And nothing about greater transparency would prevent quality efforts from getting funded. Nothing about holding developers accountable for things like that would've prevented Pillars of Eternity from reaching release.
I'm baffled as to why you guys think rules against malicious entities would prevent non-malicious ones from continuing to utilize the system in a way that's fair to the consumer.
I disagree. Pillars of Eternity was a year late. Torment was 3 years late. Again, I love transparency, but there is only one lesson that's been learned over the past couple years and that lesson is that the general public is not intelligent enough and/or willing enough to actually accept transparency during product development.
Are you baffled? I don't know why since you can look back over this thread, among many others of similarly transparent projects, and you'll find more than enough evidence of how the community has taken that transparency and used it as ammunition against the developer. So, yes, creating rules surrounding the overall transparency of a project will, ultimately, hurt a project because malicious people can use that information against the company, which would negatively influence their ability to generate additional revenue for the continued development of their project.
Wait, so you are saying if transparency reveals negative, but truthful information this is a bad thing?
I put forth if revealing the truth about Torments three year delay would have prevented it from ever being made, then perhaps it should not have been created.
The end never justifies the means if it involves dishonesty and deceit.
Put another way, Rorschach on the Watchmen was not wrong.
Hmm, I made a complete different conclusion at the end of the Watchmen.
You put Torment as an example: if the majority of its backers are happy with the results, nothing else matters. That's how it works when a group of people is involved.
Transparency wouldn't reveal dishonesty, that's what I said in another post. Hiding facts or putting all your data to public access is very different than lying and making false statements.
Problem with full transparency is facts can be taken out of context, misinterpreted, misunderstood by the laymen, etc. and spread with the intention of solely hurting you and nothing else.
In smaller-scale, we had new accounts popping on these forums trashing campaigns at every turn then vanishing into the dark after campaign was over. Bigger ones are like Derek Smart that I'm not debating what stuff he is right or wrong about, but the man didn't start what he did in sake of transparency or his deep care for the public, that I'm sure of.
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
"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
"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
If their project doesn't have enough appeal to draw an investor, and they cannot garner crowdfunding based upon an honest assessment of the project's goals and viability...
This part I completely agree with, it is a problem but I think it cannot be solved easily if at all.
First of all, again that isn't not being transparent. Deception is a whole other level. And I think it is a crime on that level. A crime in many cases would be really hard to prove--really hard. "In my defense Your Honor, I thought we the level of genius of Timmy we thought we could do it in 18 months. So did 25000 of other people whom backed us in the first place: these weren't children Your Honor, they were educated competent people with jobs many active in the industry."
Second, you see the same thing happen in regulated investment in start-ups and companies. All the lengths we have gone through, we couldn't prevent this happening over there, not sure if it is doable to do it over here. And no, people aren't punished at the end, they mostly get away with it and most investors don't even pursue it to not to add legal fees to their losses as well. I haven't read any studies about this, just speaking from personal experience. I can look into it or ask the gents I know that might know more for more info later.
But all of this doesn't change the fact that the problem exists. And doesn't change the fact that something should be done about it. I think first step would be public awareness and that can be done by the public. Not about single individual campaign holders, but on hows behind MMORPG development and crowdfunding itself. When public learns about this whole ordeal, they wouldn't be backing all things breathing. Hence crowdfund seekers have to evolve to better with this change. I believe that will happen one way or the other. Things aren't getting worse, things are getting better. And better believe it, if none of the current MMORPGs make it in the next couple of years, future devs can kiss crowdfunding goodbye.
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
And nothing about greater transparency would prevent quality efforts from getting funded. Nothing about holding developers accountable for things like that would've prevented Pillars of Eternity from reaching release.
I'm baffled as to why you guys think rules against malicious entities would prevent non-malicious ones from continuing to utilize the system in a way that's fair to the consumer.
I disagree. Pillars of Eternity was a year late. Torment was 3 years late. Again, I love transparency, but there is only one lesson that's been learned over the past couple years and that lesson is that the general public is not intelligent enough and/or willing enough to actually accept transparency during product development.
