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

13

Comments

  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk
    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!!!

    Only the vacuum cleaner costs $20 to produce, but the manufacturer puts an arbitrary value of $1,000 on it.  The vacuum cleaner is not worth $1,000 it is worth $20.  He will then sell me a hoover bag that can only be used in that vacuum cleaner and which costs $2 to produce.  But he has put an arbitrary value of $200 on the bag.  

    So lucky me, I am getting $1,200 worth of stuff... or wait, am I only getting $22 worth of stuff.  You decide.  

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk
    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!!!

    Only the vacuum cleaner costs $20 to produce, but the manufacturer puts an arbitrary value of $1,000 on it.  The vacuum cleaner is not worth $1,000 it is worth $20.  He will then sell me a hoover bag that can only be used in that vacuum cleaner and which costs $2 to produce.  But he has put an arbitrary value of $200 on the bag.  

    So lucky me, I am getting $1,200 worth of stuff... or wait, am I only getting $22 worth of stuff.  You decide.  

    You know what? You go ahead and fight to good fight and don't buy anything that has any markup on it. I'll check up on you in a couple months to see how you're doing, although the only thing I'll probably find in your apartment is a video game console and a decaying body. 

     

    Also, your assumption that the stuff provided in a crowd funding campaign has no value is completely bogus. It's completely subjective. Also, your analogy of buying $22 worth of stuff for $1200 is completely bogus too. You are more than welcome to buy $22 worth of stuff, take it home and assemble your own vacuum. Have fun with the fires and electrocutions, too. A product isn't a sum of the value of it's parts. If that was the case, then there would be no industry left in North America at all. 

     

    So, please, it's a tired argument. I don't think you have the foggiest idea of what the parts cost of a development house is, either. If you think you do, why don't you go ahead and throw out some numbers. Then try to make your argument why asking for $100K in funding is like asking $100 for $22 worth of parts. So get me to a 5:1 valuation and we'll call it even. 

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

  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk
    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!!!

    Only the vacuum cleaner costs $20 to produce, but the manufacturer puts an arbitrary value of $1,000 on it.  The vacuum cleaner is not worth $1,000 it is worth $20.  He will then sell me a hoover bag that can only be used in that vacuum cleaner and which costs $2 to produce.  But he has put an arbitrary value of $200 on the bag.  

    So lucky me, I am getting $1,200 worth of stuff... or wait, am I only getting $22 worth of stuff.  You decide.  

    You know what? You go ahead and fight to good fight and don't buy anything that has any markup on it. I'll check up on you in a couple months to see how you're doing, although the only thing I'll probably find in your apartment is a video game console and a decaying body. 

     

    Also, your assumption that the stuff provided in a crowd funding campaign has no value is completely bogus. It's completely subjective. Also, your analogy of buying $22 worth of stuff for $1200 is completely bogus too. You are more than welcome to buy $22 worth of stuff, take it home and assemble your own vacuum. Have fun with the fires and electrocutions, too. A product isn't a sum of the value of it's parts. If that was the case, then there would be no industry left in North America at all. 

     

    So, please, it's a tired argument. I don't think you have the foggiest idea of what the parts cost of a development house is, either. If you think you do, why don't you go ahead and throw out some numbers. Then try to make your argument why asking for $100K in funding is like asking $100 for $22 worth of parts. So get me to a 5:1 valuation and we'll call it even. 

    I think you missed the point. 

  • Ket_VilianoKet_Viliano Member UncommonPosts: 271
    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.  

    Crowd funding is neither an investment in expectation of monetary return, nor is it a raw donation with no expectations. It is a contribution to an ongoing effort, and a purchase of early involvement privileges.

    Crowd funding is the best thing to happen to gaming, because control risk is pretty severe in this industry, even more so than most. Control risk is the risk that the Venture Capitalists will take over control of the direction and activity of the project, and ruin the hell out of it, as they do not care for video games, fun, or customers, only the hope of a quick cash grab. Taking investment money means having to constantly communicate with and appease the investor, which is a huge waste of time and effort that could have been put toward the project.

    Why contribute to a crowd funded effort? Because you want to see it happen, to see it turn out the way the founders hope it will.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk
    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!!!

    Only the vacuum cleaner costs $20 to produce, but the manufacturer puts an arbitrary value of $1,000 on it.  The vacuum cleaner is not worth $1,000 it is worth $20.  He will then sell me a hoover bag that can only be used in that vacuum cleaner and which costs $2 to produce.  But he has put an arbitrary value of $200 on the bag.  

    So lucky me, I am getting $1,200 worth of stuff... or wait, am I only getting $22 worth of stuff.  You decide.  

