Originally posted by Zekiah

Originally posted by BurninatorX

Originally posted by Zekiah

Money donated to Kickstarter programs should be considered a monetary loss until proven otherwise.

Period.

 

All things paid for should be considered a monetary loss untill proven usefull/entertaining.

 

 

Period

 

 

I like your logic

Um no, actually most things are sold in their final and completed state and you know what you're buying.

So you know exactly how a movie or CD is going to be the whole way through the first time? you know how a game will be the whole way through and how long its going to take you before you play through it? You don't know what you're getting in those instances. You also dont know how effective something with a use is until you get home to use it.

Originally posted by erictlewis

There is only one game on kickstarter that I believe will ever see a finished product.  And that is Star Citizen, now that game made wing commander, and yea a not so good movie.  But I beleive we will really get something out of it.

I see a lot of crud on kickstarter, and I honestly believe they will never see the light of day, for instance greedmonger, the guy heading it up is not even a programmer of any sort. 

The way I look at kickstarter, if you got the cash to spend and you are willing to loose it then that is your choice.  I only funded Star Citizen. 

 

 

Theres several games that have been funded and made since kickstarter started. Just go take a look at Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. That game is tons of fun and was in steams top 10 selling titles for weeks after release.

Originally posted by Gdemami

There are 2 people starting Kickstarter campaigns.

1) Those who fail or failed already as business.
2) Those who want to milk some money from gullible/stupid people.

Donations, like all subsidies, making non-viable projects viable at the cost of healthy business environment.

 

Then there are poeple like Chris Roberts as RSI who have become legends in the gaming industry, have watched the gaming industry go to crap and decided it needed a face lift. He started developing Star Citizen outside the coorperate shell and managed to not only gain nearly 7 million in crowd funding and kickstarter funding but also interacts with his community.

You cannot bunch all kickstarters together. some have set goals and honest foundations. Then you have the ones who are out to scam, milk and pander the gamers or whoever else and thats where all the bad press comes in.

I am glad Chris Roberts has used the kick starter and crowdfunding programs to set an example. As a 250 dollar founding donator for Star Citizen, I am proud to support a game designer that has a proven track record in the gaming industry.

---

Originally posted by Akumawraith

You cannot bunch all kickstarters together.

---

Sure I can because that is a principle of Kickstarter.

If game developer is promising and their project having solid business potential, there will be no issue to find an investor. So what do you need additional money for?

If you still ask for donations, there is something wrong either with your business plan or you just want that new sports car that your contract does not cover. There are only two options possible, the ones I pointed out.

There is a fundamental issue of difference between donation and investment. Investment includes expectation or liability of gain. It creates pressure on companies and individuals to produce what you, as a consumer, want to buy, something you like and keeping the business financially viable.

With donation, this liability is lost. You can create whatever you want, regardless of your ability, or rather inability in this case, to deliver promised product, regardless of your business skill, regardless of your commercial viability, regardless if anyone is going to like your product, and that is because there is no obligation for money spent. This is very bad for business.

You turn something non-viable and deemed to never see the light of the market and you make it released, unsuccessful final product.

Even with legit investing methods, vast majority of newly established business close down within first 3 years of existence, and Kickstarter only supports even higher failure rate because if the your business fails, your donors paid for it, not you.

How much sense does it make to support such attitude? None.

I can understand the argument that you want something new on the market, to fill the hole, something you are missing but Kickstarter is not the way because the only result is the opposite - you get even more products you do not like.

As for Chris Roberts or anyone in fact, buy their game once it release, buy 20 of them but do not spend a dime before it is done. That is the only way to make developers to make games YOU like.

Originally posted by Fendel84M
I've often joked that quoting stock prices and quarterly earnings reports is the real MMORPG meta game now. Very little constructive criticism and far more emotional rants and half assed predictions.

You learn, after enough years on forums, to not take those kinds of arguments at all seriously.  See: Subscription-based Ad Numerum, X-Fire hours, etc.

Let 'em babble and play with their crystal balls, if it makes them happy.  If kickstarter is how they wish to spend their cash, more joy to 'em.  Speculation in the MMO Futures Market seems about as likely to pay off as speculating on a Power Ball ticket, but...

Mama Leona, the psychic palm reader, stays out of jail because she can sell it as Entertainment every time the bunko squad comes around.  Kickstarter only has to sell it as a charity to the FTC.

I've no doubt that 98% of KS funded MMO development efforts will fall flat on their faces. Unless they happen to raise 30M or 40M dollars via Kickstarter...

Now, it IS possible that your small team of inexperienced but brilliant developers will manage to do what nobody else in the mainstream game industry has managed to do in the last 14 years, i.e. produce a AAA-quality MMO with a total development budget just a million or two dollars. It IS possible, but the chance is extremely remote.

Single-player games will fare somewhat better, because their funding needs are orders of magnitude smaller than MMO's, and the SPG's can successfully be aimed at niche markets. There's also no need for the developers of SPG's to worry about the organisational and logistical complexities of ongoing support and development of a running MMO.

