[80Maxwell08]

I figured with all the mixed feelings about crowdfunding and the projects that use it maybe it would be a good idea to make a topic for it. So here we can talk about all of the projects we like and dislike and our feelings on crowdfunding in general. So I figured I would start off with a bit of both.

My own feelings are it's a good idea but there's the problem of good in theory, bad in execution. Still I know the 2 projects I donated to have a chance of failing but I knew that when I put $100 into Wasteland 2 and $250 into Project Eternity. My only regret for either of those 2 is that I had to borrow money for Project Eternity. I didn't donate to either of those just because of the game but I donated because I wanted to help the developers.

Also Guido Henkel and Neal Hallford are doing a Kickstarter named Thorvalla which is launching at midnight PST tonight. Here's a list of the games that both of them have been involved in.
http://www.giantbomb...enkel/72-20029/
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Guido_Henkel
http://en.wikipedia....i/Neal_Hallford
I doubt I'll donate considering I'm broke and still owe money to my parents but I am a bit intrigued considering the praise I've heard in a few places.

[FoggyFishburne]

As I've said before on this forum, the fact that whatever project you're interested in is on, for example, Kickstarter, should be the first warning sign. The fact that no "serious" investors were interested in the project and thus they turn to the common folk who might not have any expertise in the development of, say, a video game and then asking them for money, is borderline deception.

The worst part is that there's absolutely no fucking guarantee that the finished product will be any good, or hell, even made at all. They might just blow all their money on booze and prostitutes and produce a semi-functional game. There's no standards, no professional boundaries that says "if you get x amount of money, your product must be y functional & r good" or something like that. There's no adjudication that ensures that your money is being used for what you donated it for.

I think it's fucking great idea and I'd definitely support the indies. Hell, I've got about 100 indie games on my Steam library, but when I buy something on Steam, it's there and I can play my game whenever I want. If I buy something on Kickstarter, where's the promise that I'll get what I paid for. Or that they'll even make it!

I don't know. All I'm saying is be cautious, be sceptical and be tough with your questions to the crowdfunders asking for monetary help. Just look at the AVGN. That man accumulated a ridiculous 400.000 dollars through a crowdfunding website, as well as other places, and now he's realising a movie. The trailer looks subpar and I'm afraid that might be the standard when you turn to crowdfunding.

No expert here, that's the impression I've gotten (gotten, got, getteded?). Again, be sceptical and cautious but support them if you want. After all, it's your money to do what you want with.

[slimgrin]

On this issue I am waiting. Will Obsidian and In-Exile follow through? I don't know. Will Star citizen amount to anything? The concept will be judged soon enough.

[bcheero]

I used to enjoy seeing kickstarters but I've become too jaded to see other ones. gregski mentioned that these so called "geniuses" who were big back in the old days weren't ingenious enough to innovate in the modern times. Some of these developers need to stop plastering "OLD SCHOOL" everywhere on their kickstarters because they haven't innovated with the current technology. I've only donated to one kickstarter (Wasteland 2) and while Brian Fargo has my hopes up, I'm not going to expect too much out of it. I can only HOPE that the product I funded will be worthy of that funding money. I haven't funded any other kickstarter because many of these developers are stuck playing on the whole "we love our fans and want individuals, who have no experience with game development , to fund our project."

It boggles my mind that people complain about IPs yet some are willing to pay for an IDEA that hasn't been executed and has not shown any piece of code. I believe kickstarter will blow up sometime soon and that day will be coming sometime soon. There are numerous kickstarters that have squandered the crowd funded money (look up the Ron Paul videogame that was supposed to be released sometime soon, which (interestingly enough) was developed with a tutorial found on the internet).

[Pangaea]

I find it a bit odd that these people get criticised for games developers not liking their ideas, and that this somehow proves that they can't get with the times or aren't creative anymore. This is exactly the problem with games development these days. There's a torrent of FPS games and so forth, with very little new ideas bandied about. They're playing it safe, so games outside their blueprints won't get funded. So they turn to Kickstarter. It would make more sense to criticise the games companies that refuse to think new (or even old) instead of the people who come up with ideas for games and then go to Kickstarter to try to make them a realisation. Barking up the wrong tree really.

