I should qualify my post: I've supported 6+ kickstarters that successfully raised their funds. All were games or gaming tech. All provided really awesome updates and continuing enthusiasm for the project. Four are in alpha and I've had access to play in those alpha worlds.
Whether they end up going live someday I don't know. Was it worth it to throw some bucks at them? Yes, no regrets. Your mileage may vary.
I have supported kickstarters but I do have some doubts. If people were trying to raise money with traditional startup fundraising they would have to have a lot of upfront documentation of a business plan and a design document for their mmorpg. People handing over their hard earned money to crown funding should demand that as well.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
These days, the trust factor for crowd funding is pretty low for me. When I read about blatant scams on indiegogo and the hosting service refuses to police the frauds, it makes you doubt all of them. Kickstarter seems to be the most respectable, they appear to try to police the stuff they host. I guess it will take another 1 or 2 lawsuits before the crowdfunding industry is reigned in.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
There are a few factors I look at before backing a crowd funded game. The first is are the expectations reasonable? Can a game be developed in the amount of time predicted for the amount of money raised. There is no easy answer to this question, but if someone is promising the moon in a short period of time then I step away. The next is if they can deliver on time before addons are considered will I be getting a comparable product to what I would get if a more traditional publishing method were used? Yet another question is do I want this product, or am I caught in the headlights of the new shiny or nostalgia?
One factor I do not see many talk about is collateral. If a kickstarter wants more money than I would spend on an unknown property or development team then they need to have something at stake for failure. In the case of crowd funding, the collateral is oftentimes the reputation of those involved with the game. This means nothing to me if this is the first game someone will put out. I will not back it if they are asking for more than a few bucks. If they fail they had not been in the industry so long they can not return to their old jobs. Yes, they failed and they probably do not want to return to their old job. On the other hand, a veteran in the industry might find they have trouble finding further work in the industry because people might not want to buy a game they are associated with. These people have a much harder time finding work outside of the game industry because they have built up job skills and a reputation directly tied to the business of gaming. It's not foolproof protection by any means, but personal reputation, as well as the reputation of a development company, matters in this business.
In the end, we are preordering a product. We might be doing it earlier in the development cycle than before, but it is still preordering. We did not have a say in how money was spent before, and we have little now. Ultimately, they can spend most of the money on hookers and blow. It won't matter as long as they can deliver a product that vaguely resembles what was promised.
First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems.
If you check out the stats for Funded projects, there are only 35 projects who have raised $1 million or more out of nearly 4000 funded projects. That's less than 1% of all projects. Now, the majority of these projects are being run by well-known developers, not indie developres who just have an idea. They are well-thought-out ideas, pitched like they would pitch a studio executive. They also, generally, have more than just a concept. They show they've invested a lot of time and effort into the idea already. Those who don't get burned. Shoot, even John Romero (of Id Software fame) failed his Kickstarter because he, maybe, didn't take it seriously enough. He didn't have the work done beforehand. Another, Mark Jacobs nearly failed to meet his Kickstarter goal with Camelot: Unchained, even though they have an established player base for DAoC.
So, I'd say with a hearty "Hell No!" people are not generally there to rip someone off. Whether or not someone is criminally responsible for failing to meet their goals is up for debate, but they are bound by a TOS agreement with Kickstarter than says they need to deliver something. So there could be a possibility of class action lawsuit if they don't deliver at least something.
In reality, it's really just not worth the effort, hassle, and risk.
I think the potato salad kickstarter puts a big hole in your theory about 'average joe' and kickstarters.
Personally I won't spend a penny on crowd funding.
Why waste my $$ on a promise when there are more than enough ready products to buy?
Scam is a possibility, but i think failure because of mismanagement, take on more than they can chew, or just incompetence are probably a lot more common than outright scam.
There are a few factors I look at before backing a crowd funded game. The first is are the expectations reasonable? Can a game be developed in the amount of time predicted for the amount of money raised. There is no easy answer to this question, but if someone is promising the moon in a short period of time then I step away. The next is if they can deliver on time before addons are considered will I be getting a comparable product to what I would get if a more traditional publishing method were used? Yet another question is do I want this product, or am I caught in the headlights of the new shiny or nostalgia?
One factor I do not see many talk about is collateral. If a kickstarter wants more money than I would spend on an unknown property or development team then they need to have something at stake for failure. In the case of crowd funding, the collateral is oftentimes the reputation of those involved with the game. This means nothing to me if this is the first game someone will put out. I will not back it if they are asking for more than a few bucks. If they fail they had not been in the industry so long they can not return to their old jobs. Yes, they failed and they probably do not want to return to their old job. On the other hand, a veteran in the industry might find they have trouble finding further work in the industry because people might not want to buy a game they are associated with. These people have a much harder time finding work outside of the game industry because they have built up job skills and a reputation directly tied to the business of gaming. It's not foolproof protection by any means, but personal reputation, as well as the reputation of a development company, matters in this business.
