Charitable organizations and any company that goes "public" for large numbers of investors are subject to tons of regulations to make sure they're on the straight and narrow. I wonder if the same will ever be the case for mass crowd funded things. Of course, the law tends to be notoriously slow with getting around to addressing new things like that...
The laws are just so slow in moving to protect consumers from marketing tactics,some do exist and some are just not adhered to well enough.However if there were no laws,most of these studios would go balls to the wall in trying to deceive the consumer. The most blatant example even though the law exist is studios paying streamers,You Tuber's to endorse their products.
The laws have moved very slowly with digital products in general and, more specifically, the internet.
If someone ordered a a new 2018 model, special-edition Corvette, only to have Chevy then go "Yea, so we couldn't quite complete all the bells and whistles that were originally advertised, but here's an MVP without windows, AC, or power steering!" this wouldn't even be a debate. Folks would demand Chevy pony up with the originally promised car in full or pay the many back. But since it's a video game we're talking about, somehow it's the consumers fault.
Not a good comparison, with the Corvette you are buying a clearly defined product, so very easy to tell what should be delivered.
With kickstarter software you are basically buying into the promise of some rather loosely defined features, with the greatest definition being in the various add on tier items.
Only, that's the issue in and of itself.
There's nothing at all to hold a developer to. People can talk about personal responsibility all they like, and I agree, but it doesn't excuse a system that's ripe for predatory marketing schemes all because you guys like to think of yourselves as too smart to fall for marketing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary permeating throughout our lives).
They're attempting to sell you on an idea for a product. When the description of that product is grossly inaccurate, or the folks building the project spend funds simply to further hype the product (while giving timelines to the public from a position of authority on the project), they can and should be held responsible for the timelines given.
Some folks think that, because this is software development, they shouldn't be held responsible for self-imposed deadlines. It's asinine.
Honestly, if everyone held all vendors, companies, and government agencies to these types of standards, can you imagine how much stuff, and the quality of that stuff, would be getting done? Your idea is novel, but it doesn't apply in the real world. Actually, apart from MMOs, I'd suggest that the percentage of Kickstarter games which actually finish on or before the estimated completion date is likely higher than the percentage of construction projects that finish on time and on budget. Not that this excuses these game companies, but if you think that these companies are creating an epidemic or are creating systems ripe for predatory marketing, you're insane. We're talking about thousands of people, versus much more corrupt systems that affect hundreds of millions. If this situation was pandemic, it would be addressed, but it simply isn't. 2% of projects outright failing and being cancelled is a pretty small number, considering your argument has been used since Kickstarter started nearly a decade ago.
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.
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards. Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project. As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability. That doesn't exist in other industries.
Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs. You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
So your solution is to create a system to punish people? Hmmm, sounds like something that would lead to really cutting edge innovations.
Again, crowdfunding is supposed to be a means to allow people to fund products that would not otherwise be made, for whatever the reason. To date there has been 1 lawsuit. That's it! It seems you're forgetting about the fantastic products that were hatched via crowdfunding. By implementing laws and rules on top of the current model, all that you do is create a situation where the only people who can actually run crowdfunding campaigns are larger companies with staff lawyers, because doing so otherwise would mean hefty legal ramifications. So unless you have some lawyers who can actually find the loopholes in the system, you're essentially fucked.
I can appreciate your perspective, but I'd suggest that there is an equal number of people who are on the opposite side of you. I've actually heard people talk about how crowdfunding projects these days are TOO far along when they ask for funding. Essentially, in order to be successful today you need to come to the table with a LOT more than what you did "back in the day". Prime example is John Romero who has come to the table with 2 ideas, with little actual content. Mark Jacobs almost failed with Camelot Unchained because he was content light at the beginning. So to suggest that people DON'T understand the risks and are just throwing money away is a bit ignorant in and of itself.
I get that MMOs are highly risky projects, and I think that the community at large understands that. It's also the reason that you see questions popping up about external funding all the time, since people understand that Kickstarter alone probably won't do it.
I just think that you're maybe not giving as much credit to the community as they deserve. If anything I'd say that the community is probably quite aware of the risks. Granted, I'm sure there is a percentage of the community who is completely oblivious, but suggesting that's the majority is a huge stretch. Kickstarter has been around for nearly a decade and unless people have been living under a rock, they've likely heard of risks associated with these projects. Further, I'm sure they understand that the fact the game is an MMO simply adds to that risk.
As others have mentioned, the contract structure among those other industry projects provide a framework for punishing firms that fall behind or fail to meet certain standards. Crowdfunding is unique in that there are no legal repercussions for failure or even gross mismanagement of a project. As long as an "effort" has been made, the developers are essentially released from liability. That doesn't exist in other industries.
Those incentives/disincentives even apply to traditionally funded video games, including MMORPGs. You're being wilfully ignorant of that fact by attempting to imply this isn't the case, and I'm unsure if it's simply a lack of awareness to those things or your being obtuse because it helps your argument.
No, I think people want crowdfunding to be something that it's not. Or at least never claimed it would be.
