[freakie1one]

dragonbird said:

"Invest" has several meanings in English. Its general usage meaning is fairly broad, and is the definition you're using. It's 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

I understand that, dragonbird Thank you for further clarifying it for anyone who still might be confused.

The reason I so blatantly spelled it out in my previous posts was to illustrate that I was not talking about a monetary return on my investment, but rather achieving a desired outcome (having the game created without being influenced and corrupted by investors - such as publishers oft times demand). For people to tell me that my donation can't be such an investment is just silly. When I used the word "invest" I was referring to this definition, based upon the link you posted: "to make use of for future benefits or advantages". I'm making use of crowdfunding for future benefits. I'm not referring to this definition: "to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return." If someone were to invest in a Kickstarter project in hopes of making a financial gain then that person needs to read the FAQ, which states:

Quote

Project creators keep 100% ownership of their work. Kickstarter cannot be used to offer financial returns or equity, or to solicit loans. Some projects that are funded on Kickstarter may go on to make money, but backers are supporting projects to help them come to life, not financially profit.

When someone donates it's not the same type of investment (the person doesn't expect financial gain as a return on their investment). But don't take my word on it... Here are quotes from random web sites using the word "invest" in the same manner I was:

Quote

But making donations to charity is an investment in our society.

Quote

Invest your donations in strong organizations with good brands.

Quote

Invest your donations in what you know and understand.

Quote

A donation to HELP USA is an investment in the future of homeless families, victims of domestic violence, and veterans.

Is it now clear that donations can be investments?

[.Volsung.]

I agree with freakie1one. Why choose to see the money in everything?

I think in this forum we all understand that we "invest" money, energy and time playing games and we don't expect to make monetary profit. What we expect is to be entertained, and that is worth money. Of course we could choose to understand "investments" from a financial standpoint, but seriously nobody would donate to Kickstarter to make a profit. That's just silly.

If we choose to call Kickstarter pledging "investing" (and I think it is alright), it is because we want something in return. In my case, I repeat: traditional computer RPG's, DRM-Free multiplatform games, skipping nasty publisher deals. Simple. Even if some or all of these games fail *knock on wood* I feel happy that tens of thousands of people made a statement about what we want to play. Sure, we are a minority... for now. But thing might change.

We're not financial investors, we play games.

PS: Some people spend hundreds of dollars on a single night on booze alone. Change a night of booze for collaborating in building a fair game scene, and I think it is totally worth it. One less beer, one less online activation, sound OK to me.

[Veleda]

For video games I don't contribute any more than I would be willing to pay for a new game.

For philanthropies, likewise I contribute what I would otherwise give to a charity or museum, if I feel the project is worthwhile and has a good chance of succeeding.

[80Maxwell08]

Well I'm glad that people discussed this so politely but maybe that's just me being on RPG codex a little too much.

Also I don't want to sound like I'm trying to advertise this but thankfully I don't really have anything positive to say about this. That Thorvalla kickstarter is going to fail hard at it's current rate and I completely get it. The pitch is boring only showing one guy, some of the the art they show is unfinished and the only things he has worked on are mobile games.

Companies like Double Fine and Obsidian have been making games for years so at least when they say they want to use their experience to fix what went wrong the first time it makes sense but Guido Henkel hasn't really done anything relevant aside from write books.I don't think the days of showing up with nothing but a name and getting a few million are done but the problem is people have to know and trust you. I haven't played Realms of Arkania (got it for free on GOG but have no idea how to play it) but considering that's his most relevant work aside from producing Planescape Torment and some of Neverwinter Nights his name doesn't have any renown today.

I don't want him to fail but I know for certain he is going to.

[wisielec]

freakie1one said:

Is it now clear that donations can be investments? ›››

...and you know that the phrases you posted are pure rhetorics? Those are bad examples.

