Alright, Caspian, let's dance

15791011

Comments

  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,879
    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.  
    Well we could ask KSer campaigns to post surety bonds but doubtful any could qualify.

    These crowd funding campaigns are hope and a prayer efforts really, especially when it comes to a complex project such as a full scale MM0RPG being attempted with only a fraction of the funding efforts such as these traditionally require. 

    Yeah, some devs claim a 5 for 1 productivity gain by cutting out publishers, others work for free part time, others plan to use "elfin magic" to pull it off.

    I remain unconvinced a full featured MMORPG can be delivered for less than $30M to $50M and that's being frugal unless you are really cutting back on features and production values.

    Albion made it to launch, perhaps a few others and so far the quality has been as expected for low budget efforts. 




    SovrathMadFrenchieTorvalConstantineMerusLucienRene

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon




  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,054
    CrazKanuk said:

    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. 
    You're speaking to games smaller in scope, which mitigates the issue.  However, it still doesn't really excuse not having a more solid and approachable framework for the consumer.  Laws and regulations aren't created for the morally benevolent; they exist (specifically in business) for the morally bankrupt.

    Those games got backed without any guidelines or framework to protect the consumer, but that doesn't mean having that framework would've prevented the game from getting funded in the first place.  Quality titles would still have an avenue to seek funding directly from consumers; I'm not looking to eradicate the scene with this, just provide a more accurate assessment of the investment prior to asking the public to offer money.  Take the slant out of it, and give the public the reality of the project's viability (specifically in the timeframes given at the time money is asked).

    Investment firms receive access to a lot of information that backers don't prior to making a commitment, have vastly more resources to analyze the full risk of the project, generally get to bake-in indirect control over the project through contract, and they stand to make a profit off of their risk.  Backers have none of this, so I can't imagine that asking for a more unbiased, objective analysis of the project to be such a significant burden on those asking for the money.
    Gdemami

    image
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,568

    ...

    Investment firms receive access to a lot of information that backers don't prior to making a commitment, have vastly more resources to analyze the full risk of the project, generally get to bake-in indirect control over the project through contract, and they stand to make a profit off of their risk.  Backers have none of this, so I can't imagine that asking for a more unbiased, objective analysis of the project to be such a significant burden on those asking for the money.
    I doubt it would make much difference to consumer behaviour in this regard, tbh.

    MMO KS campaigns are firmly in the "I want to believe" category. Caution and analysis are tossed out of the window in the excited rush to fund that "dream game project". Nobody wants to hear anything that spoils the party !
    Slapshot1188ConstantineMerusBruceYeeGdemamiLucienRene
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,054
    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? 
    Just saw this.

    As I've mentioned, a legal framework would have to be established.  I would think a system in which funds collected would be held in trust, issued to the developer in a series related to the development of the underlying tech and working gameplay systems would be workable.  I offer that as a solution mainly because it's a working framework for the tech industry at large.  Many of the KS MMORPGs are purporting to push the tech to the edge (SC, CU, to name a few), so it just seems natural in my mind.

    The biggest issue with that seems to be: who is the fiduciary responsible for the trust account?  If we take it away from the developers, how do we then ensure it's held in the best interest of the backers, whose opinions do vary?  That's the hard part, but I think the solution lies where the whole thing began: with the companies offering the means for the developers to solicit the crowdfunding.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    Gdemami

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,221
    edited August 21


    The biggest issue with that seems to be: who is the fiduciary responsible for the trust account?  If we take it away from the developers, how do we then ensure it's held in the best interest of the backers, whose opinions do vary?  That's the hard part, but I think the solution lies where the whole thing began: with the companies offering the means for the developers to solicit the crowdfunding.
    Except that's not what kickstarter was or ever wanted to be.

    It doesn't have to ensure that things go right for the backers as it's not on the side of the backers. It's a middleman.

    It basically provides a platform where people can hawk projects and backers can decide if it's worth it.

    doling out the money little by little is just not going to cut it. Whose money is being doled out or more specifically are they keeping track of each dispersal and what the individual contributions are for each?

    If they go through 50% of the money and 75% of the money is required for reimbursement then where does the rest of it come from it has been given out? If they had the money in the first place they wouldn't need it.

    Again, the problem here isn't necessarily kicsktarter or crowd funding, it's that people don't know what they are getting themselves into.

