Kickstopper

[Entitled]

The problem is branding people will always side with what they know over what they might like best. Things that need funding because they have never had the opportunity to gain fans won't get the chance. It is about giving products at least a fighting chance a chance to prove their worth before dismissing them outright. People go to kickstarter because they wouldn't be given the time of day in the regular market because they haven't been established. It is the whole issue with the job market people want products or workers with experience and won't hire or buy without experience but if everyone works this way how can a person or product new to the field ever get a chance.

This has been a "problem" with art pretty much since the ancient Romans decided to buy greek style sculptures and mosaics instead of trying out something risky and new.

Yeah, human beings always had a sense of tradition and following the leader, and liking what they know .

And the worst thing that you are saying about crowdfunding, is that it didn't change this either.

At least, Kicstarter is still more innovative than the mainstream market that is obsessing over IPs and sequel titles, while in Kickstarter's case the familiarity often means nothing more than the presence of an artist, guaranteeing his style, or promsing to follow a genre, or making a "spiritual successor" to a cassic. That also leaves plenty of room for reasonably slow innovation.

 

[Ickabod]

God help us all if EA figures this out. They'll want money up front, at time of purchase, and afterwards as microtransactions.

WE ARE DOOMED!!!!

 

[Entitled]

God help us all if EA figures this out. They'll want money up front, at time of purchase, and afterwards as microtransactions.

WE ARE DOOMED!!!!

And what revered classics would EA Kickstart? Populus? Ultima? Wing Commander?

All of these are already Kickstarted, more original than EA could ever make them as they are led by their original creators.

Kickstarter's whole history is a story of EA's long and repeated failure to notice or appreciate their own intellectual property.

 

[maninahat]

No, no one is being forced, but it does feel like an arbitrary surcharge being put onto fans. Fans are basically being grabbed by the balls because a studio can potentially hold its own programs hostage, saying it'll not produce any more seasons if people don't throw some extra cash their way through crowd funding. The danger is that whilst the studios don't actually need to do this, they will still do it because they can. The concern is about big studios price gouging the public.

It's not price gouging if you have a choice not to pay. It's called charging appropriately for the service. Utility companies can price gouge. Legislated insurance companies can price gouge. You can almost, almost make an argument that cellular providers might be able to price gouge these days. But entertainment mediums? They can't. They simply can't. Because at the end of the day, you don't NEED that entertainment, and if you think you do, then you're the one with the problem, not them.

If they charge too much for the entertainment, people won't pay, and what will the company do then? Either they'll go ahead anyway -- which will blow the scheme out of the water, or they'll be forced not to produce it.. which means they'll have to come up with something else on short notice.

If a fan is willing to pay the extra to get a show on the air, it's not price gouging, it's pricing at what the market will bear.

Okay, yes, you're correct. It is a luxury that costs as much as the public is willing to pay, rather than a vital service being withheld. I don't think that makes it any less of a devious and contrived practise. Part of the problem is that there will always be a sufficient number of suckers die hard fans who'll pay through the nose - okay great, now that sets a new standard in which I have to play along and pay if I want the show I would normally have been getting before. I suppose I should blame complacent consumers as much as the businesses who exploit them. Perhaps some regulation is in order, on the part of Kickstarter.

 

[Ukomba]

Oh Bob, haven't you read any Pratchett?

Sam Vimes - "But here's some advice, boy. Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions."

I guess it all comes down to freedom to choose. In fairness, a lot of kick starters have some really worthwhile bonuses for support. For games, it tends to include a copy of that finished game. Not really a way to do that for TV shows or movies, unless they people are willing to wait a really long time for DVD's and Season Box Sets.

 

[Entitled]

The only real "problem" here, is having producers (that are supposed to earn money in return for the risk they take), earn money with a reduced (or even no) risk.

Making money without risks? I wish I would have "problems" like that.

#1. Producers are supposed to "earn money in return for the risk they take", by investing in something that might be unpopular and make losses.

#2. Kickstarter allows producers to collect revenues in advance, thus making sure that the work won't make losses.

And that's a problem because, see #1, producers are SUPPOSED TO risk making losses, and I don't want to live on this planet any more if producers aren't even making losses. Seriously, fuck profitable studios.

Okay, yes, you're correct. It is a luxury that costs as much as the public is willing to pay, rather than a vital service being withheld. I don't think that makes it any less of a devious and contrived practise.

Yes, it does. Witholding the only access to a vital service, is more devious and contrived than offering certain entertainment products through an alternative business model that you don't like, along with the old one.

Part of the problem is that there will always be a sufficient number of suckers die hard fans who'll pay through the nose - okay great, now that sets a new standard in which I have to play along and pay if I want the show I would normally have been getting before.

You were always expected to pay for the movies and games that you wanted.

Here, I assume your problem is that you are expected to pay earlier than usual, and even that is not true, there is enough option to buy these when they are done. Or to pirate them. Or to watch other shows that are made through your preferred funding methods.

if I want the show I would normally have been getting before.

And the ones that you wouldn't have. Such as Veronica Mars, a movie that's plan has been dragged on for several YEARS before Kickstarter came up, with no other way of getting it funded.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I'd happily pay to fund another Dredd if I could get a bluray once it's released

 

[mdqp]

Making money without risks? I wish I would have "problems" like that.

