Howdy, Stranger!

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

New Caspien tantrum about news coverage

1141517192025

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,445
    edited February 14
    No, there is a promise to attempt to complete the project, that is all.

    Publishing deadlines is just fluffy nice to haves but ultimately has no relevance as to whether the project is completed. Don't get me wrong I think they should do it if they said they have but this is not an argument against "Kickstarter".
    Sure but the point of the thread is that CoE specifically is doing stuff that's not good.

    Your general point about Kickstarters is a good point, and people arguing against it while citing only CoE stuff, that doesn't make sense.

    But it does make sense for them to continue to criticize CoE.
    His comment that he has the "only" valid criticism/complaint against crowdfunding is utterly wrong.
    Slapshot1188tweedledumb99craftseekerKyleran

    image
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,636
    Might be because Kickstarter understands Shit happens. Sometimes these ideas fail, and fail miserably, even if they get funded.

    As far as CoE goes, they are still making an effort which, to be honest, is impressive in it's own right, and honors what they said in Kickstarter that this money would be used to make the game.

    Keep in mind Kickstarter makes it clear that this is NOT a sale of goods, you are backing an idea, (Which may or may not happen) you are NOT buying a product.

    You are not guaranteed their ability to accomplish anything, only that they will make their best effort to do it.

    In that light, Mr Walsh is not taking the money to build a house in Maui, and sip pinacolidas on a beach somewhere, he is actively trying to make this game happen, albeit poorly, and looking more like a monkey humping a football as opposed to a professional designer with a clue, but that is not the issue.. he is trying.

    And Kickstarter makes it clear, you are responsible for your own buyer beware.

    I am getting really tired of needing to explain that to you.
    tweedledumb99craftseekerStaalBurgher
  • tweedledumb99tweedledumb99 Member UncommonPosts: 217
    edited February 14
    No, there is a promise to attempt to complete the project, that is all.

    Publishing deadlines is just fluffy nice to haves but ultimately has no relevance as to whether the project is completed. Don't get me wrong I think they should do it if they said they have but this is not an argument against "Kickstarter".
    Sure but the point of the thread is that CoE specifically is doing stuff that's not good.

    Your general point about Kickstarters is a good point, and people arguing against it while citing only CoE stuff, that doesn't make sense.

    But it does make sense for them to continue to criticize CoE.
    His comment that he has the "only" valid criticism/complaint against crowdfunding is utterly wrong.
    Yep, agreed.

    But Slap's points about CoE breaking Kickstarter rules as demonstrations of those flaws (i.e. CoE broke the rules and has faced no consequences) don't add up [edit: actually one of them does, see below].**

    Edit: the ones about CoE launch timelines and feature timelines and underlying-tech choices and info-update timelines don't yet add up to me as legit failures of Kickstarter, but one of the other of Slap's points does add up! As Slap showed, SBS knew they'd need more money originally, which is against the rules (and I'm assuming on faith that SBS hasn't faced Kickstarter consequences for breaking that rule..?).
    MadFrenchieGdemami
  • tweedledumb99tweedledumb99 Member UncommonPosts: 217
    edited February 14
    /snip
    That's the first example I've seen of a rule-break by CoE, and it only counts as one if they knew beforehand that the funding wouldn't be enough. Did they?
    Yes they did.  See here:

    Massively OP: The sticking points seem to be the Kickstarter FAQ line that states, “The funding goal is the amount of money that a creator needs to complete their project” and the fact that COE’s Kickstarter verbiage itself doesn’t appear to mention that the $900K sought wasn’t the full amount (it’s buried in the 8000+ comments). […] What do you say to those who argue the original funding goal as stated in the Kickstarter was misleading?

    Jeromy Walsh: 

    Snip 

    Unfortunately, and what this whole thing is about, is we assumed the fact that we were going to be seeking additional funds was common knowledge and somehow it didn’t make it onto our Kickstarter page. It wasn’t intentional. But it happened. While we regret that, it ultimately doesn’t change anything. The commitment we made to our backers is, “you provide us the Kickstarter funds we need, and we commit to delivering you the game.” That hasn’t changed, as we stand by the same commitment today. Regardless of whether other people realized we needed additional funds or not, what’s important is that we did, and we made that commitment to them with that in mind. We stand firm in our commitment.


