532 réponses à ce sujet

[mione]

I think DA3 was announce to early (wasn't it because of leaked info floating around last year?) so fans got super excited and wanted more and more, but it just wasn't ready at the time.

Now that the PS4 has been announce I think we'll see some info after the new xbox is also announce. After all previous games were a PS3/360/PC titles so why wouldn't that be true for the next gen as well.

[dewayne31]

i believe the devs it was coming o this gen console. but wont be surprised if end up on the new console next year after the intail release. and for silence i say after the me3 dlc hits and tor xpac hits next month i think we will hear bout da3 alot more and maybe the major xpac for tor too.

[Travie]

Meh, they're just building up for big announcements (probably).

After DA2 I doubt the hype will be the same either way.

[MerinTB]

Blair Brown wrote...
I currently haven't backed any kickstarters, and don't plan to (for now).  I don't like the idea of a) having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up. the complete uncertentiy that you might not get what you thought you were going to.  But that's just me.

It certainly is your call for doing so, and pledging at Kickstarter or no doesn't make you a good or bad person.  It is a choice if you want to do that.

I've backed a ridiculous amount of KS projects simply because I like the format.  I like supporting people directly for creating what I think looks promising.  I don't think of it as "buying" a product or pre-ordering.

Again, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light.  When you say "I don't like the idea of having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up" you are clearly seeing Kickstarter as a store where you are ordering a product.  It isn't, and you aren't.

Buying a product is primarily about you, the purchaser, getting something for yourself.  Pledging or donating to a fund raiser is primarily about the project, backing something you believe in and want to support.

They are absolutely not the same thing.

But, as I stated at the start, I'm not judging you for not wanting to do it.  I'm simply trying to correct your misconception.  And if you reply again that you understand this, your language isn't portraying that you do.  Your words read like you don't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Agreed. I didn't buy a game. I invested in the development of a game.

Will it pay off? I don't know - that's how all investing works. But I'm willing to spend $35 (or $260, or whatever) to help make a game happen. The only tangible benefit I get out of it is a game of undetermined quality, yes, but what I also get is a marginal change to the gaming landscape.

And that's what I want. KS does something similar to what I'm trying to achieve by being active on BSN.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 février 2013 - 07:59 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Again, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light. When you say "I don't like the idea of having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up" you are clearly seeing Kickstarter as a store where you are ordering a product. It isn't, and you aren't.

Buying a product is primarily about you, the purchaser, getting something for yourself. Pledging or donating to a fund raiser is primarily about the project, backing something you believe in and want to support.

They are absolutely not the same thing.

Actually, the way Kickstarter is being used is very much like a store. They have provided tiers that provide different level of benefit based on the amount you contribute.

At it's root, most video games have it work as a preorder - You contribute to the kickstarter, we'll give you a copy of the game in exchange. In essence, they are selling the reward tiers for increased contribution. Failure to deliver on those reward tiers will result in backlash (justifiably so). Imagine Wasteland 2 or Project Eternity makes a fantastic game, but delivers on none of the reward tiers. People are going to be upset, because the developer didn't uphold their part of the transaction. This has nothing to do with the quality of the game either (this is the part where I agree, fans will just have to accept that the game may not be all they had hoped for.  That's the risk one has by contributing to a kickstarter)

Remove the rewards from Kickstarter, and I'm skeptical that it's as successful. For most people, it is an investment, not a charitable donation. They are investing money (and the opportunity cost that goes with it) to ultimately receive the rewards at the tier that they contributed to. This is very different than cutting a cheque to a local charity with no strings attached.

If you would be okay with not receiving anything in exchange for your kickstarter contribution, that's fine. I think there would be excessive outrage, even if the people that contributed just suddenly had to buy the game after release.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 février 2013 - 08:11 .

[Steppenwolf]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Maybe BioWare do not want to be sued for false advertising again?

As has been pointed out, they weren't sued over ME3. But they could easily avoid such controversy by not making misleading statements about DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Remove the rewards from Kickstarter, and I'm skeptical that it's as successful. For most people, it is an investment, not a charitable donation.

I hate to break it to you, but that's how charitable donations work, too.  Donors are buying an outcome.

