Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

Not particularly. It's still advertising. And indie devs' ads can be just as annoying as "professional" game developers...probably even more so if the indie dev advertise a game that I don't particularly care about.

It's different when it affects the final price point. There's nothing stopping an indie dev from going "my game should cost $10 more per unit because I spent time on the internet promoting it."

On the other hand, when they hire people to do that stuff for them, they don't get the choice to simply not pay those people. Therefore, to me, how a company chooses to handle their advertising (among other things) has an impact on the final price point. And those that seem to be loading their game up with extra costs aren't ones I'm going to rush out to donate to. Especially when they're doing the full-court, social media press. It's like "Ok, so I'm effectively getting charged extra because you hired someone to troll Facebook and spam forums."

[Servant Corps]

It's different when it affects the final price point.

Fair enough.

EDIT: I do wonder however that the thought process of a developer that is confident enough to advertise his product, but not confident enough to fund the game by themselves and instead has to go to Kickstarter to raise money.

[Lord Dullard]

Yeah, indie devs here type up a forum post. That's different than paying someone several thousand dollars to spam the internet, call journalists, make videos and add to your overhead by doing so.

Not particularly. It's still advertising. And indie devs' ads can be just as annoying as "professional" game developers...probably even more so if the indie dev advertise a game that I don't particularly care about.

Time is money, so if you're wasting time spamming the internet, calling journalists, and making videos, it's the same as you paying money for someone else to do so.

When people start crowdsourcing out their overhead, rather than trying to crowd source support for their idea, that's when I think it's taking advantage of the promise of indie games.

There is no promise of indie games. Indie games are just about "independence" for the game developer, to be allowed to do what he wants, not what the "community" wants. If Today wants to set aside 10% of his donated income, then he is still being indie, because he's the one deciding what to do with HIS money. Now, if someone told Toady to set aside 10% of his donated income, then he's no longer indie; he's taking orders. Even a multi-million-dollar private individual is still an indie developer, but the minute he goes public and becomes accountable to shareholders and a CEO, then he has "sold out" and became non-indie.

Also, I find the idea of begging money to other people to fund your idea to be incredibly exploitative to the consumer, no matter if you're crowdsourcing overhead or 'support' or whatever. Because the consumer has no accountability over the process; all he really gets is just sweet-sounding words and smiles from a indie developer (who is probably just as greedy and cynical as his non-indie counterparts). If anything, I want the crowdsource of ideas and programming, you know, crowdsource the actual game, as opposed to just throwing money at a developer who's free to spend it as he please.

It's pretty ridiculous of you to broadbrush all developers as 'cynical and greedy'.

If you dislike crowdfunding, well, you're certainly not obligated to try it. On the other hand, if people crowdfund something and receive what they expect in return, it's hardly your right to tell them they were exploited. Developers are individuals and there is no reason to assume they are all dicks who are out to exploit the public.

By your reasoning, a publisher who funds a game or product before it is completely realized is being 'exploited' by the developer because they're footing the bill in advance. In fact, they're being exploited by an order of magnitude more than anybody who crowdfunds, since an individual who donates towards a Kickstarter-esque campaign is only funding a very small portion of the overall cost.

[nenjin]

What directed at me or SC, LD?

[Lord Dullard]

Servant Corps.

[Servant Corps]

If you dislike crowdfunding, well, you're certainly not obligated to try it. On the other hand, if people crowdfund something and receive what they expect in return, it's hardly your right to tell them they were exploited.

Here's the dirty secret; Kickstarter is based on the "honor system", so there is a real chance that a people can crowdfund something and not receive anything in return. This has happened before, according to a SomethingAwful post:

Consider that, in the realm of music, this dude essentially bilked 205 people out of +$25k (he eventually farted out a scrapbook and a bad live recording way over schedule, IIRC) and nothing really happened. The dude got his all-expenses paid trip to Africa, and he's still making music with a very high-profile band.

I mean at what threshold does fraud go from being insignificant to something that the invisible hand of the free market cannot possibly allow? Because $25,000 is a lot of money.