    —————-

    Note that when this was brought to light they closed refunds at the same time:

    What about the new refund policy? Will you change your mind and offer refunds to those folks?

    First, I want to say it was a complete coincidence that we announced our refund policy going forward in the same update where we evidently made people aware we’re still looking for money from investors, etc. Beginning early September we started telling people who contacted us that we were no longer offering refunds. We felt 90 days from the close of Kickstarter was a sufficient cooldown period and any requests that came in after that our answer was no.

    We made it explicit in this update because we’d previously said we would let people know what our refund policy going forward would be, before opening the store. And, making the decision we ultimately did came down to a debate between the stigma and perception behind not allowing refunds, and the risk involved in not having a stable bottom line. In the end, we decided it was better to risk putting people off by having a “No refund” policy, than having people pledge, us make decisions based on our current funds, and then having that money taken away.

    With respect to offering refunds again, the answer is no. You see, this whole thing is ultimately an issue of perceived risk vs. real risk. For those people who weren’t aware, or didn’t realize that we were raising additional money aside from Kickstarter, there’s now a perceived risk to losing their pledge money that wasn’t there before. But as I said, we knew that we were raising other money, so the real risk to their pledge isn’t any higher today than it was back in May.

    That being said, if people react to this perceived increase in risk, and start requesting refunds, our principle goes down, we’ve got less money to develop with, and that creates *real* risk for everyone – us, the people who knew about our need to raise additional funding, and those who didn’t, but who understand and are ok with it.

    In the end, offering refunds to those who have a higher perceived risk today, only creates more real risk for everyone going forward.

    Great, so they did actually break that rule then.

    And even if they did include that wording in the Kickstarter originally, it's still a rule-break regardless.

    That's good to know, and doesn't reflect well on them, so I give you points for the fact they did break that rule.

    And if they haven't faced any consequences for it, then I'll agree that that's a demonstrable flaw with Kickstarter that you've pointed out.

    So, I was wrong to say that none of your points show real flaws with Kickstarter, because that point does, assuming they've not faced meaningful consequences from Kickstarter - cause "backlash" isn't a consequence that amounts to accountability within Kickstarter.

    Though, as far as I can see, only that point shows a flaw in Kickstarter, of the ones you made above about CoE. Which is fine, you're still right about that point.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,646
    Gdemami said:
    “The funding goal is the amount of money that a creator needs to complete their project” and the fact that COE’s Kickstarter verbiage itself doesn’t appear to mention that the $900K sought wasn’t the full amount (it’s buried in the 8000+ comments).
    The "full amount" is just your insertion.

    An amount stated on KS page is just an amount they need per KS project, whether they need more overall money is a non-factor.

    Troll.
    Again... Do you read Bro?

    From MassivelyOP:
    Kickstarter FAQ line that states, “The funding goal is the amount of money that a creator needs to complete their project”

    Were they trolling too? 

    craftseekerKyleran

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,646
    /snip
    That's the first example I've seen of a rule-break by CoE, and it only counts as one if they knew beforehand that the funding wouldn't be enough. Did they?
    Yes they did.  See here:

    Massively OP: The sticking points seem to be the Kickstarter FAQ line that states, “The funding goal is the amount of money that a creator needs to complete their project” and the fact that COE’s Kickstarter verbiage itself doesn’t appear to mention that the $900K sought wasn’t the full amount (it’s buried in the 8000+ comments). […] What do you say to those who argue the original funding goal as stated in the Kickstarter was misleading?

    Jeromy Walsh: 

    Snip 

    Unfortunately, and what this whole thing is about, is we assumed the fact that we were going to be seeking additional funds was common knowledge and somehow it didn’t make it onto our Kickstarter page. It wasn’t intentional. But it happened. While we regret that, it ultimately doesn’t change anything. The commitment we made to our backers is, “you provide us the Kickstarter funds we need, and we commit to delivering you the game.” That hasn’t changed, as we stand by the same commitment today. Regardless of whether other people realized we needed additional funds or not, what’s important is that we did, and we made that commitment to them with that in mind. We stand firm in our commitment.


