@xxKilimxx. My answer to the "just earn it" logic / is Kickstarter relevant or not?

[Lars Ulrika]

This topic is opened to stop making the kickstarter comparison derail. 

 


 

? no one's asking you to do that your post doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is that you don't get the point of what I'm telling you. Let me clarify : My situation is such that I can barely afford some graphics ok? If I put more than maybe 200$ budget in this in a year it means eating on my daughter's basic needs. So here I say thanks crowdfunding because it might make me able to still make that game project and hopefully make me able to hire people who badly need money too. 

Is it despicable? 

And for your information there are places where you basically can't "earn happiness" if you're born in the wrong family. I know people who get up at 4 am to collect garbage to sell for barely feeding their family. They live in wooden houses in areas where fires are quite common because of lack of security norms etc. 
If these people had a business project, I would gladly crowdfund them to help them afford a better future. I hope that with my game I can get enough sales to precisely save money to also provide help to these people and mount a community project in my area to make things better. I'll probably need crowdfunding there too. (living in Indonesia , selling a game even 10$ means much more than selling such a game in let's say , France, it's not an unrealistic goal.)
You know why I want to do that? Because I believe people deserve happiness and that it's our duty to help people who are below us to rise. If I ever live some successful story, I want to share it. 

And I say that being someone who earned his happiness. I just don't mind if someone has it easier to get it too. I would be happy for him. Because him being happy or not won't change a damn thing in my own life. 

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

and because of this I re-read the thread...


I'd just like to add something for the person involved:


What's wrong with people helping other people? That's basically what Kickstarter does, it allows other people (maybe the more privileged ones) to help others that want to produce something but cannot fund it...


It's just a tool that makes finding "investors" or "sponsors" easier, which most companies/institutes do anyways.


PS: And oh, getting backers in KS is still quite a lot of hard work. If you don't have the knack for it, it might even be easier for you to just ask for a little bit of money from every friend and relative that you have...

 

[crimcrim]

oh dear i wasn't even trying to upset anyone with my comment, just sharing my opinion on Kickstarter, sorry if it was "derailing" the thread tho.

This topic is opened to stop making the kickstarter comparison derail. 

 


 

What doesn't make sense is that you don't get the point of what I'm telling you. Let me clarify : My situation is such that I can barely afford some graphics ok? If I put more than maybe 200$ budget in this in a year it means eating on my daughter's basic needs. So here I say thanks crowdfunding because it might make me able to still make that game project and hopefully make me able to hire people who badly need money too. 

Is it despicable? 

And for your information there are places where you basically can't "earn happiness" if you're born in the wrong family. I know people who get up at 4 am to collect garbage to sell for barely feeding their family. They live in wooden houses in areas where fires are quite common because of lack of security norms etc. 
If these people had a business project, I would gladly crowdfund them to help them afford a better future. I hope that with my game I can get enough sales to precisely save money to also provide help to these people and mount a community project in my area to make things better. I'll probably need crowdfunding there too. (living in Indonesia , selling a game even 10$ means much more than selling such a game in let's say , France, it's not an unrealistic goal.)
You know why I want to do that? Because I believe people deserve happiness and that it's our duty to help people who are below us to rise. If I ever live some successful story, I want to share it. 

And I say that being someone who earned his happiness. I just don't mind if someone has it easier to get it too. I would be happy for him. Because him being happy or not won't change a damn thing in my own life. 

look; if you're that hard pressed for cash and you have the enormous responsibility of raising a daughter then maybe you shouldn't be making a game. part of the reason i'm not even interested in pursuing a relationship or children is because i want to be firmly established financially before doing so.

i don't want to insult you or your situation at all but sometimes reality is grim. i don't think people deserve happiness, rather, i follow the traditional approach as laid out by the US constitution, that all people deserve the pursuit of happiness. the situation you proposed in which people are unable to move up in the hierarchy is a shame, i agree with you, because they aren't given the right to pursue happiness.

that being said i don't want to detract from the original topic at hand too much with personal grievances.