[freakie1one]

wisielec said:

...and you know that the phrases you posted are pure rhetorics? Those are bad examples. ›››

I'm aware of it. I was pointing out how common it is to use the word(s) "invest" or "investment" in such a manner. Again, I'm not sure if the word invest (or its Polish equivalent) is used in the same manner in the Polish language. In either case, I am not going to beat a dead horse. I've said my piece and there really is no need for me to say more on the subject

[Veleda]

80Maxwell08 said:

I don't want him to fail but I know for certain he is going to. ›››

If so, he can learn from it. You're probably right, though. I wish these guys well, but avoid the more speculative projects myself.

The talk about kickstarter saving gaming is naive, IMO. Chris Avellone and Josh Sawyer's statements on it are good correctives. Unlike Brian Fargo, they say it's not so much of a "screw you" to big publishers as it is a way for niche games to reach their right audiences. I'm still happy about the development. I am increasingly as disinterested in AAA games as I am in most of television and films. What the mass market attracts is rarely worth time and attention.

[80Maxwell08]

Veleda said:

If so, he can learn from it. You're probably right, though. I wish these guys well, but avoid the more speculative projects myself.

The talk about kickstarter saving gaming is naive, IMO. Chris Avellone and Josh Sawyer's statements on it are good correctives. Unlike Brian Fargo, they say it's not so much of a "screw you" to big publishers as it is a way for niche games to reach their right audiences. I'm still happy about the development. I am increasingly as disinterested in AAA games as I am in most of television and films. What the mass market attracts is rarely worth time and attention. ›››

I don't think crowdfunding will save gaming but if these don't fall through then they will at least make it a bit better. Though for this to overthrow publishers like people are hoping millions of people would have to buy the games after release. Not like I don't hope a little bit that something close might happen with some of these but I'm not honestly thinking it's going to. As long as we get some good games out of these I'll be content.

[Greed1914]

dragonbird said:

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. ›››

As a whole, I think the system would do well to have a few things fail. The idea is still so new that I think a lot of projects met their goals so quickly just because people were overly eager and perhaps didn't think through the possibility that whatever they funded might not get made, or might end up being awful. It seems to me that overall, it would do well for people to have a few reality checks so they really consider why they are giving money to these projects.


Personally, I remain extremely skeptical of the crowd funding system. I really like the concept of it, with the intended audience helping to make something happen, but it also seems like there is so much room for abuse. As far as I know, there really isn't any way for the people seeking funding to be held accountable if they end up squandering the money. Ultimately, the money is a gift, and if people are fine taking that level of chance, then that is their call. I just worry that many have gotten wrapped up in the idea without considering why it is that these people had to go outside the traditional routes in the first place. Sure, there is probably plenty of interest for an old-school adventure game from Tim Shaffer, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is anywhere near enough interest to sustain multiple games like that from complete unknowns. Like I said before, a few failures would go a long way toward getting people to ask, "Who are you, and why do you want my money?"

An example that really made me question the system was Penny Arcade using Kickstarter as a source of revenue to possibly go ad free. Now, the idea of an ad free Penny Arcade is fine, but this is a firmly established company that even runs its own conventions asking for money. It just doesn't seem like the "little guy" that this is supposed to help. Also, Kickstarter projects are supposed to be something with a set goal with some sort of finished creation as its final outcome. A project like, "I want to start a business" doesn't qualify under these standards, and yet Penny Arcade's project of going ad-free was approved. Obviously, the site is intended to continue in perpetuity with the same people reaping the benefits, so I don't see how it is any different than one person asking for money to start a business. There is also the matter of what happens when that funding dries up. Do they come back asking for more? Do they use it to help float them until they get enough subscriptions to compensate for not having ads? Do they just go back to getting ads?

[Veleda]

Those are all good questions. I wonder what will happen the first time Kickstarter is sued.

[Guy N'wah]

Veleda said:

Those are all good questions. I wonder what will happen the first time Kickstarter is sued. ›››

Won't have to wonder for long. http://www.wired.com...rmlabs-lawsuit/

It's over an alleged patent infringement by a Kickstarter-funded company, not the shrapnel from an imploded Kickstarter project, but yeah, the money involved in Kickstarter is enough to attract the sharks who wear three-piece suits.

The interesting thing about this lawsuit is Kickstarter is being sued in its capacity as a promoter and sales agent.

