At first I wasn´t really fond of the concept of kickstarting any game at all. In fact, I didn´t back anything up to now. But the market is changing and even though there might be other possibilites to raise funds for the developement, I tried to do one thing: Think about being in Marks place instead and how I would choose my path.
The outcome was quite easy: It would be a similar way from his standpoint. I might not liked the idea of giving money for a vision at first, but how could I critisize it, if I can see it be reasonable from another point of view?
A kickstart is in itself a marketing research campaign, that raises money. Sounds nice to me, if I tried to fund my game. Mark did follow different paths in the past and he was part of the developementprocess of a game, that had a lot of financial backup. It didn´t work out - so now he want´s to try another thing. Who am I to judge him? No one is forcing me to support it.
Sure, its sort of a gamble for us to invest money in it. But since when is gambling something new? People play in the lottery all the time, hoping to get some results for their money. For me its just like that here. Its up to me, whether or not I back this game. If I do though, I might get something valuable in return. Becoming part of the whole process from scratch, maybe getting the game for free and some playtime or whatever. It will give me something in return I might have spent money on later anyway. But with backing the game I help to realize it first and I get the possiblity to choose a bigger investment with a bigger outcome (alpha access or whatever). Sure, with some risks - but those risks I do know, just like I know how bad the odds are to win the lottery. I´ll play anyway from time to time.
I´ve never been a fan of publishers meddling with the affairs of the game design. I´ve never been a fan of triple AAA blockbusters either. Its just impossible to satisfy everyone at once. So if Mark is willing to invest a lot of his own money, but wants to check the market first - I´m fine with that.
It all comes down to trust. If you don´t believe in this project, if you don´t trust Mark and his team to deliver. Well, then don´t back the game. Sure, people like me might get burned for their trust, but that is something - since I don´t believe in it - I´ll deal with, if it comes to that.
And perhaps most importantly, whether you liked his previous games or not, the man has created/launched 2 big games that are still running today. He's started a couple of companies from scratch as well and sold one of them. From a business standpoint he's not an idiot nor is he shady. He's proven he can create a game and launch it. I would say thats a pedigree that a very small percentage of KS funded games have.
Strangiato, i'd like you to meet the state of Rhode island....
And the state of RI suffered from the default risk of the investment.
If Copernicus performed 3 times as well as WoW or barely treaded water, RI would have received the exact same money. that is what I mean by RoI being set: its built into the loan terms.
The big risk with an MMORPG loan is the default risk. I would imagine the rates are pretty high because of that.
Strangiato, i'd like you to meet the state of Rhode island....
And the state of RI suffered from the default risk of the investment.
If Copernicus performed 3 times as well as WoW or barely treaded water, RI would have received the exact same money. that is what I mean by RoI being set: its built into the loan terms.
The big risk with an MMORPG loan is the default risk. I would imagine the rates are pretty high because of that.
And if the game doesn't barely tread water?
Lets be honest here, you have a guy looking for a lot of money that said he's going after a niche' market, in a pretty volatile genre'. A guy who in his own words said "some of the ideas for this game are gonna piss off some players and we're ready to do that" . A guy, for all the hype and hoopla, well his last MMO didn't exactly blow the doors off the MMO market (with the same premise, RvR!). A guy who i'm not even sure he himself knows if theres enough interest in this type of niche' game.
Add that to the recent fiasco with Shilling, the investments in TOR, SOE ventures, the rarity of pvp-centric MMOs "done right", well, i dunno, but if i had a large sum of money, the last place i would go is the MMO market, but maybe thats why i don't have large sums of money
Will i toss a few bucks in the hopes he can get this off the ground? Sure, its the type of game i would like to play.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
Originally posted by Jojin As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
A big name in the industry wanting to make a successor to one of the insutry's big names...and he is resorting to public funding?
It doesn't compute. If he wanted to make a low budget MMO he should have no problem securing funding, and the freedom to make the game he wanted to make.
But instead he is choosing to take advantage of the public, using the Camelot name to secure free capital he doesnt need to pay back. The whole thing seems off to me.
Just consider: If you use borrowed money, you have incentive to succeed. If you use free money, then it doesnt matter, you dont have to pay anyone back.
Kickstarter for a startup company of unknown developers is one thing. For a big name person developing a big name game though...It doesnt add up.
The line highlighted proves you don't know how kickstarter works...
If they dont' meet the goal they return the cash, and if you pay into Kickstarter its not a donation, you are getting something for that money. Nothing about it is free.
Edit: If you think people will buy into a kickstarter for a "buggy mess" then sure continue to think that. The rest of us will think that you are pretty much entirely off base.
