blamo2000 said: 2) Do you think publishers that forced game developers to release buggy games because they missed milestones and went over-budget were doing the right thing?"
I'm going to take the unpopular view and side with the publishers and say Yes, in most cases they were probably correct.
Developing software for resale is no different than any other commercial endeavour, the projected potential revenues and profits from engaging in the effort has to exceed the estimated total cost plus continuing operating expenses.
Games are not hobbies, and unless you are spending your own funds should be treated like any business, from sandwich shops to making airplanes.
I'm sure you are thinking of games like Vanguard or WAR in your query, and for both it became clear they had been badly mis-estimated and were well behind schedule and over budget.
If its your money to manage, you have to decide, how much more money will have to be invested to reach thel end state? Remember, you are getting the revised estimates from the same people who haven't done very well so far, so you likely pad anything they give by 20% or more. They likely already padded it by a similar factor.
Likely not the first rodeo for these exes and they probably gave the same excuses and lies when they sat on the other side.
So the choice becomes, continue the burn rate for some amount of time with no guarantee of recovering additional expense, or shove out the door knowing the preorders and initial buying frenzy will recoup most of the development cost.
There is no guarantee giving these same folks all the time in the world will deliver a game that is any better, as SotA has already shown, because you know, that burn rate impacts every developer large or small.
Unless of course you can keep the money rolling in like SC does, but its a special phenomenon, and much like WOW was, we aren't likely to ever see the story repeat in terms of crowd funding.
Especially if SC is anything but the most amazing, error free, and incredible game ever created in the history of mankind.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So many "expert investors" here. I'm certainly not one, but I find myself wondering if there is any other investment area where this is even a consideration. Is it common for "real investors" to demand their money back?
This seems to me like a very foreign concept in the investment world.
So many "expert investors" here. I'm certainly not one, but I find myself wondering if there is any other investment area where this is even a consideration. Is it common for "real investors" to demand their money back?
This seems to me like a very foreign concept in the investment world.
REal investors "own" a share of the endeavour. They expect to get paid dividends. I can't think of any country in which they are not entitled to accurate reports that provide information on how the company is doing and usually providing false reports carried penalties including fines and jail time. Sometimes companies are fined as well and investors paid money. And yes investors have been known to sue.
So many "expert investors" here. I'm certainly not one, but I find myself wondering if there is any other investment area where this is even a consideration. Is it common for "real investors" to demand their money back?
This seems to me like a very foreign concept in the investment world.
Besides pretty much all forms of investment including venture, traditional banks, rich arab oil sheiks, and in some cases your smarter relatives?
Even stocks, bonds, and investment funds require a prospectus and regular filings
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
Again. You are not following along. If you do not give a date obviously you cannot be held accountable to a date. But people giving you money are doing so knowing this. If you do give a date then you need some accountability to that date.
As you said, you would not give money to 90% of the projects you backed if they didn’t have a date. IMHO this is why companies put dates out that they know they will not reach. There are no repercussions to missing the date.
So if game development is too hard to forecast then don’t throw a useless date out there just to get people to give you money.
Its a fairly simple concept.
Not being able to be held accountable isn't accountability. Why are you against accountability?
More information, not less, equals more transparency and accountability and sane, reasonable people being able to make better decisions.
Hiding information is not good. I want access to the budget. I want access to all PPE. I want access to everything. If I have access, and I see how funds will be budgeted, and I can tell if the project manager believes in magic, has experience, and how risky contributing to the game will be.
Lets break this down to the core issue and you just say yes or no to the following two questions -
1) Do you believe potential funders of a game should have information hidden from them, like budgeting and release dates?
2) Do you think publishers that forced game developers to release buggy games because they missed milestones and went over-budget were doing the right thing?
You still seem to be unable to grasp this concept. The claim is that some/most developers cannot accurately give a date. So, knowing that... they should not give one. Giving a date that they have no confidence in, or know to be wrong... is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst. If someone wants to give money for a product with no estimated delivery date, well... assuming that person is an adult.. that is their choice. As you yourself stated, you would not do that and I think most people won't. Conversely, if a developer states a date, then they need to deliver reasonably close to what they say or there should be some penalty/opt out for the customer. This is the 3rd time at least I am explaining it to you so I hope you now understand the difference. I will not explain it again.
What is important is that people on both sides do what they say they will do.