In the end, we are preordering a product. We might be doing it earlier in the development cycle than before, but it is still preordering. We did not have a say in how money was spent before, and we have little now. Ultimately, they can spend most of the money on hookers and blow. It won't matter as long as they can deliver a product that vaguely resembles what was promised.
I disagree.
When i preorder a product i know for a fact that the product is very close to release. I get a recepit for my purchase and i can cancel pre order and get my money back.
You can not do any such thing with kickstarter. You are paying for a concept / an idea which may or may not become a full game some day.
Yes I absolutely believe it can. Take, for example, many charitable organizations and the numerous reports of scams surrounding them. I find these crowd funding projects to be very similar.
First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems.
If you check out the stats for Funded projects, there are only 35 projects who have raised $1 million or more out of nearly 4000 funded projects. That's less than 1% of all projects. Now, the majority of these projects are being run by well-known developers, not indie developres who just have an idea. They are well-thought-out ideas, pitched like they would pitch a studio executive. They also, generally, have more than just a concept. They show they've invested a lot of time and effort into the idea already. Those who don't get burned. Shoot, even John Romero (of Id Software fame) failed his Kickstarter because he, maybe, didn't take it seriously enough. He didn't have the work done beforehand. Another, Mark Jacobs nearly failed to meet his Kickstarter goal with Camelot: Unchained, even though they have an established player base for DAoC.
So, I'd say with a hearty "Hell No!" people are not generally there to rip someone off. Whether or not someone is criminally responsible for failing to meet their goals is up for debate, but they are bound by a TOS agreement with Kickstarter than says they need to deliver something. So there could be a possibility of class action lawsuit if they don't deliver at least something.
In reality, it's really just not worth the effort, hassle, and risk.
I think the potato salad kickstarter puts a big hole in your theory about 'average joe' and kickstarters.
1 does not equal 100% anymore than Goat Simulator represent all gaming
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems.
If you check out the stats for Funded projects, there are only 35 projects who have raised $1 million or more out of nearly 4000 funded projects. That's less than 1% of all projects. Now, the majority of these projects are being run by well-known developers, not indie developres who just have an idea. They are well-thought-out ideas, pitched like they would pitch a studio executive. They also, generally, have more than just a concept. They show they've invested a lot of time and effort into the idea already. Those who don't get burned. Shoot, even John Romero (of Id Software fame) failed his Kickstarter because he, maybe, didn't take it seriously enough. He didn't have the work done beforehand. Another, Mark Jacobs nearly failed to meet his Kickstarter goal with Camelot: Unchained, even though they have an established player base for DAoC.
So, I'd say with a hearty "Hell No!" people are not generally there to rip someone off. Whether or not someone is criminally responsible for failing to meet their goals is up for debate, but they are bound by a TOS agreement with Kickstarter than says they need to deliver something. So there could be a possibility of class action lawsuit if they don't deliver at least something.
In reality, it's really just not worth the effort, hassle, and risk.
I think the potato salad kickstarter puts a big hole in your theory about 'average joe' and kickstarters.
1 does not equal 100% anymore than Goat Simulator represent all gaming
Well if one average joe can do it i am sure more can. It doesn't represent all kickstarters but the guy did say 'First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems. '
Granted he didn't get 10 million (yet) but he has done quite good as an unknown average joe who pitched the idea of potato salad.
In theory, crowdfunding appears to be a great way for people with good ideas to take advantage of the Internet. Throw your idea online and a slew of like-minded investors will give you money to bring your idea to fruition. Artists have been doing it successfully for a few years on Kickstarter to fund creative projects, and teachers on Funding4Learning to fund education projects. To bolster this burgeoning concept, in April 2012, the United States Government passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which contains crowdfunding provisions to help these entrepreneurs raise funds. Taking a closer look at crowdfunding reveals a system fraught with peril that will likely lead to an increase in litigation.
The JOBS Act allows any Zuckerberg wannabe with an idea to skirt securities laws to attract equity investors. Anyone, be it an entrepreneur or corporate entity, can raise up to $1 million from investors putting in no more than $10,000 each, or no more than 10% of their income, whichever is less. That amount increases to $2 million if the crowdfunding entity supplies the “crowd” investors with audited financial statements. Under this system, a crowdfunder will not have to disclose financial statements until it has more than 1,000 shareholders; traditional, full regulatory SEC disclosure rules kick in at 500 shareholders. Essentially, it allows startups to raise up to $50 million in an IPO without having to comply with the SEC’s full regulatory structure and related fees. Yes, you read that correctly – and we can only guess the disasters and class actions resulting from the future of crowdfunding.
