532 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

This conversation has taken a fascinating turn.


Nothing else to contribute, just wanted to say how much it has my attention.

[Renmiri1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Which is absolutely the wrong mindset and creates very angry backers and developers. I myself consider it charity and I absolutely expect results from both charity and Kickstarter. It isn't "no strings attached" at all. If the charity (or developer) uses my donation to fund his new deck or backyard pool I will be really angry. Might even look into legal remedies for it.

So if you contribute $250 for a tier that gives you some collectibles, a hard copy of the game with a cloth map, and in the end all that happens is a game gets developed that ultimately you still have to pay for to play (with no hard copy, no map, and no collectibles).

Sorry.  If Kickstarter is to truly be a charity, reward tiers need to be removed altogether and just let people donate what they want.  Appropriate use of funds can be dealt with the same way charities deal with it.  In this case, it's nothing more than donating for the hope of getting a game, with no return expected.

As long as rewards are offered for particular amounts of contribution, I have no problems with people expecting that the rewards promised get received.

When I donate to PBS or NPR I might get a mug, tote bag, or even a magazine for donating more, and of course if I go for the higher tier, I expect the little gift. But my main goal is always to help with something I think it is valluable. Why is kickstarter any different ?

I think the difference is on the age of donnors, us old geezers are perfectly fine with donating $250 and getting a coffee mug and then giving away the coffee mug. But young donors at kickstarter think it is a game preorder and that is misleading to both the donnor and the charity.

[Allan Schumacher]

Firky wrote...

Everything I've ever given to on Kickstarter - only games and one gaming mag - has been the minimum tier required to get the product. (Except Feminist Frequency in which I didn't select a reward.) Then, I've walked away fully satisfied with backing the dream, whether or not I ever see any result at all.

I contributed to two Kickstarter games, at the tier to get a copy of the game too. I understand that the project may fall flat on its face and I won't get anything. That's part of the risk I took.

If the game comes out, however, and they decide to not give me the copy of the game that was originally promised to my tier, I'm going to be upset. I'd be surprised if you aren't as well, but maybe you're just a better person than I am.

They're much more likely to donate if they do.

This is how matching gift campaigns work. In those cases, the thinking the donor gets is the feeling of empowerment from having compelled some larger, richer entity to donate as the donor sees fit.

There exists remarkably robust empirical data detailing exactly the extent to which incentives drive donations (from new donors - existing donors appear to give out of a sense of loyalty).

Exactly, they donate with the expectation of getting something. As you concede, providing incentives to donate improves donations. I agree. If you start not honoring the incentives, it burns bridges.

People have an expectation, rightfully so, if they are told they are to receive something in exchange for the contribution.

[Allan Schumacher]

When I donate to PBS or NPR I might get a mug, tote bag, or even a magazine for donating more, and of course if I go for the higher tier, I expect the little gift. But my main goal is always to help with something I think it is valluable. Why is kickstarter any different ?

I think the difference is on the age of donnors, us old geezers are perfectly fine with donating $250 and getting a coffee mug and then giving away the coffee mug. But young donors at kickstarter think it is a game preorder and that is misleading to both the donnor and the charity.

So basically if you donated $250 to Project Eternity to kickstarter, which states the following:

Previous reward tier + you get your COLLECTOR'S EDITION BOX signed by CHRIS AVELLONE, TIM CAIN, JOSH SAWYER, and the rest of the development team + full color printed PROJECT ETERNITY COLLECTOR'S BOOK + an elite version of the PROJECT ETERNITY CLOTH PATCH. The book will be a full color book that includes concept art, player's handbook, monster manual, exclusive information about the campaign setting and characters, and a special behind the scenes look at making the game.

So if you donated to get that, and didn't get any of it after release (and were even asked to still purchase the game), and you have no problems with it, then you're a better person than I am.  If you were to get upset, I would hold nothing against you.  People suggesting that $250 contributors that don't get this have no reason to get upset are living in a fantasy world as far as I'm concerned.