It's essentially "hey guys, we want to bring x product to you and the big guys aren't interested. If we raise x amount of dollars we think we can do it. Are you in .... ?"
And that's it.
And, in the absence of specificity, the consumer will lose. It's the ambiguity of the system that's the issue.
The word "pledge" should be consumers' first clue.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I suggest everyone who hasn't done so to research crowdfunding campaigns outside video games and you'll realize lots of problems we are facing are due to game development itself not the crowdfunding system.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
<sigh> way to completely ignore a glaring flaw in that rant: normal folks aren't qualified to judge the dangers of delays on such a complex project. Folks on my side aren't ignoring the realities of game development; you're all ignoring the realities of marketing and the effect perceived positions of authority have on a consumers purchasing decision. These effects are well-documented. When they're used to gather funds for a project based upon such pie-in-the-sky promises and unrealistic timelines, they become predatory. When you then become aggressive with your backers when they give you pushback about those promises and that timeline, you look even less trustworthy. This is the entire reason investors existed in the first place; their jobs are literally researching the project at a level the normal consumer cannot.
I'm sure there was someone in the Wild West attempting to defend the rights of snake oil salesman to provide a misleading overview of their product because no one is forced to buy it and normal folks just don't understand "modern chemistry"! Doesn't make them any less of a snake oil salesman.
And they assumed the PR risks of asking the public for funding. No one forced them to ask the general public for money, right? They chose to do so, and Caspian chose to confine himself to the unrealistic timeline and still attempted, for the duration of the KS, to insist that was a legitimate timeline. If you have evidence of where he said "yea that's a pretty unrealistic timeline, just so you guys know before you give me money." I've not read nor heard of such a statement's existence.
The ability to recognize when someone is in over their head in their job does not require the ability to do that job.
I get that we're looking at it from two perspective, but I just disagree with the end result.
As I mentioned in my previous post, when such business transactions contain ambiguities, the consumer almost always loses.
Developers turned to kickstarted to avoid the suits. I get that, as I resent things like rushed products and misleading hype as much as the next guy. But misleading hype has become the norm for crowdfunding now, and the consumer does not have the unilateral power to reign it in like the suits do.
I also disagree with the notion that the majority of folks are in the know. We're an abysmally small percentage of the population, those of us who surf forums and discuss, in depth, game development (specifically MMORPG development).
I will cede that PC gamers seem, from my experience, to be more well-educated about it.. But then again, these crowdfunded titles are already starting to make the jump to console. Thankfully, Sony and Microsoft are more stringent regarding title quality than is KS or Steam. It's also an interesting point in and of itself: console gamers are inoculated from the risks by Sony and Microsoft's heavy thumb, but still get to enjoy some of the titles that resulted from endeavors once they've proven a base level of quality. The suits don't seem so bad when you view it from that perspective.
I get that we're looking at it from two perspective, but I just disagree with the end result.
As I mentioned in my previous post, when such business transactions contain ambiguities, the consumer almost always loses.
Developers turned to kickstarted to avoid the suits. I get that, as I resent things like rushed products and misleading hype as much as the next guy. But misleading hype has become the norm for crowdfunding now, and the consumer does not have the unilateral power to reign it in like the suits do.
I also disagree with the notion that the majority of folks are in the know. We're an abysmally small percentage of the population, those of us who surf forums and discuss, in depth, game development (specifically MMORPG development).
I will cede that PC gamers seem, from my experience, to be more well-educated about it.. But then again, these crowdfunded titles are already starting to make the jump to console. Thankfully, Sony and Microsoft are more stringent regarding title quality than is KS or Steam. It's also an interesting point in and of itself: console gamers are inoculated from the risks by Sony and Microsoft's heavy thumb, but still get to enjoy some of the titles that resulted from endeavors once they've proven a base level of quality. The suits don't seem so bad when you view it from that perspective.
Yup, and I think that we're at least agreeing on the understanding of the premise. I can also appreciate your skepticism because I think that it actually maybe puts some doubt in the minds of some fence sitters. Honestly, the best case scenario is that the only people actually pledging to these campaigns are those who are willing to accept and take the risk.
I would also challenge you on the assertion that the consumer almost always loses. In almost every case there are 5, 10, 20 times the number of people buying a product following release as there was to back it in the first place. For instance, Divinity: Original Sin was backed by 20,000 people, versus 1.3 million people who now own it on Steam. There are hundreds of other titles which reinforce this idea. So I think that the customer almost never loses. I mean any time that you can rely on a small percentage of a customer base to take a risk so you can have something fantastic (relatively speaking) then I don't see how that's a loss for the consumer.
As far as hype goes, it's inescapable and it comes with nearly every product. Unfortunately, until we actually get our hands on something and the hype aligns itself with our reality, then hype will always exist to some extent. To be fair, though, there is plenty of hype that is self-inflicted, in addition to whatever marketing hype is there already. Also, hype will be highly subjective and how that marketing hype is interpreted by the individual. Personally, I usually believe that people will sell something how they would like to see it implemented, but understand that the actual implementation of that will likely be somewhere between not at all and what they marketed to me, so I'm rarely disappointed.