William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth for Massachusetts, was so concerned about crowdfunding risks that in August he sent a letter to the SEC identifying crowdfunding’s many pitfalls. The letter is spot on. Mr. Galvin writes:
While this picture of the potential benefits of crowdfunding is undeniably attractive, as regulators we must be vigilant that the exemption will not become a tool for financial fraud and abuse…Unscrupulous penny stock promoters have used misrepresentations to market obscure and low-value stocks to individuals, often through pump and dump schemes. These kinds of fraud operators have not gone away.
Stephen Ma
The risk for fraud is far more real than crowdfunding participants or the SEC want to admit. By its nature, crowdfunding appeals to a less sophisticated investor who will invest in any project they think will be the next Facebook. Typical crowdfunding investors, even with basic disclosure requirements for participation, won’t have the investment savvy to determine whether an investment is real or a fraud. After all, many fraudsters and scam artists are brilliant at presenting their investments on paper to meet the very basic disclosures of crowdfunding. Just look to Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff, both appearing as entirely legitimate businessmen, who were able to dupe sophisticated investors and, in Madoff’s case, the SEC itself. The bottom line is that, while unintentional, crowdfunding is tailor made to assist fraudsters in duping unsophisticated “investors.” Indeed, even if the SEC, in an attempt to avert fraud, increases the amount of disclosures, the individual investment contributions will still be too small for law enforcement authorities to expend resources to investigate or for attorneys to take on a fraud lawsuit, unless of course a contingency business litigator can bring a class action. Galvin likely would agree with this concern since he specifically noted:
The typical crowdfunding offering will be small (many may be far below $1 million), so there is the great risk that these offerings will fly under the radars of many regulators.
Even more disconcerting is the impact of social networking and potential fraudulent schemes through crowdfunding. On this issue, Galvin writes:
We expect that various kinds of social media will be used in tandem with crowdfunding. This may involve forums or message sharing through a portal’s website; it may involve current social media channels (especially Twitter and Facebook); and is likely to involve new channels and technologies…There is the great risk that pump and dump operators will use social media to improperly promote these offerings.
Even if the particular crowdfunding investment is legitimate, the entire process will still be fraught with risk since unsophisticated business people will likely use crowdfunding to raise money for their new enterprises. After all, if they were sophisticated, they would probably pursue traditional routs to raise money such as preparing an airtight business plan for the full execution of their idea displayed in a “deck” for potential investors who vet the likelihood of the venture’s and its participants’ success. Many crowdfunding investors will not be able to provide useful feedback since many of them will be seeking a “get rich quick” scheme; and they will be sadly disappointed when the business they invest in fails since many do within the first 5 years. For every Facebook, there are ten Friendsters.
Such business failures will inevitably result in litigation as people attempt to recoup whatever money they can from a failing crowdfunding entity. When they accept the inability to recover from the judgment-proof (due to lack of personal funds) individuals behind the crowdfunding entity, crowdfunding losers may target the U.S. government and the JOBS Act for remuneration just as some did in the wake of the Madoff scandal when, among others, The Litwin Foundation, a charitable foundation, sued the SEC for blowing “countless opportunities” to stop Madoff.
While crowdfunding requires certain minimum disclosures, people seeking funds via crowdfunding portals will not have to adhere to the same the level of disclosure as normal businesses with a prospectus. Many lawsuits against crowdfunding entities may likely have merit since these entities won’t have the business experience or savvy to make even the minimum appropriate disclosures or hire an attorney to guide them through disclosure drafting and execution. This concern was raised by Galvin as well:
In this segment of the market, company information may be limited or simply false, and investors typically lack investment sophistication and are often insufficiently cautious.
Entrepreneurs who use crowdfunding are also at risk. Crowdfunding puts the ideas of many early stage entrepreneurs at risk of being stolen by better-funded investors or large corporations. In the traditional investment model, entrepreneurs can use non-disclosure and non-circumvention agreements to protect their ideas and business plans. However, many crowdfunding enthusiasts will lack the expertise and knowledge to properly execute and implement such protections. Moreover, if their idea is stolen, many crowdfunding users will lack resources to fully litigate against a better-funded adversary who lifted the idea.
In order for crowdfuding to work without disastrous results, the government will have to, among other things, mandate that entrepreneurs seeking funds provide as much disclosure as possible, clearly define investor rights, and possibly commit to a specific schedule of financial reporting or business updates to ensure proper communication between the crowdfunding entities and investors. Without this, people receiving the capital contributions can “disappear,” and investors will be left wondering what is going on and where their money is being spent. The SEC would be wise to take heed and carefully read Galvin’s letter to avert such disasters, or this could be another instance of the U.S. government attempting to show the public it is forward thinking while neglecting to think ahead.