You are acting like this is some sort of snake oil salesman. Try having an open mind.
I suspect it is you who do not understand how finance works. In the event of the project going belly up the company that is undertaking the project would probably be wound up. I doubt any of the kickstarter donors would recieve as much as 1 cent in the dollar back as they would be unsecured creditors of the company.
Yes I have read the Kickstarter agreements and they are largely unenforcable in a real world scenario.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
To the OP question, and sorry if this has already been pointed out, but Mark Jacobs had made comments that seem to be related to the discussion here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5562785#5562785. He goes on to discuss retention levels they would need to achieve to remain viable. There's also some mention of kickstarter in the interview that the thread originally linked, though I don't think it went really into the reasoning for that approach versus traditional ways to raise revenue (unless I overlooked it).
He's been posting a reasonable amount so there may even be more that he is already said to answer the question: http://www.mmorpg.com/profile.cfm/username/MarkJacobs. Now, whether you believe what he says or not is, of course, up to each individual. He hasn't been too shy about answering questions, so maybe send him a PM about this thread. He had mentioned he would be spending a lot less time in the forums for the next week or so, working on MoO stuff, so a PM might help get a response when he might have otherwise missed the thread.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
To the OP question, and sorry if this has already been pointed out, but Mark Jacobs had made comments that seem to be related to the discussion here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5562785#5562785. He goes on to discuss retention levels they would need to achieve to remain viable. There's also some mention of kickstarter in the interview that the thread originally linked, though I don't think it went really into the reasoning for that approach versus traditional ways to raise revenue (unless I overlooked it).
He's been posting a reasonable amount so there may even be more that he is already said to answer the question: http://www.mmorpg.com/profile.cfm/username/MarkJacobs. Now, whether you believe what he says or not is, of course, up to each individual. He hasn't been too shy about answering questions, so maybe send him a PM about this thread. He had mentioned he would be spending a lot less time in the forums for the next week or so, working on MoO stuff, so a PM might help get a response when he might have otherwise missed the thread.
from that post:
"As I've pointed out before, the KS could fail, we could fail (most MMORPGs do), anything can happen of course. However, I believe enough in the concept of the game and the target audience, that I'm putting up a minimum of 2M myself. So, if nothing else, at least I'm putting my money where my mouth is. "
"At the end of the day it's a gamble....."
If you like the concept and feel he will get to the finish line and release the game by all means put some money in the kickstarter fund. But remember if it succedes you will get the stated rewards, if it fails you will get nothing. Either way your money has been spent by someone who is trying to deliver a product.
Why kickstarter? Because after Warhammer no company would be dumb enough to fund something led by him.
People should also remember all the b.s. he stated leading up to the Warhammer release when listening to what he says now when trying to get people to fund him. He says what people want to hear, not what is necessarily true at all.
You think he will magically stop all gold farming/selling? No, not happening. But people are always welcome to toss their money down whichever hole they see fit.
Add that to the recent fiasco with Shilling, the investments in TOR, SOE ventures, the rarity of pvp-centric MMOs "done right", well, i dunno, but if i had a large sum of money, the last place i would go is the MMO market, but maybe thats why i don't have large sums of money
The loan to Schiilling was also more than a straight financial investment, it was to get him to move his company to Rhode Island (job creation). Lesson learned is let a guy getting into the industry start with smaller projects to prove himself capable.
As far as SoE, I dont know for sure but if I had to guess the only game they ever released that hasnt turned a profit in the long run was Vanguard, because they spent 18 months trying to fix it while earning next to nothing in revenue. DCUO probably isnt there yet, but it will get there. They were overdeveloping for a while. Too much development, not enough revenue stream. Same issue as Trion is most likely facing now. the issue here is that these companys arent acquiring special funding for the game, they are funding from operations. And misjudgements are made about both costs and future revenue streams. SoE thought DCUO would be a hit. Trion thought it would be earning revenue from the EoN pubishing by now.
SWToR will probably get in the black eventually too. Its initial box sales prbably went a long way towards that. Id be very curious to see how much in the red SWTOR still is right now. Rift too. both these games are surely profitable on a day-today basis, but have they recouped their overall funding yet.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
I really hope they can get enough but this game is just so niche I don't even know if there gonna be able to reach there limit like someone else said how long before people are bored of RVR....
From many of his interviews there is gonna be no PVE so your telling me people are gonna do nothing but RVR non-stop for months or whatever to get to max level? I mean that sounds kinda boring to me thats just my opinion though... How long can we possibly RVR before it gets to be the same old-same old.....
