Alright, Caspian, let's dance

1567810

Comments

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember RarePosts: 1,114
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:
    Ahh, so you sided with the majority of characters in the Watchmen who felt preserving the peace justified stamping out the truth.

    Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.

    The Comedian understood the world better than anyone, and Ozymandias came with the best possible solution which even convinced Doctor Manhattan, or you can say god himself. If we want to delve deeper into your example, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach had the same perspective at the end but different solutions. 

    Right now we have a problem with the )perspective part here, and none has a solution yet. 
    Actually the Comedian was the most flawed or "evil" of the heroes, and even he understood the solution Ozmandias planned was wrong.

    True, Dr Manhatten became convinced of the rightness of the solution, but it was clear his assention to god hood had stripped him of his humanity, and as a consequence, no longer viewed actions as right or wrong.

    Which was the whole point,  many things done for all of the right reasons are inherently wrong, and the line between good and evil can be very blurry at times.

    Usually depends on which side you are on.

    Seems to be true for some in this debate, if you support the creation of this (or any other) game, it's OK for the Devs to misrepresent the truth, as long as the end result is the delivery of the game.

    For critics, its reprehensible for the devs to do so, well unless its a game they want to see built I suppose.  

    ;)
    I love talking about Watchmen. The Comedian is one of the most complex characters in comics ever. He is the most flawed, because he could see how the world really was. If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you. The world in return had changed him, and made him the most flawed--or the most perfect in his own way. 

    I don't believe it's ever okay for the devs to misrepresent the truth. But many of these delays aren't due to the fact that the devs were deceitful or white-lying their pants off. Problem is, how can we know? Should all campaigns that miss deadlines get punished? That wouldn't work in this industry. 

    I think the solution is to require Devs to give back some portion of the donated funds if promised milestones aren't met. (and only if a backer requests it). 

    Might make devs be a bit more honest in their projections or at least encourage them to share the more pessimistic projections instead of happy path with a dose of magic tossed in. 

    CU offers refunds, and yes there are limits, with terms and conditions, but overall by having this policy in place, combined with massive transparency and a willingness to take responsibility for the delays has kept the villagers from storming the castle gates.



    Refunds are nice. But if you really think about it, you'd realize that won't work, at least not like this. Company has to declare bankruptcy and all backers get a percentage of their monies, that's the only fair way. 

    FFA refund won't work. You know how people get hyped, right? That goes both ways. Imagine refunds are in order and a wave of refunds hit a project from the less understanding/patient people. Project is going be even running longer than the original plan and now has even less fund. 

    Meanwhile the loyal backers remain on the ship and by the time they'd give up there would be no monies left for their share of refunds, they'll sink with the ship. 

    Again, I understand all your dear mates concerns. To be honest, a solution requires a fair amount of work by a large team to study, research, brainstorm and come up with a solution after a year or so. So I'm not saying it cannot be done, but so far, I haven't read anything that would work as a solid solution. 

    Anything but more information. And I think campaigns have to evolve or they wouldn't be making it anymore. Ashes of Creation is a good example of campaigns moving forward. They had a nice gameplay demo at least. I think that would become the bar for the future campaigns. And if the next one wants to be successful as well, they have to up their game. 
    Gdemami
    I am a piece of carbon with a soul, wondering where I got it from. 
    - Drunken Mozart in the Desert
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    Refunds have worked for CU so far.  
    Gdemami

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember RarePosts: 1,114
    Refunds have worked for CU so far.  
    As the matter of fact, we know nothing. CU has to launch first to make any conclusions. 

    This is simple math. Refunds mean losing money out of budget. Delays mean longer duration of development, which might exceeds the original budget. If the store is making more monies than campaign is refunding + extra for the longer development duration, then they'll be fine. But something is amiss. Store means ongoing campaign--which has stretch goals. So what should be done now?

    A) Fake stretch goals
    B) Stretch goals with fake budgets
    C) Personal funds to make up for the difference
    D) Cut back on polish/features/whatever in hopes of to patch the problems away post-launch
    E) Fail to finish the project
    F) Find a new investor

    There might be other solutions, I can't think of any though. 