i don't agree with the concept of Kickstarter. sure there are scams that take place but those are the extremes so i won't use them as a crutch for my argument.

i operate under the assumption that you don't deserve happiness or the perfect job; you have to earn it. the developers in the past had to donate their own time and money to make ends meet and they were hellbent on success because, again, if they didn't make a good game they lost everything. Kickstarter eliminates that completely and puts the responsibility entirely on the consumer. no longer is the developer going to take a giant loss if his project tanks. i'm sure you could see how this would effect the quality of games in the long run.

from a personal perspective i pour every single dime i make into my project, to the point where i actually gave up eating lunch. not only is this a huge motivator, but it feels...right. when my game's finished i can look back it and say "this was all me".

i really hope Kickstarter stops being relevant soon, for all of our sakes

^ to anyone who is unclear about the discussion, this is what i posted in the other thread

and because of this I re-read the thread...

I'd just like to add something for the person involved:

What's wrong with people helping other people? That's basically what Kickstarter does, it allows other people (maybe the more privileged ones) to help others that want to produce something but cannot fund it...

It's just a tool that makes finding "investors" or "sponsors" easier, which most companies/institutes do anyways.

PS: And oh, getting backers in KS is still quite a lot of hard work. If you don't have the knack for it, it might even be easier for you to just ask for a little bit of money from every friend and relative that you have...

well to be clear, i'm a firm believer in helping hands, not hand outs. there's a distinct difference. like i said before, my main gripe with kickstarter is that it could eventually lead to half-assed or even unfinished games. with no financial pressure there really is no backlash to failure, and some devs might not have a large motivation to produce a perfect product

edit: just to make sure i'm not coming across as a NoFunAllowed i'm basing this entirely on the commercial aspect of game design, not the hobbyist kind (although kickstarter being the focal point of discussion already shows that, i just wanted to make myself clear)

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

It could maybe, but almost all money-making outlet is like that... Any medium can be abused by the users, it's not just KS... Also if devs do that, it will be harmful for them too... they'd probably become a one-off producer if they do that, meaning their next projects will fail...

with no financial pressure there really is no backlash to failure

Losing the trust of people is a huge backlash, in case you don't realize it. And maybe there's no financial pressure, but if you're a good dev, there is a lot of pressure if your project is backed-up by a lot of people that will be expecting you to deliver the product... Again, trust plays a huge role here. Losing trust of people can even make any venture you try out in the future to fail.


And devs that don't care about that will use any medium that they can exploit, so griping about KS because of that possibility of exploitation is quite a non-sense... It will be much better to educate the backers instead so that they won't fall to these scams.


And oh, a perfect product doesn't exist...

 

[Shaz]

I agree there are probably some people who take advantage of KS and the likes to get money that they don't earn. But there are a whole lot of others who DO use the funds for the purpose intended. I think it's unfair to make a blanket statement which gives the appearance that you are saying ANYONE who uses kickstarter is a scammer, because they're not. At some point you have to leave it to the individual to determine whether they believe a project is a good investment of their money or not.

 

[crimcrim]

It could maybe, but almost all money-making outlet is like that... Any medium can be abused by the users, it's not just KS... Also if devs do that, it will be harmful for them too... they'd probably become a one-off producer if they do that, meaning their next projects will fail...

Losing the trust of people is a huge backlash, in case you don't realize it. And maybe there's no financial pressure, but if you're a good dev, there is a lot of pressure if your project is backed-up by a lot of people that will be expecting you to deliver the product...

And oh, a perfect product doesn't exist...

yeah i agree, stuff like this runs rampant and it's sad that we have people who stoop that low and take advantages of an otherwise pure concept.

your next statement varies. not everyone is in the industry to make a work of art, some people are in it to make money. once they have that money then who cares. but that's a generalization. something both of us can agree on is that money is a huge motivator.

