Do you help crowd fund video games?
I have only helped kick-start two games. I am very selective about the game & company that I crowdfund.
Comment has been collapsed.
In my opinion, the best model for the video game industry is crowd-funded games that are free on release. Only fund the developers who you trust and believe in, and whose project you'd like to see. If a developer wants to make more money, they should bake that into their crowdfunding budget and not try to make money from "selling" the game.
I am poor but I still back games I love on kickstarter, etc., and a few artists at low amounts on patreon. Mostly it's out of gratitude for all the great work they've already given me, more than anticipation for their new work, although there is that too.
As long as marginal cost of game reproduction is basically nothing, reproductions of games should cost basically nothing.
What I hate is selling games. What an annoying model. Only rich people can play games; developers keep sucking money from people indefinitely; games get bogged down with obnoxious DRM, which wastes enormous resources getting developed, and then wastes enormous resources getting cracked by hackers; people buy things and then regret it, which requires the platforms to have complicated refund policies, which then require a bunch of staff to sit around approving and declining requests or exceptions. It's just an awful system. So much unnecessary work and frustration for everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
if you want shares, go there : https://www.fig.co/
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know, I wish I would have backed Sunless Skies when I had the chance. It's no different then pre-ordering, really.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering you don't pay more than the price of the game.
And if someone wants to pay more, it's their money.
and at this point the topic could be closed as another case of "don't spend your money on something I don't like"
Comment has been collapsed.
As others already said, you confuse investment with funding. See Kickstarter as a fundraiser, as a donation. And if everything goes well, you even get something out of it in the end. I am very happy that crowdfunding exists. It is a way to circumvent publishers. It is also a way to make games possible that no publisher is interested in.
We have kind of a old-school RPG renaissance right now, and Kickstarter played a big role in it. Think of Divinity: Original Sin and Pillars of Eternity. Both Kickstarter funded games. Meaning, we as gamers helped shaping the industry a little bit to our pleasing. This sub-genre was thought to be more or less dead, but gamers "voted with their wallet" and proved quite a few people wrong. I think that alone is pretty awesome.
We got so many good games out of Kickstarter, some of which maybe wouldn't have happened otherwise. That alone - the possibility to influence what games we get, to voice our opinion - is enough reason for me to use it. Sure, I wouldn't object to a monetary reward of some kind. But honestly, I don't see that as a necessity. The reason I use KS is not to make profit.
Also, I really dislike how you are behaving here. Is it really necessary to insult people? To tell everyone who has a different opinion than you how stupid they are? Aren't we all (or at least most of us) grown-up and can have a serious discussion without resorting to insults?
Comment has been collapsed.
You have to admit that the vehement way that he defends his flawed argumentation is quite adorable though ;) Thank you for explaining why fund raising is a very good way to gauge interest and make things happen that would otherwise not be possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
It'a almost as if you people don't read what has been written.
QUOTE
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)
END QUOTE
charitable contribution = donation.
I have explicitly stated that the money provided through crowd funding can be viewed 1 of 2 ways, 1) as an investment or 2) as a donation / charitable contribution.
So thank you for reading before commenting.
I am not mad at you, just the 20+ people who said the same thing you did without reading what I wrote.
Comment has been collapsed.
first, let me say - you have a habit of targeting the one thing you have an argument against, and ignoring the rest. ^^
you're right, you kind of said that. but you didn't really mean it, i feel. because when a guy told you he sees it as a donation, you told him this:
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.
and you continue to say things that let me believe you didn't really mean that one sentence up there. another example:
It is a scam in that they replace a real investor who expects a return on investment with a gamer who expects nothing lol.
you don't really accept that kickstarter is a way to donate, with the chance of a final product in the end. you call the concept a scam, and the people who use it intellectual dishonest, naive, stupid and idiots. no, you don't accept what you wrote up there at all. i just tell you how it is now - to me it is a charitable donation. i want a new, creative project to succeed. so i am willing to give a little something for that. and if it works out, i get the product. that is how i - and many others - use kickstarter. to us it is a donation system. i am very aware of what i am doing on kickstarter. and i am neither of those things you indirectly called me.
that being said, i am not necessarily against adding a return of investment to the concept. Project Cars did it, and with success it seems. question is, how good can this work for smaller projects? how much of a return will people get, relative to their investment? and what does that mean for smaller studios? maybe that means they do not make enough money for themselves to fund their next game, and they're stuck in crowdfunding hell forever? there are certainly several arguments to consider here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm in between under certain conditions.
