Alright, Caspian, let's dance

13468911

Comments

  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122
    edited August 21
    Iselin said:
    In the real world if you miss deadlines you have to answer to your boss or board of directors or investors and you can bet your ass that when those deadlines are missed by more than 100%, questions about competence would be the least of the project manager's worries. Loosing your job and being relplaced would be a very probable outcome.

    This it the crux of the matter really. They are NOT employees working for an employer or investors. This is a Kickstarter project. The risk analysis is totally different. People following or supporting a Kickstarter project should expect timelines to be missed far more than a lower risk project for a commercial company. Kickstarter is pie-in-the-sky until something solid is actually produced. Trying to compare this to a regular commercial project means you have missed the boat.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122
    MadFrenchie said:When you then become aggressive with your backers 
    He didn't get aggressive with backers. His backers are all on his forum talking about the game. He got upset with non-backers trying to defame his project. If an actual backer got caught in the crossfire that is unfortunate but the reply was always targetted at trolls. That is pretty clear.
    Asm0deus
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122
    edited August 21
    Again, Sovrath...  You're not the normal person.  The vast majority of gamers do not spend time every day on a gaming forum following game development.  And they shouldn't have to to avoid being taken by predatory developers attempting to wow them with nothing but buzzwords and empty promises.


    I do realize the snake oil salesman isn't a 1 to 1 analogy, but my point was that the consumers are bombarded with too much marketing information to attempt to imply they're the only ones who can be held accountable in these situations.  It's unrealistic.
    I'm sorry I think people/backers/consumers etc need to take some responsibility for themselves.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
    GdemamiKyleran
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122


    If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate.  Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back.  But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
    I am pretty sure all of these Kickstarters come with disclaimers that the listed features are the target, not the guaranteed product. If they don't that is a serious oversight but if not the comparison does not work at all.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,542
    edited August 21
    No it won't.  Asking for 1M, raising 3M, delaying the game for at least a year and only "making progress " is not proof of competence.  
    1 million to 3 million is irrelevant. Complex projects always have delays, it is to be expected even when led by experienced projects managers. So yes the only factor that reflects on their competence is the actual game. The rest is just malicious slander.
    You keep using that word... yet it's blatantly obvious you have no idea what it means.  Slander is when you make false statements about someone (you are probably meaning LIBEL which is writing them).  Saying that the guy miscalculated his timeline, belittled those who challenged that timeline and delayed his project by at least a year is neither slander nor libel.  It's called FACT.  

    Ah, internet semantics. The holdout of everyone that has no point. No... you clearly have no idea what is being said. People get timelines wrong (even experienced project managers) and he posted an angry reply to a few internet trolls. While not desirable, none of that reflects on their competence to actually produce a game.

    So yes, harping on that they are incompetent because some people (maybe you included?) got an angry reply because of a few internet trolls is slander. Now you are upset and trying to damage their reputation. It is pretty clear to me what your agenda is.
    Actually no it's NOT slander.  Slander would be saying (not writing) something untrue.  Missing your timeline by a year plus obviously "reflects on their competence" and is a true statement so not libel.

    If you can't see that, the problem is on your side.

    PS: His "angry reply" wasn't to a few internet trolls on this forum but rather to customers on his own forum.  Perhaps you should go find the link previously provided and read it.


    Post edited by Slapshot1188 on
    GdemamiYashaX

    "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: 122
    edited August 21
    Actually no it's NOT slander.  Slander would be saying (not writing) something untrue.  Missing your timeline by a year plus obviously "reflects on their competence" and is a true statement so not libel.

    If you can't see that, the problem is on your side.

    PS: His "angry reply" wasn't to a few internet trolls on this forum but rather to customers on his own forum.  Perhaps you should go find the link previously provided and read it.


    Saying/writing = semantics, my man. Kickstarter timeliness are bunk and making a big deal of it is pointless. Their competency will be judged when they actually release a product, playable demo or whatever, not because they hurt your feelings.