Ultimately, the likely scenario is that crowdfunding will lead to, perhaps, one Google and thousands of Friendsters. And plenty of lawsuits.
First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems.
If you check out the stats for Funded projects, there are only 35 projects who have raised $1 million or more out of nearly 4000 funded projects. That's less than 1% of all projects. Now, the majority of these projects are being run by well-known developers, not indie developres who just have an idea. They are well-thought-out ideas, pitched like they would pitch a studio executive. They also, generally, have more than just a concept. They show they've invested a lot of time and effort into the idea already. Those who don't get burned. Shoot, even John Romero (of Id Software fame) failed his Kickstarter because he, maybe, didn't take it seriously enough. He didn't have the work done beforehand. Another, Mark Jacobs nearly failed to meet his Kickstarter goal with Camelot: Unchained, even though they have an established player base for DAoC.
So, I'd say with a hearty "Hell No!" people are not generally there to rip someone off. Whether or not someone is criminally responsible for failing to meet their goals is up for debate, but they are bound by a TOS agreement with Kickstarter than says they need to deliver something. So there could be a possibility of class action lawsuit if they don't deliver at least something.
In reality, it's really just not worth the effort, hassle, and risk.
I think the potato salad kickstarter puts a big hole in your theory about 'average joe' and kickstarters.
1 does not equal 100% anymore than Goat Simulator represent all gaming
Well if one average joe can do it i am sure more can. It doesn't represent all kickstarters but the guy did say 'First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems. '
Granted he didn't get 10 million (yet) but he has done quite good as an unknown average joe who pitched the idea of potato salad.
1. the patato salad kickstarter IS NOT A SCAM...everyone knows what they are getting into. it was a joke and the people responding with money knows its a joke. its the best example of honest marketing you can find anywhere.
2. same is true for goat simulator...is it not?
If one guy in the city leaves without tipping although he got good service does that mean we need to make a law because now we can tell 'if one guy can do it then everyone will' logic? think it thru
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems.
If you check out the stats for Funded projects, there are only 35 projects who have raised $1 million or more out of nearly 4000 funded projects. That's less than 1% of all projects. Now, the majority of these projects are being run by well-known developers, not indie developres who just have an idea. They are well-thought-out ideas, pitched like they would pitch a studio executive. They also, generally, have more than just a concept. They show they've invested a lot of time and effort into the idea already. Those who don't get burned. Shoot, even John Romero (of Id Software fame) failed his Kickstarter because he, maybe, didn't take it seriously enough. He didn't have the work done beforehand. Another, Mark Jacobs nearly failed to meet his Kickstarter goal with Camelot: Unchained, even though they have an established player base for DAoC.
So, I'd say with a hearty "Hell No!" people are not generally there to rip someone off. Whether or not someone is criminally responsible for failing to meet their goals is up for debate, but they are bound by a TOS agreement with Kickstarter than says they need to deliver something. So there could be a possibility of class action lawsuit if they don't deliver at least something.
In reality, it's really just not worth the effort, hassle, and risk.
I think the potato salad kickstarter puts a big hole in your theory about 'average joe' and kickstarters.
1 does not equal 100% anymore than Goat Simulator represent all gaming
Well if one average joe can do it i am sure more can. It doesn't represent all kickstarters but the guy did say 'First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems. '
Granted he didn't get 10 million (yet) but he has done quite good as an unknown average joe who pitched the idea of potato salad.
1. the patato salad kickstarter IS NOT A SCAM...everyone knows what they are getting into. it was a joke and the people responding with money knows its a joke. its the best example of honest marketing you can find anywhere.
2. same is true for goat simulator...is it not?
If one guy in the city leaves without tipping although he got good service does that mean we need to make a law because now we can tell 'if one guy can do it then everyone will' logic? think it thru
Joke or not he still made people shell out money or not? isn't that what the goal of kickstarter is?
And logic would state that since no average joe can do it and since it is an illussion , he should have failed. But he didn't. Everyone has to start somewhere.
Joke or not he still made people shell out money or not? isn't that what the goal of kickstarter is?
And logic would state that since no average joe can do it and since it is an illussion , he should have failed. But he didn't. Everyone has to start somewhere.
so you think the entire corporate system is corrupt because of a few Enron Executives? Who I might add where involved in a REAL scam not an HONEST joke.
Unlike Enron, people shelled out money becuase they knew EXACTLY what they were getting...nothing but a laugh.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Joke or not he still made people shell out money or not? isn't that what the goal of kickstarter is?
And logic would state that since no average joe can do it and since it is an illussion , he should have failed. But he didn't. Everyone has to start somewhere.
so you think the entire corporate system is corrupt because of a few Enron Executives? Who I might add where involved in a REAL scam not an HONEST joke.
