Originally posted by rikwes
Even if and when this bloke would produce the best game ever to grace a PC/console he wouldn't get a dime from me since the Tabula Rasa fiasco. He won the lawsuit he filed against NCsoft ( at the tune of 23 million US$) and instead of trying to accomodate all those players - for example by including the rights to the IP Tabula Rasa in the lawsuit  and rebooting/saving  it - he starts a new company to rip them off all over again. 

I played Tabula Rasa from the day it launched to the day it closed. I quite enjoyed aspects of the game.  But there is more than enough blame to go around to all parties. I fault NCsofts upper level suits for playing political games (their antics eventually ended up costing them $32 million).

Richard Garriott termination

Richard Garriott, lead developer of Tabula Rasa, sued NCsoft for US$47 million in damages concerning his termination from the company. Garriott asserted in his suit that he was forced out of the company and was made to sell his 400,000 shares in NCsoft's stock, losing him millions of dollars. In addition, he claimed that the company was guilty of fraud by forging his resignation announcement.^[16] On July 30, 2010, a jury in a Texas federal court awarded him US$28 million in damages. NCsoft appealed the ruling.^[17] Garriott again prevailed on appeal and NCsoft was required to pay an additional US$4 million, bringing the total damages awarded to Garriott to US$32 million.^[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCsoft#Richard_Garriott_termination

I also fault RG for his focus on his trip to space, rather than on his game.

If NCsoft had settled, I could see the IP rights to TR going to RG.  But adding them to the court case would have made it much more complicated.  I miss TR as well, it was a fun game. Unfortunately, these things happen, when dealing with these types of political/legal issues.

I'm quite looking forward to Shroud, and I hope it turns out to be an entertaining game.

Originally posted by Wraithone

I'm quite looking forward to Shroud, and I hope it turns out to be an entertaining game.

I think it will be interesting like the new skill system. But entertaining? I will withhold my judgment until the game is released. 10000 things can go wrong in development.

While I understand the principle those who argue against you and where they are coming from... I still find it funny how some think $25 is a great investment and compare it to Wall Street.....

My sandwiches cost me $25 for crying out loud.

Please don't mistake the intent of my earlier posts:  I was only pointing out how silly it is to use the word "investment" when talking about Kickstarter.  I was not in any way suggesting alternative investments.  Sometimes it takes a ridiculous comparison to point out an absurdity.

I'm even more uncomfortable with the word "donation" though.  This isn't charity, it's business.  $25 may not be a lot to some, but for others it's the weekly grocery budget.   If you're fortunate enough to have disposable income, I encourage you to donate to your local food bank rather than buying fancy sandwiches or throwing cash at eccentric multi-millionaires.

Originally posted by Greyface

While I understand the principle those who argue against you and where they are coming from... I still find it funny how some think $25 is a great investment and compare it to Wall Street.....

My sandwiches cost me $25 for crying out loud.

Please don't mistake the intent of my earlier posts:  I was only pointing out how silly it is to use the word "investment" when talking about Kickstarter.  I was not in any way suggesting alternative investments.  Sometimes it takes a ridiculous comparison to point out an absurdity.

I'm even more uncomfortable with the word "donation" though.  This isn't charity, it's business.  $25 may not be a lot to some, but for others it's the weekly grocery budget.   If you're fortunate enough to have disposable income, I encourage you to donate to your local food bank rather than buying fancy sandwiches or throwing cash at eccentric multi-millionaires.

Does this imply you might find the idea more tolerable if it were some indy startup run out of a basement by a team of starving artistes than when it's being proposed by a guy who could, theoretically, buy out his own campaign with pocket change?

Meh.  I bought in because of the combination of interest in what he's trying to do and my respect for Amanda Palmer.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html

(Though I'll understand if you don't see the connection or dislike what she's saying.)

As for the food bank, I could throw that back at *anyone* who pays for unnecessary luxury items.  Like, say, video games. 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by RefMinor

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by RefMinor

---

 

---

Quite simply, if there are no games made or continuing for my gameplay in the MMORPG genre I will play other games or find other pastimes. I certainly will not be giving developers money for games regardless

---

Sure. It is not like there is a lack of video games to play, or movies to watch. That is what i say all the time. Plus, many non-MMOs have some MMO features anyway. PoE has public zones. Do you play that game?

---

No, the point of playing an MMO for me is the interactivity of the virtual world, if it is just tacked on with the players there for no reason I might as well play something different.