I know he said housing but I can't really see that or crafting keeping me in the game when there is nothing else to do but RVR I mean I guess I'm missing something. Believe me I love RVR as much as the next person but when there is nothing else to do but that I don't know how long I can actually stay interested.....
I mean is there gonna be any kind of dungeons like Darkness Falls? I guess that could maybe keep me interested a little longer... I just know now days alot of gamers have the attention spans of gnats including myself I just can't see a RVR centric game with nothing else to do holding my attention longer then a month or so.....
Why would I choose this game over any of the ones that are coming out in the future considering this one is RVR centric? And I'm sure I'm not the only person thinking that....
TESO basically has some of the same concepts as this game and unless it fails terribly why would I choose CU over that? When it will probably have way more to do then just RVR content....
I'm really not trying to sound like an ass but I'm just wondering what would make this game stand out compared to other games coming down the pipeline?
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
Look, you're clearly intent upon being wrong and you're don't strike me as the type that really cares about learning or facts. If people want to know the truth they can read Kickstarter's TOS. Either you're really uneducated about the topic at hand or your twisting the meaning of the term TOS in a self-serving way as "an internet statement of intent", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are absolutely wrong. A TOS is not an "internet statement of intent". Once again, I have no ideal what you're trying to communicate here. Here is the actual definition of TOS for those interested in reality and facts. This definition has absolutely nothing remotely resembling anything about intenet letters of intent no matter how you contort the phrasing.
terms of service
The rules a person or organization must observe in order to use a service. Generally legally binding unless it violates federal or local laws, the terms of service agreement (TOS) may change from time to time, and it is the responsibility of the service provider to notify its users of any such change. A Web site that provides only information or sells a product often does not have terms of service. However, Internet service providers (ISPs) and all Web sites that store personal data for a user do; in particular, social networking sites, online auctions and financial transaction sites. See acceptable use policy.
The whole convo is moot, you got two things. What gets people into actually kickstarting on a kickstarter posting is belief in the person and or project and second the agreement is binding. Now if you don't care to break the law and think you can take the money and run , so be it, yes nothing is stopping you from doing so. You will still be legally obligated to fulfill your end of the agreement. If you don't this is where the law comes into play. Be it to sue or arrest you after you where caught.
You think banks and publishers don't use contracts? I mean, if I can just convince one to give me a few mil up front and then run with it, why don't we see this everywhere ? Yeah, exactly, a bunch of Bill Clinton denials in this thread.
In Marks case not only does he have a legal obligation but a rep on the line as well. It comes with the territory. In the end sure, he could go belly up and not be able to (or anyone) fulfill his end and go bankrupt, that is why most people who back kickstarters to began with are as with real investments, you only invest what you can afford to loose.
p.s. Sorry some here don't believe they have the name to back an idea and make a kickstarter of their own, jealousy is an ugly trait. Want to do something about it? Goto college , get some skills and do it yourself, till then best to keep to what you know, click a mouse and keyboard killing boars.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
Look, you're clearly intent upon being wrong and you're don't strike me as the type that really cares about learning or facts. If people want to know the truth they can read Kickstarter's TOS. Either you're really uneducated about the topic at hand or your twisting the meaning of the term TOS in a self-serving way as "an internet statement of intent", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are absolutely wrong. A TOS is not an "internet statement of intent". Once again, I have no ideal what you're trying to communicate here. Here is the actual definition of TOS for those interested in reality and facts. This definition has absolutely nothing remotely resembling anything about intenet letters of intent no matter how you contort the phrasing.
terms of service
The rules a person or organization must observe in order to use a service. Generally legally binding unless it violates federal or local laws, the terms of service agreement (TOS) may change from time to time, and it is the responsibility of the service provider to notify its users of any such change. A Web site that provides only information or sells a product often does not have terms of service. However, Internet service providers (ISPs) and all Web sites that store personal data for a user do; in particular, social networking sites, online auctions and financial transaction sites. See acceptable use policy.
LOL very funny.
People here in the past of flogging a dead horse, I will add another one for you: you can not get blood out of a stone.
If there is no money left, there is no money left. If there is some money left it will be divided first to secured creditors, next to prefered creditors (like the IRS, or holders of prefered debentures) then what is left (if any) will be divided between the unsecured creditors including kickstarter donors. There is no "magic pudding" here. Nor is the kickstarter funding kept in an account unused and available for reimbursement.
You donate it to assist in product development. It gets spent. The only way you get it back is if the developer decides not to procede before it is spent. Only if there is a case of fraud and you persue the assets of the principals in a legal action would the terms of service come into the argument. My expectation in that case would be legal costs high, assets recovered low, amount reimbursed to donors negligible.
