...considering crowdfunding being naturaly reliant on marketing and in case of SC, the term "marketing driven" was brought up to new, to date unseen, level, saying "no money is spent on marketing" is silly absurd...
Absurd?
Pre-2019 I agree stuff was done to drive funding. In context though MacAllen was talking about "advertising".
Post the equity investment however - based on what has been said - no "crowdfunding money" is being spent on marketing. It is being funded by the equity investment.
And its only a small leap to assume that as part of the equity "buy-in" past historical costs attributed to "marketing" - as broken out in the 2012-2017 financials - have also been set against the equity investment. (Not a very big sum and maybe why the 2012-2017 financials were produced)
If so then it would be true to say that: "Actually no (crowd funded) money is (or has) been spent on marketing".
So, maybe, MacAllen was taking into the account the impact of the equity investment. And the statement isn't absurd!
In context though I think the comment was simply about marketing.
(And just to re-iterate I agree with you that crowdfunding is - inevitably - driven by "marketing".)
They've done it quite well really, instead of spending fortunes into the traditional thing to get visibility,
Yep, instead they spent double of that traditional thing fortune on lackluster module release so they could get he visibility and goods to promote as early as possible...
They've done it quite well really, instead of spending fortunes into the traditional thing to get visibility,
Yep, instead they spent double of that traditional thing fortune on lackluster module release so they could get he visibility and goods to promote as early as possible...
Developing the game and releasing updates is not marketing, it has an obvious marketing impact as self-promotion, but that IS the product, that money has to be considered part of dev budget.
..if the development is violated to fulfill marketing goals, it's laughable to pretend it isn't marketing.
The fact the game is early access does not make it marketing instead of development, that simply changes some of how the game develops to co-exist with a continuous live service.
As seen with many titles who faced or are in early access, you're exaggerating to the level of "one or the other" when this stuff simply co-exists well for the most part.
The fact the game is early access does not make it marketing instead of development, that simply changes some of how the game develops to co-exist with a continuous live service.
As seen with many titles who faced or are in early access, you're exaggerating to the level of "one or the other" when this stuff simply co-exists well for the most part.
Sorry, can't comment on anything else you said, it makes no sense to me.
No sense? Or don't want to understand?
First remember that I do agree with your comment that marketing is needed to raise funds. Even if, as I suggested, the comment you responded to was about advertising and not marketing in the bigger sense.
So - lets break down what I added in super simple steps:
1. Outside investors put up money for a % of the company. Money they - not RSI - said was for marketing. With me so far?
2. So in 2018 all the marketing will have been "charged" to the equity investment. No crowd funding money used. Think of it there being 2 bank accounts. Still with me?
3. Marketing costs for 2012-2017 were broken out in the 2012 - 2017 financials. Not got to complicated I hope yet.
4. Now - an assumption on my part but a reasonable one I feel. Nor had they previously broken anything out / provided detailed costs.
If these prior costs were set against the equity investment - a transfer if you like from the equity investment account into the crowd funded account - then that would mean that $0 (zero) crowd funding money will have been used for marketing.
And so there you are.
Sorry it was to complicated to understand. If its still to hard I will break out the crayons.
gervaise1 said: Even if, as I suggested, the comment you responded to was about advertising and not marketing in the bigger sense.
The claim was clear: Actually no money is spent on marketing, yet.
You are arguing something that was never said nor disputed.
A word in your shell-like. Sometimes what people mean when they say something may not be the same as what you think they mean.
Can you see the wood for the trees? Same deal with people thinking that marketing is just advertising. It might be a piece of cake for you to get your head around the concept but it takes two to tango when having a discussion and sometimes understanding may be up in the air. And more often than not I can't be bothered breaking a leg let alone spending an arm and a leg to explain further and just feel like hitting the hay so I let things slide rather than trying to steal someones thunder. Once in a blue moon though I don't.
So I'm going to cross my fingers and hope I have made my point. If I have bitten off more than I can chew though and this still isn't clear don't get cold feet and give me the hard shoulder. I'm all ears if you have a change of heart and can explain further at the drop of a hat. The balls in your court on that score.
If I have driven you up the wall though I suspect there is fat chance so I will refrain from adding insult to injury since actions speak louder than words and call it a day without offering a penny for your thoughts. Alternatively you might be in stitches in which case I have killed two birds with one stone and you will probably respond with a LOL!
Everything that CIG does publicly is marketing. They make their money through crowdfunding. That requires fueling the dreams of this ideal-game-for-all.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
Pre-2019 I agree stuff was done to drive funding. In context though MacAllen was talking about "advertising".
Post the equity investment however - based on what has been said - no "crowdfunding money" is being spent on marketing. It is being funded by the equity investment.
And its only a small leap to assume that as part of the equity "buy-in" past historical costs attributed to "marketing" - as broken out in the 2012-2017 financials - have also been set against the equity investment. (Not a very big sum and maybe why the 2012-2017 financials were produced)
If so then it would be true to say that:
"Actually no (crowd funded) money is (or has) been spent on marketing".
So, maybe, MacAllen was taking into the account the impact of the equity investment. And the statement isn't absurd!
In context though I think the comment was simply about marketing.
(And just to re-iterate I agree with you that crowdfunding is - inevitably - driven by "marketing".)
Sorry, can't comment on anything else you said, it makes no sense to me.
As seen with many titles who faced or are in early access, you're exaggerating to the level of "one or the other" when this stuff simply co-exists well for the most part.
First remember that I do agree with your comment that marketing is needed to raise funds. Even if, as I suggested, the comment you responded to was about advertising and not marketing in the bigger sense.
So - lets break down what I added in super simple steps:
1. Outside investors put up money for a % of the company.
Money they - not RSI - said was for marketing. With me so far?
2. So in 2018 all the marketing will have been "charged" to the equity investment. No crowd funding money used. Think of it there being 2 bank accounts. Still with me?
3. Marketing costs for 2012-2017 were broken out in the 2012 - 2017 financials. Not got to complicated I hope yet.
4. Now - an assumption on my part but a reasonable one I feel. Nor had they previously broken anything out / provided detailed costs.
If these prior costs were set against the equity investment - a transfer if you like from the equity investment account into the crowd funded account - then that would mean that $0 (zero) crowd funding money will have been used for marketing.
And so there you are.
Sorry it was to complicated to understand. If its still to hard I will break out the crayons.
You are arguing something that was never said nor disputed.
A word in your shell-like. Sometimes what people mean when they say something may not be the same as what you think they mean.
Can you see the wood for the trees? Same deal with people thinking that marketing is just advertising. It might be a piece of cake for you to get your head around the concept but it takes two to tango when having a discussion and sometimes understanding may be up in the air. And more often than not I can't be bothered breaking a leg let alone spending an arm and a leg to explain further and just feel like hitting the hay so I let things slide rather than trying to steal someones thunder. Once in a blue moon though I don't.
So I'm going to cross my fingers and hope I have made my point. If I have bitten off more than I can chew though and this still isn't clear don't get cold feet and give me the hard shoulder. I'm all ears if you have a change of heart and can explain further at the drop of a hat. The balls in your court on that score.
If I have driven you up the wall though I suspect there is fat chance so I will refrain from adding insult to injury since actions speak louder than words and call it a day without offering a penny for your thoughts. Alternatively you might be in stitches in which case I have killed two birds with one stone and you will probably respond with a LOL!
All clear
If not then maybe check out
https://www.amazon.com/Word-Your-Shell-Like-Nigel-Rees/dp/0007220871
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Word-Your-Shell-Like-Nigel-Rees/dp/0007220871
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.