Personally though, I haven't supported any of them. That goes with my usual policy of always wanting to see how a game turns out first before forking out money for it. That doesn't mean I don't have faith in some of these people or ideas though. I both hope and think many of these games will turn out good. Time will tell, but there's a lot riding on it for these guys. If they fail now, they'll never ever get the money to try something like this again. That door will be closed. If they succeed, however, and make a good game that the people who backed it likes, then they may be able to make more games this way - resulting (hopefully) in more quality games. The whole industry has gotten so stale now, that they need a good kick up the arse. I'm hoping Kickstarter can be that tool. With luck, if some of the big Kickstarter projects are successful, maybe some games developers will open their eyes again and start funding some projects that don't conform 100% to their bluprints or semi-copies of today's best-sellers.

[80Maxwell08]

FoggyFishburne said:

As I've said before on this forum, the fact that whatever project you're interested in is on, for example, Kickstarter, should be the first warning sign. The fact that no "serious" investors were interested in the project and thus they turn to the common folk who might not have any expertise in the development of, say, a video game and then asking them for money, is borderline deception.

The worst part is that there's absolutely no fucking guarantee that the finished product will be any good, or hell, even made at all. They might just blow all their money on booze and prostitutes and produce a semi-functional game. There's no standards, no professional boundaries that says "if you get x amount of money, your product must be y functional & r good" or something like that. There's no adjudication that ensures that your money is being used for what you donated it for.

I think it's fucking great idea and I'd definitely support the indies. Hell, I've got about 100 indie games on my Steam library, but when I buy something on Steam, it's there and I can play my game whenever I want. If I buy something on Kickstarter, where's the promise that I'll get what I paid for. Or that they'll even make it!

I don't know. All I'm saying is be cautious, be sceptical and be tough with your questions to the crowdfunders asking for monetary help. Just look at the AVGN. That man accumulated a ridiculous 400.000 dollars through a crowdfunding website, as well as other places, and now he's realising a movie. The trailer looks subpar and I'm afraid that might be the standard when you turn to crowdfunding.

No expert here, that's the impression I've gotten (gotten, got, getteded?). Again, be sceptical and cautious but support them if you want. After all, it's your money to do what you want with. ›››

I kinda disagree on the first part since there's a lot of examples of games being worse when they were trying to satisfy the investors. The problems arise when they ask about how much money it will make. A quick example to use is Avellone said he wanted to make a Torment spiritual successor but if you only go by Torment's sales then basically everyone but someone with millions upon millions to burn would invest in it.

Granted that's basically the only thing I disagree with from what you've said. I definitely agree about being cautious (even though I wasn't) and I like the idea but I do wish these people would show up with more from the start. Yes I'm aware of my hypocrisy but I'm not blind to that.

In my opinion for video games 2012 is the year of risk and 2013/2014 will be do or die time when the big name projects start coming out (or not).

[Demut]

I’m mostly with the OP on this one. Video game developers in particular have been oppressed by their publishers for a long, long time and I doubt anyone would argue that whatever advantages that might have today outweighs the obvious disadvantages like stifling the developers’ creativity (settling for “safe”, generic instead of possibly “risky”, innovative titles), alienating them from their fan base, forcing them to tarnish their (let’s never forget that) product with bullshit like DRM and so on, and so on.
Crowd funding rectifies a lot of these issues. Developers connect with their fans again (trust plays a big role here) and make more contact with them again, they are free to pursue their artistic vision without some cunt in a suit telling them what they ought and ought not do, customer-unfriendly additions like DRM will vanish again (among other things because illegal downloads can no longer be used as an excuse), a (re)democratization of the gamer-developer relationship et cetera.
However, it is certainly true that there are still several problems with the way crowd funding works, or doesn’t work, right now. One such point was already mentioned here, namely that there is no requirement for them to actually live up to their expectations. While I’m not sure if this is actually true on a legal level (if it isn’t then this should be fixable with some law), this definitely is a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, veteran developers who have earned your trust are usually prone to delivering (and as such they could switch rather easily to this financing model). On the other hand, this skepticism means that new indie devs will have a hard time earning that trust. Catch-22? Maybe. But even so, I think if we give it enough time then all this teething trouble will be sorted out.
I definitely would love to see this model replacing the current one. If you have any doubts about that just realize how many terrific studios (and with them how many games and franchises) have been ruined by greedy asshole publishers like EA. At the very least crowd funding would spare us any more of these tragedies.