Hate to tell you this but even big businesses promise things they can't deliver. Every new airplane order that Boeing gets is ALWAYS shipped well after the delivery date expressed at the time of the order. It all comes down to how the contract is written. Even if you had something in writing, it still doesn't mean you're golden. Because they have clauses to protect them from a myriad of things that still gets them off the hook.
By your definition, Boeing should be sued on an hourly basis for failing to meet their delivery timeframes. They failed to meet them for decades and will continue to fail to meet them because they are just that backlogged.
And yet it has NEVER stopped them from taking still more new orders.
No, but Boeing has production accountability checks all the way up to the Board of Directors, so that example works against your point. Crowd Funding platforms have virtually no accountability checks in the loosest of systems. We don't need to kneejerk to draconian measures but we do need to explore better accountability checks for the greater health of the crowdfunding platform.
They may have production accountability checks but they have always missed ship dates. Always. The thing that saves them is that a lot of orders end up being cancelled, so in the end, planes get shipped, but only by virtue that orders are cancelled.
I have ZERO sympathy for any idiot that participates in crowd funding. I don't care if it's a game or a Tesla... you're gambling with your money that something will come of it. You don't own stock in the company. You aren't on the Board of Directors. You aren't on the payroll. You're just some smuck that tossed a few dollars at them.... and I do mean a few dollars because when we're talking millions in revenue, you're pittance of an offering is just that, pittance.
You want a new car? Wait for it to be on the lot for sale. You want a new computer game? Wait for it to be on the shelf to buy. That sort of business WARRANTS safeguards to the consumer because they purchased the item IN GOOD FAITH and the product was delivered IN GOOD FAITH at the moment money exchanged hands. You want to play philanthropist with your money... realize that most philanthropist do so with disposable income. People seem to think that they are buying something off of Amazon when they participate in crowd funding. No, you aren't purchasing a damn thing. You are giving someone your money in hopes that THEY can profit from it. If it happens, you MAY get something in return. If you want absolutes, you buy things like normal people do.
I think your intent and goal is admirable, but objectively speaking, triggering refunds would probably kill a project. We need to be careful about punitive measures because most projects have a hard time with success dealing with "life". If we start penalizing then good struggling projects will die.
In an earlier post I suggested a milestone strategy which would require preliminary disclosure and lock funds to completion milestones. Milestones are concept most every developer is familiar with. Software PMs are intimately familiar with them. Coordinating and linking funds to milestones would provide incentive to meet goals accurately.
I realize there is frustration with past and present projects but we can't blindly castigate everyone and take that out on them. The goal here isn't to punish projects, but to provide constraints and help get foundering projects back on track.
The idea of "gate reviews" for KS stuff has merit imo.
Gate reviews are used in business / industry. The name of the process varies slightly by country but the idea is well laid down: clear a set of criteria before being allowed to move on to the next stage or get the next chunk of funding from whichever company or government body is paying.
Someone - however - would have to do the review. Do you leave it to the company behind the project; would KS, Indiegogo etc. do them; an independent auditor?
The "appeal" of crowdfunding was that it could raise money in a way that by-passed the "traditional" methods. Stuff basically put in place to protect investors in response to "bad apples" that ripped people off. If crowdfunding projects start to "not deliver" - and it won't take many - funds will dry up and/or there will be calls for "something". No surprise therefore that Indiegogo has sent in the debt collectors recently.
blamo2000 said. "Lets break this down to the core issue and you just say yes or no to the following two questions -
1) Do you believe potential funders of a game should have information hidden from them, like budgeting and release dates?"
No, potential funders should be told how the game will be fully funded, given a realistic timeline based on known assumptions, risks or issues and the probability on these coming to pass.
If the plan is to use the initial funds to build a POC to show and sell to investors then say so, along with how these investors will be identified and engaged and note that if unsuccessful what are the contingency plans including a date the towel will be tossed in and any remaining funds disbursed if other specific funds aren't obtained.
It's not enough to have a plan which basically resorts to "we'll just keep trying to bleed the customer base for further donations until it no longer works."
Its nice conversing with someone having the ability to read, comprehend, and reply to actual points and direct questions.
I agree with your statements. More information is always, always a better answer than less information or hiding information.
Instead of replying by quoting your second post, which would take up half a page, I'll say I also agree.