Unlike Enron, people shelled out money becuase they knew EXACTLY what they were getting...nothing but a laugh.
No i never said that. But i do believe in this case there is more to 'exception not a rule' theory.
Well atleast you agree with me on one thing that in MMO crowdfunding people doesn't even know what they are going to get and still shell out money. So if people know 'exactly' what they are going to get makes crowdfunding even more lucrative.
Now all i have to do is come up with something and soon 'hello new ferrari'.
Joke or not he still made people shell out money or not? isn't that what the goal of kickstarter is?
And logic would state that since no average joe can do it and since it is an illussion , he should have failed. But he didn't. Everyone has to start somewhere.
so you think the entire corporate system is corrupt because of a few Enron Executives? Who I might add where involved in a REAL scam not an HONEST joke.
Unlike Enron, people shelled out money becuase they knew EXACTLY what they were getting...nothing but a laugh.
No i never said that. But i do believe in this case there is more to 'exception not a rule' theory.
Well atleast you agree with me on one thing that in MMO crowdfunding people doesn't even know what they are going to get and still shell out money. So if people know 'exactly' what they are going to get makes crowdfunding even more lucrative.
Now all i have to do is come up with something and soon 'hello new ferrari'.
1. patato salad kickstarter is not a scam...period end of story.
2. Enron was a scam...
3. if you base an entire system on one person then we can all agree that Kickstarters are great because of minecraft
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Recently there was a women who asked for crowd funding and she used the money to put her daughter through school and nobody seemed to care because she was a popular actress.I don't know how they found out though,i think the point is you don't really know.
However when a developer is dealing with banks and investors ,the legality is a lot more adhered to.Recently Schilling was sued for loans but imo it was a no brainer,the guy put up 60 million+ of his own money,i would say that is sincere.most of these scams are scams,they put up nothing and claim nothing and your money is wrongfully termed as buying your way into thre development process.The TRUTH is that your money actually IS the development process and you are 100% funding the project,problem is under those terms there would be legal issues so they have found a way around it.
I would even go as far as to claim proper taxes are not being paid,the same scam as "donations" pull off and yes there are a lot of developers using that scam as well.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
1. patato salad kickstarter is not a scam...period end of story.
2. Enron was a scam...
3. if you base an entire system on one person then we can all agree that Kickstarters are great because of minecraft
Jeez.i never said it is a scam. I was simply commenting on the exception in the case of 'average joe'.
ok fair enough on the scam.
then you are saying if its possible for a president to lie to the public then it means the presidency is a bad system?
The guy you responded to went through the trouble of providing numbers and a little bit of math. You on the other hand seem to think 1 = 100%
Well earlier it was zero and now it is 1. I never said 1 = 100% but i do believe that scam or no scam, joke or serious....the 'potato salad' kickstarter does open the doors for kickstarters for average joe.
I never disagreed with what he said though. But he was also very sure that no average guy can do it.
1. patato salad kickstarter is not a scam...period end of story.
2. Enron was a scam...
3. if you base an entire system on one person then we can all agree that Kickstarters are great because of minecraft
Jeez.i never said it is a scam. I was simply commenting on the exception in the case of 'average joe'.
ok fair enough on the scam.
then you are saying if its possible for a president to lie to the public then it means the presidency is a bad system?
The guy you responded to went through the trouble of providing numbers and a little bit of math. You on the other hand seem to think 1 = 100%
Well earlier it was zero and now it is 1. I never said 1 = 100% but i do believe that scam or no scam, joke or serious....the 'potato salad' kickstarter does open the doors for kickstarters for average joe.
I never disagreed with what he said though. But he was also very sure that no average guy can do it.
go back and read what he said.
low does not equal zero.
might I suggest taking a class in statistics?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Ok you try to keep putting words in my mouth so i will stop right here.
When i said before it was 'zero' i meant no average guy tried a successful kickstarter. So now we have one example and there are probably more we haven't heard about yet.
I don't know what statistic got anything to do with this.
How many numbers or percentage of 'average joes' starting successful kickstarters would be good enough for you..well you decide.
Ok you try to keep putting words in my mouth so i will stop right here.
When i said before it was 'zero' i meant no average guy tried a successful kickstarter. So now we have one example and there are probably more we haven't heard about yet.
I don't know what statistic got anything to do with this.
ok I will try to explain what he was trying to say.
What he was saying is that the chance of XYZ happening is very low.not zero but low. 1 in 6000 is stastically extreemly low.
Now consider these factors.
1. This 'average guy' is actually just making money in a clever and honest way. there is nothing whatseover wrong with it. Why would someone want this not to happen?
