Howdy, Stranger!

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

Any one else a little annoyed

24

Comments

  • OhhPaigeyOhhPaigey Member RarePosts: 1,517
    Before I go, no you didn't, I have an account from 2011 that was in beta the day I signed up, and another in 2012 that got invited within 2 weeks. I signed up to the beta for this game over 1 year ago rofl.
    When all is said and done, more is always said than done.
  • PalaPala Member UncommonPosts: 332

    Wasteland 2, Divinity Original Sin, Shadowlands returns, SpaceRun, Warframe, Spacecom, War Thunder, Banished, Xenonauts -that is what I played this year. 

    Hmmm seems like without crowdfunding I would be in trouble, so thank you to the backers and testers etc.

     

  • MarlonBMarlonB Member UncommonPosts: 526
    Originally posted by OhhPaigey

    There are a ton of ways to fund a project, you don't have to have players pay for strict access to help test your game unless you don't think they will continue supporting/playing your game once they've tried it out themselves.

     

    Problem is if you have suits invest in your game, they will also make the decissions for you. The repopulation has been clear from the beginning that they don't want any suits to mess with their vision. They do take inspiration from the crowd though.

    Look at how SWG got destroyed, i'm convinced it was a suit's decission, not the development team.

     

    Sleep tight.

  • CaldrinCaldrin Member UncommonPosts: 4,505
    Originally posted by OhhPaigey
    Before I go, no you didn't, I have an account from 2011 that was in beta the day I signed up, and another in 2012 that got invited within 2 weeks. I signed up to the beta for this game over 1 year ago rofl.

    What do you mean no you didnt? didnt what? You could pay to get instant access to the Path Of Exile beta, you did not just get beta access of coruse other perks as well but they made a ton of cash from doing that. I am sure you could get lucky and get invited anyway but after a few months of closed testing they did open it up.

    You do know The Repopulation is not in Beta yet so signing up for beta over a year ago is fine and all that but Beta has not started yet so you really cant be surprised you are not in the Beta test yet because its not started.

  • Ket_VilianoKet_Viliano Member UncommonPosts: 271
    Originally posted by OhhPaigey
    Originally posted by MarlonB
    Originally posted by OhhPaigey

    If you have a good game and it's already well funded, like this one has been, you shouldn't have to nickle & dime everybody who wants to play.

    --

    A game like Firefall was in beta for years, and I was invited to their beta, nearing 3 years ago, I didn't pay 1 cent to get invited, and a few weeks later I spent $200 on it.

     

     

    Well .. FireFall (8 years development, in Beta for 4 years) had a guestimated budget of 30 MILLION.

    Repop raised 200K in last kickstarter and 50K in the first. This funded 3 years of development so far and has produced an alpha with twice the complexity and features Firefall has. Would they have had 30Mil of funding, i'm sure they wouldn't do the crowdfunding (which is very time consuming ).

    That's great, but I was talking a corrupt business practice.

    At the very least games that don't need to crowdfund had an idea/base game design that was worth a company risking $30 million to invest into, and didn't have to nickle & dime players to even have access to test their game for them, for free, which before this whole era people got paid for, now people pay access to test a game for a company.

    If you didn't like Firefall you didn't have to play, but there were mass invites to people who just even signed up to their website over the beta testing period.

    If I signed up to Firefall 4 years ago I probably would've been invited within a few months max, played it, and either kept playing or moved on without a loss, and this was done because they didn't have to crowdfund, what you posted on the forums and what you did to support the game without your $ is what increased your chances of getting invited, not what Kickstarter package you paid for ahead of time.

    I couldn't say the same about this game, sorry.

    Again, if the end product turns out great, then awesome, you can call me a cynic. We just clearly don't agree on whether or not selling access to test their game for them (and other games who does this too) is a good or bad thing.

    Nothing is more corrupt than standard corporate business practice.