But, if game financing specialists (Publishers) who have developers sign very specific and detailed contracts on budgeting, milestones, features, etc, can't even get developers to meet deadlines when they actually have all the information, and a lot more experience in deciding if a game development project manager is competent or not, what value is any of the information a dev gives customers regarding these items?
Now, I would get 100% behind my own authoritarian idea of a new law for all crowd funding devs being forced to publish a detailed, full budget (including a projected release date) for how exactly the funds would be allocated if the project hits minimal funding. And then be forced to submit an updated budget if they hit extra funding goals. And a promise they will stick to the budget as best as possible.
This will cut down on a lot of the young foolishness I see in a lot of the games I backed fall apart because of, like the devs spending all the funding money on fancy new offices, or equipment way too nice to be needed to make the shitty graphics game I backed. Or taking trips all the time to meet and work with their team members in different countries. Etc.
But, again, the games I back because I want them are almost all exclusively very niche crpg indy games I most likely would still back even if their submitted budget was a crayon drawing of cat eating dog shit. I see it as me investing in my future. Even if I don't get the game I contributed to, I am helping crpg devs get experience and one day they may make a game that I play the shit out of. My law idea would, of course, help me enormously in deciding what Fig games to invest in that I have no interest in playing, but can potential make a much higher return at lower risk than I can through any other temporary vehicles like bonds or cd laddering.
So many "expert investors" here. I'm certainly not one, but I find myself wondering if there is any other investment area where this is even a consideration. Is it common for "real investors" to demand their money back?
This seems to me like a very foreign concept in the investment world.
REal investors "own" a share of the endeavour. They expect to get paid dividends. I can't think of any country in which they are not entitled to accurate reports that provide information on how the company is doing and usually providing false reports carried penalties including fines and jail time. Sometimes companies are fined as well and investors paid money. And yes investors have been known to sue.
Think I caught all the real world points.
I agree with transparency and accuracy, It just seems strange to me that video game kickstarter and other similar "investor" sites appear to have lost sight of the purpose: investments. Do other categories at Kickstarter have this "Give me my money back!" outrage? I don't know as I'm not an investor.
Investments carry no guarantees, as many backers seem to think. They are built on risk. The projects state, "This is what we want to do. Will you giveus money to try?" Some people here seem to forget this.
Now, I'm not saying oversight needs to be ignored and I'd like to see transparency and accountability with the money raised. This "missing release dates" seems to be a non-issue as long as work is progressing. Much different from fraud, which has laws in place already.
What I see here, more often than not, are "victims" crying to their governments to protect them from themselves. I could be wrong, but that's what I see.
The games will just lie about the release date then change it as needed. It doesn't matter at all.
I wish I could do that at my job.
So do we all.
Problem is, developers have decided they can do just that as long as they are the boss of their own company. What was once a source of pride, project estimations, is put to the wayside as a more and more lenient customer is willing to open their wallet. In that case, business ethics be damned. There's no government in the world, nor any regulation they can pass that will prevent people from spending their money unwisely.
At least with the panhandler by the interstate exit, you can look them in the eye.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
So many "expert investors" here. I'm certainly not one, but I find myself wondering if there is any other investment area where this is even a consideration. Is it common for "real investors" to demand their money back?
This seems to me like a very foreign concept in the investment world.
REal investors "own" a share of the endeavour. They expect to get paid dividends. I can't think of any country in which they are not entitled to accurate reports that provide information on how the company is doing and usually providing false reports carried penalties including fines and jail time. Sometimes companies are fined as well and investors paid money. And yes investors have been known to sue.
Think I caught all the real world points.
I agree with transparency and accuracy, It just seems strange to me that video game kickstarter and other similar "investor" sites appear to have lost sight of the purpose: investments. Do other categories at Kickstarter have this "Give me my money back!" outrage? I don't know as I'm not an investor.
Investments carry no guarantees, as many backers seem to think. They are built on risk. The projects state, "This is what we want to do. Will you giveus money to try?" Some people here seem to forget this.
Now, I'm not saying oversight needs to be ignored and I'd like to see transparency and accountability with the money raised. This "missing release dates" seems to be a non-issue as long as work is progressing. Much different from fraud, which has laws in place already.
What I see here, more often than not, are "victims" crying to their governments to protect them from themselves. I could be wrong, but that's what I see.
First to focus on the "crying to their governments". The ruling was about pre-orders not crowdfunding. If you go to a store or go online and place a pre-order I strongly suggest that you to would be "crying" if you did not get what you had paid for.