2. On AVERAGE more good has come from kickstarters then bad.
3. if we use very small numbers to represent the entire then we can say kickstarter is a smashing success because of minecraft and oculus rift
understand?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Joke or not he still made people shell out money or not? isn't that what the goal of kickstarter is?
And logic would state that since no average joe can do it and since it is an illussion , he should have failed. But he didn't. Everyone has to start somewhere.
so you think the entire corporate system is corrupt because of a few Enron Executives? Who I might add where involved in a REAL scam not an HONEST joke.
Unlike Enron, people shelled out money becuase they knew EXACTLY what they were getting...nothing but a laugh.
I agree with Seanmcad for once. It is a free market. If they can get people to overpay a joke, more power to them. It is not illegal to over-price and sell stuff with no value, as long as you don't claim otherwise.
Just going off of the conversations on our own forums, Divergence Online appears to be that crowdfunding scam.
It's been going on for almost a decade now. Each time the developer's poor budgeting leaves him without funds, he puts up some "assets" developed in a cheap creation tool and pitches some new ideas.
The telling action, however, was that he manipulated the Kickstarter regulations by having a bunch of real-life friends and associates pledge money to get him over the minimum goal - only to have their donations returned after the fact. It's an abuse to receive money from legitimate donors without actually meeting Kickstarter's minimum goal.
Comments
I have supported kickstarters but I do have some doubts. If people were trying to raise money with traditional startup fundraising they would have to have a lot of upfront documentation of a business plan and a design document for their mmorpg. People handing over their hard earned money to crown funding should demand that as well.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
When I read about blatant scams on indiegogo and the hosting service refuses to police the frauds, it makes you doubt all of them. Kickstarter seems to be the most respectable, they appear to try to police the stuff they host. I guess it will take another 1 or 2 lawsuits before the crowdfunding industry is reigned in.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
There are a few factors I look at before backing a crowd funded game. The first is are the expectations reasonable? Can a game be developed in the amount of time predicted for the amount of money raised. There is no easy answer to this question, but if someone is promising the moon in a short period of time then I step away. The next is if they can deliver on time before addons are considered will I be getting a comparable product to what I would get if a more traditional publishing method were used? Yet another question is do I want this product, or am I caught in the headlights of the new shiny or nostalgia?
One factor I do not see many talk about is collateral. If a kickstarter wants more money than I would spend on an unknown property or development team then they need to have something at stake for failure. In the case of crowd funding, the collateral is oftentimes the reputation of those involved with the game. This means nothing to me if this is the first game someone will put out. I will not back it if they are asking for more than a few bucks. If they fail they had not been in the industry so long they can not return to their old jobs. Yes, they failed and they probably do not want to return to their old job. On the other hand, a veteran in the industry might find they have trouble finding further work in the industry because people might not want to buy a game they are associated with. These people have a much harder time finding work outside of the game industry because they have built up job skills and a reputation directly tied to the business of gaming. It's not foolproof protection by any means, but personal reputation, as well as the reputation of a development company, matters in this business.
In the end, we are preordering a product. We might be doing it earlier in the development cycle than before, but it is still preordering. We did not have a say in how money was spent before, and we have little now. Ultimately, they can spend most of the money on hookers and blow. It won't matter as long as they can deliver a product that vaguely resembles what was promised.
I blog sometimes. http://kibitzknook.blogspot.com/
I think the potato salad kickstarter puts a big hole in your theory about 'average joe' and kickstarters.
Personally I won't spend a penny on crowd funding.
Why waste my $$ on a promise when there are more than enough ready products to buy?
Scam is a possibility, but i think failure because of mismanagement, take on more than they can chew, or just incompetence are probably a lot more common than outright scam.
I disagree.
When i preorder a product i know for a fact that the product is very close to release. I get a recepit for my purchase and i can cancel pre order and get my money back.
You can not do any such thing with kickstarter. You are paying for a concept / an idea which may or may not become a full game some day.
1 does not equal 100% anymore than Goat Simulator represent all gaming
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well if one average joe can do it i am sure more can. It doesn't represent all kickstarters but the guy did say 'First of all, what you're talking about is the illusion that Kickstarter is a place where regular Joe's just pitch ideas and they get $10 million without any problems. '
Granted he didn't get 10 million (yet) but he has done quite good as an unknown average joe who pitched the idea of potato salad.
Here's guest post written by an attorney for Forbes magazine on the whole notion (source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/10/22/crowdfunding-potential-legal-disaster-waiting-to-happen/)
Guest post written by Bryan Sullivan and Stephen Ma
Bryan Sullivan and Stephen Ma are attorneys with Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, a Los Angeles-based entertainment and business law firm.
