buy shares for the game's revenue.

I think crowdfunding is a great way to support developers and allows the creation of games that might otherwise never see the light of day. I've kickstarted a few games, and most have produced a final product that I'm happy with. There is always the possibility that the game won't be finished, but it's been a risk I've been willing to take. I've never seen it as an investment, and to expect a ROI on my $20 or so contribution seems a bit silly to me.

Your original rant is missing an angle: Usually one of the reward tiers is a heavily discounted copy of the game. So, for instance, I backed Pillars of Eternity way back when. I did my homework and figured it was a low-risk situation. So, I fronted the money, and on release day I got a copy of the game cheap. To get the same discount I would have had to have waited over a year after release.

So, win-win situation. I knew what I was getting, and I got it.

It was pretty obvious even when I first saw it, it's like a startup investment where the investor is a group of people and they get nothing in return, would call it scam if something was stated to be returned but in most cases it's more like a group donation for the sake of having a chance to be able to buy/use some product in the distant future...

No, crowdfunding is not a scam, by the very definition of the word scam "a dishonest scheme; a fraud, swindle..". A scam would indicate that they're being deceptive. Most crowdfunding campaigns are upfront with what you get, and include the risks. A crowdfunding campaign where they take the money and run, that's a scam. A crowdfunding campaign where they fail to deliver, but made a honest effort, that's not a scam. A crowdfunding campaign where they deliver the promised product, that's not a scam either.

You're paying for a product. Much like if you say would commission a piece of art. You pay upfront, and you get the product when it's done. Problems might arise that delays the product, or even makes it impossible for it to be shipped to you (that can happen when you commission an artist as well).

I, as a gamer who loves his hobby, not some economist worried about his investment, see it this way:
Issue is bigger companies that really don't need it are taking advantage of the crowdfunding system, and that's something I really hate. But on the other hand, there's also a good deal of projects that otherwise wouldn't probably see the light of day becouse the current industry sees the projects as too risky beeing it for beeing something completely different, for beeing of an old genre they think isn't popular anymore or for whatever other reason... So there's many games or even whole genres/subgenres that really are relegated to be forgotten or to be smaller budget indie titles that could never achieve what a decently budgeted AA or AAA project could.
In these cases, I, as a long time gamer who wants to play that game or see a certain genre come back with a decent budget, will glady contribute to making said project possible and take the risk. Projects like Pillars of Eternity or Divinity: OS would have never seen the light of day if it wasn't for crowdfunding, and these projects not only delivered but also opened the door for more decently budgeted classic rpgs to be made again.

From the very start I do not not believe in crowdfunding, and the main problem here is the lack of management and quality control. Corporations are evil, but it's a necessary evil, at least they know how to finish a product.

I agree with you in almost everything and I also agree with the people who consider crowdfunding as a preorder. But there's something that bothers me. What about those tiers that are just a "thank you"? that's just like a kick in the balls, it just shouldn't be allowed (not game related but Solar Roadways is a good example of all the wrong on it).

Like pietruszka11 said, I feel like Fig is the correct way of funding games, where some people can invest for getting the game as a preorder, and others getting a % of the gains.

Kind of, but then also these developers avoid publishers by going this route.
There are several publishers who ship amazing games, that we all fucking hate because they get their god damn claws in everything and ruin it.
A big publisher looks at a game and thinks oh ok, there's a rich story here. Let's make three games out of that instead.

The problem with your entire line of complaint is that crowdfunding really is not best thought of as an investment but rather as a pre-order. The incentive to pre-order the game (or other item) is that if you do not, it may never be made. That's the trade-off: pay up-front because you want to live in a world where that game (or whatever) exists.

Not sure how someone can type so many words about investment while having no idea what a 'scam' actually is, but whether I'm crowdfunding a game or buying a game that was crowdfunded, I am much happier to give my money more directly and proportionately to the creators of the game, artists and programmers, for their work than to give it to an investor who didn't actually contribute their own creativity toward the work and just funded it. It's why I don't even mind people who crowdfund successive games; it eliminates the financial middleman who isn't really doing anything. When I give to a campaign I get tangible things in exchange for my money and often the game itself at less than what it will eventually be, so I don't see where the "scam" comes in.