    It doesn't matter where he posted it. The CoE forum community at large does not seem to have taken it personally which seems to indicate that they know it was not targeted at them.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
    YashaX
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 10,281
    ... People get timelines wrong (even experienced project managers) ...
    There's a big difference between "getting it wrong" and making a totally crazed estimate that you and your tiny team are the ones who can produce an MMORPG in 18 months when no one else in the history of MMORPG development has ever done it anywhere near that quickly. One is honest unavoidable slippage but the 18 month hype was either delusional or a deliberate lie.

    That's the point you seem to consistently avoid discussing: the degree of wackyness in the original estimate. It's not that all projects slip, it's that some projects lie about the estimated dates to make the eventual game seem more within grasp for potential funders.


    SpottyGekkoSlapshot1188KylerancraftseekerGdemamiYashaX
    You say you never compromise
    With the mystery tramp, but now you realize
    He's not selling any alibis
    As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
    And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,214
    They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.

    EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
    This is what I mean by "get through life".

    It's just not that hard "but apparently it is".

    One doesn't have to pledge to anything if they don't want to. I've brought this up before but I'll do it again, in the arts, "pledging" is a major component of "the scene". Organizations receive money and the use that money for new projects, series, seasons, "whatever".

    There is no "product" to evaluate. And one can look into the individuals or the organization (if it's been around) and see who the players are.

    If it's a new organization then one will either have to look into the people involved or maybe get some sort of taster of what they can do.

    In the case of these crowd funded games, "someone" is asking for money. Why would anyone just give them money if there is no evidence they can deliver? One either steps up to the plate and does their due diligence, they look at the examples offered and take a chance based on that, or they don't give money.

    I'm not going to excuse people because they can't run their lives.
    CrazKanukTorvalKylerancraftseeker



  • RufusUORufusUO Member UncommonPosts: 36
    This is why I don't buy or invest in anything.  At all.  Everything I own or make is from my own doing.  This protects me from having to research every purchase/investment and trying to know everything!

    In fact, I'm posting this message from a toaster I built myself.  I live in the woods and pretty much built my own little civilization.  It took a lot of study (a la Ark Engrams) and I learned a lot of things I didn't need to know... but look at me now!  It's MY toaster and no snake-oil-salesman tricked me!

    I'm so lonely out here.
    TorvalKyleran
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember RarePosts: 1,334
    Sovrath said:
    They don't Sovrath because they have products to actually evaluate.

    EDIT- They get through life because, generally, you don't have to pledge money and then wait for the producer to prove their faith is rightfully placed.
    This is what I mean by "get through life".

    It's just not that hard "but apparently it is".

    One doesn't have to pledge to anything if they don't want to. I've brought this up before but I'll do it again, in the arts, "pledging" is a major component of "the scene". Organizations receive money and the use that money for new projects, series, seasons, "whatever".

    There is no "product" to evaluate. And one can look into the individuals or the organization (if it's been around) and see who the players are.

    If it's a new organization then one will either have to look into the people involved or maybe get some sort of taster of what they can do.

    In the case of these crowd funded games, "someone" is asking for money. Why would anyone just give them money if there is no evidence they can deliver? One either steps up to the plate and does their due diligence, they look at the examples offered and take a chance based on that, or they don't give money.

    I'm not going to excuse people because they can't run their lives.
    Pre-ordering and making pledges to Kickstarter are believed to be the same by many. Which is obviously wrong.

    But... Devs are also enjoying this mistake and are not eager to differentiate it clearly because we can be sure, if everyone were completely aware of the difference between the two, campaigns wouldn't be getting as many supporters as they are getting now. 
    SpottyGekkoKyleranAethaerynMadFrenchieStaalBurgher
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,044
    Kyleran said:
    Wizardry said:

    The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer.
    The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.

    The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.