    I'm not insulting anyone here, but you have to have experience in managing start-ups to realize how fragile everything is and what "losing money" really means. These campaigns are pretty much the same. They are not established companies, doesn't matter how experienced the dev team is. These newly founded companies are infants, learning to walk. The people behind these campaigns are learning and experiencing a lot stuff for the first time, and it ain't freaking easy. 
    Gdemami
    I am a piece of carbon with a soul, wondering where I got it from. 
    - Drunken Mozart in the Desert
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,744
    Refunds have worked for CU so far.  
    As the matter of fact, we know nothing. CU has to launch first to make any conclusions. 

    This is simple math. Refunds mean losing money out of budget. Delays mean longer duration of development, which might exceeds the original budget. If the store is making more monies than campaign is refunding + extra for the longer development duration, then they'll be fine. But something is amiss. Store means ongoing campaign--which has stretch goals. So what should be done now?

    A) Fake stretch goals
    B) Stretch goals with fake budgets
    C) Personal funds to make up for the difference
    D) Cut back on polish/features/whatever in hopes of to patch the problems away post-launch
    E) Fail to finish the project
    F) Find a new investor

    There might be other solutions, I can't think of any though. 

    I'm not insulting anyone here, but you have to have experience in managing start-ups to realize how fragile everything is and what "losing money" really means. These campaigns are pretty much the same. They are not established companies, doesn't matter how experienced the dev team is. These newly founded companies are infants, learning to walk. The people behind these campaigns are learning and experiencing a lot stuff for the first time, and it ain't freaking easy. 

    Oh fuck! Yup! You did it! So now the regular "Joe Customer" has to know about Project Management AND running a start-up. Good luck with that fight! 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember RarePosts: 1,114
    CrazKanuk said:
    Refunds have worked for CU so far.  
    As the matter of fact, we know nothing. CU has to launch first to make any conclusions. 

    This is simple math. Refunds mean losing money out of budget. Delays mean longer duration of development, which might exceeds the original budget. If the store is making more monies than campaign is refunding + extra for the longer development duration, then they'll be fine. But something is amiss. Store means ongoing campaign--which has stretch goals. So what should be done now?

    A) Fake stretch goals
    B) Stretch goals with fake budgets
    C) Personal funds to make up for the difference
    D) Cut back on polish/features/whatever in hopes of to patch the problems away post-launch
    E) Fail to finish the project
    F) Find a new investor

    There might be other solutions, I can't think of any though. 

    I'm not insulting anyone here, but you have to have experience in managing start-ups to realize how fragile everything is and what "losing money" really means. These campaigns are pretty much the same. They are not established companies, doesn't matter how experienced the dev team is. These newly founded companies are infants, learning to walk. The people behind these campaigns are learning and experiencing a lot stuff for the first time, and it ain't freaking easy. 

    Oh fuck! Yup! You did it! So now the regular "Joe Customer" has to know about Project Management AND running a start-up. Good luck with that fight! 
    Uh.. Joe Customer can remain oblivious to PM and running a start-up as long as Mr. Joe wants to remain a customer. As a customer--or a cash-donor in this case--one can rely on the available information and the opinions of the experts. Nothing wrong with that. 

    But if we are discussing how crowdfunding campaigns should change into better, and not just shooting the breeze, then yeah. Besides the strong ethics and moral compass many do possess, the solution needs to be viable as well. 
    CrazKanukGdemami
    I am a piece of carbon with a soul, wondering where I got it from. 
    - Drunken Mozart in the Desert
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,437
    Craz, not sure why you continue to insist on pushing this false dichotomy.  It's not binary.

    Constantine, as you mentioned, there are other ways to find funding.  The fact that these projects seem unwilling or unable to receive backing in a more formal manner is already, to put it in RPG terms, lIke starting with a -1 in viability.  As such, I find it asinine that we should he content to relax the requirements of such risky projects.