It's only a scam if people are purposely mislead on what their money is going towards.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig_(company)

I cannot understand how any reasonable human being would even consider donating to a crowd sourced for profit project

Me neither, but I'm not sure most people who donate to those kinds of project do it for rational reasons. Some just do it to be generous/charitable (you know, like when the government gives away "free" money), some do it because they don't appear to have a clue about normal investments (source: discussions on Steam forums around all the drama over Friday the 13th's backer-exclusive Savini DLC). I also think crowd funding platform carefully sustain the confusion between crowd funding and charity.
Apart from those, I guess there are some rational people who just really enjoy the rewards. I mean, I understand how getting to meet the team or other similar perks can be interesting, although that's not my cup of tea.

I did take part in a crowd-funding project once (not gaming related), but it's because the "reward" was actually the final product (pretty discounted so here's the ROI) and because I was like 99.99% sure said product would indeed be delivered. The funds were dedicated to produce the first batch of products and the R&D was already done so it sounded fair enough not to become a proper shareholder.

Ya I'm no the no train too.

No one can deny a LOT of crowdfunded games (and crap in general) is a a mix of a gamble and garbage. But there are lots of good projects out there too. Funding those often means that I, not some group of investors, gets a say in what we want, how we want it, how it plays. It doesn't need to appeal to the masses. It needs to appeal to the people funding it.

For me the one I'm involved in atm is Battletech. It's made by HSB, which is a small company who is also behind the Shadowrun Games. They have used Kickstarter for all (most?) of them. They don't get caught up in feature creep. They deliver on what they promise (and only promise what they are sure they can deliver). In the case of Battletech, I have access to the Beta, we regular get updates from the devs, and give/get feedback from them. I paid what I would have been willing to pay for the final game, so I'm not out any more money, it isn't an "investment" as the only return I expect is the final product. Being involved in the development process, and having Beta access, being huge bonuses. having devs not have to worry about meeting a group of investors expectations, just ours, leaves me with a lot of peace of mind. An investor wants a product that appeals to the masses for best returns, a backer wants a product that appeals to their niche group, and especially in the case of something like Battletech with a large background, true to the source as much as possible. Different groups, different interests, lead to different products. Thats why EA isn't out there making cult games, they don't care about a small market, they want the masses.

Now the people out there giving thousands to devs to fund games I don't get. I mean some get some nice rewards, but in general I would never give more than I would be willing to pay if it was out today.

Anyway, regardless, I will continue to fund stuff that appeals to me, and that I have faith that they will be able to deliver.

I surprisingly agree with some of your argument. You could be dangerous with an education, dLo! =P

When you exchange cash for a future outcome - that is called investing.

Investing is not always about financial gain. I have not backed anything ala kickstarter, nor would I. But I own my own company, so my money goes to (and comes from) there. Not everyone has the same opportunities.

Also, just because you disagree with someone or something doesn't make it stupid... Just means it's not for you. [and with that, I am removing you from my blacklist as I may have prematurely put you there for simply disagreeing].

There are many benefits to crowdfunding. To me, the value in crowd-funding comes from removing the power and opinion of the investor. In an altruistic way, a crowdsourcer hopes they help provide a good game (or product/service) that they will like. The alternative being some suit decides every thing you can obtain, from food to clothes to books, etc.

Nobody forces you to back anything. If there is no promise of financial benefit, nobody is getting cheated. If you give money to a project without having any perk (ie: dingdong2's comment) it would be a donation.

Do people that donate money to the "wounded warrior project" get anything? They think they're helping veterans, but like 3% actually goes to where it was intended - the rest go to the C-level. According to your logic, nearly every employee is being screwed. The company is reaping all of the profits - a sentiment I can agree with.