Donors don't generally believe this to be true, but fundraisers know that donor behaviour responds to incentives.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 février 2013 - 08:29 .

[Danny Boy 7]

BasilKarlo wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Maybe BioWare do not want to be sued for false advertising again?

As has been pointed out, they weren't sued over ME3. But they could easily avoid such controversy by not making misleading statements about DA3.

Er I don't think they're ever intentionally trying to be misleading. 

[Reznore57]

I used Kickstarter once for a music album (Amanda Palmer) and it wasn't different than pre order from Amazon (ok it was way funnier ).
But anyway when I pledge it was clear the album was already recorded ...
I paid for a cd , got a cd and some goodies.

From the customer point of view it adds nothing , I was just happy that she could get the money and decide what she wants to do with it.
Something that doesn't happen with record company , where artist don't get much and have to fight for their "artistic integrity".

So for me Kickstarter is just a way to choose where my money go .

You don't invest in a project and have a say in it , you just buy something (pre order) so creators do not need to be funded by X company.

And from what I saw from the Amanda kickstarter , there is a backlash if the customers feel the artist/creator doesn't do what the fan base want.
Which is strange , people paid people got their product , nobody complained about the actual album (what they funded ) .
People complained about the tour....Because everyone assumed (wrongly) the Kickstarter made her rich...which is funny because she gave great details about how the money was spend before her campain .

[Fiddzz]

MerinTB wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...
I currently haven't backed any kickstarters, and don't plan to (for now).  I don't like the idea of a) having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up. the complete uncertentiy that you might not get what you thought you were going to.  But that's just me.

It certainly is your call for doing so, and pledging at Kickstarter or no doesn't make you a good or bad person.  It is a choice if you want to do that.

I've backed a ridiculous amount of KS projects simply because I like the format.  I like supporting people directly for creating what I think looks promising.  I don't think of it as "buying" a product or pre-ordering.

Again, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light.  When you say "I don't like the idea of having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up" you are clearly seeing Kickstarter as a store where you are ordering a product.  It isn't, and you aren't.

Buying a product is primarily about you, the purchaser, getting something for yourself.  Pledging or donating to a fund raiser is primarily about the project, backing something you believe in and want to support.

They are absolutely not the same thing.

But, as I stated at the start, I'm not judging you for not wanting to do it.  I'm simply trying to correct your misconception.  And if you reply again that you understand this, your language isn't portraying that you do.  Your words read like you don't.

For clarification, I like the kickstarter format.  It's a great way for people to get a specific type of game out that probably wouldn't have been able to be made.  I just haven't found anything for me yet.  Maybe never will.

The thing that interests me most out of Kickstarter, is what is going to happen in the future, after these games are made.  They have already sold the product to 90+% of the people that would buy it anyways and used all that money to make the game.  How do they fund the next one?  Do they just keep kickstarting?  I don't know, it'll be interesting to see.

[Fiddzz]

Reznore57 wrote...

I used Kickstarter once for a music album (Amanda Palmer) and it wasn't different than pre order from Amazon (ok it was way funnier ).
But anyway when I pledge it was clear the album was already recorded ...
I paid for a cd , got a cd and some goodies.

From the customer point of view it adds nothing , I was just happy that she could get the money and decide what she wants to do with it.
Something that doesn't happen with record company , where artist don't get much and have to fight for their "artistic integrity".

So for me Kickstarter is just a way to choose where my money go .

You don't invest in a project and have a say in it , you just buy something (pre order) so creators do not need to be funded by X company.

And from what I saw from the Amanda kickstarter , there is a backlash if the customers feel the artist/creator doesn't do what the fan base want.
Which is strange , people paid people got their product , nobody complained about the actual album (what they funded ) .
People complained about the tour....Because everyone assumed (wrongly) the Kickstarter made her rich...which is funny because she gave great details about how the money was spend before her campain .

I've followed her career for quite a while and was stunned people thought thats how she got rich... she got rich because shes worked VERY hard, for a VERY long time.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Remove the rewards from Kickstarter, and I'm skeptical that it's as successful. For most people, it is an investment, not a charitable donation.

I hate to break it to you, but that's how charitable donations work, too.  Donors are buying an outcome.

Donors don't generally believe this to be true, but fundraisers know that donor behaviour responds to incentives.

