Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Column] General: Pausing before Pledging

2

Comments

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon

    Interesting take on matters.  But I do have experience with running several businesses, and I also know more than I really want to about the technical side of things.  That having been said, I find EA's actions over the years predatory, unethical and short sighted. 

    Its all too typical of what we've seen from other corporate types in many other market sectors.  In typical game development, its bad enough. But in MMO's with their much longer time frame, it makes a difficult series of tasks that much more difficult to achieve properly. 

    Its this type of short sighted negative feed back, that has contributed to the creation of the current destructive generation of gamers. 

    That coupled with the main streaming of gaming (I'm looking at you Blizzard... ^^), and what I call the One True Game(tm) syndrome, are aspects of why matters have become as bad as they are. 

    The One True Game(tm)  syndrome describes the fact that NO game that actually exists, will *ever* be able to live up to peoples projections, expectations, and all of the media hype thats involved in a typical games actual launch.  Which leads to the gaming version of the boom, bust cycle. 

    After players have been through this cycle a few times, they naturally start to get bitter, cynical and become ever more difficult to please. We see the results of that all around us. 

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    I've no doubt that 98% of KS funded MMO development efforts will fall flat on their faces. Unless they happen to raise 30M or 40M dollars via Kickstarter...

    otoh, fifty thousand dollars does buy an awful lot of powerball tickets.  And there's no explicit restrictions on just how the companies spend the cash they collect, are there?

    Wonder what the FTC would have to say about that.  "We tried to turn fifty thou gamer cash into millions with lottery tickets.  Was that wrong?"

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,863Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    The one thing that Kickstarter may be good for is helping a development team to develop a demo AND demonstrate strong support for their game design.
     

    No, this is bs.

    There is a tremendous difference between ideas on paper and actual implementation. Kickstarter backing only represents the backing of paper ideas, investor or publisher is concerned about actual implementation tho.


    Everyone has an idea, but very few can turn it into successful business and that is what counts here, something Kickstarter is not touching at all.

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami


    There are 2 people starting Kickstarter campaigns.

    1) Those who fail or failed already as business.
    2) Those who want to milk some money from gullible/stupid people.


    Donations, like all subsidies, making non-viable projects viable at the cost of healthy business environment.

     

    Actually, donations can be different from subsidies.  In the normal course of events, subsidies are typically government grants, to a given agent or agents within a market sector.  Usually because of some "public good" hand waving or another. 

    The difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.  Its always easy to be "compassionate" or "public spirited" with other peoples money... ^^ 

    Those who make personal donations on the other hand, have more motivation to see to its effective use.  That doesn't always work out, but in the case of Kick Starter I've seen some wonderful results from many of the donations I've taken part in. 

    I'm usually willing (if the details add up) to invest in such start ups, in the hopes that against the odds, that they will succeed. I've been burned a few times, but over all, I'm more than pleased with how many of these have turned out. 

    In terms of economics I'm very much Austrian.   

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

     

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,863Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by WraithoneThe difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.

    It does not matter who is distributing money but who and HOW they spend them.

    Does not matter if donators are motivated, gaming companies as donation receivers are not motivated to spent them in any effective way.

    That is as I pointed out already the difference between donation and investment. When you receive an investment, you are motivated to produce something that will generate gain. You are liable for the money you received.


    With donations, you are not. You can produce absolutely anything...or nothing.

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    The one thing that Kickstarter may be good for is helping a development team to develop a demo AND demonstrate strong support for their game design.
     

     

    No, this is bs.

    There is a tremendous difference between ideas on paper and actual implementation. Kickstarter backing only represents the backing of paper ideas, investor or publisher is concerned about actual implementation tho.


    Everyone has an idea, but very few can turn it into successful business and that is what counts here, something Kickstarter is not touching at all.

     

    True as far as it goes,  But what takes an idea (or ideas) into the successful phase is the drive and resources to MAKE it work.  It takes time/talent/experience to make the transition from idea to reality.  One of the means to that end is money (a resource), which can gain one access to others time/talent/experience (and provide them the tools required as well). 

    I view Kick Starter as a useful collector/filter for this process. 

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,863Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Wraithone

    It takes time/talent/experience to make the transition from idea to reality.

    Yep, and if you do not have any of it, you go on Kickstarter hoping someone will invest into IDEAS instead of your lack of time/talent/experience...because if you got them you would not need KS in the first place.

    You assume false premise that ability to launch a successful business and funding are two different things. They are not.


