Kickstarter revise guidelines

Kickstarter Wants Backers To Know They Are Not A Store

Awesome. Very happy to hear about this news. This is exactly the stuff is needed to combat stupid projects like the Obsidian pre-order. That one was really dumb like offering multiple copies of the same game, digital, hardcopy. It was offering what will become available in the future supposedly rather than what they have NOW. And they provided no evidence or any proposal on how they were going to be able to create a cross platform, modern RPG using old gameplay, with some of the top game developers, and staff from a MASSIVE company for only 1.6 million.

So very happy to hear about this. Game developers now have to be up front about the project and be realistic of what a gamers can expect. Not projected details, what you have now and how the company will overcome challenges to make sure the project is successful. This is great!

Hopefully this will also ensure companies be honest about how the game will be distributed and published. I still think it's terrible that Double Fine used Kickstarter, even though they signed a contract with MS and because of that contract, MS dictates how Double Fine releases their game, infested with GFWL.

 

I am also happy that they revised their submission guidelines to prevent any product based off solely pre-rendered images and trying to sell them like it is a finalized commercially viable product instead of pre-development with no proof of concept or concrete commercial structure *cough* OUYA *cough*.

 

I haven't invested anything in that Obsidian project (not my cup of tea), but Kickstarter's demand to only show pictures of current stages in the project rather than a proof of concept demo is ridiculous: if you are able to show pictures of current stages of the project, then the project is already fully underway. In that case - why do you need Kickstarter for? The whole meaning of the word 'Kickstart' is start ignition, to make something start going forward.

Why should developers start working on a project they don't know if it'll succeed just to answer the demand to provide a valid proof of concept? And if developers won't be able to promise details people might expect, why should they back this project? And again, if producers and developers can only promise details that they already have in the product, what good is Kickstarter to them now?

I understand they want to combat the whole big companies' approach to Kickstarter, but all these steps completely defeat the whole concept of Kickstarter in the first place.

Regarding providing multiple copies as rewards for backing a project, though - I completely agree. This is not Steam.

 

I disagree. Think about the way the Ouya was presented. It seemed less like you were backing a project and more like you were preordering a console.

Think about the Phantom. What's to say that the Ouya couldn't become the next Phantom? Two years from now we could be stuck with a vaporware Android console, a vaporware Obsidian game, etc. Kickstarter is trying to get people to understand that you're not preordering a finished product, you're investing in a more nebulous idea that carries a risk that you'll never get the reward you contributed for. The model of large scale development and production based on Kickstarter funding is completely unproven and we haven't yet seen the results of the initial high profile projects.

 

Except that it says nothing of the sort. Here are the actual revised guidelines (from your link):

Using the Project Eternity Kickstarter as an example, the developers have answered this several times in various interviews. I have no doubt that any serious developer would have a detailed production plan ready.

Nothing to do with video games at all, except that maybe you can't use a pre-rendered video to show what you intend gameplay to be like (did anyone actually do this?).

Again, nothing to do with video games -- they cannot be shown performing any actions. Still using Obsidian as an example, they've mainly shown off concept art and a map. Most of what their updates consisted of text and interviews.

This is the one and only relevant part of the new guidelines and its only impact is that video game creators may no longer sell multiple game keys. It is extremely unlikely to be intended for video games since it should be obvious to all that once a video game exists, the developer has an unlimited number of keys to this video game.

These rules seem targeted mainly at hardware, not at video games.

 

It is futile to try to protect people from their own stupidity.

I only backed 3 Kickstarter games and each time I only invested the cheapest amount I could (15-20 bucks) and still be entitled for the 'finished product' so the risk is minimal at best. People who invest hundreds of dollars in what could indeed be vaporware is not Kickstarter's fault, nor should it be. They should have ended it all with a huge flashing disclaimer and let the internet do its thing.

The Kickstarter idea was meant to jump start projects that couldn't get, or a had trouble getting funded in other means. Hindering it with these new set of rules hurts the whole point.</snip>

 

I agree, but unless you live under a rock you should know that modern society is all about protecting people from their own stupidity. It's just a sign of the times. Kickstarter doesn't want to get blamed for the fallout.

 

Hence the 'huge flashing disclaimer' part

But oh well, that's just a debate and Kickstarter aready followed with their plan. I just hope the won't mess it up further.

 

It's not about legal liability. It's about public opinion. If people donate to the Ouya project thinking they're guaranteed a console and then the project fails, it will generate significant negative attention. By making people feel like they're donating to an idea rather than preordering, it softens the blow if the project falls apart.

 

I think OUYA is what prompted this entire sudden change. Their very shady kickstarter, combined with an abysmal "site" they launched and no real effort to show beyond random posts has really hurt the kickstarter image in many communities, and could prompt the burst of the inevitable kickstarter bubble burst. It began with the video glasses that never panned out, but that was not nearly the scope of OUYA.

 

Kickstarter wasn't made for game developer's specifically. It was made for people who want to kickstart a BUSINESS! It's asking regular people to invest rather than forcing the company to go get huge loans. In order to get investment, you have to show proof that the business will succeed and have a product.

What kickstarter is asking for is not unreasonable, but fair and right. These jerk game developers are using kickstarter as a stare for pre-order. Even the rewards for the pre-order are the same stupid crud we all complain about with EA, when you buy from Best Buy you get blah exclusive, get it from Gamestop, you get this exclusive, if you get from Origin, you get this exclusive. It's pathetic, lame and sad that well established game studios are taking advantage of kickstarter. It's one thing if an Indie developer has a game and doesn't want to sign with a publisher and want to self publish or whatever and using kickstarter.