    If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate.  Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back.  But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
    Not a good comparison, with the Corvette you are buying a clearly defined product, so very easy to tell what should be delivered.

    With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
    Only, that's the issue in and of itself.

    There's nothing at all to hold a developer to.  People can talk about personal responsibility all they like, and I agree, but it doesn't excuse a system that's ripe for predatory marketing schemes all because you guys like to think of yourselves as too smart to fall for marketing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary permeating throughout our lives).

    They're attempting to sell you on an idea for a product.  When the description of that product is grossly inaccurate, or the folks building the project spend funds simply to further hype the product (while giving timelines to the public from a position of authority on the project), they can and should be held responsible for the timelines given.

    Some folks think that, because this is software development, they shouldn't be held responsible for self-imposed deadlines.  It's asinine.
    craftseeker

    image
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember RarePosts: 1,334
    edited August 21
    Kyleran said:
    Wizardry said:

    The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer.
    The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.

    The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.

    If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate.  Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back.  But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
    Not a good comparison, with the Corvette you are buying a clearly defined product, so very easy to tell what should be delivered.

    With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
    Only, that's the issue in and of itself.

    There's nothing at all to hold a developer to.  People can talk about personal responsibility all they like, and I agree, but it doesn't excuse a system that's ripe for predatory marketing schemes all because you guys like to think of yourselves as too smart to fall for marketing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary permeating throughout our lives).

    They're attempting to sell you on an idea for a product.  When the description of that product is grossly inaccurate, or the folks building the project spend funds simply to further hype the product (while giving timelines to the public from a position of authority on the project), they can and should be held responsible for the timelines given.

    Some folks think that, because this is software development, they shouldn't be held responsible for self-imposed deadlines.  It's asinine.
    I agree the whole system has to change, especially when it comes down to video games. 

    But what's your suggestion? How do you think it's possible to hold them responsible after they missed a deadline? 
    Post edited by ConstantineMerus on
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,022
    edited August 21
    Charitable organizations and any company that goes "public" for large numbers of investors are subject to tons of regulations to make sure they're on the straight and narrow.  I wonder if the same will ever be the case for mass crowd funded things.  Of course, the law tends to be notoriously slow with getting around to addressing new things like that...
    Post edited by Tiamat64 on
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,899
    edited August 21
    Kyleran said:
    Wizardry said:

    The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer.
    The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.

    The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.

    If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate.  Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back.  But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
    Not a good comparison, with the Corvette you are buying a clearly defined product, so very easy to tell what should be delivered.

    With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
    Only, that's the issue in and of itself.

    There's nothing at all to hold a developer to.  People can talk about personal responsibility all they like, and I agree, but it doesn't excuse a system that's ripe for predatory marketing schemes all because you guys like to think of yourselves as too smart to fall for marketing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary permeating throughout our lives).

    They're attempting to sell you on an idea for a product.  When the description of that product is grossly inaccurate, or the folks building the project spend funds simply to further hype the product (while giving timelines to the public from a position of authority on the project), they can and should be held responsible for the timelines given.

    Some folks think that, because this is software development, they shouldn't be held responsible for self-imposed deadlines.  It's asinine.

    Honestly, if everyone held all vendors, companies, and government agencies to these types of standards, can you imagine how much stuff, and the quality of that stuff, would be getting done? Your idea is novel, but it doesn't apply in the real world. Actually, apart from MMOs, I'd suggest that the percentage of Kickstarter games which actually finish on or before the estimated completion date is likely higher than the percentage of construction projects that finish on time and on budget. Not that this excuses these game companies, but if you think that these companies are creating an epidemic or are creating systems ripe for predatory marketing, you're insane. We're talking about thousands of people, versus much more corrupt systems that affect hundreds of millions. If this situation was pandemic, it would be addressed, but it simply isn't. 2% of projects outright failing and being cancelled is a pretty small number, considering your argument has been used since Kickstarter started nearly a decade ago. 
    Post edited by CrazKanuk on

    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
    ----------------

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,044
    edited August 21
    As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards.  Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project.  As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability.  That doesn't exist in other industries.

    Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs.  You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,214
    As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards.  Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project.  As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability.  That doesn't exist in other industries.

    Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs.  You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
    No, I think people want crowdfunding to be something that it's not. Or at least never claimed it would be.

    It's essentially "hey guys, we want to bring x product to you and the big guys aren't interested. If we raise x amount of dollars we think we can do it. Are you in .... ?"

    And that's it.
    ConstantineMerusKyleranStaalBurgher



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,044
    Sovrath said:
    As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards.  Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project.  As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability.  That doesn't exist in other industries.

    Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs.  You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
    No, I think people want crowdfunding to be something that it's not. Or at least never claimed it would be.

    It's essentially "hey guys, we want to bring x product to you and the big guys aren't interested. If we raise x amount of dollars we think we can do it. Are you in .... ?"

    And that's it.
    And, in the absence of specificity, the consumer will lose.  It's the ambiguity of the system that's the issue.

    image
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,899
    As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards.  Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project.  As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability.  That doesn't exist in other industries.

    Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs.  You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.

    So your solution is to create a system to punish people? Hmmm, sounds like something that would lead to really cutting edge innovations. 

    Again, crowdfunding is supposed to be a means to allow people to fund products that would not otherwise be made, for whatever the reason. To date there has been 1 lawsuit. That's it! It seems you're forgetting about the fantastic products that were hatched via crowdfunding. By implementing laws and rules on top of the current model, all that you do is create a situation where the only people who can actually run crowdfunding campaigns are larger companies with staff lawyers, because doing so otherwise would mean hefty legal ramifications. So unless you have some lawyers who can actually find the loopholes in the system, you're essentially fucked. 

    I can appreciate your perspective, but I'd suggest that there is an equal number of people who are on the opposite side of you. I've actually heard people talk about how crowdfunding projects these days are TOO far along when they ask for funding. Essentially, in order to be successful today you need to come to the table with a LOT more than what you did "back in the day". Prime example is John Romero who has come to the table with 2 ideas, with little actual content. Mark Jacobs almost failed with Camelot Unchained because he was content light at the beginning. So to suggest that people DON'T understand the risks and are just throwing money away is a bit ignorant in and of itself. 

    I get that MMOs are highly risky projects, and I think that the community at large understands that. It's also the reason that you see questions popping up about external funding all the time, since people understand that Kickstarter alone probably won't do it. 

    I just think that you're maybe not giving as much credit to the community as they deserve. If anything I'd say that the community is probably quite aware of the risks. Granted, I'm sure there is a percentage of the community who is completely oblivious, but suggesting that's the majority is a huge stretch. Kickstarter has been around for nearly a decade and unless people have been living under a rock, they've likely heard of risks associated with these projects. Further, I'm sure they understand that the fact the game is an MMO simply adds to that risk. 




    Herase

    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: 1,334
    Sovrath said:
    As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards.  Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project.  As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability.  That doesn't exist in other industries.

    Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs.  You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
    No, I think people want crowdfunding to be something that it's not. Or at least never claimed it would be.

    It's essentially "hey guys, we want to bring x product to you and the big guys aren't interested. If we raise x amount of dollars we think we can do it. Are you in .... ?"

    And that's it.
    And, in the absence of specificity, the consumer will lose.  It's the ambiguity of the system that's the issue.
    The word "pledge" should be consumers' first clue. 
    Kyleran
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember RarePosts: 1,334
    I suggest everyone who hasn't done so to research crowdfunding campaigns outside video games and you'll realize lots of problems we are facing are due to game development itself not the crowdfunding system. 
    Kyleran
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairMember EpicPosts: 7,958
    <sigh> way to completely ignore a glaring flaw in that rant: normal folks aren't qualified to judge the dangers of delays on such a complex project.  Folks on my side aren't ignoring the realities of game development; you're all ignoring the realities of marketing and the effect perceived positions of authority have on a consumers purchasing decision.  These effects are well-documented.  When they're used to gather funds for a project based upon such pie-in-the-sky promises and unrealistic timelines, they become predatory.  When you then become aggressive with your backers when they give you pushback about those promises and that timeline, you look even less trustworthy.  This is the entire reason investors existed in the first place; their jobs are literally researching the project at a level the normal consumer cannot.