    —————-

    Note that when this was brought to light they closed refunds at the same time:

    What about the new refund policy? Will you change your mind and offer refunds to those folks?

    First, I want to say it was a complete coincidence that we announced our refund policy going forward in the same update where we evidently made people aware we’re still looking for money from investors, etc. Beginning early September we started telling people who contacted us that we were no longer offering refunds. We felt 90 days from the close of Kickstarter was a sufficient cooldown period and any requests that came in after that our answer was no.

    We made it explicit in this update because we’d previously said we would let people know what our refund policy going forward would be, before opening the store. And, making the decision we ultimately did came down to a debate between the stigma and perception behind not allowing refunds, and the risk involved in not having a stable bottom line. In the end, we decided it was better to risk putting people off by having a “No refund” policy, than having people pledge, us make decisions based on our current funds, and then having that money taken away.

    With respect to offering refunds again, the answer is no. You see, this whole thing is ultimately an issue of perceived risk vs. real risk. For those people who weren’t aware, or didn’t realize that we were raising additional money aside from Kickstarter, there’s now a perceived risk to losing their pledge money that wasn’t there before. But as I said, we knew that we were raising other money, so the real risk to their pledge isn’t any higher today than it was back in May.

    That being said, if people react to this perceived increase in risk, and start requesting refunds, our principle goes down, we’ve got less money to develop with, and that creates *real* risk for everyone – us, the people who knew about our need to raise additional funding, and those who didn’t, but who understand and are ok with it.

    In the end, offering refunds to those who have a higher perceived risk today, only creates more real risk for everyone going forward.

    Great, so they did actually break that rule then.

    And even if they did include that wording in the Kickstarter originally, it's still a rule-break regardless.

    That's good to know, and doesn't reflect well on them, so I give you points for the fact they did break that rule.

    And if they haven't faced any consequences for it, then I'll agree that that's a demonstrable flaw with Kickstarter that you've pointed out.

    So, I was wrong to say that none of your points show real flaws with Kickstarter, because that point does, assuming they've not faced meaningful consequences from Kickstarter - cause "backlash" isn't a consequence that amounts to accountability within Kickstarter.

    Though, as far as I can see, only that point shows a flaw in Kickstarter, of the ones you made above about CoE. Which is fine, you're still right about that point.

    Thank you.  As long as we have established that point then it is just a matter of degree whether it was broken once or multiple times.

    They were not punished. They kept the money. They shut down refunds at the same time it was questioned. 

    tweedledumb99

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • tweedledumb99tweedledumb99 Member UncommonPosts: 217
    edited February 14
    /snip
    That's the first example I've seen of a rule-break by CoE, and it only counts as one if they knew beforehand that the funding wouldn't be enough. Did they?
    Yes they did.  See here:

    Massively OP: The sticking points seem to be the Kickstarter FAQ line that states, “The funding goal is the amount of money that a creator needs to complete their project” and the fact that COE’s Kickstarter verbiage itself doesn’t appear to mention that the $900K sought wasn’t the full amount (it’s buried in the 8000+ comments). […] What do you say to those who argue the original funding goal as stated in the Kickstarter was misleading?

    Jeromy Walsh: 

    Snip 

    Unfortunately, and what this whole thing is about, is we assumed the fact that we were going to be seeking additional funds was common knowledge and somehow it didn’t make it onto our Kickstarter page. It wasn’t intentional. But it happened. While we regret that, it ultimately doesn’t change anything. The commitment we made to our backers is, “you provide us the Kickstarter funds we need, and we commit to delivering you the game.” That hasn’t changed, as we stand by the same commitment today. Regardless of whether other people realized we needed additional funds or not, what’s important is that we did, and we made that commitment to them with that in mind. We stand firm in our commitment.


    —————-

    Note that when this was brought to light they closed refunds at the same time:

    What about the new refund policy? Will you change your mind and offer refunds to those folks?

    First, I want to say it was a complete coincidence that we announced our refund policy going forward in the same update where we evidently made people aware we’re still looking for money from investors, etc. Beginning early September we started telling people who contacted us that we were no longer offering refunds. We felt 90 days from the close of Kickstarter was a sufficient cooldown period and any requests that came in after that our answer was no.

