Kickstarter: Did they really need our money to complete a Project ?

[SweetShark]

So because I was at my workplace and I didn't have something important to do, I decided to look for old Kickstarter's Project.

So after some research, I released something:
Even if some of the projects in Kickstarter was unsuccessful, they complete their project without some kind of difficulty!

Sure, many projects just stop if don't succeed, but what happening with some other games?

An example is a game with the name "Dragon Island Blue". This game tried two times in KS, but it failed both times.
But you know what? They released their game anyway. And it is actually very good [I am glad for that too ^^].
There are many example to say, but I am lazy to mention them -.-...

Anyway, my point is, do they really need our support to complete their game/book/movie/etc?

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, what can I say...

Take it away, XKCD.

I suppose the purpose of Kickstarter isn't clear enough. I mean, it is CALLED "Kickstarter", and not for example, "Path Of Least Resistance Giver", but...

That's the problem I have with Kickstarter, basically...that you can put anything on there, and as long as you keep it vague, people can't even say you didn't deliver.

 

[SweetShark]

Well, what can I say...

Take it away, XKCD.

[im g]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/kicksta rter.png[/img]

I suppose the purpose of Kickstarter isn't clear enough. I mean, it is CALLED "Kickstarter", and not for example, "Path Of Least Resistance Giver", but...

That's the problem I have with Kickstarter, basically...that you can put anything on there, and as long as you keep it vague, people can't even say you didn't deliver.

Well, most of the times they are more straight forward.

At first the developers need our help to get enough money so they complete their project.
But as soon they fail, they immediately say "Don't worry, even if we didn't succeed, we will release the game anyway".

And this specific example is in the most Kickstarter's Projects. It is like they say to us "We don't really need your money to create our game/movie/etc, but some extra cash wouldn't be so bad".

 

[HardkorSB]

So because I was at my workplace and I didn't have something important to do, I decided to look for old Kickstarter's Project.

So after some research, I released something:
Even if some of the projects in Kickstarter was unsuccessful, they complete their project without some kind of difficulty!

Sure, many projects just stop if don't succeed, but what happening with some other games?

An example is a game with the name "Dragon Island Blue". This game tried two times in KS, but it failed both times.
But you know what? They released their game anyway. And it is actually very good [I am glad for that too ^^].
There are many example to say, but I am lazy to mention them -.-...

Anyway, my point is, do they really need our support to complete their game/book/movie/etc?

Here's the thing:
When you're making a game or a movie, you have to put a lot of time and effort into it, otherwise the result will most likely be disappointing. You also have to eat and pay bills so unless you like the idea of going to work for 8 hours a day and then coming back to work again for a few hours, this time tired and for free, it's better to have someone invest money in your project so that you can concentrate on that.

 

[Lucem712]

I imagine some projects are completable without funds, though those funds probably make it easier to focus on the project and continue to pay bills at a regular rate. Probably.

 

[hazabaza1]

It can't hurt.
A lot of the smaller stuff that's probably the point rather than "this money is essential."

 

[Dangit2019]

It depends.

With projects like Video Game High School, the costs definitely help, especially with the...um...generous final price tag

However, if some indie band is acting like they need $3K to release an EP on the Internet, they're pretty much grabbing for cash.

 

[Newtonyd]

I have to wonder how much the massively overfunded projects are improved by the extra money. Considering they probably have their business and game plan already worked out by the time they make their Kickstarter, I have to wonder what many of the 200 to 1000%-ers do with the extra cash.

Considering that you don't get any money at all if your goal isn't reached, it makes sense to set your goal at the absolute minimum to fund your project. But if you set it too low, people might stop giving so much once the goal is reached.

Some people might already start with the bare minimum, but plan to make it a better project with Kickstarter funding. I don't know, it would be nice if there was a bit more transparency in how this funding is used. I don't see much on any Kickstarter pages in the way of a budget or specific costs.

 

[Unit72]

I think Da Vinci, and Micheal Angelo would have created thier great works without funding from patrons, but do you think they would have been as good if thier projects were just something they did between jobs? Giving enthusiastic visionary people the money to create gives us a better product.




Time constraints. We all have to work to live in this world. Sure people can make games without cash, but you better beleive it will take a loooooong time to come out and when it does its in its bare bones state. If the person developing had time to really iron it out and add a few features or fix/alter/rewrite some of its pivital features then its for the better and with it comes a better product. Money helps and that they dont have to worry about such things allows them to focus on the product, mabey even hire some professionals in those areas in which they are weak like graphic design or programming.

Would you rather want a book/movie/game made without any funding from the public and made from bits and peices of spare time the person had to develop it with?
Or would you rather have a creation that was the creators sole preoccupation of time and wasnt so much a "well this could be kinda cool" project but rather was the crators "baby", his/her pride and joy.