Are you baffled? I don't know why since you can look back over this thread, among many others of similarly transparent projects, and you'll find more than enough evidence of how the community has taken that transparency and used it as ammunition against the developer. So, yes, creating rules surrounding the overall transparency of a project will, ultimately, hurt a project because malicious people can use that information against the company, which would negatively influence their ability to generate additional revenue for the continued development of their project.
Wait, so you are saying if transparency reveals negative, but truthful information this is a bad thing?
I put forth if revealing the truth about Torments three year delay would have prevented it from ever being made, then perhaps it should not have been created.
The end never justifies the means if it involves dishonesty and deceit.
Put another way, Rorschach on the Watchmen was not wrong.
Hmm, I made a complete different conclusion at the end of the Watchmen.
You put Torment as an example: if the majority of its backers are happy with the results, nothing else matters. That's how it works when a group of people is involved.
Transparency wouldn't reveal dishonesty, that's what I said in another post. Hiding facts or putting all your data to public access is very different than lying and making false statements.
Problem with full transparency is facts can be taken out of context, misinterpreted, misunderstood by the laymen, etc. and spread with the intention of solely hurting you and nothing else.
In smaller-scale, we had new accounts popping on these forums trashing campaigns at every turn then vanishing into the dark after campaign was over. Bigger ones are like Derek Smart that I'm not debating what stuff he is right or wrong about, but the man didn't start what he did in sake of transparency or his deep care for the public, that I'm sure of.
Ahh, so you sided with the majority of characters in the Watchmen who felt preserving the peace justified stamping out the truth.
Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.
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
Ahh, so you sided with the majority of characters in the Watchmen who felt preserving the peace justified stamping out the truth.
Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.
The Comedian understood the world better than anyone, and Ozymandias came with the best possible solution which even convinced Doctor Manhattan, or you can say god himself. If we want to delve deeper into your example, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach had the same perspective at the end but different solutions.
Right now we have a problem with the perspective part here, and none has a solution yet.
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
Ahh, so you sided with the majority of characters in the Watchmen who felt preserving the peace justified stamping out the truth.
Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.
The Comedian understood the world better than anyone, and Ozymandias came with the best possible solution which even convinced Doctor Manhattan, or you can say god himself. If we want to delve deeper into your example, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach had the same perspective at the end but different solutions.
Right now we have a problem with the )perspective part here, and none has a solution yet.
Actually the Comedian was the most flawed or "evil" of the heroes, and even he understood the solution Ozmandias planned was wrong.
True, Dr Manhatten became convinced of the rightness of the solution, but it was clear his assention to god hood had stripped him of his humanity, and as a consequence, no longer viewed actions as right or wrong.
Which was the whole point, many things done for all of the right reasons are inherently wrong, and the line between good and evil can be very blurry at times.
Usually depends on which side you are on.
Seems to be true for some in this debate, if you support the creation of this (or any other) game, it's OK for the Devs to misrepresent the truth, as long as the end result is the delivery of the game.
For critics, its reprehensible for the devs to do so, well unless its a game they want to see built I suppose.
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
Ahh, so you sided with the majority of characters in the Watchmen who felt preserving the peace justified stamping out the truth.
Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.
The Comedian understood the world better than anyone, and Ozymandias came with the best possible solution which even convinced Doctor Manhattan, or you can say god himself. If we want to delve deeper into your example, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach had the same perspective at the end but different solutions.
Right now we have a problem with the )perspective part here, and none has a solution yet.
Actually the Comedian was the most flawed or "evil" of the heroes, and even he understood the solution Ozmandias planned was wrong.
True, Dr Manhatten became convinced of the rightness of the solution, but it was clear his assention to god hood had stripped him of his humanity, and as a consequence, no longer viewed actions as right or wrong.
Which was the whole point, many things done for all of the right reasons are inherently wrong, and the line between good and evil can be very blurry at times.
Usually depends on which side you are on.
Seems to be true for some in this debate, if you support the creation of this (or any other) game, it's OK for the Devs to misrepresent the truth, as long as the end result is the delivery of the game.
For critics, its reprehensible for the devs to do so, well unless its a game they want to see built I suppose.