    Launching and running successful business is a process.

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Wraithone

     

    The difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.


     

    It does not matter who is distributing money but who and HOW they spend them.

    Does not matter if donators are motivated, gaming companies as donation receivers are not motivated to spent them in any effective way.

    That is as I pointed out already the difference between donation and investment. When you receive an investment, you are motivated to produce something that will generate gain. You are liable for the money you received.


    With donations, you are not. You can produce absolutely anything...or nothing.

    No. Even if one doesn't consider the fact that one is coerceive, and the other free choice, there is the matter of market distortion to consider. 

    What is a better indication of market demand? A political source for the funding, or tens of thousands of individuals making the free choice to invest/donate their money?  When governments interfer in a given market sector, they seriously distort the market signals. 

    As for accountability, and the argument that investing (with governments regulations and such) being some how superior, one has only to look at the "green energy" and other such government investments, and the loss of billions of tax dollars to know that for a fallacy.  Especially in a crony capitalist system, such as the US has used at a certain level for a long, long time. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Wraithone

    It takes time/talent/experience to make the transition from idea to reality.


     

    Yep, and if you do not have any of it, you go on Kickstarter hoping someone will invest into IDEAS instead of your lack of time/talent/experience...because if you got them you would not need KS in the first place.

     

    You assume false premise that ability to launch a successful business and funding are two different things. They are not.


    Launching and running successful business is a process.

     

    Yes, it very much is a process.  Its also an on going, "learning experience"... ^^   Money as I stated is a force multiplier. In its absence, one has access to only a very limited pool of talent/experience.  That limits what one can realistically achieve. 

    Thats why I look at these projects carefully, and seek to determine those who have not only good ideas, but the ability to communicate those ideas and goals well.  I also check to see if they have a past history (like Chris Roberts).  But I also keep in mind that everyone has to start some place. 

    I also look at these types of projects as paying forward.  Long, long ago I was helped to get started, by a very hard headed businessman (who later went on to become a life long friend) because he liked my presentation and the drive I demonstrated.  One can never really repay that type of opportunity, so one does what one can to pay forward. 

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,863Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Wraithone

    No. Even if one doesn't consider the fact that one is coerceive, and the other free choice, there is the matter of market distortion to consider. A political source for the funding, or tens of thousands of individuals making the free choice to invest/donate their money?

    You disagree, yet you come out supporting my point.


    Whether you donate or subsidize, the result is the same - oversupply, market distortion. Subsidizing or donating, encourages financially ineffective behavior.



    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Kickstarter is not the way because the only result is the opposite - you get even more products you do not like.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,863Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by WraithoneIn its absence, one has access to only a very limited pool of talent/experience.  That limits what one can realistically achieve. 

    Despite you lack the funding, your plans are realistically achievable...


    Funding is a part of what is realistically achievable and subsidizing or donations are breaking this fundamental premise of any business.

    I do not think you understand any of what I am saying.

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Wraithone

     

    In its absence, one has access to only a very limited pool of talent/experience.  That limits what one can realistically achieve. 


     

    Despite you lack the funding, your plans are realistically achievable...


    Funding is a part of what is realistically achievable and subsidizing or donations are breaking this fundamental premise of any business.

     

    I do not think you understand any of what I am saying.

    You are more than welcome to your opinion.  The fact is, I quite understand your position and perspective.  I simply disagree with it.  I've seen this same perspective countless times before.   We will have to agree to disagree. 

  • TithenonTithenon Fountain, COPosts: 109Member

    Excellent article.  Thank you for your frank response to Shava; I've often felt like this individual, with so much negativity from the community, at large, even from me, and it's apparent that it's begun to affect how some of the writers here construct their short articles.

     

    As to the kickstarters, I've yet to be able to afford to help fund one of these projects, and I'm grateful for the advice concerning this effort.  If one takes a look at Shadowrun Returns and Star Citizen, these are certainly two kickstarters that went very well, indeed, and I look forward to being able to play one of those games.  I played WoW for two-and-a-half years, and have yet to find an MMO since that is not WoW-centric to play.  It would help if I weren't raising two young sons and I were back to work, but since my sons are also desirous to play a good MMO, I think that can be counted as one down.

  • erictlewiserictlewis Cottondale, ALPosts: 3,026Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Wraithone

     

    The difference in this case is that those in government who grant the subsidies are not using their own money.


     

    It does not matter who is distributing money but who and HOW they spend them.