 

[Rednog]

Honestly it's one of the reasons I stopped supporting kickstarter projects. There are just way too many groups who jumped on and I honestly think that people just see it as a cash grab now. For example the Penny Arcade "kickstarter", what project are they kickstarting? Well...nothing! Oh, so what do people get out of it for donating cash? Penny-Arcade is ad free. Huh, I guess that's not really any project, wait you want a million fucking dollars to run ad free...and only for a year?! Yea good luck ever raising that goal...oh wait they skirted around that by having bs arbitrary goals pre main goal so that even if they don't reach the main goal they still get to collect the cash.

Or how about the king of broken promises, Molineaux. He has enough to fund his stuff, but he's going to stand on his pedestal and feed people his bs once again. But alas poor Molineaux people have stopped believing the empty promises and dreams that torrent out of his mouth, people believed for Fable 1 and 2...oh but 3 and beyond people woke up. Now instead of letting the games flop on the market and losing money that you put in, let people give you their money first and then disappoint them with the product there's no risk for you.

I know this post is a bit overly harsh and I know there are some well deserving projects out there that wouldn't succeed without people's help, I'm just disgusted with high profile money grubbers who have popped up and people don't call them on their bs.

 

[Newtonyd]

Honestly it's one of the reasons I stopped supporting kickstarter projects. There are just way too many groups who jumped on and I honestly think that people just see it as a cash grab now. For example the Penny Arcade "kickstarter", what project are they kickstarting? Well...nothing! Oh, so what do people get out of it for donating cash? Penny-Arcade is ad free. Huh, I guess that's not really any project, wait you want a million fucking dollars to run ad free...and only for a year?! Yea good luck ever raising that goal...oh wait they skirted around that by having bs arbitrary goals pre main goal so that even if they don't reach the main goal they still get to collect the cash.

Or how about the king of broken promises, Molineaux. He has enough to fund his stuff, but he's going to stand on his pedestal and feed people his bs once again. But alas poor Molineaux people have stopped believing the empty promises and dreams that torrent out of his mouth, people believed for Fable 1 and 2...oh but 3 and beyond people woke up. Now instead of letting the games flop on the market and losing money that you put in, let people give you their money first and then disappoint them with the product there's no risk for you.

I know this post is a bit overly harsh and I know there are some well deserving projects out there that wouldn't succeed without people's help, I'm just disgusted with high profile money grubbers who have popped up and people don't call them on their bs.

I agree in general, but the overall 'moneygrubbing' projects have been the rare exception in my look through Kickstarter. Most games offer a digital download version of themselves for cheaper than what it would be to buy it retail, and quite a few offer some actually decent rewards for higher cost packages. The people who spend their money on folks who don't deliver can look back on it as a lost investment, and make more informed choices to fund things in the future.

And yes, Fable 3 was an abomination. Maybe being free of studio and higher-up demands will free developers to create better games. At this point, all we can really do is speculate, since most high profile and high funded games like the Double Fine, Wasteland, Homestuck, Star Citizen, etc are just recently funded and won't be released for quite some time. FTL was a definitive Kickstarter success story though, and hopefully there's more to come.

 

[Little Woodsman]

I have to wonder how much the massively overfunded projects are improved by the extra money. Considering they probably have their business and game plan already worked out by the time they make their Kickstarter, I have to wonder what many of the 200 to 1000%-ers do with the extra cash.

Those are certainly valid concerns and a valid point.
But a friend recently told me of a kickstarter that he took part in, and that the money which
was raised-far in excess of the goal-would be used to have the game manufactured in America,
when in the company's original plan they had intended to have it made in China. (One of the
major reasons that manufacturing in America is more costly is adherence to environmental standards,
another is higher pay for workers.)
So many companies probably do misuse excess funds, but there are companies that use them responsibly
as well.

 

[sXeth]

I can see where theres a certain level of "We're gonna do this either way, but with the money we can do it better, and put it out while its still relatively up to date and not Duke Nukem Forever our game through eighteen engine tansitions to eventually land 12 years later and be kind of meh"

Or a band can focus full time on doing their ep in a proper studio with decent mixing gear/software" rather then spend scattered bits of free time recording it live in their garage and hacking it together in with audacity.

Theres probably some level of "Well we didn't hit the goal, but we got enough to prove our commodity to investors and managed to work out a deal anyways".

Its not radically different from how Dev Studios essentially take out a loan from the publisher (or music artists essentially get a loan from the record company) to make their product. It only differs in drawing from a broader audience, and paying back in goods or perks, rather then straight up cash.