Now as to how this relates to crowdfunding.
One issue is the confusion caused by companies that have started to use crowdfunding to replace internal funding. What they are doing - in essence - is using a crowdfunding platform to advertise and sell pre-orders and saving money at the same time. Which also relates to companies that achieve their crowdfunding goals, get themselves organised and then "sell" "pre-orders" to raise further funds.
Pre-orders / sales not investments.
In this context the requirement for companies to be able to stand behind release dates cannot be a bad thing.
If they don't know, if "there are risks" "there are no gurantees" - all the things you say - then, surely, what they should be saying is "we don't know". Make it clear. If they don't know then a release date is basically a deception. Which should have consequences. (And to reiterate what I have said before an estimated date - for crowdfunding certainly - doesn't have to be 100% accurate but it should be credibile.)
The games will just lie about the release date then change it as needed. It doesn't matter at all.
I wish I could do that at my job.
So do we all.
Problem is, developers have decided they can do just that as long as they are the boss of their own company. What was once a source of pride, project estimations, is put to the wayside as a more and more lenient customer is willing to open their wallet. In that case, business ethics be damned. There's no government in the world, nor any regulation they can pass that will prevent people from spending their money unwisely.
At least with the panhandler by the interstate exit, you can look them in the eye.
While there's no government that can prevent people from spending their money unwisely, the government could give everyone right to refunds once the estimation has been missed, or possibly right to refund once deadline has been missed by X.
The way I see it, the aim is not to prevent stupidity or unrealistic deadlines, it's to make sure that they aren't good business strategy and let free market do the rest.
The entire notion of a pre-order is that you're ordering a game that no one knows when it will truly be done. A court order can't make that knowledge magically materialize. To punish companies for guessing wrong would be an implicit tax of sorts on pre-orders, or perhaps force companies to nominally launch when the game is obviously not ready. Nothing good comes of that.
Then again, not much good comes of pre-orders, anyway.
Well some countries are making it so you can't use words like "soon"
The games will just lie about the release date then change it as needed. It doesn't matter at all.
I wish I could do that at my job.
So do we all.
Problem is, developers have decided they can do just that as long as they are the boss of their own company. What was once a source of pride, project estimations, is put to the wayside as a more and more lenient customer is willing to open their wallet. In that case, business ethics be damned. There's no government in the world, nor any regulation they can pass that will prevent people from spending their money unwisely.
At least with the panhandler by the interstate exit, you can look them in the eye.
While there's no government that can prevent people from spending their money unwisely, the government could give everyone right to refunds once the estimation has been missed, or possibly right to refund once deadline has been missed by X.
The way I see it, the aim is not to prevent stupidity or unrealistic deadlines, it's to make sure that they aren't good business strategy and let free market do the rest.
I'd rather the government curtail this 'free money' culture that crowdfunding has fostered. Bring in the SEC (and similar agencies in other countries) to separate the concepts of 'donations' and 'investments'. The lines are already drawn, and regulations in place for charities and businesses. Crowdfunding seems to be trying to operate between the two, making these efforts seem more like panhandlers than not. There are laws against panhandling, but I've yet to see independent agencies (like churches or Sally Struthers) begging for charity for game developers. A philanthropist isn't the recipient of their own efforts.
Moving these crowdfunding efforts into existing categories under the law protects the consumer, both at the 'donor' level and 'investor' level, defining the rights and responsibilities for all parties.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The games will just lie about the release date then change it as needed. It doesn't matter at all.
I wish I could do that at my job.
So do we all.
Problem is, developers have decided they can do just that as long as they are the boss of their own company. What was once a source of pride, project estimations, is put to the wayside as a more and more lenient customer is willing to open their wallet. In that case, business ethics be damned. There's no government in the world, nor any regulation they can pass that will prevent people from spending their money unwisely.
At least with the panhandler by the interstate exit, you can look them in the eye.
While there's no government that can prevent people from spending their money unwisely, the government could give everyone right to refunds once the estimation has been missed, or possibly right to refund once deadline has been missed by X.
The way I see it, the aim is not to prevent stupidity or unrealistic deadlines, it's to make sure that they aren't good business strategy and let free market do the rest.