    Does not matter if donators are motivated, gaming companies as donation receivers are not motivated to spent them in any effective way.

    That is as I pointed out already the difference between donation and investment. When you receive an investment, you are motivated to produce something that will generate gain. You are liable for the money you received.


    With donations, you are not. You can produce absolutely anything...or nothing.

    And this is the thing about kickstarter.  You are giving them your money.  The technically owe you nothing in return.  The don't have to do anything if they don't want to.   This is not like the stock market to where I own shares of the company,  and there will be an ROI (return on investment) in my case 0 ROI for EA for the past couple of years.  Investors hold the purse strings and can hold a company up if they have enough of the vote (in my case 30 shares of ea is nothing).  However kickstarter is just money thrown at a company, hoping that they have good intentions of actually doing somethng.  So far the only one I pleaged cash to is Star Citizen this guy actually made games before, and I trust him.  He has been communicating on there site and on facebook. 

    So the way I see it kickstarer is ok if you don't mind loosing your money, don't mind not having an ROI, and hoping that they actually make something. 

  • xmentyxmenty SingaporePosts: 679Member
    Originally posted by BurninatorX
    Originally posted by Zekiah

    Money donated to Kickstarter programs should be considered a monetary loss until proven otherwise.

    Period.

     

    All things paid for should be considered a monetary loss untill proven usefull/entertaining.

     Period

     I like your logic

     

    I would rather have a monetary loss to the needy atleast they can survive for another day.

    Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language :)

  • BurninatorXBurninatorX rancho cordova, CAPosts: 25Member
    Originally posted by xmenty
    Originally posted by BurninatorX
    Originally posted by Zekiah

    Money donated to Kickstarter programs should be considered a monetary loss until proven otherwise.

    Period.

     

    All things paid for should be considered a monetary loss untill proven usefull/entertaining.

     Period

     I like your logic

     

    I would rather have a monetary loss to the needy atleast they can survive for another day.

    Just to be clear, I was making fun of his logic not being serious lol

  • zekeofevzekeofev Mesa, AZPosts: 233Member

    The majority of successful kickstarters at least in terms of games were probably already going to be made with most of them using them as additional funding.

     

    I dislike kickstarter in general because I hate the idea of giving money for a phantom product.

     

    I expect more and more using kickstarter as an avertising campaign though. In that respect its not bad.

     

    But I consider it foolish for donors to think they are "buying" stuff on kickstarter.

  • steelheartxsteelheartx Biloxi, MSPosts: 432Member Uncommon
    Way to "man it up"! Look forward to reading your future articles :-)

    Looking for a family that you can game with for life? Check out Grievance at https://www.grievancegaming.org !

  • AdamaiAdamai derbyPosts: 469Member
    Donate at your own risk. Its called kickstarter for a reason.
  • JeardawgJeardawg Edmonton, ABPosts: 30Member Uncommon

    At the risk of sounding like a troll, I read the comment that you made about Shava's comment.  Her comment itself is a good commentary on how to live your life and at the risk of using a cliche I usually have to agree with the idea of not assuming... until I have walked a mile in siomeones shoes.  

    However on the topic of SWtor,  I feel absolutely justified in judging EA and Bioware for what their game lacks, I have paid (and continue) to pay my subscription for a year while they pissed around and tried to make the sub-par product that they release monetarily feasable.  I have stood by a company because of a history of games that I like. That said,  I am a customer, at McDonalds,  when I order my cheesburger  I don't care what someone had for breakfast,  if they got a ticket on the way to work,or if their wife left them. The same goes for gaming, I want a good product,  when we came back during  beta and told them that SWTOR was not all it could be they should have listened, when we came back after playing their space game and said this isn't an acceptable representation of what a Star Wars space game should represent (especially considering all the GREAT single player content out there that it has to compete with, and TOR is the most expensive MMO ever) they should have listened.  When they totally revamped their entire billing model; because of exit interviews in hopes that it would save a game which is almost textbook following a failed game scenario, they would not listen.  I am tired of being constructive,  SWTOR sucks plain and simple and the team at EA/Bioware totally screwed the pooch.   It doesn't matter if the price is 15 dollars a month,  or free,  or if they pay us to play it,  SW will not now,  or ever be good, until they fix the problems that left the initial customers disatisfied. 

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,863Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Jeardawg

    The same goes for gaming, I want a good product,  when we came back during  beta and told them that SWTOR was not all it could be they should have listened, when we came back after playing their space game and said this isn't an acceptable representation of what a Star Wars space game should represent (especially considering all the GREAT single player content out there that it has to compete with, and TOR is the most expensive MMO ever) they should have listened.