Granted, it seems unlikely that any of these people are actually con artists but it stands to reason that at some point along the line there might be a hitch or a hardware failure or something that will cause a delay and scuttle the best laid plans of the developer. So it's less a danger of people taking the money and running and more a danger of people not delivering exactly what they promise when they promise to do so. The question is then whether fan investors will be more lenient than publishers have historically been.

And Kickstarter doesn't really care whether a project actually succeeds or not, they still get their portion of the donated money anyway. And with there being more game projects being established and funded through Kickstarter, there is a possibility we may have more situations like this occurring.

The "exploitation" metaphor was a bit overblown, but there really is no accountability and no input in the process of a Kickstarter-funded game. Publishers, on the other hand, get a share of the money involved, and possibly have some accountability to ensure developers do produce their products, so it's a different scenario.

I don't hate Kickstarter and I don't view developers as all bad people, but I also don't like optimism, especially when doing so has the potential to blind someone to real dangers. It's better than to be cynical than to rush idiotically into a trap.

[Lord Dullard]

Fair enough. I'm not saying there's no risk involved or that it's impossible to be duped - in general, I'd also say a more cautious approach is warranted when it comes to something you don't have a tangible and immediate return from.

I do agree that there should be more accountability involved in the process; promising rewards for campaigns like these should be binding in some way, i.e., there should be significant legal ramifications if you don't follow through. I don't know how plausible that is, but yeah, it certainly should be the case.

[Draco18s]

And Kickstarter doesn't really care whether a project actually succeeds or not, they still get their portion of the donated money anyway.

Considering that unsuccessful projects never charge their backers anything, no.  Kickstarter does not get their "cut" if a project doesn't succeed.  Well they do:

5% of Nothing.

But it's still nothing.

[AlStar]

And Kickstarter doesn't really care whether a project actually succeeds or not, they still get their portion of the donated money anyway.

Considering that unsuccessful projects never charge their backers anything, no.  Kickstarter does not get their "cut" if a project doesn't succeed.  Well they do:

5% of Nothing.

But it's still nothing.

I think he means unsuccessful as in 'never makes what they said they were going to', not unsuccessful as in 'doesn't make its funding goal.'

As far as I know (and that's not a whole lot, mind), as long as the project makes its funding goal by the end of its # of days, the cash is charged to investors, divvy'd up with Kickstarter, then... well, you better hope that you get the product you paid for.

(Note: I am currently funding 4 different Kickstarter projects - I am pro-Kickstarter)

[Servant Corps]

I think he means unsuccessful as in 'never makes what they said they were going to', not unsuccessful as in 'doesn't make its funding goal.'

AlStar is right. I consider meeting funding goals as Step 1 of creating the actual product, as opposed to being be-all, end-all.

And Kickstarter gets its share when funding goals are met.

[Zangi]

I believe they are trying to say, after the Kickstarter funds are distributed.  The 'developer' is not beholden to actually complete the project or something like that.

Though, that would have a cascade effect, where if Kickstarter keeps letting in 'scammers', they would have to tighten up requirements and/or lose credibility, where-in, less people are willing to put money into Kickstarter projects, thinking that the next one may have some shitty 'developers' trying to get a quick buck out of Kickstarter.

Not so much of an impact with low profile Kickstarters, but if one of the big/prolific ones falls flat on their face...

[PTTG??]

So as a rule of thumb, be 20% better than this project before submitting to kickstarter.

[MrWiggles]

So was that Livestream faq recorded?

[Scelly9]

So as a rule of thumb, be 20% better than this project before submitting to kickstarter.

Tha absolute fuck?

[forsaken1111]

So as a rule of thumb, be 20% better than this project before submitting to kickstarter.

Tha absolute fuck?

There are no words... I mean...

$10,000 USD TOP LEVEL all of other items plus I will name a vein in my biceb after you. There are six veins as thick as ropes and eleven veins as thick as a big string. First to come, first to service on these veins so better hurry if you want big vein.