(I must state at this point that I believe that the developer in this case is legitimate and fully intends to work towards producing a game and that I further believe that no fraud is intended. The above is included solely for completness.)
If you like the idea of this game and would like to donate to assist in its development do so. However do not expect the return of the money in any case. If the development succedes you will recieve the benefits indicated by the developer. IF the development fails that will be the end of the matter.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
Look, you're clearly intent upon being wrong and you're don't strike me as the type that really cares about learning or facts. If people want to know the truth they can read Kickstarter's TOS. Either you're really uneducated about the topic at hand or your twisting the meaning of the term TOS in a self-serving way as "an internet statement of intent", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are absolutely wrong. A TOS is not an "internet statement of intent". Once again, I have no ideal what you're trying to communicate here. Here is the actual definition of TOS for those interested in reality and facts. This definition has absolutely nothing remotely resembling anything about intenet letters of intent no matter how you contort the phrasing.
terms of service
The rules a person or organization must observe in order to use a service. Generally legally binding unless it violates federal or local laws, the terms of service agreement (TOS) may change from time to time, and it is the responsibility of the service provider to notify its users of any such change. A Web site that provides only information or sells a product often does not have terms of service. However, Internet service providers (ISPs) and all Web sites that store personal data for a user do; in particular, social networking sites, online auctions and financial transaction sites. See acceptable use policy.
LOL very funny.
People here in the past of flogging a dead horse, I will add another one for you: you can not get blood out of a stone.
If there is no money left, there is no money left. If there is some money left it will be divided first to secured creditors, next to prefered creditors (like the IRS, or holders of prefered debentures) then what is left (if any) will be divided between the unsecured creditors including kickstarter donors. There is no "magic pudding" here. Nor is the kickstarter funding kept in an account unused and available for reimbursement.
You donate it to assist in product development. It gets spent. The only way you get it back is if the developer decides not to procede before it is spent. Only if there is a case of fraud and you persue the assets of the principals in a legal action would the terms of service come into the argument. My expectation in that case would be legal costs high, assets recovered low, amount reimbursed to donors negligible.
(I must state at this point that I believe that the developer in this case is legitimate and fully intends to work towards producing a game and that I further believe that no fraud is intended. The above is included solely for completness.)
If you like the idea of this game and would like to donate to assist in its development do so. However do not expect the return of the money in any case. If the development succedes you will recieve the benefits indicated by the developer. IF the development fails that will be the end of the matter.
You are wrong. Period. Get it through your head. What part of "If the developer fails to complete the project, he must return the funds" do you just not get? Sure, he can file for protection under bankruptcy laws, just like he would have to do with any other investors. You are really out of your league here. Do you understand the concept of "legal precedent"? Do you understand tort law? Do you understand that tthere have been many cases that have made it to court (see Facebook, Dell, Sony, Overstock, etc) and legal precedent has set that a TOS is a legally binding contract? Get this through your head. You are not "donating" money for anything. You are providing capital in exchange for goods. If the goods are not provided, then there are legal remedies to obtain them. No matter how muich hard evidence I've provided you with, you're like a child who has stuck his fingers into their ears so they can refuse to hear something they don't want to hear.
As time goes on everyone will start to capitalize on kickstarter. There is no reason why they shouldn't, from a business perspective.
It is a source of funding which has no legal obligation associted for delivering a product nor paying back.
Look at it like the next evolution of pre-purchase, where money is made availalble at the start of development and all the risk is on those who have a desire to have a game of their dreams created.
Personally, I want the independent developers to have personal financial risk involved, so they are more catious and devoted. I am not really comfortable with the fact, they can fail and move on with only a reputation hit.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
Look, you're clearly intent upon being wrong and you're don't strike me as the type that really cares about learning or facts. If people want to know the truth they can read Kickstarter's TOS. Either you're really uneducated about the topic at hand or your twisting the meaning of the term TOS in a self-serving way as "an internet statement of intent", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are absolutely wrong. A TOS is not an "internet statement of intent". Once again, I have no ideal what you're trying to communicate here. Here is the actual definition of TOS for those interested in reality and facts. This definition has absolutely nothing remotely resembling anything about intenet letters of intent no matter how you contort the phrasing.
terms of service
The rules a person or organization must observe in order to use a service. Generally legally binding unless it violates federal or local laws, the terms of service agreement (TOS) may change from time to time, and it is the responsibility of the service provider to notify its users of any such change. A Web site that provides only information or sells a product often does not have terms of service. However, Internet service providers (ISPs) and all Web sites that store personal data for a user do; in particular, social networking sites, online auctions and financial transaction sites. See acceptable use policy.