I love talking about Watchmen. The Comedian is one of the most complex characters in comics ever. He is the most flawed, because he could see how the world really was. If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you. The world in return had changed him, and made him the most flawed--or the most perfect in his own way.
I don't believe it's ever okay for the devs to misrepresent the truth. But many of these delays aren't due to the fact that the devs were deceitful or white-lying their pants off. Problem is, how can we know? Should all campaigns that miss deadlines get punished? That wouldn't work in this industry.
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
Ahh, so you sided with the majority of characters in the Watchmen who felt preserving the peace justified stamping out the truth.
Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.
The Comedian understood the world better than anyone, and Ozymandias came with the best possible solution which even convinced Doctor Manhattan, or you can say god himself. If we want to delve deeper into your example, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach had the same perspective at the end but different solutions.
Right now we have a problem with the )perspective part here, and none has a solution yet.
Actually the Comedian was the most flawed or "evil" of the heroes, and even he understood the solution Ozmandias planned was wrong.
True, Dr Manhatten became convinced of the rightness of the solution, but it was clear his assention to god hood had stripped him of his humanity, and as a consequence, no longer viewed actions as right or wrong.
Which was the whole point, many things done for all of the right reasons are inherently wrong, and the line between good and evil can be very blurry at times.
Usually depends on which side you are on.
Seems to be true for some in this debate, if you support the creation of this (or any other) game, it's OK for the Devs to misrepresent the truth, as long as the end result is the delivery of the game.
For critics, its reprehensible for the devs to do so, well unless its a game they want to see built I suppose.
I love talking about Watchmen. The Comedian is one of the most complex characters in comics ever. He is the most flawed, because he could see how the world really was. If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you. The world in return had changed him, and made him the most flawed--or the most perfect in his own way.
I don't believe it's ever okay for the devs to misrepresent the truth. But many of these delays aren't due to the fact that the devs were deceitful or white-lying their pants off. Problem is, how can we know? Should all campaigns that miss deadlines get punished? That wouldn't work in this industry.
I think the solution is to require Devs to give back some portion of the donated funds if promised milestones aren't met. (and only if a backer requests it).
Might make devs be a bit more honest in their projections or at least encourage them to share the more pessimistic projections instead of happy path with a dose of magic tossed in.
CU offers refunds, and yes there are limits, with terms and conditions, but overall by having this policy in place, combined with massive transparency and a willingness to take responsibility for the delays has kept the villagers from storming the castle gates.
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
So then you admit they are unilaterally further changing the agreement. They want to change the promised product and timeline? Fine... but then they should offer their customers the ability to get their money back.
Ok, that's fine. They don't though. That is the risk of Kickstarter. Personally I don't think refunds are workable and should be a considered as not an option in general. You haven't bought a product. You have donated.
Sorry mate if I have missed something here. But the need for additional fund for finishing the product contradicts having a wildly successful crowdfunding campaign hence expanding the product.
I see what you mean. Most likely they always had the stretch goals in mind though. Can't remember if they were advertised from day 1.
Ahh, so you sided with the majority of characters in the Watchmen who felt preserving the peace justified stamping out the truth.
Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.
The Comedian understood the world better than anyone, and Ozymandias came with the best possible solution which even convinced Doctor Manhattan, or you can say god himself. If we want to delve deeper into your example, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach had the same perspective at the end but different solutions.
Right now we have a problem with the )perspective part here, and none has a solution yet.
Actually the Comedian was the most flawed or "evil" of the heroes, and even he understood the solution Ozmandias planned was wrong.
True, Dr Manhatten became convinced of the rightness of the solution, but it was clear his assention to god hood had stripped him of his humanity, and as a consequence, no longer viewed actions as right or wrong.
Which was the whole point, many things done for all of the right reasons are inherently wrong, and the line between good and evil can be very blurry at times.
Usually depends on which side you are on.
Seems to be true for some in this debate, if you support the creation of this (or any other) game, it's OK for the Devs to misrepresent the truth, as long as the end result is the delivery of the game.
For critics, its reprehensible for the devs to do so, well unless its a game they want to see built I suppose.
I love talking about Watchmen. The Comedian is one of the most complex characters in comics ever. He is the most flawed, because he could see how the world really was. If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you. The world in return had changed him, and made him the most flawed--or the most perfect in his own way.