Greed1914 said:

As far as I know, there really isn't any way for the people seeking funding to be held accountable if they end up squandering the money. Ultimately, the money is a gift, and if people are fine taking that level of chance, then that is their call. I just worry that many have gotten wrapped up in the idea without considering why it is that these people had to go outside the traditional routes in the first place. Sure, there is probably plenty of interest for an old-school adventure game from Tim Shaffer, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is anywhere near enough interest to sustain multiple games like that from complete unknowns. Like I said before, a few failures would go a long way toward getting people to ask, "Who are you, and why do you want my money?" ›››

The good thing about Kickstarter is this is a way for consumers to put their money where their mouth is, and say "Here, this is what I want, not what some producer or publisher or promoter says I can be herded into wanting." My greater fear is not that there will be flops that don't deliver, but that the scene will be taken over by consultants or middlemen.

The way I interpret the Duck Test (if it waddles and quacks...), Kickstarter contributions aren't gifts, donations, or investments, they're advance sales. They're made with the expectation of receiving a product (or service, or performance) in return. Business is first, last, and in between about what you can sell, and it is precisely this venue for selling what consumers actually want to have and what artists and craftsmen actually want to create that gives Kickstarter and other crowdfunding schemes their value.

Kickstarter's terms require return of contributions for projects that fail to deliver. What's untested, you're right, is the willingness or ability of Kickstarter, Amazon, or the community of contributors to enforce the "deliver or refund" agreement.

[dragonbird]

Guy N said:

Kickstarter's terms require return of contributions for projects that fail to deliver. What's untested, you're right, is the willingness or ability of Kickstarter, Amazon, or the community of contributors to enforce the "deliver or refund" agreement. ›››

In most cases it'll probably be the bottom of the list of creditors in a bankruptcy case. But at least they'll make the list, so it's better than nothing.

I hope the patent troll gets kicked out. It's important for the future to get a clear decision that kickstarter isn't responsible for such things. Otherwise, it has the potential to be one hell of a chilling effect.

[Guy N'wah]

dragonbird said:

In most cases it'll probably be the bottom of the list of creditors in a bankruptcy case. But at least they'll make the list, so it's better than nothing.

I hope the patent troll gets kicked out. It's important for the future to get a clear decision that kickstarter isn't responsible for such things. Otherwise, it has the potential to be one hell of a chilling effect. ›››

I think this one's a legitimate complaint, not a patent troll. The plaintiff is 3D Systems; their founder and CTO is Chuck Hull, the inventor of computer-aided stereolithography (3D printing). The Kickstarter-funded company, Formlabs, makes knockoffs of 3D Systems' solid imaging printers.

The interesting question is to what extent Kickstarter can be held responsible for Formlabs. The suit claims that Kickstarter is a selling agent for Formlabs. Since Kickstarter is the only place you can order a Formlabs printer, and Kickstarter receives commissions on orders placed through them, it's not clear that 3D Systems is overreaching. Another reason this may be an uphill battle for Kickstarter is that Kickstarter's own Web site listed products that were specifically encouraged, and "3D printers" is on that list.

[dragonbird]

Guy N said:

I think this one's a legitimate complaint, not a patent troll. The plaintiff is 3D Systems; their founder and CTO is Chuck Hull, the inventor of computer-aided stereolithography (3D printing). The Kickstarter-funded company, Formlabs, makes knockoffs of 3D Systems' solid imaging printers.

The interesting question is to what extent Kickstarter can be held responsible for Formlabs. The suit claims that Kickstarter is a selling agent for Formlabs. Since Kickstarter is the only place you can order a Formlabs printer, and Kickstarter receives commissions on orders placed through them, it's not clear that 3D Systems is overreaching. Another reason this may be an uphill battle for Kickstarter is that Kickstarter's own Web site listed products that were specifically encouraged, and "3D printers" is on that list. ›››

Yes, I guess so, But I really hope that the decision doesn't go against Kickstarter. If 3D Systems patents are enough to stop anyone else innovating in 3D Printing, then the patent's too broad, and if not, then I don't think Kickstarter should be held responsible for whatever Formlabs has done. Personal view only - the law may disagree, but I can hope.