LOL very funny.
People here in the past of flogging a dead horse, I will add another one for you: you can not get blood out of a stone.
If there is no money left, there is no money left. If there is some money left it will be divided first to secured creditors, next to prefered creditors (like the IRS, or holders of prefered debentures) then what is left (if any) will be divided between the unsecured creditors including kickstarter donors. There is no "magic pudding" here. Nor is the kickstarter funding kept in an account unused and available for reimbursement.
You donate it to assist in product development. It gets spent. The only way you get it back is if the developer decides not to procede before it is spent. Only if there is a case of fraud and you persue the assets of the principals in a legal action would the terms of service come into the argument. My expectation in that case would be legal costs high, assets recovered low, amount reimbursed to donors negligible.
(I must state at this point that I believe that the developer in this case is legitimate and fully intends to work towards producing a game and that I further believe that no fraud is intended. The above is included solely for completness.)
If you like the idea of this game and would like to donate to assist in its development do so. However do not expect the return of the money in any case. If the development succedes you will recieve the benefits indicated by the developer. IF the development fails that will be the end of the matter.
You are wrong. Period. Get it through your head. What part of "If the developer fails to complete the project, he must return the funds" do you just not get? Sure, he can file for protection under bankruptcy laws, just like he would have to do with any other investors. You are really out of your league here. Do you understand the concept of "legal precedent"? Do you understand tort law? Do you understand that tthere have been many cases that have made it to court (see Facebook, Dell, Sony, Overstock, etc) and legal precedent has set that a TOS is a legally binding contract? Get this through your head. You are not "donating" money for anything. You are providing capital in exchange for goods. If the goods are not provided, then there are legal remedies to obtain them. No matter how muich hard evidence I've provided you with, you're like a child who has stuck his fingers into their ears so they can refuse to hear something they don't want to hear.
What part of: if there is no money there is no money do you not get?
You can cite large companies that continue to trade all you like. They are not relevant in this case: they secure there funding in other ways.
Kickstarter themselves say that:
"Project creators keep 100% ownership of their work. Kickstarter cannot be used to offer financial returns or equity"
and in respect of refunds:
"We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill."
finally:
"If the problems are severe enough that the creator can't fulfill their project, creators need to find a resolution. Steps could include offering refunds, detailing exactly how funds were used, and other actions to satisfy backers."
In other words if they spent the money on the project, then they spent the money legitamately and there is no responsibility to pay it back.
In an era of people expecting free handouts and entitlement, this is where MMO's are going along with the rest of the world. If you can get free money, why not do it? Are any of you dumb enough to think that there isn't enough interest in a successor to DAoC? Anyone who knows anything about the MMO community should know the answer is yes, there is plenty of interest. So don't be stupid and think this guy is trying to gauge interest on his proposed product. He is already well aware of the interest. He is clearly just trying to get his free money. After all, if he can, why not?
Luckily, I am an adult and I will go ahead and let everyone else fund his project. Then if the game is good enough at completion, perhaps I will give it a spin. I'm not in the market for free hand outs without getting a product in return.
There are others like FTL but the only one I've played so far has be Forge.
It's also on Steam for those interested :P
In any case, I'm of the mind that private funding has done a lot to ruin games as of late. If there is an alternative then I urge all to consider it before signing anything with the companies like EA
Comments
And perhaps most importantly, whether you liked his previous games or not, the man has created/launched 2 big games that are still running today. He's started a couple of companies from scratch as well and sold one of them. From a business standpoint he's not an idiot nor is he shady. He's proven he can create a game and launch it. I would say thats a pedigree that a very small percentage of KS funded games have.
And the state of RI suffered from the default risk of the investment.
If Copernicus performed 3 times as well as WoW or barely treaded water, RI would have received the exact same money. that is what I mean by RoI being set: its built into the loan terms.
The big risk with an MMORPG loan is the default risk. I would imagine the rates are pretty high because of that.
And if the game doesn't barely tread water?
Lets be honest here, you have a guy looking for a lot of money that said he's going after a niche' market, in a pretty volatile genre'. A guy who in his own words said "some of the ideas for this game are gonna piss off some players and we're ready to do that" . A guy, for all the hype and hoopla, well his last MMO didn't exactly blow the doors off the MMO market (with the same premise, RvR!). A guy who i'm not even sure he himself knows if theres enough interest in this type of niche' game.