    We made it explicit in this update because we’d previously said we would let people know what our refund policy going forward would be, before opening the store. And, making the decision we ultimately did came down to a debate between the stigma and perception behind not allowing refunds, and the risk involved in not having a stable bottom line. In the end, we decided it was better to risk putting people off by having a “No refund” policy, than having people pledge, us make decisions based on our current funds, and then having that money taken away.

    With respect to offering refunds again, the answer is no. You see, this whole thing is ultimately an issue of perceived risk vs. real risk. For those people who weren’t aware, or didn’t realize that we were raising additional money aside from Kickstarter, there’s now a perceived risk to losing their pledge money that wasn’t there before. But as I said, we knew that we were raising other money, so the real risk to their pledge isn’t any higher today than it was back in May.

    That being said, if people react to this perceived increase in risk, and start requesting refunds, our principle goes down, we’ve got less money to develop with, and that creates *real* risk for everyone – us, the people who knew about our need to raise additional funding, and those who didn’t, but who understand and are ok with it.

    In the end, offering refunds to those who have a higher perceived risk today, only creates more real risk for everyone going forward.

    Great, so they did actually break that rule then.

    And even if they did include that wording in the Kickstarter originally, it's still a rule-break regardless.

    That's good to know, and doesn't reflect well on them, so I give you points for the fact they did break that rule.

    And if they haven't faced any consequences for it, then I'll agree that that's a demonstrable flaw with Kickstarter that you've pointed out.

    So, I was wrong to say that none of your points show real flaws with Kickstarter, because that point does, assuming they've not faced meaningful consequences from Kickstarter - cause "backlash" isn't a consequence that amounts to accountability within Kickstarter.

    Though, as far as I can see, only that point shows a flaw in Kickstarter, of the ones you made above about CoE. Which is fine, you're still right about that point.

    Thank you.  As long as we have established that point then it is just a matter of degree whether it was broken once or multiple times.

    They were not punished. They kept the money. They shut down refunds at the same time it was questioned. 

    You're welcome, thanks for persisting to prove a worthwhile point.

    And glad to see you re-raise another important one (because I forgot to respond to it above), that they shut down refunds at the same time.

    It strikes me as an anxious move by a dev who realizes they're in over their head, but it's still dodgy as fuck to do that.

    And I'm pretty hesitant to believe that it's a coincidence they turned off refunds when people realized they'd broken that rule - and realized SBS didn't have all the funding needed.

    (I'm sure the following isn't news to you Slap, but @all for any casual observers:) The dodginess I see in that timing is that they're trying to lower their risk for mass refunds when people realize they

    a) broke an important Kickstarter rule, and

    b) don't actually have enough funding to complete the game, which throws into question whether other future financial backers (e.g. investment firms, publishers) will force changes to the original vision, or whether it gets completed at all.
    Slapshot1188
  • GutlardGutlard Member RarePosts: 602
    edited February 14
    When he fails this game, I def want a chance to throw more money at his next project.

    Gut Out!

    PS - Hey look! I'm blue! Partial to green, but lovin the blue now!
    tweedledumb99MadFrenchieAsheramparrotpholkMendellaseritKyleran

    What, me worry?

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,445
    Gutlard said:
    When he fails this game, I def want a chance to throw more money at his next project.

    Gut Out!

    PS - Hey look! I'm blue! Partial to green, but lovin the blue now!
    Congrats!

    image
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,636
    Gutlard said:

    PS - Hey look! I'm blue! Partial to green, but lovin the blue now!
    Congrats~!
  • WarEnsembleWarEnsemble Member UncommonPosts: 139
    Who is this twat (Caspian) that thinks he has the right to speak for the entire gaming community?
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 2,998
    Gutlard said:
    When he fails this game, I def want a chance to throw more money at his next project.

    Gut Out!

    PS - Hey look! I'm blue! Partial to green, but lovin the blue now!
    Go Gut!



    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,497
    tweedledumb99 said:
    SBS knew they'd need more money originally, which is against the rules
    It is not...
    parrotpholkSlapshot1188EponyxDamortweedledumb99
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,497
    Were they trolling too? 

