| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
www.kickstarter.com/projects/747939120/starcraft-universe
Are you kidding me? This company has made billions off the public in gaming. Other then WoW and Diablo 3 I have enjoyed their games, but to think they need to ask their customers to raise the money for a game that they already have done....
Im happy to support starter companies with new concepts, or a low level company that see the potential in expanding their services... Not a multi billion dollar company.
It's not Blizzard--it's an independent group of modders using SC assets and Blizzard.net
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While i'm aware that this is not Blizzard or Activision but a separate third party I have to say that i'm really looking forward to the Call of Duty map pack kickstarter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So does this mean that EA, Microsoft, Sony, and WOTC will be doing kickstarters now?
How about a kickstarter so they can buy enough server space so they day the massive online game they have been pimping for the last year comes out, you can accually you know, play it on the day it comes out instead of just trying to log in all day? Then when you can't log on and play, the excuse is "We had no idea that the game we have been pimping for the whole world to buy would have this much demand. Yes every single banner ad on every page you went to online was for the game, yes this game had the biggest pre orders in the history of video games. But we still had no idea the demand for people playing the game would be this high."
|
So does this mean that EA, Microsoft, Sony, and WOTC will be doing kickstarters now?
How about a kickstarter so they can buy enough server space so they day the massive online game they have been pimping for the last year comes out, you can accually you know, play it on the day it comes out instead of just trying to log in all day? Then when you can't log on and play, the excuse is "We had no idea that the game we have been pimping for the whole world to buy would have this much demand. Yes every single banner ad on every page you went to online was for the game, yes this game had the biggest pre orders in the history of video games. But we still had no idea the demand for people playing the game would be this high."
1. We've already gotten to the point where larger businesses are using Kickstarter to crowdfund projects that the could have easily funded themselves, that's nothing new. He'll Paizo themselves have done it. (Sorry, make that "GoblinWorks").
2. The problem is that after the initial hype wears off, the numbers go down dramatically. So if they buy servers to accommodate the day 1 traffic, that investment becomes pretty horrible on day 30 when half the servers are sitting there unused.
2. The problem is that after the initial hype wears off, the numbers go down dramatically. So if they buy servers to accommodate the day 1 traffic, that investment becomes pretty horrible on day 30 when half the servers are sitting there unused.
Becomes worse if it cost you players because the world looks empty after the initial hype dies. Lots of games have had trouble recovering from that, and a bad reaction can kill them.
|
|
2. The problem is that after the initial hype wears off, the numbers go down dramatically. So if they buy servers to accommodate the day 1 traffic, that investment becomes pretty horrible on day 30 when half the servers are sitting there unused.
So once the hype wears off, you have the extra servers to use for the next big online game you will launch. A one time investment for them.
So once the hype wears off, you have the extra servers to use for the next big online game you will launch. A one time investment for them.
2. The problem is that after the initial hype wears off, the numbers go down dramatically. So if they buy servers to accommodate the day 1 traffic, that investment becomes pretty horrible on day 30 when half the servers are sitting there unused.
Love that optimism.
...that investment becomes pretty horrible on day 30 when half the servers are sitting there unused.
Is it possible to "rent" servers, or server-capacity? It seems that'd be a possible solution to uncertainty at launch: rent, and buy only after one's had time to evaluate demand.
|
|
So once the hype wears off, you have the extra servers to use for the next big online game you will launch. A one time investment for them.
2. The problem is that after the initial hype wears off, the numbers go down dramatically. So if they buy servers to accommodate the day 1 traffic, that investment becomes pretty horrible on day 30 when half the servers are sitting there unused.
You still have the servers sitting idle until the next big game release. Even the big companies like Blizard are doing well to have a big release like that every year or so. So, assuming 1 month of hype post-release (which is probably stretching it, 2 weeks seems more realistic)...you still have 11 months where the server is doing nothing but eating money.
|
So once the hype wears off, you have the extra servers to use for the next big online game you will launch. A one time investment for them.
2. The problem is that after the initial hype wears off, the numbers go down dramatically. So if they buy servers to accommodate the day 1 traffic, that investment becomes pretty horrible on day 30 when half the servers are sitting there unused.
Which will become outdated when the next new hyped game comes out and practically useless. It's not that simple.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scenario 1: Young upstart has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund his really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, he creates the game and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, he doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Scenario 2: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans love it and buy it. The game is successful and the company recoups their $100k investment, and then some.
