Howdy, Stranger!

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

Need further proof the Kick Starter idea is dumb founded?

1235»

Comments

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by Jemcrystal

    Pretty much it.

     

    With convenience comes risks, as the general public tends to love being sheep to convenience.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,919
    You have to laugh, I wonder when the banks will start a kickstarter to help them shed their bad debt?
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris
     

     

    The weird thing in KS it changes the relationship between producer and consumer, as well. Because when players now are bank rolling a game, they would expect more in the relationship than just producer/consumer. If I hired a programmer to make me a custom ap, I'm now an employer. At that stage I expect certain results done, at a certain time, and with a finish date. KS doesn't offer that, yet they essentially want players to be their employers and bypassing the legalities of hiring employees (which with the Rent-a-Programmer sites automatically file for you, especially when project fees go beyond $1,000). That's the stuff that really blurs the line when Warner Bros enters the foray.

    If I wanted to really make an argument against Warner Bros. and the like getting involved in crowdfunding it would be that they are shifting all the risk on to the backer/consumer but if the movie does well they will make all the profit. Of course that could be said of any Kickstarter but when it's a megacorporation doing it it bothers me a little more.

     

    At the same time I could see someone saying "Well I really want to see this movie and it's never gonna get made if I don't back it."

     

    It's a complicated 2 sided issue.

     

     

     

    It's not a complicated issue.  Warner Bros. said, "No".  The actors and fans raised the money so they could pay Warner Bros. to produce the movie.

     

    Warner Bros. is a subsidiary of Time Warner.  They produce and have produced hundreds of television shows.  They said "No" because it's not worth their time to produce a niche movie for a niche audience that even if it does well isn't going to make much money.  It may not even make back what it costs to produce it, which is why WB didn't want to do it.  Unless of course it costs them nothing and they can generate a lot of good will with their target audience.  They have no interest now, or ever, going to Kickstarter to raise money for television shows or movies because they have access to millions of dollars for that sort of thing to make millions of dollars in revenue.  They would only need Kickstarter for the projects that aren't likely to make any money at all, which they have no interest in doing.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by iridescence

    Oh look...more straw man arguments like these anti-Kickstarter posts always seem to have because all Kickstarters and crowdfunding is exactly the same right!?

     

    Even if those two Kickstarters are bad it doesn't prove anything about Kickstarter in general. You may as well say "I went shoping and I got ripped off at a store! Shopping is bad and a scam!"

     

    [mod edit]

     

    Not a good analogy.

    Kickstarter is a gamble, shopping isn't. Getting ripped off in a store is a crime.

    Actualy it's a pretty good analogy. Since most peoples goal in shopping is not to simply walk out with some product, any product in hand, for any price but to walk out with a product that suits thier needs well for a price that provides good value for the money. I've walked out of retail stores with plenty of products that were absolutely worthless. I've sat through movies or dinners where I've thought "Well there goes 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back, let alone the money I paid."

    If getting "ripped off" in a store were a crime, there are a rather significant number of stores that couldn't continue to operate.  For most consumers, the operable difference between walking away with nothing and walking away with something completely worthless is nil.

    The same sort of skills that one uses to try to determine that one uses to try to prevent getting ripped off in a store (brand reputation, trusted reccomdations, product demonstration) are applicable to sites like K.S.

    Note that out and out "Fraud" in KS is as much a crime as it is in a retail store....the law makes no distinction between donations, investment and puirchases in that regard. "Attempting to gain money under false pretenses" is the operable application of criminal fraud. KS would actualy make it "Wire Fraud" since e-mail/internet would be involved. 

  • VutarVutar Member UncommonPosts: 939
    I'm not sure why OP is upset really. Unless someone is taking his money and using it for KS, why does it matter? People do stupid things with their money all the time. So why is it that only Kickstarter seems to upset you?
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    What that 2 KS proves is that it is possible to hand over money and get nothing in KS, while that never happens in a store.

    Good example of why KS is not something i will ever spend a dime in ... now if you want to gamble your $$$, i am not going to stop you.

    You can easily get something at a store that's not at all what you thought it was. Some stores may take it back most won't. You think scams and crap products  didn't exist before crowdfunding? Buyer beware.

     

     

    So? At least the product exists, and you have no one to blame if you dont open, and inspect it.