For example if there's a video game that offers early birds discount then I'm all for it. You already earned your profit by investing early, although in this game it might be a long term drawback - after all, all games are discounted at some point post-release.
Or some games that offer exclusive preorder stuffs like t-shirt (bleh, whatever) or maybe flash drive with exclusive contents for early birds.
Or maybe by being early backers you'd be allowed to get in-game item named after you etc etc. Anything.
But generally I would disagree with crowdfunding. It only promotes laziness in their part -.-
After all, I have seen some crowdfunded games that rose to prominence and achieved success. It's not like all games like that are failures, although the majority of them have been.
Comment has been collapsed.
i rather want steam direct to die. cause the store is already flooded enough with indie crap
Comment has been collapsed.
this isn't exclusive for PC Games
I've seen Board Game companies, who sell I don't know how many games, fund their newest game on KS even though it is already finished and definitely don't need the money at all. They just know that they can make more money with stretch goals
Comment has been collapsed.
Which... ahem... most people would probably suggest is 'a scam'!
Except the obnoxious SJW's here who seem to come out in defense of anything that has been revealed as questionable.
It literally is shocking to see all these people here adamantly make arguments, that have zero merit, in defense of these game studios who continually seek crowd funding without any regard for actual need, or fulfillment. And looking towards the future, this very well could have a drastic impact on how video games are funded even from AAA studios.
Would it be defend-able for Rockstar to start a kickstarter for $1 Billion so that they can start development on GTA VI? Or should they be using the profits of GTA V to re-invest into their company and cover their costs like a normal business?
Comment has been collapsed.
You're using SJW wrong. People have other opinions, surprise that doesn't make them an SJW, it doesn't make you right either. Hell it doesn't make anyone right. This is opinion, this is not fact. Also, as others have pointed out multiple times you're using scam wrong.
There will always be people for and against these things. You think Kickstarter should work more as an investment so you get returns, and guess what that's fine but factually that is now what kickstarter is and it has never worked that way. Other people don't mind how it works now, because they know how it works and they're fine with that. I support certain games that may or may not end up on steam because there isn't that many games of that type. I only support games that have a playable demo or they're from a company that has a good track record. If there is a divinity 3, I will back that game. That doesn't make me stupid or dumb, I know what I'm getting into, in fact both of the two games I've backed have been delayed.
It's not going to have an impact on how video games are funded by AAA studios, AAA studios are moving more towards microtransactions they aren't going to beg a bunch of people for money. They'll just tax people another way, looking at you Uplay, looking at you. It might affect how publisher's do business though, show that their is enough interest in your game through kickstarter get a certain amount of funding and we'll match or double that. But you think EA Sports is going to ask people to kickstart the next Madden? Or the next Fifa18? Of course not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Businesses are in the business of profit. If a business can mitigate the risk of capital by using your capital to fund their new product, they will. Is that not obvious?
You think AAA game studios will never crowd fund when crowd funding gets bigger and bigger when already larger and larger game studios enter this market? When you have Star Citizen taking in $188 million for development through crowd funding and maybe we will see a few more game titles reach that amount, do you think AAA game studios won't want to take part? Is this denialism at work?
Ford and GMC received crowd funding, the US banking sector received crowd funding... sure the government called it a 'bail out'... but at the base it is crowd funding... albeit forced crowd funding, but still the same concept without choice.
If you really believe that as crowd funding matures over the next 5-10 years that AAA studios will not take part, then I would simply ask why you think that they would be the only ones to risk their own capital by investing it in future production? If they could get crowd funding now, they would do it... because its good for their business and their share holders. Business is about cutting costs and maximizing profits. If you think a game studio who could raise development costs for their next game without having to fund it themselves, would still choose to self fund, then I would suggest you have a questionable view on business in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but there is no evidence that AAA games, actual AAA companies are looking at kickstarter or any of the others as a way to mitigate anything. So at this point you're not doing anything but saying it is a possibility. AAA companies are already taxing gamers in another way to increase profits and that's through micro transactions. Look at NBA 2k whatever, want to get a tattoo on your myplayer. Costs 2000 VC points, don't have it pay a dollar to do so. They already have a way to increase profits and there are plenty of idiots willing to shell out their money for p2w. Kickstarter (except it's not really a dollar but 20) is mostly for indie games to begin with if I saw bioware doing this you think I'd support it? Of course not. It's a perception problem.