Donors typically do not receive something tangible (a product) in exchange for their donation.  At best they receive something symbolic (a certificate, or some other form of acknowledgement).  In many cases it's simply a thank you.

Occasionally they do, in the form of a lottery or something like that (not uncommon in my neck of the woods), but then Kickstarter game devs isn't saying "contribute and you'll be in the lottery to get copies of our game."

People that contribute to a Kickstarter aren't just contributing to a game being developed (the outcome), but they're also contributing to receive the goods that were promised to them in exchange for their preorder.  Even if the game sucks, people are still going to expect that they receive what their tier indicates that they should get.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 février 2013 - 08:43 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I really miss companies who thought fans were worth listening to through out the entire process of the game development. Interplay for example took multiple fan ideas from the forums and the very beginning of the process and they made it right into the game. Sex appeal, night owl, those perks in FO2 were direct fan contributions. What a more simple and glorious time then one we now inhabit.

I have literally passed on more than a mere handful of ideas I have read on this very forum to the point where I am probably annoying Mike with spam.

I know there are more than a dozen things that I, personally, suggested, that wound up being very similar to stuff that got announced, like the whole piecemeal armor system.  That doesn't mean the devs even heard my personal suggestion, but the fact that they're changing things in these ways does mean that feedback is getting processed.

[Conduit0]

BasilKarlo wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Maybe BioWare do not want to be sued for false advertising again?

As has been pointed out, they weren't sued over ME3. But they could easily avoid such controversy by not making misleading statements about DA3.

Or they could just avoid making statements altogether so petulant children can't twist their words into something they never actually said.
Though I'm sure once screen shots and videos start to come out, those children will scrutinize each picture and video looking for even the tiniest flaw for them to latch onto and decry that DA3 will be terrible.
Its what Bioware "fans" do. <_<

[Renmiri1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Again, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light. When you say "I don't like the idea of having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up" you are clearly seeing Kickstarter as a store where you are ordering a product. It isn't, and you aren't.

Buying a product is primarily about you, the purchaser, getting something for yourself. Pledging or donating to a fund raiser is primarily about the project, backing something you believe in and want to support.

They are absolutely not the same thing.

Actually, the way Kickstarter is being used is very much like a store. They have provided tiers that provide different level of benefit based on the amount you contribute.

Remove the rewards from Kickstarter, and I'm skeptical that it's as successful. For most people, it is an investment, not a charitable donation. They are investing money (and the opportunity cost that goes with it) to ultimately receive the rewards at the tier that they contributed to. This is very different than cutting a cheque to a local charity with no strings attached.

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.

If they use the money for the projects described, be it fund an old school game or a basketball court for poor children, then all I want is it done as soon as possible. No reward besides that is needed,

[Danny Boy 7]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Again, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light. When you say "I don't like the idea of having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up" you are clearly seeing Kickstarter as a store where you are ordering a product. It isn't, and you aren't.

Buying a product is primarily about you, the purchaser, getting something for yourself. Pledging or donating to a fund raiser is primarily about the project, backing something you believe in and want to support.

They are absolutely not the same thing.

Actually, the way Kickstarter is being used is very much like a store. They have provided tiers that provide different level of benefit based on the amount you contribute.

Remove the rewards from Kickstarter, and I'm skeptical that it's as successful. For most people, it is an investment, not a charitable donation. They are investing money (and the opportunity cost that goes with it) to ultimately receive the rewards at the tier that they contributed to. This is very different than cutting a cheque to a local charity with no strings attached.

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.

If they use the money for the projects described, be it fund an old school game or a basketball court for poor children, then all I want is it done as soon as possible. No reward besides that is needed,

I wouldn't say so, not necessarilly anyway. We're funding a product, most likely something we want for ourselves. I mean we want something in return for our contribution otherwise the rewards wouldn't be necessary.

[Steppenwolf]

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

As has been pointed out, they weren't sued over ME3. But they could easily avoid such controversy by not making misleading statements about DA3.

Er I don't think they're ever intentionally trying to be misleading. 

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.

Conduit0 wrote...

Or they could just avoid making
statements altogether so petulant children can't twist their words into
something they never actually said.
Though I'm sure once screen shots
and videos start to come out, those children will scrutinize each
picture and video looking for even the tiniest flaw for them to latch
onto and decry that DA3 will be terrible.
Its what Bioware "fans" do. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

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.