    KS does not even guarantee the existence of a product .. HUGE difference.

     

    The operable difference between getting no product and getting a product that was worthless/useless is going to be nil for most consumers. I guess with a worthless product you get the joy of throwing away the shrink-wrap. Most retail stores do not allow the consumer to open the packaging and inspect most products before purchase....so that's out. It doesn't even apply to a large range of entertainment products.... e.g. You are not allowed to see a movie for free before paying for the movie. You may be able to see a promotional trailer on the internet, but the same applies to many KS projects.

     

     

  • NadiaNadia Member UncommonPosts: 11,798
    Originally posted by whisperwynd

    We may disagree with ethics and/or morality of it but in the end, it's people willing to give money. No matter the cause, project, or charity. It's OURS to give.

    Why let something so trivial like who gives money to whom get to us? 

    agree

  • DelficDelfic Member UncommonPosts: 23
    Ks is about investing. Rule #1 when investing. You may lose your money. Period.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Delfic
    Ks is about investing. Rule #1 when investing. You may lose your money. Period.

     

    Technically, donating.  The money should be written off as a loss as soon as it gets debited from your account.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Delfic
    Ks is about investing. Rule #1 when investing. You may lose your money. Period.

     

    Technically, donating.  The money should be written off as a loss as soon as it gets debited from your account.

     

    This is correct. If it were about investing then your prime goal would be to make a financial return on your money.  The prime goal in KS is to help a project that you deem worthwhile come into existance and possibly gain access to it.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832

    The main people upset with KS are the major Publishers and Development Houses since it breaks the virtual monopoly that they had over the production of products. Yes, they MAY be able to utilize it to some degree as well but this places thier products in competition for consumer dollars with alot of other producers that wouldn't be able to have products on the market otherwise.

    This is similar to the dynamic big record labels had with thier fury of digitialy downloaded muisic. Their real issue wasn't as much about piracy as that they had a virtual monopoly over the means of mass distribution of muisic. When digital distribution came along, that monoply disappeared and they suddenly found themselves in competition for consumer dollars with a whole world of competitors that could never afford to breach the barrier to entry for mass distribution of muisic in traditional means. It didn't even matter that many of these artists might not be all that great or would have large audiences...because in agregatel they had a large enough to dilute some of the large labels sales.

     

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,905
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    The main people upset with KS are the major Publishers and Development Houses since it breaks the virtual monopoly that they had over the production of products. Yes, they MAY be able to utilize it to some degree as well but this places thier products in competition for consumer dollars with alot of other producers that wouldn't be able to have products on the market otherwise.

    This is similar to the dynamic big record labels had with thier fury of digitialy downloaded muisic. Their real issue wasn't as much about piracy as that they had a virtual monopoly over the means of mass distribution of muisic. When digital distribution came along, that monoply disappeared and they suddenly found themselves in competition for consumer dollars with a whole world of competitors that could never afford to breach the barrier to entry for mass distribution of muisic in traditional means. It didn't even matter that many of these artists might not be all that great or would have large audiences...because in agregatel they had a large enough to dilute some of the large labels sales.

     

    I can't buy that comparison to the music industry and distribution. In that case, you don't have to take anything on trust or buy a promise: you know what you get when you buy a track from an indy musician through iTunes or whatever other means. You can preview it or have already heard it and know you like it.

     

    The problem with KS always has been and always will be that it requires you to take a leap of faith with usually nothing tangible in return for months or years.

     

    Donation of your disposable income really is the only rational way to look at it. Anything else is just fooling yourself.

     

    The best RL comparison is really just donating money to your church, an NGO, or a panhandler. 

    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

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

     

    It's not a complicated issue.  Warner Bros. said, "No".  The actors and fans raised the money so they could pay Warner Bros. to produce the movie.

     

    Warner Bros. is a subsidiary of Time Warner.  They produce and have produced hundreds of television shows.  They said "No" because it's not worth their time to produce a niche movie for a niche audience that even if it does well isn't going to make much money.  It may not even make back what it costs to produce it, which is why WB didn't want to do it.  Unless of course it costs them nothing and they can generate a lot of good will with their target audience.  They have no interest now, or ever, going to Kickstarter to raise money for television shows or movies because they have access to millions of dollars for that sort of thing to make millions of dollars in revenue.  They would only need Kickstarter for the projects that aren't likely to make any money at all, which they have no interest in doing.