    Nope, just you...still...
    parrotpholkSlapshot1188EponyxDamortweedledumb99
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,636
    Did Caspian say that the money he was given would complete the entire game, or did he say it would complete something else, like a demo?
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,646
    edited February 14
    Ungood said:
    Did Caspian say that the money he was given would complete the entire game, or did he say it would complete something else, like a demo?
    Please do your research.  Open the Kickstarter page and look.

    There was NOTHING on the Kickstarter page that said it was not the whole amount.   They "mistakenly" left that part out.  It was mentioned in one of the thousands of comments on another page and it was mentioned in random forum posts on their website. They even listed "Stretch goals" to add extra features to the game.

    They even said they already had a playable demo (Where'd that go 3 years later?)

    We've turned to Kickstarter to fund this project because traditional game publishers won't take this risk. They are incentivized to clone the latest success and merely re-skin it. But not all players want a WoW clone or to play the same game every time. Our innovative ideas come FROM gamers FOR gamers. WE want to play this game, so we turn to YOU to help make that happen.  

    We also realize that to effectively complete all of these amazing ideas will require a lot of cash. That's why we've invested half a million dollars to self-fund pre-production thus far and have another $500K committed from investors. 

    We also promised to only go to Kickstarter once we had a playable demo (combat demo released at PAX East) and substantial development to show. This is not just a concept that we're presenting. It's a game in the making that we need your help to bring to fruition.

    Gdemamitweedledumb99

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,646
    But anyhow... we are getting a little off on a tangent here related to this topic.  I could go on and on about other issues with CoE but maybe it's best to make new threads to discuss those.   

    Lets keep this one related to Caspien's tantrums and his threat to "pull" his exclusives from MMORPG and Massively and take them to PCGamer who has run a total of 1 CoE article since it was announced.

    Gdemami

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher Member UncommonPosts: 255
    edited February 15
    Mendel said:
    StaalBurgher said:

    Those aren't arguments against Kickstarter. They are arguments against COE. There is the strawman.
    Okay.  Even though you are the one who injected Kickstarter into this discussion.

    An argument against Kickstarter (and crowd-funding in general).  A developer attempts to raise money from individuals by encouraging the individuals to believe they are *investing* in their project without providing the same degree of accountability and return as any other financial investment.  This can be used, in some cases, to deceive the individual, and may be fraudulent.
    Err... this is a Kickstarter project. So it is de facto "injected". Doesn't justify strawmanning my comment with unrelated arguments based on COE perceived failings.

     At no point does Kickstarter pretend to be a financial investment. What are you talking about? It is a donation, plain and simple. Kickstarter makes this clear. Using terminology like fraud is just typical internet hyperbole because on that basis virtual any product marketing is fraud. In which case the word loses any practical meaning.

    EDIT: *lol* even Slap thinks this thread is about Kickstarter.
    Post edited by StaalBurgher on
    craftseeker
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher Member UncommonPosts: 255
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:

    You appear to be trying to build a strawman about kickstarters in general, and accuse others of focusing / hating only on COE.

    I raised valid concerns about whether or not a backer feels the team is capable of delivering the project, if it is properly funded, or if the goals are even in the realm of possibility yet you ignore, because it dispels your argument?

    MadFrenchies comment pissed you off, so rephrased,  in what reality are the points being raised invalid, clearly not the one most of the rest of us reside in.

    (Though I know of at least one other resident in there with you.)

    ;)


    Those aren't arguments against Kickstarter. They are arguments against COE. There is the strawman.
    They are arguments directed at any and all MMORPG kick starters, of which COE is one.

    Same applies to CU where I showed even though I had decent reason to believe promises might be kept, clearly things haven't worked out.

    Same questions apply to any other KSer, games, new hard goods or otherwise.

    Someone puts up a crowd funding effort for flying cars or personal jet packs you can be sure I'm going to want to see a demo of the anti-gravity tech, PhDs of engineering team along with their Nobel prizes for their discovery.

    Again, you continue to deflect, you're beat and you know it, time to withdraw gracefully while still possible. 