 

[Albino Boo]

I think Da Vinci, and Micheal Angelo would have created thier great works without funding from patrons, but do you think they would have been as good if thier projects were just something they did between jobs? Giving enthusiastic visionary people the money to create gives us a better product.




Time constraints. We all have to work to live in this world. Sure people can make games without cash, but you better beleive it will take a loooooong time to come out and when it does its in its bare bones state. If the person developing had time to really iron it out and add a few features or fix/alter/rewrite some of its pivital features then its for the better and with it comes a better product. Money helps and that they dont have to worry about such things allows them to focus on the product, mabey even hire some professionals in those areas in which they are weak like graphic design or programming.

Would you rather want a book/movie/game made without any funding from the public and made from bits and peices of spare time the person had to develop it with?
Or would you rather have a creation that was the creators sole preoccupation of time and wasnt so much a "well this could be kinda cool" project but rather was the crators "baby", his/her pride and joy.

In the case of Da Vinci and Micheal Angelo the patrons owned the work produced by the artists. They were commissioned by the patrons to produce work for them, whereas Kickstarter the people producing it get money and get to keep ownership of the work . When Micheal Angelo ran off leaving his work on the Vatican unfinished Pope Julius II put a bounty on his head and sent troops to find him, if they don't finish a kickstarter what consequence do they face?

The Patrons of the renaissance artists where rich and powerful and if you crossed them, you ended up dead. A lot of the high profile kickstarters are by made already rich people (Peter Molyneux, Tim Schafer, etc) getting people poorer than than them to give them free money and make themselves richer in the process.

 

[Angie7F]

I think patronage is good for entrepreneurs and artists.
Also being heavily dependent on one fund is a risk, but if kick started can help manage risks by spreading it out, then I think it would be better and easier than going to loan from a bank.

 

[Albino Boo]

So because I was at my workplace and I didn't have something important to do, I decided to look for old Kickstarter's Project.

So after some research, I released something:
Even if some of the projects in Kickstarter was unsuccessful, they complete their project without some kind of difficulty!

Sure, many projects just stop if don't succeed, but what happening with some other games?

An example is a game with the name "Dragon Island Blue". This game tried two times in KS, but it failed both times.
But you know what? They released their game anyway. And it is actually very good [I am glad for that too ^^].
There are many example to say, but I am lazy to mention them -.-...

Anyway, my point is, do they really need our support to complete their game/book/movie/etc?

Here's the thing:
When you're making a game or a movie, you have to put a lot of time and effort into it, otherwise the result will most likely be disappointing. You also have to eat and pay bills so unless you like the idea of going to work for 8 hours a day and then coming back to work again for a few hours, this time tired and for free, it's better to have someone invest money in your project so that you can concentrate on that.

So why do multi millionaires like Peter Molyneux and Tim Schafer use kickstarter then? A lot of high profile kickstarters are done by rich people getting poorer people than them to give them free money that makes the millionaires richer. Peter Molyneux was able to fund from his own pocket $6 million for the development of black and white in 97 and now he does a kickstarter for Project Godus now. I don't see why I should give free money to multi millionaires.

 

[SaetonChapelle]

I have no idea about kickstarters. I hear about them all the time, but have never pledged money to them or even seen a kickstarter page. Although I am all for supporting something you enjoy~ Guess at some point I should check some out.

 

[DoPo]

So why do multi millionaires like Peter Molyneux and Tim Schafer use kickstarter then?

I'm fairly sure Pete just wanted the publicity and to get people more hooked with less talking. People were paying him for advertisement AND being hooked. As an aside, I did rough calculations (can't be bothered to double check them now) but with the money 22 Cans would get from the Kickstarter goal, they could kinda-sorta split it into decent (but in no way "high" just "enough") wages between themselves for the duration of the project.

Dunno about Tim, though.

 

[Albino Boo]

So why do multi millionaires like Peter Molyneux and Tim Schafer use kickstarter then?

I'm fairly sure Pete just wanted the publicity and to get people more hooked with less talking. People were paying him for advertisement AND being hooked. As an aside, I did rough calculations (can't be bothered to double check them now) but with the money 22 Cans would get from the Kickstarter goal, they could kinda-sorta split it into decent (but in no way "high" just "enough") wages between themselves for the duration of the project.

Dunno about Tim, though.

Look Pete was a director of of EA and sold lionhead to Microsoft, he is rich enough never to work again for the rest of his life. He believed enough in Black and White to put his money where his mouth was in 97, why doesn't Pete think the current project worth putting his money in now? He can afford to fund the total development out of his own pocket but does not want to . If he wanted free advertising, why not do kickstarter for £100 not £4500000, it would have done the same think but without giving a multi millionaire free money.