Originally posted by laokoko

I actually look at it the opposite way.  Those game studio are taking advantage of investors, taking alot of risk, and when the game fail, they don't care.

 

So you dont think Curt Schilling cares that his game failed?  

---

Originally posted by laokoko
I actually look at it the opposite way.  Those game studio are taking advantage of investors, taking alot of risk, and when the game fail, they don't care.

On the other hand the guy is taking advantage of public fund + his own fund to make a game.  At least his using "some" of his own money. 

I like this idea, because first of all he is taking risk since he is using some of his own money.  But I do understand why he would do it, since any money he make will be into his own parket so he's willing to take the risk.

---

except they still have to pay that money back.

Originally posted by skyexile

 

---

Originally posted by laokoko
I actually look at it the opposite way.  Those game studio are taking advantage of investors, taking alot of risk, and when the game fail, they don't care.

 

On the other hand the guy is taking advantage of public fund + his own fund to make a game.  At least his using "some" of his own money. 

I like this idea, because first of all he is taking risk since he is using some of his own money.  But I do understand why he would do it, since any money he make will be into his own parket so he's willing to take the risk.

 

---

 

except they still have to pay that money back.

Since you two are correcting me, I must have no idea and is wrong.

I always thought "most" game studio get funds through investor/shareholder, not by loan.  ANd even if it is, it is in the company's name and not hteir own name.

Since I'm not a business major and you two seemed to know what you talking about, I'll shut up.  Yes Curt Schilling cares if he's company go bankrupt, because those money are "loan" and more like personal loan.

It's as he already said: With public funding, he doesn't have to answer to any higher ups, just make the game he has envisioned, and hopefully "pay back" those supporters with an awesome game.

It's really as simple as that. Crowdfunding gives companies a level of freedom that was not possible before. There's a chance those supporters will be screwed over in the end, as there's risk involved in everything, but those supporters aren't "being taken advantage of" as you put it.  They know full well the risks of throwing money at something that is little more than an idea at the time.

It's good to see you know what you're talking about OP, otherwise, this whole thread would look pretty silly. Hey, have you looked at the Kickstarter TOS?

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

How is it free money exactly? Do you think this will be completely different from every other Kickstarter software project ever and offer no tiered donation rewards? That's a pretty bold stance to take. I'm going to go ahead and say you're wrong. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there'll be rewards like beta access, in game items, mounts, statues, etc, etc depending on what you contribute.

Why not Kickstarter?

Kickstarter is a different type of investment. In fact, it's not really an investment, because people who pledge support money do not make any type of financial return. It's ultimately a place to donate money towards products you think will do well.

I'm shocked at how many stupid products have a ton of funding.

As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter.  There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.

It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.

Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.

Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted.  I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.

It is finding customers who will put $$ where their mouth is and then will be happy to participate in testing of the game. For a startup stage company it is a huge deal. If you never founded or worked for really early stage startup you will not get it. You can find tons of people happily telling you waaa I am gona buy it if you make it!!!11!! But then.. you either have commitment of $ or you do not, kickstarter is that.

CU concept is very risky even so i will put the money up I do no think it is better then 20-30% that anything decent comes out of it. but it is just money and not much money at that.

Originally posted by laokoko

Originally posted by skyexile

 

---

Originally posted by laokoko
I actually look at it the opposite way.  Those game studio are taking advantage of investors, taking alot of risk, and when the game fail, they don't care.

 

On the other hand the guy is taking advantage of public fund + his own fund to make a game.  At least his using "some" of his own money. 

I like this idea, because first of all he is taking risk since he is using some of his own money.  But I do understand why he would do it, since any money he make will be into his own parket so he's willing to take the risk.

 

---

 

except they still have to pay that money back.

Since you two are correcting me, I must have no idea and is wrong.

I always thought "most" game studio get funds through investor/shareholder, not by loan.  ANd even if it is, it is in the company's name and not hteir own name.

Since I'm not a business major and you two seemed to know what you talking about, I'll shut up.  Yes Curt Schilling cares if he's company go bankrupt, because those money are "loan" and more like personal loan.