---

Wait .. you just say you play non-MMOs .. "i will play other games" PoE is not a MMO ... so the point is obviously not the interactivity of the virtual world .. since it has none. Public zones != virtual worlds. So you don't play it because it is not a MMO? Or because it is not "good" to you for other reasons?

---

Lol^

U caught him pretending to like MMORPGs and trying to convince u (& this forum) that non-mmos are now mmos.. all-the-while also not understanding that we are only concerned about MMORPG's.

Narius wants all games free and arcade style.. so that he can try them all free, at his leisure...

Originally posted by Greyface

Originally posted by Aeolyn

Thankfully there's alot of gamers who feel the same way and are willing to spend a bit to prove it thus making the chance of success a little greater. 

It's not about proving anything.  Brand loyalty is a bad foundation for identity.  I donate to a lot of things that I believe in: autism research, public radio, war veterans, my local food bank.   I'm a fan of Richard Garriot's past work, but that does not make him into a charity.

Capitalistic ventures are not philanthropic causes, no matter how much you or I want what they're (potentially) selling.  Admittedly, the crowdfunding movement has made some worthy projects possible, but I'm very uncomfortable with  giving away money to be used by others to build for-profit companies.  If KS adpoted a microfinance model instead of its current donation-based model, I'd be all over it. As it is, the whole thing smells like consumer exploitation to me. 

The crowdfunding movement is destined for scandal.  You heard it here first.

 

 

It's not about a cause, it's no different than people who chip in to help local music scenes support themselves. It's about doing something to support the entertainment that you enjoy. There are so many different forms of crowd funding, anything from modding communities, to special interest websites etc, etc... are supported in this manner over the net, why not games as well? Especially considering the road many major publishers have taken successful dev studios down over the last decade (and then some).

I understand being cautious, at the same time, it makes a lot of sense why many projects are taking this route, it gives them full control, that's what we as gamers would benefit from.

Originally posted by KaosProphet

 

Does this imply you might find the idea more tolerable if it were some indy startup run out of a basement by a team of starving artistes than when it's being proposed by a guy who could, theoretically, buy out his own campaign with pocket change?

The whole idea of KS is not "tolerable" to me .. hence i wont spend a cent on rich had-beens who flew to space, and i won't spend a cent on starving idealist living in his mom's basement.

However, i have no objection if someone else does .. after all, they are risking THEIR money so i have a chance to play a game, no matter how low that chance is. I should say "thank you".

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by KaosProphet

 

Does this imply you might find the idea more tolerable if it were some indy startup run out of a basement by a team of starving artistes than when it's being proposed by a guy who could, theoretically, buy out his own campaign with pocket change?

The whole idea of KS is not "tolerable" to me .. hence i wont spend a cent on rich had-beens who flew to space, and i won't spend a cent on starving idealist living in his mom's basement.

However, i have no objection if someone else does .. after all, they are risking THEIR money so i have a chance to play a game, no matter how low that chance is. I should say "thank you".

Bites tongue, hard.

Originally posted by Aeolyn

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by KaosProphet

 

Does this imply you might find the idea more tolerable if it were some indy startup run out of a basement by a team of starving artistes than when it's being proposed by a guy who could, theoretically, buy out his own campaign with pocket change?

The whole idea of KS is not "tolerable" to me .. hence i wont spend a cent on rich had-beens who flew to space, and i won't spend a cent on starving idealist living in his mom's basement.

However, i have no objection if someone else does .. after all, they are risking THEIR money so i have a chance to play a game, no matter how low that chance is. I should say "thank you".

Bites tongue, hard.

Nah, I just laugh. ^^  As long as such types don't move to impose their ideologies on others, they are more than welcome to their opinions.   But I'd not be surprised, if such types get the various political scum involved. Just to "protect" people of course.

Kickstarter is an interesting idea, and only time will tell how it turns out.  Everyone should do their own research, and make their own choices.  I back projects that are of interest to me.  If it doesn't work out, I can always get more money.

Originally posted by KaosProphet

Does this imply you might find the idea more tolerable if it were some indy startup run out of a basement by a team of starving artistes than when it's being proposed by a guy who could, theoretically, buy out his own campaign with pocket change?

Meh.  I bought in because of the combination of interest in what he's trying to do and my respect for Amanda Palmer.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html

(Though I'll understand if you don't see the connection or dislike what she's saying.)