Aside: I loathe the age argument. It's condescending and I'm now actually irate. You basically just called me young and immature because I disagree with your perspective, and imply that because Obsidian promised me a copy of their game for helping finance their game, that I expect them to honor that part of the agreement is unreasonable. I'm almost 32 years old, and would rather my age not be brought into the equation. I'd rather you just say I'm more selfish than you are.

Kickstarter worked for me because I'm contributing to a for profit business (not a charity) to make a product that I want. By which they make an appeal to potential customers as means of financing the game through different means. To entice additional contributions, they offer additional incentives for larger contributions.

As a kickstarter contributor, I understand that the game may not be to my liking. I understand that the game may never get made. I understand that I have no real recourse, no would I bother with pursuing any.

If, however, the game is released, and they decide to not honor the reward tier based on my contribution without darned good reason, I'm going to be upset. The reason why I contributed was because I knew I would get something in return (since Obsidian isn't a charity), and that the opportunity cost of me making my contribution was worth it. Even if they took my contribution and decided to put it towards some sort of charity, I'm still going to be upset because I have my own charity preferences that I prefer to donate to based on what I value as being important, and all I get is frustration in knowing that my money was mismanaged even if it did go to a good cause. Actions like this will prevent me from using Kickstarter in the future.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 février 2013 - 12:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Okay, now it appears we agreed all along.

How did you do that?

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Okay, now it appears we agreed all along.

How did you do that?

I suspect there's some confusion over what exactly is being delivered.

As a kickstarter contributor, you accept the risk that the product may not be to your liking.  Someone that preorders a game assumes this same risk.

We also disagree because I think that it's fair for someone to see it as an "investment" because, based on reward tiers, they are perfectly justified in having some level of expectation based on their contribution.  The game may suck (poor return on investment), or the game may be super amazing (great return on investment).


From wikipedia: "In finance, investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, usually over a longer term."

People have put their money into a game.  I personally don't want to have any say in how my money gets used (since I know it's such a small piece of the pie), but I can totally understand how someone may think it is.  It's just that the return is different than a pure financial one.




Although this is starting to get off topic (I didn't have a huge issue, since something like kickstarter's approach is valid when discussion product visibility, which is what media silence is really about).

To bring it back: I'm sure there are some that donated because of assurances the developer makes of being kept up in development, even if they don't have any expectations to influence it.  As a result, failure to deliver on updates regarding development would result in a poorer return on investment based on what they were expecting to get from a Kickstarter project.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

We also disagree because I think that it's fair for someone to see it as an "investment" because, based on reward tiers, they are perfectly justified in having some level of expectation based on their contribution.

That was my position all along.  We completely agree.

[Plaintiff]

Funding a Kickstarter project may be a charitable action, but it is not charity.

It is, in fact, an investment. And like all investments, it is a gamble, and there is inherent risk that you will not see returns on the money you spent.

However, if the people you are backing have misrepresented or miscalculated the amount of money they were actually going to need, and they fail to produce a product even though the monetary goals have been met, then that's pretty serious, I'd think.

You can't lay the same blame on a genuine charitable organization because they're not actually promising specific results, or a return on your investment. At least not in most cases. They're not saying "If we get one million dollars, poverty will be eliminated for sure".

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 février 2013 - 01:44 .

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Firky wrote...

Everything I've ever given to on Kickstarter - only games and one gaming mag - has been the minimum tier required to get the product. (Except Feminist Frequency in which I didn't select a reward.) Then, I've walked away fully satisfied with backing the dream, whether or not I ever see any result at all.

I contributed to two Kickstarter games, at the tier to get a copy of the game too. I understand that the project may fall flat on its face and I won't get anything. That's part of the risk I took.

If the game comes out, however, and they decide to not give me the copy of the game that was originally promised to my tier, I'm going to be upset. I'd be surprised if you aren't as well, but maybe you're just a better person than I am.

I don't understand. Why would that make me a better person?

But, no. Honestly, if Ragnar Tornquist needed an additional $x from me to then buy Dreamfall Chapters at release I think I'd hand it over. (If it was $40+ + my original $20 - Australian prices - I'd have to start thinking about whether I should really buy it full price, but still.)

I think some of the higher tier rewards for games seem aligned with the financial investment you put in, others are just "cool perks" for people who really want to support the initiative and have the means to do so.