    You know what? You go ahead and fight to good fight and don't buy anything that has any markup on it. I'll check up on you in a couple months to see how you're doing, although the only thing I'll probably find in your apartment is a video game console and a decaying body. 

     

    Also, your assumption that the stuff provided in a crowd funding campaign has no value is completely bogus. It's completely subjective. Also, your analogy of buying $22 worth of stuff for $1200 is completely bogus too. You are more than welcome to buy $22 worth of stuff, take it home and assemble your own vacuum. Have fun with the fires and electrocutions, too. A product isn't a sum of the value of it's parts. If that was the case, then there would be no industry left in North America at all. 

     

    So, please, it's a tired argument. I don't think you have the foggiest idea of what the parts cost of a development house is, either. If you think you do, why don't you go ahead and throw out some numbers. Then try to make your argument why asking for $100K in funding is like asking $100 for $22 worth of parts. So get me to a 5:1 valuation and we'll call it even. 

    I think you missed the point. 

    I think I probably did. You specifically said earlier that it's not an investment and that you support it, but then you go on to say that you're against it? So which is it? Do you support crowd funding or not? If not, then we can continue going for the world record for length of forum post. 

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

  • RandaynRandayn Member UncommonPosts: 904
    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.  

    The material result is the game you invested in.  what's not to understand?  Investment is more than financial

    image
  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by Randayn
    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.  

    The material result is the game you invested in.  what's not to understand?  Investment is more than financial

     

  • RetiredRetired Member UncommonPosts: 744
  • RandaynRandayn Member UncommonPosts: 904
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by Randayn
    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.  

    The material result is the game you invested in.  what's not to understand?  Investment is more than financial

     

    I can see where you are coming from, but it's far from a donation so it's not a pledge.  Although you dont get to keep the company you invested in, many investors don't, with anything.  What you get is the game you decided to fund and all the extra goodies you get at launch that others dont.

     

    Let me restate what I said at the beginning though...it's your choice to do so...if you do not think it is a worthy "investment" then don't fund it.  We all have that choice.

    So why talk bad about companies that use crowd-funding when it's really the most honest way to fund just about anything?

    image
  • PioneerStewPioneerStew Member Posts: 874
    Originally posted by Randayn
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by Randayn
    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.  

    The material result is the game you invested in.  what's not to understand?  Investment is more than financial

     

    I can see where you are coming from, but it's far from a donation so it's not a pledge.  Although you dont get to keep the company you invested in, many investors don't, with anything.  What you get is the game you decided to fund and all the extra goodies you get at launch that others dont.

     

    Let me restate what I said at the beginning though...it's your choice to do so...if you do not think it is a worthy "investment" then don't fund it.  We all have that choice.

    So why talk bad about companies that use crowd-funding when it's really the most honest way to fund just about anything?

    If people want to fund a project in return for the promise of an unfinished product then good luck to them.  My point really was simply that it is in no way a financial investment and the incorrect use of the word in this context may confuse those people who may choose to fund a project and should do so armed with the facts.  

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

    The material result is the game you invested in.  what's not to understand?  Investment is more than financial

     

    I can see where you are coming from, but it's far from a donation so it's not a pledge.  Although you dont get to keep the company you invested in, many investors don't, with anything.  What you get is the game you decided to fund and all the extra goodies you get at launch that others dont.

     

    Let me restate what I said at the beginning though...it's your choice to do so...if you do not think it is a worthy "investment" then don't fund it.  We all have that choice.

    So why talk bad about companies that use crowd-funding when it's really the most honest way to fund just about anything?

    If people want to fund a project in return for the promise of an unfinished product then good luck to them.  My point really was simply that it is in no way a financial investment and the incorrect use of the word in this context may confuse those people who may choose to fund a project and should do so armed with the facts.  

    I didn't say "financial"...I said investment.  but we can agree to disagree on the use of the word

     

    My point I was making was what I reiterated above.

    image
  • ferndipferndip Member UncommonPosts: 67

    Buying into a game that is still in development is a gamble, should be obvious to everyone yet,

    I've seen enough examples of people who buy now & bitch later that they did not read the words "early access"

    Buyer beware.

    Some companies don't seem to need my money (Star Citizen, looking at you) I can wait till release for that.

    Elite dangerous, $75 to play beta now, or $50 to pre-order with no beta access.  hmmm, I want to play that but also I think I can wait.

    Space engineers.... OMG, best $20 early access buy ever! amazing game, with about 300 hours logged in I think I more than got my $20 value there.

    The Repopulation I sunk money into, don't regret it , I like what I have seen so far while playing it. I knew going into it that it was a gamble, that it could go either way in the future (& still can) I like the idea of it, I like the style of game play it has. I wanted to support that game & I did. If I loose money because they fail at finishing the game, I can only really blame myself for giving money away.