The one thing that Kickstarter may be good for is helping a development team to develop a demo AND demonstrate strong support for their game design. That might enable them to find a publisher or solid financial backer. However, that will most likely mean that they will have to give up varying degrees of control over the development process, as well as the content of the final product. You get nothing for nothing...

Interesting take on matters.  But I do have experience with running several businesses, and I also know more than I really want to about the technical side of things.  That having been said, I find EA's actions over the years predatory, unethical and short sighted. 

Its all too typical of what we've seen from other corporate types in many other market sectors.  In typical game development, its bad enough. But in MMO's with their much longer time frame, it makes a difficult series of tasks that much more difficult to achieve properly. 

Its this type of short sighted negative feed back, that has contributed to the creation of the current destructive generation of gamers. 

That coupled with the main streaming of gaming (I'm looking at you Blizzard... ^^), and what I call the One True Game(tm) syndrome, are aspects of why matters have become as bad as they are. 

The One True Game(tm)  syndrome describes the fact that NO game that actually exists, will *ever* be able to live up to peoples projections, expectations, and all of the media hype thats involved in a typical games actual launch.  Which leads to the gaming version of the boom, bust cycle. 

After players have been through this cycle a few times, they naturally start to get bitter, cynical and become ever more difficult to please. We see the results of that all around us. 

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

I've no doubt that 98% of KS funded MMO development efforts will fall flat on their faces. Unless they happen to raise 30M or 40M dollars via Kickstarter...

otoh, fifty thousand dollars does buy an awful lot of powerball tickets.  And there's no explicit restrictions on just how the companies spend the cash they collect, are there?

Wonder what the FTC would have to say about that.  "We tried to turn fifty thou gamer cash into millions with lottery tickets.  Was that wrong?"

---

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

The one thing that Kickstarter may be good for is helping a development team to develop a demo AND demonstrate strong support for their game design.
 

---

No, this is bs.

There is a tremendous difference between ideas on paper and actual implementation. Kickstarter backing only represents the backing of paper ideas, investor or publisher is concerned about actual implementation tho.

Everyone has an idea, but very few can turn it into successful business and that is what counts here, something Kickstarter is not touching at all.

Originally posted by Gdemami

There are 2 people starting Kickstarter campaigns.

1) Those who fail or failed already as business.
2) Those who want to milk some money from gullible/stupid people.

Donations, like all subsidies, making non-viable projects viable at the cost of healthy business environment.

 

Actually, donations can be different from subsidies.  In the normal course of events, subsidies are typically government grants, to a given agent or agents within a market sector.  Usually because of some "public good" hand waving or another. 

The difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.  Its always easy to be "compassionate" or "public spirited" with other peoples money... ^^ 

Those who make personal donations on the other hand, have more motivation to see to its effective use.  That doesn't always work out, but in the case of Kick Starter I've seen some wonderful results from many of the donations I've taken part in. 

I'm usually willing (if the details add up) to invest in such start ups, in the hopes that against the odds, that they will succeed. I've been burned a few times, but over all, I'm more than pleased with how many of these have turned out. 

In terms of economics I'm very much Austrian.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

The difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.

---

It does not matter who is distributing money but who and HOW they spend them.

Does not matter if donators are motivated, gaming companies as donation receivers are not motivated to spent them in any effective way.

That is as I pointed out already the difference between donation and investment. When you receive an investment, you are motivated to produce something that will generate gain. You are liable for the money you received.

With donations, you are not. You can produce absolutely anything...or nothing.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

The one thing that Kickstarter may be good for is helping a development team to develop a demo AND demonstrate strong support for their game design.
 

---

 

No, this is bs.

There is a tremendous difference between ideas on paper and actual implementation. Kickstarter backing only represents the backing of paper ideas, investor or publisher is concerned about actual implementation tho.

Everyone has an idea, but very few can turn it into successful business and that is what counts here, something Kickstarter is not touching at all.

True as far as it goes,  But what takes an idea (or ideas) into the successful phase is the drive and resources to MAKE it work.  It takes time/talent/experience to make the transition from idea to reality.  One of the means to that end is money (a resource), which can gain one access to others time/talent/experience (and provide them the tools required as well). 

I view Kick Starter as a useful collector/filter for this process. 

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

It takes time/talent/experience to make the transition from idea to reality.

---

Yep, and if you do not have any of it, you go on Kickstarter hoping someone will invest into IDEAS instead of your lack of time/talent/experience...because if you got them you would not need KS in the first place.

You assume false premise that ability to launch a successful business and funding are two different things. They are not.

Launching and running successful business is a process.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

 

The difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.

---

 

It does not matter who is distributing money but who and HOW they spend them.

Does not matter if donators are motivated, gaming companies as donation receivers are not motivated to spent them in any effective way.