I'd rather the government curtail this 'free money' culture that crowdfunding has fostered. Bring in the SEC (and similar agencies in other countries) to separate the concepts of 'donations' and 'investments'. The lines are already drawn, and regulations in place for charities and businesses. Crowdfunding seems to be trying to operate between the two, making these efforts seem more like panhandlers than not. There are laws against panhandling, but I've yet to see independent agencies (like churches or Sally Struthers) begging for charity for game developers. A philanthropist isn't the recipient of their own efforts.
Moving these crowdfunding efforts into existing categories under the law protects the consumer, both at the 'donor' level and 'investor' level, defining the rights and responsibilities for all parties.
Sorry for the lol
But I just got a flashback from Sally Struthers whining in a commercial all about those self learning courses that you would see on a book of matches
The games will just lie about the release date then change it as needed. It doesn't matter at all.
I wish I could do that at my job.
So do we all.
Problem is, developers have decided they can do just that as long as they are the boss of their own company. What was once a source of pride, project estimations, is put to the wayside as a more and more lenient customer is willing to open their wallet. In that case, business ethics be damned. There's no government in the world, nor any regulation they can pass that will prevent people from spending their money unwisely.
At least with the panhandler by the interstate exit, you can look them in the eye.
While there's no government that can prevent people from spending their money unwisely, the government could give everyone right to refunds once the estimation has been missed, or possibly right to refund once deadline has been missed by X.
The way I see it, the aim is not to prevent stupidity or unrealistic deadlines, it's to make sure that they aren't good business strategy and let free market do the rest.
I'd rather the government curtail this 'free money' culture that crowdfunding has fostered. Bring in the SEC (and similar agencies in other countries) to separate the concepts of 'donations' and 'investments'. The lines are already drawn, and regulations in place for charities and businesses. Crowdfunding seems to be trying to operate between the two, making these efforts seem more like panhandlers than not. There are laws against panhandling, but I've yet to see independent agencies (like churches or Sally Struthers) begging for charity for game developers. A philanthropist isn't the recipient of their own efforts.
Moving these crowdfunding efforts into existing categories under the law protects the consumer, both at the 'donor' level and 'investor' level, defining the rights and responsibilities for all parties.
Sorry for the lol
But I just got a flashback from Sally Struthers whining in a commercial all about those self learning courses that you would see on a book of matches
Sally probably wasn't the best choice of examples there. But it got a reaction.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I think it's a step in the right direction. Though for me it doesn't make a difference. Not a big fan of pre-ordering and don't expect to start anytime soon. I understand why people do it, I'd just never recommend it.
So many "expert investors" here. I'm certainly not one, but I find myself wondering if there is any other investment area where this is even a consideration. Is it common for "real investors" to demand their money back?
This seems to me like a very foreign concept in the investment world.
REal investors "own" a share of the endeavour. They expect to get paid dividends. I can't think of any country in which they are not entitled to accurate reports that provide information on how the company is doing and usually providing false reports carried penalties including fines and jail time. Sometimes companies are fined as well and investors paid money. And yes investors have been known to sue.
Think I caught all the real world points.
I agree with transparency and accuracy, It just seems strange to me that video game kickstarter and other similar "investor" sites appear to have lost sight of the purpose: investments. Do other categories at Kickstarter have this "Give me my money back!" outrage? I don't know as I'm not an investor.
Investments carry no guarantees, as many backers seem to think. They are built on risk. The projects state, "This is what we want to do. Will you giveus money to try?" Some people here seem to forget this.
Now, I'm not saying oversight needs to be ignored and I'd like to see transparency and accountability with the money raised. This "missing release dates" seems to be a non-issue as long as work is progressing. Much different from fraud, which has laws in place already.
What I see here, more often than not, are "victims" crying to their governments to protect them from themselves. I could be wrong, but that's what I see.
First to focus on the "crying to their governments". The ruling was about pre-orders not crowdfunding. If you go to a store or go online and place a pre-order I strongly suggest that you to would be "crying" if you did not get what you had paid for.
Now as to how this relates to crowdfunding.
One issue is the confusion caused by companies that have started to use crowdfunding to replace internal funding. What they are doing - in essence - is using a crowdfunding platform to advertise and sell pre-orders and saving money at the same time. Which also relates to companies that achieve their crowdfunding goals, get themselves organised and then "sell" "pre-orders" to raise further funds.
Pre-orders / sales not investments.
In this context the requirement for companies to be able to stand behind release dates cannot be a bad thing.