[Danny Boy 7]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

As has been pointed out, they weren't sued over ME3. But they could easily avoid such controversy by not making misleading statements about DA3.

Er I don't think they're ever intentionally trying to be misleading. 

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.

Conduit0 wrote...

Or they could just avoid making
statements altogether so petulant children can't twist their words into
something they never actually said.
Though I'm sure once screen shots
and videos start to come out, those children will scrutinize each
picture and video looking for even the tiniest flaw for them to latch
onto and decry that DA3 will be terrible.
Its what Bioware "fans" do. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

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.

Proof?

[Firky]

I thought this blog post, about Kickstarter, was interesting.

http://www.bogost.co...ing_platf.shtml

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.

Not everyone wants x, y, z from their dollar. Or, to have an influence on design. If Ragnar Tornquist is going to make anything related to Dreamfall and The Longest Journey, for example, he can take my money. If he rides into the sunset with my money and gives me 5 minute Abnaxus machinima, I'll wave him goodbye and goodluck, knowing that I'd happily have paid $20 more for The Longest Journey and Dreamfall already.

(Honestly. But, as the person who happily gave Dreamfall Chapters $20, regardless of outcome, no-one can tell me that's a wrong approach. I've had people giving me grief about buying DLC for AAA games because I'm supporting the corporate machine, or whatever. Haven't heard that, yet, about Kickstarter; "why did you back that, you're supporting x,y,z, bad game trend.")

(PS. Not that I care about people criticising me for buying DLC. But, that's what people do.)

Modifié par Firky, 22 février 2013 - 09:54 .

[Kidd]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

makes a fantastic game, but delivers on none of the reward tiers. People are going to be upset, because the developer didn't uphold their part of the transaction. This has nothing to do with the quality of the game either

Some of them can deal with the quality of the game, too. I'm not talking about the individual's rewards, but the common "goalposts" Kickstarter-funded games tend to set up; "If we get X amount of money, we'll implement feature Y" and the like.

I feel worried on their behalf about how wise it is to set up such bonuses in the first place. When you have promised a feature so prominently, you can't really take it back.

We could use DAO as an example we're all familiar with. Say DAO was funded through Kickstarter, and we reached a point that said "if we get $X million, we'll make a human barbarian origin."

At this point, the human barbarian origin becomes the most important origin in the game and it absolutely cannot be cut. Even the amazing event that was the Landsmeet, by far my favourite part of the game, is easy to cut in comparison to the mentioned background story. The Landsmeet was never mentioned on the original Kickstarter page after all.

Now I've never looked at the unfinished script of this origin, but I highly doubt it would be worth cutting the Landsmeet or most other pieces that were deemed worthy of being finished for the game to have a 7th origin option in the event a cut was needed. But if the $X million goalpost reward was not in the game, many would rightfully feel cheated. After all, the community as a whole raised money to have that one feature, yet it wasn't to be found in the final game. Why?

It seems to get messy to me. But hey I'm no developer, perhaps this isn't as bad as I think it is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Donors typically do not receive something tangible (a product) in exchange for their donation.  At best they receive something symbolic (a certificate, or some other form of acknowledgement).

 
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).

As much as it might surprise people here, I am a professional fundraiser.  I run the direct mail program for a nationwide charity.  In the aggregate, people are very predictable.

Now, back on topic, there is a bit of a backlash happening against the Banner Saga right now, as they have released what is, by all accounts, an excellent product, but one that wasn't the core game people were funding.  Moreover, by working on this product, they've delayed that core game by as much as a year.  People are annoyed by what looks, as first glance, like a company taking their kickstarter pledges and making the wrong thing.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 février 2013 - 12:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 février 2013 - 12:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Of course they should. They made their pledge under those conditions. If the developer then, unilaterally, changes the deal (how Darth Vader of them), people should get annoyed.

My point is that most charitable donations are made under similar conditions. If we promise a magazine subscription, we'd better send you that magazine. If we promise you a collectable mug, we had better send you a mug. If we promise to use the money to fund cancer research, we should do that.

And if we don't, then our donors have every right to complain.