As for the food bank, I could throw that back at *anyone* who pays for unnecessary luxury items.  Like, say, video games. 

I admit it, RG's habit of ostentatious spending isn't exactly warming me to the idea of Kickstarting his new project.  I do see the theoretical value of crowdfunding as a means of supporting the arts, but there is little expectation of financial gain in gallery exhibitions or music festivals.  Computer games are a different monkey.  Like film, interactive media occupies a gray area between creative expression and consumer product.  Ultimately, the goal is to create something that can be sold for a profit. 

Garriot wants to be free from the meddling of his investors.  I get that.  Going to the fans means he can make the game he wants without interference, but it also frees him from accountability and the obligation to share his gains.  Yes, $10 or $25 is chump change, but multiplied by 10,000 it starts to look like real money.  When he failed to produce a saleable product for EA or NCSoft, those companies had recourse.  Whether or not those corporations treated him fairly (and I believe that they did not), their financial backing gave them leverage.  What leverage do the fans have?  What happens if Garriot spends 75% of his budget on strippers and ice sculptures?  Who gets to call foul?  I support creative freedom but I can't support freedom from accountability.   

It's funny you bring up Amanda Palmer....  it was actually the controversy surrounding her KS projects that led me to questioning the crowdsourcing movement in the first place. 

Originally posted by Greyface

I admit it, RG's habit of ostentatious spending

 I read that and find that comment quite funny, because Richard Garriott do consider himself "LORD British" lol.

Pretending to be king too much one ends up thinking that they are really king, just like Burger King.

$1,005,015

pledged of $1,000,000 goal

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalarium/shroud-of-the-avatar-forsaken-virtues-0

Originally posted by Aeolyn
Anyway, it's done, now to try and keep the faith. :)

$1,005,015

pledged of $1,000,000 goal

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalarium/shroud-of-the-avatar-forsaken-virtues-0

with 19 days left looks like weather and pets are a shoe in by then :P

Originally posted by Squeak69

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Warmaker

Originally posted by Rednecksith

Originally posted by tixylix
I'm not interested in his lackluster ego based games.

Ultima IV - VII + Underworld + UO were hardly what I'd call lackluster or ego-based.

To be fair, how long ago were those titles you mentioned done?  And what has he done for RPGs and/or MMORPGs since then?

What R.Garriott did in his career is outstanding and can never be taken away from him.  But again, what has he done for RPGs / MMORPGs since UO?  UO is a 90's child.  Bill Clinton was still President of the USA!

And he did not have sex with that woman.

(You can't win with Garriot. He's Deity Incarnate, or he's a Has-Been. But either way, the argument usually churns on for days.)

who cares if he did, have yall looked at the presidential history, most of our better presidents tended to sleep around alot, heck bill was the last one time we had a stable econmy

ops did i bring politics into this thread :p

 

QFT

Yes.  Yes you did. But I forgive you.

Originally posted by Greyface

Originally posted by KaosProphet

Does this imply you might find the idea more tolerable if it were some indy startup run out of a basement by a team of starving artistes than when it's being proposed by a guy who could, theoretically, buy out his own campaign with pocket change?

Meh.  I bought in because of the combination of interest in what he's trying to do and my respect for Amanda Palmer.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html

(Though I'll understand if you don't see the connection or dislike what she's saying.)

As for the food bank, I could throw that back at *anyone* who pays for unnecessary luxury items.  Like, say, video games. 

I admit it, RG's habit of ostentatious spending isn't exactly warming me to the idea of Kickstarting his new project.  I do see the theoretical value of crowdfunding as a means of supporting the arts, but there is little expectation of financial gain in gallery exhibitions or music festivals. 

Music festivals, no.  Manufactured pop icons, absolutely.

I don't see modern computer games as necessarily being all that different - other than a cost of entry that does more to actively drive out those willing to risk failure in the name of 'art' or 'vision.'  The Kevin O'leary's of the world aren't going to back the projects I'd like to see made; the risk is too high for them.

It's funny you bring up Amanda Palmer....  it was actually the controversy surrounding her KS projects that led me to questioning the crowdsourcing movement in the first place. 

I'm not all that surprised; opinions are definately mixed on the subject.  And to be perfectly honest, if it had been someone like Rihanna or Kelly Clarkson, I'd probably react the same as you. 