Scenario 3: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans don't like it and nobody buys it. The game fails and the company is out their $100k investment.
Scenario 4: Established game company has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund a really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, they create the game, and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, the company doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Why are scenarios 1, 2, and 3 acceptable, but scenario 4 is not?
Scenario 1: Young upstart has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund his really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, he creates the game and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, he doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Scenario 2: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans love it and buy it. The game is successful and the company recoups their $100k investment, and then some.
Scenario 3: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans don't like it and nobody buys it. The game fails and the company is out their $100k investment.
Scenario 4: Established game company has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund a really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, they create the game, and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, the company doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Why are scenarios 1, 2, and 3 acceptable, but scenario 4 is not?
In my experience, people's arguments usually boil down to 1 of 2 things, one of which is a misunderstanding of how crowdfunding ecconomics actually works.
1st the misunderstanding. A lot of people seem to think that when big companies put up kickstarters they are taking from the little guy. This would be true if the pool of money available through kickstarter were somewhat static, and so if everyone put their money into a large companies project the other kickstarters would suffer. Basically, they think that most backers have a limitted pool of money they are willing to spend and they will back large name projects
This argument fails for two reasons:
A. The large kickstarters bring more money into the system than they take from the system by introducing more people to kickstarter. Kickstarter released some statistics for Veronica Mars and some of the others showing that they brought in a huge number of new people and that those people went on to back other projects.
B. It assumes that people on tight budgets would put the same ammount of money into kickstarter regardless of other projects going on. In reality, people would just buy the large companies game and it would be taken out of the same disposable pool of money some other kickstarter would. Preventing large companies from kickstartering will not reduce competition for that money, but there is a perception it would.
2nd is competition for space. People are only willing to search kickstarter so deep to look for interesting projects. Most people will only browse the top. Large successful kickstarters push smaller projects down the popularity list, making the smaller indie ones harder to find. The larger companies don't need the advertising as much, since they have an easier time drawing people to kickstarter in the first place. It is the smaller name groups that need to be high in the search list. I personally think this is a valid concern, and one that Kickstarter should consider when designing its algorithms for determining popularity, like possibly weighing internal references higher than external for determining popularity on internal sorting.
They're not really. What this looks like to people, not me, but I've heard the rant before is a large company that doesn't need crowdfunding to create a product that they know will sell profitably.
The difference between SJG Kickstarting Ogre 6 and a hypothetical Kickstarter for the next Magic set by WotC.
And what would the problem be if WotC decided to kickstart the next Magic set, exactly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And who gets to decide who "needs" the crowdfunding resource? You? Me? The CEO of Kickstarter?
Scenario 1: Young upstart has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund his really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, he creates the game and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, he doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Scenario 2: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans love it and buy it. The game is successful and the company recoups their $100k investment, and then some.
Scenario 3: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans don't like it and nobody buys it. The game fails and the company is out their $100k investment.
Scenario 4: Established game company has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund a really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, they create the game, and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, the company doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Why are scenarios 1, 2, and 3 acceptable, but scenario 4 is not?
The downside to everyone using something like KS is that it dilutes the possibility of scenario 1 gaining the attention necessary to succeed. KS isn't a zero-sum game, but using it purely as a marketing tool for an already successful company that can raise funds to start projects, increases the hype surrounding KS, which inevitably leads to a decline in attention by the public. Nothing stays fashionable forever.
I do think crowdfunding is here to stay, I'd just rather see it focused more on actual crowdfunding, not just used as a pre-order system.
I don't think most major companies are going to avail themselves too much of KS, since the 5% cut off the top is pretty hefty if your margins are low or you already have enough methods of funding, distributing and marketing your products. I also think that the 5% cut is plenty of room for someone to move in and eat at KS's territory (or force the % down).
I know people will probably ignore this, and continue to rant away over something that isn't actually really happening,
But it would appear that Kickstarter the OP linked is from Upheaval Arts, not Blizzard. Of course, this was already pointed out, but why let reality get in the way of butthurt nerdboy rage, amirite?
Also, why not use any sort of searchfu to learn more? I mean, lets all just be lazy, angry, armchair ranters, truly showing how stereotypical us gamer geeks/nerds can be.