    Devs have been known to sleep under their desks, only to be let go when the game goes live. Devs get paid diddly squat and do all the work in chaotic mismanaged environments, for years, only to see top management and investors take all the money. There is a reason why everyone is going indy, it's a better deal for the laborers.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by Darkcrystal

    I hardly ever post and I been a huge fan of this game. I gave them 75 bucks to support them and to get in early, I found out that its going to early access in a month so what was the point to get into beta for a few weeks early, when we all paid a few years ago, or a year ago, or what ever.

     

    I find that to be annoying... What was the point.? Also they did invite guilds to test, that never got to test when asked, I plan to still play, but it considers me that they seem disorganized a bit.. Delays happen thats the industry, but a few weeks? cmon, I feel like that was s lap in the face, I got over 20 people to support them and everyone of us got slapped in the face if we would of known this we could of waited..

     

    Also the whole guild thing when they asked on twitche and then screwed people  over and invited there buddy guilds instead, I have seen other indies do this as well, I eneded upquiting the game, when some company play favorites.  Anyways, wanted to post to let the devs know what they did was wrote, and I hardly ever post about this stuff ever.

    First of all, I also supported them. However, I supported them for entirely different reasons. I want an option to be involved with the in-game politics, I want the bonuses I get with my early involvement. I place much more value on all these elements than the early invitation. 

     

    Unfortunately, it sounds like your priorities were much different. My suggestion would be not to back a game solely for the chance to gain early access. It'll probably be a let down more often than not, and it's almost never going to give you the value you're looking for, since they wipe data before release anyway. 

     

    Secondly, you should have received access to the game by now, correct? If not, then I'd bring this up since it's supposed to be an immediate invite to anyone over the $50 pledge mark. 

     

    Third, this is still in Alpha. It's not in beta. It's not going Open Beta. There is still probably a good 6-months to a year before this is even ready for public consumption. There's plenty to still be done. 

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

  • RetiredRetired Member UncommonPosts: 744
  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,141


    To answer your question with a question.

     

    I thought the point was to support the games development, not just so you can get in nice an early?

    Getting in early for however much time that is, is just a perk, a bonus to support the game.  Don't turn it into a me thing.  This is one of the few kickstarter games that has made it all the way to fruitation.  Its a huge accomplishment compared to most crowd funded games. 

    And the guy did it on a shoe string budget.

  • RandaynRandayn Member UncommonPosts: 904

    Crowd funding is a form of investment strategy where WE are the investors.  When you invest in something, it would be wise to research who is making it, what they've made before, what product they are planning.  After that, calculate the likelihood of success and then make a decision.

    After you've made that decision, realize that it is yours...don't throw it at anyone else or try to call the company corrupt, liars or anything else that might convince you it's not your fault for choosing to invest.

    The only entity that's ever had the power to force someone to do something is government, so remember that when you choose to invest in any private market/company, it's at your own risk.  

    As for crowd funding, it's the best thing that has happened to gaming.  BUT!!!!!!!!!!  refer to what I said above before delving into it.

    image
  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by Randayn

    Crowd funding is a form of investment strategy where WE are the investors.  When you invest in something, it would be wise to research who is making it, what they've made before, what product they are planning.  After that, calculate the likelihood of success and then make a decision.

    After you've made that decision, realize that it is yours...don't throw it at anyone else or try to call the company corrupt, liars or anything else that might convince you it's not your fault for choosing to invest.

    The only entity that's ever had the power to force someone to do something is government, so remember that when you choose to invest in any private market/company, it's at your own risk.  

    As for crowd funding, it's the best thing that has happened to gaming.  BUT!!!!!!!!!!  refer to what I said above before delving into it.

    Only that it isn't an investment because there is no return.  You are basically gifting a company money so that they can profit off you without any of the risks usually involved in a venture of this type- the mind genuinely boggles as to why people do this.  

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,851
    Originally posted by MarlonB
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by OhhPaigey
    Originally posted by MarlonB
    Originally posted by OhhPaigey

    If you have a good game and it's already well funded, like this one has been, you shouldn't have to nickle & dime everybody who wants to play.

    --

    A game like Firefall was in beta for years, and I was invited to their beta, nearing 3 years ago, I didn't pay 1 cent to get invited, and a few weeks later I spent $200 on it.