    How can I "be beat" by stating that Kickstarter is use at your own risk?
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher Member UncommonPosts: 255
    edited February 15

    Projects must be honest and clearly presented.

    Our community is built on trust and communication. Projects can’t mislead people or misrepresent facts, and creators should be candid about what they plan to accomplish. 

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

    But there is no accountability (that word again). Here we have a project that misstated the time it would take by multiple years and counting, the amount of money needed, the source of the money, the "fabric" the game would be built on (technology)...


    ... and none of that matters.  It's a problem with CoE, but also a problem with Kickstarter in general because if Kickstarter was functioning properly this type of behavior should never be allowed.


    So Strawman?  Hardly.  Please do not belittle actual tangible arguments with dismissive words like that.

    The problem here is that your assumption of what a Kickstarter is, is flawed. You are entirely right there is no accountability for a Kickstarter except that they attempt to complete their project. SBS is trying to complete their project and that is the only promise that you can morally hold them to. And I say morally because there are no legal grounds for anything here.

    Should there be a more structured alternative to Kickstarter that would be more suitable? Sure competition is good and if it is better all indie development would move to that platform.

    So funny that you directly contradict others on here that accuse me on "injecting" Kickstarter into the discussion.  :p
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher Member UncommonPosts: 255
    No, there is a promise to attempt to complete the project, that is all.

    Publishing deadlines is just fluffy nice to haves but ultimately has no relevance as to whether the project is completed. Don't get me wrong I think they should do it if they said they have but this is not an argument against "Kickstarter".
    Sure but the point of the thread is that CoE specifically is doing stuff that's not good.

    Your general point about Kickstarters is a good point, and people arguing against it while citing only CoE stuff, that doesn't make sense.

    But it does make sense for them to continue to criticize CoE.
    His comment that he has the "only" valid criticism/complaint against crowdfunding is utterly wrong.
    Well I concede, I misspoke there. I should say Kickstarter specifically. There should ideally be different levels of structure for crowdfunding as a whole. Industries/projects/products/teams differ and the more structure the easier it is to get people to donate.
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher Member UncommonPosts: 255
    Gdemami said:
    Slapshot1188 said:
    There is simply to repercussion to a company that gets money and then breaks those rules.

    ...what rules were broken?
    I literally posted one of their rules and what was broken a few posts above... Do you read Bro?

    Seriously...

    Projects must be honest and clearly presented.

    Our community is built on trust and communication. Projects can’t mislead people or misrepresent facts, and creators should be candid about what they plan to accomplish.

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

    That is an actual posted rule.

    CoE did not show that the amount being asked for was not the full amount of the project on the KS main page. KS actually required this.  This was pointed out when it was revealed, but it was not revealed until AFTER the campaign closed.  No action was taken.   Is that clear enough example of a rule that was broken with no accountability?


     


    COE clearly stated they would continue raising funds after Kickstarter. Could they have been clearer on how much more they would need? Yes, I agree but there is no proof they deliberately misled anyone. In fact, given their track record with public relations I think there is evidence enough that they simply have no clue on that score.

    Once again, with Kickstarter the onus is on the backer to do his own due diligence. That is the level of security you get with Kickstarter, i.e. virtually none.
  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher Member UncommonPosts: 255

    Edit: the ones about CoE launch timelines and feature timelines and underlying-tech choices and info-update timelines don't yet add up to me as legit failures of Kickstarter, but one of the other of Slap's points does add up! As Slap showed, SBS knew they'd need more money originally, which is against the rules (and I'm assuming on faith that SBS hasn't faced Kickstarter consequences for breaking that rule..?).
    The interesting angle here is that Slap claims that SBS are grossly incompetent. If they are that incompetent it is quite possible they did not realise how far off they were.
    tweedledumb99
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 11,127
    Any word from PC gamer yet?...Ok I did this one several pages ago but the thread has been going so long I thought it was worth asking again. ;)

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

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

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • StaalBurgherStaalBurgher Member UncommonPosts: 255
    lol no, PC Gamer doesn't care. That was just Caspian throwing his toys.
    tweedledumb99craftseeker
Sign In or Register to comment.