If they don't know, if "there are risks" "there are no gurantees" - all the things you say - then, surely, what they should be saying is "we don't know". Make it clear. If they don't know then a release date is basically a deception. Which should have consequences. (And to reiterate what I have said before an estimated date - for crowdfunding certainly - doesn't have to be 100% accurate but it should be credibile.)
Thank you for the clarification (again). I apologize for my lack comprehension. I just got my head stuck on Kickstarter and couldn't get off that track. My apologies
The games will just lie about the release date then change it as needed. It doesn't matter at all.
As long as they offer refunds to those who ask for them when they do so, great.
Why would they do anything like that when you were stupid enough to invest your money in the first place? It's just like any other investment... you may lose your shirt.
How many years has SC been in development now? 5? 6? Can you imagine if 5-6 years ago they said our launch date will be in 10 years? No one would ahve invested a dime.
How many years has SC been in development now? 5? 6? Can you imagine if 5-6 years ago they said our launch date will be in 10 years? No one would ahve invested a dime.
Yep. But they'd also have to give quality to get people to play and keep them. They'd have to innovate. When they have to invest their own money, they have to do more to succeed. I know Bioware eventually sold out, but do you think they got to where they were by just caving to be like everyone else? No, of course not. They became known as one of the greatest RPG companies of all time BECAUSE they wanted to succeed, not get players to pay them early for products they know will fail or are boring.
Think about it. All the best products started by investment from the company. Imagine if car companies had people pay their own money to test out air bags. Do you think that's actually a good idea? Game companies are getting away with behaviors that no other company would be able to do. It has to stop somewhere.
Comments
blamo2000 said:
2) Do you think publishers that forced game developers to release buggy games because they missed milestones and went over-budget were doing the right thing?"
I'm going to take the unpopular view and side with the publishers and say Yes, in most cases they were probably correct.
Developing software for resale is no different than any other commercial endeavour, the projected potential revenues and profits from engaging in the effort has to exceed the estimated total cost plus continuing operating expenses.
Games are not hobbies, and unless you are spending your own funds should be treated like any business, from sandwich shops to making airplanes.
I'm sure you are thinking of games like Vanguard or WAR in your query, and for both it became clear they had been badly mis-estimated and were well behind schedule and over budget.
If its your money to manage, you have to decide, how much more money will have to be invested to reach thel end state? Remember, you are getting the revised estimates from the same people who haven't done very well so far, so you likely pad anything they give by 20% or more. They likely already padded it by a similar factor.
Likely not the first rodeo for these exes and they probably gave the same excuses and lies when they sat on the other side.
So the choice becomes, continue the burn rate for some amount of time with no guarantee of recovering additional expense, or shove out the door knowing the preorders and initial buying frenzy will recoup most of the development cost.
There is no guarantee giving these same folks all the time in the world will deliver a game that is any better, as SotA has already shown, because you know, that burn rate impacts every developer large or small.
Unless of course you can keep the money rolling in like SC does, but its a special phenomenon, and much like WOW was, we aren't likely to ever see the story repeat in terms of crowd funding.
Especially if SC is anything but the most amazing, error free, and incredible game ever created in the history of mankind.
Uh....yeah...not the way to bet.
"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
This seems to me like a very foreign concept in the investment world.
VG
Think I caught all the real world points.
Even stocks, bonds, and investment funds require a prospectus and regular filings
OK, not loan sharks, you got me there.
"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 have ZERO sympathy for any idiot that participates in crowd funding. I don't care if it's a game or a Tesla... you're gambling with your money that something will come of it. You don't own stock in the company. You aren't on the Board of Directors. You aren't on the payroll. You're just some smuck that tossed a few dollars at them.... and I do mean a few dollars because when we're talking millions in revenue, you're pittance of an offering is just that, pittance.
You want a new car? Wait for it to be on the lot for sale. You want a new computer game? Wait for it to be on the shelf to buy. That sort of business WARRANTS safeguards to the consumer because they purchased the item IN GOOD FAITH and the product was delivered IN GOOD FAITH at the moment money exchanged hands. You want to play philanthropist with your money... realize that most philanthropist do so with disposable income. People seem to think that they are buying something off of Amazon when they participate in crowd funding. No, you aren't purchasing a damn thing. You are giving someone your money in hopes that THEY can profit from it. If it happens, you MAY get something in return. If you want absolutes, you buy things like normal people do.
Gate reviews are used in business / industry. The name of the process varies slightly by country but the idea is well laid down: clear a set of criteria before being allowed to move on to the next stage or get the next chunk of funding from whichever company or government body is paying.