I agree there are probably some people who take advantage of KS and the likes to get money that they don't earn. But there are a whole lot of others who DO use the funds for the purpose intended. I think it's unfair to make a blanket statement which gives the appearance that you are saying ANYONE who uses kickstarter is a scammer, because they're not. At some point you have to leave it to the individual to determine whether they believe a project is a good investment of their money or not.

i'm not saying everyone is a scammer at all, my first post even said that i don't want to even approach that avenue of thinking in this conversation.

here's what i'm trying to hint at (i'll use my personal life to convey the message easier)

every penny that i make is put into my game, and like i said before, i don't actually eat meals to save money. i've sunk $7,000 dollars into my game already and i'm not even getting started. with all the money on the line i want to make it back and then some, so i'm motivated even more to make a product as close to perfection as possible.

my worry is that with kickstarter that motivation is diminished and some (not all) developers will take advantage of this

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Scammers thrive not because there is a medium for it, they thrive because there are people that fall for the scams... Even if you remove KS, these scammers will simply find a new medium and go on with their scamming lives, so in the end you simply lost a medium that can (and is) actually beneficial to a lot of people. Which is why educating people so that they don't fall for these things can potentially have a better result, a win-win situation actually.

your next statement varies. not everyone is in the industry to make a work of art, some people are in it to make money.

Read it again, I stated in the next statement: "if you're a good dev"

but that's a generalization

Exactly. More often than not, doing generalizations don't yield a good thing.

 

[kerbonklin]

This is why we can't have nice things. And when nice things are abused, everyone else shouldn't be punished, but sadly that's how it goes. It's like when teachers in grade-school punish the whole class because one kid doesn't want to admit something.

I'm pretty sure 95% of kick-starters made are legit and worked hard on. So the best thing to do is just tighten security instead of "removing" kick-starter as a choice. (In my opinion of course)

 

[crimcrim]

This is why we can't have nice things. And when nice things are abused, everyone else shouldn't be punished, but sadly that's how it goes. It's like when teachers in grade-school punish the whole class because one kid doesn't want to admit something.

I'm pretty sure 95% of kick-starters made are legit and worked hard on. So the best thing to do is just tighten security instead of "removing" kick-starter as a choice. (In my opinion of course)

man i strictly said i wasn't using the scammers as a crutch for my argument :\/

i actually often juggled around the idea of QC being implemented in kickstarter, similar to what Steam had before greenlight

 

[Lars Ulrika]

Oh ok, if you speak about a right to pursue happiness then I'm totally ok with that. About what I should do or not well, I just won't expose my life on a forum. Don't worry , my daughter gets all the attention she deserves

 

[Sharm]

I don't see the problem in doing something for the money. I mean, acquiring money isn't a bad thing and it isn't always selfish. Even if it was, selfish motivators are still motivators and the best way to get and keep money is to work hard for it. There have been many times when I've made art just for the money I was being offered. My devotion to what I made and the quality of work didn't suffer, in fact in every case I can think of I was more devoted to it because the money involved was a symbol of someone else's trust in me.


Getting the money first doesn't mean you aren't working for it either. Like I mentioned in the other thread, the gaming industry is not generally self funded. Game companies are bought by people with money hoping for a return, they change hands like stock and where the money comes from or if there is any money for the game at all changes at the drop of a hat. If there isn't anyone paying for the game to be made the game company will fold or shop around for a new investor. This is why, in my opinion, gaming is so greatly benefited by Kickstarter's existence. The money flow is much more stable and is coming from people who actually care about the game and aren't deciding on the game's merit base on investment return. To succeed at Kickstarter, gaming companies have to make something interesting to a gamer, not something that looks good on paper. This is what will move us away from all the COD clones and back towards diverse and creative concepts.


I'm not of the opinion that if bad things happen now and then that the whole thing is wrong or needs to be sterilized for our protection. The world just can't be made that safe and I'd much rather have the freedom to choose something that works for me and deal with the risk. Now if the majority of the Kickstarters that got funded turned out to be scams that would be a different thing entirely. But that's not what I see happening, especially not now that Kickstarter is becoming a more common method of funding things and the people who pledge money to it are getting more savvy.

 

[mlogan]

"look; if you're that hard pressed for cash and you have the enormous responsibility of raising a daughter then maybe you shouldn't be making a game."

