I think everyone can agree it's fine for a game to change completely, up until the point money exchanges hands. After that point, we may disagree...
Once a company sells their product (whether it is on KickStarter, Steam early access, or whatever), I think they have a duty to honor their word. If they're no longer able to deliver on their promises, or decide to make changes, that's fine too, BUT you must be willing to offer refunds.
I would say that's the huge issue with kickstarter. It's really a double-edged sword.
Especially if most of the game isn't made yet.
Developers ask for money and then once they get it they develop and over time they see certain things don't work so they cut/change them.
Then the players go nuts because they gave money for something else.
Sort of like publishers who back a game and want to make an investment but then see the developers taking the game in a different direction where they might not make their money back.
I certainly hope some players see the irony.
That is why some of us don't pay until they have a released product and we can see if we like it or not.
Which is an entirely valid option and probably the most intelligent choice for those who are hard-lined on their stance about "exact" publication dates.
Meanwhile, I'm 40 bucks into dozens of in-development games and none the worse for my spending. Things will finish when they finish, and meanwhile I've got dozens of other games I'm playing in the meantime.
Yeah, but in your case one motivation for funding so many efforts is to keep tabs on the competition, probably can be written off as a business expense.
My guess is Joe average gamer doesn't fund near as many titles and does expect a return on their pledge.
It is not unreasonable for them to expect what they believe they paid for, and to me a "finished" game within the promised timeline (if there was one) is grounds for a refund if not met.
Refunds for specific features not so much, unless significant, say if you guys decided open world, FFA PVP was the only way to go forward.
There are gray areas, many SotA backers expected a FFA PVP game a la UO pre-Trammel which they clearly have yet to receive.
Now I can't tell if their expectations were reasonable, many say not, but if that was promised even by vague inference then they are justified in rejecting the change.
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
If a dev studio says during KS, "we ARE going to have X in our game at launch", and if they don't have that feature at launch, what are you saying should be the consequences? Nothing?
um "yes".
You are not paying for a thing, you are funding a project. Those projects change all the time.
THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TO KICKSTARTER!
If you don't understand what you are giving money to then you should not do it.
I write and compose (among other things). I (sadly and hopefully for the better) change the parts of my work all the time. I've removed characters, changed instrumentation, changed the scope of projects because while working on them I realized it had to change.
That's what creative work is about.
But people seem to turn off their brains and think (in this case) they are buying games with x features when they are really funding a project that is "aiming" to include these features.
This is not to say that every developer is responsible or great at what they do or great at project management.
But you can't complain about something that never was what you think it was.
What part didn't I understand in my example? It seems pretty straight forward to me. They said "X would be in at launch", nothing about "aiming" to include these features.
Yes, you're funding a project, but under specific conditions set by the dev studio.
If the example studio had said "aiming", then sure there is no guarantees, but sadly that is typically not how these things are presented during crowdfunding.
This is unfortunately a huge issue with trying to sell "anything".
At the time they make their pitch, they fully intend on including "x". Then, over time things change and they realize "x" really needs to be "y" or "x" needs to change because of "z".
This is just reality. It reminds me of little kids screaming "YOU PROMISED".
I'm pretty sure that a good many parents made promises only to realize those promises had to be altered.
In the end a dose of "let the buyer beware" is in order.
What they "should" do is make their pitch but include a disclaimer that any portion of the game/design might change over the course of development.
If they don't include that then that is negligent on the developers part. It still doesn't let the buyer off the hook.
Do your research, know what you are getting into, always be willing to accept "worse case scenario" and if one can't then don't give money.
Players are not excused from being adults/responsible for their money.
I agree.
And yes, with any crowdfunded game, there's always the risk that the developers will be negligent and run off with everyone's money. So definitely don't make a gamble you aren't willing to lose. Because it is a gamble.
At the same time, it doesn't mean we as gamers have to find it acceptable when a company deceives it's backers. Or think of it as a "GOOD" thing, as the article implies.
The post in no way, shape, or form implies that it is a good thing for companies to deceive their customers.
What it does say is that certain players need to understand the fact that in-development games change over the course of the years they are in development, that nothing is set in stone, that even post-launch an MMORPG can change, and people should treat those iterative processes and evolutionary changes like they do their spouse changing their hair style or color.
A design concept changing over time is not deceitful; it's the same thing as your spouse saying "I want to grow my hair out".
Still the same spouse. Just a slightly different look.
Yeah, I'm completely fine with that.
The point I've been to make, is if something IS presented to backers as being set in stone, it needs to either be delivered as promised or other agreeable arrangements need to be made (such as refunds for example). To do other wise, is unacceptable business practices IMO.
The thing is, I don't see how something like a crowdfunding platform for a video game can ever be set in stone.
The best thing for possible backers (at this point as this isn't new, we know the pitfalls) is to always assume that everything is subject to change.
Which is why I'm 40 dollars into multiple games without having an issue of when they come out, or what features may have evolved from the original pitch.
I'm a gamer. I love playing games. All games.
I also understand that crowdfunded games are subject to change between my time of backing and the time of publiation. That's a given; developers don't have to specifically state it to me, as I fully understand that I'm backing an idea for a game, not an actual, finished product. And ideas will absolutely change over time, and should, as more data is plugged into the equations.