Well, I opted to actually look up said company, and found this:
Upheaval Arts is a small video game development company currently based around a single mod for StarCraft II; StarCraft Universe. Based out of St. Louis, MO, Upheaval Arts contracts talented individuals in the development of game ideas in high demand by the StarCraft community.
Now, unless this utter and total crap and lies, it would appear they have ZERO to do with Blizzard, aside from making a mod for one of their games.
I could care less. I was pointing out that there was a scenario five that Sean missed. It's entirely subjective, but the complaint typically isn't that an established company is using crowd funding. It's that a company that is perceived to not need the help asks for crowd funding for a project they would have presumably made anyway, have the money to do so, and already know would be a success.
You still haven't explained why a company shouldn't be allowed to do that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when a successful company asks the public to give them money up front so they can put out a product they can make money on. Its like they are double dipping. I had a bad taste when Berlew did it to print more order of the stick books. "Please give us money so we can print books so we can make more money."
If contributing $20 to a KS gets you a product, and you could instead buy that same product for $20 at retail when it is published, why is the first option bad and the second option good?
If anything, using KS lets a publisher get a REALLY specific idea of the minimum number of copies to print.
There's a diff between "I think we should print 10,000 copies," and the demand is only 5,000, and "we have 5,000 KS supporters who pledged at the 'get the book level,' so we should print enough for them and maybe 1,000 more for retail." Especially as the cost-per-copy to print 5,000 copies is different than than the cost-per-copy to print 1,000 or 10,000.
It's actually not that different than Paizo's subscription model: Paizo knows in advance they will sell X subscriber copies, and can expect Y orders from distributors for retail stores. Knowing X + Y + a little extra for unexpected demand is much better than guessing at X, Y, and Z.
So why is it okay that Paizo has subscribers "kickstart" different product lines on a month-to-month basis, but not for some other successful company to use Kickstarter to do essentially the same thing for a product they know will be successful?
I think the problem lies more in a core expectation concerning crowdfunding: If the kickstarter fails, the project is dead. So, if a company, say WotC, has all the budget they need to make Magic the Gathering expansion Doom Boars, and it's the next in their schedule, and they don't intend NOT to go ahead with it if they don't get enough backers on their Kickstarter project, it is essentially them just grabbing what money they can extra. Especially if the stretch goals are pretty lacklustre. The effect of this (because they get money BEFORE the point of publication) is that WotC won't need to produce as much of a stellar Doom Boars expansion to turn a profit, and quality can suffer without WotC taking a hit in the wallet. It is basically the same problem we see in the computer games industry, with preorders. And, yes, subscriptions. Let's say it's not a new problem. And, I would like to add, as someone who buys my Paizo stuff through my FLGS due to international shipping costs, that this is not to say Paizo doesn't manage the quality. There is a central issue here: WE KNOW YOU. We know you care about quality.
TL;DR: There is a quality concern about it, but mostly, it's a matter of breaking a core assumption about crowdfunding.
TL;DR: There is a quality concern about it, but mostly, it's a matter of breaking a core assumption about crowdfunding.
I don't see any evidence that an established company using a KS for a project necessarily means that company is going to lower its quality standards simply because it's using a KS.
I think it may relate to the fact that most people see crowd funding as being of a kind with charity due to it's similarity to a pledge drive.
Then that is an erroneous association on the part of "most people," not an actual problem with an established company using Kickstarter.
I think my own opinion comes down to what I, personally, think of the company at the time, as well as the product that's offered.
Firstly, I'll state that I've actually read it properly and am aware that it's not, in fact, Blizzard who have launched the Kickstarter in question here.
Hypothetical: An RPG company releasing an RPG. I know most RPG companies tend to live hand-to-mouth and any money made tends to disappear into keeping the company going, paying the staff, freelancers, and production costs. I'd probably see this on Kickstarter and think nothing of pledging if it was a product I wanted badly enough.
Hypothetical: A Microsoft Kickstarter for Windows 9* at $100. I'd laugh in their faces at the principle of the thing. I can get it retail and they sure as heck don't need the equivalent to an advance order from me.
Hypothetical: A Microsoft Kickstarter for Windows 9* at $10. Screw principles, I'll save a packet by pledging that $10 right now.
Hypothetical: A miniatures company (established or new) wanting to invest in a new line of miniatures requiring a new process. I really hate that I missed that Reaper Kickstarter, and would jump at the chance if it was a line I wanted.