Also Kickstarter did not state you have to have a finished product. But they better have something to show/proof that the project is feasible and will be successful.

 

Of course KS wasn't made for game development only, but that's what interests me, and that's the angle I'm discussing it from. Regarding what it was made for, I believe Kickstarter is about projects, not about businesses.

Besides, a gaming company is a business just like any other. I see nothing wrong with trying to get funds for an emerging company that has an idea for a game but can't get a publisher or one that demands a large cut of the profits. But that leads me to you next point:

To which I completely agree. It's one thing to get an indie company running, or starting a game that no publisher wanted to fund (Carmageddon, for example), but it's another thing completely when well established companies take advantage of Kickstarter. That being said, the game Obsidian is funding would most definitely have a hard time doing so with today's publishers - an old school RPG from an isometric perspective. It's almost a side project, which justifies its existence.

One last thing, though: what's hurting you so much about all this? You don't like some companies' behavior in there? Don't fund them and look the other way, just like I do. I LOATHE old school RPGs (they're highly overrated) and I don't like Obsidian's hamfisted way of making games, so I simply ignore the project and wait for something better, yet in my opinion, KS are hurting the chances of that happening with their new set of rules.

 

No. Kickstarter is not a platform for investment. Investment would mean that if the project succeeds, the investor is entitled to a share of the profits. Kickstarter does not do this. It's actual function is something between a donation drop off point and a pre-order mechanism.

It is not just game developers. Kickstarter is in some sense a long-term pre-order store. If somebody wants to manufacture widgets and wants me to contribute to the production costs, the most obvious compensation is to give me a widget once production gets going.

Practically every Kickstarter I have seen does this. I went looking for weird ones just now and they also do it. Here is one for a 3D printer and here is one for a catalog of botanical delivery bots. Both of them derive practically all of their revenue from tiers that involve pre-ordering the final product.

I think it's awesome that established studios are taking advantage of Kickstarter. The publisher-driven AAA game model has resulted in a scenario where the games I like simply aren't made anymore. I can understand why they are doing it: it's more profitable to spend $30M on making an AAA game and $50M on marketing, then sell 3 million copies at $60 a piece and pocket the $100M minus the console maker's share and such than it is to spend $3M on a game and sell half a million copies at $30 a piece. However, there is an audience for old-school games and it is currently underserved. Kickstarter can help remedy this.

 

The problem lies in presenting it as "if you give us X dollars you will definitely get one of these" when there are no guarantees the project will pan out.

 

Ding, ding, ding! A winner is you!

Those who participate in crowdfunding are the ones who assume the risk. If you think about it, it's almost a form of gambling.

These reforms instituted by Kickstarter are attempting to mitigate some of that risk, and I fully support it.

 

Hilarious, investment does not mean you get a share of profits or a share of a company. An investment means you put your money with an expectation of something back. In this case, the gain is a project that succeeds that ends with a product you can use or believe in. Whoever says investment is only a return on monetary profit is a moron. There is a reason even for non-profits, it's called venture philanthropy and asking people to invest. You really think they are going to get a share of profits from a non-profit or a share of the organization? Get real.

Kickstarter is about investment. Whether it's for a good cause, or the completion of a project, that's what it is. That's what kickstarter is about. It's an innovative way to gain investments easily without having to run expensive campaigns and also a safeguard for the investor. If they don't reach their goal, you get your money back.

It's called Kickstarter for a reason, not Pre-Sales R Us or Indie Wallstreet. That's what this revision is about.

 

I think it's fair to say that "if you donate X dollars you will receive a copy of the title when released", but beyond that it's merchandising and advertising for the company. But I still don't understand why they can't show video of a pre-rendered concept. I think it's great actually. I supported the Planetary Annihilation campaign because I liked what I saw, regardless of the "prizes" or "extras" involved. You need a way to motivate donations other than just gimme gimme gimme. Even a panhandler on the street, I'm more likely to give one money if they're playing an instrument or doing something entertaining or constructive for their cause than one that just sits there with their hand out which is what Kickstarter looks like it will amount to.

 

But if they do reach their goal and ultimately don't deliver, you get nothing, and they keep everything. Further, the crowdfunding model has no milestones tied to it. Less pressure, but also less incentive to keep motivated. It keeps the door open for all kinds of excuse making. That's why I called it like gambling. You're placing a "bet" that the project will be completed, and you'll receive a payout commiserate with the amount you put in.

 

IF released. It's an if. I feel like people are looking at this from the exact viewpoint Kickstarter is trying to address. There is literally zero guarantee the product will be released even if you blow away the funding goal. Startups fail every single day. There's a really good chance you won't get anything. They don't want product renders because that makes it seem like you've got more than you really do. Any clown can have an artist do up a few renders for a pittance, especially if it means they can soak a few suckers on Kickstarter to the tune of a couple million.

 

I honestly think it should be tiered payment to the companies, like 25% up front, 50% more if they can provide proof of concept in a working model, and remaining 25% showing they're capable of mass producing/providing the end product. I know it's not a guarantee of anything. But you'd also like to get something for it if and when it does come to fruition.

 

Yes things tend to get fishy sometimes.

Lets hope Kickstarter know what they are doing, they've EXPLODED this year. Suddenly everyone wants to make stuff