     

     

    Well .. FireFall (8 years development, in Beta for 4 years) had a guestimated budget of 30 MILLION.

    Repop raised 200K in last kickstarter and 50K in the first. This funded 3 years of development so far and has produced an alpha with twice the complexity and features Firefall has. Would they have had 30Mil of funding, i'm sure they wouldn't do the crowdfunding (which is very time consuming ).

    That's great, but I was talking a corrupt business practice.

    At the very least games that don't need to crowdfund had an idea/base game design that was worth a company risking $30 million to invest into, and didn't have to nickle & dime players to even have access to test their game for them, for free, which before this whole era people got paid for, now people pay access to test a game for a company.

    If you didn't like Firefall you didn't have to play, but there were mass invites to people who just even signed up to their website over the beta testing period.

    If I signed up to Firefall 4 years ago I probably would've been invited within a few months max, played it, and either kept playing or moved on without a loss, and this was done because they didn't have to crowdfund, what you posted on the forums and what you did to support the game without your $ is what increased your chances of getting invited, not what Kickstarter package you paid for ahead of time.

    I couldn't say the same about this game, sorry.

    Again, if the end product turns out great, then awesome, you can call me a cynic. We just clearly don't agree on the fact that selling access to test their game for them (and other games who does this too) is a good or bad thing.

    I agree.

    Crowd funding and paid early access are crap practices and part of the problem of why we have such a shitty selection of online games.

    I am a fan of the old SWG and hope this game brings that back, but I won't support it until AFTER it releases.

     

    You are blaming the indies for the shitty selection of games, how about those well funded titles with millions behind them?

    I think the big difference is that games with big budgets will usually go the safe route and create rehashes of other succesfull games. At least the Indies will try to make something new, something different. And yeah, probably many of them are crap or not up your alley ... but it's that 1 game that makes it all worth it. These indies only have a chance when supported by the gaming community.

     

     

    No, I'm not just blaming indies. Actually, I'm not really blaming Indies at all. I think it's the crowd funding systems themselves that are broken. I also said "early access" which has been the tactic used by AAA studios lately for early cash grabs.

    While I agree, that crowd funding creates an avenue to develop games that might not otherwise be developed, the issue is that the legitimate users will soon be drowned out by less scrupulous ones.

    The system is inherently flawed in that it's too easy to get a hold of funds with little accountability. 

    That aside, not all games made by Indies are better.

  • RandaynRandayn Member UncommonPosts: 904
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by Randayn

    Crowd funding is a form of investment strategy where WE are the investors.  When you invest in something, it would be wise to research who is making it, what they've made before, what product they are planning.  After that, calculate the likelihood of success and then make a decision.

    After you've made that decision, realize that it is yours...don't throw it at anyone else or try to call the company corrupt, liars or anything else that might convince you it's not your fault for choosing to invest.

    The only entity that's ever had the power to force someone to do something is government, so remember that when you choose to invest in any private market/company, it's at your own risk.  

    As for crowd funding, it's the best thing that has happened to gaming.  BUT!!!!!!!!!!  refer to what I said above before delving into it.

    Only that it isn't an investment because there is no return.  You are basically gifting a company money so that they can profit off you without any of the risks usually involved in a venture of this type- the mind genuinely boggles as to why people do this.  

    As with any investment, crowd funding is a potential for return, not a guarantee.  The return is a game you've longed to have been made.

    You invest so that they can make the game.  If you ask me, The Repopulation has impressed me the most out of any other crowd funding based gaming developer.  One glance on their website will tell you the same.  I wanna know who the crazy dude is that writes the "War and Peace" length patch notes every month....I think the patch note writer deserves a raise :P.  They are VERY proactive and haven't missed a month with their newsletters.  

    If I were to invest in any crowd funder, it would be this game and only because from the research I've done, you are dealing with a very experienced and dedicated team of developers.

    image
  • RandaynRandayn Member UncommonPosts: 904

     

     

    No, I'm not just blaming indies. Actually, I'm not really blaming Indies at all. I think it's the crowd funding systems themselves that are broken. I also said "early access" which has been the tactic used by AAA studios lately for early cash grabs.