    I'm sure there was someone in the Wild West attempting to defend the rights of snake oil salesman to provide a misleading overview of their product because no one is forced to buy it and normal folks just don't understand "modern chemistry"!  Doesn't make them any less of a snake oil salesman.

    And they assumed the PR risks of asking the public for funding.  No one forced them to ask the general public for money, right?  They chose to do so, and Caspian chose to confine himself to the unrealistic timeline and still attempted, for the duration of the KS, to insist that was a legitimate timeline.  If you have evidence of where he said "yea that's a pretty unrealistic timeline, just so you guys know before you give me money."  I've not read nor heard of such a statement's existence.
    The ability to recognize when someone is in over their head in their job does not require the ability to do that job.

    ConstantineMerusKyleran
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,044
    edited August 21
    I get that we're looking at it from two perspective, but I just disagree with the end result.

    As I mentioned in my previous post, when such business transactions contain ambiguities, the consumer almost always loses.

    Developers turned to kickstarted to avoid the suits.  I get that, as I resent things like rushed products and misleading hype as much as the next guy.  But misleading hype has become the norm for crowdfunding now, and the consumer does not have the unilateral power to reign it in like the suits do.

    I also disagree with the notion that the majority of folks are in the know.  We're an abysmally small percentage of the population, those of us who surf forums and discuss, in depth, game development (specifically MMORPG development).

    I will cede that PC gamers seem, from my experience, to be more well-educated about it..  But then again, these crowdfunded titles are already starting to make the jump to console.  Thankfully, Sony and Microsoft are more stringent regarding title quality than is KS or Steam.  It's also an interesting point in and of itself: console gamers are inoculated from the risks by Sony and Microsoft's heavy thumb, but still get to enjoy some of the titles that resulted from endeavors once they've proven a base level of quality.  The suits don't seem so bad when you view it from that perspective.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,038
    Sovrath said:
    As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards.  Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project.  As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability.  That doesn't exist in other industries.

    Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs.  You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
    No, I think people want crowdfunding to be something that it's not. Or at least never claimed it would be.

    It's essentially "hey guys, we want to bring x product to you and the big guys aren't interested. If we raise x amount of dollars we think we can do it. Are you in .... ?"

    And that's it.
    And, in the absence of specificity, the consumer will lose.  It's the ambiguity of the system that's the issue.
    I like having the freedom to make that choice though. Either they get me to crack my wallet or they don't. Every choice doesn't have to be perfect or work out right. I just need to learn from them and move forward.

    There shouldn't be legal repercussions for failing. There should be accountability for not doing due diligence in trying to complete that project, and there is. The framework could be better structured and improved, but I'm not for someone else and their agenda deciding what I get to do with my entertainment money.

    We have enough of that in US politics as it is, we don't need more. Then we're in the situation where political whim of the day gets to screw with how we make games. No thanks. They have enough on their plate as it is. :lol:  (that was a joke)
    ConstantineMerus
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,899
    I get that we're looking at it from two perspective, but I just disagree with the end result.

    As I mentioned in my previous post, when such business transactions contain ambiguities, the consumer almost always loses.

    Developers turned to kickstarted to avoid the suits.  I get that, as I resent things like rushed products and misleading hype as much as the next guy.  But misleading hype has become the norm for crowdfunding now, and the consumer does not have the unilateral power to reign it in like the suits do.

    I also disagree with the notion that the majority of folks are in the know.  We're an abysmally small percentage of the population, those of us who surf forums and discuss, in depth, game development (specifically MMORPG development).