Want to know why Tidal as a music service is doing poorly compared to spotify etc? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYYGdcLbFkw) because of that one ad. That one ad soured many people on the fact that it was another streaming service, that wanted more money so that it could pay people like Beyonce and Jay-z more. Think about it. Will their be some people who will kickstart a bioware game? Of course a fool and their money are soon parted but the vast majority will not.
EA, UPlay, Activision already have an image problem when it comes to many gamers, they aren't going to fuck that up even more by asking people to help fund their yearly projects. Because bad publicity can also kill a game, and that's a waste of money.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Yes, but there is no evidence that AAA games, actual AAA companies are looking at kickstarter or any of the others as a way to mitigate anything."
There is no evidence of that TODAY. What there is evidence of, is crowd funding levels reaching higher and higher dollar amounts and larger and larger projects being funded by larger and larger studios. Why do you think that trend will not continue?
And furthermore, where is it that you as an individual or us as a community should draw the line on what is and is not an acceptable project to crowd fund?
I am suggesting we need to look into the future and start the process of mitigating business who are now and will in the future take advantage of customers - and in my opinion, large game studios who crowd fund are doing just that - taking advantage of their customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
When there is evidence, that they are doing it then you can have your moment like ahaha, but most kickstarters fail to begin with so it's not easy money. It's not a sure thing, and again when you have a massive company like EA or Uplay asking people for money it's different than lets say some small indie studio from doing it. If you can't see that then that's on you.
However, if EA and Uplay can get away with it then let them get away with it. Because there will always be morons that undermine you. Quite frankly I think we should boycott any major studio that throws in micro transactions for a single player experience after you paid for the entire game, I'm not talking about dlc, though I think that models like what was done for the Witcher 3 should be looked at further. I'm talking like buy a super special knife to help you kill more people or buy more slots, I'm looking at you Uplay. Is it going to happen? Of course not.
You seem like a small government guy, if you want the government to legislate against it, which lets face it with the current climate in the United States and how lobbying works, that's never going to happen. Gamers are not monolithic, steam users can't even agree with what Steam did with the gifting system is fucked up, how the fuck do you expect anyone to help you stop it. Hell there are multiple sides to the game gate controversy. Calling them idiots because they disagree is silly and doesn't help your points, if anything it alienates people from the legit points you are making. It's what the "SJW"s do and it's not as if they don't occasionally have good points.
Look I get it. You're a blunt guy, I'm blunt as well, we don't agree on anything you and I, I'm sure there are somethings that we can agree on but we butt heads more often than not. There are hundreds of people like you, and there are hundreds of people like me, we're simply not going to agree.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think my ideal scenario here is that places like kickstarter adapt to the market with Fig now being in place (which I had not previously known about until this posting). I do not want the government to get involved, I want the free market to pivot into the logical state (or what I see as the logical state) of crowd funding through equity. I think it not only is better for the future of crowd funding, but I see it as better for the individual gamer in both the ability to fund games that otherwise wouldn't be created but also being included in any commercial upside.
As for calling people idiots, I agree with your point... it does alienate people. But I also find that in todays current political climate, people only respond if they either 1) agree with your position or 2) are outraged at your presentation. I think we can both agree that debate is something that is being removed from the landscape in favor of ideological segregation. So, I consciously made an effort to alienate people in an attempt to receive their response. Is that amoral - sure - but it also seems to be a requirement today.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't know that fig was a thing either, I certainly am going to look into it and read more about it before seeing if I can invest though.
We can agree on that, debate does seem to be dead. Hell if you disagree with someone and even if you agree with them on 99% of other issues you're the Nazi. I don't try to alienate people unless I'm annoyed. As for the situation, good luck I guess. But I learned that I can only sort of manage my own spending habits. And unless I find what they did morally repugnant I'm going to keep spending my money there. Maybe you're right but the games I fund will probably never get made.