Perhaps he is making a game so that he won't be so hard-pressed for cash. You don't know his situation, please don't judge what he "should" or should not be doing.

"the developers in the past had to donate their own time and money to make ends meet and they were hellbent on success because, again, if they didn't make a good game they lost everything."

I think this is the biggest problem with your argument. You make a blanket statement that assumes that the only way games were funded in the past was developers putting in their own money. What basis do you have for this? You seriously want to tell me that no developer ever borrowed money to produce their game? Not even a little bit?

I've contributed to some Kickstarter projects when I've been able to. I realize that it is taking a risk. I contribute to projects that I want to and with the mindset that it could go bust. I look at it the same way that I have in the past when I've given money to homeless people despite everyone saying I shouldn't "because they will just buy booze with it" - and that is that when I give it is with good intent and given freely and that once the money is out of my hands, it's not up to me what's done with it anymore.

 

[crimcrim]

"look; if you're that hard pressed for cash and you have the enormous responsibility of raising a daughter then maybe you shouldn't be making a game."

Perhaps he is making a game so that he won't be so hard-pressed for cash. You don't know his situation, please don't judge what he "should" or should not be doing.

irrelevant. there are other avenues to explore that are much more rewarding in a much smaller time frame. you should only strive to make a huge commercial success if you have the time, money and capability to do so.

"the developers in the past had to donate their own time and money to make ends meet and they were hellbent on success because, again, if they didn't make a good game they lost everything."

I think this is the biggest problem with your argument. You make a blanket statement that assumes that the only way games were funded in the past was developers putting in their own money. What basis do you have for this? You seriously want to tell me that no developer ever borrowed money to produce their game? Not even a little bit?

i wasn't wording myself too clearly here. back then there always a financial risk. if you work for a company and your game turns out to be bad, you get fired. if you borrow money from an entity and you can't pay it back because your game tanked then you're in debt. it isn't the same as kickstarter in the least. kickstarter just expects a finished product, quality isn't debatable. a little different, no?

 

[Sharm]

I think you keep missing the point about how gaming companies usually work. They use an investment business model, the money is never theirs. An outside investor like a rich person or parent company comes in from the outside, makes all the business decisions and leaves the messy game making aspect in the hands of the game company. Any monetary success a game company has is given to the investor, they can't use that profit to fund a new game, that's up to the investor to decide. Kickstarter isn't any different that way, if you don't make a good game or don't make a game at all, that means you're much less likely to be successful in getting the funds you need for your next gaming venture, just like how it is in the industry.

 

[Lars Ulrika]

irrelevant. there are other avenues to explore that are much more rewarding in a much smaller time frame. you should only strive to make a huge commercial success if you have the time, money and capability to do so.

Now that's pissing me off. You know indonesian legislation regarding immigration? Especially what kind of work foreigners can do? No? You know the cost of life there? Neither do you right? The benefit I can do even with an indie game living here? I don't think so. The potential rentability compared to other businesses I could do according to my competences? You can't know that, you don't know me. 

In other words mind your own business and let's get back on topic 

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

if you have the time, money and capability to do so.

So if you don't have the money but has the capability to have the money (here KS being an avenue that gives you capability to have that money within a smaller time frame), you shouldn't pursue it??? 0.0


From a dev/studio/whatever's point of view, going on KS is a smart move... both money-wise and timeframe-wise... and to an extent: player-relationship wise since you'd be able to start and/or adjust things (in case of those that's gonna mainly use the money for graphics) earlier, you can also deliver the same quality product earlier or deliver a better product within the same time frame of the case where you work first to get the budget

 

[Neifion]

Don't want to add fuel to the fire or anything, but this stuck out to me:

Kickstarter eliminates that completely and puts the responsibility entirely on the consumer...

Isn't that who games are made for? Isn't that the best way to go, rather than putting the responsibility in the hands of a huge, money-crazed publisher? The big reason why indie gamers are excited about KS is because they get to be the publisher. In the case of Star Citizen, for example, they're letting pledgers actually make decisions about what's going to be in the game. Many other developers are doing that too!