I also know that MMORPGs change over time, so I'm never upset when a game like EQ2 changes combat, or EQ1 added AA, or when LOTRO went F2P (I was a wee bit sad about that one, but upset? Not in the least. Still a great game that I enjoy playing).
I'll go one step further ...
I gave to the System Shock remaster.
If people aren't aware, there was a kickstarter from a company to remaster System Shock. They exceeded their asking "price" by quite a bit (over a million if I remember correctly).
Since it wasn't making a new game but just sprucing it up for modern audiences I figured they had more than enough to achieve their goal.
Except, the guy in charge started to lose track of what they were doing and started (in his words) making a new game.
They blew through their money and had to put the project on hiatus, then let people go in order to then (supposedly?) move forward.
Am I mad? Am I rushing to forums venting my frustration and anger? No. I expressed my displeasure in a reasonably phrased post and that was that.
As I have said before, there are no guarantees and such projects are a bit of a gamble. If one can't go in with that in mind they shouldn't be giving to a kickstarter.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Using Saga of Lucimia as an example, would you consider the idea that there will be servers with PvE only (ones that don't allow full-loot open world PvP) available at launch, as being set in stone?
Say you bought one of their $1,000 pledge packages based on that crowdfunding promise. If a year later, Renfail were to announce they will have only PvP servers (much like their April fools video), what then? You're now stuck with a game that has changed so much from what was advertised. Everyone would find that acceptable?
I'm not joking when I say that if one gives to a crowd funding project they need to be fine with the worst outcome.
Because, in your example, a "worst outcome for my $1000" is that I give it and the game doesn't come out.
What if they can't deliver on that pve promise? What if things went awry and the only game they could create was a fully pvp game?
Point is moot because that was never their aim to begin with and if they can't give a pve experience they sure as heck don't have a pvp experience to offer since they haven't been working on it.
If you give money to any crowdfunding venture you MUST be ok with that venture changing or failing. It's not ideal and any company that completely changes the thrust/direction of their project should offer refunds. But worst case scenario in every one of these things is that it doesn't come out.
If you are giving $1000 expecting guarantees then you are doing it wrong. Also, I question why anyone would when they can take that $1000 and put it in their retirement fund. But that's just a difference in priorities. If someone has the money to, say, blow through 1k every weekend as part of their weekend spending then it's a non issue and if they want to give that money then fine. As long as they are ok with the game not coming out.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Yeah, but in your case one motivation for funding so many efforts is to keep tabs on the competition, probably can be written off as a business expense.
My guess is Joe average gamer doesn't fund near as many titles and does expect a return on their pledge.
I've always been deep into gaming, and have always preferred to spend my money there (and on travel) as opposed to eating out and etc. I've typically spent a mimimum of 1000 dollars per year on various titles, MMO subs, and etc.
But I'm not gonna lie....one of the biggest "bonuses" to get into game development four years ago was that my primary hobby was suddenly tax deductable for reasons of research and development and beyond
Comments
Yeah, but in your case one motivation for funding so many efforts is to keep tabs on the competition, probably can be written off as a business expense.
My guess is Joe average gamer doesn't fund near as many titles and does expect a return on their pledge.
It is not unreasonable for them to expect what they believe they paid for, and to me a "finished" game within the promised timeline (if there was one) is grounds for a refund if not met.
Refunds for specific features not so much, unless significant, say if you guys decided open world, FFA PVP was the only way to go forward.
There are gray areas, many SotA backers expected a FFA PVP game a la UO pre-Trammel which they clearly have yet to receive.
Now I can't tell if their expectations were reasonable, many say not, but if that was promised even by vague inference then they are justified in rejecting the change.
"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 gave to the System Shock remaster.
If people aren't aware, there was a kickstarter from a company to remaster System Shock. They exceeded their asking "price" by quite a bit (over a million if I remember correctly).
Since it wasn't making a new game but just sprucing it up for modern audiences I figured they had more than enough to achieve their goal.
Except, the guy in charge started to lose track of what they were doing and started (in his words) making a new game.
They blew through their money and had to put the project on hiatus, then let people go in order to then (supposedly?) move forward.
Am I mad? Am I rushing to forums venting my frustration and anger? No. I expressed my displeasure in a reasonably phrased post and that was that.
As I have said before, there are no guarantees and such projects are a bit of a gamble. If one can't go in with that in mind they shouldn't be giving to a kickstarter.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Because, in your example, a "worst outcome for my $1000" is that I give it and the game doesn't come out.
What if they can't deliver on that pve promise? What if things went awry and the only game they could create was a fully pvp game?
Point is moot because that was never their aim to begin with and if they can't give a pve experience they sure as heck don't have a pvp experience to offer since they haven't been working on it.
If you give money to any crowdfunding venture you MUST be ok with that venture changing or failing. It's not ideal and any company that completely changes the thrust/direction of their project should offer refunds. But worst case scenario in every one of these things is that it doesn't come out.
If you are giving $1000 expecting guarantees then you are doing it wrong. Also, I question why anyone would when they can take that $1000 and put it in their retirement fund. But that's just a difference in priorities. If someone has the money to, say, blow through 1k every weekend as part of their weekend spending then it's a non issue and if they want to give that money then fine. As long as they are ok with the game not coming out.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
But I'm not gonna lie....one of the biggest "bonuses" to get into game development four years ago was that my primary hobby was suddenly tax deductable for reasons of research and development and beyond