    While I agree, that crowd funding creates an avenue to develop games that might not otherwise be developed, the issue is that the legitimate users will soon be drowned out by less scrupulous ones.

    The system is inherently flawed in that it's too easy to get a hold of funds with little accountability. 

    That aside, not all games made by Indies are better.

    There is more accountability to be had in crowd funding than any other.  You are asking hard working people that don't always have a plethora of funds to invest in their idea.  If it fails, the consequences are disastrous....might as well find a new profession.

    But, it's up to the investors to hold them accountable...just like any other investment.

    image
  • RandaynRandayn Member UncommonPosts: 904
  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by Randayn
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by Randayn

    Crowd funding is a form of investment strategy where WE are the investors.  When you invest in something, it would be wise to research who is making it, what they've made before, what product they are planning.  After that, calculate the likelihood of success and then make a decision.

    After you've made that decision, realize that it is yours...don't throw it at anyone else or try to call the company corrupt, liars or anything else that might convince you it's not your fault for choosing to invest.

    The only entity that's ever had the power to force someone to do something is government, so remember that when you choose to invest in any private market/company, it's at your own risk.  

    As for crowd funding, it's the best thing that has happened to gaming.  BUT!!!!!!!!!!  refer to what I said above before delving into it.

    Only that it isn't an investment because there is no return.  You are basically gifting a company money so that they can profit off you without any of the risks usually involved in a venture of this type- the mind genuinely boggles as to why people do this.  

    As with any investment, crowd funding is a potential for return, not a guarantee.  The return is a game you've longed to have been made.

    You invest so that they can make the game.  If you ask me, The Repopulation has impressed me the most out of any other crowd funding based gaming developer.  One glance on their website will tell you the same.  I wanna know who the crazy dude is that writes the "War and Peace" length patch notes every month....I think the patch note writer deserves a raise :P.  They are VERY proactive and haven't missed a month with their newsletters.  

    If I were to invest in any crowd funder, it would be this game and only because from the research I've done, you are dealing with a very experienced and dedicated team of developers.

    No, there is no capital appreciation- it is not investment.   

  • RandaynRandayn Member UncommonPosts: 904

    No, there is no capital appreciation- it is not investment.   

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    image
  • iridescenceiridescence Member UncommonPosts: 1,552
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

    ^ Exactly this.  It is important that people understand they are not making an investment.  

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,851
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

    ^ Exactly this.  It is important that people understand they are not making an investment.  

    But I can also see where some of the promises for crowdfunders could be seen* as an investment. You give $xxx.xx and in return, when the game launches you will get an exclusive dohickey in the game. Sure it's no financial investment, but there is a hopeful return on an entertainment value.

    I just think it's far too risky and it's too easy for any well intended developer to give in to temptation with OPM....actually, it's not even OPM at that point.

     

    * What I mean by seen is that the donator feels like they will get a return.

  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

    ^ Exactly this.  It is important that people understand they are not making an investment.  

    But I can also see where some of the promises for crowdfunders could be seen as an investment. You give $xxx.xx and in return, when the game launches you will get an exclusive dohickey in the game. Sure it's no financial investment, but there is a hopeful return on an entertainment value.

    If you go by the wider definition of investment- but when it comes to crowd funding people are using it in a financial sense- in which case it is a long long way from being an investment.  

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,851
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

    ^ Exactly this.  It is important that people understand they are not making an investment.  

    But I can also see where some of the promises for crowdfunders could be seen as an investment. You give $xxx.xx and in return, when the game launches you will get an exclusive dohickey in the game. Sure it's no financial investment, but there is a hopeful return on an entertainment value.

    If you go by the wider definition of investment- but when it comes to crowd funding people are using it in a financial sense- in which case it is a long long way from being an investment.  

    Well, yes, the "investment" is more from a perspective and not a true definition. 

     

    Well, it really doesn't matter to me anyway. I won't do it. 

    I'll pay for released games that are proven........PERIOD.