I don't believe it's ever okay for the devs to misrepresent the truth. But many of these delays aren't due to the fact that the devs were deceitful or white-lying their pants off. Problem is, how can we know? Should all campaigns that miss deadlines get punished? That wouldn't work in this industry.
I think the solution is to require Devs to give back some portion of the donated funds if promised milestones aren't met. (and only if a backer requests it).
Might make devs be a bit more honest in their projections or at least encourage them to share the more pessimistic projections instead of happy path with a dose of magic tossed in.
CU offers refunds, and yes there are limits, with terms and conditions, but overall by having this policy in place, combined with massive transparency and a willingness to take responsibility for the delays has kept the villagers from storming the castle gates.
Refunds are nice. But if you really think about it, you'd realize that won't work, at least not like this. Company has to declare bankruptcy and all backers get a percentage of their monies, that's the only fair way.
FFA refund won't work. You know how people get hyped, right? That goes both ways. Imagine refunds are in order and a wave of refunds hit a project from the less understanding/patient people. Project is going be even running longer than the original plan and now has even less fund.
Meanwhile the loyal backers remain on the ship and by the time they'd give up there would be no monies left for their share of refunds, they'll sink with the ship.
Again, I understand all your dear mates concerns. To be honest, a solution requires a fair amount of work by a large team to study, research, brainstorm and come up with a solution after a year or so. So I'm not saying it cannot be done, but so far, I haven't read anything that would work as a solid solution.
Anything but more information. And I think campaigns have to evolve or they wouldn't be making it anymore. Ashes of Creation is a good example of campaigns moving forward. They had a nice gameplay demo at least. I think that would become the bar for the future campaigns. And if the next one wants to be successful as well, they have to up their game.
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
As the matter of fact, we know nothing. CU has to launch first to make any conclusions.
This is simple math. Refunds mean losing money out of budget. Delays mean longer duration of development, which might exceeds the original budget. If the store is making more monies than campaign is refunding + extra for the longer development duration, then they'll be fine. But something is amiss. Store means ongoing campaign--which has stretch goals. So what should be done now?
A) Fake stretch goals Stretch goals with fake budgets C) Personal funds to make up for the difference D) Cut back on polish/features/whatever in hopes of to patch the problems away post-launch E) Fail to finish the project F) Find a new investor
There might be other solutions, I can't think of any though.
I'm not insulting anyone here, but you have to have experience in managing start-ups to realize how fragile everything is and what "losing money" really means. These campaigns are pretty much the same. They are not established companies, doesn't matter how experienced the dev team is. These newly founded companies are infants, learning to walk. The people behind these campaigns are learning and experiencing a lot stuff for the first time, and it ain't freaking easy.
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
As the matter of fact, we know nothing. CU has to launch first to make any conclusions.
This is simple math. Refunds mean losing money out of budget. Delays mean longer duration of development, which might exceeds the original budget. If the store is making more monies than campaign is refunding + extra for the longer development duration, then they'll be fine. But something is amiss. Store means ongoing campaign--which has stretch goals. So what should be done now?
A) Fake stretch goals Stretch goals with fake budgets C) Personal funds to make up for the difference D) Cut back on polish/features/whatever in hopes of to patch the problems away post-launch E) Fail to finish the project F) Find a new investor
There might be other solutions, I can't think of any though.
I'm not insulting anyone here, but you have to have experience in managing start-ups to realize how fragile everything is and what "losing money" really means. These campaigns are pretty much the same. They are not established companies, doesn't matter how experienced the dev team is. These newly founded companies are infants, learning to walk. The people behind these campaigns are learning and experiencing a lot stuff for the first time, and it ain't freaking easy.
Oh fuck! Yup! You did it! So now the regular "Joe Customer" has to know about Project Management AND running a start-up. Good luck with that fight!
As the matter of fact, we know nothing. CU has to launch first to make any conclusions.
This is simple math. Refunds mean losing money out of budget. Delays mean longer duration of development, which might exceeds the original budget. If the store is making more monies than campaign is refunding + extra for the longer development duration, then they'll be fine. But something is amiss. Store means ongoing campaign--which has stretch goals. So what should be done now?