Bryan Sullivan
In theory, crowdfunding appears to be a great way for people with good ideas to take advantage of the Internet. Throw your idea online and a slew of like-minded investors will give you money to bring your idea to fruition. Artists have been doing it successfully for a few years on Kickstarter to fund creative projects, and teachers on Funding4Learning to fund education projects. To bolster this burgeoning concept, in April 2012, the United States Government passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which contains crowdfunding provisions to help these entrepreneurs raise funds. Taking a closer look at crowdfunding reveals a system fraught with peril that will likely lead to an increase in litigation.
The JOBS Act allows any Zuckerberg wannabe with an idea to skirt securities laws to attract equity investors. Anyone, be it an entrepreneur or corporate entity, can raise up to $1 million from investors putting in no more than $10,000 each, or no more than 10% of their income, whichever is less. That amount increases to $2 million if the crowdfunding entity supplies the “crowd” investors with audited financial statements. Under this system, a crowdfunder will not have to disclose financial statements until it has more than 1,000 shareholders; traditional, full regulatory SEC disclosure rules kick in at 500 shareholders. Essentially, it allows startups to raise up to $50 million in an IPO without having to comply with the SEC’s full regulatory structure and related fees. Yes, you read that correctly – and we can only guess the disasters and class actions resulting from the future of crowdfunding.
William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth for Massachusetts, was so concerned about crowdfunding risks that in August he sent a letter to the SEC identifying crowdfunding’s many pitfalls. The letter is spot on. Mr. Galvin writes:
Stephen Ma
The risk for fraud is far more real than crowdfunding participants or the SEC want to admit. By its nature, crowdfunding appeals to a less sophisticated investor who will invest in any project they think will be the next Facebook. Typical crowdfunding investors, even with basic disclosure requirements for participation, won’t have the investment savvy to determine whether an investment is real or a fraud. After all, many fraudsters and scam artists are brilliant at presenting their investments on paper to meet the very basic disclosures of crowdfunding. Just look to Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff, both appearing as entirely legitimate businessmen, who were able to dupe sophisticated investors and, in Madoff’s case, the SEC itself. The bottom line is that, while unintentional, crowdfunding is tailor made to assist fraudsters in duping unsophisticated “investors.” Indeed, even if the SEC, in an attempt to avert fraud, increases the amount of disclosures, the individual investment contributions will still be too small for law enforcement authorities to expend resources to investigate or for attorneys to take on a fraud lawsuit, unless of course a contingency business litigator can bring a class action. Galvin likely would agree with this concern since he specifically noted:
Even more disconcerting is the impact of social networking and potential fraudulent schemes through crowdfunding. On this issue, Galvin writes:
Even if the particular crowdfunding investment is legitimate, the entire process will still be fraught with risk since unsophisticated business people will likely use crowdfunding to raise money for their new enterprises. After all, if they were sophisticated, they would probably pursue traditional routs to raise money such as preparing an airtight business plan for the full execution of their idea displayed in a “deck” for potential investors who vet the likelihood of the venture’s and its participants’ success. Many crowdfunding investors will not be able to provide useful feedback since many of them will be seeking a “get rich quick” scheme; and they will be sadly disappointed when the business they invest in fails since many do within the first 5 years. For every Facebook, there are ten Friendsters.
Such business failures will inevitably result in litigation as people attempt to recoup whatever money they can from a failing crowdfunding entity. When they accept the inability to recover from the judgment-proof (due to lack of personal funds) individuals behind the crowdfunding entity, crowdfunding losers may target the U.S. government and the JOBS Act for remuneration just as some did in the wake of the Madoff scandal when, among others, The Litwin Foundation, a charitable foundation, sued the SEC for blowing “countless opportunities” to stop Madoff.
While crowdfunding requires certain minimum disclosures, people seeking funds via crowdfunding portals will not have to adhere to the same the level of disclosure as normal businesses with a prospectus. Many lawsuits against crowdfunding entities may likely have merit since these entities won’t have the business experience or savvy to make even the minimum appropriate disclosures or hire an attorney to guide them through disclosure drafting and execution. This concern was raised by Galvin as well:
Entrepreneurs who use crowdfunding are also at risk. Crowdfunding puts the ideas of many early stage entrepreneurs at risk of being stolen by better-funded investors or large corporations. In the traditional investment model, entrepreneurs can use non-disclosure and non-circumvention agreements to protect their ideas and business plans. However, many crowdfunding enthusiasts will lack the expertise and knowledge to properly execute and implement such protections. Moreover, if their idea is stolen, many crowdfunding users will lack resources to fully litigate against a better-funded adversary who lifted the idea.