Someone - however - would have to do the review. Do you leave it to the company behind the project; would KS, Indiegogo etc. do them; an independent auditor?
The "appeal" of crowdfunding was that it could raise money in a way that by-passed the "traditional" methods. Stuff basically put in place to protect investors in response to "bad apples" that ripped people off. If crowdfunding projects start to "not deliver" - and it won't take many - funds will dry up and/or there will be calls for "something". No surprise therefore that Indiegogo has sent in the debt collectors recently.
I agree with your statements. More information is always, always a better answer than less information or hiding information.
Instead of replying by quoting your second post, which would take up half a page, I'll say I also agree.
But, if game financing specialists (Publishers) who have developers sign very specific and detailed contracts on budgeting, milestones, features, etc, can't even get developers to meet deadlines when they actually have all the information, and a lot more experience in deciding if a game development project manager is competent or not, what value is any of the information a dev gives customers regarding these items?
Now, I would get 100% behind my own authoritarian idea of a new law for all crowd funding devs being forced to publish a detailed, full budget (including a projected release date) for how exactly the funds would be allocated if the project hits minimal funding. And then be forced to submit an updated budget if they hit extra funding goals. And a promise they will stick to the budget as best as possible.
This will cut down on a lot of the young foolishness I see in a lot of the games I backed fall apart because of, like the devs spending all the funding money on fancy new offices, or equipment way too nice to be needed to make the shitty graphics game I backed. Or taking trips all the time to meet and work with their team members in different countries. Etc.
But, again, the games I back because I want them are almost all exclusively very niche crpg indy games I most likely would still back even if their submitted budget was a crayon drawing of cat eating dog shit. I see it as me investing in my future. Even if I don't get the game I contributed to, I am helping crpg devs get experience and one day they may make a game that I play the shit out of. My law idea would, of course, help me enormously in deciding what Fig games to invest in that I have no interest in playing, but can potential make a much higher return at lower risk than I can through any other temporary vehicles like bonds or cd laddering.
Investments carry no guarantees, as many backers seem to think. They are built on risk. The projects state, "This is what we want to do. Will you give us money to try?" Some people here seem to forget this.
Now, I'm not saying oversight needs to be ignored and I'd like to see transparency and accountability with the money raised. This "missing release dates" seems to be a non-issue as long as work is progressing. Much different from fraud, which has laws in place already.
What I see here, more often than not, are "victims" crying to their governments to protect them from themselves. I could be wrong, but that's what I see.
VG
~~ postlarval ~~
Problem is, developers have decided they can do just that as long as they are the boss of their own company. What was once a source of pride, project estimations, is put to the wayside as a more and more lenient customer is willing to open their wallet. In that case, business ethics be damned. There's no government in the world, nor any regulation they can pass that will prevent people from spending their money unwisely.
At least with the panhandler by the interstate exit, you can look them in the eye.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Now as to how this relates to crowdfunding.
One issue is the confusion caused by companies that have started to use crowdfunding to replace internal funding. What they are doing - in essence - is using a crowdfunding platform to advertise and sell pre-orders and saving money at the same time. Which also relates to companies that achieve their crowdfunding goals, get themselves organised and then "sell" "pre-orders" to raise further funds.
Pre-orders / sales not investments.
In this context the requirement for companies to be able to stand behind release dates cannot be a bad thing.
If they don't know, if "there are risks" "there are no gurantees" - all the things you say - then, surely, what they should be saying is "we don't know". Make it clear. If they don't know then a release date is basically a deception. Which should have consequences. (And to reiterate what I have said before an estimated date - for crowdfunding certainly - doesn't have to be 100% accurate but it should be credibile.)
The way I see it, the aim is not to prevent stupidity or unrealistic deadlines, it's to make sure that they aren't good business strategy and let free market do the rest.
Moving these crowdfunding efforts into existing categories under the law protects the consumer, both at the 'donor' level and 'investor' level, defining the rights and responsibilities for all parties.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
But I just got a flashback from Sally Struthers whining in a commercial all about those self learning courses that you would see on a book of matches
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
VG
Think about it. All the best products started by investment from the company. Imagine if car companies had people pay their own money to test out air bags. Do you think that's actually a good idea? Game companies are getting away with behaviors that no other company would be able to do. It has to stop somewhere.