    Stop hiding behind mysterious "we" entity and dressing it up like everyone had same opinion as you. There are many voices to be heard and devs decided to listen to other than yours. They are not obliged to make the game YOU like.


    It also does not mean that following your own desires would actually make the game to perform any better.

  • thinktank001thinktank001 oasisPosts: 2,027Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


     

    It does not matter who is distributing money but who and HOW they spend them.

    Does not matter if donators are motivated, gaming companies as donation receivers are not motivated to spent them in any effective way.

    That is as I pointed out already the difference between donation and investment. When you receive an investment, you are motivated to produce something that will generate gain. You are liable for the money you received.


    With donations, you are not. You can produce absolutely anything...or nothing.

     

    This is complete bs.  Investment doesn't drive motivation to produce a good, quality game, but instead pushes developers to please investors.  If your argument had any merit to it there would be very little dissatisfaction with the way this genre has progressed.   Yet, when players talk about great games it is always the ones that were released almost 10 years ago, and not the ones released in recent years.  

      

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Jeardawg

    The same goes for gaming, I want a good product,  when we came back during  beta and told them that SWTOR was not all it could be they should have listened, when we came back after playing their space game and said this isn't an acceptable representation of what a Star Wars space game should represent (especially considering all the GREAT single player content out there that it has to compete with, and TOR is the most expensive MMO ever) they should have listened.

     

    Stop hiding behind mysterious "we" entity and dressing it up like everyone had same opinion as you. There are many voices to be heard and devs decided to listen to other than yours. They are not obliged to make the game YOU like.


    It also does not mean that following your own desires would actually make the game to perform any better.

     From my personal experience with the game, I can't believe they managed to spend more than $150 million.  The first 20 levels or so aren't bad. I actually liked some of the story arc. I played a trooper (commando) to level 50.

     But there are so many cut corners, so many QA oversights and out right bad level and game design decisions, that its obvious that the game was released well before it should have been. Given EA's past history, thats hardly surprising. 

    Couple that with use of the early Hero engine, and its a train wreck looking for a place to happen.  As always I speak for no one but myself. But much of this could have been avoided if someone with the proper technical experience had been calling the shots, instead of suits. 

  • logan400klogan400k Owings Mills, MDPosts: 68Member Uncommon

    First off, good response to the reader / commenter.  Although you may not have buysiness or design experience, as a gamer who plays games, that gives you a certain amount of expertise on the subject of games. Assuming the games you write about are the same ones you play, which they apparently are. Many businesses hit a point where the skills needed to maintain financial growth and healthy fiscal activity are NOT the same creative skills needed to engage the buying public in the first place. That is where I have my major issues. Iam not impugning anyone's programming or writing skills, but don't sell me the same old ten rat tails quest or one trick raid boss and tell me you are creative. You aren't, you are getting by because you no longer have to engage the public in the same way you did when no one was playing your game or similar games. The industry has a general lack of creativity in games and its because new is ofen fiscally dangerous.

     

    Queue Kickstarter. I get that many humans, gamers as well as others, are not always the most fiscally esponsible group.  That is a minority of course, most of us are on the average side of fsically aware. So when I give $10 or $20 or $30 to a Kickstarter, I am not taking away the mortgage money to pay for a game I may never play.  I am not mortgaging my Oriental Ave to pay for a new MMO I am more than likely moving my money budgeted for fun from one thing to another. I might even go to McDonald's a little less this month to pay for it. So an article cautioning me about funding an artistic endeavor that may never come to fruition is a little bit insulting. Sure, its good common sense and someone can always use that. What is comes across as though is discouraging people from taking a chance on something new. I want something new. I cannot program it myself nor start my own business right now to do it. So I look around for other artists who can and I throw money at them.  It might be wasted, but better $15 on a dream than $15 on a game I will delete right away. I am willing to take the chance.

     

    And while no one wants to be the guy who says "Oh yeah! Sure bet!" and have his friends (or readers) hate him for being wrong, I still think we should be encouraging these creative endeavors with our $$ and not discouraging them.

    Just My 2 Lunars

  • NordenNorden somewhere inPosts: 46Member

    Good read.

    In fact this "tearing down" has become so bad in here, it's hardly worth reading about new games here any more. Who wants to sift through hundreds of pages of crap to find a few objective nuggets?

    Norden

2
Sign In or Register to comment.