A) Fake stretch goals Stretch goals with fake budgets C) Personal funds to make up for the difference D) Cut back on polish/features/whatever in hopes of to patch the problems away post-launch E) Fail to finish the project F) Find a new investor
There might be other solutions, I can't think of any though.
I'm not insulting anyone here, but you have to have experience in managing start-ups to realize how fragile everything is and what "losing money" really means. These campaigns are pretty much the same. They are not established companies, doesn't matter how experienced the dev team is. These newly founded companies are infants, learning to walk. The people behind these campaigns are learning and experiencing a lot stuff for the first time, and it ain't freaking easy.
Oh fuck! Yup! You did it! So now the regular "Joe Customer" has to know about Project Management AND running a start-up. Good luck with that fight!
Uh.. Joe Customer can remain oblivious to PM and running a start-up as long as Mr. Joe wants to remain a customer. As a customer--or a cash-donor in this case--one can rely on the available information and the opinions of the experts. Nothing wrong with that.
But if we are discussing how crowdfunding campaigns should change into better, and not just shooting the breeze, then yeah. Besides the strong ethics and moral compass many do possess, the solution needs to be viable as well.
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
Craz, not sure why you continue to insist on pushing this false dichotomy. It's not binary.
Constantine, as you mentioned, there are other ways to find funding. The fact that these projects seem unwilling or unable to receive backing in a more formal manner is already, to put it in RPG terms, lIke starting with a -1 in viability. As such, I find it asinine that we should he content to relax the requirements of such risky projects.
Folks don't know much about startups, because these startups generally aren't advertised to the public for funding. These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors. That's cause for more stringent accountability, not less. Don't ignore the reasoning as to why crowdfunding didn't develop as the traditional way to fund projects. There's good reasons for that, and a lack of accountability is one of them.
As you say, the solution has to be viable.. But when speaking to viability, that doesn't mean that the public has any responsibility to provide that viability beyond pledging their own money. If massive amounts of backers demand refunds because they don't like the way the project is headed, they should be able to withdraw funding. If the believers still wish to get the project completed in spite of the misgivings, then they are free to pledge more to cover that lost cash, are they not? What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished? I submit they have none.
Craz, not sure why you continue to insist on pushing this false dichotomy. It's not binary.
Constantine, as you mentioned, there are other ways to find funding. The fact that these projects seem unwilling or unable to receive backing in a more formal manner is already, to put it in RPG terms, lIke starting with a -1 in viability. As such, I find it asinine that we should he content to relax the requirements of such risky projects.
Folks don't know much about startups, because these startups generally aren't advertised to the public for funding. These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors. That's cause for more stringent accountability, not less. Don't ignore the reasoning as to why crowdfunding didn't develop as the traditional way to fund projects. There's good reasons for that, and a lack of accountability is one of them.
As you say, the solution has to be viable.. But when speaking to viability, that doesn't mean that the public has any responsibility to provide that viability beyond pledging their own money. If massive amounts of backers demand refunds because they don't like the way the project is headed, they should be able to withdraw funding. If the believers still wish to get the project completed in spite of the misgivings, then they are free to pledge more to cover that lost cash, are they not? What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished? I submit they have none.
That doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't secure funding from other sources, neither can one make the conclusion they are not viable themselves. But let's say you are right. The nature of crowdfunding is just about that. Giving the projects a chance that no one else would. What you state contradicts the concept behind these platforms. Also, yes, these are very risky projects.
So with that two in mind, you'd realize supporting crowdfunding campaigns isn't for everyone. I think this is the part @CrazyKanuk has been emphasizing in the whole thread. If you are looking for a sure thing, if you want your money to be secured and withdrawn whenever you felt uncomfortable, this can't happen here. But that's common practice. You can't get into a start-up company then later on state that you want your money back because you don't agree with their decisions. Even if they fail to deliver, you can't do anything. Crowdfunding is exactly the same thing, but instead of investing you are making a pledge, and instead of shares you are getting a "thank you" or a return to your favor. Your reward can vary from a literal "thank you!"--as you probably saw on many campaigns is what you get when you donate $5--up to the best way they can return your favor.