So why do I give RG the benefit of the doubt on this one, and trust he's going to make a game I'll actually be interested in instead of blowing it on strippers and ice sculptures?  I can't really say. 

Lord British prevails!

$1,026,118

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Aeolyn

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by KaosProphet

 

Does this imply you might find the idea more tolerable if it were some indy startup run out of a basement by a team of starving artistes than when it's being proposed by a guy who could, theoretically, buy out his own campaign with pocket change?

The whole idea of KS is not "tolerable" to me .. hence i wont spend a cent on rich had-beens who flew to space, and i won't spend a cent on starving idealist living in his mom's basement.

However, i have no objection if someone else does .. after all, they are risking THEIR money so i have a chance to play a game, no matter how low that chance is. I should say "thank you".

Bites tongue, hard.

 

Nah, I just laugh. ^^  As long as such types don't move to impose their ideologies on others, they are more than welcome to their opinions.   But I'd not be surprised, if such types get the various political scum involved. Just to "protect" people of course.

Kickstarter is an interesting idea, and only time will tell how it turns out.  Everyone should do their own research, and make their own choices.  I back projects that are of interest to me.  If it doesn't work out, I can always get more money.

How can i impose anything on anyone? America is a free world. If you want to throw money at wishful thinking, all i can do is to laugh .. which btw, thank you also for the entertainment.

And why would i even want you to stop when you are funding hope .. that if realized, i can play too.

Originally posted by KaosProphet

Music festivals, no.  Manufactured pop icons, absolutely.

I don't see modern computer games as necessarily being all that different - other than a cost of entry that does more to actively drive out those willing to risk failure in the name of 'art' or 'vision.'  The Kevin O'leary's of the world aren't going to back the projects I'd like to see made; the risk is too high for them.

You're right about a lot of things.  Despite my posts in this thread, I'm not 100% against crowdfunding.  I'm more ambivalent than anything else and -- let's be honest -- I love a good argument.  The Kevin O'learys of the world aren't going to take chances; that's why we see so many remakes, sequels, and clones in games and film.  Without a way past the money-men, some projects just won't ever happen.  But, for all that, I still can't shake my concerns about accountability and fan exploitation.      

I'm not all that surprised; opinions are definately mixed on the subject.  And to be perfectly honest, if it had been someone like Rihanna or Kelly Clarkson, I'd probably react the same as you. 

As more Kickstarters get mainstream attention, I wonder how long it'll be before the Rihannas of the world join in.  Marketers know the value of fake indie cred.  From record labels to craft beer, they've been doing it for years. 

So why do I give RG the benefit of the doubt on this one, and trust he's going to make a game I'll actually be interested in instead of blowing it on strippers and ice sculptures?  I can't really say. 

Everything else aside, Richard Garriot is a special case for me.  Portalarium is the third time he's founded an indie game company.  The other two -- Origin and Destination -- were each sold to major publishers.  In both cases, he made out like a bandit financially.   It was the fans who lost out: beloved franchises were gutted for parts and innovative new titles were scrapped or pushed out as shovelware.  As much as I'd hate to see this happen again, it would be that much worse seeing it happen on the fans' dime.       

Originally posted by Greyface

Everything else aside, Richard Garriot is a special case for me.  Portalarium is the third time he's founded an indie game company.  The other two -- Origin and Destination -- were each sold to major publishers.  In both cases, he made out like a bandit financially.   It was the fans who lost out: beloved franchises were gutted for parts and innovative new titles were scrapped or pushed out as shovelware.  As much as I'd hate to see this happen again, it would be that much worse seeing it happen on the fans' dime.       

He is just scamming people with his old reputation.

But again, more power to him if he can get people to cough up money.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Greyface

Everything else aside, Richard Garriot is a special case for me.  Portalarium is the third time he's founded an indie game company.  The other two -- Origin and Destination -- were each sold to major publishers.  In both cases, he made out like a bandit financially.   It was the fans who lost out: beloved franchises were gutted for parts and innovative new titles were scrapped or pushed out as shovelware.  As much as I'd hate to see this happen again, it would be that much worse seeing it happen on the fans' dime.       

He is just scamming people with his old reputation.

But again, more power to him if he can get people to cough up money.

Given all of the enjoyment I've had from most of the Ultima series, and also Tabula Rasa (I really enjoyed aspects of the game), I have no problems giving this a shot.  If it doesn't work out, I'm only out a little money, which I can always get more of.