I went to Melbourne's Freeplay (indie design) festival last year and Morgan Jaffit gave a great local keynote including lengthy discussion of how designers need to be really wary of what they promise in higher tiers of Kickstarter because it can be hard to anticipate all the costs early in development, etc, as well as the production of physical stuff. I think that's also a potential problem with stretch goals, etc, as with the explicitness of them. But, again, not for me.

I dunno. I think many gamers can be very loyal and show lots of goodwill. I think the "belief" part of pledging to Kickstarter can help foster goodwill. (It does for me, anyway. Like when GOG game $20 of game vouchers to Australians to bring the price of The Witcher 2 in line with the rest of the world.)

I think gaming is a great hobby. I just honestly want to throw money at product and belief and Dragon Age comics and whatever else.

[Steppenwolf]

EntropicAngel wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

A ME3 dev said just weeks before the game released that the ending was not a choice between "A, B, or C." The ending was completely cemented at that point.

Which tells me one thing: he didn't think those endings, that we saw, were "A, B, and C" endings. You can choose to believe that he lied for no reason. I see no reason to do so.

The only conclusion you draw is that this person saw the endings, knew that it came down to a choice between 3 things, and then proclaimed "It's not a choice between A, B or C" and believed that to be the truth? That's the only possible scenario your mind can muster?

EntropicAngel wrote...

It really didn't take much if any twisting in most cases. See above. Bioware threw out specific numbers of different endings we could get, for crap's sake. Stop blaming the fans. It's petty.

Bioware "fans" that I've seen in the ME forums over the last year have been some of the vilest, most spiteful people I've ever encountered.

That's not hyperbole, and that's not white knighting. There are serious problems with a great deal of people who claim to like Bioware.

Read, attempting to sue the company.

I kept seeing claims liek these, pretty much as soon as the backlash started and still all the time now. Show me a lawsuit filed against them. Or point me to, say, 10 posts by different BSN users who exemplify this vile, spiteful behavior that you seem to think is so widespread.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

The request about the law suit is laughingly impossible, since it doesn't exist.

The request about ten ME3 posts that would make you cringe is laughably easy, since you could just flip back to any random thread back in March/April and pull one out of a hat.

[Steppenwolf]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

The request about the law suit is laughingly impossible, since it doesn't exist.

I guess you didn't cut yourself since you missed the point.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The request about ten ME3 posts that would make you cringe is laughably easy, since you could just flip back to any random thread back in March/April and pull one out of a hat.

I can find tons of people saying the game is crap and that they felt ripped off etc, but where is the vile, detestable behavior that I always hear about? Hepler had it much worse than anyone on the Mass Effect team.

Modifié par BasilKarlo, 23 février 2013 - 03:25 .

[Allen Spellwaver]

I just hope the first gameplay demo or trailer is mind-blowing...

[Augustei]

The announcement was made a lot earlier than originally planned to draw attention away from the fact the doctors were leaving Bioware I'd guess

[Nightdragon8]

ManiacG wrote...

Face of Evil wrote...

I'm surprised that they're even bothering to make Dragon Age 3, since we will apparently reach the crowning pinnacle of human achievement with the release of The Witcher 3.

Since life has become unending, interminable drudgery broken up only by the release of each Witcher title, perhaps we should be talking about mass suicide pacts instead? Personally, I don't see any further point in living.

well theres always Cyberpunk...and knowing them its gonna be epic ;p

calling something epic when we haven't even seen the gameplay is honestly all hype. It could be a complete bomb of a game. It has happened before. Also

OP because I dont want them to hype there game so they screw up and promise stuff that wont make into the game. ALOT of games have screwed that up in the past. This time its Biowares/EA's turn.

[Celene II]

I believe kickstarter will be the future of PC gaming. Crowd sourced games with input from the "investors" and an active developer interaction will revitalize the industry.

[ThisIsZad]

Blair Brown wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Seriously though, just a screen shot of a wired skeleton just waving would be awesome, or an eyeball, or even a screenshot of a dirt road! Anything!

Please?
I can remain patient though...

https://pbs.twimg.co...Alw4p.png:large

That looks promising!!
Look at the amount of details in the EYE, the colors and attention!!!!