    Folks don't know much about startups, because these startups generally aren't advertised to the public for funding.  These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors.  That's cause for more stringent accountability, not less.  Don't ignore the reasoning as to why crowdfunding didn't develop as the traditional way to fund projects.  There's good reasons for that, and a lack of accountability is one of them.

    As you say, the solution has to be viable..  But when speaking to viability, that doesn't mean that the public has any responsibility to provide that viability beyond pledging their own money.  If massive amounts of backers demand refunds because they don't like the way the project is headed, they should be able to withdraw funding.  If the believers still wish to get the project completed in spite of the misgivings, then they are free to pledge more to cover that lost cash, are they not?  What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished?  I submit they have none.

    GdemamiAsm0deus

    image
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember RarePosts: 1,114
    Craz, not sure why you continue to insist on pushing this false dichotomy.  It's not binary.

    Constantine, as you mentioned, there are other ways to find funding.  The fact that these projects seem unwilling or unable to receive backing in a more formal manner is already, to put it in RPG terms, lIke starting with a -1 in viability.  As such, I find it asinine that we should he content to relax the requirements of such risky projects.

    Folks don't know much about startups, because these startups generally aren't advertised to the public for funding.  These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors.  That's cause for more stringent accountability, not less.  Don't ignore the reasoning as to why crowdfunding didn't develop as the traditional way to fund projects.  There's good reasons for that, and a lack of accountability is one of them.

    As you say, the solution has to be viable..  But when speaking to viability, that doesn't mean that the public has any responsibility to provide that viability beyond pledging their own money.  If massive amounts of backers demand refunds because they don't like the way the project is headed, they should be able to withdraw funding.  If the believers still wish to get the project completed in spite of the misgivings, then they are free to pledge more to cover that lost cash, are they not?  What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished?  I submit they have none.

    That doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't secure funding from other sources, neither can one make the conclusion they are not viable themselves. But let's say you are right. The nature of crowdfunding is just about that. Giving the projects a chance that no one else would. What you state contradicts the concept behind these platforms. Also, yes, these are very risky projects. 

    So with that two in mind, you'd realize supporting crowdfunding campaigns isn't for everyone. I think this is the part @CrazyKanuk has been emphasizing in the whole thread. If you are looking for a sure thing, if you want your money to be secured and withdrawn whenever you felt uncomfortable, this can't happen here. But that's common practice. You can't get into a start-up company then later on state that you want your money back because you don't agree with their decisions. Even if they fail to deliver, you can't do anything. Crowdfunding is exactly the same thing, but instead of investing you are making a pledge, and instead of shares you are getting a "thank you" or a return to your favor. Your reward can vary from a literal "thank you!"--as you probably saw on many campaigns is what you get when you donate $5--up to the best way they can return your favor. 

    I'm not running any of these campaigns. If refunds were mandatory, I could cash back 4 digits from the MMORPGs which made decisions that I don't like. But mandatory refund policy forced upon on these campaigns, would work exactly the same way it would on start-ups. 

    And let's not forget, all these campaigns are trying to give you some value on your pledge. You are taking a risk: first to help get a project materialize, second to receive that extra *wink* cheaper. 

    Lastly, I am quoting the last part of your post: "What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished?  I submit they have none."--well mate, with that approach, what are we even arguing about? Every man for himself then. 
    I am a piece of carbon with a soul, wondering where I got it from. 
    - Drunken Mozart in the Desert
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,437
    Start up companies are not asking the uneducated general public to fund them.  At least, not the ones I'm familiar with.  That's an essential difference.  If they are on KS, then they are bypassing the extra scrutiny a traditional investor would put the project through.  That's significant.

    If they were able to get funding but chose to KS, then it doesn't relieve the burden to the consumers/funder.  Again, in that instance, they chose to go the route and assume the liability of attempting to scrape together thousands of dollars from a fickle, inexperienced group of "investors," of which there is no true consensus opinion.  That's not the problem of the consumer, because the consumers aren't pooling their money and trolling for developers to take on the project based upon their own, agreed business proposal; the developers are trolling for consumers to pool their money and provide the means to complete their project.