    Quite frankly, at this point I'd be more for having a large notice right before a person hits submit indicating that there are no guarantees and that people are pledging themselves to a project with the knowledge that they may get a finished project or not. And that the finished project may not be what they thought it would be.

    If that doesn't keep people away then I don't know what will.
    Post edited by Sovrath on
    GdemamiCrazKanuk



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,054
    Sovrath said:


    The biggest issue with that seems to be: who is the fiduciary responsible for the trust account?  If we take it away from the developers, how do we then ensure it's held in the best interest of the backers, whose opinions do vary?  That's the hard part, but I think the solution lies where the whole thing began: with the companies offering the means for the developers to solicit the crowdfunding.
    Except that's not what kickstarter was or ever wanted to be.

    It doesn't have to ensure that things go right for the backers as it's not on the side of the backers. It's a middleman.

    It basically provides a platform where people can hawk projects and backers can decide if it's worth it.

    doling out the money little by little is just not going to cut it. Whose money is being doled out or more specifically are they keeping track of each dispersal and what the individual contributions are for each?

    If they go through 50% of the money and 75% of the money is required for reimbursement then where does the rest of it come from? If they had the money in the first place they wouldn't need it.

    Again, the problem here isn't necessarily kicsktarter or crowd funding, it's that people don't know what they are getting themselves into.

    Quite frankly, at this point I'd be more for having a large notice right before a person hits submit indicating that there are no guarantees and that people are pledging themselves to a project with the knowledge that they may get a finished project or not. And that the finished project may not be what they thought it would be.

    If that doesn't keep people away then I don't know what will.
    Maybe so, but again, this isn't an unheard of system to attain funding for a startup, which is essentially what these MMORPG projects are.  I don't know of a single MMORPG studio that's requesting crowdfunding for their 2nd entry into the genre.

    If you read my other few recent posts, you'll find that I have an issue with the fact that people don't have any idea what they're getting themselves into, and that a system needs to be put in place to help present a more objective picture of the project at the time of funding; Constantine was specifically asking me for a plan to hold developers accountable for failing to make quality or effective progress towards the final promised product.
    ConstantineMerusGdemami

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,221



    If you read my other few recent posts, you'll find that I have an issue with the fact that people don't have any idea what they're getting themselves into, and that a system needs to be put in place to help present a more objective picture of the project at the time of funding;
    Now this I can completely agree with (which is evident from my big popup prior to "submit".)

    Just one big "you are taking a chance and you may or may not get what you want" and then let the chips fall where they may.





  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember EpicPosts: 1,336
    I think an easy and doable solution would be for crowdfunding platforms to go beyond their current services. They can charge campaigns extra to validate their information and plans to some extent. Still wouldn't make anyone more accountable but this would clear a lot of stuff for sure. 

    But one thing we shouldn't forget is such platforms are mainly there for giving projects a chance which no one else would. The more we introduce regulations and rules and such into it, it would become more suitable for the veterans and big names. It's not like I have anything against them, but they already can fund their own shit to MVP, get a loan, find an investor or make a publishing deal and crowdfunding would just become another option for them but no longer an option for creative projects which don't have famous founders. 
    MadFrenchieGdemami
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,054
    edited August 22
    I think an easy and doable solution would be for crowdfunding platforms to go beyond their current services. They can charge campaigns extra to validate their information and plans to some extent. Still wouldn't make anyone more accountable but this would clear a lot of stuff for sure. 

    But one thing we shouldn't forget is such platforms are mainly there for giving projects a chance which no one else would. The more we introduce regulations and rules and such into it, it would become more suitable for the veterans and big names. It's not like I have anything against them, but they already can fund their own shit to MVP, get a loan, find an investor or make a publishing deal and crowdfunding would just become another option for them but no longer an option for creative projects which don't have famous founders. 
    I can see the extra barriers that would place on these developers..  I'm just not so sure it's a bad thing.

    I strongly believe a game like Pillars of Eternity would've gotten funded even if stricter rules and regulations were in place to protect consumers.  And such rules and regulations wouldn't seem, to me, to affect those folks who are using KS to "judge the market," save for ensuring that at least a portion of revenue might be returned to the backers should a successful campaign still not result in finding additional funding through more traditional means.