     

    Well I think it is a complicated issue. You've summarized one side of the argument very well but what's to stop WB from just saying they won't pay for a niche movie if they think the fans will Kickstart it? They get free publicity and free money. If the Kickstarter fails and they really want to make the movie they can just "change their minds". It coud even be seen as a sleazy way of holding the fans hostage. "You love this right? Well give us money if you ever want to see this movie!" Some definitely not very nice psychology going on there.

     

    The possibility for this kind of abuse exists and it's not using crowdfunding the way it was intended. I'm afraid it could drive people away from backing projects that really do need the money.

     

  • DeathageDeathage Member CommonPosts: 146

    as some smartie pants in your first link quoted: "a fool and his money are soon parted" 

    are many of the applicants to kickstarter not worth the money? yes. are some worth it? yes.

    time to move on. let individuals waste their money on frivolous projects, but also allow the good ones to get their 15 minutes of fame

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    What that 2 KS proves is that it is possible to hand over money and get nothing in KS, while that never happens in a store.

    Good example of why KS is not something i will ever spend a dime in ... now if you want to gamble your $$$, i am not going to stop you.

    You can easily get something at a store that's not at all what you thought it was. Some stores may take it back most won't. You think scams and crap products  didn't exist before crowdfunding? Buyer beware.

     

     

    So? At least the product exists, and you have no one to blame if you dont open, and inspect it.

    KS does not even guarantee the existence of a product .. HUGE difference.

     

    The operable difference between getting no product and getting a product that was worthless/useless is going to be nil for most consumers. I guess with a worthless product you get the joy of throwing away the shrink-wrap. Most retail stores do not allow the consumer to open the packaging and inspect most products before purchase....so that's out. It doesn't even apply to a large range of entertainment products.... e.g. You are not allowed to see a movie for free before paying for the movie. You may be able to see a promotional trailer on the internet, but the same applies to many KS projects.

     

     

    If you can see and touch the product before buying it .. how can it be worthless?

    Do you buy worthless stuff? I don't .. and i won't in a retail store. It is not possible if you open the item and take a look. Even if you cannot open it, look at a floor sample.

    And movies have reviews of the FINAL products. Are there reviews of the FINAL product in KS?

     

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077
    Originally posted by Deathage

    time to move on. let individuals waste their money on frivolous projects, but also allow the good ones to get their 15 minutes of fame

    It comes down to this: if a publisher couldn't get the monies to develop the game in the first place, how do you think they can manage the game and even be committed in keeping it going?

     

    Blizzard was committed when they began over extended credit cards. Their motivation to excel was driven by the PERSONAL debt load. Throw out trash as a game = no money to pay off the debt.

     

    KS doesn't offer that incentive to make quality games, it's just a sinkhole for giving away money, and with no commitment from either party.

     

    A YOLO service.

  • SirPKsAlotSirPKsAlot Member Posts: 224

    In my inbox today.

     

    On Wednesday night, law enforcement officials contacted Kickstarter and alerted us that hackers had sought and gained unauthorized access to some of our customers' data. Upon learning this, we immediately closed the security breach and began strengthening security measures throughout the Kickstarter system.

    No credit card data of any kind was accessed by hackers. There is no evidence of unauthorized activity of any kind on your account.

    While no credit card data was accessed, some information about our customers was. Accessed information included usernames, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and encrypted passwords. Actual passwords were not revealed, however it is possible for a malicious person with enough computing power to guess and crack an encrypted password, particularly a weak or obvious one.

    As a precaution, we strongly recommend that you change the password of your Kickstarter account, and other accounts where you use this password.

    To change your password, log in to your account at Kickstarter.com and look for the banner at the top of the page to create a new, secure password. We recommend you do the same on other sites where you use this password. For additional help with password security, we recommend tools like 1Password and LastPass.

    We’re incredibly sorry that this happened. We set a very high bar for how we serve our community, and this incident is frustrating and upsetting. We have since improved our security procedures and systems in numerous ways, and we will continue to do so in the weeks and months to come. We are working closely with law enforcement, and we are doing everything in our power to prevent this from happening again.