    If accountability means the projects cannot complete development using this means of funding...  Well, that's why this isn't the only means of funding these projects.

    As I mentioned before, had Torment not been released, the world would still turn, those backers would, presumably, spend their money elsewhere on entertainment, and it would be an unnoticeable blip on the gaming scene's radar.  Just because these developers have begun asking the public for money, it doesn't mean the public has any responsibility to ensure they "do their part" to get the project completed.
    GdemamiAsm0deus

    image
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    MadFrenchie said:

    These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors. 

    This is pure hyperbole regarding the developers intentions AGAIN! Have an issue with Kickstarter sure but don't start badmouthing people with baseless accusations like that.

    Besides you cannot compare investors who are looking to make a profit vs a gamer who is making a donation who is not looking to make a profit. Their risk profiles are completely different and a gamer will donate in situations that an investor would not invest. Not to mention the size of the investment vs average donation.

    The vast majority of Kickstarter backers are willing to lose that money for the hope they simply get a product that the mainstream developers are not willing to produce. This is what it boils down to. Should there be a better infrastructure where backers own shares? That is worth looking into but not as a replacement for Kickstarter.

    ConstantineMerusGdemami
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    It's too bad their other funding seems to have never materialized and they appear to be 100% reliant on donations.

    I wonder why...


    GdemamiYashaXAsm0deus

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • grimmlibertygrimmliberty Huber Heights, OHMember UncommonPosts: 41
    It's too bad their other funding seems to have never materialized and they appear to be 100% reliant on donations.

    I wonder why...


    Actually, it was stated in one of the recorded Q+A sessions by Vye that Caspian threw in a bunch of his own money just to get this off the ground and he nodded that it was true.

    Either you believe it or you don't.

    Most companies don't do public financials until they have to, not just in game development.  I wish it were otherwise, but wishes never change things.


    Sincerely,
    Grimm Liberty

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    It's too bad their other funding seems to have never materialized and they appear to be 100% reliant on donations.

    I wonder why...


    Actually, it was stated in one of the recorded Q+A sessions by Vye that Caspian threw in a bunch of his own money just to get this off the ground and he nodded that it was true.

    Either you believe it or you don't.

    Most companies don't do public financials until they have to, not just in game development.  I wish it were otherwise, but wishes never change things.


    That's not what I said.

    He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors.   To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
     
    GdemamiAsm0deus

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88



    That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors.   To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
     
    So what?
    Asm0deus
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,437
    edited August 29
    MadFrenchie said:

    These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors. 

    This is pure hyperbole regarding the developers intentions AGAIN! Have an issue with Kickstarter sure but don't start badmouthing people with baseless accusations like that.

    Besides you cannot compare investors who are looking to make a profit vs a gamer who is making a donation who is not looking to make a profit. Their risk profiles are completely different and a gamer will donate in situations that an investor would not invest. Not to mention the size of the investment vs average donation.

    The vast majority of Kickstarter backers are willing to lose that money for the hope they simply get a product that the mainstream developers are not willing to produce. This is what it boils down to. Should there be a better infrastructure where backers own shares? That is worth looking into but not as a replacement for Kickstarter.

    The size of the investment per backer is likely one of the few reasons there haven't already been lawyers involved in some cases.  

    It's not hyperbole, do you really think developers consider gamers more informed about the viability of a project than traditional investors?  If so, you're calling them ignorant at best, stupid at worst.

    The first part of the quoted text isn't even debateable- they are doing just that.  Supplementing or forgoing traditional funding.

    I would surmise that, if given the option, most backers would definitely take a return on investment if the game is successful.  Do you have some sort of evidence that would suggest current backers would turn down the opportunity to make that money back if the game is successful?  Otherwise, you're making the same type of argument you're railing against.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    Gdemami

    image
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
    Gdemami
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196



    That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors.   To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
     
    So what?
    LOL... kind of important question... 
    I wonder  why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
    Asm0deus

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,542



    That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors.   To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
     
    So what?
    LOL... kind of important question... 
    I wonder  why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
    In fact, a few months after the KS, Jeromy said that "they had already been approached by several potential investors".