Comment has been collapsed.
I Like that "SJW" has essentially become the new "Jews". in the sense that where we blamed everything on the jews, we now blame everything on SJW no matter how illogical
i say that i like it because of my particular weakness for the "thanks obama!" Meme
Comment has been collapsed.
2nd GIF is due to americans building their houses out of paper mache :D
Guess it makes sense in some areas like California where you have regular earth-quakes.
Comment has been collapsed.
- this has nothing to do with SJW's
- that we don't agree with you, doesn't mean our arguments have no merit.
- a single example cannot invalidate the whole concept (especially not a hypothetical one)
- i can dislike the idea of big publishers abusing the concept, and still like the concept in other cases. it's not all or nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point of board game kickstarters is not so much to get the money to design the game it's mostly to be able to get enough reservations and funds to make a large scale first printing of the game. They usually charge pretty much retail value for the games and most wouldn't be made otherwise. It's not easy getting a board game publisher, and this way people can sell directly to a base while retaining creative freedom.
Thanks to that there's been a huge resurgence in board games and the amount of the crowdfunded ones is massive and ever growing.
Comment has been collapsed.
But a who produces enough board games, shouldn't need the support of others to sell an already printed game
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not really the case, like I said, a first printing takes a lot of investment even from devs who have made a game before, and yet the games are sold at retail prices, so it's less a means to get rich and more a means to gauge interest, build up reservations and sell it directly to consumers. After that first printing, finding a publisher or being able to afford small lot runs is more likely to happen.
I don't recall seeing any "second print" kickstarters. So, please point me to any that you know.
Comment has been collapsed.
No and Google didn't really help. Do you have a link? Queen games, I know.
I'm guessing that they would be using it to build bulk orders which might be necessary to minimize cost and storage. In those cases it's not really crowd funding as much as it is a group buy/mass order. There should be little risk and it might be the only way to get those games at reasonable prices.
If that production model works for them good for them. With the saturation of the board game market, I'm not sure how sensible it is to make bulk retail copies and hope they sell.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see a problem with it if I get the game at a lower price and help them make it in the process. That being said I've only supported a couple of projects, and only those where it is all or nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you see a problem for Rockstar Games to place a GTA VI kickstarter looking for $1 Billion for game development? Or do you think that the video game company should invest its own profits back into its future development needs?
The debate is simply - do you think any business should be required to fund itself or do you think all businesses should be allowed to crowd fund?
Did you enjoy the US banking bail outs? did you agree with them? Did you think the US Government should have bailed out GM/Ford? Those bailouts were crowd funded ;) It is important to really understand what it is that we are ultimately discussing and the far reaching impacts that it portrays.
Comment has been collapsed.
All businesses can do whatever they want, within the law. If they can crowdfund and be successful at it good for them. No one is forcing you help them with it.
Also you know the bailout was considerably more complicated than that and more grey than a black and white issue.
The question is do you bail out those industries or let them fail thus causing a depression as millions of people are laid off from their job. That's the question. Maybe it would have been better in the long run, for the economy but in the short term? I wasn't as against the bailouts as everyone else was because there was a legitimate reason to stop huge parts of your economy from failing. Do I agree with how it was structured? No. Of course not, it could have been done better and I think they should have fired most of the people who drove the companies into the ground, but the reasoning behind doing the bailout was a legitimate point. Businesses fail, yeah and no one should care, blockbuster, Sears, they all failed, and they didn't get bailed out, and maybe if GM goes under no one cares, but GM/Ford, the big banks, all around the same period? Something needed to be done or the recession would have been a depression.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not from the US and I dont know much about the bailout in question. Still dont see a problem with them crowdfunding if they invest a large portion of their own money into the development as well. As long as the customer gets his product I dont see how that is worse than buying a game on release (provided you get money back if the project doesnt reach its goal). All that being said, I have no experience in such matters, and welcome any insights if I said something completely ludicrous.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as bailouts in general go, prolly not a great idea unless it falling apart would have a huge impact on the economy, (maybe even then it's a bad idea) provided you get new people on board to run it, who know wtf they are doing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know much on the subject. I think it's very clear what you are putting your money into. They give rewards to "investors" such as a copy of the game on release, posters and updates etc. I didn't read what you wrote thb... But I'm just gonna say it's people's money and they can do what they want with it. I feel like the genuine people who do want to create a video game or board game etc can actually do it because they have a fan base and a budget of income to make it happen.