    I will cede that PC gamers seem, from my experience, to be more well-educated about it..  But then again, these crowdfunded titles are already starting to make the jump to console.  Thankfully, Sony and Microsoft are more stringent regarding title quality than is KS or Steam.  It's also an interesting point in and of itself: console gamers are inoculated from the risks by Sony and Microsoft's heavy thumb, but still get to enjoy some of the titles that resulted from endeavors once they've proven a base level of quality.  The suits don't seem so bad when you view it from that perspective.

    Yup, and I think that we're at least agreeing on the understanding of the premise. I can also appreciate your skepticism because I think that it actually maybe puts some doubt in the minds of some fence sitters. Honestly, the best case scenario is that the only people actually pledging to these campaigns are those who are willing to accept and take the risk. 

    I would also challenge you on the assertion that the consumer almost always loses. In almost every case there are 5, 10, 20 times the number of people buying a product following release as there was to back it in the first place. For instance, Divinity: Original Sin was backed by 20,000 people, versus 1.3 million people who now own it on Steam. There are hundreds of other titles which reinforce this idea. So I think that the customer almost never loses. I mean any time that you can rely on a small percentage of a customer base to take a risk so you can have something fantastic (relatively speaking) then I don't see how that's a loss for the consumer. 

    As far as hype goes, it's inescapable and it comes with nearly every product. Unfortunately, until we actually get our hands on something and the hype aligns itself with our reality, then hype will always exist to some extent. To be fair, though, there is plenty of hype that is self-inflicted, in addition to whatever marketing hype is there already. Also, hype will be highly subjective and how that marketing hype is interpreted by the individual. Personally, I usually believe that people will sell something how they would like to see it implemented, but understand that the actual implementation of that will likely be somewhere between not at all and what they marketed to me, so I'm rarely disappointed. 
    ConstantineMerusMadFrenchie

    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
    ----------------

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,044
    edited August 21
    Torval said:
    Sovrath said:
    As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards.  Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project.  As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability.  That doesn't exist in other industries.

    Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs.  You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
    No, I think people want crowdfunding to be something that it's not. Or at least never claimed it would be.

    It's essentially "hey guys, we want to bring x product to you and the big guys aren't interested. If we raise x amount of dollars we think we can do it. Are you in .... ?"

    And that's it.
    And, in the absence of specificity, the consumer will lose.  It's the ambiguity of the system that's the issue.
    I like having the freedom to make that choice though. Either they get me to crack my wallet or they don't. Every choice doesn't have to be perfect or work out right. I just need to learn from them and move forward.

    There shouldn't be legal repercussions for failing. There should be accountability for not doing due diligence in trying to complete that project, and there is. The framework could be better structured and improved, but I'm not for someone else and their agenda deciding what I get to do with my entertainment money.

    We have enough of that in US politics as it is, we don't need more. Then we're in the situation where political whim of the day gets to screw with how we make games. No thanks. They have enough on their plate as it is. :lol:  (that was a joke)
    You would still be making the choice; you'd just have more specific information on what the choice you're actually making is.

    A request for specificity and a framework for holding the developer accountable doesn't eliminate your ability to decide whether you want to fund something or not.

    I'm not insisting that we eliminate crowdfunding altogether (though I'm no fan of it); I'm insisting the ambiguity needs to be replaced with specificity to ensure the consumer gets straightforward and realistic information on what they're attempting to "invest" into, without marketing hoopla and pie-in-the-sky promises that are made solely to entice players into giving money.

    And actually, it's the lack of adequate oversight in fact-checking politicians and lobby groups that causes politics to triumph over logic and reason.  Anarchy follows where governments fear to tread.


    There are legal repercussions for failing in almost every business sector out there.  That's because you're not playing with your money, you're playing with someone else's.  Developers of KS MMORPGs have it made, currently, on that front.  
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.