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

[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.

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.

Yeah you hit the nail on the head on all your points. So i have no problems with those, you are correct. However that isnt the main point of this thread and my point still stands. Would you rather have a project that was just a here and there spare time hobby or a fully dedicated dream project? Plus while your right on all your points of consequences for those who dont live up to thier promises and the rich bleeding us for money, neither of those are the point of this thread.

"Do they really need our money to finish a project".

Depends on the person. No Peter Mol and Tim Shaf dont need our money i guess (even though you cant expect a multimillionare to personally out of his pocket fund a business venture to pay wages and liscense/create engines), but joe blow making his first game does. No matter if your rich or poor and your making something, having more money to invest in it is never a bad thing. Yes multimillionares are making us "poorer" but we arent burning our cash we are investing it in a product. That product is better now that it has had more money put into it.

So no they probably dont need our money. But if people are willing to spend a few dollars to make something happen then why not? Peter makes a kickstarter, should we all blast him for trying to make his way in life without a publisher? Do we need him to sell his mansion and live the life of a middle class person so that he may invest his riches in games that make us happy? He did so before (invest his own cash not sell his stuff) but do we expect the rich to keep themselves down like that? Should the multimillionares be content with keeping 3 million in the bank and using the rest for thier business without ever letting thier money grow to do with as they please? People dont invest rich people like molonuex becuase they are sheep. They do so because they beleive in the product and what they were promised. Sure they may not get it but its a chance we take.

 

[llubtoille]

With the majority of game kick-starters I back, I consider it essentially a discounted pre-order.
Whether they 'need' the money or not, it's not really my business, so long as I get what I paid for in the end.

 

[Albino Boo]

[

Yeah you hit the nail on the head on all your points. So i have no problems with those, you are correct. However that isnt the main point of this thread and my point still stands. Would you rather have a project that was just a here and there spare time hobby or a fully dedicated dream project? Plus while your right on all your points of consequences for those who dont live up to thier promises and the rich bleeding us for money, neither of those are the point of this thread.

"Do they really need our money to finish a project".

Depends on the person. No Peter Mol and Tim Shaf dont need our money i guess (even though you cant expect a multimillionare to personally out of his pocket fund a business venture to pay wages and liscense/create engines), but joe blow making his first game does. No matter if your rich or poor and your making something, having more money to invest in it is never a bad thing. Yes multimillionares are making us "poorer" but we arent burning our cash we are investing it in a product. That product is better now that it has had more money put into it.

So no they probably dont need our money. But if people are willing to spend a few dollars to make something happen then why not? Peter makes a kickstarter, should we all blast him for trying to make his way in life without a publisher? Do we need him to sell his mansion and live the life of a middle class person so that he may invest his riches in games that make us happy? He did so before (invest his own cash not sell his stuff) but do we expect the rich to keep themselves down like that? Should the multimillionares be content with keeping 3 million in the bank and using the rest for thier business without ever letting thier money grow to do with as they please? People dont invest rich people like molonuex becuase they are sheep. They do so because they beleive in the product and what they were promised. Sure they may not get it but its a chance we take.

Its not an investment, with an investment you get a return on your money. If bought a share of a start up company and they spent the money on developing a product, that share would be worth more than you paid for it. If you lent a company money you would get interest on the money and the repayment of the original money. In both of those cases you are taking a risk that the project will go wrong but with the prospect of a financial reward if it works. In the case of these multi millionaires running kickstarters, we are taking a risk that the project will not work out, for no financial reward. All of the profits stay with the multi millionaires. The guy with 000000s in the bank is taking no risk and getting all the reward. If Molyneux doesn't believe in the product enough to put some of 20 odd million in, why should I? He put 6 million of his own money for Black and White in 97.

I don't mind if it is someone with an idea that is doing the kickstater to eat, but too many high profile cases are by people who can afford to take the risk but don't want to.