Add that to the recent fiasco with Shilling, the investments in TOR, SOE ventures, the rarity of pvp-centric MMOs "done right", well, i dunno, but if i had a large sum of money, the last place i would go is the MMO market, but maybe thats why i don't have large sums of money
Will i toss a few bucks in the hopes he can get this off the ground? Sure, its the type of game i would like to play.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
I specifically quoted in the post right above yours the Kickstarter TOS. You are lying, period. Anyone that has read Kickstarter's TOS knows for a fact that the developers have a legal obligation to deliver the product or return the money. Instead of spreading more lies and misinformation, why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day and read Kickstarter's TO?. You really have no ideal how clueless you sound of the whole process to those of us who have actually taken a little time to do some reading.
That "legal obligation" bit is totally unenforcible. If a developer uses up the KS donated money, and it is still not enough to get the game released? Then what? Or if the KS money is used for a tech demo but the company can not get a publisher/investor? Hmmm? I'll tell you what: Nothing happens. No refund or need to give one. So long as the company that took the KS money did not take the money home in bags, there is nothing to say. Frankly to me, that is the most likely scenario for a KS scam: A company raises $1 mil, spends a year or two paying themselves salaries, and then says "Sorry, ran out of money, can't release, kthxbye." So long as they "tried" to make a game, I doubt you could even sue.I suspect it is you who do not understand how finance works. In the event of the project going belly up the company that is undertaking the project would probably be wound up. I doubt any of the kickstarter donors would recieve as much as 1 cent in the dollar back as they would be unsecured creditors of the company.
Yes I have read the Kickstarter agreements and they are largely unenforcable in a real world scenario.
I gave the exact quote from the TOS specifically contradicting what he said. You want to argue the enforcability of Terms of Service and breach of contract? You are arguing legal hypotheticals that apply to basically any contract. How is any contract enforable when in breach? I didn't write the TOS, Kickstarter did. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Since they've not been shut down by the SEC and I've not heard of a great deal of fraud, I'm going to not assume that people are thieving scum that just ignore contractual obligation. I think people deserve that consideration. You evidently do not. I trust Mark Jacobs will live up to his contractual obligation under the Kickstarter TOS. I certainly live up to every TOS I agree to, but I have a lot of intergrity and don't agree to contracts without reading them.
Lots of normal contracts are largely unenforcable in the case of bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Also the particular form of words used by Kickstarter is not really a contract more of bailment. In which case players who send funds would rank below unsecured creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Which means unless all unsecured creditors got paid out in full the players would not recieve any money back at all.
You sound an awfull lot like the angry depositors in Credit Cooperatives or small Banks that go bust. Where is my money they scream, and then they get upset when they get paid pennies in the dollar.
In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent.
To the OP question, and sorry if this has already been pointed out, but Mark Jacobs had made comments that seem to be related to the discussion here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5562785#5562785. He goes on to discuss retention levels they would need to achieve to remain viable. There's also some mention of kickstarter in the interview that the thread originally linked, though I don't think it went really into the reasoning for that approach versus traditional ways to raise revenue (unless I overlooked it).
He's been posting a reasonable amount so there may even be more that he is already said to answer the question: http://www.mmorpg.com/profile.cfm/username/MarkJacobs. Now, whether you believe what he says or not is, of course, up to each individual. He hasn't been too shy about answering questions, so maybe send him a PM about this thread. He had mentioned he would be spending a lot less time in the forums for the next week or so, working on MoO stuff, so a PM might help get a response when he might have otherwise missed the thread.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
from that post:
"As I've pointed out before, the KS could fail, we could fail (most MMORPGs do), anything can happen of course. However, I believe enough in the concept of the game and the target audience, that I'm putting up a minimum of 2M myself. So, if nothing else, at least I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
"
"At the end of the day it's a gamble....."
If you like the concept and feel he will get to the finish line and release the game by all means put some money in the kickstarter fund. But remember if it succedes you will get the stated rewards, if it fails you will get nothing. Either way your money has been spent by someone who is trying to deliver a product.
Why kickstarter? Because after Warhammer no company would be dumb enough to fund something led by him.
People should also remember all the b.s. he stated leading up to the Warhammer release when listening to what he says now when trying to get people to fund him. He says what people want to hear, not what is necessarily true at all.
You think he will magically stop all gold farming/selling? No, not happening. But people are always welcome to toss their money down whichever hole they see fit.
The loan to Schiilling was also more than a straight financial investment, it was to get him to move his company to Rhode Island (job creation). Lesson learned is let a guy getting into the industry start with smaller projects to prove himself capable.