In order for crowdfuding to work without disastrous results, the government will have to, among other things, mandate that entrepreneurs seeking funds provide as much disclosure as possible, clearly define investor rights, and possibly commit to a specific schedule of financial reporting or business updates to ensure proper communication between the crowdfunding entities and investors. Without this, people receiving the capital contributions can “disappear,” and investors will be left wondering what is going on and where their money is being spent. The SEC would be wise to take heed and carefully read Galvin’s letter to avert such disasters, or this could be another instance of the U.S. government attempting to show the public it is forward thinking while neglecting to think ahead.
Ultimately, the likely scenario is that crowdfunding will lead to, perhaps, one Google and thousands of Friendsters. And plenty of lawsuits.
1. the patato salad kickstarter IS NOT A SCAM...everyone knows what they are getting into. it was a joke and the people responding with money knows its a joke. its the best example of honest marketing you can find anywhere.
2. same is true for goat simulator...is it not?
If one guy in the city leaves without tipping although he got good service does that mean we need to make a law because now we can tell 'if one guy can do it then everyone will' logic? think it thru
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Joke or not he still made people shell out money or not? isn't that what the goal of kickstarter is?
And logic would state that since no average joe can do it and since it is an illussion , he should have failed. But he didn't. Everyone has to start somewhere.
so you think the entire corporate system is corrupt because of a few Enron Executives? Who I might add where involved in a REAL scam not an HONEST joke.
Unlike Enron, people shelled out money becuase they knew EXACTLY what they were getting...nothing but a laugh.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No i never said that. But i do believe in this case there is more to 'exception not a rule' theory.
Well atleast you agree with me on one thing that in MMO crowdfunding people doesn't even know what they are going to get and still shell out money. So if people know 'exactly' what they are going to get makes crowdfunding even more lucrative.
Now all i have to do is come up with something and soon 'hello new ferrari'.
1. patato salad kickstarter is not a scam...period end of story.
2. Enron was a scam...
3. if you base an entire system on one person then we can all agree that Kickstarters are great because of minecraft
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Jeez.i never said it is a scam. I was simply commenting on the exception in the case of 'average joe'.
ok fair enough on the scam.
then you are saying if its possible for a president to lie to the public then it means the presidency is a bad system?
The guy you responded to went through the trouble of providing numbers and a little bit of math. You on the other hand seem to think 1 = 100%
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Recently there was a women who asked for crowd funding and she used the money to put her daughter through school and nobody seemed to care because she was a popular actress.I don't know how they found out though,i think the point is you don't really know.
However when a developer is dealing with banks and investors ,the legality is a lot more adhered to.Recently Schilling was sued for loans but imo it was a no brainer,the guy put up 60 million+ of his own money,i would say that is sincere.most of these scams are scams,they put up nothing and claim nothing and your money is wrongfully termed as buying your way into thre development process.The TRUTH is that your money actually IS the development process and you are 100% funding the project,problem is under those terms there would be legal issues so they have found a way around it.
I would even go as far as to claim proper taxes are not being paid,the same scam as "donations" pull off and yes there are a lot of developers using that scam as well.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well earlier it was zero and now it is 1. I never said 1 = 100% but i do believe that scam or no scam, joke or serious....the 'potato salad' kickstarter does open the doors for kickstarters for average joe.
I never disagreed with what he said though. But he was also very sure that no average guy can do it.
go back and read what he said.
low does not equal zero.
might I suggest taking a class in statistics?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Ok you try to keep putting words in my mouth so i will stop right here.
When i said before it was 'zero' i meant no average guy tried a successful kickstarter. So now we have one example and there are probably more we haven't heard about yet.
I don't know what statistic got anything to do with this.
How many numbers or percentage of 'average joes' starting successful kickstarters would be good enough for you..well you decide.
ok I will try to explain what he was trying to say.
What he was saying is that the chance of XYZ happening is very low.not zero but low. 1 in 6000 is stastically extreemly low.
Now consider these factors.
1. This 'average guy' is actually just making money in a clever and honest way. there is nothing whatseover wrong with it. Why would someone want this not to happen?
2. On AVERAGE more good has come from kickstarters then bad.
3. if we use very small numbers to represent the entire then we can say kickstarter is a smashing success because of minecraft and oculus rift
understand?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I agree with Seanmcad for once. It is a free market. If they can get people to overpay a joke, more power to them. It is not illegal to over-price and sell stuff with no value, as long as you don't claim otherwise.
Just going off of the conversations on our own forums, Divergence Online appears to be that crowdfunding scam.
It's been going on for almost a decade now. Each time the developer's poor budgeting leaves him without funds, he puts up some "assets" developed in a cheap creation tool and pitches some new ideas.
The telling action, however, was that he manipulated the Kickstarter regulations by having a bunch of real-life friends and associates pledge money to get him over the minimum goal - only to have their donations returned after the fact. It's an abuse to receive money from legitimate donors without actually meeting Kickstarter's minimum goal.