#1. Producers are supposed to "earn money in return for the risk they take", by investing in something that might be unpopular and make losses.

#2. Kickstarter allows producers to collect revenues in advance, thus making sure that the work won't make losses.

And that's a problem because, see #1, producers are SUPPOSED TO risk making losses, and I don't want to live on this planet any more if producers aren't even making losses. Seriously, fuck profitable studios.

My point was, that someone else is taking the risk, so that someone else should profit from this (the one doing the funding).

There is a good reason in this specific case for paying the producer (I believe they hold the rights to Veronica Mars), but as a general rule, if they give less to the projects than before, why should they earn as much as before?

Captcha: She sells seashells... Yes indeed.

 

[weirdee]

I suppose you'd also have to ask yourself whether or not you'd want to see something you really wanted but was deemed "financially unsustainable" languish in the vault for 10 or 20 or forever amount of years, as the old system pretty much delegated it to. Granted, perhaps they are ransoming these series for money, but can you really make the distinction between that and knowing they would let a property die alone in the basement? It'd be up to you to trade the viability of something you know you would want for a unproven project, rather than leave that decision of the corporation.

 

[Raioken18]

Man everyone talking about backing a Firefly kickstater is EXACTLY the kind of thing Bob was talking about here. Firefly (last I checked) is still owned by Fox, a company that is not exactly short on cash. They could easily put the show back on the air with money out of their own pockets, so why would you give them money to do something they can already afford to do?

Because Fox won't do it. They've never shown any inclination to put the show back on the air, much like the CW had zero interest in any projects relating to "Veronica Mars". Hence the Kickstarter campaign cutting them out of the process.

I don't really do kickstarters. But for Firefly... I would probably go, shut up and take my money!

 

[LordMonty]

I'm scared by this and yet confused as to what will come of this... kickstarter is a powerful tool and I fear that power and how far it can and will reach... also what is this mars(life on mars was a good show on the BBC) thing? honestly no clue but hey that aside yay people get paid and people get what they paid for I guess.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

This is just yet another case of the massive corporations refusing to try anything new until they know for certain it works. They looked over the shoulders of people who had nothing but innovation to support their ideas, and once again copied/manipulated it for their own uses. Because they know shareholders are an incredibly finicky lot who likely jump the boat at the slightest dip in profits, they won't try anything new useless they know it's almost certain to make them money.
This time round though, they're getting a fair amount of their sales up front. If the project fails, they still make a fair profit from a few T-Shirts and and a load of empty promises. Who's to say that they can't just pocket a few million donated dollars just because they 'needed' more than that?
I don't like it at all. Once again, the individual market is going to be pushed out of what little limelight they have by the bigger powers. There need to be measures in place so corporations don't abuse the system.

 

[DoctorM]

Thank you for putting words to what I was thinking.

While I'm happy Veronica Mars will be coming to theaters... I think it should be the first and last property to do this.

Kickstarter needs to outright ban companies above a certain level from even utilizing their service.

My fingers are crossed that WB will prove not to be asses and at the very least match the funds donated by the Kickstarterers.

 

[Agent_Dark]

Why is this even an issue? These major film studios have been getting into bed with private equity firms for years now, in order to make movies. How is using Kickstarter to raise funds for a movie that different from getting private investors to help fund your movie?

At the end of the day, like any private investment, donating to a Kickstarter is as simple as reminding yourself "never put in more than you can lose". If you can afford to put $500,000 into a hedge fund which is used to finance movies then go for it. If you can afford to lay down $50 for a Kickstarter to make movie, then go for it. The only difference would be in the return you get out of the investment - with the hedge fund/private equity your reward is making money. With the Kickstarter your return is a movie you want to watch.

 

[irishda]

Gee, sounds like the results of fucking stupid people putting their money into unoriginal ideas, not corporations "infecting" the green idyllic pastures of crowd-funding. There's a reason corporations rarely put out original ideas and, surprise, it's not because executives are retarded. No, it's because, if there's ANYTHING kickstarter should teach you, it's that EVERYONE likes unoriginal sequels/prequels/spin-offs/etc.

I'll give you a great example:

"Gee, why isn't Hollywood more original? Why do they just churn out shitty sequels and stuff based on games or books?"
"ERMAHGERD, AVENGERS IS COMING! Let's give it all the money!"
"Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are back on TV? Fuck yeah!"
"Holy fuck, they might be making Half-life 3!"

 

[Draconalis]

Moreover, the $35 reward for this project is a digital copy of the movie - about the same price you'd pay for a Blu-Ray

Where the hell are you buying movies that cost 35 dollars retail? Seriously... most new releases cost like... 20... and only raise when they are a special edition or the like... and even then, I rarely see them get beyond 25 dollars. Any place that sells them for more needs to not be shopped at.

 

[Norix596]

This is not totally dissimilar to very early pre-order offers. For example, whatever they name of that new IP that Bungie is making now - we don't even know if it will be an MMO, a CoD-style PvP focused game with a separate story campaign or really anything about it, including whether it will even come to fruition... but it's still up for pre-order.