There are several ways to raise the capital.  Companies like Trion and 38 studos went the direct loan route (as such both had 100% freedom over their games).

 I believe Sigil (Vanguard) got a direct investment from Microsoft, and when those funds ran out and they had a pile of shit to show for it Microsoft cut the funding.  Sigil managed to strike a deal with Microsoft to get full control of their property (likely because SoE gave them the money to do it) otherwise the game never would have released.  Direct investments you do have to answer to someone, but in VGs case Brad was given full freedom, and he failed.

Originally posted by MortisRex

It's good to see you know what you're talking about OP, otherwise, this whole thread would look pretty silly. Hey, have you looked at the Kickstarter TOS?

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

How is it free money exactly? Do you think this will be completely different from every other Kickstarter software project ever and offer no tiered donation rewards? That's a pretty bold stance to take. I'm going to go ahead and say you're wrong. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there'll be rewards like beta access, in game items, mounts, statues, etc, etc depending on what you contribute.

So they can just release a buggy mess and give people their ponies.  And this is exactly what you will see happen with some of these projects.

Originally posted by strangiato2112

A big name in the industry wanting to make a successor to one of the insutry's big names...and he is resorting to public funding?

It doesn't compute.  If he wanted to make a low budget MMO he should have no problem securing funding, and the freedom to make the game he wanted to make.

But instead he is choosing to take advantage of the public, using the Camelot name to secure free capital he doesnt need to pay back.  The whole thing seems off to me.

 

Just consider: If you use borrowed money, you have incentive to succeed.  If you use free money, then it doesnt matter, you dont have to pay anyone back.

 

Kickstarter for a startup company of unknown developers is one thing.  For a big name person developing a big name game though...It doesnt add up.

The line highlighted proves you don't know how kickstarter works...

If they dont' meet the goal they return the cash, and if you pay into Kickstarter its not a donation, you are getting something for that money.  Nothing about it is free.

Edit:  If you think people will buy into a kickstarter for a "buggy mess" then sure continue to think that. The rest of us will think that you are pretty much entirely off base.  

You are acting like this is some sort of snake oil salesman.  Try having an open mind.

Originally posted by Fearum
I think its pretty smart. He is not making a game for everyone and wants to see if there is a actually a population that is actually interested in it. He said they will be asking for 2 mil and if it is met, he will throw in 3 mil of his own money to make the game. If its not met the game is dead and nobody loses any money.

And what happens when after 5 mill you have a halfway finished game thats ugly than Asheron's call?

Originally posted by strangiato2112

Originally posted by Fearum
I think its pretty smart. He is not making a game for everyone and wants to see if there is a actually a population that is actually interested in it. He said they will be asking for 2 mil and if it is met, he will throw in 3 mil of his own money to make the game. If its not met the game is dead and nobody loses any money.

And what happens when after 5 mill you have a halfway finished game thats ugly than Asheron's call?

Cite one time this has happened?

Do tell...

Again, you continually prove you don't have the faintest clue on how kick starter works... please go read the terms of service like multiple other posters have suggested.

Thanks.

Originally posted by rogue187
mark jacobs gonna solve all the old timers gaming needs....adapt or die i say ;)

You mean accept the garbage that current publishers are producing?  No. 

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by strangiato2112

A big name in the industry wanting to make a successor to one of the insutry's big names...and he is resorting to public funding?

It doesn't compute.  If he wanted to make a low budget MMO he should have no problem securing funding, and the freedom to make the game he wanted to make.

But instead he is choosing to take advantage of the public, using the Camelot name to secure free capital he doesnt need to pay back.  The whole thing seems off to me.

 

Just consider: If you use borrowed money, you have incentive to succeed.  If you use free money, then it doesnt matter, you dont have to pay anyone back.

 

Kickstarter for a startup company of unknown developers is one thing.  For a big name person developing a big name game though...It doesnt add up.

The line highlighted proves you don't know how kickstarter works...

If they dont' meet the goal they return the cash, and if you pay into Kickstarter its not a donation, you are getting something for that money.  Nothing about it is free.

 

I understand that just fine.  What you dont understand is that there is a rather gigantic leap between a met kickstarter goal and a remotely decent product.