Again if they don't end up doing it then it's their money so it's their choice to make the risk. Loads of good things have came out of it. Like Divinity 2 and Pillars etc. It keeps the indie market alive in the long run!
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree with some of this. Yes funding on kickstarter is a donation rather than an investment. However, I disagree with the efficient market theory inherent in the post. The OP works from the position that a videogame company is a commercial business and the nature of the business is that they will fund things that they expect to turn a profit. The business is taking a financial risk in exchange for a financial reward, and if a game can reach an audience, then a commercial publisher will fund it.
The problem is that that does not work very well in any creative industry including video games. The prototype for this was Veronica Mars. The series was abruptly cancelled by its network in 2007. The original writer then wrote a screenplay for a feature-length Veronica Mars movie, which he submitted to Warner Brothers (the studio involved) saying that he needed $2M to get it made. Warner Brothers passed and indicated that they had no interest in funding that risk. It went to Kickstarter, where it raised its $2M in 11 hours and eventually went on to raise $5.7M.
Now according to the OP, the funders of this project are suckers. They financed a film that was clearly already attached to a studio, which shouldn't have been necessary, because, if there were an audience for the film, then WB would have financed it. However, it turns out that there were more excited Veronica Mars fans than Warner Brothers expected, and these are fans for whom the donation was not pre-ordering a movie ticket, but rather it was the opportunity to have the chance to see a Veronica Mars movie that otherwise would never have been made.
The movie industry and the video game industry is full of this. There are plenty of unexpected hits, and highly touted bombs. There is a lot of clones of anything that makes money. There is not a lot of risk taking. Sometimes it works as the OP would suggest. Yes Firefly the TV series was cancelled after 11 of 14 episodes aired, but Universal did fund the Serenity film, but more often it doesn't. And artworks that people might want to see do not get made.
The same holds true in video games. I like to play interactive fiction (text adventures). Nobody funds these. There has been no serious commercial IF in a long time. However, I have funded IF on kickstarter and largely been delighted with the result. Indeed when Bob Bates ran a Kickstarter campaign for his game Thaumistry:In Charm's Way, this year, I eagerly supported it. Bob Bates wrote the spectacular Zen Temple puzzle in Timequest, and I was more than happy to part with my money. That being said, I considered the risks to be modest. Bob Bates is a game developer with 16 previously published games, trying to publish a game that I was confident that no studio would touch. So I bought in to the vision. I wasn't just buying a game, I was buying the chance to play a game that otherwise would not have been made.
That being said, I do agree with parts of the OP's thesis. If (say) Electronic Arts was crowdfunding a text adventure, I might be tempted to participate, but if they were funding anything even vaguely commercial, then heck no. That should be their job (though I note that it took the threat of Will Wright leaving for them to reluctantly fund the "obviously" non-commercial The Sims). Similiarly, I will never participate in anyone crowdfunding their first game. The risk is too high. But if an established creator, whose work I admire, was looking to produce something that was not obviously commercial, then I would be highly likely to donate. To allow such a work of art to be made.
Comment has been collapsed.
I say that the people who fund them probably do it all well knowing the risks, they are not forced into the idea of giving this money over its free choice. If someone does give money over thinking that it will be a good investment, let them do so they know fine well the risks its on their back if it was a worthwhile risk. Investment into a game should require research to see if the company is able to do as it says, whereas most people that will put money into the companies do so because they would like to see that game. If you think that crowdfunding is wrong look at games which used this method and turned out good (in my mind) Superhot, Godus, Undertale, We Happy Few and many more or probably some games that you would enjoy too. If crowdfunding had not been possible these games may never of appeared. Recently AAA games have went downhill and have lost touch and indie games have been rising up and trumping the gaming scene. Although you may argue that some games never get created, that is true but i'm sure the devs put in a good try. Then you may say that some devs don't try, this may also happen but remember this is the risk, a risk you don't have to take but you can, no-one is forcing you. As I have been taught throughout my life when it has came to gambling don't use what you cant afford, meaning if you have a couple of bucks hanging around you can spare, help a dev out if YOU want to. If you don't have money you can't give, focus on yourself get yourself sorted before helping others. Just remember to always have some backup money for yourself as well things can happen spontaneously, always keep some money spare.