    I see metric butt loads of early access games these days, lots of them I want to play but ultimately, yeah.  buyer beware!

    I can't support them all.

     

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,851
    Originally posted by ferndip

    Buying into a game that is still in development is a gamble, should be obvious to everyone yet,

    I've seen enough examples of people who buy now & bitch later that they did not read the words "early access"

    Buyer beware.

    Some companies don't seem to need my money (Star Citizen, looking at you) I can wait till release for that.

    Elite dangerous, $75 to play beta now, or $50 to pre-order with no beta access.  hmmm, I want to play that but also I think I can wait.

    Space engineers.... OMG, best $20 early access buy ever! amazing game, with about 300 hours logged in I think I more than got my $20 value there.

    The Repopulation I sunk money into, don't regret it , I like what I have seen so far while playing it. I knew going into it that it was a gamble, that it could go either way in the future (& still can) I like the idea of it, I like the style of game play it has. I wanted to support that game & I did. If I loose money because they fail at finishing the game, I can only really blame myself for giving money away.

    I see metric butt loads of early access games these days, lots of them I want to play but ultimately, yeah.  buyer beware!

    I can't support them all.

     

    The problem with this system (Star Citizen) is that by the time that game actually does release, there will be many players who are already so heavily "invested", it might as well be P2W.

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

    I can see where you are coming from, but it's far from a donation so it's not a pledge.  Although you dont get to keep the company you invested in, many investors don't, with anything.  What you get is the game you decided to fund and all the extra goodies you get at launch that others dont.

     

    Crowdfunding is close to the old system of patronage (paying an artist in advance  to produce a piece of art to your specifications). It's not an investment. No one is going to invest money in something without getting either a share of  of what they're investing in or a financial return. If you do this it's a gift or interest free loan not an investment.

     

  • HolyAvengerOneHolyAvengerOne Member UncommonPosts: 701
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Randayn
     

    I can see where you are coming from, but it's far from a donation so it's not a pledge.  Although you dont get to keep the company you invested in, many investors don't, with anything.  What you get is the game you decided to fund and all the extra goodies you get at launch that others dont.

     

    Crowdfunding is close to the old system of patronage (paying an artist in advance  to produce a piece of art to your specifications). It's not an investment. No one is going to invest money in something without getting either a share of  of what they're investing in or a financial return. If you do this it's a gift or interest free loan not an investment.

     

    I like that analogy; truly, you cannot be expecting to make money off of a participation in a crowdfunding project. You may get perks and insider stuff and thank you cards, but really, you're helping a piece of something move forward.

  • ShadanwolfShadanwolf Member UncommonPosts: 2,392

    The company is raising funds to finish a very promising game.

    The good news is they are getting closer.....and there will be many more  people in the 24/7 alpha.

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    Originally posted by OhhPaigey

    I don't pay for games that have such an extremely small testing size like this one, and I don't follow them either.

    To me it means the game is going to be trash and it's just getting funded from promises of being a good game.

    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.

    I don't mean to attack this game in particular, it's just a fairly new trend that I strongly dislike, but it seems to be working for some games, so good for them, but I will not and haven't supported a game with a business model like this one.

    Spent $200 on Firefall? Good grief...

    Agree with the rest though. I pre-ordered both Darkfall and Mortal Online and, after the trash those games turned out to be, never again will I pre order or "support" an indy game again.

  • HolyAvengerOneHolyAvengerOne Member UncommonPosts: 701
    Originally posted by Shadanwolf

    The company is raising funds to finish a very promising game.

    The good news is they are getting closer.....and there will be many more  people in the 24/7 alpha.

    I find it extremely interesting how they've managed to deliver and increasingly churn out features and updates while building the game over the last year.

     

    Now I'm curious to see how they will transition from that "Alpha-development" core-features stage to the "Beta-refinement" -- with all the polishing and balancing and the system refining. Its a very different mode, I think, with all the kinks and quirks imaginable, including customer service, load testing, weird bugs, etc.

     

    If they manage to pull it with the same awesomness while making it a PR success, this game will be the home to many many players for a good deal of time, I'm ready to bet :) One thing for sure, I'll be there to see that unfolding!

  • delta9delta9 Member UncommonPosts: 358
    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.

    The game will not be going to early access within a month

    The game is in Alpha right now not Beta

     

    Not sure what your problem is to be honest

  • HolyAvengerOneHolyAvengerOne Member UncommonPosts: 701
    Originally posted by delta9
    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.