That is as I pointed out already the difference between donation and investment. When you receive an investment, you are motivated to produce something that will generate gain. You are liable for the money you received.

With donations, you are not. You can produce absolutely anything...or nothing.

No. Even if one doesn't consider the fact that one is coerceive, and the other free choice, there is the matter of market distortion to consider. 

What is a better indication of market demand? A political source for the funding, or tens of thousands of individuals making the free choice to invest/donate their money?  When governments interfer in a given market sector, they seriously distort the market signals. 

As for accountability, and the argument that investing (with governments regulations and such) being some how superior, one has only to look at the "green energy" and other such government investments, and the loss of billions of tax dollars to know that for a fallacy.  Especially in a crony capitalist system, such as the US has used at a certain level for a long, long time. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

It takes time/talent/experience to make the transition from idea to reality.

---

 

Yep, and if you do not have any of it, you go on Kickstarter hoping someone will invest into IDEAS instead of your lack of time/talent/experience...because if you got them you would not need KS in the first place.

 

You assume false premise that ability to launch a successful business and funding are two different things. They are not.

Launching and running successful business is a process.

 

Yes, it very much is a process.  Its also an on going, "learning experience"... ^^   Money as I stated is a force multiplier. In its absence, one has access to only a very limited pool of talent/experience.  That limits what one can realistically achieve. 

Thats why I look at these projects carefully, and seek to determine those who have not only good ideas, but the ability to communicate those ideas and goals well.  I also check to see if they have a past history (like Chris Roberts).  But I also keep in mind that everyone has to start some place. 

I also look at these types of projects as paying forward.  Long, long ago I was helped to get started, by a very hard headed businessman (who later went on to become a life long friend) because he liked my presentation and the drive I demonstrated.  One can never really repay that type of opportunity, so one does what one can to pay forward. 

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

No. Even if one doesn't consider the fact that one is coerceive, and the other free choice, there is the matter of market distortion to consider.

A political source for the funding, or tens of thousands of individuals making the free choice to invest/donate their money?

---

You disagree, yet you come out supporting my point.

Whether you donate or subsidize, the result is the same - oversupply, market distortion. Subsidizing or donating, encourages financially ineffective behavior.

---

Originally posted by Gdemami

Kickstarter is not the way because the only result is the opposite - you get even more products you do not like.

---

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

In its absence, one has access to only a very limited pool of talent/experience.  That limits what one can realistically achieve. 

---

Despite you lack the funding, your plans are realistically achievable...

Funding is a part of what is realistically achievable and subsidizing or donations are breaking this fundamental premise of any business.

I do not think you understand any of what I am saying.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

 

In its absence, one has access to only a very limited pool of talent/experience.  That limits what one can realistically achieve. 

---

 

Despite you lack the funding, your plans are realistically achievable...

Funding is a part of what is realistically achievable and subsidizing or donations are breaking this fundamental premise of any business.

 

I do not think you understand any of what I am saying.

You are more than welcome to your opinion.  The fact is, I quite understand your position and perspective.  I simply disagree with it.  I've seen this same perspective countless times before.   We will have to agree to disagree. 

Excellent article.  Thank you for your frank response to Shava; I've often felt like this individual, with so much negativity from the community, at large, even from me, and it's apparent that it's begun to affect how some of the writers here construct their short articles.

As to the kickstarters, I've yet to be able to afford to help fund one of these projects, and I'm grateful for the advice concerning this effort.  If one takes a look at Shadowrun Returns and Star Citizen, these are certainly two kickstarters that went very well, indeed, and I look forward to being able to play one of those games.  I played WoW for two-and-a-half years, and have yet to find an MMO since that is not WoW-centric to play.  It would help if I weren't raising two young sons and I were back to work, but since my sons are also desirous to play a good MMO, I think that can be counted as one down.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

 

The difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.

---

 

It does not matter who is distributing money but who and HOW they spend them.

Does not matter if donators are motivated, gaming companies as donation receivers are not motivated to spent them in any effective way.

That is as I pointed out already the difference between donation and investment. When you receive an investment, you are motivated to produce something that will generate gain. You are liable for the money you received.

With donations, you are not. You can produce absolutely anything...or nothing.

And this is the thing about kickstarter.  You are giving them your money.  The technically owe you nothing in return.  The don't have to do anything if they don't want to.   This is not like the stock market to where I own shares of the company,  and there will be an ROI (return on investment) in my case 0 ROI for EA for the past couple of years.  Investors hold the purse strings and can hold a company up if they have enough of the vote (in my case 30 shares of ea is nothing).  However kickstarter is just money thrown at a company, hoping that they have good intentions of actually doing somethng.  So far the only one I pleaged cash to is Star Citizen this guy actually made games before, and I trust him.  He has been communicating on there site and on facebook. 

So the way I see it kickstarer is ok if you don't mind loosing your money, don't mind not having an ROI, and hoping that they actually make something.