  • HardcodedHardcoded Member UncommonPosts: 97
    I have backed the game, I am playing the game, and I am in no way disappointed. The only game that ever caught my full attention was SWG, and this game does a damn good job of bringing back that feeling, even in it's alpha state.
  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

    ^ Exactly this.  It is important that people understand they are not making an investment.  

    But I can also see where some of the promises for crowdfunders could be seen as an investment. You give $xxx.xx and in return, when the game launches you will get an exclusive dohickey in the game. Sure it's no financial investment, but there is a hopeful return on an entertainment value.

    If you go by the wider definition of investment- but when it comes to crowd funding people are using it in a financial sense- in which case it is a long long way from being an investment.  

    Well, yes, the "investment" is more from a perspective and not a true definition. 

     

    Well, it really doesn't matter to me anyway. I won't do it. 

    I'll pay for released games that are proven........PERIOD.

    Likewise.  If my local vacuum cleaner manufacturer asked me to fund his factory, and in return I would get a hoover while he kept all of the profit he earned off the back of my money, I would tell him to sod off.  

    I don't understand why people find it acceptable for game manufacturers to do this.  

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,478
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

    ^ Exactly this.  It is important that people understand they are not making an investment.  

    But I can also see where some of the promises for crowdfunders could be seen as an investment. You give $xxx.xx and in return, when the game launches you will get an exclusive dohickey in the game. Sure it's no financial investment, but there is a hopeful return on an entertainment value.

    If you go by the wider definition of investment- but when it comes to crowd funding people are using it in a financial sense- in which case it is a long long way from being an investment.  

    Well, yes, the "investment" is more from a perspective and not a true definition. 

     

    Well, it really doesn't matter to me anyway. I won't do it. 

    I'll pay for released games that are proven........PERIOD.

    Likewise.  If my local vacuum cleaner manufacturer asked me to fund his factory, and in return I would get a hoover while he kept all of the profit he earned off the back of my money, I would tell him to sod off.  

    I don't understand why people find it acceptable for game manufacturers to do this.  

    Because:

    Fandom and common sense don't necessarily go hand in hand image

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn

      

    You are leaving out the other half of the definition "material result"

     

    in·vest

     

    in?vest/
    1.

     

     

    expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.

     

     

    If it was an investment you'd own part of that "material result". Crowdfunding is not investment anymore than pledging to a public television pledge drive is investment. It's a donation in return for a promise of something cool which may or may not ever actually exist.

     

    I'm a big advocate of crowdfunding but think its very important that people lose this wrongheaded idea that they're investing in something. There's really no accountability beyond the people's word.

    ^ Exactly this.  It is important that people understand they are not making an investment.  

    But I can also see where some of the promises for crowdfunders could be seen as an investment. You give $xxx.xx and in return, when the game launches you will get an exclusive dohickey in the game. Sure it's no financial investment, but there is a hopeful return on an entertainment value.

    If you go by the wider definition of investment- but when it comes to crowd funding people are using it in a financial sense- in which case it is a long long way from being an investment.  

    Well, yes, the "investment" is more from a perspective and not a true definition. 

     

    Well, it really doesn't matter to me anyway. I won't do it. 

    I'll pay for released games that are proven........PERIOD.

    Likewise.  If my local vacuum cleaner manufacturer asked me to fund his factory, and in return I would get a hoover while he kept all of the profit he earned off the back of my money, I would tell him to sod off.  

    I don't understand why people find it acceptable for game manufacturers to do this.  

    What if a local vacuum cleaner mfg. who was creating a brand new product line which vacuumed your entire house, upstairs and downstairs, on a schedule and you never had to do anything EVER!!!! For $100. That vacuum would actually retail for $1000, but you're getting a deal. Plus he'll give you one for your friends too. Oh! And he'll only keep your money if he gets enough to make all the necessary upgrades to his factory. 

     

    What you don't remember is that you get returns. You're throwing money behind something that you WANT. Something innovative or something nostalgic, or something you want. You're getting it at a reduced price compared to retail. Oh, and it's guaranteed!! Just like Prestige Worldwide!!!

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

Sign In or Register to comment.