I'm not running any of these campaigns. If refunds were mandatory, I could cash back 4 digits from the MMORPGs which made decisions that I don't like. But mandatory refund policy forced upon on these campaigns, would work exactly the same way it would on start-ups.
And let's not forget, all these campaigns are trying to give you some value on your pledge. You are taking a risk: first to help get a project materialize, second to receive that extra *wink* cheaper.
Lastly, I am quoting the last part of your post: "What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished? I submit they have none."--well mate, with that approach, what are we even arguing about? Every man for himself then.
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
Start up companies are not asking the uneducated general public to fund them. At least, not the ones I'm familiar with. That's an essential difference. If they are on KS, then they are bypassing the extra scrutiny a traditional investor would put the project through. That's significant.
If they were able to get funding but chose to KS, then it doesn't relieve the burden to the consumers/funder. Again, in that instance, they chose to go the route and assume the liability of attempting to scrape together thousands of dollars from a fickle, inexperienced group of "investors," of which there is no true consensus opinion. That's not the problem of the consumer, because the consumers aren't pooling their money and trolling for developers to take on the project based upon their own, agreed business proposal; the developers are trolling for consumers to pool their money and provide the means to complete their project.
If accountability means the projects cannot complete development using this means of funding... Well, that's why this isn't the only means of funding these projects.
As I mentioned before, had Torment not been released, the world would still turn, those backers would, presumably, spend their money elsewhere on entertainment, and it would be an unnoticeable blip on the gaming scene's radar. Just because these developers have begun asking the public for money, it doesn't mean the public has any responsibility to ensure they "do their part" to get the project completed.
These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors.
This is pure hyperbole regarding the developers intentions AGAIN! Have an issue with Kickstarter sure but don't start badmouthing people with baseless accusations like that.
Besides you cannot compare investors who are looking to make a profit vs a gamer who is making a donation who is not looking to make a profit. Their risk profiles are completely different and a gamer will donate in situations that an investor would not invest. Not to mention the size of the investment vs average donation.
The vast majority of Kickstarter backers are willing to lose that money for the hope they simply get a product that the mainstream developers are not willing to produce. This is what it boils down to. Should there be a better infrastructure where backers own shares? That is worth looking into but not as a replacement for Kickstarter.
It's too bad their other funding seems to have never materialized and they appear to be 100% reliant on donations.
I wonder why...
Actually, it was stated in one of the recorded Q+A sessions by Vye that Caspian threw in a bunch of his own money just to get this off the ground and he nodded that it was true.
Either you believe it or you don't.
Most companies don't do public financials until they have to, not just in game development. I wish it were otherwise, but wishes never change things.
It's too bad their other funding seems to have never materialized and they appear to be 100% reliant on donations.
I wonder why...
Actually, it was stated in one of the recorded Q+A sessions by Vye that Caspian threw in a bunch of his own money just to get this off the ground and he nodded that it was true.
Either you believe it or you don't.
Most companies don't do public financials until they have to, not just in game development. I wish it were otherwise, but wishes never change things.
That's not what I said.
He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That's not what I said. He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
Comments
You put Torment as an example: if the majority of its backers are happy with the results, nothing else matters. That's how it works when a group of people is involved.
Transparency wouldn't reveal dishonesty, that's what I said in another post. Hiding facts or putting all your data to public access is very different than lying and making false statements.
Problem with full transparency is facts can be taken out of context, misinterpreted, misunderstood by the laymen, etc. and spread with the intention of solely hurting you and nothing else.
In smaller-scale, we had new accounts popping on these forums trashing campaigns at every turn then vanishing into the dark after campaign was over. Bigger ones are like Derek Smart that I'm not debating what stuff he is right or wrong about, but the man didn't start what he did in sake of transparency or his deep care for the public, that I'm sure of.
First of all, again that isn't not being transparent. Deception is a whole other level. And I think it is a crime on that level. A crime in many cases would be really hard to prove--really hard. "In my defense Your Honor, I thought we the level of genius of Timmy we thought we could do it in 18 months. So did 25000 of other people whom backed us in the first place: these weren't children Your Honor, they were educated competent people with jobs many active in the industry."