In other words developers don't wanna lose BIG in case of failure so gamers pay the damage. Who cares? I never paid to crowdfund a game and never will. We've seen many examples of crowdfunding gone wrong with delays or shitty results. . .BUT I on't judge anyone who does it. It's someone else's money. They can do as they please!

I mean, you could look at crowdsourcing as any of

1. An investment in a future product.
2. A pre-purchase to help fund and improve end quality of a future product.
3. A donation to support and encourage developer(s) to make the type of products you would likely enjoy.

Most people probably perceive at least some utility from the donation/support aspects which lowers the 'cost' of crowdsourced payments , but for the sake of argument, let's say it's all purely a form of investment.

If someone invests $10 to get a product which ends up retailing for $20... that's a potential 100% return on your investment! A pretty sweet deal by any usual gains. Obviously there's also risks to consider, such as that the product will not get made or will be of poor quality, and the $20 return is in the form of an on-release game (rather than actual money) - so you'd have to be interested in playing it on release to get the full $20 'value' - but still, it's a nice 'return' on the investment.

Sooo... if you're the type of person that would buy/pre-purchase a game of that genre/description at full price on release day....why not pay half that to crowdfund it instead (accepting the risks for the potential 'reward' of paying less)?

Note1: That said, I typically don't crowdfund games, as I almost never pre-purchase or buy games for anywhere near Day 1 release prices.

Note2: And of course, if the dev is asking for funding at retail price to receive a possible future copy of the game rather than providing a highly discounted product to investors - yup, that's just silly.

I've successfully backed some crowdfunding campaigns for books and albums and been satisfied with the results, and while the scope of videogame development is obviously broader than that of either of those formats, the core principle applies: you should back if and only if the team at hand has a good track record. Not as in "it involves a guy who was once attached to this big project" but as in "these guys have demonstrated they can get a job done".

The problem with the traditional model of investment is that it gives executive power to the investors (directly or indirectly), which often results in them asking the creative team to compromise and this leads painfully middle of the road results. The corporate push is to maximize profits, whereas the aim of the artist is to get their project done and to exceed certain standards of quality (hence why so many AAA games are rushed, and released in utterly broken, glitch-filled states).

I see the comparisons with Early Access as somewhat trite, since not all games are viable to be released piecemeal. Hell, we've seen a similar model before that is effectively dead now: episodic gaming - every successful modern release which nominally follows the style gets finished first, and then released over a period of time.

Could the system be improved? Sure. But one must not forget that it is there because the previous alternatives lead to subpar results.

Anything you invest in has a risk/reward factor. New relationship? I'll risk my time and money in the hopes of getting laid or married. New puppy? I'll risk my money and possessions and hope it doesn't shit all over the house when I'm at work. New job? I'll risk my financial stability and hope I get better pay. Every decision we make has a risk to it, every decision we make has some sort of reward. Crowdfunding games isn't any different tbh. If a game looks like something I'll enjoy, I'll back it. If not, I don't really care if it gets made. Undecided? I'll make a note to watch for it if it ever makes it to steam.

But crowdfunding makes it easier to pitch your idea to investors and have people interested in your idea back it, as opposed to trying to convince private investment companies to fork over a lot of money for something they probably don't know about, don't care about and will want to make retarded changes on. A crowdfunded game can be released as the creator's original vision intended, without (as much) corporate/investor interference. Yeah, there's shady dudes who take the money and run, but it's nowhere near as bad as, say, gofundme for lazy fucks who just want other people to pay their way.

Symptom of capitalism.

I cannot understand how any reasonable human being would even consider donating to a crowd sourced for profit project.

And if you cannot understand it, then by golly, it must be flawed somehow!

EDIT: your choice of words there is interesting; you said "donate" when throughout the rest of your rant, you said "invest."

Really, it's neither a donation (although a donation option is usually present) nor an investment. It's a type of sponsorship.

What about those games like ARK, where they rewarded early backers with a cheaper version of the game? Since I am not made of money I am very careful in which games I purchase, too often you hear of games that are abandoned or promises not delivered. I'd rather wait until the game is finished than pay and pray its delivered.