[Guy N'wah]

dragonbird said:

Yes, I guess so, But I really hope that the decision doesn't go against Kickstarter. If 3D Systems patents are enough to stop anyone else innovating in 3D Printing, then the patent's too broad, and if not, then I don't think Kickstarter should be held responsible for whatever Formlabs has done. Personal view only - the law may disagree, but I can hope. ›››

The difference between an innovation and a knockoff is not carved in stone; while using your competitor's technology to make his own product cheaper, which is what Formlabs has done, constitutes a benefit to small-scale and amateur users, it's also kind of hard to defend as the manner of innovation that society should protect.

I don't think Kickstarter can play it both ways. They can't encourage and regulate the manner of project they will accept (which they do), and then claim they have no responsibility for wrongs committed by the projects. Private profit entails public responsibility.

[80Maxwell08]

Well here's another Kickstarter that does their pitch right. Well I think they do it right. Honestly after watching it I have no idea but then again when it comes to these guys I don't know anything.
http://www.kickstart...shut-up-and-jam

Tales of Games have put the long awaited sequel to Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden, The Magical Realms of Tír na nÓg: Escape from Necron 7 - Revenge of Cuchulainn: The Official Game of the Movie - Chapter 2 of the Hoopz Barkley SaGa, up on Kickstarter to ask for 35k and have gotten 10k in about 1-2 hours. Honestly at least look at the page if nothing else for a good laugh. Especially the higher reward tiers.

Also I swear they have a better camera than than since their youtube channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/CBoyardee, has some videos with much better quality. Then again there is this.

[gregski]

Crowdfunding just reached a point where it's no longer "shady", it's just ridiculous.

http://www.eurogamer...ic-strategy-rpg

Basically, Black Isle studios is back or to be more precise "wants to be back". The money they raise will be spent on...creating a prototype of the game! Yep, you don't even get the actual game for your money. And guess what you get for pledging...forum access and a forum badge! Yes! Amazing! But only if you pledge more than 10$, because at 10$ you get a READ-ONLY forum access. It's like, I don't know, fuck in-game microtransactions! Black Isle is actually pushing the whole thing forward and making "in-forum" microtransactions! It's some next-gen crowdfunding madness my mind is too small to understand so far.

[Sirnaq]

gregski said:

Crowdfunding just reached a point where it's no longer "shady", it's just ridiculous.

http://www.eurogamer...ic-strategy-rpg

Basically, Black Isle studios is back or to be more precise "wants to be back". The money they raise will be spent on...creating a prototype of the game! Yep, you don't even get the actual game for your money. And guess what you get for pledging...forum access and a forum badge! Yes! Amazing! But only if you pledge more than 10$, because at 10$ you get a READ-ONLY forum access. It's like, I don't know, fuck in-game microtransactions! Black Isle is actually pushing the whole thing forward and making "in-forum" microtransactions! It's some next-gen crowdfunding madness my mind is too small to understand so far. ›››

This "Black Isle" has nothing to do with old Black Isle except the name. Real current black isle are Inexile and Obsidian, just saying.

[gregski]

Sirnaq said:

This "Black Isle" has nothing to do with old Black Isle except the name. Real current black isle are Inexile and Obsidian, just saying. ›››

So? That justifies the whole idea?

[80Maxwell08]

Sirnaq said:

This "Black Isle" has nothing to do with old Black Isle except the name. Real current black isle are Inexile and Obsidian, just saying. ›››

Actually I think those people they listed were some of the people who made the original Fallout. Of course if you look at history that's just more reason to urge them to quit considering Interplay ripped Fallout away from them to exploit it for money as much as they could. Now we have Herve Caen trying to run his own version of a kickstarter (after his battlechess one failed) so he doesn't have to pay himself. That they say they are trying to cut the bureaucratic part out when they can only do this with Herve's permission and odds are he has the power to force change if he wants to makes me want to warn everyone I know to be weary of this.