[.Volsung.]

1) Kickstarter is not buying. It's pledging, DONATING! Everybody who gives their money for whatever cause must be aware of that. It's not your usual game transaction, you are financing a game and as such you should understand the risks: true, the game might suck or not be made at all.

2) If you donate, do it for the right reasons. You're not preordering the game, you're supporting whatever it is they're pledging for. In my case, I WANT traditional RPG's to come back AND I want more truly multiplatform, Linux+Mac+Win games that are *DRM FREE*. That is something I want to support. A large enough group financing these games might be considered a statement: we no longer want ridiculously oppressive DRM, and we want to play our games in GNU/Linux too.

3) I believe developers like Fargo and Schafer when they say modern publishers will not fund their game. Games used to be more flexible, allow for more creativity and they used to challenge the senses: intricate stories, intricate puzzles, interesting visuals (even if they weren't high resolution or technically advanced). Nowadays, just like movies, most AAA games have to conform to a set of norms that make them sell millions. Let's face it: the average gamer, like the average person, doesn't want to think too much, doesn't want to be questioned morally/ethically by the games he/she plays. People just want to sit down, relax and have a funny, silly time shooting zombie heads off. Nothing wrong with that, but when all games have to be like this the entire industry is affected.
Just like that discussion people had in the thread for Project Eternity: having NPC's praising the PC's every move, falling in love with him/her, etc. If it were up to the publishers, every game would be a third-person action/adventure with "RPG elements" (a.k.a. leveling, equipment, skills,...), cinematic cutscenes, and a plot just exciting enough to keep people interested, but simple and easy enough so that everyone can follow without feeling questioned, troubled or challenged. Then every game would sell 10 million copies and publishers would be happy.

4) Skipping the whole investor/developer relationship and going directly to those who will actually play/buy/use the product, is unprecedented in our society and simply AWESOME. The approach may have flaws right now, but it will get perfected. No longer will the world belong to mega-corporations... well, at least a tiny part of it. This is probably not what business people want but everybody else does.

[freakie1one]

FoggyFishburne said:

As I've said before on this forum, the fact that whatever project you're interested in is on, for example, Kickstarter, should be the first warning sign. The fact that no "serious" investors were interested in the project and thus they turn to the common folk who might not have any expertise in the development of, say, a video game and then asking them for money, is borderline deception. ›››

So you're saying the fact that a game wasn't generic enough to be funded by greedy publishers, that only care about profits and not quality, is a bad thing? Hell, I think if publishers wouldn't dish out money for a game it's a sign that the game might actually be innovative and creative enough that I'd enjoy it. How is it deception if people willingly invest money in something they support? No one is forcing you to invest money. If you don't think something merits investing money in... THEN DON'T INVEST! Do your research first, which applies to any investment.

Look at the Star Citizen project. Chris Roberts is a big name in the space sim community, with substantial credentials under his belt, and still he chose to go the crowdfunding route after not being able to get other investors. He didn't just say "hey everyone, give me your money for some cool idea I have." He built a pre-alpha version of the game to demonstrate his vision and then asked people to donate if they wanted to see it become a reality. Star Citizen has raised more money than any other crowdfunded game to date and their goal is to push PC gaming to a whole new level. After release if it's a subpar game I'll probably die from shock

[bcheero]

I don't get this anti publisher sentiment present on a few sites. The games industry is a big business and publishers are, after all, just trying to make money with games. Yeah,they might make some questionable decisions, but the publishers are doing what's best for revenue.

