84 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Unless they're remarkably poorly managed, Kickstarted games can't lose money.

While publicly traded companies have, as their sole objective, to increase profits, privately held companies might have a more nuanced reason to be. They may simply wish to produce content in a sustainable way.

 

You just stated the magic words remarkably poorly managed. Unfortunately if the creative people do not hire people who will keep them on task the project will become poorly managed. Creative people are not always good at containing costs and moving people to a goal. Someone has to be in place to make the tough decisions. I have seen many projects fail because this point was not taken into consideration.

 

How many Kickstarter projects have succeeded compared to those that have not? Are those percentages better than from other sources of financing? The same? Worst?

[luism]

most of the groundbreaking developers started off once as disgruntled gamers. If we really want to see the content we want it's up to us to make our kickstarters.

[Chaos17]

I've yet to see Kickstarter raise more than $40mil for anything.

Star Citizen has reached 2 millions at the end of its kickstarter in 2012.

The devs left open the donations and now it has 70 millions.

https://robertsspace...m/funding-goals

[Cyonan]

most of the groundbreaking developers started off once as disgruntled gamers. If we really want to see the content we want it's up to us to make our kickstarters.

 

I'm not sure if a game made entirely by BSNers would be brilliant or terrifying.

[Realmzmaster]

I'm not sure if a game made entirely by BSNers would be brilliant or terrifying.

 

It would never get made. BSNers would be too busy arguing what should be in it. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well that depends on who you ask.

Ask an accountant, and he would agree. When the books hit zero you drop the project, or release it as is.

 

Ask an economist, and he would disagree. He would quantify the amount of money they lost in potential wages they could have been receiving doing something else. All that time and effort investing into something that didn't pay off. All that time has a value, and it was all lost. They would also cite missed opportunities they would have received had they put their work into other projects.

 

The later view is the one I think paints the real picture. These guys are putting a ton of work into these, and if the project isn't sustainable, they will need to seek income elsewhere, which is a pretty serious blow to their ambitions and goals. A lot of these guys also gave up on other opportunities they would have had elsewhere. For example, Jon Shafer leaving his cozy job at stardock and firaxis games to make his kickstarter project. If his kickstarter isn't profitable, he technically lost a TON of money.

But the work does pay of.  That investment turns into a game at the end.

 

Jon Shafer is trading the security of his position at Firaxis for a chance to make a game he wants. If he's doing it just to make money, he's an idiot.  But if he actually wants to make a game he can't make at Firaxis (a company that made its best game when it employed only 17 people), then Kickstarter will give him what he wants, regardless of whether anyone ever buys the game.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make about the difference between publicly traded and privately held companies.  A publicly traded company is only trying to make money.  No matter what else it does, it's all aimed at making money.

 

But a privately held company may well not be trying to turn a profit.  A privately held company can survive indefinitely as long as it remains solvent.  A publicly traded company, however, will lose investors if it doesn't outpace the market, and those investors are the ones deciding how the company behaves.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You just stated the magic words remarkably poorly managed. Unfortunately if the creative people do not hire people who will keep them on task the project will become poorly managed. Creative people are not always good at containing costs and moving people to a goal. Someone has to be in place to make the tough decisions. I have seen many projects fail because this point was not taken into consideration.

 

How many Kickstarter projects have succeeded compared to those that have not? Are those percentages better than from other sources of financing? The same? Worst?

I don't think that's even a fair comparison.  Kickstarter projects carry vastly less risk than traditional projects.  Kickstarter projects don't have investors to repay (except insofar as they're committed to completing the project).  And the crowd seems pretty good at funding projects that are well-planned and not funding those that are not.  Look at the the failed Kickstarter projects - the ones that didn't get funded.  They're much worse, as a group, than the funded projects.

 

Kickstarter relies on the wisdom of crowds to pick winners and losers.

[teks]

most of the groundbreaking developers started off once as disgruntled gamers. If we really want to see the content we want it's up to us to make our kickstarters.

*crickets*

 

But the work does pay of.  That investment turns into a game at the end.

 

Jon Shafer is trading the security of his position at Firaxis for a chance to make a game he wants. If he's doing it just to make money, he's an idiot.  But if he actually wants to make a game he can't make at Firaxis (a company that made its best game when it employed only 17 people), then Kickstarter will give him what he wants, regardless of whether anyone ever buys the game.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make about the difference between publicly traded and privately held companies.  A publicly traded company is only trying to make money.  No matter what else it does, it's all aimed at making money.

 

But a privately held company may well not be trying to turn a profit.  A privately held company can survive indefinitely as long as it remains solvent.  A publicly traded company, however, will lose investors if it doesn't outpace the market, and those investors are the ones deciding how the company behaves.

Your taking for granted that development turns into a game at the end. A working game. Its not a magic thing that happens here where kickstarter money magically pops out a game seed that just needs water and sunlight. Even companies with massive budgets and teams occasionally fail at that.

 

What if the kickstarter just wasn't a good idea, and 50% of the way through you realize that, dang, this isn't gonna work. What if the team bit off more then they could chew. What if they run out of funds. What if they lose a member, or lose part of their data, or get lazy....

 

A private company is trying to make a profit just like public companies. I don't really follow you there.

The money has to come from somewhere. Thats all a public company is. They sell stocks to get the money they need in the first place.

 

Who are these people that take these hundreds and thousands of dollars they need to make a game and decide to do anything with it that doesn't make them a profit? They don't exist.

 

Jon Shafer raised $100,000 to make a profit. I'm sure he voluntarily took a pay cut to pursue his dream, but he is still trying to make money. If he does not make a profit. He has failed. He will need to put his resume in. He is not sitting on a fat inheritance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Your taking for granted that development turns into a game at the end. A working game. Its not a magic thing that happens here where kickstarter money magically pops out a game seed that just needs water and sunlight. Even companies with massive budgets and teams occasionally fail at that.

 

What if the kickstarter just wasn't a good idea, and 50% of the way through you realize that, dang, this isn't gonna work. What if the team bit off more then they could chew. What if they run out of funds. What if they lose a member, or lose part of their data, or get lazy....

Then they don't make a game, all of which was also possible with traditional funding.  Since there's no difference, why are you mentioning it?

A private company is trying to make a profit just like public companies. I don't really follow you there.

Any company is only trying to do the thing its owners want it to do.  With a privately held company, that could be literally anything.  With a publicly traded company, it cannot be.

The money has to come from somewhere. Thats all a public company is. They sell stocks to get the money they need in the first place.

But those stocks are shares in the company.  What they're doing is selling a portion of the company, and then the company has a responsibility to provide a return for those investors.[/quote]

Who are these people that take these hundreds and thousands of dollars they need to make a game and decide to do anything with it that doesn't make them a profit? They don't exist.

 

Jon Shafer raised $100,000 to make a profit. I'm sure he voluntarily took a pay cut to pursue his dream, but he is still trying to make money. If he does not make a profit. He has failed. He will need to put his resume in. He is not sitting on a fat inheritance.

You're making a ton of baseless assumptions here.

[AlanC9]

Jon Shafer raised $100,000 to make a profit. I'm sure he voluntarily took a pay cut to pursue his dream, but he is still trying to make money. If he does not make a profit. He has failed. He will need to put his resume in. He is not sitting on a fat inheritance.

Note that his earlier job wasn't guaranteed lifetime employment either. It's a tradeoff between a fairly high probability of that continued employment and whatever the chances are with a Kickstarter project..... which are probably lower, yep.