Second, you see the same thing happen in regulated investment in start-ups and companies. All the lengths we have gone through, we couldn't prevent this happening over there, not sure if it is doable to do it over here. And no, people aren't punished at the end, they mostly get away with it and most investors don't even pursue it to not to add legal fees to their losses as well. I haven't read any studies about this, just speaking from personal experience. I can look into it or ask the gents I know that might know more for more info later.
But all of this doesn't change the fact that the problem exists. And doesn't change the fact that something should be done about it. I think first step would be public awareness and that can be done by the public. Not about single individual campaign holders, but on hows behind MMORPG development and crowdfunding itself. When public learns about this whole ordeal, they wouldn't be backing all things breathing. Hence crowdfund seekers have to evolve to better with this change. I believe that will happen one way or the other. Things aren't getting worse, things are getting better. And better believe it, if none of the current MMORPGs make it in the next couple of years, future devs can kiss crowdfunding goodbye.
Which is why that story is one of the greatest ever told in terms of morality and the choices men make.
"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
Right now we have a problem with the perspective part here, and none has a solution yet.
True, Dr Manhatten became convinced of the rightness of the solution, but it was clear his assention to god hood had stripped him of his humanity, and as a consequence, no longer viewed actions as right or wrong.
Which was the whole point, many things done for all of the right reasons are inherently wrong, and the line between good and evil can be very blurry at times.
Usually depends on which side you are on.
Seems to be true for some in this debate, if you support the creation of this (or any other) game, it's OK for the Devs to misrepresent the truth, as long as the end result is the delivery of the game.
For critics, its reprehensible for the devs to do so, well unless its a game they want to see built I suppose.
"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
I don't believe it's ever okay for the devs to misrepresent the truth. But many of these delays aren't due to the fact that the devs were deceitful or white-lying their pants off. Problem is, how can we know? Should all campaigns that miss deadlines get punished? That wouldn't work in this industry.
Might make devs be a bit more honest in their projections or at least encourage them to share the more pessimistic projections instead of happy path with a dose of magic tossed in.
CU offers refunds, and yes there are limits, with terms and conditions, but overall by having this policy in place, combined with massive transparency and a willingness to take responsibility for the delays has kept the villagers from storming the castle gates.
"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
FFA refund won't work. You know how people get hyped, right? That goes both ways. Imagine refunds are in order and a wave of refunds hit a project from the less understanding/patient people. Project is going be even running longer than the original plan and now has even less fund.
Meanwhile the loyal backers remain on the ship and by the time they'd give up there would be no monies left for their share of refunds, they'll sink with the ship.
Again, I understand all your dear mates concerns. To be honest, a solution requires a fair amount of work by a large team to study, research, brainstorm and come up with a solution after a year or so. So I'm not saying it cannot be done, but so far, I haven't read anything that would work as a solid solution.
Anything but more information. And I think campaigns have to evolve or they wouldn't be making it anymore. Ashes of Creation is a good example of campaigns moving forward. They had a nice gameplay demo at least. I think that would become the bar for the future campaigns. And if the next one wants to be successful as well, they have to up their game.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This is simple math. Refunds mean losing money out of budget. Delays mean longer duration of development, which might exceeds the original budget. If the store is making more monies than campaign is refunding + extra for the longer development duration, then they'll be fine. But something is amiss. Store means ongoing campaign--which has stretch goals. So what should be done now?
A) Fake stretch goals
C) Personal funds to make up for the difference
D) Cut back on polish/features/whatever in hopes of to patch the problems away post-launch
E) Fail to finish the project
F) Find a new investor
There might be other solutions, I can't think of any though.
I'm not insulting anyone here, but you have to have experience in managing start-ups to realize how fragile everything is and what "losing money" really means. These campaigns are pretty much the same. They are not established companies, doesn't matter how experienced the dev team is. These newly founded companies are infants, learning to walk. The people behind these campaigns are learning and experiencing a lot stuff for the first time, and it ain't freaking easy.
Oh fuck! Yup! You did it! So now the regular "Joe Customer" has to know about Project Management AND running a start-up. Good luck with that fight!