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. (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.
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. (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.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
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.
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 !
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.
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
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 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.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
... 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.
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.
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.
Comments
Honestly, if everyone held all vendors, companies, and government agencies to these types of standards, can you imagine how much stuff, and the quality of that stuff, would be getting done? Your idea is novel, but it doesn't apply in the real world. Actually, apart from MMOs, I'd suggest that the percentage of Kickstarter games which actually finish on or before the estimated completion date is likely higher than the percentage of construction projects that finish on time and on budget. Not that this excuses these game companies, but if you think that these companies are creating an epidemic or are creating systems ripe for predatory marketing, you're insane. We're talking about thousands of people, versus much more corrupt systems that affect hundreds of millions. If this situation was pandemic, it would be addressed, but it simply isn't. 2% of projects outright failing and being cancelled is a pretty small number, considering your argument has been used since Kickstarter started nearly a decade ago.
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
----------------
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.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So your solution is to create a system to punish people? Hmmm, sounds like something that would lead to really cutting edge innovations.
Again, crowdfunding is supposed to be a means to allow people to fund products that would not otherwise be made, for whatever the reason. To date there has been 1 lawsuit. That's it! It seems you're forgetting about the fantastic products that were hatched via crowdfunding. By implementing laws and rules on top of the current model, all that you do is create a situation where the only people who can actually run crowdfunding campaigns are larger companies with staff lawyers, because doing so otherwise would mean hefty legal ramifications. So unless you have some lawyers who can actually find the loopholes in the system, you're essentially fucked.
I can appreciate your perspective, but I'd suggest that there is an equal number of people who are on the opposite side of you. I've actually heard people talk about how crowdfunding projects these days are TOO far along when they ask for funding. Essentially, in order to be successful today you need to come to the table with a LOT more than what you did "back in the day". Prime example is John Romero who has come to the table with 2 ideas, with little actual content. Mark Jacobs almost failed with Camelot Unchained because he was content light at the beginning. So to suggest that people DON'T understand the risks and are just throwing money away is a bit ignorant in and of itself.
I get that MMOs are highly risky projects, and I think that the community at large understands that. It's also the reason that you see questions popping up about external funding all the time, since people understand that Kickstarter alone probably won't do it.
I just think that you're maybe not giving as much credit to the community as they deserve. If anything I'd say that the community is probably quite aware of the risks. Granted, I'm sure there is a percentage of the community who is completely oblivious, but suggesting that's the majority is a huge stretch. Kickstarter has been around for nearly a decade and unless people have been living under a rock, they've likely heard of risks associated with these projects. Further, I'm sure they understand that the fact the game is an MMO simply adds to that risk.
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
----------------
As I mentioned in my previous post, when such business transactions contain ambiguities, the consumer almost always loses.
Developers turned to kickstarted to avoid the suits. I get that, as I resent things like rushed products and misleading hype as much as the next guy. But misleading hype has become the norm for crowdfunding now, and the consumer does not have the unilateral power to reign it in like the suits do.
I also disagree with the notion that the majority of folks are in the know. We're an abysmally small percentage of the population, those of us who surf forums and discuss, in depth, game development (specifically MMORPG development).
I will cede that PC gamers seem, from my experience, to be more well-educated about it.. But then again, these crowdfunded titles are already starting to make the jump to console. Thankfully, Sony and Microsoft are more stringent regarding title quality than is KS or Steam. It's also an interesting point in and of itself: console gamers are inoculated from the risks by Sony and Microsoft's heavy thumb, but still get to enjoy some of the titles that resulted from endeavors once they've proven a base level of quality. The suits don't seem so bad when you view it from that perspective.
Yup, and I think that we're at least agreeing on the understanding of the premise. I can also appreciate your skepticism because I think that it actually maybe puts some doubt in the minds of some fence sitters. Honestly, the best case scenario is that the only people actually pledging to these campaigns are those who are willing to accept and take the risk.
I would also challenge you on the assertion that the consumer almost always loses. In almost every case there are 5, 10, 20 times the number of people buying a product following release as there was to back it in the first place. For instance, Divinity: Original Sin was backed by 20,000 people, versus 1.3 million people who now own it on Steam. There are hundreds of other titles which reinforce this idea. So I think that the customer almost never loses. I mean any time that you can rely on a small percentage of a customer base to take a risk so you can have something fantastic (relatively speaking) then I don't see how that's a loss for the consumer.
As far as hype goes, it's inescapable and it comes with nearly every product. Unfortunately, until we actually get our hands on something and the hype aligns itself with our reality, then hype will always exist to some extent. To be fair, though, there is plenty of hype that is self-inflicted, in addition to whatever marketing hype is there already. Also, hype will be highly subjective and how that marketing hype is interpreted by the individual. Personally, I usually believe that people will sell something how they would like to see it implemented, but understand that the actual implementation of that will likely be somewhere between not at all and what they marketed to me, so I'm rarely disappointed.
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
----------------
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.
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.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
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.
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 !
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.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
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.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
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 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?
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.