    I have enjoyed some of the successfully released KS titles, so I by no means wish to neuter the entire system, but we haven't heard much talk from developers about the freedoms of developing under crowdfunding since CR kicked up some dust about it at the beginning of the SC campaign.  It became clear very quickly that the developers didn't need to provide any real reason to seek crowdfunding other than it was available and allowed them to essentially exercise complete control over the direction of the project while utilizing these funds.  For some managers and teams, this may very well result in a novel MMORPG.  For others, it seems to have given them the impression that we've lifted all restraints and wish for them all to shoot for the moon at the cost of reality.  Is that really what we want?
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    ConstantineMerusGdemamislagathore

    image
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember EpicPosts: 1,336
    edited August 22
    I think an easy and doable solution would be for crowdfunding platforms to go beyond their current services. They can charge campaigns extra to validate their information and plans to some extent. Still wouldn't make anyone more accountable but this would clear a lot of stuff for sure. 

    But one thing we shouldn't forget is such platforms are mainly there for giving projects a chance which no one else would. The more we introduce regulations and rules and such into it, it would become more suitable for the veterans and big names. It's not like I have anything against them, but they already can fund their own shit to MVP, get a loan, find an investor or make a publishing deal and crowdfunding would just become another option for them but no longer an option for creative projects which don't have famous founders. 
    I can see the extra barriers that would place on these developers..  I'm just not so sure it's a bad thing.

    I strongly believe a game like Pillars of Eternity would've gotten funded even if stricter rules and regulations were in place to protect consumers.  And such rules and regulations wouldn't seem, to me, to affect those folks who are using KS to "judge the market," save for ensuring that at least a portion of revenue might be returned to the backers should a successful campaign still not result in finding additional funding through more traditional means.

    I have enjoyed some of the successfully released KS titles, so I by no means wish to neuter the entire system, but we haven't heard much talk from developers about the freedoms of developing under crowdfunding since CR kicked up some dust about it at the beginning of the SC campaign.  It became clear very quickly that the developers didn't need to provide any real reason to seek crowdfunding other than it was available and allowed them to essentially exercise complete control over the direction of the project while utilizing these funds.  For some managers and teams, this may very well result in a novel MMORPG.  For others, it seems to have given them the impression that we've lifted all restraints and wish for them all to shoot for the moon at the cost of reality.  Is that really what we want?
    I think even the current system can be improved if devs manage their campaigns differently. Just on the top of my head:

    Rule #1: you do not talk about Fight Club--uh sorry wrong movie!

    Rule #2: they should be clear about their whole financial plan. How much funding they have, their future plan and what's this money for. 
    For example: This money is going to be used to develop their MVP, then launch another campaign or find investors or give handjobs to fund the rest. We can be sure that many are doing this but none are honest about it.

    #3: set multiple stages for larger campaigns and fuck that freaking store on their own site. Right now Kickstarter and such have turned into an initial marketing platforms so the successful ones can setup shop on their own site. Suddenly the noble pledges turn into a store selling crap. No wonder so many are confused about the whole deal. If they want to raise their initial scope, do it in another campaign after they made into their alpha or whatever. I can't understand the business plan behind this. We spend as much as you give us as long as you would? And if they need more money to complete their game they were either didn't care much for #2 (pun intended) or they made a mistake about their initial estimates which they should solve it themselves or be honest with their supporters and ask for more of their support.

    #4: don't try to get rich of the campaign. Treat it as seed money like a startup company. If you don't know how they are go visit some. Of course even starups take care of their employees because no pro would work in a dump, but the founders themselves take the bus and live on noodles. Your supporters are more fun-loving than your local loan shark, but not as forgiving as your parents. 

    Post edited by ConstantineMerus on
    MadFrenchieGdemami
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122
    edited August 22
    Iselin said:
    ... 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.


    Perfectly happy to concede that the original timeline was not realistic. The incessant drama about 'competency' is what is ridiculous. It is Kickstarter, don't freak out over the timeline, it is almost guaranteed to be missed, usually by huge margins. Everyone is acting like this is unexpected.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122
    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. 
    This is entirely true. People can moan about the way Kickstarter works but don't blame the individual companies for taking their chance.
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122
    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).

    This is an issue with Kickstarter, or maybe crowdfunding in general, not the individual company that is making use of the rules as they stand.
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,568
    CoE seems to be morphing into a Star Citzen level of epic project. The deliverables are starting to split into multiple parts, each becoming a mini-project in itself.