[MJoshier]

Blair Brown wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Seriously though, just a screen shot of a wired skeleton just waving would be awesome, or an eyeball, or even a screenshot of a dirt road! Anything!

Please?
I can remain patient though...

https://pbs.twimg.co...Alw4p.png:large

...cant....stop....laughing....that is great lol

[Commander Kurt]

MJoshier wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Seriously though, just a screen shot of a wired skeleton just waving would be awesome, or an eyeball, or even a screenshot of a dirt road! Anything!

Please?
I can remain patient though...

https://pbs.twimg.co...Alw4p.png:large

...cant....stop....laughing....that is great lol

Is this confirmation that DA: I will return to the art style of DA:O?? 

[Sith Grey Warden]

 Now, of course, we're expecting a steady stream of information, since the leaks have begun. Is Eyeman a companion? Is it some creature made by magical experimentation? A hallucination in the fade? If he's in the fade, that would explain the road fading around his feet. Are there brown-eyed ones, or is his entire race blue-eyed? WE MUST KNOW!!!!

Modifié par Sith Grey Warden, 23 février 2013 - 04:10 .

[PaulSX]

Celene II wrote...

I believe kickstarter will be the future of PC gaming. Crowd sourced games with input from the "investors" and an active developer interaction will revitalize the industry.

I dont think so. I admitted that the success of kickstarter is inevitable, since there are demands of some marginlized game genres. But the truth is with backers' influence, the games funded on kickstarter will most likely serve certain groups of people. For that reason, kickstarter projects are not really competitors for mainstream. 

[Renmiri1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So if you donated to get that, and didn't get any of it after release (and were even asked to still purchase the game), and you have no problems with it, then you're a better person than I am.

I'm not a better person. I just don't donate more than I can lose without getting angry.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Aside: I loathe the age argument. It's condescending and I'm now actually irate. You basically just called me young and immature because I disagree with your perspective, and imply that because Obsidian promised me a copy of their game for helping finance their game, that I expect them to honor that part of the agreement is unreasonable. I'm almost 32 years old, and would rather my age not be brought into the equation. I'd rather you just say I'm more selfish than you are.

My apologies, perhaps "age" wasn't the right definition of the difference between us. What I meant is that in my experience such "investments" have very high risk so I either do not donate, or donate expecting a high chance of it  not being what I expected.

For instance: Banner Saga. I donated enough to get the game early and guess what: the game isn't ready, the devs opted to make a multiplayer first, which is fun but not at all what was described on the Kikcstarter. It is still pretty fun so I'm not complaining but I just found out there will be no healing in battle (ewww!) so when the sp game comes I'm pretty sure it will not be to my liking. Yet I do not regret donating because my only expectation when I donated was to have an old school game done, and that is happening. (*** on a side note, fans of strategic turn based combat will love the thing, I'm just not one of them ***)

Allan Schumacher wrote...
** snip **

If, however, the game is released, and they decide to not honor the reward tier based on my contribution without darned good reason, I'm going to be upset. The reason why I contributed was because I knew I would get something in return (since Obsidian isn't a charity), and that the opportunity cost of me making my contribution was worth it. Even if they took my contribution and decided to put it towards some sort of charity, I'm still going to be upset because I have my own charity preferences that I prefer to donate to based on what I value as being important, and all I get is frustration in knowing that my money was mismanaged even if it did go to a good cause. Actions like this will prevent me from using Kickstarter in the future.

Mismanagement does get me angry, and not getting what was promissed then having to pay for it would suck. But then again, I view my contributions as donations and do not give out more than I am willing to lose. If I did I would be as upset as you. I'm not a better person, I just view Kikstarter pledges differently. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 23 février 2013 - 06:05 .

[MerinTB]

Let me redirect the Kickstarter conversation to an interesting group of individuals, ZOE and Dead Gentleman Productions.

You may know of them for their Gamers movies, like Dorkness Rising.

They have kickstartered two projects - JourneyQuest Season 2 and The Gamers 3.