As far as SoE, I dont know for sure but if I had to guess the only game they ever released that hasnt turned a profit in the long run was Vanguard, because they spent 18 months trying to fix it while earning next to nothing in revenue. DCUO probably isnt there yet, but it will get there. They were overdeveloping for a while. Too much development, not enough revenue stream. Same issue as Trion is most likely facing now. the issue here is that these companys arent acquiring special funding for the game, they are funding from operations. And misjudgements are made about both costs and future revenue streams. SoE thought DCUO would be a hit. Trion thought it would be earning revenue from the EoN pubishing by now.
SWToR will probably get in the black eventually too. Its initial box sales prbably went a long way towards that. Id be very curious to see how much in the red SWTOR still is right now. Rift too. both these games are surely profitable on a day-today basis, but have they recouped their overall funding yet.
so does DF or MO get loans or they find people who buy company shares.
And I dont' really see that many example of people that would personally loan money to start a mmorpg company. It's a big risk. It's understandable.
What are you even talking about? How do I sound like an angry depositor? I'm not investing in this game. My only contention is that attacking a person's integrity without a legitimate reason is a pretty shitty thing to do. I pointed out the TOS which is in direct contradiction to what the guy said, and then you guys trying to weasel and play word games. Look, the TOS says if the game doesn't get made he is obligated to refund your money. Come up with whatever magical hypotheticals you want so you can feel good about being right, but what you're saying and what the TOS says are 2 different things and you just want to put people down to feel better about yourselves instead of acknolwedge that the TOS says exactly what I've been saying all along. I guess this is the internet and people feel safe to level any accusations and implications at people wether there is any evidence to support it or not (hence your characterization of me being an "angry creditor" when I'm not even buying the game, mighty astute analysis of the situation you have going on there) and will ignore the actual truth and evidence when it's shoved right in their face. I can't really explain having decency and respect for others when so many people are intent on feeding their own egos by tearing others down.
I will say it again for you ::
"In funding a kickstarter project you are giving someone money to spend to make something. In the event of failure do not be surprised if the money has in fact been spent."
Having an obligation to do something and having the ability to do so are two seperate things.
It is you who are ignoring reality, you insist on relying on an internet statement of intent (the TOS) over the rational analysis of what is happening.
Now if the project is succesfull the whole point is moot, the developer will have delivered.
I really hope they can get enough but this game is just so niche I don't even know if there gonna be able to reach there limit like someone else said how long before people are bored of RVR....
From many of his interviews there is gonna be no PVE so your telling me people are gonna do nothing but RVR non-stop for months or whatever to get to max level? I mean that sounds kinda boring to me thats just my opinion though... How long can we possibly RVR before it gets to be the same old-same old.....
I know he said housing but I can't really see that or crafting keeping me in the game when there is nothing else to do but RVR I mean I guess I'm missing something. Believe me I love RVR as much as the next person but when there is nothing else to do but that I don't know how long I can actually stay interested.....
I mean is there gonna be any kind of dungeons like Darkness Falls? I guess that could maybe keep me interested a little longer... I just know now days alot of gamers have the attention spans of gnats including myself I just can't see a RVR centric game with nothing else to do holding my attention longer then a month or so.....
Why would I choose this game over any of the ones that are coming out in the future considering this one is RVR centric? And I'm sure I'm not the only person thinking that....
TESO basically has some of the same concepts as this game and unless it fails terribly why would I choose CU over that? When it will probably have way more to do then just RVR content....
I'm really not trying to sound like an ass but I'm just wondering what would make this game stand out compared to other games coming down the pipeline?
Look, you're clearly intent upon being wrong and you're don't strike me as the type that really cares about learning or facts. If people want to know the truth they can read Kickstarter's TOS. Either you're really uneducated about the topic at hand or your twisting the meaning of the term TOS in a self-serving way as "an internet statement of intent", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are absolutely wrong. A TOS is not an "internet statement of intent". Once again, I have no ideal what you're trying to communicate here. Here is the actual definition of TOS for those interested in reality and facts. This definition has absolutely nothing remotely resembling anything about intenet letters of intent no matter how you contort the phrasing.
terms of service
The rules a person or organization must observe in order to use a service. Generally legally binding unless it violates federal or local laws, the terms of service agreement (TOS) may change from time to time, and it is the responsibility of the service provider to notify its users of any such change. A Web site that provides only information or sells a product often does not have terms of service. However, Internet service providers (ISPs) and all Web sites that store personal data for a user do; in particular, social networking sites, online auctions and financial transaction sites. See acceptable use policy.