You call us stupid gamers and suckers although we know the risks, we apparent stupid gamers and sucker give the potential for a brilliant ground breaking idea to come out with the money we can spare. Fine well you may not have the money to give or you may do, you are not stupid for not giving it to the game devs you do what you think is right with that money but we are not stupid for giving out our money to a game dev that is up to us to do so knowing the risk.
Some people may seem stupid in things they do but they will have a good motive to do that thing such as the people who crowdfund has the motive to help make a game idea become an actual game and the people who don't crowdfund have the motive to put that money into something as important as their own life or to keep that money for a rainy day or put it towards a brand new car, computer or house or they may put it towards something they think will help another.
I've seen people donate to smaller youtuber's with the intent to help them with their life or to help them gain new equipment it is not guaranteed that the content will become better but we do so to help another reach a dream. You may help the homeless if you wish, you may help yourself, you may help a charity, you may help anyone you want. There is a thing called kindness we give this money with this reason. I am not telling you that you should give your money away all i'm saying is someone is not stupid for giving money to another.
Before you say that the homeless guy would benefit from the money more though so you shouldn't be putting money towards these games. I will tell you yes he may benefit from it more but it's the money we earned we should be able to do with it as we please and if you want to help a homeless man more, help him in ways such as letting him get a shower, buying him food and for those who don't help homeless and don't have the money to do so just acknowledge them, they are still people at the end of the day, they all have a story behind them and they all have their reasons, some may have had addictions to drugs and that is why their homeless but they are still a person and they still deserve to be treat like one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Crowd funding is a scam?
Then I like to be scammed.
I participated in a select few campaigns, and I am very glad I did. I was happy to spend a few bucks, giving it to some of my gaming idols and saying thank you for what they have done in the past and saying please make another product that I love, even if the companies that fund games for money will NOT invest anything in it because they fear not getting enough (or any) profit from it!
Look, I would have personally delivered my money to guys like Brian Fargo (Wasteland 2, Torment 2, Bards Tale 4), Charles Cecil (Broken Sword 5), Jordan Weisman (Shadowrun Returns), Zojo (Shadowgate) or Paul Cuisset (Subject 13), just to help them do what I want as a gamer, and not what those investment companies want them to do!
If investment companies decide what games you get, you will only get free-to-play shit, microtransactions, worthless DLCs, season passes, casual games dumbed down for the stupid masses, multiplayer shooters and so on! Happy new gaming world!!!
I want games as the ones I helped to fund, and I am happy to pay for them directly! Should those games become a commercial success, I am happy that its creators can buy their new Ferrari.
I do not Kickstart a game to get money! I want the games to be made. Making possible Wasteland 2 alone would have been worth every penny I ever spent on Kickstarter.
Thank you Brian Fargo, thank you Kickstarter! Scam me more, please.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that they have to work for that money before they get them, not after. I dont really like the idea of crowdfunding if its for getting profits from it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you give money to a charity? If so, then you're as much of an idiot then those people. There aren't many mainstream charities out there that actually spend almost all of their money on their own goals.
Investing has been happening for a very long time. I personally know of 6 start-up companies. I know their owners and I know who invested how much in them. 3 of them failed and only 1 of them makes a constant, sizeable profit. Those who invested in those companies don't really complain. They knew the risks and they didn't go all out on those companies. You'd be an idiot to do that.
This is the same issue. You complain about something that in actuality isn't an issue.
Do you have a surplus of money that you are interested in investing somewhere? Well, then you have the funds to invest.
Can you measure their skill and professionality? In almost all cases, yes, you do. Kickstarter gives you a page where they can display their qualities. You have to be smart enough to figure those facts out. But, then again, you're investing, so you'd have to be an idiot not to get that.
Do you want the project itself to succeed? If you have all of those three qualities about you, then you're golden.
If you actually would think about what crowdfunding is and how to do it, then you wouldn't actually have this issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
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.