Look, I find it very respectable that someone would want to do a project completely with their own resources. But what if you don't have enough to reach your vision?

What if you'd really like to have good voice actors, a professional score, FMV, better graphics, more quests, etc.?

If people help you out, you can possibly make that vision come to life. And for them, they get to play a game they want to play. It's win-win. They'd have to pay for the game anyway, so they pay for it by helping to fund it's development, and also get a pledge reward and a thank you in the credits.

Anyway, a lot of what I said has been said already, but that's how I see it.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I have been thinking how to word the "From a backer" point of view for a while now, and you nailed it.

 

[Mouser]

Oye! what a can of worms I opened up...

Here's my thoughts, in no particular order:

1) "Game developers used to..." - Indie game developers "used to" not exist. Seriously. It takes a lot of money to make a game - and until recently, physical distribution was a requirement. That meant you needed a lot of money for even the simplest 'project'. I take that back - the equivalent of what an RM maker game is now was writing a game out in BASIC and having some magazine print the code out for it's subscribers to type in themselves (hoping their computer's BASIC interpreter worked the same way yours did).

2) Forget games - this is true of ANY business. Very, very few of them are started with the individual's own cash. As for personal risk, at least in the US, that what incorporation is for (and anyone who goes into business without incorporating is a fool).  This keeps your personal assets separate from 'professional' assets so even if your game tanks your personal assets are safe.

3) People who have money, don't want to lose it. There's a reason EA keeps pumping out "new" sports games every year. It's a proven business model. Why should they risk their capital on an unproven concept when they don't have to? In fact, let me break that down for a step further - if a publicly traded company like EA or SOE (division of Sony) were to sink a large amount of capital into some speculative game, and the game flopped, they would be leaving themselves wide open to a class action lawsuit by the shareholders. A corporation's primary moral, ethical, and legal responsibility is to its shareholders - not its customers (and especially not 'potential' customers).

4) Venture capitalists are the only other realistic source of funding for any game developer not already well established. And they don't give money away like Santa Claus - you've got to have a solid business case written up (a skill in itself), and convince them why they should potentially lose their money on the chance that you'll be successful. That typically means giving up a lot of creative control, because the farther you stray from the reservation, the less likely you are to succeed, and the more they give, the more of a say they're going to want in things.

Bottom line: If Kickstarter and all crowdfunding were to magically disappear tomorrow what the effect be? Game corporations like EA and Square-Enix and SOE would be fine. Guys like Roberts and McQuaid could get by as well, going the venture capitalist route (it's what both actually planned for from the start - using the Kickstarter money to build a working 'proof of concept') - they've already proven they can succeed, so they're much less of a risk. Everybody else: shut out in the cold, unable to break through the barriers of entry to even get into the game (pun intended).

About the only way in would be direct sales via website, ebay, or very small portals with small returns (after a spending years trying to get something finished - since you couldn't afford to pay a 'team' - so you'd be working for pennies an hour), or doing casual Hidden Object, Puzzle Adventure style games on Big Fish, where you see the same game repackaged and repurposed over and over and over again: Evil <warlock, witch, demon, school teacher> has kidnapped my <son, daughter, fiance, dog> and taken them to <alternate dimension, creepy castle, murky swamp, Detroit> so I have to search through a pile of junk in the garage for a banana shaped key to open the refrigerator where the kids left the hammer so I can fix the ladder to climb through the window, ... [and the production values on those are steadily climbing - cinematic cutscenes and full voice overs are now considered standard fare].

In short, innovation in the video game industry (and all the other things Kickstarter is used for) would be pretty much over.

 

[kerbonklin]

@Mouser's 3rd point, this is why Nintendo barely ever branches into new franchises. They have many already-existing popular franchises that are safe to expand on without much risk, even if the game is not good.

Also as I learned from a Game Design book I read, people like "new Tide" because it has Tide in it, and they trust Tide. They are familiar with Tide. Therefore if you sell a product with Tide in it under a different name, it will do fine in the market.