    The game will not be going to early access within a month

    The game is in Alpha right now not Beta

     

    Not sure what your problem is to be honest

    Not sure either, but based on how this is going and what they said, both Beta and Steam early-access are coming soon : https://www.therepopulation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6591&p=82228&hilit=steam#p82228.

  • maybebakedmaybebaked Member UncommonPosts: 305
    I just bought access to this game, and even if it tanks, I don't regret it. There are NO games on the horizon, from any major studio, that looks interesting, nothing.   Crowdfunding is the only way we are going to get a game that's unique.  
  • mcast1234mcast1234 Member UncommonPosts: 26
    Originally posted by maybebaked
    I just bought access to this game, and even if it tanks, I don't regret it. There are NO games on the horizon, from any major studio, that looks interesting, nothing.   Crowdfunding is the only way we are going to get a game that's unique.  

    I agree and I'm tempted also, the one thing putting me off is the complete lack of feedback on any boards. It's either plays like a turd and everyone is keeping quiet or it's a pretty good game but very few are playing it. I might just wait for the end of nda.

    I really want this to do what it says on the tin, I'm ready to throw hundreds of bucks at a good sandbox.

  • HolyAvengerOneHolyAvengerOne Member UncommonPosts: 701
    Originally posted by mcast1234
    Originally posted by maybebaked
    I just bought access to this game, and even if it tanks, I don't regret it. There are NO games on the horizon, from any major studio, that looks interesting, nothing.   Crowdfunding is the only way we are going to get a game that's unique.  

    I agree and I'm tempted also, the one thing putting me off is the complete lack of feedback on any boards. It's either plays like a turd and everyone is keeping quiet or it's a pretty good game but very few are playing it. I might just wait for the end of nda.

    I really want this to do what it says on the tin, I'm ready to throw hundreds of bucks at a good sandbox.

    Doubt are perfectly understandable and you can wait next month when the NDA is dropped and videos/livec streams start pouring. I guess we haven't seen more leaks and all that jazz because a lot of the players respect the developers at least half as much as the developers respect them.

  • DarkcrystalDarkcrystal Member UncommonPosts: 963
    Originally posted by Retired
    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.

    You got exclusive perks basically, not a bad deal at all considering platinum subscription will cost about that much.

    your kidding right?? I run a company as an Indie, and i'm also in the industry, this is a bad practice to say your going to do something and you don't.. So your saying I can promise you  this and that for 75 bucks,. and in return I will sell the same thing, nearly, for less? yes I get items but most items that you pay for in games suck, and a lot of company try and sell for less in the future, that was annoys me..

     

    I believe if you say hey you  supported me, I will take care of you, I see indies and AAA's company pull that shit to often, I opened my own company as I could no longer support companys who screw over there player base any longer.

    If you state you are letting someone in  a year later and it happens that does not bother me if I had to wait 4 years that does not bother me.

    But to let people in weeks later than pay way less pisses me off and it horrible business  practice.... So again if you want to make people happy do not let  people in weeks after that pay way less.

     

    I wanted over a year to get in which I had no problem with... Also the whole beta thing, JC stated to me they never did any inviting after Pax, I even send him the email... That was from Josh.. I seen people get invited when our guild was suppose to, so again, DO NOT ask for help from guilds who been around for 16 years just to slap them in the face it makes you look bad!!!

     

    We have supported all indies , but our guild WILL NOT support this game due to this fact since they seem unorganized. Mistakes happen, but learn to take notes ..as I do..

  • JC-SmithJC-Smith Member UncommonPosts: 421

    @DarkCrystal: As I explained to you in a PM, it was unfair to allow a guild to get in a group of people before backers got into the game. Guilds were invited for PAX because we needed them for the siege demo (we invited I believe 6 guilds and they were cycling schedules to battle it out with one another), but the program was suspended not long after that due to complaints from backers who were not yet in testing seeing others get in simply because they were in a guild. There haven't been any guild invites since that program's suspension. There have been buddy key invites for higher end backers, and some of those members surely invited in their guild buddies, but the guild program was put on hold until after all of our backers were first in-game. It will likely be  reinstated at some point before launch. While I can understand guilds being disappointed that they didn't get a guild invite, there were limited slots for PAX, and the alternative Post-PAX to that would have been allowing non-paying customers into testing before paying ones, which would not be fair.

    With regards to the price drop, I don't think any of this should have come as a surprise. We made it clear at PAX this year that all backers would be in by the end of the year and that we would be dropping the threshold as the time went by. While it's unfortunate that some players did not see this and expected to be into testing for a longer period before there were other testers, there are other perks on those levels, alpha access was just one of them. It wasn't so much a price drop as it was a situation where we need X amount of testers in-game right now, dropping the cut off range for alpha increases the number of players who have access.

Sign In or Register to comment.