    Now that the alpha testing phase is no longer included in the Prologue (which will now start just before the Exposition phase), I guess that paves the way for selling Alpha Early Access ! 

    Mr. Walsh's detailed explanation of the "Cone of Uncertainty" also gives the current estimates a broad margin of error in advance. Will we see the eventual launch before 2021 ? :D 
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,938
    Perfectly happy to concede that the original timeline was not realistic. The incessant drama about 'competency' is what is ridiculous. It is Kickstarter, don't freak out over the timeline, it is almost guaranteed to be missed, usually by huge margins. Everyone is acting like this is unexpected.
    Heh, you missed the entire 'release date drama' where 18 months to release was actualy 18 months to alpha due kickstarter not having a form field for other game states but release.....
    ConstantineMerusStaalBurghercraftseekerholdenfive
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher LondonMember UncommonPosts: 122
    Gdemami said:
    Perfectly happy to concede that the original timeline was not realistic. The incessant drama about 'competency' is what is ridiculous. It is Kickstarter, don't freak out over the timeline, it is almost guaranteed to be missed, usually by huge margins. Everyone is acting like this is unexpected.
    Heh, you missed the entire 'release date drama' where 18 months to release was actualy 18 months to alpha due kickstarter not having a form field for other game states but release.....
    Oh, I didn't realize that. Thank you for clarifying. Their timeline makes a lot more sense then.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,054
    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).

    This is an issue with Kickstarter, or maybe crowdfunding in general, not the individual company that is making use of the rules as they stand.
    My suggestions for improving the system has always been focused on the crowdfunding system itself.  It allows folks to mislead the public.  That's the issue.  A more objective and less marketing-hype assessment of the product is a good thing.
    Gdemami

    image
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,568
    Gdemami said:
    Perfectly happy to concede that the original timeline was not realistic. The incessant drama about 'competency' is what is ridiculous. It is Kickstarter, don't freak out over the timeline, it is almost guaranteed to be missed, usually by huge margins. Everyone is acting like this is unexpected.
    Heh, you missed the entire 'release date drama' where 18 months to release was actualy 18 months to alpha due kickstarter not having a form field for other game states but release.....
    Oh, I didn't realize that. Thank you for clarifying. Their timeline makes a lot more sense then.

    Jeromy said that their timeline is 100% correct and they're exactly where they should be at this point.

    It's just the schedule that had to be revised recently...
    Slapshot1188slagathoreYashaX
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,903
    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).

    This is an issue with Kickstarter, or maybe crowdfunding in general, not the individual company that is making use of the rules as they stand.
    My suggestions for improving the system has always been focused on the crowdfunding system itself.  It allows folks to mislead the public.  That's the issue.  A more objective and less marketing-hype assessment of the product is a good thing.

    Sure but, again, you can't help the helpless. You're speaking about helping a fraction of people that's so small that it's inconsequential. You give me a product and I'll tell you how they mislead the public. Are you telling me that you think it's reasonable to do something like sue McDonald's for making you fat? That's the level of ridiculousness we're talking about now. 

    This reminds me of a funny story. So in Canada we had this awesome commercial about the North American House Hippo. So any reasonable person would and should have gotten that. Well my sister in-law, who is a tad slow, thought that it was a real thing.... for like a decade! Then when she actually found out it wasn't real she was heartbroken. Again, there is a VERY small percentage of people who would have a problem understanding the risks associated with crowdfunding. Of those people, only a small fraction would actually back it. For instance, something like 7% of American adults believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows so if we were to copy/paste that number, then CoE would have a total of 700 people backing the project who are completely clueless. Of those people, I'm sure many will get refunds. 

     As a Canadian speaking to an American, I should probably point out that you've got 99 problems and crowdfunding ain't 1. 
    TorvalGdemami

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

  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,879
    edited August 22
    Gdemami said:
    Perfectly happy to concede that the original timeline was not realistic. The incessant drama about 'competency' is what is ridiculous. It is Kickstarter, don't freak out over the timeline, it is almost guaranteed to be missed, usually by huge margins. Everyone is acting like this is unexpected.
    Heh, you missed the entire 'release date drama' where 18 months to release was actualy 18 months to alpha due kickstarter not having a form field for other game states but release.....
    I don't recall that drama / clarification,  you have a link to that in the Kser communications or is that one of their famous Discord conversations?