[80Maxwell08]

bcheero said:

I don't get this anti publisher sentiment present on a few sites. The games industry is a big business and publishers are, after all, just trying to make money with games. Yeah,they might make some questionable decisions, but the publishers are doing what's best for revenue. ›››

The problem is their "questionable" decisions end up being absolutely retarded but even still it's not just them wanting more money. Whether DA2 was something that actually looked good on paper or not is something I'll never know but directly insulting their customer base for not liking their game and banning them from their forums for even questioning it's absolute quality is a bad move all around. DRM has been proven time and time again that it doesn't work and yet companies still do it. Putting 100-200 million into a single game release (development+marketing) then firing the whole studio because it couldn't possibly have made that money back on it's first game is not a smart idea. Going after money is one thing but purposely going out of your way to piss people off is entirely something else.

[dragonbird]

The current situation can't last. As far as kickstarters are concerned, the funding will drop once there's more "Kickstarter Project X has failed" news articles than there are "Hey, look at this new Kickstarter project!". And that'll probably be happening in under a year because yes, most projects will fail.

What I'm hoping for is that when they DO fail, it doesn't put people totally off the concept. People donating will be more cautious, so more projects will fail to meet their funding targets and those that do will hopefully be better-planned and managed and more likely to succeed. I also suspect that donors might start asking for real returns, because I think that a lot of the "rewards" for high donations are pretty ludicrous.

So I anticipate something midway between kickstarter and traditional venture capital - still do it through crowdsourcing so that you have a large number of small investors instead of a small number of big ones, still set it up so that the donors don't get any kind of control over the development and publishing, but with more professionalism in the prospectus, and financial returns (i.e. profits) for the investors if it's a success.

As far as the big producers/developers are concerned, I think we need to accept that "gaming" is no longer a single marketplace, with a single demongraphic of customers and a single type of supplier. The big money will go with those sectors that make the most profit in the shortest period of time. What happens in those markets will cease to be relevant to many of us.

[KnightofPhoenix]

.Volsung. said:

1) Kickstarter is not buying. It's pledging, DONATING! Everybody who gives their money for whatever cause must be aware of that. It's not your usual game transaction, you are financing a game and as such you should understand the risks: true, the game might suck or not be made at all. ›››

The problem with that however is when they promise certain bonus content in their game if you provide X amount of money. It's kind of an exchange in a way, that if you pledge say 1000$, you get an NPC named after you.

But if they don't end up making the game to begin with....well.

I agree that people should be aware and responsible when they are donating, because ultimately that's what it is. But I wonder if indies can be sued in those cases when they do promise special content for extra money (unless they wrote it somewhere that it's in no way a promise).

[dragonbird]

KnightofPhoenix said:

I agree that people should be aware and responsible when they are donating, because ultimately that's what it is. But I wonder if indies can be sued in those cases when they do promise special content for extra money (unless they wrote it somewhere that it's in no way a promise). ›››

I'm pretty sure that it's written somewhere that there's no promise. But I think that too will change - again, I suspect that after a few spectacular failures, donors will start to look more into what the developers stand to lose if the game fails.

[gregski]

freakie1one said:

/> So you're saying the fact that a game wasn't generic enough to be funded by greedy publishers, that only care about profits and not quality, is a bad thing? Hell, I think if publishers wouldn't dish out money for a game it's a sign that the game might actually be innovative and creative enough that I'd enjoy it. How is it deception if people willingly invest money in something they support? No one is forcing you to invest money. If you don't think something merits investing money in... THEN DON'T INVEST! Do your research first, which applies to any investment.

Look at the Star Citizen project. Chris Roberts is a big name in the space sim community, with substantial credentials under his belt, and still he chose to go the crowdfunding route after not being able to get other investors. He didn't just say "hey everyone, give me your money for some cool idea I have." He built a pre-alpha version of the game to demonstrate his vision and then asked people to donate if they wanted to see it become a reality. Star Citizen has raised more money than any other crowdfunded game to date and their goal is to push PC gaming to a whole new level. After release if it's a subpar game I'll probably die from shock /> ›››

First of all, let's not call pledging to Kickstarter or any other crowdfunding mechanism INVESTING. You're not INVESTING, you're DONATING. I already went through this in some other thread, but I'll repeat it - by giving money to crowd funded games you're basically donating your money. You're not investing, because investing involves a chance to take out more than you put in, usually of the same means (so money in this case). You're not even pre-ordering the game, because it is not guaranteed that the game will get completed and released (there are already cases that it didn't).