    Nothing further has been said about that...
    YashaX
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,927
    Yes we know the cliched reason stated with every KS MMO project: "it needs to be made this way because regular funding sources won't fund this game that has everything you ever dreamed about and more."

    The thing I always wonder though is whether it really is worth making. Not bring able to pass the investor test is an automatic red flag for me. It could be the idea is shit or the team doesn't inspire confidence or often, both.

    I remember people in this forum once upon a time defending Greedmonger... yeah.
    MadFrenchieKyleranYashaXcraftseekerAsm0deus
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,437
    edited August 29
    No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
    No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook.  However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors.  Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer.  Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level.  And developers know that.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    Gdemamicraftseeker

    image
  • TimEisenTimEisen Columnist Member RarePosts: 2,972
    I'm still excited to play Ashes of Elyria. I'd say the only game I'm more excited about is Chronicles of Creation. Gonna be a good Christmas! 
    IselinMadFrenchieKyleranSedrynTyrosAsm0deusSpottyGekko
    I used to role-play a Warrior Priest now I role-play a writer.
    "Basically if a Ninja Turtle used it, or close to it, I like it."
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,927
    TimEisen said:
    I'm still excited to play Ashes of Elyria. I'd say the only game I'm more excited about is Chronicles of Creation. Gonna be a good Christmas! 
    Happy 2021 Christmas to you!
    MadFrenchieKyleranYashaX
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • TimEisenTimEisen Columnist Member RarePosts: 2,972
    Iselin said:
    TimEisen said:
    I'm still excited to play Ashes of Elyria. I'd say the only game I'm more excited about is Chronicles of Creation. Gonna be a good Christmas! 
    Happy 2021 Christmas to you!
    (Looks out window) By then we may be living MMORPGs!
    I used to role-play a Warrior Priest now I role-play a writer.
    "Basically if a Ninja Turtle used it, or close to it, I like it."
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778
    Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level. 
    ...does not look like so reading these boards, or this very thread even.
    MadFrenchieholdenfive
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88
    edited August 30
    No you are saying their intentions are dishonest. You have nothing to base that on.
    No, I've actually said here (I think) and other places (I know) that in some cases it may not be a malicious dishonesty, but an unrealistic outlook.  However, as @Iselin mentioned above me, that's the reason there are traditional investors.  Those folks, generally, are much better equipped to spot the malicious dishonesty as well as the unrealistic dreamer.  Consumers don't have the expertise, the experience, nor the resources to evaluate the project on the same level.  And developers know that.
    As I have already said an investor is looking to make a profit, not simply whether the project is technically feasible. The return has to justify the risk. The investor will also look at a range of investments and pick the best ones. Even if they thought this project could turn a tidy profit they might be opting for other investments that return the same profit but at lower risk. I don't think you understand how financial decisions are made.

    The gamer is not basing his decision on an analysis of risk vs return, or at least their tolerance for risk is very high. You are comparing two different motivations/paradigms/goals and thus completely nonsensical.

    The gamer is knowingly donating a comparatively small amount of money for the chance to get what large publishers are not making. If he doesn't donate he get nothing. If he donates he might get something. It is that simple. For many it is worth it. If there are a minority of backers with unrealistic expectations the problem lies with them, not with the developer using the platform provided to them by others.

    Should there be a more structured 'investment' type of crowdfunding platform where gamers can get an actual profit... sure no harm in that but it is not up to developers to create this. They use the avenues available to them and right now it is Kickstarter. It is ridiculous to complain that they are using it.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
    Gdemami
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 88



    That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors.   To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
     
    So what?
    LOL... kind of important question... 
    I wonder  why they couldn't land an investor like they hoped.
    It is still irrelevant to everything you have been complaining about. If they don't get additional investment... then that's that. It does not provide proof to any of your slander.
Sign In or Register to comment.