Hypothetical: An established miniatures company using Kickstarter to fund a new set of models. Huh, they could have just released them as normal, right? Unless there's a significant saving over retail, I'll avoid it.
Hypothetical: A new or struggling company needing funding to release their next product. I'd avoid anything too expensive, personally, as I'd have doubts over their ability to deliver. Otherwise though, I feel this is what Kickstarter is designed for.
TL;DR: People should do as their individual consciences, sense of fairness, and desire for the product in question demands of them. There's really no universal "right" or "wrong" that individual backers should feel good or bad about.
* On the one side, I'm really disenchanted by Windows 8 and Office 2013 (Which feel like the software equivalents of 4th Edition rules to me) and am loathe to send any money MS's way nowadays. On the other, a newer version surely can't look as ugly as Windows 8, right? Oh, and disclaimer: Windows 9 is currently a fictional product.
TL;DR: There is a quality concern about it, but mostly, it's a matter of breaking a core assumption about crowdfunding.I don't see any evidence that an established company using a KS for a project necessarily means that company is going to lower its quality standards simply because it's using a KS.
No, not that they ARE GOING TO, just that they CAN. Earlier point of purchase means more money even from a mediocre product. C.f. Aliens - Colonial Marines, Sim City and too many other computer games that thrived on preorders.
Every business model that puts a large part of purchases on preorders of some kind will be able to get away for a while with bad quality. Eventually, people stop buying anyway, of course, if it keeps up, but the resistance to actually cancelling that subscription is higher. When you make a computer game with a ridiculously large budget, however, it isn't surprising that the temptation is strong to get purchases while you can still control who gets to make reviews of your game, i.e. before publication. With less money invested, sound policy still becomes holding to high quality.
And who gets to decide who "needs" the crowdfunding resource? You? Me? The CEO of Kickstarter?
Us. The people who decide which projects to fund and which not to fund.
|
I'd love to see WoTC do a kickstarter and see how much of the Paizo community throws a fit honestly. I remember years back when WoTC a few years back released their 4th edition chromatic dragons book and some were whining about that. They would then go on to by the Paizo "Classic X Revisited". Classic and classy all at once.
TL;DR: There is a quality concern about it, but mostly, it's a matter of breaking a core assumption about crowdfunding.I don't see any evidence that an established company using a KS for a project necessarily means that company is going to lower its quality standards simply because it's using a KS.
I think it may relate to the fact that most people see crowd funding as being of a kind with charity due to it's similarity to a pledge drive.Then that is an erroneous association on the part of "most people," not an actual problem with an established company using Kickstarter.
A lot of people believe there's a "indie/hipster street cred" factor to crowdfunding. Flowery language and sob stories in many of them lead these people to believe it's all about backing dreams and starving artists.
Heaven forbid if any of these artists are trying to make a living or apply practical business sense.
"Normal" projects from a bigger name peels back that veneer a bit and people don't want to admit it's a business tool.
I actually knew a guy in college that would brag about how obscure the things he backed were.
|
Scenario 1: Young upstart has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund his really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, he creates the game and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, he doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Scenario 2: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans love it and buy it. The game is successful and the company recoups their $100k investment, and then some.
Scenario 3: Established game company puts up $100k to create a really interesting game. Game is published. The fans don't like it and nobody buys it. The game fails and the company is out their $100k investment.
Scenario 4: Established game company has a $100k kickstarter to crowdfund a really interesting game. If the KS succeeds, they create the game, and the backers get to play that game at the same cost of buying it at retail. If it fails, the company doesn't create the game and the would-be backers aren't out anything.
Why are scenarios 1, 2, and 3 acceptable, but scenario 4 is not?
Because of two ideas, neither of which is entirely "rational". They are:
1) Frankly, this use of kickstarter goes against what most people (me included) feel is the "spirit" of kickstarter. It was meant to be a tool for people scattered around the world to work together to make some spectacular things happen, when they normally couldn't. Now, of course KS is a TOOL - and finding new uses for a tool is a good thing, not a bad one - but people don't think about things this way. KS is to many people about chipping in to get things done - and a large company using the same tool shows it to have other aspects people may not be comfortable with.
2) Because paying for a product before it even exists is far from ideal. Generally speaking, when I buy a computer game, it is AFTER I hear from others that it's good, after Iv'e watched some game play videos, etc.
