Yeah... I'm not too sure I'm comfortable with a developer like Obsidian using it, either. Definitely not a publisher, though, kind-of defeats the purpose.
Its the hypocrisy of OBsidian's statement that's the problem.Sartan0 said:It's not like we don't get anything out of it. We get games made that would otherwise not be made. How is this a bad thing? Provided you back the titles that are much more likely to be done it is a good bet. At least for me. As for the publishers I don't care much about them as long as they don't interfere too much. With kick-starter they can't as they are not involved.
Not quite. Now, in case you don't know, the 'Project Creators' give the 'backers' rewards, depending on ow much the Backer gives. Things like a name in the credits, or maybe a t-shirt, a poster, that kind of thing. What the T&C says, at least to me, is that if the Project Creator is unable, for what ever reason, to supply the Backer with the reward they promised the Backer, then the Backer is entitled to a refund.BreakfastMan said:Kickstarter carries as much financial risk to the consumer as pre-ordering a game from the store. Let's take a look at the Terms of Use for the site, shall we?
I don't know about you, but that looks an awful lot like I will get a refund if the project goes belly-up.From the Terms of Use:
Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.
BECAUSE THAT IS THE PUBLISHERS JOB, IS TO FUND THE GAME. I mean really? they are taking the one big risk they have to do normally, and shifting it to customers, in turn, reaping profits for doing next to nothing while getting their name out their on a game they did next to nothing for..SajuukKhar said:Its the hypocrisy of OBsidian's statement that's the problem.Sartan0 said:It's not like we don't get anything out of it. We get games made that would otherwise not be made. How is this a bad thing? Provided you back the titles that are much more likely to be done it is a good bet. At least for me. As for the publishers I don't care much about them as long as they don't interfere too much. With kick-starter they can't as they are not involved.
I don't care who uses kickstater because it does get us games we normally wouldn't get, however I take offense to someone, in this case Obsidian, acting like some people have no right to use it.
so your telling me, you don't want the people who actually make the game, spend countless hours working on it, to reap profits from it? they have to have a starting point somewhere, not to mention they have no idea how much people might have interest in the game itself, what's the point of taking money out of your OWN pocket, paying yourself to work years on a game, and then only sell 10,000 copies?albino boo said:In a kickstarter Obsidian get 100% of the profits without any investment risk because all the money comes from the consumer who has no means of redress in case of project failure.
Most tiers of donation include at least the game (for instance, with the obsidian one, there is only one tier that does not include the game, and that is the $5 dollar one. All others do). If the project goes belly-up, the game does not get released. Ergo, they cannot fulfill a reward, ergo you get your money back.Da Orky Man said:Not quite. Now, in case you don't know, the 'Project Creators' give the 'backers' rewards, depending on ow much the Backer gives. Things like a name in the credits, or maybe a t-shirt, a poster, that kind of thing. What the T&C says, at least to me, is that if the Project Creator is unable, for what ever reason, to supply the Backer with the reward they promised the Backer, then the Backer is entitled to a refund.BreakfastMan said:Kickstarter carries as much financial risk to the consumer as pre-ordering a game from the store. Let's take a look at the Terms of Use for the site, shall we?
I don't know about you, but that looks an awful lot like I will get a refund if the project goes belly-up.From the Terms of Use:
Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.
At no point does it make a reference to refunds if the project goes belly-up.
If a publisher manages to get a developer who used kickstarter to fund their game to publish through them, I see absolutely no problem with it.TeletubbiesGolfGun said:BECAUSE THAT IS THE PUBLISHERS JOB, IS TO FUND THE GAME. I mean really? they are taking the one big risk they have to do normally, and shifting it to customers, in turn, reaping profits for doing next to nothing while getting their name out their on a game they did next to nothing for..
why in the hell would you want them using kickstarter/funding devs for it?
granted, if a publisher can get a developer stupid enough to sign that deal, and people are stupid enough to fund that kickstarter, than by all means, well played, they pulled off an amazing business move to reap some decent profits. not to mention, you are completely twisting the words to what he actually says, he said: "Urquhart rather generously said that he believed the requests came not from a position of evil, but one of ignorance", the publishers were trying to pull a fast one by not having to do their part, yet reap profits, how do you NOT have a problem with that?
Get out of here with your common sense and rational thinking and actually understanding the topic. We don't like that around here. This is for bagging on whatever was mentioned in a harsh light in the first post. Not for being reasonable.Byere said:I love how people are bitching and complaining about how developers are using the Kickstarter system and then there's an uproar when a Publisher tries to use it.
You lot do realise that Kickstarter is a way for a developer to create games WITHOUT having to sign over rights to the game to some faceless corperation, right? The money donated by the players is used for development and distribution of the game. I don't know if you've checked, but the amount taken isn't exactly in the multitude of millions. The developer asks for what they NEED. This isn't about massive profits. Without publisher fees and so much extra overheads, there's more money to put into the game to make it better.
Now, the rewards. Almost EVERY amount donated (in the case of video games, movies, etc) will give back to the person who donates in the form of a copy of what they're donating to. A mere $15-20, much cheaper than what you'd pay anywhere else, and you get a copy of the game you paid towards the creation of. I'd say that's a damn good deal. Also, as previously stated, if the developer cannot fulfil the reward/s offered to someone, they get a refund. I don't see how it's a bad thing toward the developers.
Now the publisher... these are people who are supposed to fund and publicise the game, and in return get to slap their name all over it, get to make changes to the game during development and even get a cut of the profits... usually far more than the developers get of the income from THEIR hard work. They now want to use this system to get gamers to chip in and pay a percentage (if not all) of the development costs, only to take part of that money for themselves and then slap their name all over the game.
Effectively, they're doing/paying little to nothing and then reaping a portion of the rewards. It's laziness and greed in its most blatant form.
THAT'S why there's such outrage at this and why it's ok for developers to use this system.
like i said, if they actually pull it off, hats off to them for getting that business decision to happen, however, from a consumer/developers point of view, the whole point of kickstarter is to AVOID the publisher (at least get them to not meddle with the project/deny the project from being made)SajuukKhar said:If a publisher manages to get a developer who used kickstarter to fund their game to publish through them, I see absolutely no problem with it.TeletubbiesGolfGun said:BECAUSE THAT IS THE PUBLISHERS JOB, IS TO FUND THE GAME. I mean really? they are taking the one big risk they have to do normally, and shifting it to customers, in turn, reaping profits for doing next to nothing while getting their name out their on a game they did next to nothing for..
why in the hell would you want them using kickstarter/funding devs for it?
granted, if a publisher can get a developer stupid enough to sign that deal, and people are stupid enough to fund that kickstarter, than by all means, well played, they pulled off an amazing business move to reap some decent profits. not to mention, you are completely twisting the words to what he actually says, he said: "Urquhart rather generously said that he believed the requests came not from a position of evil, but one of ignorance", the publishers were trying to pull a fast one by not having to do their part, yet reap profits, how do you NOT have a problem with that?
It's the Devloper's game, and if they want to include a publisher who didn't fund the game then good on them.
Obsidian are a mercenary dev, they work for whoever pay them, if they start to speak shit about publisher, they just destroy chance of getting work from them.Hammeroj said:The "but they're not evil" shtick is so fucking tired and weaksauce. I'm with you here, Obsidian, but sometimes - especially when you're not naming any names - it's appropriate to quit the industry circlejerk and point out that several publishers tried to fuck you over. Ignorance? They're not that god damn stupid, are you kidding me?
Oh, and by the way, EA was absolutely one of those publishers. I'm 120% sure of it. The extra 20% for the possibility that they approached Obsidian a second time.