    Kickstarter is a vibrant community like no other, and we can’t thank you enough for being a part of it. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. You can reach us at [email protected]

    Thank you,

    Yancey Strickler
    Kickstarter CEO

    image
    Currently playing: Eldevin Online as a Deadly Assassin

  • iridescenceiridescence Member UncommonPosts: 1,552
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris
     

    It comes down to this: if a publisher couldn't get the monies to develop the game in the first place, how do you think they can manage the game and even be committed in keeping it going?

     

    Because I would pretty much only ever back a game with professional devs who had experience and a reputation to uphold. Not a 100% guarantee but completely messing up a KS project wouldn't look very good on their resume.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris
     

    It comes down to this: if a publisher couldn't get the monies to develop the game in the first place, how do you think they can manage the game and even be committed in keeping it going?

     

    Because I would pretty much only ever back a game with professional devs who had experience and a reputation to uphold. Not a 100% guarantee but completely messing up a KS project wouldn't look very good on their resume.

     

    Why would you pay for something that is not even be 100% guaranteed to be produced?

    We are not talking about risking the game not as good as you think .. or that there are bugs. We are talking about the game may not even be made.

    But again, it is your prerogative to risk your money on frivolous things. Personally, i think experience dev with a reputation should be able to get their funding from investors. If not, i am not risking MY money on their projects.

     

  • GoldenArrowGoldenArrow Member UncommonPosts: 1,186

    Every idea has some bad seeds.

    HEX TCG was kickstarted and I've spent 100hrs+ playing the alpha with just one set of cards.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     

    It's not a complicated issue.  Warner Bros. said, "No".  The actors and fans raised the money so they could pay Warner Bros. to produce the movie.

     

    Warner Bros. is a subsidiary of Time Warner.  They produce and have produced hundreds of television shows.  They said "No" because it's not worth their time to produce a niche movie for a niche audience that even if it does well isn't going to make much money.  It may not even make back what it costs to produce it, which is why WB didn't want to do it.  Unless of course it costs them nothing and they can generate a lot of good will with their target audience.  They have no interest now, or ever, going to Kickstarter to raise money for television shows or movies because they have access to millions of dollars for that sort of thing to make millions of dollars in revenue.  They would only need Kickstarter for the projects that aren't likely to make any money at all, which they have no interest in doing.

     

    Well I think it is a complicated issue. You've summarized one side of the argument very well but what's to stop WB from just saying they won't pay for a niche movie if they think the fans will Kickstart it? They get free publicity and free money. If the Kickstarter fails and they really want to make the movie they can just "change their minds". It coud even be seen as a sleazy way of holding the fans hostage. "You love this right? Well give us money if you ever want to see this movie!" Some definitely not very nice psychology going on there.

     

    The possibility for this kind of abuse exists and it's not using crowdfunding the way it was intended. I'm afraid it could drive people away from backing projects that really do need the money.

     

     

    People keep characterizing the Veronica Mars movie as Warner Bros. going to Kickstarter to raise money for a movie that they could have paid for out of their slush fund.  That is not what happened.  Warner Bros. is not the evil empire trying to take money out of peoples' pockets.  Warner Bros. agreed to produce a movie in spite of the fact that they didn't want to do it.  The fans wanted the movie.  The fans got the movie.  Not only that, it's going to get nationwide distribution.  This is the kind of thing that Kickstarter exists to do.  Since the characterization of what happened is the opposite of what actually happened, it is a pretty simple issue.

     

    As far as WB doing something like what has been characterized in the future, the amounts of money are so small they aren't going to bother.  Profit may be profit, but when a company is part of a many billion dollar movie empire, five million dollars isn't going to attract much attention.  Besides, they can make many millions more dollars by creating shell corporations to hide movie revenue and show movies making far less money than they actually make.  People who think they are going to bother with a chump change operation like Kickstarter have absolutely no idea what they are capable of doing to make money without having to worry at all about bad publicity or getting tripped up by fraud allegations.

     

    At least wait for some evil genius to actually corrupt Kickstarter before calling it an evil geniuses' playground.  It's been five years.  Maybe in another five years someone will come along and the events that people are so afraid of will actually happen.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

Sign In or Register to comment.