Obviously when a small, indie developer uses kickstarter to sell their game, you understand that they had no other alternative to doing so - they need the money BEFORE they create the game, because otherwise they will not have the resources to create it.
However, if a company CERTAINLY has the money they need to develop the game on their own, there's little justification as a consumer to pay before you know exactly what you get. The company does not depend on you to create the game, and they are asking for you to simply trust them when they say you would want the final product.
Basically, because the company does not DEPEND on the consumer's help to get the product out there, going to KS basically transfers all the risk from the company to the consumers, for NO justifiable reason.
Honestly, I think this KS thing is mostly a clever way to garner some publicity for the new game. It's not really about the money.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's large? Paizo is larger than 99 percent of the folks doing Kickstarter projects. Are you going to come down on them for doing this with Pathfinder Online?I know people will probably ignore this, and continue to rant away over something that isn't actually really happening,
But it would appear that Kickstarter the OP linked is from Upheaval Arts, not Blizzard. Of course, this was already pointed out, but why let reality get in the way of butthurt nerdboy rage, amirite?
Also, why not use any sort of searchfu to learn more? I mean, lets all just be lazy, angry, armchair ranters, truly showing how stereotypical us gamer geeks/nerds can be.
Well, I opted to actually look up said company, and found this:
** spoiler omitted **
Now, unless this utter and total crap and lies, it would appear they have ZERO to do with Blizzard, aside from making a mod for one of their games.
I know you'll probably ignore this, but that was pointed out and the discussion is about why some people think it's abusing Kickstarter when a large company uses it.
They are huge in the role playing game market. Tiny in computer game market. Obviously, Paizo doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw around. Blizzard does.
What's large? Paizo is larger than 99 percent of the folks doing Kickstarter projects. Are you going to come down on them for doing this with Pathfinder Online?
I know you'll probably ignore this, but that was pointed out and the discussion is about why some people think it's abusing Kickstarter when a large company uses it.
I think I'd be a bit more specific - If it's a company proposing to expand into a new area that involves significant investment (Paizo doing an MMO, Reaper miniatures producing a whole new line of plastics) then it's a "legit" (in the eyes of the audience) Kickstarter.
Paizo quite simply did not have the money to make the MMO without other help. Publishing books and publishing a 3D MMO are two entirely different scales of investment.
One thing that does disappoint me about the mod-maker's Kickstarter is that more than half of the money is earmarked for paying themselves, as opposed to investment in tools and materials. Yes, they need to eat, but to do so on Kickstarter funding seems somewhat of a misappropriation to me. Better to take twice as long to do the job and do it in their spare time.
I'm launching a Kickstarter myself soon, and wouldn't dream of asking people to pay for the couple of hundred or so hours I'll be putting in on the project, only for the purchases I need to complete it.
Perhaps I'm alone here, but I see a big difference between needing paid employees and the Kickstarter project leads paying themselves out of the funds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that does disappoint me about the mod-maker's Kickstarter is that more than half of the money is earmarked for paying themselves, as opposed to investment in tools and materials. Yes, they need to eat, but to do so on Kickstarter funding seems somewhat of a misappropriation to me. Better to take twice as long to do the job and do it in their spare time.
What.
When you devote yourself to working on something full time, you still need to eat, pay bills and dress yourself.
What do you think an AAA game budget gets spent on? I'll tell you. More then half goes on to salaries and rent. Close to two thirds.
One thing that does disappoint me about the mod-maker's Kickstarter is that more than half of the money is earmarked for paying themselves, as opposed to investment in tools and materials. Yes, they need to eat, but to do so on Kickstarter funding seems somewhat of a misappropriation to me. Better to take twice as long to do the job and do it in their spare time.What.
When you devote yourself to working on something full time, you still need to eat, pay bills and dress yourself.
What do you think an AAA game budget gets spent on? I'll tell you. More then half goes on to salaries and rent. Close to two thirds.
Yup, but this is a game mod, so you work at your full-time job to pay those bills while you do your hobby mod project in the background.
It feels to me this is more a case of these people wanting to find a way to live off this project than wanting to launch themselves into business. Now, I'm guessing they're not allowed to actually sell a mod due to Blizzard's TOS on the mod tools, so this just feels to me like a crafty way to get around that restriction.
I'm also not entirely sure what exactly is being "Kickstarted" here. Are they trying to create a new game studio?