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
----------------
But if we are discussing how crowdfunding campaigns should change into better, and not just shooting the breeze, then yeah. Besides the strong ethics and moral compass many do possess, the solution needs to be viable as well.
Constantine, as you mentioned, there are other ways to find funding. The fact that these projects seem unwilling or unable to receive backing in a more formal manner is already, to put it in RPG terms, lIke starting with a -1 in viability. As such, I find it asinine that we should he content to relax the requirements of such risky projects.
Folks don't know much about startups, because these startups generally aren't advertised to the public for funding. These developers are choosing to forego or supplement those funding attempts by approaching a segment they are well aware they can mislead unlike traditional investors. That's cause for more stringent accountability, not less. Don't ignore the reasoning as to why crowdfunding didn't develop as the traditional way to fund projects. There's good reasons for that, and a lack of accountability is one of them.
As you say, the solution has to be viable.. But when speaking to viability, that doesn't mean that the public has any responsibility to provide that viability beyond pledging their own money. If massive amounts of backers demand refunds because they don't like the way the project is headed, they should be able to withdraw funding. If the believers still wish to get the project completed in spite of the misgivings, then they are free to pledge more to cover that lost cash, are they not? What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished? I submit they have none.
So with that two in mind, you'd realize supporting crowdfunding campaigns isn't for everyone. I think this is the part @CrazyKanuk has been emphasizing in the whole thread. If you are looking for a sure thing, if you want your money to be secured and withdrawn whenever you felt uncomfortable, this can't happen here. But that's common practice. You can't get into a start-up company then later on state that you want your money back because you don't agree with their decisions. Even if they fail to deliver, you can't do anything. Crowdfunding is exactly the same thing, but instead of investing you are making a pledge, and instead of shares you are getting a "thank you" or a return to your favor. Your reward can vary from a literal "thank you!"--as you probably saw on many campaigns is what you get when you donate $5--up to the best way they can return your favor.
I'm not running any of these campaigns. If refunds were mandatory, I could cash back 4 digits from the MMORPGs which made decisions that I don't like. But mandatory refund policy forced upon on these campaigns, would work exactly the same way it would on start-ups.
And let's not forget, all these campaigns are trying to give you some value on your pledge. You are taking a risk: first to help get a project materialize, second to receive that extra *wink* cheaper.
Lastly, I am quoting the last part of your post: "What responsibility does a consumer who no longer wishes to support a project have to backers who do so those can see the project finished? I submit they have none."--well mate, with that approach, what are we even arguing about? Every man for himself then.
If they were able to get funding but chose to KS, then it doesn't relieve the burden to the consumers/funder. Again, in that instance, they chose to go the route and assume the liability of attempting to scrape together thousands of dollars from a fickle, inexperienced group of "investors," of which there is no true consensus opinion. That's not the problem of the consumer, because the consumers aren't pooling their money and trolling for developers to take on the project based upon their own, agreed business proposal; the developers are trolling for consumers to pool their money and provide the means to complete their project.
If accountability means the projects cannot complete development using this means of funding... Well, that's why this isn't the only means of funding these projects.
As I mentioned before, had Torment not been released, the world would still turn, those backers would, presumably, spend their money elsewhere on entertainment, and it would be an unnoticeable blip on the gaming scene's radar. Just because these developers have begun asking the public for money, it doesn't mean the public has any responsibility to ensure they "do their part" to get the project completed.
Besides you cannot compare investors who are looking to make a profit vs a gamer who is making a donation who is not looking to make a profit. Their risk profiles are completely different and a gamer will donate in situations that an investor would not invest. Not to mention the size of the investment vs average donation.
The vast majority of Kickstarter backers are willing to lose that money for the hope they simply get a product that the mainstream developers are not willing to produce. This is what it boils down to. Should there be a better infrastructure where backers own shares? That is worth looking into but not as a replacement for Kickstarter.
I wonder why...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Either you believe it or you don't.
Most companies don't do public financials until they have to, not just in game development. I wish it were otherwise, but wishes never change things.
Sincerely,
Grimm Liberty
He claimed that the Kickstarter was just for seed money and that he was going after real investors. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018