 

[Unit72]

Its not an investment, with an investment you get a return on your money. If bought a share of a start up company and they spent the money on developing a product, that share would be worth more than you paid for it. If you lent a company money you would get interest on the money and the repayment of the original money. In both of those cases you are taking a risk that the project will go wrong but with the prospect of a financial reward if it works. In the case of these multi millionaires running kickstarters, we are taking a risk that the project will not work out, for no financial reward. All of the profits stay with the multi millionaires. The guy with 000000s in the bank is taking no risk and getting all the reward. If Molyneux doesn't believe in the product enough to put some of 20 odd million in, why should I? He put 6 million of his own money for Black and White in 97.

I don't mind if it is someone with an idea that is doing the kickstater to eat, but too many high profile cases are by people who can afford to take the risk but don't want to.[/quote]

I really should stop responding but you really bring up interesting stuff.
I meant investing in the internet sense rather than the direct everyday real life definition (much in the same way the word epic no longer means super imposing or immense but rather as a substitute for the word cool). By investing i mean more along the lines of advance payment, or pre order. We dont lose the money unless they really fail us, in exchange for our cash we get something in return. They promise us a product and we think it looks good so we put money down to see it happen. Those of us with the disposible income to spend on games who even take the risk knowing it may not work out do so becuase we can. Im not rich but i can spend 200$+ a month on games. If a measly 10-60 bucks goes bye bye to some project that didnt see the light of day its not so bad in my book but thats just me, and i imagine those who go do something as foolish as "invest" in something that isnt garenteed are in the same boat as me. We have disposable income so we do it because we just want to. We like what we see so bam money in the pocket. I suppose that old meme of "SHut up and take my money!" really is real. Ive known some people online who do so because they think thwy are giving a blow to big devolpers and saying no we will not take your one day dlc and outrageous prices. I dont share that view but we all have our reasons.

Im still with you on the millionares thing to a point. However if you cant see why you should put cash down when the rich wont then thats fine. Dont put cash in. Wait and see what old petey comes up with and buy it when reviews are out, if you even want it by then. People like me only do so in advance becuase im jsut that easily sold i guess. I dont know how to put it into words as to why i personaly buy into it. All i know is its because i can and want to.

Imagine you are peter for a second. Who are you? A game developer? A business man? Professional spokesman? Or just some guy who has loads of cash? Weigh your options for a second. Here is an oppertunity with this thing called kickstarter to appeal directly to your fans for funds. Rather than "invest" in yourself why not take advantage of this potential resource? Dont ask the fans for cash but show them something they may be interested in and see if they bite. Its an excellent tool. If your kickstarter tanks and didnt raise the funds that means you saved yourself from the need to waste yoru time creating something no one was interested in. If you run low due to whatever hurdle you face (your own self imposed development time, abscence of a worker ect) then put your own cash in it. Im sure pete figured this out. Why repeat '97 when he can just appeal to fans and shore up the rest himself. He's made games before, he's in the business of making games and to pass up this chance would be pretty foolish you must admit, be you a rich man or just a basement programmer it would be a mistake to not tap in. Why risk your own capital in what may be a faliure, especially peter who puts so much enthusiasim into his franchises only to see them blow up in his face, if anyone shoudl know that not all ideas are gold, its peter. Im sure hes a business man first, a developer second and a rich man behind the scenes.

 

[aba1]

I plan to start a kickstarter myself and I know that sometimes it isn't direct costs they are looking to get money for but sometimes things like living expenses to allow them to continue to work. For example working on my game doesn't cost me anything but college sure does and if I am going to pay for college I need a income and thus the money I will be asking for will cover some of the costs of my college so I don't need to work as much so I can keep working on my game in turn (mind you I would be using the money to pay lawyer, publishing and advertising costs as well but you get the idea). I mean not everyone can work on no wage in the hopes that their project both finishes and takes off before they end up on the street homeless and without food XD.

 

[aba1]

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.

Couldn't have put it better myself well said.