Second, Chris Roberts is an example of a project that deserves attention and funding, because it's more fair than others in my opinion. Roberts invested his own money, already built some assets and had something to show at the beginning of the funding campaign. What's more important, he bypassed publishers but still needed to attract investors, who agreed to fund most of the game if he reaches a certain goal (2 million USD I think). So, crowdfunding is just a smaller part of the whole budget and shows real investors the potential of the game/genre.

[freakie1one]

gregski said:

First of all, let's not call pledging to Kickstarter or any other crowdfunding mechanism INVESTING. You're not INVESTING, you're DONATING. I already went through this in some other thread, but I'll repeat it - by giving money to crowd funded games you're basically donating your money. You're not investing, because investing involves a chance to take out more than you put in, usually of the same means (so money in this case). You're not even pre-ordering the game, because it is not guaranteed that the game will get completed and released (there are already cases that it didn't). ›››

Yes, crowdfunding can also be considered an investment. To invest can be used like this: to devote (one's time, effort, or energy) to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result; or this: to devote (effort, resources, etc.) to a project. I'm investing my resources (money) in a project in hopes of having a product created (a worthwhile result). The end results are the return on my investment (having something created that otherwise wouldn't be). A donation can also be an investment. If the project fails and nothing is created then obviously that would be a bad investment.

As for your second point, I'm aware of it Which is why I felt it would be a good investment to donate some of my money to help crowdfund his project (see what I did there? ). The crowdfunding proves that there is a demand in the first place.

[wisielec]

You click a button that says DONATE. Not invest, not pre-order. DONATE. I think there is no clearer message than that.

Thinking and arguing its something else makes oneself look like a ... (fill in the gap).

[Cosmas deDraco]

well, first EVERYONE whos going to pledge, should be aware, that if you push the button...your money is gone, no matter whats beeing promised, no guarantee that the game will be made, the project will happen at all.

regardless of that, pledging is a very cool thing, that cuts out the middleman, cuts the need to convince greedy publishers and bow for their demands, which will often fuck up the entire result.

speaking of Star Citizen...with that name and experience behind that project and the actual technology available, i smell a great game on the horizon, that just went over 5.6million $ pledged and therefore has more investors unlocked, willed to pay the sum needed to finish the game over the already private financed and Crowd funded budget...

so in general said:

CF is not the evil in person.
CF is a way to get things done.
CF is a way to dodge certein structures.
CF is a way that needs your full awareness and descision.
CF is a new and promising trend, to damn it, is like the all old ways, that happend in the past...damn rock music...it brings our kids to the satan...and all that.

[freakie1one]

wisielec said:

You click a button that says DONATE. Not invest, not pre-order. DONATE. I think there is no clearer message than that.

Thinking and arguing its something else makes oneself look like a ... (fill in the gap). ›››

Say what you will. Maybe investing has a different meaning in Polish than English. In English when one invests in something it's usually referring to an action taken in order to achieve a desired outcome. Examples: investing time into a marriage (desired outcome is a happy, successful marriage), investing money into the stock market (desired outcome is to make a profit), investing in new tires for your car (desired outcome is a functional, safe vehicle), etc. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp?

[dragonbird]

freakie1one said:

Say what you will. Maybe investing has a different meaning in Polish than English. In English when one invests in something it's usually referring to an action taken in order to achieve a desired outcome. Examples: investing time into a marriage (desired outcome is a happy, successful marriage), investing money into the stock market (desired outcome is to make a profit), investing in new tires for your car (desired outcome is a functional, safe vehicle), etc. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp? />/> ›››

"Invest" has several meanings in English. Its general usage meaning is fairly broad, and is the definition you're using. Its financial meaning is very specific and means "to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return".

So yes, with the first definition, you're correct. With the second definition, everyone else is correct - kickstarter projects are NOT investments, because they do not promise a financial return.

http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/invest
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/invest