I think you are the definition of "bedroom executive"
The whole convo is moot, you got two things. What gets people into actually kickstarting on a kickstarter posting is belief in the person and or project and second the agreement is binding. Now if you don't care to break the law and think you can take the money and run , so be it, yes nothing is stopping you from doing so. You will still be legally obligated to fulfill your end of the agreement. If you don't this is where the law comes into play. Be it to sue or arrest you after you where caught.
You think banks and publishers don't use contracts? I mean, if I can just convince one to give me a few mil up front and then run with it, why don't we see this everywhere ? Yeah, exactly, a bunch of Bill Clinton denials in this thread.
In Marks case not only does he have a legal obligation but a rep on the line as well. It comes with the territory. In the end sure, he could go belly up and not be able to (or anyone) fulfill his end and go bankrupt, that is why most people who back kickstarters to began with are as with real investments, you only invest what you can afford to loose.
p.s. Sorry some here don't believe they have the name to back an idea and make a kickstarter of their own, jealousy is an ugly trait. Want to do something about it? Goto college , get some skills and do it yourself, till then best to keep to what you know, click a mouse and keyboard killing boars.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
LOL very funny.
People here in the past of flogging a dead horse, I will add another one for you: you can not get blood out of a stone.
If there is no money left, there is no money left. If there is some money left it will be divided first to secured creditors, next to prefered creditors (like the IRS, or holders of prefered debentures) then what is left (if any) will be divided between the unsecured creditors including kickstarter donors. There is no "magic pudding" here. Nor is the kickstarter funding kept in an account unused and available for reimbursement.
You donate it to assist in product development. It gets spent. The only way you get it back is if the developer decides not to procede before it is spent. Only if there is a case of fraud and you persue the assets of the principals in a legal action would the terms of service come into the argument. My expectation in that case would be legal costs high, assets recovered low, amount reimbursed to donors negligible.
(I must state at this point that I believe that the developer in this case is legitimate and fully intends to work towards producing a game and that I further believe that no fraud is intended. The above is included solely for completness.)
If you like the idea of this game and would like to donate to assist in its development do so. However do not expect the return of the money in any case. If the development succedes you will recieve the benefits indicated by the developer. IF the development fails that will be the end of the matter.
You are wrong. Period. Get it through your head. What part of "If the developer fails to complete the project, he must return the funds" do you just not get? Sure, he can file for protection under bankruptcy laws, just like he would have to do with any other investors. You are really out of your league here. Do you understand the concept of "legal precedent"? Do you understand tort law? Do you understand that tthere have been many cases that have made it to court (see Facebook, Dell, Sony, Overstock, etc) and legal precedent has set that a TOS is a legally binding contract? Get this through your head. You are not "donating" money for anything. You are providing capital in exchange for goods. If the goods are not provided, then there are legal remedies to obtain them. No matter how muich hard evidence I've provided you with, you're like a child who has stuck his fingers into their ears so they can refuse to hear something they don't want to hear.
What part of: if there is no money there is no money do you not get?
You can cite large companies that continue to trade all you like. They are not relevant in this case: they secure there funding in other ways.
Kickstarter themselves say that:
"Project creators keep 100% ownership of their work. Kickstarter cannot be used to offer financial returns or equity"
and in respect of refunds:
"We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill."
finally:
"If the problems are severe enough that the creator can't fulfill their project, creators need to find a resolution. Steps could include offering refunds, detailing exactly how funds were used, and other actions to satisfy backers."
In other words if they spent the money on the project, then they spent the money legitamately and there is no responsibility to pay it back.
Why not? Get used to it.
In an era of people expecting free handouts and entitlement, this is where MMO's are going along with the rest of the world. If you can get free money, why not do it? Are any of you dumb enough to think that there isn't enough interest in a successor to DAoC? Anyone who knows anything about the MMO community should know the answer is yes, there is plenty of interest. So don't be stupid and think this guy is trying to gauge interest on his proposed product. He is already well aware of the interest. He is clearly just trying to get his free money. After all, if he can, why not?
Luckily, I am an adult and I will go ahead and let everyone else fund his project. Then if the game is good enough at completion, perhaps I will give it a spin. I'm not in the market for free hand outs without getting a product in return.
Forge
http://www.cnet.com.au/kickstarter-of-the-week-forge-339341223.htm
http://www.playforgewar.com/
There are others like FTL but the only one I've played so far has be Forge.
It's also on Steam for those interested :P
In any case, I'm of the mind that private funding has done a lot to ruin games as of late. If there is an alternative then I urge all to consider it before signing anything with the companies like EA