    Regardless KSer intentionally wanted devs to publish their projected "release" date hence no available options for "weasel word" milestones which lack any definitive meaning.

    Released in 18 months means exactly that, no private interpretation required. 
    Post edited by Kyleran on
    GdemamiSlapshot1188

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon




  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,938
    edited August 22
    Oh, I didn't realize that. Thank you for clarifying. Their timeline makes a lot more sense then.
    Kickstarter was used just to get a prototype for needs of additional funding round(s) thus the 'release date' refered to release of that prototype/alpha.

    Too lazy/unconcerned to find some links, but here is one with a summary, quotes and more links:
    http://www.mmorpg.com/chronicles-of-elyria/columns/kinks-in-the-communication-1000011212
    Post edited by Gdemami on
    holdenfive
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,568
    Kyleran said:
    ...

    Regardless KSer intentionally wanted devs to publish their projected "release" date hence no available options for "weasel word" milestones which lack any definitive meaning.

    ... 
    That was before Jeromy Walsh arrived on the KS scene. He seems to have elevated the concept of "retcon" to a whole new level ! :D
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,054
    CrazKanuk said:
    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).

    This is an issue with Kickstarter, or maybe crowdfunding in general, not the individual company that is making use of the rules as they stand.
    My suggestions for improving the system has always been focused on the crowdfunding system itself.  It allows folks to mislead the public.  That's the issue.  A more objective and less marketing-hype assessment of the product is a good thing.

    Sure but, again, you can't help the helpless. You're speaking about helping a fraction of people that's so small that it's inconsequential. You give me a product and I'll tell you how they mislead the public. Are you telling me that you think it's reasonable to do something like sue McDonald's for making you fat? That's the level of ridiculousness we're talking about now. 

    This reminds me of a funny story. So in Canada we had this awesome commercial about the North American House Hippo. So any reasonable person would and should have gotten that. Well my sister in-law, who is a tad slow, thought that it was a real thing.... for like a decade! Then when she actually found out it wasn't real she was heartbroken. Again, there is a VERY small percentage of people who would have a problem understanding the risks associated with crowdfunding. Of those people, only a small fraction would actually back it. For instance, something like 7% of American adults believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows so if we were to copy/paste that number, then CoE would have a total of 700 people backing the project who are completely clueless. Of those people, I'm sure many will get refunds. 

     As a Canadian speaking to an American, I should probably point out that you've got 99 problems and crowdfunding ain't 1. 
    You mean the McDonald's who now has to list nutritional information on their menus and the packaging of their food items???  That McDonald's?

    From the FDA's website: "As required by statute, FDA’s final rule for nutrition labeling in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will provide consumers with clear and consistent nutrition information in a direct and accessible manner for the foods they eat and buy for their families. Posting calories on menus and menu boards and providing other nutrient information in writing in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will fill a critical information gap and help consumers make informed and healthful dietary choices."
    Gdemami

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,054
    For emphasis, because I've used almost the exact same wording in my arguments here: "FDA’s final rule for nutrition labeling in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will provide consumers with clear and consistent nutrition information in a direct and accessible manner for the foods they eat and buy for their families. "
    Gdemami

    image
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,903
    For emphasis, because I've used almost the exact same wording in my arguments here: "FDA’s final rule for nutrition labeling in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will provide consumers with clear and consistent nutrition information in a direct and accessible manner for the foods they eat and buy for their families. "

    So are you contending that the reason that American's are fat is that they simply didn't know that food like McDonald's was bad for them? Is it your belief that putting calorie counts on menus throughout America will solve the problem of obesity? Nope!! Again, you can't help the helpless. If someone chooses to actually eat at McDonald's on a regular basis and gets fat, then that is a decision that they themselves have made. So should we be going a step further and restricting the amount of McDonald's that someone can buy? Like maybe we give all Americans a special debit card that only allows them to purchase McDonald's once a month. That's effectively what you're suggesting with crowdfunding. You're suggesting that there needs to be some sort of law or governance of the industry, but the thing is that it's such a small, insignificant number of people that you're trying to protect that doing something like I suggested above would probably be a much more effective use of governments time and money. Again, there's 99 problems and crowdfunding ain't 1. 
    GdemamiKyleranConstantineMerus

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

Sign In or Register to comment.