And they are working under an interesting model.  http://zombieorpheus.../fan-supported/




There's a lot that goes into that, but let me sum up what is important.  It's under a creative commons license.  I could download the show, for free, and give you a copy.  You can catch it on YouTube, Hulu, and so on.  You don't have to pay ANYTHING to see JourneyQuest (Seasons 1 or 2.)

They raised twice their goal, ending with over $110,000, for a show that ANYONE, even non-donators, would be able to watch the second it was released.

Did the reward tiers have goodies?  Sure.  But if all people wanted was to be able to legally watch the show, they could donate $0.00.

15% of donators, based on the amount of their donations, were effectively getting "nothing" for their investments (not counting anyone who requested lower tiers or no rewards at all for their donations, which you can do (and I have done for projects.))  They clearly wanted to see the series made, enough to support it's creation, with no tangible reward for it.

You can look at tons of projects that are similar.  The Ouya, for example, had well over three thousand donators (at least 3500, based only on reward tiers) who are NOT getting an Ouya for their donation.  That includes ME.  I don't even really know that I'd want one or ever use one, but I support the development model and what Uhrman and her crew are trying to do with that hardware and the open development licenese and everything.

---

Let me draw attention to another donation / pledge model I tried mentioning before.  NPR.

I currently live in Minnesota, so let's look at that donation page - https://contribute.p...contribute.php?


Is a t-shirt worth $10 a month?  Is $5 a month too much to pay for a radio station that you can listen to for free anyway?

The pledge / donation model is NOT about the physical rewards.  The rewards are incentives for you to donate more.

----

For a last example,

Any web comic print compilation funding drive.  Diesel Sweeties, Order of the Stick, Multiplex, Go Get a Roomie, Sister Claire... there's a long list of these.  Successful projects (OotS and Diesel Sweeties, for example, were each (on their own scale) phenomonally successful) where people were donating...

...with the goal...

...of paying for the printing of trade paperback collections of the web comics...

...which the artist would then sell for profit...

...of comics available, online, legally, for free.

Absorb that, and reconcile your "I'm pre-ordering a product because I want it" mindset about Kickstarter.

"But the reward tiers!  They were getting copies of the book!"  Sure, Sherlock.  The lowest tier for OotS that you could get the book that the drive was originally about reprinting (it grew into so much more) was $26.  A book that, after the drive was over, you could purchase for $13.95.  Yep, it was a pre-order.



----

If you are using Kickstarter to pre-order games or products, and that's your deal, you again need a cognitive readjustment.  You not only are not understanding the model, you are very poorly managing your time and money.

Again, I've never denied that the misconception exists.  It is virulently wide-spread.  I'm trying to correct it.

No one who donates to NPR expects to have any say over the programming, but NPR may (of their own volition) send out surveys to their donor base.  And if you call in to pledge, during their spring drives and such, when a certain show is on, then that pledge is seen as directly in support of said airing program.  But that's it.

For Kickstarter projects, the person (or group) starting the campaign makes their pitch.  They offere incentives for higher tiers of donations, but donators can (and many do) select lower or no rewards.  And they might even be setting up forums or promising surveys and such for backers getting input on the product--but, at the end of the day, you spend your money on the concept being pitched, not on having a say.  A very notable project tried to go too far in the opposite direction - An Old School RPG, renamed Shaker - where they offered little up front because their plan was to really give their community a lot of say on their design goals and such.  And it failed.  Not solely for that reason, no, but it's the only project I can think of that overtly played the card of "you pay, you get a say in what it becomes!"

Now, I can't say that you are "wrong" in your "opinion" that your donation is "an investment as far as you are concerned" and that "you believe you deserve a say in how that project goes forward."  Because you've couched your statements so they exist solely in the world of how you view things.  Your view is WRONG when compared with factual reality, but you are RIGHT that it is how you view it.

It's like people who think their not voting in elections is their registering their disgust with poltics and corruption.  They can think that all they like.  What it means, factually, is their voice is NOT heard and politicians ignore them as constituents.  But, in their view, they are "effectively protesting the process" - so, yay for them!

Modifié par MerinTB, 23 février 2013 - 06:14 .

[Renmiri1]

I often donate the $5 or even $4 (below 1st tier) becaus I want to back the project but don't want any reward.